[Part II of UN YEARBOOK 1982 excerpts]

Question of Palestine

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of Palestine at its resumed seventh emergency special session,

Having heard the statement of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,

Alarmed by the worsening situation in the Middle East resulting from Israel's acts of aggression against the sovereignty of Lebanon and the Palestinian people in Lebanon,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 508 (1982) of 5 June 1982, 509 (1982) of 6 June 1982 and 512 (1982) of 19 June 1982,

Taking note of the reports of the Secretary-General relevant to this situation, particularly his report of 7 June 1982,

Taking note of the two positive replies to the Secretary- General by the Government of Lebanon and the Palestine Liberation Organization,

Noting with regret that the Security Council has, so far, failed to take effective and practical measures, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to ensure implementation of its resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982),

Referring to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and to the obligations arising from the regulations annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1907,

Deeply concerned at the sufferings of the Palestinian and Lebanese civilian populations,

Reaffirming once again its conviction that the question of Palestine is the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region will be achieved without the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights,

Reaffirming further that a just and comprehensive settlement of the situation in the Middle East cannot be achieved without the participation on an equal footing of all the parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people,

1. Reaffirms the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force;

2. Demands that all Member States and other parties observe strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence within its internationally recognized boundaries;

3. Decides to support fully the provisions of Security Council resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982) in which the Council, inter alia, demanded that:

(a) Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon;

(b) All parties to the conflict cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border;

4. Condemns Israel for its non-compliance with resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982);

5. Demands that Israel comply with all the above provisions no later than 0600 hours (Beirut time) on Sunday, 27 June 1982;

6. Calls upon the Security Council to authorize the Secretary-General to undertake necessary endeavours and practical steps to implement the provisions of resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982) and 512 (1982);

7. Urges the Security Council, in the event of continued failure by Israel to comply with the demands contained in resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), to meet in order to consider practical ways and means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

8. Calls upon all States and international agencies and organizations to continue to provide the most extensive humanitarian aid possible to the victims of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon;

9. Requests the Secretary-General to delegate a high-level commission to investigate and assess the extent of loss of human life and material damage and to report, as soon as possible, on the result of this investigation to the General Assembly and the Security Council;

10. Decides to adjourn the seventh emergency special session temporarily and to authorize the President of the latest regular session of the General Assembly to resume its meetings upon request from Member States.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows;

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, United States.

Security Council resolution 513 (1982)
4 July 1982      Meeting 2382      Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/15273)

The Security Council,

Alarmed by the continued sufferings of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations in southern Lebanon and in west Beirut,

Referring to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and to the obligations arising from the regulations annexed to The Hague Convention of 1907,

Reaffirming its resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982) and 512 (1982),

1. Calls for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations;

2. Calls further for the restoration of the normal supply of vital facilities such as water, electricity, food and medical provisions, particularly in Beirut;

3. Commends the efforts of the Secretary-General and the action of international agencies to alleviate the sufferings of the civilian population and requests them to continue their efforts to ensure their success.
Security Council resolution 515 (1982)
29 July 1982 Meeting 2385 14-0

Draft by Spain (S/15325).

The Security Council,

Deeply concerned at the situation of the civilian population of Beirut,

Referring to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and to the obligations arising from the regulations annexed to The Hague Convention of 1907,

Recalling its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982),

1. Demands that the Government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population and allow the distribution of aid provided by United Nations agencies and by non-governmental organizations, particularly the International Committee of the Red Cross;

2. Requests the Secretary General to transmit the text of the present resolution to the Government of Israel and to keep the Security Council informed of its implementation.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: China, France, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Panama, Poland, Spain, Togo, Uganda, USSR, United Kingdom, Zaire.

Against: None.

The United States did not participate in the vote.
Cease-fire

Amidst continued fighting in and around Beirut, the Security Council, on 1 August 1982, authorized the dispatch of United Nations observers to the area. At the same time, and again on 4 and 12 August, the Council repeated its call for a cessation of military activities. On 6 August a USSR draft resolution condemning Israel for non-implementation of the Council's demands and calling on States to refrain from supplying weapons and military aid to Israel was not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member (United States).

A cease-fire in the Beirut area finally took effect from 12 August. Thereafter, on 17 August and again on 18 October, the Council extended the mandate of UNIFIL in southern Lebanon – on the second occasion until 19 January 1983. The General Assembly in a resolution of 19 August 1982, urged measures to guarantee the safety of civilians pending Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon.

The United Nations Observer Group Beirut reported on the temporary deployment in Beirut of a three-nation force (France, Italy, United States) and the concurrent evacuation of Palestinian armed elements (21 August-1 September). Then, a period of calm, during which Lebanese forces took positions in west Beirut, was shattered by the killing on 14 September of the President-elect of Lebanon, followed the next day by an advance of Israeli positions into west Beirut. These events drew condemnation from the Council on 17 September and a call for an Israeli pull-back. On 18 September, hundreds of Palestine refugees were found murdered at the Sabra and Shatila camps on the outskirts of Beirut (see below), an act to which the Council responded on 19 September with a condemnation and by authorizing an increase in the number of United Nations observers in the Beirut area from 10 to 50, with a mandate to do what they could to ensure protection for civilians.

With Israeli troops remaining in southern Lebanon, the Assembly, on 24 September, again declared its support for the Council's original call in June for the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces to the Lebanese boundaries. At that time and again on 16 December, the Assembly called for strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and independence.

During August and September, the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council several reports on developments in and around Beirut. A number of communications were addressed by States to the Secretary-General and the Security Council President.

Security Council action (1 August). On 1 August-(6) Jordan transmitted a letter of the same date from the PLO observer to the Security Council President charging that the situation in Lebanon had escalated to extremely serious proportions due to renewed and intensified air, land and sea bombardments of Beirut by Israeli forces, particularly as part of a battle begun by the Israelis that morning for control of the international airport.

Meeting that day at the urgent request of Lebanon in view of the new outbreak of fighting in and around Beirut, the Security Council adopted unanimously a resolution,(53) prepared during consultations, demanding an immediate cease-fire and cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. The Secretary-General was authorized to deploy immediately United Nations observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut, and was requested to report on compliance with the resolution within four hours.

Following this action, Lebanon read out a statement issued earlier that day by its Prime Minister; saying that a ferocious Israeli attack had taken place from land, sea and air just as Lebanon was getting ready to start implementing the arrangements announced on 29 July at Jeddah for the withdrawal of armed forces from west Beirut (see below). The Prime Minister appealed to the Council, the Secretary-General and United Nations Members to go to Lebanon's rescue and save its people besieged in its own capital and devoured by the Israeli war machine.

Israel said it had repeatedly indicated its readiness to maintain and observe the cease-fire provided that it was observed by all. However, the terrorists had repeatedly and consistently violated the cease-fires in recent weeks, around Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon. Following heavy shelling that morning of the area held by Israeli troops, IDF had been instructed to respond firmly. However, there was no intention to move into west Beirut. A new cease-fire had gone into effect two hours earlier.

Egypt condemned Israel's renewed aggression against west Beirut and PLO, which, it observed, was taking place after the PLO leadership had announced its readiness to co-operate towards solving the situation there. Zaire, remarking that proclamations of cease-fires had been alternating with their breach, welcomed the authorization of United Nations observers and hoped that would be a positive step towards ending the cycle of violence in and around Beirut.

The USSR, stating that the Israeli forces had broken the eighth cease-fire agreement, called on the Council to ensure implementation of the resolution and of earlier decisions by making use of the means available under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter (on action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression). It read out a TASS statement of 2 August – later transmitted to the Secretary-General by a USSR letter of 4 August(34) – calling for a stop to Israeli aggression through coercive measures by the Council.

The need for complete and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, not only from Beirut, was stressed by PLO.

Following the adoption of the Council resolution, Lebanon, by a letter dated 1 August,(15) requested the stationing of United Nations observers in Beirut to ensure full observance of the cease-fire.

Report of the Secretary-General (1 August). In accordance with the Council resolution of 1 August, the Secretary-General reported on the same date(37) that he had instructed the Chief of Staff of UNTSO, Lieutenant-General Emmanuel Alexander Erskine, to arrange for the immediate deployment of United Nations observers in and around Beirut. The Israeli authorities had informed the Chief of Staff that the matter would be brought before the Israeli Cabinet. The Commander of the Lebanese Army had assured him that the Army was ready to provide all facilities and to assist the observers. The Secretary-General had been informed by the PLO Chairman that PLO accepted the resolution and would do its utmost to co-operate with the observers. According to preliminary observations, the cease-fire appeared to be holding.

In an addendum of 3 August, the Secretary-General stated that intensive efforts had continued for the speedy implementation of the Council resolution. The Israeli authorities had informed the UNTSO Chief of Staff that the Israeli Cabinet would discuss the subject on 5 August and that, pending a government decision, no co-operation would be extended to UNTSO personnel in the execution of the resolution. A group of 28 observers assigned to temporary offices at Yarze, near Lebanese Army headquarters, had been turned back by Israeli forces seven kilometres away.

Noting that every effort was being made to stress to the Israeli authorities the importance and urgency of the matter, the Secretary-General said that although a detailed plan for deployment of the observers had been ready since 1 August, it could not be put into full effect until the reply from the Israeli Government was received. As a temporary measure, he had instructed the UNTSO Chief of Staff to take immediate steps to set up observation machinery in the territory controlled by the Lebanese Government, in close consultation and co-operation with the Lebanese Army United Nations observers assigned to the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission (ILMAC) and currently in the Beirut area had been constituted as the Observer Group Beirut, with the Chairman of ILMAC, Lieutenant- Colonel Pierre Letourneur, appointed as Officer-in-Charge.

Communications (2 and 3 August). By a letter of 2 August to the Security Council President, transmitted by Jordan on the same date,(7) the PLO observer reiterated his organization's commitment to the cease-fire and stated that, in spite of that commitment, Israel was trying to advance and its aggression continued. Also annexed was a telegram of the same date from the PLO Chairman to the observer, stating that no one on behalf of the UNTSO Chief of Staff had contacted PLO in spite of the latter's attempt to contact him. By a letter of 3 August, transmitted by Jordan on the same date,(8) the PLO observer gave details of continued shelling on that date from Israeli positions.

Also on 3 August,(2) Israel protested that, in violation of the understanding reached on 1 August by the UNTSO Chief of Staff and Israel that no attempt would be made to deploy United Nations observers before obtaining the consent and co-operation of all parties, a group of UNTSO members had attempted on 2 August to make their way to Beirut without prior consultation or consent and had been turned back by IDF; Israel insisted on full United Nations compliance with the agreed principle of consultation.

Security Council action (3 August). On 3 August, the President of the Security Council made the following statement:(63)

"Following consultations with the members of the Security Council, I have been authorized to make the following statement on their behalf in connection with the present grave situation in Lebanon:

'1. The members of the Security Council are seriously concerned at the prevailing high state of tension and at reports of military movements and continued outbreaks of firing and shelling in and around Beirut, contrary to the demand in resolution 516 (1982), which was adopted at 1325 hours, New York time, on 1 August 1982, for an immediate cease-fire and cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. They consider it vital that these provisions be fully implemented.

2. The members of the Security Council have taken note of the Secretary-General's reports submitted pursuant to resolution 516 (1982). They express full support for his efforts and for the steps he has taken, following the request of the Government of Lebanon, to secure the immediate deployment of United Nations observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut. They note with satisfaction from the Secretary-General's report that some of the parties have already assured General Erskine of their full co-operation for the deployment of United Nations observers and they call urgently on all of the parties to co-operate fully in the effort to secure effective deployment of the observers and to ensure their safety.

3. They insist that all parties must observe strictly the terms of resolution 516 (1982). They call further for the immediate lifting of all obstacles to the dispatch of supplies and the distribution of aid to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population in accordance with previous resolutions of the Council. The members of the Security Council will keep the situation under close review.'"

The USSR said the statement was not as strong as it should have been because the United States was protecting the aggressor; while Council members were discussing the text, the Israeli war machine had again undertaken a massive attack against west Beirut, yet the United States was acting behind the scenes to help Israel block the sending of observers. Poland read out a news dispatch stating that Israeli tanks had entered west Beirut and had advanced into the heart of the PLO stronghold.

Israel denied the USSR and Polish statements, stating that its forces had not been moving into west Beirut. The United States also rejected the USSR statement, asserting that it was deeply involved in the search for a peaceful solution to the crisis in Lebanon.

The PLO observer also regretted that the Council had not taken stronger action, at least by calling for a prompt return to the cease-fire positions of 1 August when the Council had adopted its latest resolution.

Security Council action (4 August).  At a meeting on 4 August, requested by the USSR, the Security Council adopted a resolution(54) expressing deep shock and alarm at the deplorable consequences of the Israeli invasion of Beirut on 3 August and confirming the demand for an immediate cease-fire and Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. The Council censured Israel for its failure to comply with its previous resolutions and called for the prompt return of Israeli troops to the lines of 1 August. As an immediate step, the Secretary-General was authorized to increase the number of United Nations observers in and around Beirut. The Council decided, in case of failure to comply by any of the parties, to consider adopting effective ways in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

The resolution, sponsored by Jordan and Spain, was adopted by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention, after the original draft was modified twice (in writing and orally) to delete a reference in the preamble to atrocities by the Israeli forces and a mention in operative paragraph 8 of Chapter VII of the Charter. The revised version also had the Council censure rather than condemn Israel and included a reference to the PLO decision to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut.

Before adoption of the text, the Council invited Cuba and India, at their request, to participate without vote in the discussion.

Introducing the draft, Jordan urged the Council to take the most determined measures to let Israel know it could not continue to defy Council decisions; the Israeli onslaught on west Beirut was continuing, despite the assurance to the contrary given the Council on 3 August, with the apparent aim of aborting any chance of a peaceful solution that might emerge from current discussions among United States Ambassador Habib, PLO and the Lebanese Government. Spain concurred and said the Council must put an end to Israel's arrogance.

Abstaining in the vote, the United States said the resolution lacked balance since it did not explicitly call for the withdrawal of PLO from Lebanon.

Israel reiterated that the charge of a massive invasion of Beirut was untrue. Its objective was that all foreign forces be removed from Lebanon and it insisted that the Palestinian fighters leave west Beirut without further delay. The PLO terrorists, who had hijacked the population of Beirut, were in no position to lay down conditions and the Israeli offer to let them go was made only in order to spare as many lives as possible.

Lebanon stated that the call for Israel's return to the lines of 1 August should in no way mean that the objective of total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal was relinquished. Also, by taking note of the decision of PLO to move its forces from Beirut, Lebanon was not underwriting a policy confined to that very limited move; Lebanon's objectives were the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces and the deployment of its Army and security forces on all of Lebanon's territory.

France said it had voted for the resolution as a warning and an appeal to Israel for reason and respect for law. Casting an affirmative vote, Japan strongly condemned Israel's thrust into west Beirut as a serious challenge to the international community and urged it to withdraw its forces unconditionally. Supporting the deployment of United Nations observers as an important step in helping to maintain a cease-fire, the United Kingdom said it was appalled by the further attacks, which amounted to the piecemeal destruction of a large part of one of the great cities of the Middle East.

The USSR stated that in view of the extremely serious situation, it was most urgent for the Council to take all possible measures against the aggressor as provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter. Poland called for prompt and decisive Council action, and China said the Council should consider severe sanctions. China added that the United States behaviour in shielding the aggressors should be severely condemned.

Welcoming the resolution, Egypt expressed the view that the exit of the Palestinians from Beirut should be a step in a package towards a comprehensive and just solution and should take place together with security guarantees for the Palestinians, simultaneous withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Beirut area as a step towards their total withdrawal from Lebanon, and a clear and concrete step towards recognizing the right of the Palestinians to self- determination.

The PLO observer stated that two IDF divisions were engaged in the current attack on Beirut, and shells and internationally banned arms such as phosphorus, fragmentation and cluster bombs were being directed from land and sea against residential areas. He viewed the resolution as a serious attempt to have the Council meet its responsibilities and take immediate action; the Council should see to it that all powers vested in it by the Charter were invoked in order to deal with the aggressor.

Report of the Secretary-General (5 August). In pursuance of the Security Council resolution of 4 August, the Secretary-General reported on 5 August(38) that the Lebanese Government had given assurance of its readiness to co-operate fully in the implementation of the resolution and that the PLO Chairman had reaffirmed the commitment of PLO to the cease-fire. As soon as transit arrangements were completed, additional observers would be dispatched from UNTSO to the Beirut area. The Officer-in-Charge of Observer Group Beirut had reported the situation in that area as generally calm.

On 4 August, the Secretary-General had appealed to the Israeli Prime Minister to adhere to the cease-fire and to co-operate in the deployment of United Nations observers, and had expressed his readiness to go immediately to Israel and Lebanon to discuss the matter. The Prime Minister had informed him that Israel would welcome his visit if there were not a parallel visit to the PLO Chairman. The Secretary-General had not found that position acceptable and had reiterated his appeal for co-operation.

Following a Cabinet meeting on 5 August, Israel had responded that it had acceded to the previous 10 cease-fires on the condition that they be mutual and absolute. However, they had been violated by the terrorist organizations, whose activities could in no feasible way be monitored by United Nations observers; on the contrary, the presence of observers would signal to the terrorists that they were under no obligation to leave Beirut and Lebanon. Following the departure of the terrorist organizations operating in Beirut, the Cabinet statement added, arrangements for the deployment of Israeli forces would be determined by the principle that all foreign forces would leave Lebanon.

Security Council consideration (6 August). Again at the request of the USSR, the Security Council held two meetings on 6 August to consider the Secretary-General's report.

A draft resolution by the USSR, strongly condemning Israel for not complying with the Council's demands for a cease-fire, demanding that it implement those resolutions fully, and deciding that all United Nations Member States should refrain from supplying weapons and military aid to Israel until it fully withdrew its forces from Lebanon,(1) received 11 votes to 1 (United States), with 3 abstentions (Togo, United Kingdom, Zaire). It was not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent Council member.

The original draft had been revised by its sponsor to add the words "until the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Lebanese territory" to the paragraph calling for a suspension of the supply of weapons and military aid. Introducing the initial version, the USSR said the Israeli aggressors would have been unable to make their attempts to storm Beirut if they had not been sure of the economic, political and military assistance of their overseas protector. Israel must not be allowed to add the name of Beirut to the sinister list of European cities mercilessly destroyed by Hitler's Fascists during the Second World War.

Voting against the resolution, the United States said it was unbalanced and would not contribute to the goal of a peaceful settlement, towards which the United States was working; it regretted that one member had tried to polarize the situation in the Council.

Abstaining, the United Kingdom said it had announced at the end of June that it would issue no further licences for the supply of military equipment to Israel until further notice; nevertheless the draft resolution would make no positive contribution to peace in the Middle East and a veto might send the wrong signal to Jerusalem.

Of those voting in favour, China felt that the text was a minimum, falling short of what was required for immediately halting Israel's aggression. In Egypt's view, the adoption of the resolution would have constituted one of the steps needed to check, even to a limited extent, Israeli policies and measures in Lebanon. Jordan viewed the resolution as a first step which should be followed by sterner measures.

France considered the measures envisaged to be justified until full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Ireland said it did not feel the Council could simply accept that its decisions taken over a two-month period remained unimplemented while fighting, destruction and loss of life continued; it was right for the Council to signal the seriousness of its intentions by calling on States to be prepared to apply certain measures until its authority was upheld.

Lebanon said its main concern was that the Council preserve unanimity and a measure of consensus in order to continue to influence events in a positive manner and not give Israel further licence to resume hostilities.

Israel stated that it would not be bullied by the USSR, the foremost violator of international law in contemporary life.

The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States called on the Council, despite the veto just cast, to remain seized of the priorities, namely, an effective cease-fire, the lifting of the blockade of Beirut and the beginning of an honourable solution.

The PLO observer stated that on 6 August while the Council was deliberating and Israel was gaining encouragement from its failure to act, an Israeli air raid on a building in west Beirut had killed or wounded an estimated 250 people.

Commenting on the response of the parties to the Council's call for the stationing of observers and the withdrawal of Israeli forces, Lebanon feared that Israel's demand for symmetrical withdrawal might be conducive to symmetrical presence or even symmetrical occupation; Israel's withdrawal must not be made contingent on the withdrawal of other non-Lebanese forces. Jordan stated that Israel had rejected the call because it wanted to carry on with its barbaric aggression and invasion; Jordan saw it as ominous that the Israeli reply had spoken not of withdrawal but of deployment of its forces. Jordan read out a 5 August communication from PLO – transmitted to the Council President on the same date(9) – calling for the prompt arrival of United Nations observers in view of the continued Israeli military build-up.

Communications (9 and 12 August). On 9 August, Jordan transmitted a letter of the same date to the Security Council President from the PLO observer, stating that since the previous night Israel had been escalating its bombardment of Beirut from land, air and sea.(10)  On 12 August, Jordan transmitted a letter of the same date from the PLO observer protesting nine continuous hours of Israeli air attacks that day on west Beirut, said to have caused an estimated 300 civilian casualties in residential areas and refugee camps.(11)

By a letter also dated 12 August, Lebanon charged that Israeli armed forces, taking advantage of the intensive negotiations being conducted on the fate of west Beirut, had undertaken military advances in areas north of Beirut.(16)

Security Council action (12 August). On 12 August, the Security Council held a further meeting at the urgent request of the USSR to deal with what it called the worsening situation in Lebanon in connection with Israel's continued aggression.

The Council unanimously adopted a resolution(55) demanding that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of previous Council resolutions on the immediate cessation of military activities in Lebanon, particularly in and around Beirut. The Council demanded that all restrictions on Beirut be lifted in order to permit the free entry of supplies to meet urgent civilian needs and that Israel co-operate fully in the effective deployment of United Nations observers. The Council requested the observers in and around Beirut to report on the situation.

The original draft resolution had been revised to have the Secretary-General report to the Council as soon as possible, instead of within three hours, and to alter the provision demanding Israeli co-operation in the deployment of observers by adding that this was at the request of Lebanon. In the revised preamble, the Council recalled its previous resolutions on the cessation of hostilities rather than reaffirming them, and expressed most serious concern about continued military activities, without referring specifically to Israeli activities.

Introducing the text also on behalf of Guyana, Panama, Togo, Uganda and Zaire, Jordan charged that, after having destroyed southern Lebanon, Israel was systematically and ruthlessly devastating Beirut, and its advances indicated that it planned to either take over or encircle the Bekaa Valley, the bread-basket of the whole of Lebanon.

Lebanon thought that, as a step towards a peaceful settlement, the resolution should have reflected more comprehensively its Government's policy that Lebanese sovereignty must be restored over all of Lebanon and therefore that all non-Lebanese forces should withdraw.

Expressing the hope that the cease-fire would be maintained, the United States emphasized that the Council should avoid any action that could upset the negotiations under way. France and the United Kingdom held it most urgent to put an end to the fighting and suffering in Beirut, if the negotiations were successful, the United Kingdom added, the Palestinian armed forces would leave Beirut and go elsewhere, but the Palestinian problem would not thereby go away.

China said the Council was duty-bound to take further action to ensure the effective deployment and functioning of United Nations observers in order to put an end to the bombing of west Beirut and Israeli aggression against Lebanon.

Ireland found it difficult to understand why Israel refused to accept the observers; in its opinion, the resolution was a minimum measure. Japan hoped the Council's call would be heeded and a peaceful settlement of the crisis in and around Beirut would be secured, thereby opening the way towards restoration of peace throughout Lebanon.

Egypt stated that any reluctance to act decisively and put an immediate end to the atrocities committed by Israel could not be tolerated; Israel clearly was buying time to accomplish a final solution by killing as many Palestinians and Lebanese as possible. Uganda said the numerous cease-fires were better known for their violations than for their observance by Israel, which had ignored all previous Council resolutions, a continuation of the situation was unacceptable and it was the Council's responsibility to continue efforts to bring Israel to order and end the genocide in Lebanon.

The USSR stated that, in view of the worsening situation in Lebanon and Israel's continuing violation of the cease-fire, the Council should undertake immediate action to put an end to Israeli aggression.

Immediate and firm Council action was also called for by the PLO observer, who read out a communication from the PLO Chairman in Beirut stating that, following the announcement by United States Ambassador Habib of a cease-fire as at 5 p.m. local time, aerial bombing had stopped but shelling had not. The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States stated that every time Israel broke the United States-negotiated cease-fires, it introduced greater fire-power and more destruction; meanwhile, the Council had been expected to remain paralysed so as not to disturb Israel and the diplomatic process being conducted by the United States.

Israel, on the other hand, charged that the Palestinian terrorists had systematically broken every cease-fire, causing scores of casualties among the Israeli forces and the civilian population of east Beirut. Israeli forces had been instructed to cease fire as at 5.30 p.m. – the eleventh cease-fire in recent weeks – and would continue to do so unless there was a violation by the terrorists.

Further communications. In letters to the Secretary-General and the Security Council President, several States expressed their views on the developments in the Israel-Lebanon situation.

On 9 August,(32) Nicaragua conveyed a communiqué of 5 August from its Ministry of External Relations expressing concern at the genocide of Palestinians and Lebanese and announcing the breaking off of relations with Israel.

On 10 August,(36) Viet Nam transmitted a telegram of 4 August to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) from the Chairman of the Vietnamese National Commission for UNESCO, condemning the fierce bombing of Beirut, the destruction of historical and cultural monuments, and the genocide against Lebanese and Palestinians, and requesting the Director-General to use his authority and the competence of UNESCO to halt Israeli aggression and to include the subject on the agenda of the next Executive Board session.

By a letter of 11 August,(28) the German Democratic Republic transmitted a message of 6 August to the PLO Chairman from the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party and President of the Council of State, condemning the Israeli war of extermination against Lebanese and Palestinians and assuring PLO of the support of the German Democratic Republic.

By a letter of 12 August,(24) Australia transmitted a statement of 9 August by its Prime Minister declaring that, despite the provocations Israel had received, its persistence in using its formidable military strength in Beirut, long after achieving its initially declared objective, was short-sighted and foolish; the belief that military victory alone could achieve solutions was making it difficult for Israel's traditional friends to sustain their support.

Report of the Secretary-General (13 August). In pursuance of the Security Council resolution of 12 August demanding a cessation of all military activities, the Secretary-General reported to the Council on 13 August(40) on the response of the parties. Israel had informed him that: its forces strictly observed the cease-fire throughout Lebanon on the axiomatic condition that it was mutual and absolute; Israel did not fight the civilian population but the terrorists hiding behind them while establishing their positions; and Israel's position with regard to the deployment of United Nations observers had been set out in its letter of 5 August (see above). The Lebanese Government and PLO had accepted the resolution.

The Secretary-General reported that there were 10 United Nations observers in the Beirut area but they had not been able to establish adequate observation facilities near the parties' forward positions. Efforts were continuing to move additional observers there and enable them to function effectively. According to information from the observers, after 6.10 p.m on 12 August the situation was generally calm except for occasional and light small-arms fire.

Stating that he had been following with deep anxiety the deterioration of the situation affecting the civilian population in west Beirut, the Secretary-General informed the Council that he had asked the Chairman of the United Nations inter-agency survey mission appointed on 25 June (see above) to return to Lebanon on 10 August to reassess immediate needs, and that he was continuing efforts to secure the free entry of supplies into Beirut.

Security Council action (17 August). As the mandate of UNIFIL was due to expire on 19 August, the Secretary-General submitted on 13 August a report(39) on developments relating to the Force since the last renewal of its mandate on 18 June.(52)

He stated that during the period, the Force, despite the difficulties it had faced, had been deeply engaged in extending protection and humanitarian assistance to the civilian population in its area, and its presence had provided an important stabilizing and moderating influence in southern Lebanon. Conditions in Lebanon had complicated the logistic support of the Force and further difficulties had been created by restrictions on freedom of movement imposed by the Israeli forces. Incidents involving Israeli forces in the UNIFIL area of deployment in the days immediately following the Israeli invasion – including forced entry into UNIFIL installations, destruction of its check-points, firing close to its positions and blocking of roads – had been strongly protested to the Israeli authorities.

The Force had taken action to contain the activities of a new armed group, which had appeared in parts of the UNIFIL area at the end of June and which was equipped and controlled by the Israeli forces, and it had continued to resist attempts by the de facto forces to operate in the UNIFIL area of deployment, although in some instances they had been able to enter that area with Israeli assistance. During the latter part of the reporting period, however, the UNIFIL area had been generally quiet and no armed clashes had been observed.

The Secretary-General reported further that, until 16 June, UNIFIL humanitarian teams had been able to assist the population of Tyre through the distribution of food and water and the dispensing of medical aid, but those efforts had been halted by the Israeli authorities. In the second half of June, UNIFIL had co-operated with various United Nations agencies and ICRC by providing transport, storage facilities and procurement support.

Describing the situation in southern Lebanon as uncertain and fraught with danger, the Secretary-General stated that the Lebanese Government had indicated that UNIFIL should continue to be stationed in the area for an additional interim period of two months, pending further consideration of the situation. Taking all factors into account and bearing in mind that position, the Secretary-General recommended that the Security Council extend the UNIFIL mandate for a further interim period.

Following that recommendation, the Council, on 17 August, extended the UNIFIL mandate for another two months, until 19 October.(56) It authorized the Force to continue to carry out the interim humanitarian and administrative tasks assigned to it on the previous renewal of its mandate, and called on all concerned to extend full co-operation to UNIFIL. The Council decided to consider the situation in all its aspects before 19 October.

The resolution, prepared during consultations was adopted without discussion by a vote of 13 to none, with 2 abstentions (Poland, USSR).

General Assembly action (August). For the second time since the armed conflict in Lebanon began in dune, the General Assembly resumed on 16 August its seventh emergency special session originally convened to deal with the Palestine question.

By a resolution adopted on 19 August,(46) the Assembly demanded that Israel carry out the provisions of the Security Council resolutions on the Israel-Lebanon situation adopted since the military action began in June. The Assembly condemned Israel for its non-compliance with those resolutions and urged the Council to consider practical ways and means in the event of Israel's failure to comply.

Under other provisions, the Assembly called for the free exercise in Palestine of the Palestinians' right to self-determination – in paragraph 2 adopted by a separate vote – and reaffirmed its rejection of policies to resettle them outside their homeland; demanded that Israel carry out previous Assembly resolutions on the occupied territories; urged the Secretary-General to take measures to guarantee the safety of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in south Lebanon and to investigate Israel's application of international instruments in the case of detained persons; and requested him to delegate a high-level commission to assess the extent of loss of human life and material damage in Lebanon.

The resolution, sponsored by 35 States, was adopted by a roll-call vote, requested by Israel, of 120 to 2, with 20 abstentions.

Israel rejected the text saying it presented yet another attempt to undermine the Middle East peace process and its only agreed basis, the 1967(61) and 1973 (62) Security Council resolutions.

Abstaining, New Zealand said there were many elements of the currently interrelated fates of Lebanese and Palestinians that the resolution ignored, and some paragraphs made ambiguous proposals; New Zealand had difficulties particularly with paragraphs 2, 4, 6, 9 and 11.

Speaking for the EC members, Denmark said they agreed with the general thrust, but held that the text did not reflect the necessary balance on which a just and lasting Middle East peace settlement must be based.

Expressing a similar view, Norway said the resolution also tended to prejudice the outcome of future negotiations and contained certain wording on which Norway had reservations.

France could not accept several formulations which, in its opinion, tended to impinge on the Security Council's competence; the essential point, it added, was to restore peace to Lebanon and particularly Beirut, and priority must be given to the efforts currently under way to promote a solution, with the humanitarian problem to be solved in the immediate future.

Sweden regretted that the resolution did not address itself directly to the situation in Lebanon and did not reaffirm the inviolability of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Canada said it had hoped the emergency special session would have had something new to offer to the parties in dealings with the broader issues relating to the Arab-Israeli dispute which had given rise to the tragedy in Lebanon; the resolution, however, did not break new ground and did not contribute to a solution of the essential problem of bringing the parties together to negotiate a settlement.

Haiti abstained saying the outcome of the Lebanese crisis seemed already to be discernible.

Though voting in favour, Austria said the text contained a number of formulations which lacked clarity or might have legal or political implications that could further complicate, rather than facilitate, future efforts.

Finland saw the resolution as an expression of the universal indignation at Israel's military action in Lebanon, which was but the latest manifestation of the absence of peace in the Middle East, the challenge to the authority of the United Nations and its capacity to act as a main instrument of peace did not absolve it from its responsibility as spelled out in the 1967 and 1973 Security Council resolutions.

Chile cast an affirmative vote on the grounds that the use of force as a legitimate means of settling international disputes was inadmissible; it was urgent for the international community to end the violence and seek means to ensure respect for Lebanon's territorial integrity for which a stop to all outside interference was an essential prerequisite. Lebanon's tragic experience, Chile added, should encourage a sensible and realistic search for a way to resolve the Middle East problem once and for all.

Paraguay regretted that the resolution did not fully provide for the need to adopt measures effectively to alleviate the suffering of the Lebanese, as well to ensure Lebanon's unity and territorial integrity and independence.

Honduras expressed concern at Israel's failure to fulfil United Nations decisions and said it joined the demand of the overwhelming international majority that Israel unconditionally withdraw from Lebanon.

Uruguay supported the references to implementation of the Council resolutions relating to the question of Lebanon; at the same time, it emphasized that the Assembly could not encroach on the competence of the Council by adopting measures that fell exclusively within the latter's purview. It also expressed its support of measures aimed at bringing about the withdrawal of all foreign contingents and believed that the resolution should not involve any delay in achieving those objectives. With regard to the Assembly resolutions mentioned in paragraph 4, Uruguay reserved its position on those it had not supported at the time of their adoption.

Panama considered that the tragedy suffered by Lebanon and the Palestinians must induce the international community to deal decisively with the Middle East problem on the basis of United Nations resolutions; the substance of the adopted text essentially coincided with its own position.

Colombia voted in favour on the ground that the quest for a Middle East solution was necessary, as were talks which would involve all parties and take account of their interests and obligations including respect for Israel's right to exist.

Ecuador felt a pressing need to strengthen the machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes and the role of United Nations observers and peace-keeping forces, particularly in Lebanon, where the key to stability and understanding lay in the elimination of the injustice to and mistreatment of the Palestinians.

Spain believed that, regardless of a possible settlement of the Lebanon crisis, no just or lasting Middle East peace could be achieved without the exercise of Palestinian rights; the resolution was moderate and realistic and put forward a number of praiseworthy political and humanitarian ideas.

The Syrian Arab Republic would have wished a firm condemnation of Israel for its invasion and barbaric acts, as well as inclusion of a provision reiterating that Israel was not a peace-loving State and had not fulfilled its commitments in keeping with the United Nations Charter and the 1949 resolution admitting it to United Nations membership. (60))

In the view of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the resolution adopted was a strict minimum, the Assembly ought to have expelled Israel for having ignored United Nations decisions and for its acts of aggression. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya emphasized its view that the 1967 Security Council resolution was incompatible with the rights of the Palestinians.

Portugal welcomed the resumption of the session as a reflection of the profound concern at the situation in Lebanon, as did Benin, Hungary, Indonesia and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Czechoslovakia felt that the session was reconvened at a critical time for the fate of the Palestinians and, in Mexico's opinion, the resumption would prove timely provided the international community took the opportunity clearly and vigorously to express its views. The Syrian Arab Republic said it placed great hope in the session, convened not only to affirm Palestinian rights but also to stand up to the imperialist Zionist plot aimed at liquidating the Palestinians and PLO.

Israel termed the emergency special session illegal and a contrived exercise; the alleged emergency and its precise timing had been predetermined many weeks past. During the eight years of slaughter of Lebanese by PLO and Syrians, there had been no emergency special session, and there had never been such a session to discuss the PLO terror régime in areas that had fallen victim to its tyranny; the real reason for reconvening the session was that the rhetorical barrage was intended to deaden the sounds of reality with regard to the Arabs' true position towards PLO.

During the debate, many speakers, among them Cuba (for the non-aligned countries) and the USSR, denounced the continued aggression in Lebanon, especially the attacks on Beirut. In the view of Malaysia, Mongolia and others, the devastation brutality and vandalism had few parallels in recent history. Not even the Jews had experienced at the hand of the Nazis what the Lebanese and Palestinians experienced at the hands of the Israelis, Iraq stated; reportedly more than 200,000 bombs had been dropped on Beirut and, for three months, thousands of innocent people had been subjected to the worst aggression – denying them water and electricity, and the shelling of hospitals, schools and nursing homes. Speaking for the EC members, Denmark stressed the total unacceptability of further attacks, especially in view of the fact that PLO had left Beirut.

The United Arab Emirates requested the establishment of an inquiry commission or a special tribunal to judge Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and his henchmen for their crimes of war, a request supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

The view expressed during the debate in June that the aim of Israel's aggression in Lebanon was to eliminate the Palestinians and PLO, was reiterated by many speakers, among them Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Pakistan, the Ukrainian SSR, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Yugoslavia. Nepal said Israel had wreaked havoc on the Palestinians and, in Benin's opinion, the invasion of Lebanon was the most cynical form of Israel's terrorism and its campaign to annihilate the Palestinians.

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Iraq, Jordan, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali, Morocco Nicaragua, Nigeria, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Togo Uganda, the USSR and Viet Nam spoke of holocaust, genocide and a "final solution".

Pakistan believed that the Palestinians' survival was at stake. Afghanistan said Israel did not need gas chambers to eradicate the Palestinians since it had turned the whole of Beirut into an inferno.

As a result of the war waged by Israel, PLO said, several Lebanese cities and more than 30 villages and 14 Palestinian refugee camps had been destroyed, more than 30,000 Lebanese and Palestinians had been killed or wounded, and 1 million had been displaced. In addition, thousands had been detained. Israel's alleged objective had been to push Palestinian resistance back 45 kilometres a pretext which had survived for only a few days.

Israel, on the other hand, charged that, true to its well-known tactic, PLO had hijacked the Lebanese capital and taken its population hostage. PLO had used the months since the cease-fire in July 1981 to build up an extraordinary arsenal of weapons.

Israel's claim to have acted in self-defence was again rejected by several speakers, among them Mexico, Mongolia, Senegal and Uganda. In Nigeria's view, there could be no greater prescription for international anarchy than Israel's doctrine that, in exercise of its right to self-defence it could invade its neighbours' territory at will. In Finland's opinion, the fact that Israel's integrity had not at all times been respected did not legitimize its actions. Egypt said there was no justification for calling the Palestinians terrorists when their oppressors were destroying Lebanon and murdering thousands of civilians.

Bangladesh, Hungary, Mali and others saw the invasion not as an isolated act but as another link in the long chain of Israel's expansion policy and aggression against the Arabs. In Pakistan s view, the invasion marked yet another stage in Israel's scheme to occupy and annex Arab and Palestinian territories and to drive their inhabitants into permanent exile. Cuba said the invasion of Lebanon and the siege and bombing of Beirut were part of a strategic plan to quash the struggle of the Palestinians and to make the occupation and annexation of the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and Jerusalem irreversible.

Albania believed that it was Israel's intention to repeat the aggression, using the same pretext and methods, in order to realize the dream of creating Greater Israel. Afghanistan said the aggression in Lebanon was a warning to other countries that the quest for land and aggrandizement under absurd pretexts would sooner or later endanger their own sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The Syrian Arab Republic found it obvious that Israel's military movements towards the north of Beirut were but an attempt to expand the scope of its aggression. PLO charged that Israel's aggression was designed to isolate Lebanon from its Arab context so that it could be annexed in the future.

Apart from undermining Lebanon's unity sovereignty and independence, Democratic Yemen said, the invasion was aimed at bringing pressure on the Syrian Arab Republic and weakening its role for the purpose of imposing the Zionist-American settlement plan. In Iraq's opinion, Israel was pursuing two goals: to internationalize Lebanon and find an opening for United States influence, and to establish buffer zones bordering on Israeli settlements in upper Galilee, in order geographically to neutralize the Arab territories bordering on occupied Palestine.

Israel's logic, Senegal believed, was that the military destruction of PLO would make it possible to impose on the inhabitants of the occupied territories an "autonomy" which would not conflict with its designs of annexation. By evacuating the Palestinian fighters to another Arab country, Yemen stated, Israel could occupy also that country under the pretext of retribution and could thus impose its unjust conditions on one Arab State after another. In Mexico's view, Lebanon was the victim of armed blackmail designed to impose on it conditions in exchange for peace; this was a grave threat to the survival of medium-sized and small countries exposed to the aggression of those who were stronger.

Albania, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, China, Cuba (for the non-aligned countries) Cyprus, Hungary, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mali, Nigeria, Qatar, Senegal, Somalia and others believed that the situation created by the invasion was a danger not only to peace in the region but to world peace.

The majority of countries, among them Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bhutan, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Democratic Yemen Denmark (also on behalf of the EC members), Egypt, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria Pakistan, Portugal, Senegal (as Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights), Somalia, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey and Uganda, called for a cessation of hostilities, Israeli withdrawal, and restoration of Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence.

In that context, a number of States, including Denmark (for the EC members) and Poland reiterated their support for the demands of the Security Council.

Israel reiterated that it did not want to stay in Lebanon, but was entitled to demand that proper arrangements be made to preclude permanently and reliably hostile action against Israel and its citizens from Lebanese soil; no one in the Middle East was more eager than Israel to see Lebanese sovereignty restored, its internal strife resolved, the Syrian occupiers removed, PLO subdued, and freedom and tranquillity returned. Israel would do everything in its power to maintain peace and good-neighbourly relations with Lebanon.

For years, the United States said, Lebanon's sovereignty had been sacrificed as external parties had pursued their own interests and conflicts within its borders; Lebanon's suffering had become a source of instability for the entire region. Based on its right to self-determination and assuming its national responsibility, the Syrian Arab Republic said, it had challenged Israel's aggression aimed at extending Israeli hegemony over Lebanon, crushing the Palestinian revolution and creating conditions for attacking the Syrian Arab Republic.

Kuwait rejected all pre-conditions by Israel as a price for its withdrawal. Egypt said Israel's withdrawal should not depend on any condition, especially since PLO had accepted to withdraw. PLO explained that it had agreed to the withdrawal of its military forces from Beirut in the interest of the remaining inhabitants, so as not to provide a pretext for Israel to refuse to withdraw and to continue its aggression. In Malaysia's view, the evacuation of the Palestinians from Beirut and Lebanon was only a temporary measure and could not in the long term contribute to a durable Middle East solution.

Saudi Arabia said Israel's statements that it did not wish to retain a single inch of Lebanese territory had been contradicted by its actions; when PLO was scrupulously observing the cease-fire despite Israeli provocations and continued bombardments, Israel had been mobilizing its forces on the Lebanese border months before the invasion.

Having given a green light to Israel to wage war against Lebanon, Iran stated, the United States had imposed a bloody peace on PLO and had assumed the role of the middleman to convince the Palestinians that they must surrender to force recognize political forgery as a legal State, sit at the negotiating table with it and give in to its terms of the deal; such a "solution" only created a new problem. The proper course for the Assembly to follow was: strongly to condemn Israel and its supporters, to expel Israel from the United Nations to propose strong political and economic measures against it, should it refuse to withdraw; to force the United States and Israel to compensate the Palestinians and Lebanese for all the losses and damages; and to stand for the Palestinians' right to return and to re-establish the State of Palestine.

On behalf of the EC members, Denmark urged Israel to recognize its humanitarian responsibilities. Pakistan said the Assembly must recommend measures to guarantee the safety and security of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and must call for extensive humanitarian aid. Mali thought it was perhaps for military reasons that Israel refused to allow foodstuffs, water and medical assistance to Tyre, the refugee camps and elsewhere; it was undoubtedly for military reasons that the population of west Beirut had been deprived of water, food and medical care.

In the view of Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritania and Togo, the events in Lebanon again proved that the Palestine question was the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that, without a Palestine solution, there could be no just and lasting Middle East settlement. A similar position was held by Algeria, Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, Denmark (for the EC members), Hungary, India Iraq, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Nicaragua, Poland, Sri Lanka, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR.

Senegal considered the situation in Lebanon but one of the aspects of the Palestine problem. Finland thought that the Lebanon crisis was but a consequence of the unresolved Palestine question, and Greece considered the events in Lebanon a particularly tragic repercussion of the Palestinian problem. Japan saw the Lebanon situation as the result of various attempts to settle the Palestine question by military force, and PLO said what was unfolding in Lebanon was but a new chapter in the lone tragedy of the Palestinians. Nepal said the aggression against and in Lebanon had brought the Palestine question into sharp focus.

Beyond the Lebanon crisis, Sweden stated, there remained the broader problem of the Middle East, the core of which was the realization of the national rights of the Palestinians, including the right to a State of their own. Cyprus felt that the problem went beyond the Palestinian question and entered the sphere of the very usefulness and existence of the United Nations which stood aside when Israel arrogated to itself the right to decide not only the fate of Beirut and Lebanon, or the future of Palestine or PLO, but also that of mankind through a decision for world war or world peace.

PLO said one of the greatest delusions was the attempt to treat the Lebanon problem as though it were a matter of lifting the siege of Beirut and withdrawing Palestinian resistance; unless the Palestine question was solved, there would be numerous further problems which could lead to more bloodshed and jeopardize international peace and security.

Many speakers, among them Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba (for the non-aligned countries), Cyprus, Denmark (for the EC members), Egypt, Finland, the German Democratic Republic, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Nepal, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Togo, Yemen and Yugoslavia, again emphasized the necessity of the recognition and exercise of Palestinian rights, in particular the right to self-determination. Only thus, Hungary felt, could the way towards an overall settlement be paved.

A solution that ignored the Palestine question was doomed to failure in the view of several speakers, including Algeria and Cuba (for the non-aligned countries). Greece held it urgent and necessary, parallel with the restoration of peace in Lebanon, to redouble efforts towards a speedy and comprehensive Palestine solution. Malaysia felt that cognizance must be taken of the Palestinian grievances if peace in the Middle East was to be achieved. Madagascar found a peace based on the denial of Palestinian rights inconceivable. In Morocco's view, the central problem of the Lebanon crisis remained that of restoring the rights of the Palestinians to their national territory and to their own and sovereign State.

A comprehensive Middle East settlement could not be based on the elimination of PLO or annihilation of the Palestinians, Mexico said. The most pressing and urgent issue, Afghanistan stated, was the Palestinians' right to life which should be safeguarded by all means.

Romania said all efforts to solve the problem of west Beirut and Lebanon must facilitate a solution to the Palestinian problem; Israel must understand that it was not through military means that it could ensure peace on its borders, but rather through its withdrawal from all occupied territories and through recognition of the right of all peoples in the region to a free and independent existence, including the Palestinians. A similar view was expressed by Bangladesh. Concern for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon should not divert attention from the larger issue of the restoration of Palestinian rights, Pakistan stressed; the invasion of Lebanon and the destruction of Beirut should stir the world's conscience and underline the need for more vigorous efforts to resolve the Palestinian tragedy.

Regardless of how the ordeal of Beirut and Lebanon was resolved and while Lebanon must be free, independent and sovereign, Jordan stated, a few established facts could not be ignored, such as: the rights of the Palestinians under PLO leadership must be redeemed in full in accordance with United Nations resolutions and in the context of a comprehensive peace; the usurpation of Palestine was merely a first step to taking over or imposing Israeli hegemony on adjacent States; the aggression against Lebanon was an eye-opener for all the peoples of the Middle East as to what was in store for all of them; and the genocide in Lebanon had at long last destroyed the image of Israel's being an example of human and democratic values. No less dangerous than the war in Lebanon, PLO felt, was the war against the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. Afghanistan said that, while international attention was focused on the situation in Beirut, Israel tightened its grip on the occupied territories.

In spite of its attempts at annihilation, annexation and containment, PLO said, Israel had failed to destroy the national identity and aspirations of the Palestinians and on the contrary had made them more determined to regain their land and rights. A similar view was expressed by Indonesia and others. Nigeria said PLO and the Palestinians might have lost a battle, but there could be no doubt about their ultimate success, and Malaysia believed that their current set-back should lead to an even firmer conviction of the inevitability of the triumph of their cause. A similar position was held by Uganda and Yemen. Somalia believed that the determination of the Palestinians to achieve nationhood in Palestine had undoubtedly been strengthened by the Lebanon crisis.

By refusing to submit to imperialist and Zionist policy, the Lao People's Democratic Republic stated, the Palestinians had demonstrated their firm determination to struggle and their will to win The Israeli massacres in Lebanon,

Democratic Yemen believed, would create new generations of combatants whose just cause would inevitably be crowned with victory. Nicaragua said the withdrawal of the Palestinians from Beirut to prevent further massacres of civilians could be viewed as one more proof of the flexibility, maturity and high-mindedness of PLO.

Morocco was convinced that the prestige of the Palestinians and PLO would emerge greatly enhanced from the events in Lebanon. In Afghanistan's opinion, the resistance of the Palestinians and Lebanese against Israel was yet another brilliant page in their history of courage and determination. Mali said Israel's relentless hostility towards PLO and the failure of its operation in Lebanon bore witness to the fact that the use of weapons would only forge Palestinian national unity still further and stiffen its determination to regain its homeland. In Egypt's view, the Israeli invasion, the onslaught on the Palestinians and the new Palestinian displacement and exodus could achieve only one thing: Palestinian devotion to Palestine.

Supporting the 29 July initiative of Egypt and France in the Security Council (see above, under ARMED CONFLICT) which, it said, aimed at combining a solution for Lebanon with a comprehensive political approach to the Palestinian question Austria believed that a just and lasting Middle East settlement could best be achieved by starting with the mutual recognition of the rights of Israel and of the Palestinians. Such mutual recognition was also advocated by others, among them Romania.

Speaking for the non-aligned countries, Cuba said the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries at Nicosia in July had established a ministerial committee of nine non-aligned countries, which was entrusted with the task of holding consultations with the Lebanese Government and PLO leadership; despite repeated efforts, however, Israeli troops had prevented the committee from travelling to Lebanon and Beirut, and the United States Government had refused to receive the committee on the grounds that Cuba and Nicaragua should not be part of the delegation.

Finland, India and others felt that the United Nations should do its utmost to contribute to a negotiated solution, beyond the immediate task of bringing the conflict in Lebanon to an end, Finland added, the international community should make full use of the various proposals aiming at a comprehensive Middle East settlement (see above, under MIDDLE EAST SITUATION). Cyprus believed that the United Nations was the appropriate forum for a solution and that UNIFIL should help monitor Israel's withdrawal, protect the Palestinian refugees and ensure the continuing flow of supplies into Beirut. Egypt urged enhancement of the United Nations role in Lebanon.

In Iraq's opinion, the United Nations bore responsibility for the tragedy in Lebanon since it had approved the establishment of the racist Israeli State on the territory of Palestine.

Failure to put an end to the tragedy of Lebanon, Senegal stated, would be tantamount to undermining United Nations authority once and for all; the Assembly must assume all its responsibilities under the Charter and induce Israel to heed the consensus of the international community.

The deployment of United Nations observers as an immediate measure was held necessary by several countries, including Pakistan and Romania. Israel's scorn for United Nations decisions Cuba stated, had reached a new height when it did not allow United Nations observers to be present in Lebanon, especially in Beirut, and when it rejected the possibility of a tour to the area by the Secretary-General in order to appraise the situation.

Declaring its commitment to a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the United States said a settlement in Beirut appeared imminent and there was little the United Nations could currently do to affect the outcome of the negotiations. The goal of the mission of United States Ambassador Philip Habib was to achieve a resolution of the crisis in a manner that avoided further bloodshed, secured the removal from Lebanon of all foreign forces and allowed the Lebanese Government to re-establish its full authority throughout the country The mediation efforts proceeded on two assumptions: that the terms of a settlement could not be dictated from above or outside, but could only be determined through negotiations; and that it was necessary to deal first with the immediate problem in Beirut before tackling the broader objectives of a Lebanon solution and a comprehensive Middle East peace, with the efforts under way in Beirut being a step towards a wider peace settlement.

Japan, Nepal, Somalia and several others welcomed the United States efforts, while Algeria called them a fraud. Under the guise of so-called peace-making efforts, the Byelorussian SSR charged, the United States had enabled Israel to continue to carry out its aggression.

PLO regretted that the United States, which had not uttered a word of condemnation of Israel's massacres in Lebanon and which through its veto had prevented the Security Council from condemning the aggression, was now trying to play the role of a mediator and peacemaker in a process of flagrant hypocrisy and blackmail.

Cuba said the United States media accompanied the report about the bombing of Beirut with information about so-called negotiations for the departure of PLO from Beirut, negotiations which were nothing but part of the aggression against the right of the Palestinians to return to their homeland.

Sweden said the impression had been created that once an agreement on the evacuation of PLO from Beirut was ensured, the Lebanon crisis would essentially be resolved; much, however, remained to be done. Egypt called for the establishment of contacts between the United States and PLO; the United States could play a vital part in convincing the Palestinians and PLO that their rights could be obtained through negotiations and that they could find their place in the family of nations through a peaceful, legitimate process.

In the view of the United Arab Emirates, the United States could have stopped the massacre of Palestinians by merely stopping the supply of weapons and putting an end to its economic and political support to Israel. China and others charged the United States not only with providing military assistance to Israel but also actively supporting and defending it in the diplomatic field, while exercising pressure on PLO. The Syrian Arab Republic said it was no longer a secret that the aggression against Lebanon had Washington's blessing, and the Lao People's Democratic Republic charged that Israel's acts in Lebanon were co-ordinated by the United States.

Saudi Arabia said the international community could not disregard the military support Israel received from the United States, which enabled it to pursue its aggression, even to the point of adopting positions contrary to the interests of its supporting ally.

Iraq said the encouragement and support of Israel by the United States were the main reason for the United Nations failure to find a just and peaceful solution to the Palestine problem, and Nicaragua said that support was a great disservice to the United Nations. India considered it to be a matter of deep concern and regret that the constant threat of a United States veto in the Security Council had so far prevented the imposition of sanctions or suspension of arms supplies. The veto was also deplored by several other countries, among them Benin, the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba for the non-aligned countries, Cyprus, Iraq Madagascar, Mauritania, Nicaragua and the USSR. By preventing action to restrain the aggressor, Bulgaria stated, the United States officially endorsed genocide and destruction. After the Council's failure to take a decision, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said, the Assembly must take practical steps to abolish the right of veto. Saudi Arabia believed that those who drew up the Charter had not intended the right of veto to be applied in cases of flagrant aggression against a neighbouring State.

Mexico said the international community must resolutely take a stand against Israel's aggression; otherwise, similar events could be multiplied. Uganda warned that if Israel was allowed to get away with the invasion of Lebanon and the carnage in Beirut, other potential aggressors would gain encouragement for similar adventures.

Cuba said the non-aligned countries had urged the Council to apply against Israel measures under Chapter VII of the Charter for failure to comply with United Nations resolutions and for gravely endangering international peace and security.

Measures to compel Israel to comply with the Council's demands were also called for by a number of other States, among them Afghanistan Cyprus, Hungary, India, Mongolia, Uganda, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia. Romania said the Assembly must call firmly for compliance.

PLO considered it incumbent on the international community to prevent Israel from pursuing its criminal and expansionist designs and to impose deterrent sanctions. The Syrian Arab Republic urged severe sanctions in view of Israel's violations of its commitments under the Charter. With Israel remaining adamant in its aggressive stand, China held it incumbent on the Assembly to adopt firm and effective measures, including sanctions. Pakistan said Israel must be clearly warned of punitive sanctions if it refused to withdraw and persisted in its defiance of United Nations decisions, and must be reminded that compliance with Council resolutions was a mandatory obligation for United Nations Members. Indonesia called for a concerted drive to convince Israel's friends to join with the international community in the imposition of sanctions.

Mauritania declared its support for sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter, as proposed by the Arab League. Sanctions were also called for by Democratic Yemen, Iraq and Nicaragua. The United Arab Emirates urged an end to economic and military assistance. Iran held strong political and economic measures necessary, should Israel refuse to withdraw, while Madagascar favoured the suspension of weapons and military aid until Israel s withdrawal.

In view of its prerogatives, Benin said the Assembly should not confine itself merely to condemning Israel's aggression, but should contemplate measures designed to prevent once and for all acts which endangered peace. In Nigeria's opinion, it was time that the Assembly impressed on Israel in no uncertain terms that international peace and security were at stake. Nicaragua believed that Member States were obliged to go much further than condemning Israel or expressing solidarity with the Palestinians. Morocco believed that the United Nations should stay the criminal hand and render justice to the Palestinians. Mali said the Assembly's decisions would show whether it continued to be equal to its international responsibilities. Speaking as Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, Senegal expressed the hope that the international community would take measures under the Charter to ensure peace and justice for the Palestinians and Lebanese and co-operation among the States of the region.

Qatar believed that Israel would not have had the audacity to cause such a tragedy if the international community had taken effective action. In Bangladesh's opinion, the failure of the United Nations to act firmly had encouraged Israel to intensify its aggression.

Further developments. By a letter of 20 August, the Secretary-General was informed by Lebanon that the Government had requested the deployment in Beirut of a multinational force to assist the Lebanese armed forces in carrying out the departure from Lebanon of Palestinian armed personnel in the Beirut area. France, Italy and the United States had agreed to deploy troops for that force, which would consist of approximately 2,000 men and would remain in west Beirut for 30 days. Lebanon added that it had requested the force to make it possible to begin restoring the country's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity (The letter was summarized in the Secretary-General's October report to the General Assembly on the Middle East situation.(44))

Also on 20 August,(22) the United States conveyed a message from its President informing the Secretary-General that the United States had agreed, in response to a Lebanese request, to deploy a force of about 800 personnel to Beirut for a period not exceeding 30 days; the force would work closely with the United Nations Observer Group Beirut. France and Italy also informed the Secretary-General of their participation in the force.

The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a statement of 19 August transmitted on 23 August,(31) declared that Japan attached great importance to the participation of the three countries in the multinational force, welcomed that agreement that had been reached to break through the deadlock and save west Beirut from street fighting, and called on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon immediately and unconditionally so that a viable government could be established and order in Lebanon restored, following national reconciliation among the Lebanese.

Also welcoming the agreement reached, Egypt stated in a letter of 26 August(26) that no framework would be viable while Israel occupied Lebanese territory and conducted a policy aimed at settling the occupied territories; Egypt reiterated its July proposal, made jointly with France, reaffirming the right of all States in the region to existence and security, reaffirming Palestinian rights, and calling for mutual and simultaneous recognition of the parties.

Report of the Secretary-General (2 September). Reporting on 2 September to the Security Council on the situation in the Beirut area since 13 August,(41) the Secretary-General indicated that the cease-fire which had gone into effect on 12 August had generally held with no major incidents, though a Syrian reconnaissance aircraft had been shot down on 31 August. Despite persistent efforts, however, it had not been possible to increase the number of United Nations observers in Beirut beyond 10. Although since 21 August members of the Observer Group had been able to move in and around Beirut with greater ease, their freedom of movement had been on occasion curtailed by the Israeli forces. Nevertheless, through arrangements with the Lebanese authorities and with contingents of the multinational force, the observers had been able to report on major developments in and around Beirut.

Their reports indicated that: The contingents of the multinational force, which had arrived in Beirut between 21 and 26 August, numbered as at 26 August 2,285 members, from France (860), Italy (575) and the United States (850). Palestinian armed elements and members of the Arab Deterrent Force (Syrian) numbering 14,737 had departed from Beirut between 21 August and 1 September, accompanied by a total of 378 non-combatants (women and children under the age of 15). They had left by sea for Algeria, Cyprus, Democratic Yemen, Greece, Iraq, Jordan, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen, and overland by the Beirut-Damascus road.

In addenda, dated 15 and 17 September, the Secretary-General outlined further developments on the basis of reports from United Nations observers. He stated that the situation had remained generally calm from 2 to 13 September, during which time elements of the Lebanese armed forces and the internal security forces had moved to new positions in west and south Beirut. However, tension had greatly increased on 14 September when Bashir Gemayel, the President-elect of Lebanon and several others, were killed by a bomb explosion at the headquarters of the Lebanese Christian Phalangist Party On 15 September, Israeli infantry personnel and armour had moved forward from their previous positions in west Beirut, and shelling from Israeli tanks and gunboats had been observed. Small-and heavy-arms fire had continued through the evening of 16 September, after which no further shooting had been observed. The multinational force had withdrawn between 10 and 13 September.

Security Council action (17 September). Meeting on 16 and 17 September at the urgent request of Lebanon – in a letter of 16 September complaining of what it called the latest Israeli incursion into Beirut(17) – the Security Council unanimously adopted on 17 September a resolution sponsored by Jordan(57) condemning the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Council resolutions, and demanding an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September. The Council called again for the strict respect of Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence, reaffirmed its call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations and repudiated all violence against them. The Council declared its support for the Secretary-General's efforts to deploy United Nations observers and asked him to inform it of developments within 24 hours.

Before adoption of the resolution, Kuwait and the Syrian Arab Republic were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without vote.

Submitting the revised text, Jordan expressed the hope that it would give some solace to the inhabitants of Beirut.

Condemning Israel's incursion as another gross violation of Lebanon's sovereignty, China said Israel must turn over a new leaf, implement the Council resolutions, abide by the norms of international law, immediately cease its aggression and withdraw all its troops from Lebanon; the presence of Palestinian and Syrian forces in Lebanon had nothing to do with Israeli withdrawal.

By its incursions into west Beirut, France said, Israel had seriously compromised the agreement drawn up in August with the co-operation of the United States, France and Italy; France expected immediate Israeli withdrawal to the positions occupied before 15 September as a first step towards subsequent withdrawal from Beirut, and called for the immediate deployment of United Nations observers in Beirut in sufficient numbers so as to evaluate the threat facing the civilian population and the extent to which the agreements had been respected.

In the view of the USSR, the resolution might be a first step towards ending Israel's aggression and ensuring its unconditional withdrawal; to ensure such a breakthrough, however, all Council members must sincerely be willing to implement it.

The United Kingdom regarded the resolution as clear, concise and constructive, and expressed support for the call for an immediate Israeli withdrawal to the positions before 15 September, adding that, instead of exercising restraint, Israeli forces had caused further conflict and destruction by moving deep into west Beirut.

Also supporting the resolution, Uganda said the Council could not stand idly and watch Israel implement with impunity its strategy for a weak and divided Lebanon; the only contribution Israel could make towards the restoration of law and order was to withdraw its troops immediately. Israel had used the assassination of the Lebanese President-elect as a pretext for occupying west Beirut, thereby aggravating the suffering of the population and shattering the fragile peace that had been emerging.

At last, the PLO observer stated, the Council had adopted a resolution demanding immediate Israeli withdrawal; the question remained, however, whether in the case of Israel's non-compliance it would invoke its powers and adopt effective means to see to it that justice was done and that the lives of civilians were guaranteed.

On 16 September, at the Council meeting prior to the introduction of the resolution, Lebanon stated that, on the day Lebanon was mourning the death of a young President, struck down at the threshold of success in his dream to unite the country, Israel had chosen to invade Beirut and occupy government buildings, houses and streets. Noting that Israel had claimed that its actions were to keep the peace, Lebanon asked what right Israel had to allot itself the mission of maintaining law and order in the capital of a sovereign country that had been destabilized for years because it had become the theatre of Israel's wars. Lebanon urged the Council to call on Israel unequivocally and immediately to withdraw its forces from Beirut without prejudice to Lebanon's determination to seek total and unconditional evacuation of Israeli and all non-Lebanese forces from its territory.

Israel maintained that its forces had moved into west Beirut following the criminal assassination of the President-elect in order to counter designs aimed at plunging the area into renewed violence as a smoke-screen to enable PLO remnants to regain their lost positions in Beirut and to fan out from there. Although the agreement on the departure of PLO from Beirut provided that spare weapons and munitions would be turned over to the Lebanese armed forces, the terrorists had left behind in west Beirut over 2,000 of their operatives armed with large quantities of light and heavy weapons. Moreover, large numbers of terrorists had been infiltrating back into the Bekaa Valley and had opened fire at Israeli forces through the protective screen of the Syrian army, while others had slipped back to Tripoli and other locations in Lebanon. Israeli forces would give up their positions in west Beirut when the Lebanese forces were ready to assume control over those positions in co-ordination with IDF.

Jordan charged that Israeli agents had planted the remote-controlled high-explosive device that had killed the President-elect, with whom Israel had grown disenchanted because he could not be treated as a pliant tool, and whose term would have seen the emergence of a strong and unified central Lebanese authority that would have restored unity – an objective which Israel could not countenance.

The Syrian Arab Republic charged that Israel had planned the assassination of the President-elect in advance and wanted to terrorize, subjugate and annex Lebanon.

Stating that the Israeli invasion of Beirut had violated the agreement reached in August between Israel and Lebanon, which had led to the withdrawal of the Palestinian and Syrian forces and was guaranteed by the United States, Kuwait, as Chairman of the Arab Group, called on the latter to force Israel to withdraw; the fact that Israeli troops had occupied the whole of Beirut at a time when the Lebanese were trying to establish a strong Government cast doubts on the sincerity of Israel's claims that one of its objectives in invading Lebanon had been to assist in that attempt, as well as on Israel's credibility as a party to an agreement genuinely entered into by the other parties.

The USSR stated that Israel's seizure of Beirut was the latest move in its expansionist policy, carried out with United States arms and money in pursuit of the goals of American imperialist policy; the Council must condemn Israel's flagrant violations of Council decisions, call for immediate Israeli withdrawal from west Beirut, provide for machinery to monitor implementation of its decisions, and issue a decisive warning to Israel that, in the event of non-compliance, measures set forth in the United Nations Charter would be applied.

To the PLO observer, it was clear that Israel's aim was to continue its war of annihilation against Palestinians and Lebanese even after PLO had decided to remove its forces to spare Beirut more bloodshed; however, PLO was confident that the Council would fully assume its responsibilities as prescribed in the Charter.

The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States also charged that Israel had used the assassination of the President-elect as a pretext for its invasion of Beirut, Israel had been foiled in its attempt to perpetuate destabilization, factionalism and conflict by the evidence of growing cohesion and political reconciliation within Lebanon, and it had realized that the Palestinian movement, in the aftermath of the withdrawal from Beirut, had re-established the PLO mandate, regained its unity and recouped its political effectiveness.

Report and communication (18 September). In accordance with the 17 September resolution, the Secretary-General informed the Council on 18 September of further developments.(42) He reported that, in response to his request for information on action taken, the Israeli Foreign Ministry had conveyed a message reiterating that Israeli forces in west Beirut had been instructed to evacuate their positions when the Lebanese Army was ready to assume control over them in co-ordination with the Israeli forces; discussions to that end had been proposed by Israel and accepted by Lebanon.

The report went on to detail information available to the observers on the circumstances surrounding the mass slaughter, which they had discovered on 18 September, of large numbers of civilians at the Palestine refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, on the outskirts of Beirut (see below).

The Secretary-General reported that representatives of France, Italy and the United States had subsequently visited him to urge the immediate dispatch of United Nations observers to the sites of the greatest human suffering and losses in and around Beirut. Following that request, with which Lebanon had concurred, he had immediately instructed the UNTSO Chief of Staff to make a renewed approach to Israel to obtain its co-operation in increasing the number of observers however, it seemed that in the current situation unarmed observers were not enough.

On 18 September,(12) Jordan transmitted a letter of the same date from the PLO observer, calling on the Council immediately to dispatch an international military force to protect the Palestinians in Beirut and other parts of Lebanon.

Security Council action (19 September). The Security Council convened on 18 September in response to a request by Jordan for an urgent meeting. A similar request had been made in an 18 September letter from Greece asking the Council to examine the critical situation created by the massacre of civilian Palestinians in Beirut and to take without delay effective measures to protect the Palestinians in Lebanon.(29)

The Council, by a resolution prepared during consultations and adopted unanimously early on 19 September,(58) condemned the massacre, reaffirmed its earlier resolutions calling for respect for the rights of the civilian populations, and authorized the Secretary-General to increase the number of United Nations observers in the Beirut area from 10 to 50. The Secretary-General was requested to initiate urgent consultations on additional steps to be taken, including the possible deployment of United Nations forces, in order to assist the Lebanese Government in ensuring full protection for civilians in and around Beirut, and to report within 48 hours. The Council insisted that all concerned must permit United Nations observers and forces to discharge their mandates calling attention in that connection to the obligation of all Member States under Article 25 of the Charter to accept and carry out Council decisions.

Prior to the adoption of the resolution, Algeria, Democratic Yemen and Greece were invited, at their request, to participate without vote in the discussion.

The Council's discussion centred on the circumstances of the massacre at Sabra and Shatila (see below) as well as on steps that should be taken to protect the civilian population.

Lebanon said its Army was prepared to assume its responsibilities but had been thwarted in its effort to establish control over Beirut by the Israeli occupation, none the less, Lebanon would welcome the sending of international forces and supported a suggestion by Ireland that the Secretary-General engage immediately in consultations as to how the Council could best assume its responsibilities.

Israel said it had left one side of the camps open to permit access by the Lebanese Army, which had not taken control of the camps. Israel joined in the expression of revulsion and indignation at such crimes, adding that the Council had remained silent in the face of the massacre of 100,000 Lebanese over the years and of some 6,000 to 25,000 persons at Hammah in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Algeria said the situation called for the Council to apply the relevant Charter provisions and to send a force to Lebanon immediately with a view to saving the defenceless population. Democratic Yemen said no pretext should be used to stop the Council from taking the most urgent action necessary to stop the genocide. Egypt called on the Council to act immediately to guarantee the safety of the Palestinians in west Beirut and to dispatch forces or observers to prevent further massacres, and called on the countries that had participated in the multinational force to consider immediately sending it back to Beirut.

Kuwait said the Palestinians had believed and trusted in agreements, guaranteed by the United States, that had been savagely floured by the Israeli invasion of west Beirut and by the planning and sponsoring of an extermination campaign against the Palestinians in the camps; the Council must take immediate measures to ensure the survival of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians threatened by holocaust. In the opinion of the Syrian Arab Republic, Israel saw the cease-fire as giving it and its surrogates a chance to continue the onslaught against unarmed Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, if Council resolutions were not implemented, effective action must be taken under Chapter VII of the Charter.

China held it extremely urgent to stop the hands of the aggressor and restore Lebanese sovereignty, and called for sanctions if Israel continued to defy Council resolutions.

France said that by invoking the need to ensure order and to prevent further tragedy Israel had occupied west Beirut; it refused to co-operate with United Nations observers and rejected any United Nations intervention, but its attitude had not brought about the results it said it had sought to achieve. Greece said what was needed was a succinct resolution that would provide within the next 24 hours for effective measures to protect all Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. Ireland suggested that the number of unarmed United Nations observers be increased to 50, and that they be given full co-operation and freedom to deploy; as a second stage, the Secretary-General should immediately consult with Lebanon to see whether there were further steps the Council might consider to assist the Government in ensuring full protection for civilians.

Spain said the Council must give serious thought to measures to be taken in the face of Israel's rebellion in order to maintain Lebanon's political independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as international peace and security. The United Kingdom said the tragedy had confirmed its belief that the first step to stop the spiral of violence in Beirut must be Israel's immediate withdrawal to the positions it had occupied before 15 September.

Guyana held it imperative that the resolution be complied with as the barest minimum to ensure the safety of the Beirut civilians. Panama said the resolution contained important steps towards a solution to the crisis in Lebanon, it hoped the Council could discharge its mission with the co-operation in particular of those Council members able to bring a decisive influence to bear on Israel.

Jordan said the Council had the sacred duty under the Charter to send armed forces to protect the Palestinians from additional acts of genocide; condemnations had been rendered meaningless and irrelevant.

In Poland's opinion, there was an urgent need for decisiveness and the co-operation of all Council members to stop the bloodshed in Beirut immediately; the Council could not remain indifferent when its resolutions were ignored. The USSR called for strong and effective Council measures to halt the massacre of Palestinians and curb the Israel; aggressor, the resolution to be adopted must Contain a provision to the effect that the Council warned Israel that it was obliged to abide by Council decisions.

Uganda believed the United Nations had a positive role to play in ensuring that Lebanese and Palestinians were not subjected to more massacres; it regarded the resolution as at least a first step in arresting a situation which could become even more dangerous.

The PLO observer said that sending observers and a monitoring team was not sufficient to deter the criminals the Council should at least provide some safeguards to the civilians in Beirut and especially the Palestinians in refugee camps.

The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States welcomed the United Nations observers to monitor Israel's crimes, but considered such a measure insufficient; the Council must take immediate action to impose penalties and deter Israel.

Report and communications (20 September-1 October). In pursuance of the Security Council resolution of 19 September, the Secretary-General reported to the Council on 20 September(43) that he had been informed that day that the Israeli Cabinet had decided to concur with the dispatch of an additional 40 United Nations observers to the Beirut area. Twenty-five observers had arrived in Beirut on 19 September, with the remaining 15 scheduled to arrive on 21 and 22 September. Observer Group Beirut had reported the situation generally calm in west Beirut, with a Lebanese battalion deploying in the Sabra and Shatila camp areas on 19 September and no major change observed in the deployment of Israeli forces.

The Secretary-General stated that he had requested the Commander of UNIFIL to comment on the possibility of sending UNIFIL units to the Beirut area. The answer was that, if required about 2,000 men could be sent to Beirut without seriously affecting the capacity of UNIFIL to perform its interim tasks in southern Lebanon.

Also on 20 September, Lebanon had informed him that it had formally requested the reconstitution of the multinational force. On the same date, PLO had informed him that it insisted that United Nations military forces or agreed multinational forces be deployed immediately to undertake effective safeguards. The President of the United States had announced that he had decided, together with France and Italy, to send the multinational force back to Beirut for a limited period.

Annexed to the report were the letters from Israel, Lebanon and the PLO observer. The Israeli letter included a Cabinet statement of 19 September relating to the massacre (see below). The PLO letter, as addressed to the Security Council President, was also transmitted on 20 September by Jordan.(13)

By a letter of 21 September,(27) France informed the Secretary-General that it had given an affirmative response to the Lebanese Government's request for its co-operation in the deployment in and around Beirut of a multinational force to support the operations of the Lebanese armed forces in order to restore Lebanese authority and ensure protection for the civilian population, France would have wished the creation of a United Nations force but, from consultations conducted by the Secretary-General, it was apparent that lengthy negotiations would be necessary before agreement could be reached on such a force.

Italy, by a letter of 23 September,(30) informed the Security Council President that it was proceeding, in close consultation with France and the United States as well as with the Lebanese Government, to assess the legal and operational aspects of sending a multinational force to Beirut.

By a letter of 24 September,(23) the United States conveyed a message from its President informing the Secretary-General that his Government had agreed, in response to Lebanon's request, to deploy about 1,200 men, together with military personnel from France and Italy, for a limited period of time, it was his firm intention and belief that the presence of the troops would assist the Lebanese Government and that they would not be involved in hostilities, although isolated incidents of violence could not be ruled out.

In two addenda of 27 and 30 September, the Secretary-General reported that all observers had arrived in Beirut by 22 September, bringing their total strength to 50. In liaison with the Lebanese armed forces, they had formed six mobile liaison teams and had established four static observation posts. In addition, the observers had carried out varied humanitarian tasks in co-operation with ICRC, the Lebanese Red Cross, local hospitals, and United Nations agencies and programmes. On 25 September, four observers had been killed when their vehicle hit a mine east of Beirut.

Since 21 September, according to the observers' reports, Israeli forces had been withdrawing from Beirut. As at 30 September, no presence of Israeli forces had been observed north and west of the separation line, and throughout the rest of Beirut and the airport only two Israeli check-points had been observed.

On 24 September, the report stated, contingents of the multinational force had begun arriving in Beirut. As at 30 September, the strength of the force was 3,997, deployed in three sectors in and around Beirut. The Lebanese armed forces (about 3,500 as at 30 September) were maintaining static positions, establishing check-points and conducting patrols throughout Beirut. Beirut International Airport, closed to civilian traffic since early June, had been reopened on 30 September.

By a letter of 1 October,(19, Lebanon transmitted a message from its Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister stating that the Government had requested deployment of the multinational force. France, Italy and the United States had agreed to participate in a force of approximately 3,500 men which would remain in Beirut for a limited time the Government did not expect the troops to become involved in hostilities.

General Assembly action (September). Resuming again its seventh emergency special session on the Palestine question, the General Assembly, by a resolution of 24 September,(47) condemned the massacre of Palestinian and other civilians on 17 September and called for a Security Council investigation. The Assembly expressed full support for the Council demands for an immediate cease-fire and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, and urged the Council to consider practical means in the event of continued Israeli failure to comply with its demands. The Assembly demanded strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence. It called for extensive humanitarian aid to the victims of the Israeli invasion. It also resolved that the Palestine refugees should be enabled to return to their homes and property.

The resolution, sponsored by 45 States, was adopted by a recorded vote of 147 to 2. Paragraph 2 was adopted by a recorded vote, requested by the United States, of 146 to none, and paragraph 4 by a recorded vote of 149 to none.

Senegal stated, in introducing the resolution as Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights that it stemmed from its sponsors' desire to create conditions for the restoration of peace to the Middle East, particularly Lebanon.

Lebanon welcomed particularly the demand for strict respect of its sovereignty.

Voting for the two paragraphs, but rejecting the text as a whole, the United States said it contained unacceptable language in several provisions and would rather prolong and embitter the conflict than assist in its resolution.

Though voting in favour, Chile, Guatemala and Uruguay expressed reservations on paragraph 7, saying it infringed on the Council's prerogatives. Guatemala and Norway reserved their positions on paragraph 9.

Canada, New Zealand and Norway reserved their positions on paragraph 6. Haiti said refuge for the Palestinians should be found on the basis of the 1967 Security Council resolution on a Middle East peace.(61) Reservations on a reference in the preamble to the PLO statement during the debate were expressed by Canada, Denmark and Norway.

Iran felt that certain elements were missing in the resolution, such as a strong and explicit statement that the Zionist base of imperialism must be destroyed.

During the debate, most speakers again denounced what they termed Israel's aggression. Sweden particularly condemned the indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilian targets. The PLO observer said the withdrawal of PL O from Beirut had only facilitated the disruption of law and order and of the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and authority over Beirut.

China and Thailand, among others, called for a cessation of hostilities and Israeli withdrawal, and restoration of Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. A number of States, including Sweden and Turkey, emphasized the necessity of the recognition and exercise of Palestinian rights.

The USSR said if talk was to be serious about real developments towards a Middle East settlement, first and foremost the aggressor must be forced to comply with Security Council decisions, leave Lebanon, cease provocation of the Syrian Arab Republic and refrain from its aggressive policy.

The role of the multinational force that had recently returned to Beirut was mentioned by a few speakers in the debate preceding adoption of the resolution. On behalf of the EC members, Denmark welcomed the decision to respond promptly to Lebanon's request for the force. For the African Group, however, Ghana, while appreciating the initiative, said it tended to circumvent the United Nations and undermine its role.

Other communications (September). By a letter of 3 September,(3) Israel, in response to the letter from Egypt of 26 August(26) (see above), stated that some countries paying lip-service to Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity had chosen to ignore the gradual and systematic subjugation of Lebanon by PLO and the Syrian Arab Republic the only agreed basis for a peaceful settlement remained the 1967 Security Council resolution(61) and the 1978 Camp David accords.

By a letter of 16 September,(20) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated that, in view of Israel's continued aggression in co-ordination with the United States, the Council must assume its responsibilities with regard to the application of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. On 20 September,(21) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya transmitted a message to the Secretary-General from its head of State deploring Israel's persistent aggression against Palestinians and Lebanese and the continued inability of the United Nations to stop that aggression, mainly because of the paralysis of the Council through the repeated use of the veto by the United States in the interest of Israeli aggression.

On 17 September,(33) Tunisia transmitted a statement of the same date by its Foreign Minister, on behalf of the President, expressing deep concern over the recent developments in Lebanon and calling for international measures to stop Israel's aggression.

On 20 September,(25) Denmark transmitted a statement issued on the same date by the EC Foreign Ministers at Brussels, strongly condemning the massacre; calling for measures to ensure the safety of the civilian population, including the strengthening of the United Nations observer team and the possible deployment of United Nations or multinational forces; demanding Israel's immediate withdrawal from west Beirut and favouring the earliest possible withdrawal of ail foreign forces except those authorized by the Lebanese Government, whose authority should be fully established over all its national territory.

On 24 September,(18) Lebanon transmitted a speech by its new President, Amin Gemayel, on the occasion of his taking the constitutional oath before Parliament on 23 September, calling for restoration of Lebanon's independence sovereignty and unity, and the withdrawal of all foreign armies from its soil.

A number of letters were received relating to the massacre near Beirut (see below).

Report of the Secretary-General (14 October). As the mandate of UNIFIL was due to expire on 19 October, the Secretary-General submitted on 14 October a report(45) on the developments relating to the Force since the renewal of its mandate by the Security Council on 17 August.(56)

The Secretary-General noted that throughout the period, the UNIFIL area had remained generally quiet, except for a few isolated incidents, and no armed clashes had been observed. The presence and activities of the Israeli forces in the UNIFIL area had significantly decreased and the activities of the de facto forces and the new local groups armed and uniformed by the Israeli forces, had been effectively contained. In addition to providing protection and humanitarian assistance to the local population, UNIFIL had extended its fullest co-operation to the humanitarian efforts of various United Nations programmes and ICRC. Logistic support of the Force, however, had continued to be problematic owing to the restrictions imposed by the Israeli forces on freedom of movement, although some improvements had occurred since 11 October. The deployment of UNIFIL had been affected by the temporary release on 29 September of 482 French soldiers to the multinational force in Beirut (see below).

The increase in population in the UNIFIL area of deployment from a few thousand in 1978 to more than a quarter of a million by June 1982, with an influx of approximately 150,000 since then, also had increased the responsibility of UNIFIL for security in the area.

Despite the difficulties, UNIFIL had carried out its interim tasks with dedication and efficiency. The existing situation, however, was clearly unsatisfactory. While the original mandate of the Force remained valid, the conditions under which it was expected to carry out that mandate had radically changed. Owing to the attitude of the Israeli authorities, it had not been possible for UNIFIL to play a useful role in providing humanitarian assistance outside its area of deployment.

The Secretary-General expressed his deep conviction that the withdrawal of UNIFIL in the current circumstances would have highly undesirable consequences. Lebanese forces were not in a position to assume full control of the area and the danger of violent incidents between the various factions could not be ruled out. Accordingly, and following the request of the Lebanese Government for a three-month extension, he recommended that the Council extend the UNIFIL mandate for a further limited period. While Israel's attitude had not been in favour of continued UNIFIL activity, he hoped for its co-operation.

Security Council action (18 October). By a resolution of 18 October,(59) the Security Council extended the mandate of UNIFIL for another three months, until 19 January 1983. The Council insisted that there should be no interference with UNIFIL operations and that it should have full freedom of movement. The Council authorized the Force to carry out interim humanitarian and administrative tasks as previously authorized (52) and to assist the Lebanese Government in ensuring the security of the inhabitants. It requested the Secretary-General to consult with the Government on ways to ensure full implementation of the Force's mandate.

The resolution, prepared during consultations, was adopted by 13 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (Poland, USSR).

Prior to its adoption, Lebanon, at its request, was invited to participate without vote in the discussion. Also, at the request of Jordan,(14) the Council decided that an invitation should be accorded to a PLO representative to participate in the debate and that the invitation would confer on it the same rights of participation as those conferred on a Member State invited under rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. e/ The decision on PLO was taken by a vote, requested by the United States, of 11 to 1 (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Japan, United Kingdom).

e/ See footnote a.

Addressing the Council, the President of Lebanon stated that although the Council's resolutions had not led to the liberation of Lebanon or put an end to the recurring invasions, they had condemned the aggression, confirmed the legitimacy of Lebanon's rights and contributed to preserving the country's unity and sovereignty. UNIFIL must be capable of restoring international peace and security in southern Lebanon and of assisting the Government in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area; however, the extension of the mandate could not be indefinite. The current objective was withdrawal of Israeli forces, but Lebanon also awaited the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces on its territory. The Lebanese were determined to live together, yet alone, in an indivisible and independent Lebanon.

Communications (November-December). By a letter of 5 November to the Security Council President,(4) Israel, in connection with the Council resolution of 18 October, reiterated its belief that in the new circumstances surrounding the Lebanon situation, the presence of UNIFIL was no longer called for; the security arrangements deemed necessary by Israel and Lebanon should be arrived at through negotiations between them.

By another letter of the same date to the Secretary- General,(5) Israel strongly objected to the publication of what it called biased and tendentious information on the events in Lebanon by the UN Chronicle, a monthly magazine issued by the United Nations Department of Public Information.

The United Kingdom informed the Secretary-General on 22 December(35) that it had decided, in response to a Lebanese request, to contribute to the multinational force in Lebanon a unit of about 80 men for three months, to be drawn from the United Kingdom contingent in the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus.

General Assembly action (December). Taking note of the decision of the Lebanese Government calling for the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese troops and forces not authorized by it, the General Assembly, by a resolution of 16 December,(49) called for strict respect of the territorial integrity, sovereignty, unity and political independence of Lebanon, and declared its support for the efforts of the Lebanese Government to restore its exclusive authority throughout Lebanese territory up to the internationally recognized boundaries.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 145 to none. An amendment by the Syrian Arab Republic, to include in the preamble reference to the Security Council resolutions of 5 June(50) and; 6 June(51) calling for a cease-fire and Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon, was adopted by a recorded vote of 140 to 1, with 1 abstention.

In a resolution on the self-determination of peoples, adopted on 3 December, the Assembly strongly condemned Israel's aggression against Lebanon and reiterated its support for the efforts to implement the Security Council resolutions, in particular those demanding immediate and unconditional Israeli withdrawal and respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.(45)

In an address to the Assembly on 18 October the Lebanese President said his country had been in a continuous state of war since 1975, fomented by third-party conflicts of interest, tension among States, competing Arab  ideologies, the armed and uncontrolled Palestinian presence, recurring Israeli invasions and incursions, and continued violation of Lebanese sovereignty and human rights. Lebanon had had enough bloodshed, destruction, dislocation and despair. The Palestinians should live in peace and self-determination in their land, and the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon should develop strong relations in the context of independence, sovereignty and mutual respect. The President called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon, and for help from the world community so that Lebanon could regain its independence and rebuild its economy.

Introducing the resolution of 16 December on behalf of its 33 sponsors, Colombia said the Lebanese Government was the only legal authority that could determine which troops were to remain on its territory to guarantee peace. The continued presence of foreign troops against the express will of the Lebanese people was highly disturbing to the region's stability and constituted an obstacle to peace.

Introducing the amendment, the Syrian Arab Republic said it sought unanimous support for efforts to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanon.

Voting in favour of the resolution but abstaining on the amendment, the United States expressed the view that the Council resolutions referred to, while they had received United States support at the time, were irrelevant to the current situation and a needless intrusion into an otherwise precisely focused and vitally important affirmation.

The USSR said the foundations for a settlement to the Lebanese situation were enshrined in the Council's demand for immediate cessation of all military activities and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from all of Lebanon; the reference in paragraph 1 to international support for the efforts of the Lebanese Government did not apply to the multinational force, which undermined United Nations efforts.

Voting against the amendment but for the resolution, Israel said it supported complete restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity and the restoration of the Government's authority throughout the country – and thus the removal of all non-Lebanese elements without exception – it being understood that nothing in the resolution affected Israel's right to demand that any future arrangements in Lebanon permanently and reliably precluded hostile action against Israel and its citizens from Lebanese soil.

Ecuador hoped that after the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese troops, the martyrdom of the Lebanese people would come to an end and peace would be established. Malta stressed that its affirmative vote did not necessarily imply full agreement with every provision.

Albania explained that it had not participated in the voting as some of the resolution's sponsors, in particular the United States, were responsible for the serious situation in Lebanon; further, the resolution was not specific about the troops that had to leave Lebanon and did not mention the fact that it was the Israeli occupying troops which had seriously infringed Lebanon's sovereignty and integrity.

Voting against the 3 December resolution on the self- determination of peoples, Australia and Denmark, the latter speaking for the EC members said they believed all foreign forces in Lebanon that were there without the Government's authorization should be withdrawn immediately. Uruguay, which voted in favour, also supported the Lebanese Government's insistence on the withdrawal of all foreign forces. Portugal, which abstained, said it had reservations on the provision on the Israel-Lebanon situation. Greece, on the other hand, though abstaining, supported efforts to ensure immediate Israeli withdrawal.

There were a number of comments on the situation between Israel and Lebanon during the Assembly debates on the Palestine question and on the Middle East situation in November and December.

Israel said the Arab leaders had unloaded PLO onto the back of Lebanon, which thereby became a symbol of what their intrigues could do to a democratic country with no muscle to resist them; for weeks Arab Governments had refused to accept PLO stragglers from Beirut, giving them asylum only after proof that they had been defeated.

Denmark, speaking for the EC members, called on all concerned to uphold the authority of the Lebanese Government, condemned all bloodshed in Lebanon, and called for the departure of Israeli forces and all other foreign forces except those authorized by the Lebanese Government, to take place progressively but within a fixed, short time-frame. Egypt called for the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon in accordance with a timetable; termination of all forms of foreign intervention in its internal affairs and the withdrawal of all foreign forces; respect for the legitimate authority in Lebanon and for the rights of all the Lebanese people; support for reconstruction; preservation of mutual security through international peace-keeping forces with emphasis on the United Nations role; and the rejection of all attempts to impose conditions on Lebanon.

Cyprus said the international community had been a bystander for months while the Palestinian people had been targeted for extinction, witnessing the naked military invasion of a Member State, the tragic siege of west Beirut, indiscriminate Israeli bombing unparalleled in brutality, and the killing of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. Jordan said Israel's long-prepared design against southern Lebanon meant the dismemberment of that country and the undermining of its independence and territorial integrity; if Israeli had more people, it would not hesitate to colonize southern Lebanon as it had the other occupied territories. The Syrian Arab Republic stated that Israel had destroyed the human, economic, social and political structures of Lebanon depriving the population of everything the Lebanese people had acquired through the efforts of their workers, farmers and intellectuals. Israel, said the United Arab Emirates, was making its withdrawal conditional on demands that were humiliating to Lebanese dignity and sovereignty.

Indonesia, making a point also endorsed by several others, thought the invasion had been planned in advance with the purpose of achieving a final solution to the Palestine question through the indiscriminate use of military force. Iraq said the invasion had been intended to exterminate Palestinian nationalism by exterminating the military arm of PLO and thereby eliminating the determination of the Palestinians to achieve national self- determination in their homeland.

Bangladesh said it had never doubted that Israel would not succeed in eliminating PLO and was proud to find the freedom fighters emerge stronger than ever. India stated that they had emerged with their determination strengthened, their sense of nationalism sharpened and their cause universally respected. Pakistan remarked that the martyrdom and sacrifices of thousands of men, women and children in the refugee camps in Lebanon had convinced the world as never before of the justice of the Palestinian cause. Poland said PLO had won another victory and the Palestinians had emerged from the fierce battles firmer, stronger, more determined and more consolidated.

Bulgaria said Israel intended to establish a springboard in Lebanon as a bulwark of its future anti-Arab policy. In the view of the German Democratic Republic, Israel was making arrangements for a long occupation in Lebanon. Expressing a similar view, Kuwait said that, by instigating sectarian dissent among Lebanese communities and making endless demands on the Government, Israel had proved that it was planning to stay in Lebanon indefinitely.

Botswana, urging Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, said Israel could not transform its neighbour into a puppet friend by force of arms. Finland said it had joined the rest of the international community in condemning Israel for its violence in Lebanon. Israel's invasion might have given it some temporary military gains, said Pakistan, but its outrageous actions in Lebanon had exposed it and its aggressive policies to the world. In Sweden's view, Israel's invasion of Lebanon would be seen not to have brought the fundamental problems closer to solution.

Qatar said the United States veto in the Security Council had enabled Israel to invade Lebanon, leaving the Council powerless even to condemn Israel. The Syrian Arab Republic asserted that the United States, though it had known in advance of Israel's plan to invade Lebanon, had done nothing to stop it; on the contrary, it had profited from the tragedy of the Lebanese and Palestinians. Israel had made broad use of the latest United States weapons during its invasion, the Ukrainian SSR remarked. The USSR said the United States had regarded Israel's war against the Lebanese and the Palestinians as a helpful means of radically refashioning the Middle East political map in accordance with its global ambitions; meanwhile, the announced intention by the United States to investigate Israel's use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians had vanished without trace, and 75 F-16 fighter aircraft promised to Israel by the United States had been delivered on schedule, despite talk of postponement at the height of the Lebanese war.

Spain said it acknowledged with bitterness and discouragement that most of the Security Council resolutions on the Israel-Lebanon situation had remained a dead letter because Israel flagrantly and stubbornly flouted United Nations decisions, if those who had the power to enforce compliance with resolutions used the measures available to them, the United Nations would stand to gain considerably.

Bhutan, Norway and Turkey urged the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon; Norway added that it supported United States diplomatic efforts to that end.

Viet Nam said that, should Israel refuse to withdraw from Lebanon and the other occupied territories, sanctions must be considered as laid down in Chapter VII of the Charter.

Several speakers urged steps to bring about national reconciliation in Lebanon. Japan hoped the people of Lebanon would unite in support of President Gemayel.

Draft resolution not adopted. (1) USSR, S/15347/Rev.1.

Letters and note verbale (nv)

Israel: (2) 3 Aug., S/15341; (3) 3 Sep., A/37/423- S/15386; (4) 5 Nov., S/15480; (5) 5 Nov., A/37/601.

Jordan: (6) 1 Aug. S/15332; (7) 2 Aug., S/15336, (8) 3 Aug., S/15340; (9) 5 Aug., S/15348; (10) 9 Aug., S/15350; (11) 12 Aug., S/15354; (12)18 Sep., S/15399; (13) 20 Sep., S/15404; (14) 18 Oct., S/15459 (nv).

Lebanon: (15) 1 Aug., S/15333; (16) 12 Aug., S/15353; (17) 16 Sep., S/15392; (15) 24 Sep., A/37/491; (19) 1 Oct., S/15445.

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: (20) 16 Sep., A/37/456-S/15397; (21) 20 Sep., A/37/472.

United States: (22) 20 Aug., A/37/393-S/15371; (23) 24 Sep., S/15435.

Others: (24) Australia: 12 Aug., S/15356; (25) Denmark: 20 Sep., A/37/473-S/15421;  (26) Egypt: 26 Aug., A/37/411- S/15376; (27) France: 21 Sep., S/15420; (28) German Democratic Republic: 11 Aug., A/37/383-S/15352; (29) Greece: 18 Sep., S/15401; (30) Italy: 23 Sep., S/15442; (31) Japan: 23 Aug., A/37/399-S/15372; (32) Nicaragua: 9 Aug., A/37/379 (S/15349); (33) Tunisia: 17 Sep., S/15396. (34) USSR: 4 Aug., A/37/374-S/15346; (35) United Kingdom: 22 Dec., S/15540; (36) Viet Nam: 10 Aug., A/37/385.

Reports. S-G, (37) S/15334 & Add.1, (38) S/15345 & Add.1,2, (39) S/15357, (40) S/15362, (41) S/15382 & Add.1,2, (42) S/15400, (43) S/15408 & Add.1,2, (44) A/37/525-S/15451, (45) S/15455 & Corr. 1.

Resolutions (1982). GA: (46) ES-7/6, 19 Aug., text following; (47) ES-7/9, 24 Sep., text following; (48) 37/43, para. 22, 3 Dec.; (49) 37/123 E, 16 Dec., text following.  SC: (50) 508 (1982), 5 June; (51) 509 (1982), 6 June; (52) 511 (1982), 18 June; (53) 516 (1982), 1 Aug., text following; (54) 517 (1982), 4 Aug., text following; (55) 518 (1982), 12 Aug., text following, (56) 519 (1982), 17 Aug., text following; (57) 520 (1982), 17 Sep., text following; (58) 521(1982), 19 Sep., text following; (59) 523 (1982) 18 Oct., text following.

Resolutions. (prior). (60) GA 273 (III), 11 May 1949 (YUN 1948-49, p. 405); (61) SC: 242 (1967), 22 Nov. 1967 (YUN 1967, p. 257); (62) 338 (1973), 22 Oct. 1973 (YUN 1973, p. 213).

Statement. (63) SC President, S/15342.

Meeting records. GA: A/ES-7/PV.12-19 (20-26 Apr.), 22 (25 June), 25-28, 29-32 (16-19 Aug. & 24 Sep.); A/37/PV.35, 92-96, 108 (18 Oct. & 6-16 Dec.).  SC: S/PV.2386-2391, 2392 & Corr.1, 2393-2396, 2400 (1 Aug.-18/19 Sep. & 18 Oct.).
Security Council resolution 516 (1982)
1 August 1982 Meeting 2386 Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/15330).

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982), 511 (1982), 512 (1982) and 513 (1982),

Recalling its resolution 515 (1982),

Alarmed by the continuation and intensification of military activities in and around Beirut,

Taking note of the latest massive violations of the cease-fire in and around Beirut,

1. Confirms its previous resolutions and demands an immediate cease-fire, and a cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border;

2. Authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, United Nations observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report back to the Security Council on compliance with the present resolution as soon as possible and not later than tour hours from now.
Security Council resolution 517 (1982)
4 August 1982 Meeting 2389  14-0-1

2-nation draft (S/15343/Rev.1), orally revised.

Sponsors: Jordan, Spain.

The Security Council,

Deeply shocked and alarmed by the deplorable consequences of the Israeli invasion of Beirut on 3 August 1982,

1. Reconfirms its resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982), 512 (1982), 513 (1982), 515 (1982) and 516 (1982);

2. Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon;

3. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with the above resolutions;

4. Calls for the prompt return of Israeli troops which have moved forward subsequent to 1325 hours, eastern daylight time, on 1 August 1982;

5. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut;

6. Expresses its appreciation for the efforts and steps taken by the Secretary General to implement the provisions of resolution 516 (1982) and authorizes him, as an immediate step, to increase the number of United Nations observers in and around Beirut;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution as soon as possible and not later than 1000 hours, eastern daylight time, on 5 August 1982;

8. Decides to meet at that time, if necessary, in order to consider the report of the Secretary General and, in case of failure to comply by any of the parties to the conflict, to consider adopting effective ways and means in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: China, France, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Panama, Poland, Spain, Togo, Uganda, USSR, United Kingdom, Zaire.

Against: None.

Abstaining: United States.
Security Council resolution 518 (1982)
12 August 1982  Meeting 2392  Adopted unanimously

6-nation draft (S/15355/Rev.1).

Sponsors: Guyana, Jordan, Panama, Togo, Uganda, Zaire.

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982), 511 (1982), 512 (1982), 513 (1982), 515 (1982), 516 (1982) and 517 (1982),

Expressing its most serious concern about continued military activities in Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut,

1. Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut;

2. Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the City of Beirut in order to permit the free entry of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population in Beirut;

3. Requests the United Nations observers in, and in the vicinity of, Beirut to report on the situation;

4. Demands that Israel co-operate fully in the effort to secure the effective deployment of the United Nations observers, as requested by the Government of Lebanon, and in such a manner as to ensure their safety;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to report as soon as possible to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution;

6. Decides to meet, if necessary, in order to consider the situation upon receipt of the report of the Secretary-General.
Security Council resolution 519 (1982)
17 August 1982  Meeting 2393  13-0-2

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/15367)

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 427 (1978), 434 (1978), 444 (1979), 450 (1979), 459 (1979), 467 (1980), 483 (1980), 488 (1981), 490 (1981), 498 (1981), 501 (1982) and 511 (1982),

Reaffirming its resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), as well as subsequent resolutions on the situation in Lebanon,

Having studied with grave concern the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and noting its conclusions and recommendations and the wishes of the Government of Lebanon as set out therein,

Bearing in mind the need, pending an examination by the Security Council of the situation in all its aspects, to preserve in place the capacity of the United Nations to assist in the restoration of the peace and of the authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon,

1. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of two months, that is, until 19 October 1982;

2. Authorizes the Force during that period to continue to carry out, in addition the interim tasks in the humanitarian and administrative fields assigned to it in paragraph 2 of resolution 511 (1982);

3. Calls on all concerned, taking into account paragraphs 5, 8 and 9 of the report of the Secretary-General on the Force, to extend full co-operation to it in the discharge of its tasks;

4. Supports the efforts of the Secretary-General, with a view to optimum use of observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, as envisaged by relevant resolutions of the Security Council;

5. Decides to consider the situation fully and in all its aspects before 19 October 1982.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: China, France, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Panama, Spain, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Poland, USSR.

General Assembly resolution ES-7/6
19 August 1982 Meeting 31       120-2-20 (roll-call vote)

35 nation draft (A/ES-7/L.5 and Add.1); agenda from 5.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo Cuba, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Yugoslavia.
Question of Palestine

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of Palestine at its resumed seventh emergency special session,

Having heard the statement of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the United Nations in particular the respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

Aware of the functions of the Security Council during its meetings relevant to the situation in the Middle East, in particular since 4 June 1982,

Expressing its deep regret that the Security Council has, so far, failed to take effective and practical measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to ensure implementation of its resolutions 508 (1982) of 5 June 1982 and 509 (1982) of 6 June 1982,

Alarmed that the situation in the Middle East has further worsened as a result of Israel's acts of aggression against the sovereignty of Lebanon and the Palestinian people in Lebanon,

Guided further by the purposes and principles of the United Nations, in particular to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression,

Mindful of the humanitarian principles and provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto and the obligations arising from the regulations annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1907,

Reaffirming its conviction that the question of Palestine is the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region will be achieved without the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights in Palestine,

Reaffirming once again that a just and comprehensive settlement of the situation in the Middle East cannot be achieved without the participation on an equal footing of all the parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people,

Expressing its indignation at the continuation and intensification of military activities by Israel within Lebanon, particularly in and around Beirut,

Recalling all its resolutions relevant to the question of Palestine,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 508 (1982) of 5 June 1982, 509 (1982) of 6 June 1982, 511 (1982) of 18 June 1982, 512 (1982) of 19 June 1982, 513 (1982) of 4 July 1982, 515 (1982) of 29 July 1982, 516 (1982) of 1 August 1982, 517 (1982) of 4 August 1982 and 518 (1982) of 12 August 1982,

1. Reiterates its affirmation of the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force;

2. Calls for the free exercise in Palestine of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination without external interference and to national independence;

3. Reaffirms its rejection of all policies and plans aiming at the resettlement of the Palestinians outside their homeland;

4. Demands that Israel respect and carry out the provisions of the previous resolutions of the General Assembly relating to the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, as well as the provisions of Security Council resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, in which the Council, inter alia:

(a) Determined that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, had no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constituted a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and also constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

(b) Strongly deplored the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and called upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

5. Demands also that Israel carry out the provisions of Security Council resolutions 509 (1982), 511 (1982), 512 (1982), 513 (1982), 515 (1982), 516 (1982), 517 (1982) and 518 (1982);

6. Urges the Secretary-General, with the concurrence of the Security Council and the Government of Lebanon and pending the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, to undertake effective measures to guarantee the safety and security of the Palestinian and Lebanese civilian population in south Lebanon;

7. Condemns Israel for its non-compliance with resolutions of the Security Council, in defiance of Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations;

8. Urges once again the Security Council, in the event of continued failure by Israel to comply with the demands contained in its resolutions 465 (1980), 508 (1982), 509 (1982), 515 (1982) and 518 (1982), to meet in order to consider practical ways and means in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter;

9. Requests once again the Secretary General to delegate a high-level commission to investigate and make an up-to-date assessment of the extent of loss of human life and material damage and to report, as soon as possible, on the result of this investigation to the General Assembly and the Security Council;

10. Requests the Secretary-General and organizations of the United Nations system, in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other non-governmental organizations to investigate the strict application by Israel of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other instruments in the case of those detained;

11. Calls once again upon the Secretary General to initiate contacts with all the parties to the Arab Israeli conflict in the Middle East, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, with a view to convening an international conference, under the auspices of the United Nations to find concrete ways and means of achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting solution, conducive to peace in conformity with the principles of the Charter and relevant resolutions;

12. Decides to adjourn the seventh emergency special session temporarily and to authorize the President of the latest regular session of the General Assembly to resume its meetings upon request from Member States.

Roll-call vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Mali, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Security Council resolution 520 (1982)
17 September 1982      Meeting 2395    Adopted unanimously

Draft by Jordan (S/15394/Rev.1).

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 15 September 1982,

Condemning the murder of Bashir Gemayel, the constitutionally elected President-elect of Lebanon, and every effort to disrupt by violence the restoration of a strong, stable government in Lebanon,

Having listened to the statement by the Permanent Representative of Lebanon,

Taking note of the determination of Lebanon to ensure the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon,

1. Reaffirms its resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982) and 516 (1982) in all their components;

2. Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions;

3. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions;

4. Calls again for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon;

5. Reaffirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982), which call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination, and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations,

6. Supports the efforts of the Secretary-General to implement resolution 516 (1982), concerning the deployment of United Nations observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut, and requests all the parties concerned to co-operate fully in the application of that resolution;

7. Decides to remain seized of the question and asks the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council informed of developments as soon as possible and not later than within twenty-four hours.

Security Council resolution 521 (1982)
19 September 1982      Meeting 2396   Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/15402).

The Security Council,

Appalled at the massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut,

Having heard the report of the Secretary-General at its 2396th meeting,

Noting that the Government of Lebanon has agreed to the dispatch of United Nations observers to the sites of greases human suffering and losses in and around that city,

1. Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut;

2. Reaffirms once again its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982), which call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination, and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations;

3. Authorizes the Secretary-General, as an immediate step, to increase the number of United Nations observers in and around Beirut from ten to fifty, and insists that there shall be no interference with the deployment of the observers and that they shall have full freedom of movement;

4. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Government of Lebanon, to ensure the rapid deployment of those observers in order that they may contribute in every way possible within their mandate to the effort to ensure full protection for the civilian populations;

5. Requests the Secretary-General, as a matter of urgency, to initiate appropriate consultations and, in particular, consultations with the Government of Lebanon on additional steps which the Security Council might take, including the possible deployment of United Nations forces to assist that Government in ensuring full protection for the civilian populations in and around Beirut and requests him to report to the Council within forty-eight hours;

6. Insists that all concerned must permit United Nations observers and forces established by the Security Council in Lebanon to be deployed and to discharge their mandates and, in this connection, solemnly calls attention to the obligation of all Member States under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations, to accept and carry out the decisions of the Council in accordance with the Charter;

7. Requests the Secretary General to keep the Security Council informed on an urgent and continuing basis.

General Assembly resolution ES-7/9
24 September 1982      Meeting 32    147-2 (recorded vote)

45-nation draft (A/ES-71/L.8); agenda item 5.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Question of Palestine

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of Palestine at its resumed seventh emergency special session,

Having heard the statement of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,

Recalling and reaffirming, in particular, its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948,

Appalled at the massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 508 (1982) of 5 June 1982, 509 (1982) of 6 June 1982, 513 (1982) of 4 July 1982, 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982 and 521 (1982) of 19 September 1982,

Taking note of the reports of the Secretary-General relevant to the situation, particularly his report of 18 September 1982,

Noting with regret that the Security Council has so far not taken effective and practical measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to ensure implementation of its resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982),

Referring to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and to the obligations arising from the regulations annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1907,

Deeply concerned at the sufferings of the Palestinian and Lebanese civilian populations,

Noting the homelessness of the Palestinian people,

Reaffirming the imperative need to permit the Palestinian people to exercise their legitimate rights,

1. Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian and other civilians in Beirut on 17 September 1982;

2. Urges the Security Council to investigate, through the means available to it, the circumstances and extent of the massacre of Palestinian and other civilians in Beirut on 17 September 1982, and to make public the report on its findings as soon as possible;

3. Decides to support fully the provisions of Security Council resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), in which the Council, inter alia, demanded that:

(a) Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon;

(b) All parties to the conflict cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border;

4. Demands that all Member States and other panics observe strict respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;

5. Reaffirms the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force;

6. Resolves that, in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) and subsequent relevant resolutions the Palestinian refugees should be enabled to return to their homes and property from which they have been uprooted and displaced, and demands that Israel comply unconditionally and immediately with the present resolution;

7. Urges the Security Council, in the event of continued failure by Israel to comply with the demands contained in resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982) and the present resolution, to meet in order to consider practical ways and means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

8. Calls upon all States and international agencies and organizations to continue to provide the most extensive humanitarian aid possible to the victims of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon;

9. Requests the Secretary-General to prepare a photographic exhibit of the massacre of 17 September 1982 and to display it in the United Nations visitors' hall;

10. Decides to adjourn the seventh emergency special session temporarily and to authorize the President of the latest regular session of the General Assembly to resume its meetings upon request from Member States.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Security Council resolution 523 (1982)
13-0-2 Meeting 240      18 October 1982

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/15458).

The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the President of the Republic of Lebanon,

Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978) and 519 (1982),

Reaffirming its resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), as well as all subsequent resolutions on the situation in Lebanon,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General and taking note of its conclusions and recommendations,

Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon,

1. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of three months, that is, until 19 January 1983;

2. Insists that there shall be no interference under any pretext with the operations of the Force and that it shall have full freedom of movement in the discharge of its mandate;

3. Authorizes the Force during that period to carry out, with the consent of the Government of Lebanon, interim tasks in the humanitarian fan and administrative fields, as indicated in resolutions 511 (1982) and 519 (1982), and to assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the security of all the inhabitants of the area without any discrimination;

4. Requests the Secretary-General, within the three-month period to consult with the Government of Lebanon and to report to the Security Council on ways and means of ensuring the full implementation of the mandate of the Force as defined in resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), and the relevant decisions of the Council;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of his consultations.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: China, France, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Panama, Spain, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Poland, USSR.

General Assembly resolution 37/123 E
16 December 1982      Meeting 108     145-0 (recorded vote)

33-nation draft (A/37/L.53 & Corr.1 & Add.1), amended by Syrian Arab Republic (A/37/L.59); agenda item 34.

Sponsors: Austria, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Guyana, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Mali, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The General Assembly,

Having heard the address by the President of the Lebanese Republic on 18 October 1982,

Taking note of the decision of the Government of Lebanon calling for the withdrawal from Lebanon of all non-Lebanese troops and forces which are not authorized by the Government to deploy therein,

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 508 (1982) of 5 June 1982 and 509 (1982) of 6 June 1982,

1. Calls for strict respect of the territorial integrity, sovereignty, unity and political independence of Lebanon and supports the efforts of the Government of Lebanon, with regional and international endorsement to restore the exclusive authority of the Lebanese State throughout its territory up to the internationally recognized boundaries;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly on the implementation of the present resolution.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: None.
Protection of Palestinian refugees and civilians in Lebanon

During and after the armed conflict in Lebanon which began in June 1982, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the Commission on Human Rights called for measures to protect Palestinian refugees and civilians in the country, as well as persons detained by the Israeli forces in Lebanon. Such calls were made with particular urgency following the massacre of civilians in the Beirut area on 17/18 September. They were coupled with appeals for emergency humanitarian assistance by United Nations organizations and Governments.

To express its concern at the number of Palestinian and Lebanese children victimized by the hostilities, the Assembly decided in August to commemorate 4 June of each year as the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression It also called in December for the restitution of Palestinian cultural property seized by Israeli forces. The World Assembly on Aging, in August, condemned aggression against civilian areas and the use of weapons of mass destruction causing indiscriminate casualties, particularly among the elderly.

Security Council action. During the 10 weeks of active hostilities in southern Lebanon (4 June-12 August) and in the unsettled period afterwards the Security Council called frequently for urgent steps to protect Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. It made repeated reference to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the obligations arising from regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907, both concerned with the treatment of military and civilian persons during wartime.

The first such Council action was taken on 18 June when, after being informed by the Secretary-General that UNIFIL was endeavouring to extend protection and humanitarian assistance to the population in its area of operation in southern Lebanon, it authorized the Force to carry out those interim tasks in addition to its regular peace-keeping functions.(11) This authorization was continued when the Council extended the Forces mandate twice more, on 17 August(16) and 18 October.(19)

On 19 June, expressing deep concern at the sufferings of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, it called on all parties to the conflict to respect the rights of civilians and refrain from violence against them.(12) Again on 4 July,(13) the Council called for respect for the rights of the civilian population in Lebanon without discrimination. By two later resolutions, dated 29 July(14) and 12 August,(15) it demanded that Israel lift immediately its blockade of Beirut to permit the dispatch of supplies to civilians.

Receiving further reports of killings after a formal cease-fire finally went into effect in August, the Council, by resolutions of 17 September(17) and 19 September,(18) repudiated all acts of violence against civilians. By the latter resolution, which closely followed news of the massacre of civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps near Beirut (see below), it also requested the Secretary-General to ensure the rapid deployment of United Nations observers to help ensure protection for civilians, and to initiate urgent consultations on additional steps to assist the Lebanese Government in that regard. The United Nations was later informed that, at Lebanon's request, France, Italy and the United States were sending contingents of a multinational force to assist the Lebanese armed forces carry out their responsibilities around Beirut. The first elements of that force began arriving on 24 September.

Economic and Social Council action. Stressing its support for the victims of the Israeli invasion, the Economic and Social Council, in a resolution of 27 July on assistance to the Palestinians in Lebanon,(6) called on Israel to release detained civilians in Lebanon, to apply fully the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and to apply the Geneva Conventions to imprisoned combatants.

Explaining its position on these provisions, Australia, which voted for the resolution as a whole, said it regarded the reference to the Geneva Conventions as an important humanitarian element of the resolution. Brazil noted that the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war applied to regular armed forces; however, because the resolution was concerned with an exceptional situation in which the Palestinians were fighting for rights recognized by the General Assembly, it had voted in favour of the resolution without prejudging its position on similar situations in the future. Canada called for the full application of the Conventions on protection of civilians and imprisoned combatants.

In its response of 27 October, transmitted to the Assembly in a report of the Secretary-General on implementation of the Council resolution,(5) Israel stated that it had applied the four Geneva Conventions since the commencement of its operations in Lebanon and was making every effort to safeguard civilians against the effects of hostilities. While the Third Geneva Convention relating to prisoners of war was being applied to Syrian soldiers, PLO members were not entitled to prisoner-of-war status in view of the fact that they had consistently violated accepted norms of civilization by choosing the unarmed and defenceless as their exclusive target and that the Convention did not apply to terrorist organizations. However, the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention on protection of civilians were being applied to PLO detainees and Israel had granted ICRC officials permission to visit them.

Action by the Sub-Commission on discrimination and minorities. On 17 August,(1) the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities approved for transmission to Israel a text voicing grave concern at the human suffering resulting from the invasion of Lebanon and the blockade and bombardment of Beirut, and expressing the urgent wish that all military operations would stop immediately and that international humanitarian norms on the protection of civilians and war prisoners would be respected (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVIII).

In a resolution of 8 September on human rights violations in Israeli-occupied Lebanon and the territories occupied by Israel,(20) the Sub-Commission recommended that the Commission on Human Rights: condemn Israel for its invasion of Lebanon and destruction of Lebanese cities and Palestine refugee camps, declare that Israel s grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions in Lebanon and the occupied territories could be assimilated to war crimes; urge Israel to grant Palestinian combatants prisoner-of-war status and to release all detained civilians; and call on Israel to comply with the Security Council resolutions asking for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

General Assembly action. In its resolution of 19 August on the Israel-Lebanon situation,(7) the General Assembly urged the Secretary-General to undertake effective measures to guarantee the safety and security of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in southern Lebanon. In addition, the Secretary-General and United Nations organizations were requested, in co-operation with ICRC and other non-governmental organizations, to investigate Israel's application of international instruments relating to detained persons.

In a resolution of 24 September,(8) the Assembly resolved that the Palestinian refugees be enabled to return to their homes and property, and demanded that Israel comply unconditionally and immediately.

An Assembly resolution of 16 December(9) on the protection of Palestine refugees was concerned largely with the situation of those refugees in Lebanon. The Assembly called on Israel to desist from preventing Palestinians registered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) as refugees in Lebanon from returning to their camps there, and to allow the resumption of UNRWA health, medical, educational and social services to the Palestinians in the refugee camps in southern Lebanon. It requested the UNRWA Commissioner-General to provide housing, in consultation with the Lebanese Government, to refugees whose houses had been demolished or razed by the Israeli forces, and to prepare a report on the damage caused to the Palestine refugees and their property as well as to UNRWA facilities, as a result of Israel's aggression. The Assembly urged effective measures by the Secretary-General to guarantee the security and rights of Palestine refugees in general, and called on Israel to release all detained Palestine refugees.

This resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 127 to 2, with 16 abstentions, following its approval by the Special Political Committee on 3 December by a recorded vote of 97 to 2, with 16 abstentions.

By its resolution of 17 December on assistance to Palestinians (10) the Assembly called on Governments and United Nations bodies to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian victims of the invasion and endorsed the Economic and Social Council resolution of 27 July.

Introducing the resolution on protection of Palestine refugees – sponsored also by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Indonesia and Yugoslavia – Pakistan said that, as UNRWA had not been able to restore its services in Lebanon, it was time for the international community to do everything possible to make Israel respect its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations.

Lebanon, which voted for the resolution, said the Palestinians legally residing in Lebanon, like Lebanese nationals and other legal residents, were under the protection of Lebanese law; the problem was to obtain the withdrawal of non-Lebanese armed forces from the country so that the Government could provide protection for everyone residing there.

Canada, which abstained, questioned whether UNRWA resources should be devoted to the preparation of a report on damage in Lebanon when it was already so greatly burdened with humanitarian priorities. Finland shared these doubts.

Comments on the provision urging measures by the Secretary-General to protect Palestine refugees in the territories occupied by Israel were made by the United Nations Legal Counsel and by Austria, Canada, Denmark (for the EC members), Finland, Ireland, the Philippines, Portugal, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela (see below, under PALESTINE REFUGEES).

During the Assembly debate on the Middle East situation in December, Jordan asked that the Presidents of the Assembly and the Security Council seek information about the fate of 5,000 missing persons whom the Israelis had reportedly rounded up in Beirut for interrogation.

Communications. By a letter of 7 December,(2) Jordan transmitted the testimony of a Canadian physician who had reported witnessing Israeli crimes against the civilians of southern Lebanon and inhabitants of Palestine refugee camps there, including bombing and shelling of camps and hospitals and beatings of prisoners. By a letter of the same date,(3) Jordan transmitted the account of two Norwegians arrested by Israeli authorities, detailing alleged maltreatment of prisoners by Israeli soldiers at Saida, Lebanon.

As Chairman of the Arab Group, Yemen conveyed on the same date a letter of 3 December to the Secretary-General from the PLO observer, stating that two Palestinians had been killed and four others wounded by Israeli soldiers on 2 December at the Ansar concentration camp in southern Lebanon, where about 5,000 to 6,000 Palestinians and Lebanese were said to be detained under inhuman conditions.(4)

Decision (1982). (1) SCPDPM (report, E/CN.4/1983/4): 1982/2, 17 Aug.

Letters. Jordan, 7 Dec.: (2) A/37/704-S/15512, (3) A/37/705- S/15513. (4) Yemen for Arab Group: 7 Dec., A/37/708.

Report. (5) S-G, A/37/571.

Resolutions (1982). (6) ESC: 1982/48, paras. 4 & 5, 27 July.  GA: (7) ES-7/6, paras. 6 & 10, 19 Aug., (9) ES-7/9, para. 6, 24 Sep., (9) 37/120 J, 16 Dec., text following; (10) 37/134, paras. 2 & 3, 17 Dec.  SC: (11) 511 (1982), para. 2, 18 June; (12) 512 (1982), para. 1, 19 June; (13) 513 (1982), para. 1, 4 July; (14) 515 (1982), 29 July; (15) 518 (1982), para. 2, 12 Aug.; (16) 519 (1982), para. 2, 17 Aug.; (17) 520 (1982), para. 5, 17 Sep., (18) 521 (1982), 19 Sep.; (19) 523 (1982), para. 3, 18 Oct. (20) SCPDPM: 1982/18, para. 1, 8 Sep.

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.24, 26-33, 42, 44, 15 (9 Nov.-6 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.108 (16 Dec.)
General Assembly resolution 37/120 J
16 December 1982     Meeting 108   127-2-16 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/723) by recorded vote (97-2-16), 3 December (meeting 44);

6-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.24); agenda item 65.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.
Protection of Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 508 (1982) of 5 June 1982, 509 (1982) of 6 June 1982, 511 (1982) of 18 June 1982, 512 (1982) of 19 June 1982, 513 (1982) of 4 July 1982, 515 (1982) of 29 July 1982, 517 (1982) of 4 August 1982, 518 (1982) of 12 August 1982, 519 (1982) of 17 August 1982, 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982 and 523 (1982) of 18 October 1982,

Recalling General Assembly resolutions  ES-7/5 of 26 June 1982, ES-7/6 of 24 August 1982,  ES-7/8 of 19 August 1982 and  ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982,

Having considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982, and his special report covering the period from 6 June to 31 August 1982,

Referring to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and to the obligations arising from the regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907,

Deeply distressed at the sufferings of the Palestinians resulting from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon,

1. Urges the Secretary-General, in consultation with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and pending the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, to undertake effective measures to guarantee the safety and security and the legal and human rights of the Palestine refugees in the occupied territories;

2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to release forthwith all detained Palestine refugees, including the employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East;

3. Also calls upon Israel to desist forthwith from preventing those Palestinians registered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East as refugees in Lebanon from returning to their camps in Lebanon;

4. Further calls upon Israel to allow the resumption of health, medical, educational and social services rendered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to the Palestinians in the refugee camps in southern Lebanon;

5. Requests the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to co-ordinate his activities in rendering those services with the Government of Lebanon, the host country;

6. Urges the Commissioner-General to provide housing, in consultation with the Government of Lebanon, to the Palestine refugees whose houses were demolished or razed by the Israeli forces, in order to protect them from the severity of the weather;

7. Requests the Commissioner-General, in consultation with the Government of Lebanon, to prepare a report on the totality of the damage caused to the Palestine refugees and their property and to the Agency's facilities as well as those of other international bodies as a result of the Israeli aggression;

8. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Commissioner-General, to report to the General Assembly before the opening of its thirty-eighth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, United Kingdom.

Massacre in the Beirut area

On 18 September 1982, hundreds of Palestine refugees were found murdered in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, on the southern outskirts of Beirut. Upon receipt of a report from the Secretary-General, the Security Council, on 19 September, condemned the massacre and requested the initiation of consultations on possible assistance to the Lebanese Government in ensuring full protection for the civilians in and around Beirut. The massacre was also condemned by the General Assembly in September and December. On the latter occasion, the Assembly resolved that the massacre was an act of genocide. A number of countries expressed horror, shock and condemnation in communications to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council.

Report of the Secretary-General. Initial information on the massacre was included in a report of 18 September by the Secretary-General to the Security Council.(21)

The report gave an account submitted on the same date by United Nations observers in Beirut. They reported that fighting in the Sabra camp had been in progress on 17 September and the presence of Kataeb units (the military branch of the Phalange Party) had been observed at Bir Hassan, in the hospital and the airport areas, in the vicinity of the Sabra camp. West Beirut had been reported under Israeli control, with the exception of the Sabra camp area. In the afternoon, sporadic explosions had been heard and before midnight flares had been seen over the Sabra area. In the morning of 18 September, all of west Beirut had been under Israeli control. Kataeb units had again been observed in the vicinity of the Sabra camp, as well as at least 1,000 Kataeb soldiers with tanks and vehicles in the airport area. According to the Lebanese Army, the units seen in the Bir Hassan, Sabra and airport areas had been Kataeb units mixed with Lebanese de facto forces from southern Lebanon.

When on the morning of 18 September the observers reached the camp, which was dominated by two Israeli positions to the west, they had found many clusters of bodies of men, women and children in civilian clothes who appeared to have been massacred in groups of 10 or 20.

The Secretary-General's report also gave an Israeli account of circumstances surrounding this event, as given in messages on 18 September from the Foreign Ministry and the representative to the United Nations. The Foreign Ministry stated that Israel's forces had been deployed west of the Fakhani, Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, and had left access from the east open in the expectation that the Lebanese Army would enter the camps and take up positions, as called for by the plan of United States Special Envoy Philip Habib on the disengagement of forces around Beirut. As that had not happened, Israeli forces, on finding out what had occurred at the camps during the night, had surrounded them on the morning of 18 September to protect the population. A message from the representative of Israel added that an arrangement had been reached between the Israeli and Lebanese forces for the latter to enter the three camps on 19 September.

Expressing shock and horror at the reports of the killings, the Secretary-General called urgently for an end to the violence. In a statement delivered to him, France, Italy and the United States had urged the immediate dispatch of United Nations observers to the sites of the greatest human suffering and losses. Lebanon had informed him that it concurred with that request.

Security Council action. On 18 September,(3) Jordan transmitted a letter from the PLO observer to the Security Council President charging that innocent Palestinian civilians in refugee camps and other parts of Beirut were being massacred by Israeli agents, whose entry had been facilitated by Israeli troops which had surrounded the camps. Holding Israel primarily responsible, PLO called on the Security Council to dispatch an international military force to provide protection to the Palestinians in Beirut and other parts of Lebanon.
Meeting at the urgent request of Jordan, followed by one from Greece,(11) the Council unanimously adopted on 19 September a resolution(26) condemning the massacre, reaffirming previous calls for respect for the rights of civilians, authorizing an increase in the number of United Nations observers in and around Beirut from 10 to 50, and requesting the Secretary-General to consult urgently on additional steps, including possible deployment of United Nations forces.

Virtually all speakers in the debate preceding adoption of the resolution – among them China, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, France, Greece, Guyana, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Panama, Poland, the Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, the USSR and the United Kingdom – expressed shock and indignation at the massacre.

The PLO observer said the camp had been stormed by Israeli commandos who had sought the help of some militiamen from the forces of Major Saad Haddad and who had butchered 1,500 civilians, mostly women and children. The sending of observers and of a monitoring team was not sufficient; the Council should at least provide some safeguards to the civilians in Beirut and especially the Palestinians in refugee camps.

Israel was held responsible for the massacre, either directly or indirectly, by most of the speakers, including Algeria, China, Egypt, Guyana, Jordan, Poland, Spain, the Syrian Arab Republic and the USSR. Spain said the Israeli occupation had been a cover for atrocities.

Algeria said the massacre could not have taken place without Israel's collaboration and without the weakness and passivity of the international community, which had avoided using firm language with the aggressor. Guyana charged that Israel had used the opportunity of the withdrawal of the Palestinian freedom fighters to take control of west Beirut and had caused the planned and premeditated massacre to be perpetrated. Jordan alleged that under the protection of Israeli tanks, which had encircled the refugee camps and cut them off from the rest of Beirut, the Israelis and their henchmen had committed the massacres. Similarly, the USSR said Israeli troops had set up their tanks around the camps and opened the gates so that their henchmen – the Phalangist soldiers and the de facto forces of Major Haddad – could complete their crimes. Kuwait said the agreements guaranteed by the United States had been savagely flouted by the planning and sponsoring of an extermination campaign against the Palestinians in the camps.

In Egypt's opinion, the massacre had been calculated to exacerbate tension and undermine conciliation and restoration efforts, and to create conditions that would serve as a pretext for Israel's continued occupation of Beirut and Lebanon. The Syrian Arab Republic said the massacres were the extension of a plan to achieve three goals: to liquidate the Palestinians and PLO, to dismantle Lebanon by rekindling a civil war and to divert attention from the execution of a master-plan aiming at the final liquidation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Israel rejected the allegations and reiterated the account it had given to the Secretary-General and which had been included in his report (see above).

Stating that the Kataeb party had denied any participation in the massacre, Lebanon said such information was a conspiracy aimed at preventing the Lebanese from cementing their unity and moving forward to restore national sovereignty. The Lebanese Army, which had started to assume its responsibilities and establish control over Beirut, had been thwarted in its effort by the Israeli occupation beginning on 15 September.

The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States said that by trying to put the blame on those whom it called "extreme Phalangists", thus ascribing the crime to a mainstream political force in Lebanon which had provided the President-elect and a new presidential candidate, Israel was attempting to pre-empt the constitutional process and make the candidate controversial, no Lebanese could have reached the camps unless brought in by Israel.

As requested by the Council, the Secretary-General reported on 20, 27 and 30 September on implementation of the resolution.(22) He stated that deployment of Lebanese armed forces in the Sabra, Shatila and Burj Al-Barajneh refugee camp areas had started on 19 September, and three United Nations observer teams had also been patrolling the area. No major change in the deployment of the Israeli forces had been observed and no Kataeb or de facto militia units had been observed in the general west Beirut area.

By a letter of 20 September attached to the report, Israel transmitted a Cabinet statement of 19 September, rejecting as baseless all accusations that it bore any blame for the tragedy at Shatila, adding that without intervention of its forces there would have been much greater loss of life, in a place where there was no position of the Israel Army, a Lebanese unit that had entered a refugee centre where terrorists had been hiding had caused many civilian casualties, to Israel s deep grief and regret.

Communications (September). By a letter of 20 September,(1) the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People conveyed to the Secretary-General the Committee s horror and consternation at the massacre. Reiterating its conviction that such tragedies could have been avoided had the Security Council taken positive action to implement the Committee s 1976 recommendations (see above, under PALESTINE QUESTION) the Committee urged the Council to do so without further delay.

The massacre was condemned in a number of other communications of the same date, from Cuba, as Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries;(8) Egypt, transmitting a message from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs;(9) France, transmitting an 18 September statement by the President and a 17 September statement by the Foreign Minister, the latter denouncing the Israeli offensive in west Beirut and calling for an immediate return to previous positions;(10) Jordan, transmitting a letter from the Foreign Minister;(4) Madagascar, transmitting a 19 September message from the President;(15) and Suriname.(18)

Horror, shock and condemnation were also voiced in letters from Austria (21 September, transmitting a letter of that date from the Foreign Minister); (6) China (22 September, transmitting statements of 19 September by the Foreign Ministry spokesman and 22 September by the Premier of the State Council); (7) Guyana (23 September, transmitting a 22 September Foreign Ministry statement); (12) Jamaica (23 September, transmitting a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to the House of Representatives); (13) Mongolia (22 September, transmitting a government statement of that date); (16) Pakistan (23 September, transmitting a 19 September statement by the President); (17) the USSR (21 September, transmitting a 19 September TASS statement); (19) and Viet Nam (23 September, transmitting a 22 September message from the President of the Council of State to the PLO Chairman).(20)

By his letter, the Austrian Foreign Minister also suggested that the Security Council dispatch an investigation commission to Beirut. In a response of 23 September,(2) the Council President stated that Council members were giving serious consideration to the possible dispatch of such a commission and that he had been in contact with the parties, in particular the Lebanese Government.

General Assembly action (September). The massacre of Palestinian and other civilians at Beirut was condemned by the General Assembly in a resolution adopted on 24 September, dealing with several aspects of the Israel-Lebanon situation and the Palestine question.(23) A paragraph urging the Security Council to investigate the circumstances and extent of the massacre, and to make public its findings as soon as possible, was adopted by a recorded vote, requested by the United States, of 146 to none. Under another provision, the Secretary-General was requested to prepare a photographic exhibit of the massacre for display in the visitors hall at United Nations Headquarters.

Introducing the resolution, Senegal, as Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, said the carnage at Sabra and Shatila – the direct outcome of the Israeli invasion of west Beirut in violation of the evacuation agreements to which PLO had been a party – opened a new chapter in the campaign of intimidation and terrorism against the Palestinians, whom Israel sought to stifle at all costs. Concerning the provision for an exhibit, Senegal noted that a similar one had been organized on the occasion of the shooting of South Africans at Sharpeville in 1960.

Though voting in favour, Bolivia, Denmark (also for Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom), Guatemala, Haiti, Norway, and Trinidad and Tobago had reservations with regard to the preparation of an exhibit; Haiti felt an exhibit would not contribute to peace and might inflame antagonisms. In Costa Rica s opinion, the massacre demonstrated the urgency of a Middle East solution, which could not be found as long as the Palestinians did not have a State. New Zealand also stressed the urgency of a settlement and called for immediate Israeli withdrawal. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated that the resolution did not measure up to the tragedy in that it did not indicate Israel and the United States as responsible.

During the debate, many speakers expressed outrage at the massacre and condemned it as a crime against humanity. Pakistan, speaking for the non-Arab Asian States of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, stated that the massacre was the direct consequence of Israel's invasion of Lebanon and had rightly exposed Israel to world condemnation.

In the opinion of the German Democratic Republic, the mass murder of defenceless Palestinians was irrefutable proof that Israel was trying to solve the Palestinian question by genocide. The crime had not been the first of its kind, the PLO observer stated, and Kuwait, speaking for the Arab Group, added that it would not be the last; all the massacres had the aim of terrorizing the Palestinians to make them abandon their claims to their rights and their lands and to pave the way for the creation of Greater Israel.

China said that, by plotting the cold-blooded massacre, the Israeli authorities owed a new debt of blood to the Palestinians. Although perhaps not committed by the Israeli forces directly, Ghana stated on behalf of the African Group, authentic accounts had revealed their involvement and assistance. Denmark, speaking for the EC members said it was clear that the massacre had taken place at a time when Israeli forces had assumed control in the area. Sweden said the Israeli Government had admitted that its Army had made arrangements for militia forces to enter the camps; therefore, it should not be difficult for the Israeli authorities to identify the perpetrators so that they could be brought to justice. The USSR stated that Israel's attempts to absolve itself could not conceal the truth that the killing had been planned in advance and carried out under the control of the Israeli Army; responsibility for the crime, however, lay also with those who had put arms in its hands. Israel was also held responsible by others, including Romania, Turkey and Yugoslavia (for the non-aligned countries in Europe). Thailand felt that Israel could not escape at least moral responsibility, as the atrocities had followed its violation of the cease-fire.

Israel, on the other hand, said the accusations were part of the onslaught against Israel for which the United Nations had become notorious, despite the unchallenged fact that the massacre had not been perpetrated by Israelis. The United Nations had not acted on reports of massacres in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and Uganda; instead of heeding Israel's repeated calls to look into the true causes of Lebanon's agony, it had given the terrorist PLO and the Syrian occupation army a free hand in Lebanon and the opportunity to brutalize the country.

Kuwait was convinced that the massacre had been premeditated and planned since Israel's incursion into west Beirut; it quoted from a 22 September statement of an emergency meeting of Arab Foreign Ministers at Tunis, Tunisia, declaring that the United States shared legal and moral responsibility as it had provided the Lebanese Government and PLO with guarantees that it would protect the security of civilians and refugees as well as prevent the Israeli forces from entering west Beirut. A similar view was expressed by Cuba, which said the recent events in Beirut revealed Israel's true character, cynicism and disdain for basic human values. Those who had given Israel succour despite its transgressions, stated Ghana on behalf of the African Group, bore some of the responsibility for the tragedy because of their failure to discipline the warmongering Israeli Government.

The United States was charged with heavy responsibility by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, on the ground that it had imposed an agreement whereby the Palestinian resistance was evacuated from Beirut to open the way for the Israeli forces and the lackeys of zionism, such as Major Haddad and other isolationist militia. In Pakistan's opinion, it was ironical that all the resources of the United States could not prevent Israel from setting in motion a process which ended inevitably in the massacre. Albania said Israel and the United States had used every means to deceive world public opinion and to dissociate themselves from the crime; Israel had also benefited from the anti-Arab policies of the USSR, which formally declared its support for the victims but took advantage of events to serve its interests as a super-Power and to create the best possibilities for itself in the course of its rivalry and dealings with the United States.

Israel announced that on 24 September its Government had requested the President of its Supreme Court to head a commission to investigate various aspects of the massacre. Lebanon said it alone had the right to conduct an on-site investigation and had started proceedings to that end.

Many speakers, including Austria, the German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Mexico, the Niger, Pakistan, Romania, Sweden, Thailand and the PLO observer, called for an international investigation.

Urging a United Nations inquiry, Ghana said Israel's decision to investigate the incident at an appropriate time in the future must be rejected, while Pakistan felt that Israel's refusal to allow an impartial investigation amounted to an admission of its complicity. The Niger noted that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, on 26 August, had decided to ask the Assembly to establish an international committee to investigate the crimes perpetrated by Israeli forces during their invasion of Lebanon in order to bring the leaders of Israel to international justice as war criminals. Thailand declared its support for any investigation, either by individual Governments or by the United Nations, carried out with the consent of the Lebanese Government and the co-operation of all parties. The United States said it was ready to join with other Security Council members in support of any inquiry that Lebanon and Council members found constructive.

Punishment of the perpetrators of the massacre was called for by Austria, China, the German Democratic Republic, Thailand and PLO. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya called for an international tribunal to bring Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Defence Minister Ariel Sharon to trial.

In that context, several countries, among them China and the German Democratic Republic, reiterated the call for sanctions. Cuba said all were duty-bound to ensure that the Security Council fulfilled its obligations under the Charter. In Pakistan's opinion, the United Nations had to act decisively to ensure the safety of the Palestine refugees in Lebanon. Ecuador declared its support for any initiative designed to reaffirm the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, to condemn the criminal killing of Palestinians in Beirut and to ensure the implementation of United Nations resolutions, and Ghana said it would lend support to any effort that might achieve a guarantee against the repetition of such genocide. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya held it regrettable that the Security Council had merely recommended the dispatch of observers instead of adopting measures to punish the aggressor. Yugoslavia felt that Council action was indispensable.

Bolivia, on the other hand, thought that an impartial inquiry should determine the scope of responsibility for the massacre before sanctions could be considered.

Attainment of a peace based on total Israeli withdrawal and full exercise of Palestinian rights was considered all the more urgent by several others, among them Cuba, the German Democratic Republic, Kuwait and Romania. The EC members, as stated by Denmark, considered it more than ever incumbent to work towards a Middle East settlement which would take account of all aspects of the problem, including Palestinian rights. More than ever, Ecuador believed, the possibility of further such crimes existed and there could be no peace and security in the Middle East until the Palestinian question was resolved. Ghana considered it high time for the United Nations not only to end the harassment and massacres of Palestinians but also to create a homeland for them. Malta, the Rapporteur of the Committee on Palestinian rights, was convinced that if Palestinian rights had been recognized, this and other tragedies would have been prevented.

The Niger, speaking for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said Israel's attempts to decimate PLO and to annihilate the Palestinians had further complicated the Palestinian problem. Thailand held it imperative that the quest for peace go forward to ensure strict observance of the rights of all States and of Palestinian rights. Turkey called for a redemption through the realization of the Palestinian national cause.

The PLO observer said it was clear that the Palestinian armed presence in southern Lebanon had been a necessity, as their absence had facilitated the genocide of Palestinian civilians; the Security Council, having identified the crime by condemning it, must also identify the criminals who planned and perpetrated it and take effective measures against them.

Communications (October-December). On 22 October,(14) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya transmitted a letter of the same date from the PLO observer annexing a petition dated 24 September from Palestinian women in the territories occupied by Israel; they called on the United Nations to put an end to the successive massacres of Palestinians, to work for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and to take action to grant the Palestinians their right to establish their own independent State under PLO leadership.

On 7 December,(5) Jordan transmitted what it identified as the verbatim record of an interview with two correspondents regarding the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps on 18 September; the transcript showed, Jordan said in its covering letter, that the massacre had been planned, commanded and executed by the over-all command of the Israeli regular armed forces.

General Assembly action (December). The massacre was again strongly condemned by the General Assembly on 3 December in its resolution on the self-determination of peoples(24) as well as in a resolution of 16 December.(25) By the latter, the Assembly also resolved that the massacre was an act of genocide.

The 16 December resolution was adopted by 123 votes to none, with 22 abstentions. Paragraph 1 was adopted by 145 votes to none, while paragraph 2 was adopted by 98 votes to 19, with 23 abstentions. All votes were recorded. The text was introduced by Cuba on behalf of 16 nations.

Abstaining on the resolution as a whole but voting against paragraph 2, the United States said it was a serious and reckless misuse of language to label the massacre genocide, as defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.(27) Sweden also found the assertion incorrect. Canada and Denmark, the latter for the EC members, questioned the Assembly's competence to determine whether the massacre had been genocide. Voting in favour of paragraph 1 and abstaining on the text as a whole, Israel opposed paragraph 2 because of irresponsible and inaccurate terminology bound to compromise United Nations credibility.

Though voting for the resolution, Finland voted against paragraph 2, voicing serious doubts on legal and factual grounds about the applicability of the term "genocide"; it regretted that, by the introduction of that element, the Assembly had been prevented from unanimously expressing outrage and condemnation.

Among those voting in favour of the resolution but abstaining on paragraph 2, the Philippines said it was not certain that the massacre was an act of genocide in accordance with the Convention. Singapore, noting that genocide was defined by the Convention to mean an act intended to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, regretted the tendency in the Assembly to use casual language when referring to issues with a precise legal definition; it thought the determination should be left to the appropriate legal body. Spain stated that, although the text might raise legal problems, it wished through its affirmative vote to reiterate its outrage and condemnation. The Assembly's competence to determine whether there had been an act of genocide was doubted by Turkey. Jamaica, which voted for the resolution but did not take part in the vote on paragraph 2, doubted the appropriateness of the language.

During the debates on the Middle East situation and the Palestine question which preceded the adoption of this resolution, Austria said it had been shocked by the atrocities because they had been committed against refugees, the most helpless of all people and most in need of protection. Bhutan said those responsible for the massacre must be brought to justice once the investigations were completed.

In the view of Malaysia, Israel had collaborated with Phalangist militias in the massacre. Qatar said the action had been conducted in the guise of Phalangist reprisals. China stated that Israel had plotted the massacre and Nigeria that it had aided and abetted the crime, while Tunisia said Israeli occupiers had organized it.

Japan urged the parties, in order to prevent the recurrence of such outrageous acts, to ensure the life and security of civilians, including Palestinians.

The massacre was condemned or deplored by most countries, among them Cyprus and Poland. The Gambia and others held Israel, as the occupying Power, largely responsible for the act.

Cuba said the act was equalled only by Nazi barbarism and far exceeded all previous Israeli crimes. A similar view was expressed by Djibouti the USSR and others. Democratic Yemen and India said the conscience of humanity had been shaken by the massacre, while Albania charged that Governments that could have acted to stay the hands of the assassins did not even lift a finger. Iraq likened it to the 1948 massacre at Deir Yassin outside Jerusalem, stating that both had been planned to disperse Palestinians and enable the Zionists to acquire Palestinian land. Kuwait, stating that Israel had planned and perpetrated the massacre, called for treatment of the perpetrators as war criminals. Mauritania characterized the killings as an act of genocide. In Mongolia's opinion, the massacre was the culmination of genocide which had been elevated to Israeli State policy.

The Syrian Arab Republic held that by committing its act of genocide, Israel had violated the Geneva Conventions, which had been adopted to prevent a repetition of Nazi crimes. PLO held it regrettable that months after the massacre the criminals had yet to be punished and were planning new massacres.

In Bulgaria's view, the massacre demonstrated that Israel was implementing a programme of physical extermination of the Palestinians and of a "final solution" to the Palestinian question. A  similar position was held by the United Arab Emirates. Never had the racist character of zionism appeared in such undisguised inhuman form, the Ukrainian SSR said. The Congo stated that the crimes at Sabra and Shatila had truly conveyed the extent of Israel's cynicism.

Pakistan said the martyrdom of thousands of Palestinians in the camps and other refugee settlements had convinced the world as never before of the justice of the Palestinian cause. The mass murder, Djibouti said, had given the Palestinian question yet another dimension, and international support for and solidarity with the Palestinians had increased tremendously. The events since the massacre, Qatar said, had demonstrated that PLO was equal to its responsibilities and that the other side was ineffectual and unable to implement its pledge to protect the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. In the opinion of Democratic Yemen, the Palestinians, under PLO leadership, emerged more resolved than ever to pursue the struggle for their rights.

Cuba held the United States responsible for the genocide against Palestine refugees because it had prevented the Security Council from sending United Nations forces to Beirut and acting against Israel, and had facilitated the entry of Israeli forces into west Beirut and the refugee camps by withdrawing the multinational buffer force two weeks earlier than had been agreed.

Letters and note verbales (nv).

(1) Committee on Palestinian rights Chairman: 20 Sep., A/37/462-S/15410. (2) SC President: 23 Sep., S/15428.  Jordan: (3) 18 Sep., S/15399; (4) 20 Sep., A/37/463-S/15411; (5) 7 Dec., A/37/706-S/15514.

Others: (6) Austria: 21 Sep., S/15416. (7) China: 22 Sep., A/37/483-S/15430. (8) Cuba: 20 Sep., A/37/470-S/15418. (9) Egypt: 20 Sep., A/37/464-S/15412. (10) France: 20 Sep., S/15407. (11) Greece: 18 Sep., S/15401. (12) Guyana,: 23 Sep., A/37/486-S/15433. (13) Jamaica: 23 Sep., A/37/487-S/15434. (14) Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: 22 Oct., A/37/572. (15) Madagascar: 20 Sep., A/37/465-S/15413. (16) Mongolia: 22 Sep., A/37/480. (17) Pakistan: 23 Sep., A/37/502-S/15438. (18) Suriname: 20 Sep., S/15406 (nv). (19) USSR: 21 Sep., A/37/471-S/15419. (20) Viet Nam: 23 Sep., A/37/489.

Reports. S-G, (21) S/15400, (22) S/1540B & Add.1,2.

Resolutions. (1982). GA: (23) ES-7/9, 24 Sep.; (24) 37/43, para. 20, 3 Dec.; (25) 37/123 D, 16 Dec., text following.  SC: (26) 521 (1982), paras. 1-5, 19 Sep.

Resolution (prior). (27) GA: 260 A (III), annex, 9 Dec. 1948 (YUN 1948-49, p. 959).

Meeting records. GA: A/37/PV.92-96, 108 (6-16 Dec.).
General Assembly resolution 37/123 D
16 December 1982     Meeting 108   123-0-22 (recorded vote)

16-nation draft (A/37/L.52 and Add.1); agenda item 34.

Sponsors: Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 95 (I) of 11 December 1946,
Recalling also its resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946, in which it, inter alia, affirmed that genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices – whether private individuals, public officials or statesmen, and whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds – are punishable,

Referring to the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948,

Recalling the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

Appalled at the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps situated at Beirut,

Recognizing the universal outrage and condemnation of that massacre,

Recalling its resolution  ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982,

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps;

2. Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece; Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Toga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Federal Republic of Iceland, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

International Day of Innocent
Children Victims of Aggression

Stating that it was appalled by the great number of innocent Palestinian and Lebanese children victims of Israel's acts of aggression, the General Assembly, by a resolution of 19 August 1982, decided to commemorate 4 June each year as the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression.(1)

The text, introduced by Kuwait on behalf of 35 nations, was adopted at the Assembly's seventh emergency special session on the Palestine question by a roll-call vote, requested by Israel, of 102 to 2, with 34 abstentions. The sponsors deleted a paragraph by which the Assembly would have requested the Secretary-General to display at United Nations Headquarters a permanent commemorative plaque dedicated to the Palestinian and Lebanese child victims.

Proposing the display of such a plaque, Cuba said a memento of that nature would be as moving and instructive to visitors as the impression caused today by a visit to Auschwitz or Buchenwald.

Israel rejected the resolution as perverted and said if its logic had been followed to its conclusion the United Nations would be studded with plaques commemorating numerous instances around the world in which, in contradistinction to Israel's operation in Lebanon, children had been the deliberate targets of premeditated murder and genocidal policies.

Abstaining, Sweden considered the resolution to be selective by commemorating children of only certain nationalities and victims of violence inflicted by one side only. Bolivia, Canada, Colombia and Honduras abstained on similar grounds. Austria felt that the fate suffered by victims in other wars and conflicts should not be forgotten; in addition, it had doubts as to the manner in which the resolution should be implemented.

Haiti felt that such an initiative was hardly likely to serve the cause of peace. Burma cited similar reasons for its abstention. Chile did not participate in the vote as it considered that the resolution established a discriminatory precedent inconsistent with mediation efforts and the search for a peaceful settlement.

Norway did not believe that the measures provided for represented the most appropriate way to commemorate the victims of war, a better way to manifest sympathy and sorrow would be to donate funds to relief work. A similar opinion was expressed by Denmark on behalf of the EC and by Ireland. In New Zealand's opinion, the resolution ignored elements of the currently interrelated fates of Lebanese and Palestinians and had a tendency towards propaganda. Reservations were also voiced by Fiji.

Spain voted in favour because it felt that the resolution was moderate and realistic and put forward a praiseworthy idea. Support of the text was also expressed by others, including Panama, Singapore and Turkey, the last adding that it sympathized with all innocent victims – men, women and children.

Iran, on the other hand, regarded the resolution as very weak and devoid of substance.

Resolution (1982). (1) GA: ES-7/8, 19 Aug., text following.

Meeting records. GA: A/ES-7/PV.25-29, 30, 31 (16-19 Aug.).

General Assembly resolution ES-7/8
19 August 1982 Meeting 31     102-2-34 (roll-call vote}

35-nation draft (A/ES-7/L.7/Rev.1); agenda item 5.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Gambia, Grenada, Guyana, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of Palestine at its resumed seventh emergency special session,

Appalled by the great number of innocent Palestinian and Lebanese children victims of Israel's acts of aggression,

Decides to commemorate 4 June of each year as the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Burma, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, Samoa, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zaire.
Aging persons in Lebanon

Stating that the Israeli aggression against Lebanese and Palestinians had again brought to international attention the vulnerability of civilians and in particular the elderly, the World Assembly on Aging, on 5 August 1982,(1) condemned military aggression against civilian areas inhabited by Lebanese and Palestinian families as well as the use of mass destruction weapons such as cluster bombs which caused indiscriminate casualties among innocent victims, particularly the elderly. The Assembly urged Member States to ensure the protection of and to safeguard all civilians, in particular the elderly, during periods of tension and armed conflict, and it requested the General Assembly to declare institutions for the elderly as "immune protected areas" in armed conflict. It requested the Secretary-General to call on Israel to permit Arab refugees of 60 years and older to rejoin immediately their extended and dispersed families in the occupied Arab territories.

This resolution was adopted by a roll-call vote of 73 to 2 (Israel, United States), with 26 abstentions.

Israel rejected the resolution as unjust, based on untruth and harmful for the cause of the elderly by selecting only elderly refugees in Lebanon while discriminating against those suffering in other areas of conflict.

Resolution (1982). (1) World Assembly on Aging (report, A/CONF.113/31): 1,5 Aug.
Protection of Palestinian cultural property

By a resolution of 16 December 1982,(1) the General Assembly condemned acts of plundering the Palestinian cultural heritage such as the seizure by the Israeli army, during the occupation of Beirut of archives and documents on Palestinian history and culture. The Assembly called on Israel to make full restitution, through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), of all cultural property belonging to Palestinian institutions, including material removed from the Palestine Research Centre.

The revised text was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 to 1, with 4 abstentions. It was introduced by Cuba on behalf of 17 nations.

Opposing the resolution, Israel said the Centre had engaged not merely in the production of anti-Israel propaganda but also in the collection of operational intelligence data, including personal files of high-ranking Israeli officers and lists of gas stations, bridges and water and electricity installations in Israel, for use by terrorist groups against Israel and Jewish civilian targets. Genuine research material would be returned to the Government of Lebanon in due course.

Abstaining, the United States considered a condemnation premature until the full facts surrounding the charges were known; however, it supported international instruments on the protection of persons and property in occupied territories.

Explaining the positive votes of the EC members, Denmark said they supported the general thrust, if not all the specific wording used; noting that UNESCO had dealt extensively with the matter and that a commission had been established to investigate, they urged Israel to return the cultural and historical material involved. Malta said its affirmative vote did not necessarily imply full agreement with every provision.

Resolution (1982). (1) GA: 37/123 B, 16 Dec., text following.

Meeting records. GA: A/37/PV.92-96, 108 (6-16 Dec.).
General Assembly resolution 37/123 B
16 December 1982     Meeting 108   138-1-4 (recorded vote)

17-nation draft (A/37/L.50/Rev.1); agenda item 34.

Sponsors: Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

The General Assembly,

Recalling the relevant provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Recalling also the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and all other relevant international instruments concerning the right to cultural identity in all its forms,

Having learned that the Israeli army, during its occupation of Beirut, seized and took away the archives and documents of every kind concerning Palestinian history and culture, including cultural articles belonging to Palestinian institutions – in particular the Palestine Research Centre – archives documents, manuscripts and materials such as film documents literary works by major authors paintings objets d'art and works of folklore, research works and so forth, serving as a foundation for the history, culture, national awareness unity and solidarity of the Palestinian people,

1. Condemns those acts of plundering the Palestinian cultural heritage;

2. Calls upon the Government of Israel to make full restitution, through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, of all the cultural property belonging to Palestinian institutions, including the archives and documents removed from the Palestine Research Centre and arbitrarily seized by the Israeli forces.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Dominican Republic, Malawi, Papua New Guinea, United States.
UN Interim Force in Lebanon

In southern Lebanon north of the border with Israel, where the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) had been stationed since 1978,(1) the first five months of 1982 saw a period of relative quiet punctuated by a number of incidents in which UNIFIL was involved with local armed forces. Intense efforts were made to maintain and restore the cease-fire in effect since July 1981.(2)

During that period, UNIFIL continued to contend with two main groupings of forces, identified in the Secretary-General's reports to the Security Council as follows: armed elements, mainly PLO and the Lebanese National Movement, whose attempts to establish positions in the UNIFIL area were resisted by the Force; and de facto forces, which were Christian militias headed by Major Saad Haddad and associated militias, supported and supplied by Israel and controlling an enclave on the Lebanese side of the border. In that enclave restrictions of movement on UNIFIL personnel continued to limit the Force's operational capability.

The situation changed radically on 4 June with Israel's military move into Lebanon (see above, under ARMED CONFLICT). Thereafter, the Force s mandate, previously renewed at six-month intervals, was extended by the Security Council in June and August for two-month periods and in October for three months. During and after the cease-fire in Lebanon, UNIFIL was also authorized, as an interim task, to extend protection and humanitarian assistance to the civilian population in its area.

As requested by Lebanon and recommended by the Secretary- General, the Council approved in February an increase in the Force's strength from 6,000 to approximately 7,000 troops. The Force, with contingents from 11 nations as of October 1982, continued to be financed by assessments on United Nations Members in an amount of $181 million for the year ended 18 December.

Yearbook references. (1) 1978, p. 303; (2) 1981, p. 289.
Activities

During the first five months of 1982, UNIFIL continued to supervise the cease-fire in southern Lebanon and to restore it after hostile acts occurred (see above, under ARMED CONFLICT). (According to its original mandate, set out by the Security Council in 1978,(8) UNIFIL was to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, restore international peace and security, and assist the Lebanese Government in ensuring the return of its authority.)

In a special report of 16 February to the Security Council,(1) the Secretary-General stated that the cease-fire had been maintained but that the situation had remained extremely volatile. By another special report of 25 April,(2) he informed the Council that the cease-fire had generally held but that unresolved tensions had led to the danger of widespread hostilities. That situation was pointed up by Israeli air strikes into Lebanon on 21 April.

On 10 June,(3) the Secretary-General reported that on 9 May Israeli aircraft again had attacked targets in Lebanon. However, intense efforts continued to be made to maintain the cease-fire and to restore it after hostile acts. The relative quiet in the UNIFIL area and the combined efforts of the Lebanese Government, UNIFIL and other international agencies had facilitated economic and social progress. The Force had continued to hold regular meetings with the Governor of South Lebanon and the President of the Council for the South, with a view to co-ordinating approaches to a wide range of economic, social and humanitarian matters. It had supported the implementation of projects financed by the Lebanese Council for Development and Reconstruction and by the United Nations Children's Fund by providing mainly logistical and security assistance.

In two addenda to his report, dated 11 and 14 June, the Secretary-General described increased hostilities starting on 4 June with Israeli air strikes and leading up to the massive movement of Israeli troops across the border, radically altering the circumstances in which UNIFIL functioned. Following the start of this operation, the contingents followed the Secretary-General's instructions to continue to man their positions and to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to the local population. They had attempted to prevent the entry and advance of the Israeli soldiers, but the overwhelming strength and weight of the Israeli forces had precluded the possibility of stopping them and UNIFIL positions in the line of the invasion had been thus overrun or bypassed. By 7 June, Israeli forces had reached positions north of the UNIFIL area of deployment.

At the end of June, a new armed group, locally recruited but equipped and controlled by the Israeli forces, had appeared in parts of the UNIFIL area. With a view to protecting the civilian population, UNIFIL had taken action to contain their activities. The Force also had continued to resist attempts by the de facto forces to operate in the UNIFIL area of deployment, although in some instances they had been able to enter that area with the assistance of the Israeli forces.

These developments were described in a report of 13 August,(4) in which the Secretary-General also stated that, despite difficulties, the Force had extended protection and humanitarian assistance to the civilians in its area, as called for by the Security Council on 18 June,(7) and had co-operated in humanitarian efforts of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

In a report of 14 October,(5) the Secretary-General observed that the UNIFIL area had remained generally quiet and the presence and activities of Israeli forces in the area had significantly decreased. However, UNIFIL had continued to resist attempts of the de facto forces to enter its area; in a few instances those forces had been able to operate within the UNIFIL area in combined patrols with, or under the escort of, Israeli forces. By June 1982, the population in the UNIFIL area of deployment had increased to more than a quarter of a million and had subsequently risen by approximately 150,000. Humanitarian assistance continued to be extended to the population in the area, including displaced persons from the north who had sought temporary refuge from the hostilities.

As reported by the Secretary-General in early 1983,(6) the presence and activities of the Israeli forces in the UNIFIL area had been generally limited during November and December 1982. Commencing on 19 October and lasting for approximately a month, a series of incidents involving the de facto forces had taken place in the Norwegian battalion area, including the kidnapping of a soldier for 10 hours, hijacking of vehicles, removal of equipment and firing close to UNIFIL positions. Except for those incidents, attempts of the de facto forces to operate in the UNIFIL area had remained limited, although on a number of occasions members of those forces had been able to enter the area together with Israeli military personnel.

Reports. S-G, (1) S/14869, (2) S/14996, (3) S/15194 & Add.1,2, (4) S/15357, (5) S/15455 & Corr.1, (6) S/15557.

Resolution (1982). (7) SC: 511 (1982), 18 June.

Resolution (prior). (8) SC: 425 (1978), 19 Mar. 1978 (YUN 1978, p. 312).
Composition

As at 14 October 1982, the composition of UNIFIL was as follows:

Infantry battalions

Fiji

629

France

126

Ghana

558

Ireland

671

Nepal

462

Netherlands

810

Nigeria

696

Norway

648

Senegal

561

Headquarters camp command

Ghana

140

Ireland

 51

Logistic units

France

775

Italy

 40

Norway

189

Sweden

144

6,500

         SOURCE: S-G report, S/15455.
In addition, UNIFIL was assisted by 72 military observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. The number of observers, which had been temporarily reduced by the transfer of 25 of them to Observer Group Beirut on 20 September (see above, under CEASE FIRE), was brought back up to strength on 20 December.

By a resolution of 25 February,(7) the Security Council approved an immediate increase in the Force's strength from 6,000 to approximately 7,000 troops, as recommended by the Secretary-General in a 16 February report.(5)

By a letter of 1 March to the Council President,(3) the Secretary-General declared his intention to request France to provide an infantry battalion (approximately 600 men); to request other troop-contributors, whose contingents needed to be strengthened, to increase their numbers; and to request additions to the existing logistic and maintenance units.

The Council President responded on 11 March(1) that the Council members had considered the matter in informal consultations from 4 to 10 March and agreed with the Secretary-General's proposals. The President added that the USSR had emphasized the importance of abiding by the principle of equitable geographical representation in selecting contingents of the Force, and that the United Kingdom had emphasized the importance of the contingents being selected in consultation with the Council and with the parties concerned bearing in mind the principle of equitable geographical representation.

In a special report of 25 April,(6) the Secretary-General informed the Council that Ghana, Ireland, Nepal and Norway had agreed to increase their contingents by 221, 70, 30 and 20 men, respectively, and that France had agreed in principle with his request for a 600-man battalion.

At France's request, 482 men of the French battalion were temporarily released on 29 September from UNIFIL and were incorporated into the French contingent of the multinational force in Beirut.

On 27 October, the Secretary-General informed the Council President that Nepal had signified its inability to continue its participation in UNIFIL (a 462-man battalion) beyond the mandate ended 19 October and that Finland had informed him that it was willing to provide a replacement contingent of equivalent strength.(4) The agreement of the Council members was expressed by the President in a letter of 28 October.(2)

The Nepalese battalion completed its withdrawal by 18 November, while the new Finnish battalion completed its deployment on 11 December.

On 2 November, Nigeria informed the Secretary-General that it would discontinue its participation in UNIFIL after expiration of the current mandate on 19 January 1983. During the Assembly debate on the Middle East situation, Nigeria explained that its decision had been made in protest against the flagrant manner in which Israeli forces had invaded Lebanon and overrun United Nations forces.

Between 11 December 1981 and 14 October 1982, 13 UNIFIL members died, including four as a result of firing and mine explosions. The number of members of the Force that had died since its establishment in 1978 was 83, of which 37 had been killed by firing or mine explosions.

Letters. SC President: (1) 11 Mar., S/14900; (2) 28 Oct., S/15469.  S-G: (3) 1 Mar., S/14899, (4) 27 Oct., S/15468.

Reports. S-G, (5) S/14869, (6) S/14996 & Corr.1.

Resolution (1982). (7) SC: 501 (1982), para. 2, 25 Feb.
Continuation

In 1982, at the request of Lebanon and on the recommendation of the Secretary-General, the Security Council extended the mandate of UNIFIL twice for two months, on 18 June(3) and 17 August,(4) and on 18 October for three months, until 19 January 1983.(5)

Reporting to the Council on 13 August,(1) before the second 1982 extension of the mandate, the Secretary-General stated that the presence of the Force had provided an important stabilizing and moderating influence in southern Lebanon during the difficult weeks after the start of the Israeli military operation. In a report of 14 October,(2) prior to the third extension, he expressed the conviction that the withdrawal of UNIFIL under the current circumstances would have highly undesirable consequences and would be a serious blow to the early restoration of the effective authority of the Lebanese Government in southern Lebanon as the Lebanese battalion and gendarmes stationed in the UNIFIL area were not in a position to assume full control.

Speaking during the Assembly debate on the Middle East situation, Finland said that, while the process towards a negotiated settlement was evolving, UNIFIL continued to have a vital role in all efforts to normalize the situation in Lebanon.

Reports. S-G, (1) S/15357, (2) S/15455.

Resolutions (1982). SC: (3) 511 (1982), 18 June; (4) 519 (1982), 17 Aug.; (5) 523 (1982), 18 Oct.
Financing

General Assembly action (March). By a resolution of 19 March 1982,(6) the General Assembly authorized additional commitments for UNIFIL in an amount not to exceed $9,825,000 gross ($9,822,000 net of staff assessment) for the period from 25 February to 18 June, and at a monthly rate not to exceed $l,913,000 gross ($1,910,333 net) for the period from 19 June to 18 December, should the Council decide to continue the Force beyond the six months authorized in December 1981. These amounts were to finance the increase in UNIFIL strength from 6,000 to approximately 7,000 troops authorized by the Council on 25 February 1982. They were in addition to the monthly rate of $13,316,666 gross ($13,177,500 net) authorized by the Assembly in December 1981 to finance UNIFIL for the period from 19 December 1981 to 18 December 1982.(9)

The resolution authorizing the increase was adopted by a recorded vote of 90 to 12, with 3 abstentions, following its approval by the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee on 18 March by a recorded vote of 65 to 9, with 1 abstention. The Secretary-General, in a note of 3 March,(1) had requested the Assembly to consider the matter at its resumed thirty-sixth session, held to consider a few items left unfinished at the close of 1981.

The increase amounted to $21,303,000 gross ($21,284,000 net) for the period from 25 February to 18 December 1982 (the end of the UNIFIL financial year). As detailed in a March report by the Secretary-General on the cost estimates for additional troops,(4) some $8.6 million was needed for pay and allowances for troops at the standard rate of $950 per man-month plus a supplementary $280 per man-month for a limited number of specialists. Other funds were needed for such items as construction and maintenance of premises and for purchase of transportation and other equipment.

The total amount authorized was $1 million less than the Secretary-General had estimated. The Assembly approved the lower figure on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), which believed that savings could be achieved particularly in regard to rental, maintenance, utilities, construction of premises, and the purchase of transportation and other equipment.(2) Accordingly, $400,000 was cut from the estimate for the period ending 18 June and $600,000 from the estimate for the period from l9 June to 18 December.

Introducing the 17-nation draft on funding for the additional troops, Sweden said Fifth Committee members were aware not only of the unique contribution of peace-keeping operations to the preservation of peace and security, but also of the budget difficulties caused in large part by the withholding of assessed contributions by certain States.

General Assembly action (December). By a resolution of 17 December 1982, (7) the Assembly appropriated a total of $181,102,992 gross ($179,413,998 net) for UNIFIL for the period 19 December 1981 to 18 December 1982. This was the sum of four separate figures approved by the Assembly, covering three of the UNIFIL mandate periods approved by the Security Council and the first part of a fourth period: $89,724,996 gross ($88,887,000 net) for 19 December 1981 to 18 June 1982, and $30,459,332 gross ($30,175,666 net) each for the periods from 19 June to 18 August 1982 19 August to 18 October and 19 October to 18 December. For UNIFIL operation for the month from 19 December 1982 to the expiry of its then current mandate on 18 January 1983, the Secretary-General was authorized to enter into commitments in an amount not to exceed $15,229,666 gross ($15,087,833 net). For the period from 19 January to 18 December 1983, he was authorized to enter into commitments at that monthly rate should the Council continue the Force's mandate and subject to prior ACABQ concurrence for each mandate period.

Under other provisions, the Assembly apportioned the expenses for the Force among all Member States in accordance with the special scale used for this purpose since the establishment of the former United Nations Emergency Force in 1973.(8) Under this arrangement, the permanent members of the Security Council were assessed more than under the scale of assessments for the United Nations regular budget, while most developing countries were assessed 80 per cent less and the least developed countries 90 per cent less than under the regular scale. The Assembly decided that Antigua and Barbuda, Belize and Vanuatu, admitted to the United Nations in 1981,(10) would be placed in the category of least developed States for assessment purposes. It again invited States to make voluntary contributions.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 119 to 14, with 5 abstentions. The draft had been approved by the Fifth Committee on 2 December together with the draft resolution on suspension of certain Financial Regulations (see below), by a recorded vote of 74 to 12, with 2 abstentions.

The financing of UNIFIL was considered by the Committee on the basis of reports by the Secretary-General and ACABQ.

In a November report to the Assembly,(5) the Secretary-General stated that as at 30 September, he had received $448.5 million from Member States in assessed contributions for UNIFIL since inception of the Force in 1978. The balance due from Member States amounted to $192.2 million of which only $48.4 million could be considered collectable. The shortfall of $143.8 million was mainly due to withholdings of contributions by Member States which had stated their intention not to pay. Thus, more than 22 per cent of the total amounts apportioned among Member States to finance UNIFIL since its inception would not be received, posing a very serious financial management problem.

As a result of the shortfall, payments to troop-contributing countries, which had never been made on a current and full basis in accordance with agreed rates, were falling farther behind. The troop contributors had again conveyed to the Secretary-General their serious concern over that situation, which placed a heavy burden on them. Voluntary contributions to help alleviate that burden amounted to only $18,356.

The prospects for UNIFIL beyond January 1983 still unknown, the Secretary-General held it not feasible to formulate for the Assembly in 1982 cost estimates that would accurately reflect anticipated needs. He proposed that, should the Council decide to continue the Force, he be authorized to enter into commitments for the period from 19 January to 18 December 1983 at a monthly rate not to exceed $15,229,666 gross ($15,087,833 net), the previously authorized rate for the period from 19 June to 18 December 1982. In the event that future Council decisions on the status of the Force entailed additional costs, he would seek Assembly authorization if it was in session, otherwise, he would make use of established procedures for dealing with unforeseen and extraordinary expenses.

The Secretary-General's figures were endorsed by ACABQ in a November report(3) and were incorporated by the Assembly into its financial authorization resolution.

Introducing the 17-nation draft resolution, Finland said that, despite the difficult political setting in which almost all peace- keeping forces operated, they had made a valuable contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security. Member States bore a collective responsibility to enable the United Nations to carry out its obligations. The current situation, in which not all Members were fulfilling their responsibilities and a disproportionate burden was placed on Governments that provided troops and other support, not only undermined the efficiency of peace-keeping operations but might also make it increasingly difficult to find additional States to take part in such operations.

Explaining its negative votes in both March and December, the USSR reaffirmed its position of principle that the cost of eliminating the consequences of Israeli armed aggression should be met by the aggressor; the USSR would not contribute for UNIFIL. Also voting against, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Poland and the Syrian Arab Republic stated that they would not participate in the financing of UNIFIL. For similar reasons, Benin, Democratic Yemen and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya did not take part in the voting. Albania voted against, stating, that it opposed United Nations peace-keeping forces because they did not serve the cause of peace or of the independence and freedom of peoples. Abstaining, Yemen also believed the aggressor alone should bear the consequences of its aggression.

Voting in favour and expressing concern at the growing deficit of UNIFIL, Lebanon said it had always accepted as incontrovertible the principle of collective financial responsibility for United Nations activities. The refusal of some States to pay their share was unfair both to the developing countries which contributed and to the troop contributors; if the practice continued, rich countries would soon be the only ones to contribute, which would upset the geographical balance of contributions. The problem in Lebanon was not the making of the Lebanese people, who should not have to bear the consequences.

Ireland, also stressing collective responsibility and equitable sharing of costs, said that, with only three quarters of its resources collectable, UNIFIL could not be expected to continue to function efficiently. Also casting an affirmative vote, Israel said that, as the Security Council resolutions establishing peace- keeping forces had been adopted with the concurrence of all countries concerned, the Assembly should allow the Secretary-General all the resources necessary; States withholding their contributions, including one super-Power that professed itself to be peace-loving, were doing so in clear violation of their responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States said its position was the same as on financing for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNIFIL
(as at 31 December 1982; in US dollars)

Country

Assessments in 1982

Paid in 1982

Total contributions outstanding

Afghanistan

1,795

5,331

Albania

3,586

13,376

Algeria

43,036

151,665

Angola

1,795

5,453

Argentina

279,738

157,523

141,165

Australia

3,281,875

2,177,922

1,103,953

Austria

1,271,297

1,273,297

Bahamas

3,586

1,777

4,297

Bahrain

3,586

3,586

Bangladesh

7,175

4,464

15,299

Barbados

3,586

2,380

2,654

Belgium

2,187,916

882,805

2,187,916

Benin

1,795

6,319

Bhutan

1,795

1,795

Bolivia

3,586

13,376

Botswana

1,795

1,750

702

Brazil

455,474

371,588

451,477

Bulgaria

57,383

205,167

Burma

3,586

2,380

1,206

Burundi

1,795

6,319

Byelorussian SSR

699,417

2,653,699

Canada

5,882,267

5,882,267

Cape Verde

1,795

3,105

Central African Republic

3,586

13,376

Chad

1,795

6,319

Chile

25,105

37,616

15,287

China

3,389,087

3,389,087

Colombia

39,448

39,448

Comoros

1,795

6,319

Congo

3,586

13,376

Costa Rica

7,174

5,229

18,187

Cuba

39,448

147,129

Cyprus

3,586

2,184

1,402

Czechoslovakia

1,488,501

5,575,522

Democratic Kampuchea

3,586

13,376

Democratic Yemen

1,795

6,319

Denmark

1,327,097

1,327,097

Djibouti

1,795

3,783

Dominica

1,795

302

6,611

Dominican Republic

10,760

31,365

Ecuador

7,174

6,467

3,621

Egypt

25,105

12,436

42,774

El Salvador

3,586

12,349

Equatorial Guinea

3,586

13,376

Ethiopia

1,795

4,440

Fiji

3,586

2,184

2,850

Finland

860,820

716,035

144,785

France

13,521,719

6,698,915

12,713,494

Gabon

7,174

3,143

19,184

Gambia

3,586

13,376

German Democratic Republic

2,492,787

9,167,410

Germany, Federal Republic of

14,902,942

14,902,942

Ghana

10,760

19,444

Greece

125,523

97,549

27,974

Grenada

1,795

5,662

Guatemala

7,174

9,339

3,621

Guinea

1,795

5,715

604

Guinea-Bissau

1,795

3,705

Guyana

3,586

3,503

83

Haiti

1,795

6,319

Honduras

3,586

3,225

1,809

Hungary

118,351

441,410

Iceland

53,801

53,801

India

215,183

215,183

Indonesia

57,383

47,730

9,653

Iran

233,118

715,870

Iraq

43,036

142,822

Ireland

286,939

286,941

Israel

89,661

35,064

60,529

Italy

6,187,139

6,602,306

2,081,288

Ivory Coast

10,760

15,102

Jamaica

7,174

5,575

1,599

Japan

17,180,525

14,503,133

9,609,575

Jordan

3,586

2,983

604

Kenya

3,586

1,206

6,129

Kuwait

71,727

71,727

Lao People's Democratic Republic

1,795

6,319

Lebanon

10,760

34,228

Lesotho

1,795

4,657

Liberia

3,586

13,376

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

82,490

276,690

Luxembourg

89,673

89,673

Madagascar

3,586

10,216

Malawi

1,795

3,204

Malaysia

32,276

29,014

27,818

Maldives

1,795

1,191

1,771

Mali

1,795

3,109

Malta

3,586

3,586

Mauritania

3,586

13,376

Mauritius

3,586

1,777

3,257

Mexico

272,568

403,164

59,276

Mongolia

3,586

13,376

Morocco

17,935

7,904

33,922

Mozambique

1,795

8,384

Nepal

1,795

400

2,648

Netherlands

2,923,200

2,431,533

491,667

New Zealand

484,208

402,767

81,441

Nicaragua

3,586

13,376

Niger

1,795

4,212

Nigeria

57,383

20,000

60,538

Norway

896,690

896,690

Oman

3,586

3,586

Pakistan

25,105

25,664

12,669

Panama

7,174

22,828

Papua New Guinea

1,795

98

4,530

Paraguay

3,586

13,376

Peru

21,519

73,843

Philippines

35,865

49,956

24,091

Poland

2,223,785

8,628,699

Portugal

68,140

45,216

22,924

Qatar

10,760

13,581

7,962

Romania

75,315

268,354

Rwanda

1,795

889

906

Saint Lucia

1,795

4,487

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

1,795

2,654

702

Samoa

1,795

791

2,726

Sao Tome and Principe

1,795

4,852

Saudi Arabia

208,009

221,969

69,969

Senegal

1,795

634

4,651

Seychelles

1,795

1,493

302

Sierra Leone

3,586

196

13,180

Singapore

28,694

23,867

4,827

Solomon Islands

1,795

6,913

Somalia

1,795

302

2,807

South Africa

753,217

2,810,147

Spain

609,690

1,703,402

Sri Lanka

7,174

3,553

3,621

Sudan

1,795

4,852

Suriname

1,795

3,783

Swaziland

3,586

13,376

Sweden

2,349,323

1,954,179

395,144

Syrian Arab Republic

10,760

35,707

Thailand

35,865

27,872

7,993

Togo

3,586

5,719

Trinidad and Tobago

10,760

8,950

1,810

Tunisia

10,760

10,894

15,653

Turkey

107,591

180,218

60,174

Uganda

1,795

5,840

Ukrainian SSR

2,618,326

9,923,573

USSR

23,976,207

89,828,730

United Arab Emirates

35,865

72,365

20,059

United Kingdom

9,633,683

8,607,680

6,913,307

United Republic of Cameroon

3,586

4,867

United Republic of Tanzania

1,795

6,319

United States

54,496,799

54,496,799

Upper Volta

1,795

6,319

Uruguay

14,349

5,788

21,955

Venezuela

179,322

251,681

Viet Nam

10,760

40,130

Yemen

1,795

6,319

Yugoslavia

150,629

86,976

379,538

Zaire

7,174

18,728

Zambia

7,174

11,753

1,207

Zimbabwe

3,587

3,664

3,046

Total         

179,795,498

129,769,471

171,209,172

NOTE: Total contributions outstanding covers the period from the inception of UNIFIL (19 March 1978) to 18 December 1982, as at 31 December 1982.

SOURCE: Status of contributions, S/ADM/SER.B/265.
Note. (1) S-G, A/36/860.

Reports. ACABQ,(2) A/36/868, (3) A/37/649; S-G, (4) A/36/865 & Corr.1, (5) A/37/535.

Resolutions (1982). GA: (6)3 6/138 C, 19 Mar., text following; (7) 37/127 A, 17 Dec., text following.

Resolutions (prior). GA: (8) 3101 (XXVIII), 11 Dec. 1973 (YUN 1973, p. 222); (9) 36/138 A, 16 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 299).

Yearbook reference. (10) 1981, p. 348.

Meeting records. GA: plenary, A/36/PV.106, 108 (16, 19 Mar.), A/37/PV.109 (17 Dec.); 5th Committee, A/C.5/36/SR.84,85 (17, 18 Mar.), A/C.5/37/SR.51, 53 (1, 2 Dec.).

Status of contributions. ST/ADM/SER.B/265.

UNIFIL assessments. 19 June 1981-18 June 1982, ST/ADM/SER.B/257, 19 June 1982-18 Jan. 1983, ST/ADM/SER.B/263.
General Assembly resolution 36/138 C
19 March 1982 Meeting 108     90-12-3 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/36/720/Add.2) by recorded vote (65-9-1),18 March (meeting 85); 17-nation draft (A/C.5/36/L.51); agenda item 110 (b).

Sponsors: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Senegal, Sweden.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, 427 (1978) of 3 May 1978, 434 (1978) of 18 September 1978, 444 (1979) of 19 January 1979, 450 (1979) of 14 June 1979, 459 (1979) of 19 December 1979, 474 (1980) of 17 June 1980, 483 (1980) of 17 December 1980, 488 (1981) of 19 June 1981, 498 (1981) of 18 December 1981 and 501 (1982) of 25 February 1982,

Recalling its resolutions S-8/2 of 21 April 1978, 33/14 of 3 November 1978, 34/9 B of 17 December 1979, 35/44 of 1 December 1980, 35/115 A of 10 December 1980 and 36/138 A of 16 December 1981,

Reaffirming its previous decisions regarding the fact that, in order to meet the expenditures caused by such operations a different procedure from the one applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget of the United Nations is required,

Taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries are in a position to make relatively larger contributions and that the economically less developed countries have a relatively limited capacity to contribute towards peace keeping operations involving heavy expenditures,

Bearing in mind the special responsibilities of the States permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of peace-keeping operations decided upon in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon in an amount not to exceed $9,825,000 gross ($9,822,000 net) for the period from 25 February to 18 June 1982 inclusive, in addition to the amounts authorized for the Force under General Assembly resolution 36/138 A, to finance the increase in the strength of the Force approved by the Security Council under its resolution 501 (1982), the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in Assembly resolution 33/14 and the provisions of section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 34/9 B, section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 35/115 A and section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 36/138 A, in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982;

2. Further authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, for the same purpose, at a rate not to exceed $1,913,000 gross ($1,910,333 net) per month for the period from 19 June to 18 December 1982 inclusive, in addition to the amounts authorized for the Force under General Assembly resolution 36/138 A, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 498 (1981), the said amount to be apportioned among Member State in accordance with the scheme set out in Assembly resolution 33/14 and the provisions of section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 34/9 B, section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 35/115 A and section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 36/138 A, in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Albania, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Poland, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam.

Abstaining: Chad, Democratic Yemen, Guinea.
General Assembly resolution 37/127 A
17 December 1982     Meeting 109   119-14-5 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/37/681/Add.1) by recorded vote 174-12-2), 2 December (meeting 531; 17-nation draft (A/C.5/37L.32, part A, approved together with part B (see resolution 37/127 B)) agenda item 114 (b).

Sponsors: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Senegal, Sweden.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, 427 (1978) of 3 May 1978, 434 (1978) of 18 September 1978, 444 (1979) of 19 January 1979, 450 (1979) of 14 June 1979, 459 (1979) of 19 December 1979, 474 (1980) of 17 June 1980, 483 (1980) of 17 December 1980, 488 (1981) of 19 June 1981, 498 (1981) of 18 December 1981, 501 (1982) of 25 February 1982, 511 (1982) of 18 June 1982, 519 (1982) of 17 August 1982 and 523 (1982) of 18 October 1982,

Recalling its resolutions S-8/2 of 21 April 1978, 33/14 of 3 November 1978, 349 B of 17 December 1979, 35/44 of 1 December 1980, 35/115 A of 10 December 1980, 36/138 A of 16 December 1981 and 36/138 C of 19 March 1982,

Reaffirming its previous decisions regarding the fact that, in order to meet the expenditures caused by such operations a different procedure from the one applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget of the United Nations is required,

Taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries are in a position to make relatively larger contributions and that the economically less developed countries have a relatively limited capacity to contribute towards peace-keeping operations involving heavy expenditures,

Bearing in mind the special responsibilities of the States permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of peace-keeping operations decided upon in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

I

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section I, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 an amount of $89,724,996 gross ($88,887,000 net), being the amount authorized and apportioned under the provisions of section III of Assembly resolution 36/138 A and paragraph 1 of resolution 36/138 C for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 December 1981 to 18 June 1982, inclusive;

II

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section I, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 an amount of $30,459,332 gross ($30,175,666 net), being the amount authorized and apportioned under the provisions of section III of Assembly resolution 36/138 A and paragraph 1 of resolution 36/138 C for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 June to 18 August 1982, inclusive;

III

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section I, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 an amount of $30,459,332 gross ($30,175,666 net), being the amount authorized and apportioned under the provisions of section III of Assembly resolution 36/138 A and paragraph 1 of resolution 36/138 C for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 August to 18 October 1982, inclusive;

IV

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section I, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 an amount of $30,459,332 gross ($30,175,666 net), being the amount authorized and apportioned under the provisions of section III of Assembly resolution 36/138 A and paragraph 1 of resolution 36/138 C for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 October to 18 December 1982, inclusive;

V

Authorizes the Secretary General to enter into commitments for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 December 1982 to 18 January 1983 inclusive, in an amount not to exceed $15,229,666 gross ($15,087,833 net), the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in General Assembly resolution 33/14 and the provisions of section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 34/9 B, section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 35/115 A and section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 36/138 A; the scale of assessments for the years 1980,1981 and 1982 shall be applied against a portion thereof, that is $6,386,634 gross ($6,327,156 net) being the amount pertaining on a pro rata basis to the period from 19 to 31 December 1982 inclusive, and the scale of assessments for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 shall be applied against the balance for the period thereafter;

VI

Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon at a rate not to exceed $15,229,666 gross ($15,087,833 net) per month for the period from 19 January 1983 to 18 December 1983 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of three months authorized under its resolution 523 (1982), subject to obtaining the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions for the actual level of commitments to be entered into for each mandate period that may be approved subsequent to 19 January 1983, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in General Assembly resolution 33/14 and the provisions of section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 34/9 B, section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 35/115 A and section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 36/138 A, in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985;

VII

1. Renews its invitation to Member States to make voluntary contributions to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General;

2. Invites Member States to make voluntary contributions in cash to the Suspense Account established in accordance with its resolution 34/9 D of 17 December 1979;

VIII

Requests the Secretary-General to take all necessary action to ensure that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be administered with a maximum of efficiency and economy;

IX

1. Decides that Antigua and Barbuda, Belize and Vanuatu shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in section 1, paragraph 2 (d), of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 and that their contributions to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 6 of Assembly resolution 37/125 A of 17 December 1982;

2. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon until 18 December 1982 of the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 of the present section shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the apportionments authorized in section V above.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Afghanistan,, Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Mongolia, Finland, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam.

Abstaining: Cuba, Grenada, Maldives, Sao Tome and Principe, Yemen.
Suspension of Financial Regulations

Continuing a practice begun in 1979,(4) the General Assembly, by a resolution of 17 December 1982,(3) decided to suspend certain provisions of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations to enable the Organization to retain the "surplus balance" of $5,939,256 in the UNIFIL account, instead of having to return these "book surpluses" to Member States as a credit against their subsequent assessments. The Assembly recognized that, because of the withholding of contributions by certain States, the surplus balance had been fully drawn upon to supplement the income received from contributions for meeting the expenses of the Force. Applying the rules, it added, would aggravate the already difficult financial situation of UNIFIL.

This resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 118 to 14, with 6 abstentions. It had been approved by the Fifth Committee on 2 December by a recorded vote of 74 to 12, with 2 abstentions, together with the resolution on UNIFIL appropriations.(2) Both drafts were sponsored by 17 nations and introduced by Finland.

As explained by ACABQ in its November report on UNIFIL financing,(1) the surplus balance represented an excess of assumed income (some of it uncollectible due to withholding) over expenditure as at 31 December 1981, due to interest and miscellaneous credits. The Secretariat followed the practice of spending the full amount authorized by each year's appropriation, tapping interest income in the UNIFIL account to make up for the shortfall caused by the withholding of some contributions. Under the Financial Regulations, the amount of interest would have had to be credited to Member States even though it had been used to meet the expenses of the Force. The Assembly decision to suspend the Regulations in this case made the interest income available for meeting UNIFIL expenses, to supplement the income received from contributions.

Report. (1) ACABQ, A/37/649.

Resolutions (1982). GA, 17 Dec.: (2) 37/127 A; (3) 37/127 B, text following.

Resolution (prior). (4) GA: 34/9 E, 17 Dec. 1979 (YUN 1979, p. 353).

Meeting records. GA: 5th Committee, A/C.5/37/SR.51, 53 (12 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.109 (17 Dec.).
General Assembly resolution 37/127 B
17 December 1982     Meeting 109    118-1-6 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/37/681/Add.1) by recorded vote (74-12-2), 2 December (meeting 53); 17-nation draft (A/C.5/37/L.32, part B, approved together with part A (see resolution 37/127 A)); agenda item 114 (b).

Sponsors: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Senegal, Sweden.

The General Assembly,

Having regard to the financial position of the Special Account for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, as set forth in the report of the Secretary-General, and referring to paragraph 7 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Mindful of the fact that it is essential to provide the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon with the necessary financial resources to enable it to fulfil its responsibilities under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council,

Concerned that the Secretary-General is continuing to face growing difficulties in meeting the obligations of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon on a current basis, particularly those due to the Governments of troop-contributing States,

Recalling its resolutions 34/9 E of 17 December 1979, 35/115 B of 10 December 1980 and 36/138 B of 16 December 1981,

Recognizing that, in consequence of the withholding of contributions by certain Member States, the surplus balances in the Special Account for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon have, in effect, been drawn upon to the full extent to supplement the income received from contributions for meeting expenses of the Force,

Concerned that the application of the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations would aggravate the already difficult financial situation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Decides that the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations shall be suspended in respect of the amount of $5,939,256, which otherwise would have to be surrendered pursuant to those provisions, this amount to be entered in the account referred to in the operative part of General Assembly resolution 34/9 E and held in suspense until a further decision is taken by the Assembly.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Ireland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Afghanistan, Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Mongolia, Poland, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam.

Abstaining: Cuba, Grenada, Maldives, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Yemen.

Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic
[See third YB 1982 document]

emspecsess7.82