Yearbook of the United Nations 1975 (excerpts)

YEARBOOK OF THE UNITED NATIONS

1975

Office of Public Information

United Nations, New York

Questions relating to the Middle East

In 1975, various United Nations bodies–chiefly the Security Council and the General Assembly–continued as in previous years to deal with aspects of the situation in the Middle East.

The Security Council on 17 April renewed for a period of three months the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), stationed in the zone of disengagement between Egyptian and Israeli forces in accordance with the Agreement on Disengagement of Forces of 18 January 1974. 1/  The Council also called on the parties to implement immediately its resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973. 2/

The Council renewed the UNEF mandate again, on 24 July, for another period of three months, following an appeal to the President of Egypt and receipt of Egypt's reply thereto, by which it noted the Council's concern over the situation in the Middle East and accepted the further extension of the mandate.

On 4 September, a new Agreement between Egypt and Israel was signed at Geneva, Switzerland, which, together with its Protocol of 22 September, provided for a new deployment of the forces of the two sides and, among other things, for an early warning system in the Mitla and Giddi passes.  The Agreement also stressed that UNEF was essential and should continue its functions and that its mandate should be extended annually.  On 23 October, the Council extended UNEF's mandate for one year, to 24 October 1976, and again called for the implementation of its resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973.

In the Israel-Syria sector, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) continued to supervise the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces of 31 May 1974. 3/  The Council renewed UNDOF's mandate for further six-month periods, on 28 May and again on 30 November.

During its 1975 session, the General Assembly approved expenditures for financing UNEF and UNDOF.

The status of the cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon continued throughout 1975 to be the subject of reports by the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine, as well as of complaints and counter-complaints by the parties.  In December, the Security Council considered complaints by Lebanon and Egypt of what were described as massive Israeli air attacks against Lebanese territory.  The Council failed to adopt–because of the negative vote of the United States, a permanent member of the Council–a draft resolution by which it would have condemned Israel for the attacks, called upon it to desist from all military attacks against Lebanon and warned against a repetition.

The situation along the Israel-Jordan cease-fire line remained unchanged in 1975.  No complaints were received from either country regarding violations of the cease-fire, nor did the Security Council meet to consider any aspect of the situation there.

The General Assembly–at its thirtieth session in 1975–discussed the item entitled The situation in the Middle East for the first time since 1972.  On 5 December 1975, it took a number of decisions which were embodied in its resolution 3414 (XXX).

The Assembly also again considered the question of Palestine as a separate item and, on 10 November 1975, adopted two resolutions.  By the first of these (resolution 3375 (XXX)), the Assembly among other things called for the invitation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to participate in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East which were held under United Nations auspices, on an equal footing with other parties, and asked the Secretary-General to inform the Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East of the resolution and take steps to secure the invitation of PLO to participate in the work of the Conference.

By the second resolution (3376 (XXX)), the Assembly decided among other things to establish a 20-Member Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to recommend a programme of implementation to enable the Palestinian people to exercise the rights recognized in an Assembly resolution of 22 November 1974. 4/  Also, the Security Council was asked to consider the question of the exercise of these rights by the Palestinian people.

The situation in the Arab territories occupied by Israel was again considered by the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly, both of which took decisions in 1975 based on the findings of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.

The Assembly also again considered the question of the permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories and asked the Secretary-General to prepare a final and comprehensive report on the adverse economic effects on the Arab States and peoples resulting from Israeli aggression and occupation.

As in previous years, the Assembly took a number of decisions concerning the Palestine refugees, among other things calling on Governments to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), particularly in the light of the budgetary deficit projected in the report of the UNRWA Commissioner-General.

Several communications relating to the City of Jerusalem were received during the year by the Secretary-General.

Details of these developments and related matters are described in the sections that follow.

STATUS OF THE CEASE-FIRE; SEARCH FOR A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT

Situation in the Egypt-Israel sector

Report of Secretary-General (12 April 1975)

In connexion with the expiration, on 24 April 1975, of the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council on 12 April a detailed account of the activities of the Force for the period from 13 October 1974 to 12 April 1975.

He pointed out in particular that the functions and guidelines of the Force had remained unchanged.  It was made up of contingents from Canada, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Poland, Senegal and Sweden and its strength stood at 4,029, excluding the Canadian and Polish logistic components assigned to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).  The military situation in its area of operations had remained stable.  The Force Commander had continued to hold separate meetings with military representatives of both parties concerning the terms of reference of the Force and the inspections carried out in the areas of limited forces and armaments.

The problem of freedom of movement still existed with regard to certain contingents, the Secretary-General observed, despite his efforts and those of the Force Commander, and he stressed, as he had in the past, that the Force had to function as an integrated and efficient military unit, that its contingents had to serve on an equal basis under the command of the Force Commander and that no differentiation could be made regarding the United Nations status of various contingents.

With regard to humanitarian activities, the Secretary-General reported that, during the period under review, 5,684 persons had passed from Israeli-occupied territory to Egypt and 2,167 from Egypt to Israeli-occupied territory under the family reunification and student exchange programmes.  On 4 April, Egyptian authorities had, under UNEF auspices, handed over 39 dead bodies of Israeli soldiers.  The occasional discovery of bodies in the UNEF area had continued; the remains of 14 soldiers found during the reporting period had been handed over to the parties.

With regard to the financial aspects of the problem, the Secretary-General said it had been possible to keep the rate of obligations and expenditures of the Force within the level of the appropriations authorized by the General Assembly and he would continue to exert his best efforts to ensure that the force functioned as economically as possible without impairing its efficiency.

The Secretary-General went on to observe that the situation in the UNEF area of observation had remained quiet: both parties had co-operated with the Force and there had been no significant incidents.  He noted, however, that the situation as a whole remained fundamentally unstable pending the conclusion of an ever-all settlement.  Whether it would be possible to maintain the prevailing quiet would depend on the prospects of maintaining progress in the search for a just and lasting settlement of the problem as called for by the Security Council.

The Secretary-General expressed the opinion that the continued presence of UNEF was essential not only to maintain quiet in the Egypt-Israel sector but also to provide an atmosphere conducive to further efforts towards the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and to assist if required in such efforts.  He recommended therefore that the Security Council extend the mandate of UNEF.  He noted in that connexion that Egypt had said it would not object to renewal of the mandate for an additional period of three months ending on 24 July 1975 and that Israel had stated that it favoured a renewal period of no less than six months.

Consideration by Security Council (17 April 1975)

On 17 April 1975, the Security Council met to consider the Secretary-General's report on UNEF.  The representatives of Egypt and Israel, at their request, were invited to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

The Council adopted a draft resolution, after consultations among Council members, by 13 votes to 0, as resolution 368 (1975).  Two members, China and Iraq, did not participate in the vote.

By the operative part of this text, the Council decided: to call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately the Security Council's resolution of 22 October 1973 (338 (1973)); 5/ to renew the mandate of UNEF for three months, until 24 July 1975; and to request the Secretary-General to submit at the end of that period a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Following the vote, many representatives expressed concern about the situation and urged that the time made available by the new extension be used to make further efforts for achieving a just and lasting peace in the area.  The representative of Italy and others said that the renewal of UNEF'S mandate could not be considered as a substitute for the active search for a negotiated peace.  Costa Rica hoped that the mandate of UNEF, while short, would be used to guard against any threat of a new outbreak of hostilities.

The representative of the United States said that UNEF was essential in providing a deterrent to renewed hostilities and in creating a climate of trust and confidence on which the success of future negotiations depended.  He emphasized that UNEF and the Egyptian-Israeli Agreement on Disengagement of Forces of 18 January 1974 6/ were means to an end–part of the process towards an over-all peaceful solution through negotiations.  As a matter of principle, he said, the United States would have preferred an extension for a longer period of time.

Japan's representative hoped that the extension of UNEF'S mandate would help maintain the momentum for peace and he appealed to the parties to continue to display moderation, self-restraint and co-operation in every phase of the negotiating process and to refrain from force or any threat to use it.

The representative of the United Kingdom expressed the hope that the Force would provide the climate needed for negotiations.  He said his country continued to draw a distinction between the current Emergency Force and any more permanent peace-keeping force that might be set up in due course to guarantee a settlement under the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 (242 (1967)). 7/  The representative of France also drew a distinction between a force guaranteeing the cease-fire–an emergency force–and a force whose role it would be to maintain peace, which assumed a peace agreement.  As to the latter, France believed there should be participation by contingents supplied by the permanent members of the Council.

The representative of Sweden observed that the UNEF operation was based on the principle of the collective responsibility of United Nations Members and was financed in accordance with Article 17 of the United Nations Charter. 8/  Sweden, he said, was satisfied that the operations of UNEF appeared to have a reasonably sound financial basis; he emphasized that Members should pay their assessed part of the costs without delay.

The USSR representative noted that Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973 had not been implemented because of Israel's refusal to withdraw its troops from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967 and to recognize the lawful rights of the Palestinian people.  He urged the earliest possible resumption of the work of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East which had been specifically convened to consider the whole range of questions involved in a settlement.

The representatives of the Byelorussian SSR, Guyana and of the United Republic of Tanzania also maintained that the conditions for the establishment of a durable peace in the Middle East included the complete withdrawal by Israel from all the Arab territories occupied since 1967, and the right of the Palestinians to a national home.  The spokesman for the Byelorussian SSR also urged that the Geneva Peace Conference be resumed.

The representative of Mauritania cautioned that the patience of the people of Egypt had certain limits.  The status quo currently prevailing in the Middle East could not last for ever and it was the duty of the Security Council to see to it that its decisions were complied with.

Iraq's representative said his Government had on several occasions explained its position regarding the establishment of the United Nations Emergency Force and the extension of its mandate and had therefore not participated in the voting.

The spokesman for China, which also did not participate in the voting, said China had consistently held differing views in principle on the question of the dispatch of United Nations forces.  He went on to say that the two super-powers were engaging in ever fiercer contention and rivalry.  While talking about detente and crying out for a solution of the Middle East question, they actually wanted to maintain the no war, no peace situation so that they might undermine each other's foundation and expand their spheres of influence.  The representative of the USSR called for continued efforts by the Secretary-General to end Israel's discrimination against four out of the seven contingents making up the United Nations Emergency Force: namely, those of Ghana, Indonesia, Poland and Senegal.  The representatives of France and Guyana also hoped the Secretary-General would pursue his efforts to settle the question of freedom of movement.

Israel's representative said that the UNEF presence was an integral part of the Egyptian-Israeli Disengagement Agreement and that consequently the mandate was expected to be extended for a period of six months, as Israel had proposed.  However, the extension of UNEF'S mandate for only three months had been done at the insistence of Egypt, which, he said, reflected Egypt's arbitrary attitude towards the Disengagement Agreement and pointed up the defects in the provisions regarding UNEF.  Egypt's decision demonstrated once more how the Arab Governments failed to comply with their international obligations.  Israel, he said, continued to observe the Disengagement Agreement and would continue to seek peace in the region.

The Egyptian representative said that his country would accept the extension of the mandate for three months to allow for a further opportunity in the process of achieving a peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem.  Egypt, he said, had been striving to achieve a just and lasting peace which could result only from the withdrawal of Israel from all Arab territories occupied since 5 June 1967 and the restoration to the Palestinians of their legitimate rights.  As for Israel's argument that UNEF was an integral part of the Disengagement Agreement, he said that the resolution just adopted by the Council was sufficient proof to the contrary: UNEF was an integral part of resolution 338 (1973), not of the Disengagement Agreement which was of a purely temporary military nature.

Communications and reports (April-July 1975)

In a letter dated 10 April 1975, Egypt accused Israel of criminal acts against Egyptian fishing boats.  Israel refuted the charges in a letter dated 21 April.

On 15 July 1975, the Secretary-General drew the Security Council's attention to a letter addressed to him on 14 July by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt.  After recalling the decisions taken by the Security Council in the aftermath of the October 1973 war, the Minister said that efforts to achieve a further disengagement agreement that would pave the way for the resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference had failed owing to Israel's intransigence and procrastination.  None the less, he said, Egypt had agreed in April to the renewal of UNEF's mandate until 24 July but had underlined the temporary nature of the Force and its functions as a first step in the implementation of Security Council resolutions 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973 and 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. 9/  However, he observed, Israel had profited from the prevailing relative quiet to further its occupation rather than to assist efforts aimed at achieving a lasting peace.  In those circumstances, Egypt could not be expected to consent to the continued occupation of its territory and did not agree to a further renewal of the UNEF mandate, although it was not against the proper use of the Force.

On 16 July, in connexion with the Egyptian letter, the representative of Israel drew attention to a statement by Israel's Prime Minister in which, after noting that his Government had already agreed to the extension of the UNEF mandate, he said that Israel was observing its commitments under the Egyptian-Israeli Agreement on Disengagement of Forces of 18 January 1971 on a basis of reciprocity.  If Egypt was interested in not harming that Agreement, it would also have to honour the maintenance and authority of the Force and refrain from any move which increased tension in the region.

In conjunction with the expiration of the mandate of UNEF on 24 July 1975, the Secretary-General issued a report on 16 July on the operations of the Force for the period from 13 April to 15 July 1975.  During that period, he said, the situation in the UNEF area of operations had remained quiet.  As at 15 July, the Force's personnel totalled 3,919 men, excluding the Canadian and Polish logistic components assigned to UNDOF.  The functions and guidelines of the Force, as well as the specific tasks assigned to it, had remained unchallenged.  The problem of restrictions on the freedom of movement of personnel of certain contingents still existed, the Secretary-General said, adding that he continued to believe that UNEF had to function as an integrated and efficient military unit, that its contingents had to serve on an equal basis under the command of the Force Commander, and that no differentiation could be made regarding the United Nations status of various contingents.  During the period, he noted, there had been no significant violations of the agreements except for minor cases of firing which had not resulted in any casualties or damage.  In connexion with the request made to him by the Council on 17 April–in resolution 368 (1975)–to report on the measures taken to implement solution 338 (1973), the Secretary-General said that efforts had continued on several levels, including high-level meetings between the parties concerned.

The Secretary-General observed in conclusion that, although the situation in the UNEF area of operations had remained quiet, the situation in the Middle East as a whole continued to be fundamentally unstable.  The possibility of maintaining the prevailing quiet would depend on further progress in the search for a settlement; the continued presence of UNEF was essential not only to maintain quiet in the sector, but also to provide an atmosphere conducive to further efforts towards the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.  In that connexion, he noted that while Egypt did not consent to a further renewal of the mandate of UNEF it was not against the proper use of the Force.  The Government of Israel had said that it favoured a further extension of the mandate of UNEF for six months.

Consideration by Security Council (21 and 24 July 1975)

The Security Council met on 21 and 24 July 1975 to consider the report of the Secretary-General.  At its meeting on 21 July, it adopted–by 13 votes to 0, with China and Iraq not participating–the text of an appeal to be addressed to the President of Egypt by which the Council President, after expressing his belief that a further extension of UNEF'S mandate would contribute to the creation of an atmosphere conducive to progress towards agreement on a just and lasting peace in the area, appealed to the President of Egypt to reconsider the attitude of his Government in the matter.

Before the vote, the representative of China said his Government supported the just struggle of the Arab countries and condemned the Israeli aggressors but it had always held its own position regarding UNEF, and accordingly dissociated itself from the matter.  The Iraqi representative expressed support for the struggle of Egypt and all other Arab countries whose land was under Israeli occupation, as well as the struggle of the Palestinian people to regain their national rights.  The presence of UNEF, he said, had been intended as a temporary measure to help effect the withdrawal of all the forces of the aggressor.  However, Israel had abused the presence of UNEF by freezing the situation once again into a state of no war, no peace, while perpetuating and consolidating its occupation.  Iraq would not, therefore, participate in the voting.

On 23 July, the President of the Security Council issued a note stating that he had communicated the Council's appeal to the President of Egypt and had received a reply by which Egypt accepted an extension of the mandate of UNEF for an additional three-month period, until 24 October 1975.

When the Council met on 24 July, the representatives of Egypt and Israel, at their request, were invited to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

The Council then adopted–as resolution 371 (1975)–the text of a resolution prepared after consultations among Council members.  China and Iraq did not participate in the vote.

By this text, the Council, taking into account Egypt's letter of 14 July to the Secretary-General and the Council's appeal of 21 July, and expressing satisfaction for Egypt's reply thereto: called on the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973); decided to renew the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for three months, that is, until 24 October 1975; and requested the Secretary-General to report, by the end of that period, on the situation in the Middle East and the steps taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Following the vote, the representative of Egypt said that the situation remained as explosive as ever.  It was clear, he said, that the deadlock had been caused by Israel's persistently negative attitude, while Egypt had done everything to further the peace efforts.  It had, among other things, reopened the Suez Canal on 5 June 1975 and embarked on an ambitious programme of reconstruction and development.  Because of Israel's attitude, Egypt had considered the extension of UNEF'S mandate to be contrary to the purposes envisaged in establishing the Force.  However, in view of the Council's appeal, Egypt had accepted an extension of the mandate, but the representative warned that, without a change in Israel's attitude, the deadlock in the peace efforts would remain and the threat to international peace and security would continue unabated.

The representative of Israel said that the resolution just adopted by the Council was deliberately one-sided and his Government protested strongly against it.  He reiterated that UNEF was an integral part of the Disengagement Agreement and had to be maintained throughout the duration of the Agreement.  Israel considered that the renewal of the mandate for a period of only three months was contrary to the spirit of the Agreement and it continued to favour a renewal period of no less than six months.  Furthermore, he said, the periodic extension of the UNEF mandate should not be left to the whims of one of the parties.

The representatives of China and Iraq reiterated their reasons for not participating in the voting.

According to the representative of the United States, the quiet in the area was a tribute to the desire of Israel and Egypt to persevere in their search for peace and to those responsible for the maintenance and functioning of the Force.

The USSR representative said that the situation would be settled only on the basis of full implementation of the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.  His Government favoured an early resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference, with the participation on an equal footing of representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The representative of Sweden noted that there had been a resumption of talks during the preceding three months.  He expressed the belief that the three-month extension of UNEF'S mandate would facilitate the ongoing negotiations and he stressed that it should be utilized by the parties and not considered merely a matter of routine.  The chief justification for the continued presence of the force was, in fact, to serve as a means of helping further negotiations by providing time and ensuring calm in the area.

Several members, including Guyana, Mauritania and the United Republic of Cameroon, commended Egypt's decision to respond to the Council's appeal and accept a new extension of UNEF'S mandate.

The spokesman for the United Kingdom stressed that UNEF'S function was to promote a settlement not to impede it, and its presence had never beer more necessary.  He expressed the hope that the negotiations for a further interim agreement between Egypt and Israel, which had been continuing with the assistance of United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, would be pressed on with the greatest energy and speed.  A successful conclusion of those negotiations, he said, would represent a very valuable step towards a just and lasting settlement.

The representative of Italy welcomed Egypt's response to the Council's appeal and said the a new effort was needed to encourage and help the parties involved to overcome their differences.  In that framework, he added, Italy followed with hope the efforts of the United States to attain progress towards an agreement.

Communications and reports (July-October 1975)

In a note of 19 August 1975, the President of the Security Council said that on 4 August the Secretary-General had informed him that it would be useful to all concerned to establish a co-ordinating mechanism for the activities and administration of the three peace-keeping operations in the Middle East, namely, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO), the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).  Therefore, should the Council agree, he proposed to appoint Lieutenant-General Ensio P. H. Siilasvuo, currently Commander of UNEF, as Chief Co-ordinator of UNTSO, UNEF and UNDOF operations in the Middle East, and to appoint Major-General Bengt Liljestrand, currently Chief of Staff of UNTSO, as Commander of UNEF.  General Siilasvuo would continue as necessary to discharge his functions in relation to the Military Working Group of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East and would be responsible for liaison and contact with the parties on important matters relating to peace-keeping in the Middle East.  Following consultations with the members of the Council, the President said he had informed the Secretary-General on 15 August that the Council had given its consent to the Secretary-General's proposals, noting that the delegations of China and Iraq had dissociated themselves from the matter.

On 2 September, the Secretary-General informed the Security Council that, in connexion with an agreement between Egypt and Israel initialled by the parties on 1 September, General Siilasvuo would be available in Geneva to preside at the meetings of the Military Working Group of the Middle East Peace Conference, where preparation of a detailed protocol for the implementation of the agreement was to take place.  On the same day, he transmitted to the Council the text of that agreement and on 4 September he informed the Council of the signing of the agreement in Geneva in the presence of General Siilasvuo.

The Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 4 September 1975 consisted of nine articles and an annex.  The parties agreed that the conflict between them and in the Middle East was not to be resolved by military force and that they were determined to continue their efforts to reach a final and just settlement by means of negotiations called for by Security Council resolution 338 (1973). 10/  They further agreed to continue to observe the cease-fire and to refrain from all military and para-military actions against each other.  Article IV of the Agreement laid down the principles for the new deployment of the military forces of the parties, and provided that the details concerning such redeployment and all other relevant matters–including the definitions of lines and areas, the buffer zones, the limitations on armaments and forces, aerial reconnaissance, the operation of the early-warning and surveillance installations and the United Nations functions–would all be in accordance with the provisions of the annex and the attached map, which formed an integral part of the Agreement and of its Protocol for implementation.  The Agreement also stressed that the United Nations Emergency Force was essential, it was to continue its functions, and its mandate was to be extended annually.  A joint commission established under the Agreement was to function under the aegis of the Chief Co-ordinator of the United Nations Peace-keeping Missions in the Middle East in order to consider any problems arising from the implementation of the Agreement and to assist UNEF in the execution of its mandate.

In addition to the annex and the map, the Agreement was supplemented by a document, relating to an early warning system referred to in article IV, in which the United States proposed that there should be: (a) two surveillance stations to provide strategic early warning, one operated by Egyptian and one operated by Israeli personnel; (b) three watch stations operated by United States civilian personnel  in  the  Mitla  and  Giddi passes to provide tactical early warning; and (c) three unmanned electronic sensor fields at both ends of each pass and in the general vicinity of each station.  The document provided additional details regarding the number of technicians involved, their status and the functions they were to perform.

On 23 September, the Secretary-General informed the Security Council that on 22 September the Military Working Group had completed its work on the Protocol of the Agreement between Egypt and Israel and that the Protocol had been signed by the representative of Egypt and initialled by representatives of Israel.  On 10 October, he said that the representatives of Israel had also signed the Protocol, which had thus entered into force.  Annexed to the 10 October report was the full text of the Protocol and relevant maps.

Again in connexion with the expiration of UNEF's mandate, the Secretary-General submitted a report on 17 October on the activities of UNEF during the period from 15 July to 16 October 1975, noting that the Force had continued to carry out its specific tasks and that the problem of restrictions on the freedom of movement of personnel of certain contingents still existed.

The Secretary-General noted that the responsibilities entrusted to the Force under the Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 4 September 1975 and its Protocol were more extensive than those discharged under the Egyptian-Israeli Agreement on Disengagement of Forces of 18 January 1974, and that its new operational areas would be much larger.  He recommended that additional military personnel and equipment be provided, including: reinforcement of the non-logistic contingents of UNEF by approximately 750; strengthening of the Polish logistics contingent by 50, and of the Canadian logistics contingent by 36; reinforcement of the air unit by four helicopters, one Buffalo aircraft and two STOL (short take-off and landing) aircraft and their crews; and establishment of a naval unit of four vessels for coastal patrol functions.

Regarding the financial aspects, he said that the increase in the costs of the Force for a period of one year, ending on 21 October 1976, was tentatively estimated at $32 million over and above the authorized level of $65 million for the previous year.  In case the naval vessels and additional aircraft required by the Force were not provided without expense to the United Nations, an additional $10 million must be added to those estimates.

With regard to the implementation of Security Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, the Secretary-General said that efforts made at several levels had continued during the period under review.  He referred in particular to article I of the Agreement of 1 September between Egypt and Israel, wherein the two Governments had agreed that the conflict between them should not be resolved by military force but by peaceful means and had expressed their determination to reach a final settlement by means of negotiations as called for by resolution 338 (1973).

The Secretary-General cautioned that, in spite of the prevailing quiet in the sector and although the Agreement of 4 September was an important development, any relaxation of the search for a comprehensive settlement could be dangerous in the months ahead.  He hoped that urgent efforts would be undertaken by all concerned to tackle the Middle East problem in all its aspects and he reiterated his conviction that the presence of UNEF remained essential, not only to help maintain the cease-fire but also to assist in the implementation of the new Agreement. Consequently, he recommended the extension of its mandate.

Consideration by Security Council (23 October 1975)

On 23 October 1975, the Security Council met to consider the Secretary-General's report and a draft resolution which had been drawn up during consultations among the members of the Council.

The Secretary-General in a brief statement pointed out that UNEF had had new tasks conferred upon it as a result of the Agreement of 4 September between Egypt and Israel.  The new reinforcements in personnel and equipment would, he said, impose a new financial burden on the Organization and wished to assure the Council that he would keep in mind the need for the maximum possible economy compatible with the effective discharge by UNEF of its task.

The President then read out a letter dated October from the Foreign Minister of Egypt to the effect that Egypt consented to a further extension of UNEF'S mandate for one year, until October 1976.

The Council then adopted the draft resolution by 13 votes to 0, as resolution 378 (1975).  China and Iraq did not participate in the vote.

By this text, the Council–after, among other things, noting the Secretary-General's view that a relaxation of the search for a comprehensive settlement could be dangerous and his hope that urgent efforts to tackle the problem in all its aspects would be undertaken by all concerned–decided: to call on all the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973); to renew the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for one year, that is, until 24 October 1976; and to request the Secretary-General to submit at the end of that period a report on developments in the situation and the steps taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

Finally, by this text, the Council expressed its confidence that the Force would be maintained with maximum efficiency and economy.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The representatives of China and Iraq reiterated their positions with regard to UNEF and their reasons for not participating in the voting on the draft resolution.

During the Council's discussion, the French representative said that the new Agreement reached between the principal parties with the assistance of the United States–an Agreement which had restored to Egypt an additional portion of its territory–was a sign of progress to the extent that tension was reduced and the process of over-all negotiation continued.  The Agreement made even more necessary the maintenance of UNEF, he added, because it was now being given a wider responsibility.

France, he went on to say, remained attached to the three principles on which it believed a lasting settlement could be based: first, the evacuation by Israel of the territories it had occupied in 1967; second, the recognition of the right of the Palestinians to a homeland; and, third, the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure, recognized and guaranteed frontiers.  He hoped that the necessary conditions for resuming the Geneva Peace Conference could be established as soon as possible–or the conditions for genuine negotiations–so that those principles might be applied in reaching an over-all settlement.

According to the representative of the United Kingdom, the new disengagement Agreement made the role of UNEF more important than ever before, and would, it was hoped, provide the impetus for further progress.  The one-year extension of the mandate of UNEF provided a real opportunity for progress towards the comprehensive settlement without which there could be no real security in the Middle East.

In Japan's view, the Agreement between Egypt and Israel, which reflected the determination of the parties to move towards peace, brightened the hope for still further progress.  However, the situation remained dangerous and his country shared the Secretary-General's view that despite the interim agreement concluded in September there should be no relaxation in the search for a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem.

The representative of Costa Rica observed that the Agreement signed between Egypt and Israel in September revealed that the parties had chosen the course of negotiation instead of hostile confrontation.  For the first time in many years there existed real grounds for believing that the Agreement represented a solid contribution for latter arrangements leading to a just and lasting peace in the area.

The United States representative stressed that, together with the September Agreement, the renewal of UNEF'S mandate for one year presented the Council with an opportunity to move forward to continue the process and to maintain the momentum.  As expressed by its Secretary of State, United States policy was to take every feasible step to promote further practical progress towards final peace.

The USSR representative warned that it would be a dangerous illusion and a serious mistake to attempt to use disengagement as a pretext for freezing the existing situation in the Middle East, to justify and cover up the continuation of the Israeli occupation of Arab lands.  The USSR had consented to the new extension on the understanding that the period of that extension should be actively used to take real steps towards a genuine peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem in accordance with the Council's resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) without any further delay.

The representative of the Byelorussian SSR said that what was needed to achieve a general settlement was not separate measures which did not resolve the fundamental issues, but a renewal of the work of the Geneva Peace Conference with the participation of all interested parties, including the Palestine Liberation Organization.  He further felt that UNEF should on no account be used as a means of perpetuating the occupation of the Arab territories by Israel.

The representative of Guyana said his country's position was that the prospects for lasting peace in the Middle East began and ended with the rights of the Palestinian people; the international community had the responsibility for the restoration of those rights.  He hoped that the new Agreement would give an important impetus towards the search for an over-all settlement leading to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The representative of Mauritania expressed the hope that the presence of UNEF would not serve to consolidate the status quo but would promote the urgent quest for a comprehensive solution of the entire problem.  His country, he said, would have preferred an extension of more limited duration so as to avoid prolonging the situation of no war, no peace, for another year.  However, Egypt was the party to decide on the duration of the mandate of the Force, which was stationed on its national territory, and Mauritania had therefore agreed to the one-year period.

The spokesman for the United Republic of Tanzania said the fact that the mandate had been extended for one full year–instead of, as was the previous practice, being given a quarterly or six-month extension–must be viewed as a unique opportunity for an intensification of efforts and negotiations towards a peaceful, just and lasting settlement.  He hoped that the Council and the United Nations as a whole would work relentlessly to bring an end to the injustice currently prevailing in the Middle East, as characterized by the continued occupation of Arab land and the denial of the Palestinians' legitimate rights and aspirations; the Force should in no circumstances be used as an instrument to perpetuate occupation.

The representatives of the Byelorussian SSR, France, Guyana and the USSR noted the increased expenditures of the Force resulting from its new functions and longer mandate and called for more efficiency and economy in the utilization of the funds allocated.  The Byelorussian SSR, Guyana and the USSR again called for continued efforts to end the discrimination practiced by Israel against certain contingents of UNEF.

Further communication (1 December 1975)

On 1 December 1975, the Secretary-General informed the Council that the Government of Iran had expressed its readiness to provide a naval unit for coastal patrol duties as a result of UNEF'S new functions under the Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 4 September.  The Secretary-General said he proposed to accept the offer.

Documentary references

Report of Secretary-General (12 April 1975)

S/11670 and Corr.1,2. Report of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 13 October 1974-12 April 1975).

Consideration by Security Council (17 April 1975)

Security Council, meeting 1821.

S/11670 and Corr.1,2. Report of the Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 13 October 1974-12 April 1975).

S/11675. Draft resolution.

Resolution 368 (1975), as proposed following consultations among Council members, S/11675, adopted by Council on 17 April 1975, meeting 1821, by 13 votes to 0, with 0 abstentions (China and Iraq did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 338 (1973) of 22 October, 340 (1973) of 25 October and 341 (1973) of 27 October 1973, 346 (1974) of 8 April and 362 (1974) of 23 October 1974,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Emergency Force (S/11670 and Corr.1 and 2),

Having noted the developments in the situation in the Middle East,

Expressing concern over the prevailing state of tension in the area,

Decides:

(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for a period of three months, that is, until 24 July 1975;

(c) To request the Secretary-General to submit at the end of this period a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

Communications and reports (April-July 1975)

S/11669 (A/10072). Letter of 10 April 1975 from Egypt.

S/11676 (A/10077). Letter of 21 April 1975 from Israel.

S/11757. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting letter of 14 July 1975 from Egypt).

S/11759. Letter of 16 July 1975 from Israel.

S/11758. Report of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 13 April-15 July 1975).

Consideration by Security Council (21 and 24 July 1975)

Security Council, meetings 1832, 1833.

S/11758. Report of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 13 April-15 July 1975). S/11771. Note by President of Security Council.

S/INF/31. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1975.  Decisions, p. 5.

S/11774 and Rev.1. Draft resolution and revision.

Resolution 371 (1975), as proposed following consultations among Council members, S/11774/Rev.1, adopted by Council on 24 July 1975, meeting 1833, by 13 votes to 0, with 0 abstentions (China and Iraq did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 338 (1973) of 22 October, 340 (1973) of 25 October and 341 (1973) of 27 October 973, 346 (1974) of 8 April and 362 (1974) of 23 October 974 and 368 (1975) of 17 April 1975,

Taking into account the letter dated 14 July 1975 addressed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister or Foreign Affairs of the Arab Republic of Egypt to he Secretary-General,

Bearing in mind the appeal addressed by the President of the Security Council to the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt on 21 July 1975 and expressing satisfaction for the reply of the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt thereto,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Emergency Force (S/11758),

Expressing concern at the continued state of tension in the area and the lack of progress towards the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

1. Calls upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973);

2. Decides to renew the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for a period of three months, that is, until 24 October 1975;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit at the end of this period or at any time in the intervening period a report on the situation in the Middle East and the steps taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

Communications and reports (July-October 1975)

S/11808. Note, dated 19 August 1975, by President of Security Council.

S/11818. Report, dated 2 September 1975, of Secretary-General.

S/11818/Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1. Addendum of 2 September 1975 to report of Secretary-General (transmitting Agreement between Egypt and Israel, initialled by parties on 1 September 1975; signed in Geneva, Switzerland on 4 September 1975).

S/11818/Add.2-4. Addenda of 4, 8 and 23 September 1975 to report of Secretary-General.

S/11818/Add.5 and Add.5/Corr.1. Addendum of 10 October 1975 to report of Secretary-General (annexing Protocol to Agreement between Egypt and Israel of, September 1975).

S/11849. Report of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 15 July-16 October 1975).

Consideration by Security Council (23 October 1975)

Security Council, meeting 1851.

S/11849. Report of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 15 July-16 October 1975). S/11856. Draft resolution.

Resolution 378 (1975), as proposed following consultations among Council members, S/11856, adopted by Council on 23 October 1975, meeting 1851, by 13 votes to 0 (China and Iraq did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 338 (1973) of 22 October, 340 (1973) of 25 October and 341 (1973) of 27 October 1973, 346 (1974) of 8 April and 362 (1974) of 23 October 1974, 368 (1975) of 17 April and 371 (1975) of 24 July 1975,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Emergency Force,

Having noted the developments in the situation in the Middle East,

Having further noted the Secretary-General's view that any relaxation of the search for a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem could be especially dangerous in the months to come and that it is his hope, therefore, that urgent efforts will be undertaken by all concerned to tackle the Middle East problem in all its aspects, with a view both to maintaining quiet in the region and to arriving at the comprehensive settlement called for by the Security Council in its resolution 338(1973),

1. Decides:

(a) To call upon all the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for a period of one year, that is, until 24 October 1976;

(c) To request the Secretary-General to submit at the end of this period a report on the developments in the situation and the steps taken to implement resolution 338 (1973);

2. Express its confidence that the Force will be maintained with maximum efficiency and economy.

Further communication (1 December 1975)

S/11896. Letter of 1 December 1975 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

Other documents

A/10001. Report of Secretary-General on work of Organization, 16 June 1974-15 June 1975, Part One, Chapter I A 1.

S/11536/Add.1. Progress report of 18 January 1975 of Secretary-General on UNEF.

SITUATION IN THE ISRAEL-SYRIA SECTOR

Reports of Secretary-General (January-May 1975)

On 21 January 1975, the Secretary-General issued a report on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) which had been established to supervise the terms of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces of 31 May 1974 and the Protocol to that Agreement. 11/  The strength of the Force stood at 1,202 men, he reported; it was made up of contingents from Austria, Canada, Peru and Poland, with headquarters staff on secondment from the United Nations Emergency Force and military observers detailed from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine.  Colonel Hannes Philipp of Austria was serving as Officer-in-Charge, pending the appointment of a new Commander.

The Secretary-General reported that some progress had been made regarding the issue of freedom of movement of the Force's personnel and that arrangements had been worked out to enable all UNDOF personnel to enjoy the freedom of movement essential for the performance of their tasks.  In accordance with its mandate, the Force had continued to supervise the area of separation by means of static posts and mobile patrols.  Unfortunately, there had been no progress in the clearing of minefields in the area of separation, despite continuing efforts.

According to the Secretary-General's report, UNDOF had continued to receive complaints from the parties about failure to comply with the Agreement.  These had been investigated and the results reported to the party concerned; the Force had continued to draw attention to violations it had itself observed.  There had been a marked decrease in the number of overflights of the area of separation, and the Secretary-General expressed the hope that that trend would continue.

As the mandate of UNDOF was due to expire on 31 May 1975, the Secretary-General issued a report on 21 May in order to provide the Security Council with an account of its activities during the period from 27 November 1974 to 21 May 1975.

With the co-operation of both parties, he said, the Force had continued to carry out the tasks assigned to it and had been able to contribute to the maintenance of the cease-fire.  Its functions and guidelines had not changed, and it had maintained close contact with the parties.  With regard to the freedom of movement of the Force contingents, the Secretary-General said, the arrangements worked out for that purpose still fell short of what was required, but efforts to secure full acceptance of that principle were continuing.

The continued existence of uncleared minefields within the area of separation constituted an ever-present hazard to both UNDOF troops and the civilian population, the Secretary-General went on to say, and he noted with regret that no progress had been made in the negotiations in that respect, although mine-clearing work in some areas had been carried out both by Syrian civilian authorities and by UNDOF mine-clearing teams.  The Force had continued to investigate complaints by the parties of alleged violations of the Agreement and to draw the attention of the parties to violations it had itself observed, with a view to having corrective action taken.

With regard to the financial aspects, the Secretary-General said it had thus far been possible to keep the rate of obligations and expenditures of the Force within the level of the appropriations and authorizations provided by the General Assembly, and he believed that the cost for the contemplated extension of the mandate would remain within that level of authorization.

The Secretary-General also reported that efforts had been made on several levels to advance the implementation of Security Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 12/ and that in his contacts with the parties and with other Governments he had lost no opportunity to contribute to that process.

The Secretary-General further observed that although both parties had in general continued to comply with the Agreement on Disengagement and there had been no significant violations and no casualties, the prevailing quiet was a precarious one.  The Agreement was not a peace agreement, he said, but only a step towards a just and durable peace on the basis of Security Council resolution 338 (1973).  Until further progress could be mad in that direction, the situation in the sector–and in the Middle East as a whole–would, he warned remain unstable and potentially dangerous.  Therefore, the continued presence of UNDOF in the sector was essential not only to maintain quiet but also to provide an atmosphere conducive to further efforts towards the achievement of a just and lasting peace.

The Secretary-General then said that both the Syrian Arab Republic and Israel had agreed an extension of UNDOF's mandate for a further period of six months, and he therefore recommended that the Security Council extend the mandate of UNDOF accordingly.

Consideration by Security Council (28 May 1975)

On 28 May 1975, the Security Council met consider the report of the Secretary-General the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and had before it a draft resolution prepared after consultations among Council members.  The text was adopted as resolution 369 (1975) by 13 votes to 0.  China and Iraq did not participate in vote.

By this text, the Council decided to call the parties concerned to implement immediately Council resolution 338 (1973), to renew the mandate of UNDOF for another six months, and to request the Secretary-General to submit at the end of that period a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

The representative of China explained his non-participation in the voting by stating that his Government had always held a differing position in principle on the question of dispatching United Nations forces.  The representative of Iraq maintained that the continued extension of the mandate of the Force had enabled the Zionists to persist in depriving the peoples of the Arab territories of their legitimate rights.  At the same time, no parallel action was being taken by the United Nations to ensure that the aggressor desisted from carrying out its illegal actions and policies in the occupied territories.  Iraq had therefore once again refrained from participation in the voting.

The representatives of Italy, Japan, the United Republic of Cameroon and the United States, among others, welcomed the extension of UNDOF'S mandate, which they considered essential in ensuring the maintenance of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces.  The view was expressed by some, including Sweden and the United Kingdom, that the mandate's renewal could not serve as a substitute for a settlement but only as a means of promoting efforts to reach it.

The representative of Mauritania noted that the Force had the essential role of observing the disengagement of Israeli military forces from Syrian territory, and therefore the area in which it functioned could not constitute a permanent line of demarcation between the Syrian Arab Republic and the Zionist occupation forces.

According to the USSR representative, the resolution renewing the mandate of the Force was to designed to help bring about a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East problem based on the immediate implementation of resolution 338 (1973), which remained unimplemented because of Israel's refusal to withdraw its troops from all occupied territories and to acknowledge the lawful rights of the Palestinian people.  The decision just to adopted, he said, should be used for active work towards the earliest achievement of a comprehensive, settlement and the establishment of a lasting and just peace in the area.  He drew attention to the warning in the Secretary General's report to the effect that the quiet in the Israel-Syria sector was a precarious one and that the Disengagement Agreement was not a peace agreement but only a step towards a just and lasting peace.  He deplored Israel's continued discrimination against certain UNDOF contingents and urged that decisive measures be taken to end Israel's illegal action.

The representative of France shared the view that the resolution extending the mandate of UNDOF was not an end in itself but had to be linked to the implementation of resolution 338 (1973).  In the view of France, he said, the achievement of a lasting peace had to be based on three conditions: withdrawal from the occupied territories, due account being taken of the right of the Palestinian people to their own country and recognition of the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.  He also hoped that conditions would be met as soon as possible for a resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East and for genuine negotiations so that the real problems could be finally dealt with.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said his Government considered that Israel had the responsibility for removing the root cause of the whole problem: until Israel vacated the Arab territories which it had illegally occupied since 1967, and until the legitimate rights of the Palestinians had been recognized and realized, there could be no durable peace in the Middle East.

The Council President, speaking as the representative of Guyana, said that the extension of UNDOF's mandate provided the United Nations and all who desired genuine peace an opportunity for constructive action pursuant to Council resolution 338 (1973).  Meanwhile, no obstacles should be allowed to impair the effective functioning of the peace-keeping operation whose mandate the Council had just renewed in the interest of peace in the Middle East and in the world.

Communications and reports (July to November 1975)

On 9 July 1975, the President of the Security Council issued a note stating that the Secretary-General had informed him of his intention, if the Security Council so consented, to appoint Colonel Hannes Philipp, who was shortly to become a Major-General, as Commander of UNDOF.  Following consultations with the members of the Council, the President said he had informed the Secretary-General that the Security Council had given its consent to the proposed appointment and that China had dissociated itself from the matter.

On 22 July, the President issued another note stating, with regard to the replacement of the Peruvian contingent of UNDOF which had been withdrawn as of 20 July at the request of the Government of Peru, that the Secretary-General had proposed its replacement by one from Iran.  The President, following consultations with Council members, had informed the Secretary-General that the Council had agreed to his proposal.  China, he said, had dissociated itself from the matter.

In connexion with the expiration of UNDOF'S mandate on 30 November 1975, the Secretary-General on 24 November reported to the Security Council on the activities of the Force during the period from 22 May to 24 November.

He said the situation in the UNDOF area of operations had remained quiet for the most part, and both parties had continued generally to comply with the cease-fire and with the Agreement on Disengagement of forces.  Although the arrangements that had been worked out for the freedom of movement of the Force had fallen short of what was required, efforts to secure full acceptance of that principle were continuing.  Moreover, UNDOF mine-clearing teams had continued their work and had increased the area accessible to foot and vehicle patrols.  Efforts to advance the implementation of Security Council resolution 338 (1973) had continued on several levels, including contacts between the two Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East and between them and other parties concerned.  The Secretary-General said he had remained involved in those efforts and his current visit to the area–from 22 to 27 November–was directly related to them.

The Secretary-General observed in conclusion that the existing quiet remained precarious, as the Agreement on Disengagement was not a peace agreement but only a step towards a just and durable peace on the basis of resolution 338 (1973).  He considered therefore that the continued presence of UNDOF was essential, not only to maintain quiet in the Israel Syria sector but also to provide an atmosphere conducive to further peace efforts and to assist in such efforts, if required.  The Secretary-General, who was then visiting the area to discuss the situation in all its aspects with the parties concerned, said he would report to the Security Council as soon as possible on the question of the extension of the UNDOF mandate.

On 28 November, the Secretary-General reported on talks he had held in the Middle East between 22 and 27 November with the leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan, and with the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).  He said that the President of the Syrian Arab Republic had expressed strong disappointment that no progress had been made in the negotiating field with respect to his country since the establishment of UNDOF in 1974.  For that reason, the President said, his Government found it difficult to approve the prolongation of UNDOF'S mandate without a corresponding prospect for progress in the negotiating process.  It wished the Security Council to deal with the substance of the Middle East problem, including the Palestinian question.  The President also said his country did not wish to engage in negotiations on partial measures and it would not participate in the Geneva Conference or any other forum so long as PLO was not a participant.  Following extensive discussions, the Secretary-General went on to report, the Syrian President had declared his readiness to agree to a renewal of UNDOF'S mandate for another six-month period, provided that the Security Council reconvened in January 1976 to hold a substantive debate on the Middle East problem, including the Palestinian question, with the participation of representatives of PLO.

The Secretary-General said that Israel, on the other hand, had informed him that it regarded UNDOF as an integral part of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces of May 1974 and remained opposed to linking the extension of its mandate to further negotiations.  It was willing to negotiate at any time with the Syrian Arab Republic, but not with PLO.  Once UNDOF'S mandate was extended, Israel was ready to participate in a reconvened Geneva Peace Conference on the understanding that only the original participants would attend.  It considered the Security Council resolution 338 (1973) provided the basis for negotiations and it therefore did not accept the Security Council as the negotiating body for the Middle East problem.

The Secretary-General further reported that his talks with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon had been most useful and had contributed considerably to his understanding of the over-all situation in the Middle East.  Finally, he reiterated his conviction that the presence of UNDOF was essential not only to maintain quiet in the Israel-Syria sector but also to provide an atmosphere conducive to further negotiating efforts.  In light of his consultations, he therefore proposed the extension of UNDOF'S mandate for a further six-month period, on the assumption that the Council would reach agreement on a corresponding decision, taking due account of the positions put forward by the parties.

Consideration by Security Council (30 November 1975)

The Security Council met on 30 November to consider the report of the Secretary-General.  The President of the Council drew attention to a draft resolution sponsored by Guyana, Mauritania, the United Republic of Cameroon and the United Republic of Tanzania and to a draft statement submitted by the co-sponsors which, it had been agreed, he would read into the meeting record after the Council had voted on the draft resolution.

By the operative part of the draft resolution, the Council would decide: to reconvene on 12 January 1976, to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question, taking into account all relevant United Nations resolutions; to renew the mandate of UNDOF for another period of six months; and to request the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council informed on further developments.

The representative of the United States considered that the draft resolution was taken without prejudice to the Geneva formula or to the negotiations by the parties through intermediaries.  For the United States, he added, only Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) 13/ and 338 (1973) 14/ were in fact relevant to the situation in the Middle East.

The Council then adopted the draft resolution by 13 votes to 0, as resolution 381 (1975).  China and Iraq did not participate in the voting.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

In accordance with the agreement previously reached, the President read the following statement:

It is the understanding of the majority of the Security Council that when it reconvenes on 12 January 1976 in accordance with paragraph (a) of resolution 381 (1975) the representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization will be invited to participate in the debate.

The Secretary-General then informed the Council that he would immediately take the necessary measures for the continued functioning of UNDOF.  He would also continue his efforts, in co-operation with the parties, to assist in the search for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The representative of China indicated that his country had always held a different position on the question of the United Nations Force.  Based on that position, the Chinese delegation had not participated in the vote.

Mauritania's spokesman cautioned that, while the renewal of the Force's mandate was needed so that efforts might be continued to reach a just and lasting peace in the area, it should not be a means of allowing Israel to maintain a status quo enabling it to continue illegally to occupy part of Syrian territory.  He considered the decision of the Council to meet again on 12 January and to invite representatives of PLO to participate in that debate to be an important step which supplemented the General Assembly's resolution of 10 November 1975 (3375 (XXX)) (see section below on THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE for discussion of the resolution).

The representative of the United Republic of Cameroon agreed with the Secretary-General that despite the calm in UNDOF'S zone, the situation remained precarious because the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces was not a peace agreement but one step towards a just and lasting peace on the basis of resolution 338 (1973).  He, too, welcomed the Security Council's decision to meet again in January 1976 and fully supported the President's statement on the participation of representatives of PLO in the forthcoming debate.

The representative of Iraq said that it was inconceivable that the Council should renew UNDOF's mandate and fail to take action to prevent Israel from pursuing its policy of settlement and annexation of the occupied territories.  Since the Council had failed to take clear measures to stop the Zionist policies of expansion, Iraq had not participated in the vote.  He hoped that the Security Council would seize the opportunity of its January meetings to redress the great injustice it had dealt to the people of Palestine.

According to the representative of Costa Rica the resolution just adopted could not be separated from the Disengagement Agreement, which was not restricted by a deadline and which represented a commitment to be observed by the two parties.  With regard to the Security Council's decision which Costa Rica supported, to meet again in January to discuss the Middle East problem, taking into account all relevant United Nations resolutions, he considered that the main resolutions adopted by the Council in its desire to find a settlement in the Middle East were resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

Japan's spokesman said his Government had consistently taken the position that a just and lasting peace should be achieved in the Middle East as soon as possible through the speedy at complete implementation of Security Council resolution 338 (1973).  His Government also consider that recognition of the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to self-determination was essential for the achievement of peace in the Middle East.  With regard to the Council's decision to meet in January, Japan's view was that Security Council resolution 338 (1973) should have been referred to in the resolution as the basis for the Council's forthcoming debate.

The French representative cautioned that the renewal of the mandate should not aim at perpetuating the status quo but at ensuring that the peace momentum did not come up against unforeseeable obstacles.  France, he said, continued to consider that the settlement should be based on the withdrawal by Israel from territories occupied in 1967, the recognition of the rights of the Palestinians to a homeland and the acknowledgement of the right of every State in the area to live in peace within secured, recognized and guaranteed borders.  While he did not object to the President's statement, he believed that it involved a procedural step which could have been settled in accordance with normal practice when the January debate began.

The representative of the United Kingdom asserted that the progress achieved in the preceding few months should be followed up by further negotiations and that the time provided by the new mandate should be used to good effect.  He hoped that the planned January meeting of the Security Council would provide a renewed impetus for negotiations towards an over-all settlement on the basis of Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).  With regard to the President's statement, he felt that, in accordance with established procedures, the question of participation in any meetings of the Council was a matter to be decided at the time of those meetings.

Italy's representative was convinced that in the current circumstances UNDOF had an important role to play and that the extension of its mandate was necessary. Italy, he said, welcomed the possibility of a new, comprehensive debate on the  Middle East situation if such a debate could give new momentum to the search for peace in the area.  He would have preferred to have a reference to resolution 338 (1973) included in the resolution just adopted, since that resolution, coupled with resolution 242 (1967), remained the main basis for a just and lasting settlement of the Middle East problem.  He said his Government objected to the President's statement as it did not believe it right to prejudge in any way a debate that would not take place for six weeks, in circumstances which could not be predicted with any certainty.

According to the representative of the Byelorussian SSR, the time had come to undertake a comprehensive political settlement of the Middle East problem on the basis of Security Council resolution 338 (1973) and General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974. 15/  The Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East should be fully reactivated in the near future and the Palestine Liberation Organization should participate in its work.  He stressed that the United Nations Forces in the Middle East were not to be used to perpetuate the Israeli occupation of Arab territories and that the renewal of the mandate of those Forces could not be divorced from a political settlement of the problem.

The United States representative explained that his Government agreed to the resolution just adopted solely out of deference to the right of the Security Council to take up any matter it wanted to discuss and not out of a desire for a debate by the Council on the situation in the Middle East.  With regard to the Council's decision to continue the debate in January, taking into account all relevant United Nations resolutions, he emphasized once again that for the United States only Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) were in fact relevant to the situation.  He also wished to make clear that the United States did not support the statement of the President on the participation of PLO in the January session.  That statement, he maintained, did not report a decision of the Council but was merely a summation of the views of some of its members. Nevertheless, the United States pledged its continued efforts to further the process towards peace in the Middle East.

The Swedish representative agreed with the Secretary-General's conclusion that the presence of UNDOF continued to be of vital importance in promoting an atmosphere conducive to further peace efforts.  His country welcomed the Council's decision to meet again in January and to invite the representatives of PLO to participate.  In Sweden's opinion, resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) remained the basis for any just settlement in the Middle East.

The spokesman for the United Republic of Tanzania warned that the patience and good intentions of the Council should never be used for the purpose of perpetuating a state of tension or consolidating illegal territorial acquisitions, and he agreed with the Secretary-General that unless progress was achieved the situation in the area would remain unstable and, with the passage of time, would become increasingly dangerous.  Neither the Arab States nor the Palestinians would tolerate the existing situation indefinitely.

The Council President, speaking as the USSR representative, said the question of the renewal of UNDOF'S mandate was not an isolated issue but was connected with the entire set of issues relating to the Middle East problem, including the Palestinian question.  The fundamental requirements of a settlement–namely, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967 and the satisfaction of the legitimate national rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including the right to create its own State–had thus far not been solved.  The USSR considered that the only true way of achieving a settlement was through the joint and collective efforts of all the parties directly concerned; the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East provided an international mechanism to achieve a just settlement and, in the view of the USSR, should from the very outset of the resumed session be open to the participation on an equal footing of all the parties directly concerned, including the representatives of the Arab people of Palestine as represented by PLO.  The purpose of the resumed session should be to achieve a comprehensive political settlement on the basis of the relevant United Nations decisions, including Security Council resolution 338 (1973) and General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX).

Communications (November-December 1975)

By a note verbale dated 21 November 1975, the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted the text of a letter addressed to the Commander of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force in which the Syrian delegate to the Israel-Syria Mixed Armistice Commission had submitted charges concerning two Israeli violations of the Agreement on Disengagement, resulting in two deaths, and had requested that measures be taken to prevent the repetition of such acts.

In a letter dated 21 November, the representative of Israel said that on 28 October and 20 November civilian targets in Israel had been attacked by terror squads which had infiltrated from the Syrian Arab Republic.  He emphasized the special responsibility of the Syrian Government for such acts, which constituted a grave violation of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces.

The Israeli charges were rejected by the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic in a letter dated 26 November, in which he declared that nothing in the Agreement on Disengagement could be construed as imposing any responsibility on his Government in relation to the struggle of the Palestinian liberation fighters.

The representative of Israel, in a further letter dated 3 December, replied that under the Agreement on Disengagement both sides were under the obligation to prevent all and any violations of the cease-fire originating in their respective territories.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

Reports of Secretary-General (January-May 1975)

S/11563/Add.1. Further progress report of 21 January 1975 of Secretary-General on UNDOF.

S/11694. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF (for period 27 November 1974-21 May 1975).

Consideration by Security Council (28 May 1975)

Security Council, meeting 1822.

S/11694. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF (for period 27 November 1974-21 May 1975).

S/ 11700. Draft resolution.

Resolution 369 (1975), as proposed following consultations among Council members, S/11700, adopted by Council on 28 May 1975, meeting 1822, by 13 votes to 0 (China and Iraq did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force,

Having noted the efforts made to establish a lasting and just peace in the Middle East area and the developments in the situation in the area,

Expressing concern over the prevailing state of tension in the area,

Reaffirming that the two agreements on disengagement of forces are only a step towards the implementation of Security Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973,

Decides:

(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months;

(c) To request the Secretary-General to submit at the end of this period a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

Communications and reports (July to November 1975)

S/11750. Note, dated 9 July 1975, by President of Security Council.

S/11768. Note, dated 22 July 1975, by President of Security Council.

S/11808. Note, dated 19 August 1975, by President of Security Council.

S/INF/31. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1975. Decisions, pp. 5, 6.

S/11883. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF (for period 22 May-24 November 1975).

S/11883/Add.1. Further report of Secretary-General on UNDOF.

Consideration by Security Council (30 November 1975)

Security Council, meeting 1856.

S/11883. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF (for period 22 May-24 November 1975).

S/11883/Add.1. Further report of Secretary-General on UNDOF, dated 28 November 1975.

S/11888. Guyana, Mauritania, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania: draft resolution.

S/11889. Draft statement by Security Council President submitted by Guyana, Mauritania, United Republic of Cameroon and United Republic of Tanzania.

Resolution 381 (1975), as proposed by 4 powers, S/11888, adopted by Council on 30 November 1975, meeting 1856, by 13 votes to 0 (China and Iraq did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force,

Having noted the discussions of the Secretary-General with all parties concerned on the situation in the Middle East,

Expressing concern over the continued state of tension in the area,

Decides:

(a) To reconvene on 12 January 1976, to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestine question, taking into account all relevant United Nations resolutions;

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months;

(c) To request the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council informed on further developments.

Communications (November-December 1975)

S/11882 (A/10377). Letter of 21 November 1975 from Israel.

S/11885 (A/10389). Note verbale of 21 November 1975 from Syrian Arab Republic (annexing letter of 20 October 1975 from Senior Delegate of Syrian Arab Delegation of Israeli-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission to Commander of UNDOF).

S/11886 (A/10390). Letter of 26 November 1975 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11894 (A/10418). Letter of 3 December 1975 from Israel.

Other documents

A/10001. Report of Secretary-General on work of Organization, 16 June 1974-15 June 1975, Part One, Chapter I A 2.

S/11595. Note, dated 10 January 1975, by President of Security Council.

Situation in the Israel-Lebanon sector

During 1975, developments relating to the status of the cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon continued to be the subject of reports submitted by the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO) and transmitted by the Secretary-General to the Security Council, as well as the subject of communications addressed to the Council and the Secretary-General by the parties.  Later in the year, Lebanon submitted complaints concerning Israeli raids on Lebanese territory and, in particular, on Palestinian refugee camps in the southern part of the country; the Security Council considered the matter in December.

Communications and reports (January to December 1975)

During January, February and early March 1975, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO submitted 11 reports on developments in the Israel-Lebanon sector, indicating that there had been an increase of ground activity at the beginning and towards the middle of January: however, towards the end of the month and throughout February and early March, the activity decreased and remained at a low level.

During January, Israel addressed several letters to the Secretary-General containing charges of attacks against Israel's civilian population by terrorists coming from Lebanese territory and of firing directed against Israeli territory from Lebanese border areas where, Israel said, the Lebanese Government appeared to have surrendered its authority to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Also during January, Lebanon complained of acts of aggression committed against it by Israel, including penetration of Lebanese air space by Israeli warplanes and of Lebanese territorial waters by Israeli warships, numerous incidents of shelling or firing across the border and several frontier crossings by Israeli troops.  Lebanon also charged that between 11 and 17 January Israel had almost demolished a village in southern Lebanon by means of heavy artillery and mortar shelling and transformed it into a deserted village.

In letters dated 6 and 10 March, Israel charged that, on the night of 5 March, 11 civilians had been killed in Tel Aviv, Israel, by PL0 terrorists, who had come from Lebanon in a chartered boat and attacked a residential hotel, apartment houses and passers-by.

On 14 May, Lebanon complained of a series of aggressive actions by Israel in the period from 1 to 14 May, including border crossings, violations of air space and territorial waters and the kidnapping of several Lebanese civilians.  Lebanon strongly protested those actions and called on the Security Council to note that they had been committed in defiance of Council resolutions warning Israel against such activity.  Israel replied on the same date that in the preceding five weeks more than 50 acts of aggression had been committed against Israel and its citizens by terror organizations operating from Lebanese territory and that Israel had been compelled to take defensive measures.  Lebanon's letter was another attempt to mislead public opinion with regard to a situation which the Government of Lebanon itself had created by refusing to enforce its sovereignty within its borders.  It was common knowledge, Israel said, that PLO terrorist organizations were in virtual control of parts of Lebanon.

In a letter dated 20 May, Lebanon charged that on 17 May a mortar shell fired by Israeli artillery had killed nine children and injured three others.  That tragic incident, Lebanon said, was a result of Israel's continual acts of aggression and demonstrated the attacks endured by the innocent civilian population of Lebanon.

Between 1 April and 2 June, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO submitted five reports on the status of the cease-fire in the sector.  Among other things, he said that military activity in the sector had remained at a low level.  Israeli forces had continued to occupy daily, during daylight hours, five positions inside Lebanese territory, and several cases of firing across the Armistice Demarcation Line and several border crossings had occurred.  He also reported overflights of Lebanese territory by Israeli jet aircraft, as well as penetration of Lebanese territorial waters by Israeli naval vessels.  Lebanon had lodged numerous complaints concerning such incidents.

On 26 May, the UNTSO Chief of Staff reported increased ground and air activity in the area on 24 and 25 May, including 84 overflights by Israeli jet aircraft.  An Israeli force had been observed entering the Lebanese village of Aita Ech Chaab on the morning of 25 May and departing five hours later, during which time there had been an exchange of artillery and mortar fire.  The parties had accepted a cease-fire proposed by the Chief of Staff.  Lebanon had lodged a complaint that Israeli forces had attacked a Lebanese outpost and killed seven soldiers.  An inquiry conducted by UNTSO observers had confirmed that complaint.  In an additional report on 27 May, the Chief of Staff said that Lebanon had complained that Israeli artillery fire, and rockets and bombs from Israeli jet aircraft, had fallen on several Lebanese localities, wounding three soldiers and causing damage.  An inquiry conducted by UNTSO observers had confirmed the complaint in so far as the damage was concerned.

In letters dated 27 May and 6 June, Israel complained of further attacks against it by PLO terrorists from Lebanese territory, charging that, on 26 and 27 May and 5 June, rockets had been fired at Israeli localities from terrorist positions in Lebanon, wounding one civilian and damaging residential houses.  Israel said it held Lebanon responsible for the situation resulting from PL0 domination over areas of Lebanese territory and would continue to exercise its international right and obligation to protect its citizens and territory against such attacks.

In a report submitted on developments during June, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO said that on 15 June Israeli jet aircraft had attacked a Lebanese village with bombs and rockets, causing material damage.  Lebanon had submitted 55 complaints about artillery attacks against Lebanese territory, overflights by Israeli jet aircraft and penetration by Israeli naval craft into Lebanese territorial waters.

In a letter dated 15 June, Israel charged that a four-man squad which had infiltrated into Israeli territory from Lebanon had seized a house in a village located in Upper Galilee, had killed two persons and wounded three others.  The four terrorists had been killed by Israeli soldiers.  Israel reiterated that PLO, which had taken credit for the attack, was in virtual control of parts of Lebanese territory and that the Government of Lebanon bore a heavy responsibility for that fact.  Israel also charged on 16 June that PLO terrorists had directed their fire from Lebanese territory against the towns of Nahariya and Metula and on the village of Kfar Giladi.

In a letter dated 16 June, Lebanon charged that twice during the previous day formations of Israeli jet aircraft had attacked the village of Kfar Chouba, killing one person, wounding three and destroying many houses.  The Chief of Staff of UNTSO also submitted a report on this incident.

During July, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO submitted three special reports which indicated an increase in activity.  The over-all report for July cited cases of firing incidents across the Armistice Demarcation Line, across the line between Lebanese territory and Israeli-occupied Syrian territory and across or within Lebanese territorial waters, border crossing violations and overflights of Lebanese territory by Israeli jet aircraft.  Lebanese authorities had submitted numerous complaints, some of which had been the subject of UNTSO inquiries and investigations.

In a letter dated 7 July Lebanon charged that during the previous night Israeli artillery had shelled a number of villages in southern Lebanon, along a wide front, killing one woman and wounding two persons.  Israel, in a reply dated 8 July, said that Lebanon had misrepresented the facts by pretending that peaceful villages had been attacked; in fact, Israel said, it had taken action against a number of PLO terrorist bases in the areas from which murder missions were launched against Israeli villages.  In view of the virtual control exercised over parts of Lebanese territory by PLO and the close co-operation between PLO and the Lebanese Government, Israel had no choice but to take all necessary measures to protect its citizens and its territory.  In a further letter on 14 July, Israel charged that on 13 July PLO terrorists based in Lebanon had fired on the town of Nahariya and other areas in Israel, wounding two women.

Lebanon charged in a letter dated 24 July that on 23 July Israeli forces had crossed its southern border, demolished two houses and kidnapped seven persons, while other Israeli soldiers had fired across the border, killing two persons and wounding 10 others.

During August, three special reports were submitted by the UNTSO Chief of Staff concerning a firing incident on 4 August, a jet aircraft attack on two Lebanese villages on 20 August, and an exchange of fire on 29/30 August.  For the month as a whole, he reported that United Nations observers had recorded more than 100 cases of firing across the Armistice Demarcation Line or across the line between Lebanon and Israeli-occupied Syrian territory.  There had been 37 flights by Israeli aircraft over Lebanese territory, as well as overflights by unidentified jet aircraft.  During the period, Lebanon had submitted 95 complaints of various aerial and ground violations by Israel.

In letters dated 5 and 6 August, Israel complained of a series of acts of violence committed against Israel from Lebanese territory by members of PLO between 15 July and 6 August, resulting in the death of one soldier and four terrorists and the wounding of several others.  Israel charged that PLO had been boasting that its murderous missions had been endorsed by recent resolutions of the General Assembly, giving substance to Israel's warnings that those resolutions had become a source of encouragement and support for PLO terrorist activities.

On 6 August, Lebanon complained that Israeli forces, supported by artillery, had launched land, sea and air attacks on the coastal town of Tyre.  Four Lebanese officers and seven civilians had been killed, 12 persons had been wounded and 15 houses destroyed.  The Israeli air force had also bombarded four towns in southern Lebanon.

On 21 August, Lebanon complained that Israeli aircraft had raided two villages located more than 150 kilometres from the frontier, killing three civilians and wounding 15 others.  Those raids, Lebanon said, undertaken on the eve of a peaceful mission to the Middle East by the United States Secretary of State, showed that Israel was not prepared to create the necessary conditions for a just and lasting peace in the area.

In a letter dated 26 August, Israel submitted complaints of six attacks against it between 7 and 20 August by PLO terrorists coming from Lebanese territory.  The attacks, Israel noted, had been mounted during the negotiations for all interim agreement between Israel and Egypt and had been meant to sabotage the peace mission of the United States Secretary of State.

In letters dated 4 and 12 September, Lebanon complained that Israel had committed five acts of aggression between 28 August and 11 September, using Phantom jets against several localities, including a Palestinian refugee camp, and causing the destruction of many houses, substantial property damage and the death of two children and the wounding of 10 other persons.

During the months of September, October and November, reports by the UNTSO Chief of Staff showed that incidents in the sector had followed the same pattern as in previous months, with reported cases of firing across the Armistice Demarcation Line, flights by Israeli jet aircraft over Lebanese territory and repeated complaints by Lebanon about various alleged violations of the cease-fire.

In a special report dated 2 December, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO stated that Israeli jet aircraft had attacked in the vicinity of the town of Nabatieh.

On 3 December, the representative of Lebanon requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider what was described as massive air attacks launched by Israel on 2 December against refugee camps and villages in various parts of Lebanon that had caused heavy casualties among the civilian population.  Also on 3 December, Egypt requested an urgent meeting of the Council to discuss the Israeli attack and asked that the Palestine Liberation Organization be allowed to participate in the debate.

On 4 December, the Algerian representative transmitted the text of a declaration adopted by the Co-ordinating Committee of the Non-Aligned Countries in the United Nations asking the Security Council to condemn Israel's act of aggression and to take steps to restrain that country from launching attacks against its neighbours and terrorizing the Palestinian refugees.

Consideration by Security Council (4-8 December 1975)

The Security Council considered the request of Lebanon and Egypt at four meetings held between 4 and 8 December 1975.  The representatives of Egypt, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic and, later, Saudi Arabia, at their request, we invited to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

The President drew attention to the request made in Egypt's letter of 3 December for the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the debate and to a similar proposal made during informal consultations by the representatives of Guyana, Iraq, Mauritania, the United Republic of Cameroon and the United Republic of Tanzania.  He pointed out that the proposal was not submitted under rule 37 16/ or rule 39 17/ of the Security Council's provisional rules of procedure.  If the proposal was adopted by the Council, the invitation to PLO to participate in the debate would confer on it the same rights of participation as were conferred when a Member State was invited to participate under rule 37.

The representatives of France, Italy and Japan felt that the invitation should be extended on the basis of rule 39 because, they said, PLO should not be equated with Member States whose participation was governed by rule 37.  The representative of the United States said his Government was not prepared to agree to an ad hoc departure from the rules of procedure tailored to meet the asserted needs of PLO.  It was totally opposed to the invitation because PLO had, among other things, rejected Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 18/ which for years had served as the only agreed basis for serious negotiation on the Middle East problem.

The representatives of the Byelorussian SSR, Iraq, Mauritania and the USSR, on the other hand, supported the invitation to PLO to participate in the discussion of the Council under no particular rule but by a Council decision on the proposal.  They argued that PLO had been recognized as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, who were the victims of the aggression to be discussed by the Council.  Furthermore, these speakers said, PLO had been accorded the status of permanent observer by the General Assembly.

The Council President, speaking as the representative of the United Kingdom, said that to grant to PLO an exceptional status in the Council's proceedings would constitute an undesirable and unnecessary departure from the established practice of the Council.  He did not regard it as appropriate to accord such a status to a body which not only was not a Member State but which did not claim to be a State or the government of a State.  The Palestine Liberation Organization had, he said, been accorded a certain status by the Assembly but it did not, in his view, have the same status as those non-member States which had been recognized as permanent observers.

The Council adopted the proposal by 9 votes to 3 (Costa Rica, United Kingdom, United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Italy, Japan).

In accordance with the Council's decision, the representative of PLO was then invited to participate in the debate.

The spokesman for Lebanon said that, on 2 December, 30 Israeli Phantom and Skyhawk jet aircraft had attacked three major Palestinian refugee camps in northern and southern Lebanon, two of them located near the northern Lebanese frontier, more than 200 kilometres from the Lebanese-Israeli border, and the third in southern Lebanon.  As a result of those attacks, 82 Palestinians and 20 Lebanese had been killed and 117 Palestinians and 11 Lebanese injured.  A large number of houses had been destroyed and many others damaged.

He went on to observe that Lebanon had gone through severe ordeals in recent months and its Government and people were finding their way back to normalcy.  It might, he said, seem strange that Israel should choose the moment when Lebanon was healing its wounds and heading for stability to attack many areas of the country with severity and cold-bloodedness.  But, he noted, there was no reason for wonder since Israel's established policy was one of provoking and perpetuating a constant state of turmoil in Lebanon.  Since 1968, many attacks, raids and invasions of Lebanese territory, air space and waters had been undertaken by Israel; the Council had on several occasions condemned Israel and warned it not to repeat its attacks, but to no avail.  Instead, Israel had shown contempt for the Council's decisions and for various other United Nations resolutions.  The result of Israel's attacks had been hundreds of people killed or wounded, hundreds of homes destroyed, scores of villages levelled, and thousands of people uprooted from southern Lebanon.

The representative went on to say that Lebanon had always maintained that the problem of the Palestinian people constituted the core of the Middle East problem and that no solution could be effective or durable unless that people exercised its inalienable rights to self-determination and nationhood.  The international community must face that question and find the proper solution or the situation would fester indefinitely.  Lebanon, he said, refused to be an innocent victim in the tragedy and it demanded an end to the attacks against its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  The Council must stand by its obligations under the United Nations Charter.  He hoped it would adopt a resolution condemning Israel for its premeditated air attack against Lebanon, calling upon it to desist from all military attacks against Lebanon and issuing once more a solemn warning to Israel that, if such attacks were repeated, the Council would have to consider steps and measures to give effect to its decisions.

The representatives of Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic blamed Israel for blocking any efforts towards reaching a peaceful and just settlement in the area.  The representative of Egypt held Israel responsible for the deterioration in the Middle East situation and said that Israel's aggression contradicted the spirit in which the disengagement agreements on the Syrian and Egyptian fronts were concluded.  The latest escalation of military operations would, he said, have far-reaching consequences on the chances of peace in the area and on the prospects for a peaceful settlement.  For the Syrian Arab Republic, its representative said, the Palestinian people was a fact and a reality recognized by everyone except Israel.  With regard to PLO, which Israel claimed it did not recognize as the representative of the Palestinians, he said it had been chosen as the representative of the Palestinian people outside and inside the occupied territories by a decision of all Arab countries and by all the countries of the Organization of African Unity and by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly adopted by an overwhelming majority.

The PLO representative said that as a result of exile and dispersion the Palestinian people had created the Palestine Liberation Organization which was now recognized by the international community as the sole legitimate representative of the people of Palestine.  The Palestinians had asserted their will to fight until their inalienable rights were recognized and implemented.  The National Palestine Council had, he said, endorsed a national liberation programme which aimed at the establishment of a national and sovereign Palestinian authority on any liberated part of Palestine.

The spokesman for the United States said his Government deeply deplored Israel's recent air attacks just as it had consistently deplored the despicable terrorist incidents which had caused loss of life in Israel.  The United States, he added, was prepared to support an appropriate resolution registering the strongest disapproval by the Council of all acts of violence in the Middle East, particularly those resulting in the death of innocent civilians, and calling on all parties to refrain from any action that might endanger peace negotiations.  His Government had been devoting its most intensive efforts during the preceding two years in order to bring peace to the area, and would persevere in its efforts.  The Council's task was to weigh how its reactions could best advance the reconciliation of views which was the prerequisite of a peace agreement.  That would not be accomplished by the adoption of one-sided resolutions, but would be facilitated if the Council rendered impartial, reasoned and reasonable judgements on the issues properly within its competence.

According to the USSR representative, Israel's action was aimed not only at intimidating the population of Lebanon but also at striking a physical blow against the Arab people of Palestine as represented by PLO.  It was also aimed at undermining the international efforts being made both outside and within the United Nations toward achieving a just and lasting peace in the area.

However, he went on to say, a just and durable peace could be achieved only on the basis of the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967 and only provided that the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine were taken care of, including their inalienable right to create their own State.  There had been attempts to avoid convening a Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East and to substitute for it a number of other proposals.  The attempts were aimed at preventing the participation of the Palestinians in the discussion of the Middle East problem.  He emphasized that PLO had been recognized at the twenty-ninth (1974) a thirtieth (1975) sessions of the Assembly as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

In the view of the representatives of Japan and Sweden, all international conflicts and disputes should be solved through dialogue and by peaceful means.  The Swedish representative did see how the spiral of violence could be brought to an end unless the basic problems were discussed between the parties directly concerned.  In that debate, he said, all parties, PLO as well as the States and Israel, had to accept the basic political realities in the area.  While the right of Israel to exist was not to be questioned, the Palestinians had a right to their own statehood.

The French representative said that Israel's actions were all the more reprehensible since they occurred at a time when Lebanon itself was enduring an ordeal; the stability of the Lebanese State was an essential element for balance in the Middle East, he said, and therefore he wondered how Israel could be unaware of the very grave consequences of its actions of 2 December.  Israel could not hope to start the negotiations it called for if at the same time it threatened and struck on Arab soil a branch of the Arab people.

The representative of China said that the situation of no war, no peace, which the super-powers had deliberately created, had provided the conditions for Israel's pursuance of its policies of aggression and expansion.

The Mauritanian representative said that Lebanon had always been a land of balanced politics, exemplary democracy and religious tolerance, where Jews, Christians and Moslems lived together in mutual respect.  That example undermined Israel's favourite thesis according to which it was difficult for the three religions to live side by side in the same country.  To justify its thesis, Israel had sought to pit Palestinians against Lebanese and Christians against Moslems, and destroy Lebanese democracy to justify the dictatorship of Zionism.

The representative of the United Republic of Cameroon condemned Israel's attack because it constituted a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a Member State and because it implied the adoption, implementation and systematic practice of State terrorism as a political instrument to intimidate the Arab peoples and to perpetuate the occupation of territories annexed by force.

He introduced a draft resolution sponsored by Guyana, Iraq, Mauritania, the United Republic of Cameroon and the United Republic of Tanzania.

By the preamble to this five-power draft text, the Security Council among other things would recall its previous relevant resolutions and deplore Israel's defiance of them.  It would express grief at the tragic loss of human life caused by indiscriminate and massive Israeli air attacks, and would also express grave concern about the deteriorating situation resulting from Israel's violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and of Security Council resolutions.  After expressing its conviction that Israeli massive air attacks against Lebanon were premeditative in nature, the Council, by the operative part of the text, would:

(1) strongly condemn the Government of Israel for those attacks in violation of its obligations under the United Nations Charter and of Security Council resolutions;

(2) call upon Israel to desist forthwith from all military attacks against Lebanon; and

(3) issue once again a solemn warning to Israel that if such attacks were repeated, the Council would have to consider taking appropriate steps and measures to give effect to its decisions.

The representative of the United States said he would be prepared to support the draft resolution if two amendments he proposed were accepted.  By the first of these, the Council would, by a new operative paragraph, condemn all acts of violence, especially those resulting in the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, and would urge all concerned to refrain from any further acts of violence.  By the second amendment, adding a second new operative paragraph, the Council would call upon all parties to refrain from any action which might endanger negotiations aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Before the vote on the United States amendments, the representative of Italy proposed the adjournment of the meeting until the following morning.  The representative of Iraq opposed any motion to adjourn the voting on the draft resolution before the Council.  The motion for adjournment was not adopted, having received 6 votes in favour (Costa Rica, France, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States) to 8 against, with 1 abstention (Japan).

The Council then voted on the United State; amendments.  Each received 7 votes in favour (Costa Rica, France, Italy, Japan, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States) to O against, with 6 abstentions, and were not adopted, having failed to receive the required majority.  China and Iraq did not participate in the voting on the amendments.  The five-power draft text received 13 votes in favour to 1 against (United States), with 1 abstention (Costa Rica); it was not adopted, owing to the negative vote of a permanent member o the Security Council.

Speaking in explanation of vote, the Italian representative said that while he was shocked over the Israeli raids and their toll of human lives, he regretted that the wording used in the draft resolution had been somehow removed from the general context of the situation in the Middle East.  He felt duty-bound to state that his Government condemned all acts of violence in the Middle East, wherever they took place and from whichever side they were undertaken.

The spokesman for Costa Rica believed that violence had been used repeatedly both by Israel and by its counterpart in the most reprehensible way–that leading to the loss of innocent lives.  The Council would be departing from reality if it emphasized the violence used by one of the parties and shut its eyes when it came from the other side.  His Government had therefore abstained in the voting on the draft resolution although it did not ignore the relevance of condemning Israel's action.

The United States representative said that his Government had worked strenuously for a balanced resolution, to no avail.  The United States deplored the Israeli action, but believed that the problem of loss of innocent life resulting from incursions from Lebanon should also be condemned.  Therefore his Government had reluctantly had to vote against the draft resolution as it stood.

The representative of the United Kingdom said his country condemned violence in the Middle East wherever it might take place and from whichever quarter it came.  The United Kingdom regretted the lack of balance in the draft resolution, but previous attacks could not in any way justify the recent raids by Israel and the scale of losses which they had caused.  No Government, he insisted, had the right to take the law into its own hands in such a way.  It was not sufficient for the Council simply to condemn acts of violence in the Middle East; it should act to prevent them in the future.  What was needed was a clear call from the Council to all the parties concerned in the Middle East, and not only to one side, that violence should stop.

The Lebanese representative regretted the fact that the draft resolution had been vetoed by the United States, a friendly country which on many occasions had declared its support for Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.  The representative of Egypt said that, despite the veto, the world had witnessed the breakthrough achieved by PLO'S participation in the Council's debate.  The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said it was clear that the overwhelming majority of the Council, by voting for the draft resolution, had condemned Israel's attacks.  The PLO representative said that with the Palestinian people's national rights anchored in international legitimacy, their struggle had been recognized as the struggle of a colonized people entitled to national independence.  The Palestinians wanted peace, he said, but a peace that did not forfeit their right to national independence in Palestine and to repatriation.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

Communications and reports (January to December 1975)

S/11057/Add.566,567. Further reports on status of cease-fire in Middle East (special reports of 2 January 1975 on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector).

S/11057/Add.568. Further report on status of cease-fire in Middle East (on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector during period 30 December 1974-5 January 1975.

S/11057/Add.569-571. Further reports on status of cease-fire in Middle East (on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector during periods 6-12 January, 13-19 January, and 20-26 January 1975).

S/11057/Add.572. Further report on status of cease-fire in Middle East (on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector during period 27 January-2 February 1975).

S/11057/Add.573-575. Further reports on status of cease-fire in Middle East (on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector during periods 3-9 February, 10-16 February, and 17-23 February 1975).

S/11507/Add.576. Further report on status of cease-fire in Middle East (on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector during period 24 February-2 March 1975).

S/11589 (A/9995). Letter of 2 January 1975 from Israel

S/11590. Letter of 4 January 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11591 (A/9996). Letter of 6 January 1975 from Israel.

S/11599 (A/10036). Letter of 16 January 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11600-S/11602 (A/10037-A/10039). Letters of 16, 17, and 20 January 1975 from Israel.

S/11604 (A/10041). Letter of 21 January 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11605 (A/10043). Letter of 22 January 1975 from Israel.

S/11654, S/11655. Letters of 6 and 10 March 1975 from Israel.

S/11663 and Add.1. Reports on status of cease-fire in Israel-Lebanon sector (during March and April 1975).

S/11663/Add.2,3. Reports on status of cease-fire n Israel-Lebanon sector (special reports on developments on 24 and 25 May, and on 25 May 1975).

S/11663/Add.4. Report on status of cease-fire in Israel-Lebanon sector (during May 1975).

S/11663/Add.5. Report on status of cease-fire in Israel-Lebanon sector (special report on developments on 15 June 1975).

S/11663/Add.6. Report on status of cease-fire in Israel-Lebanon sector (during June 1975).

S/11663/Add.7-9. Reports on status of cease-fire in Israel-Lebanon sector (special reports on developments on 6 and 7 July, on 22 and 23 July, and on 23 July 1975).

S/11663/Add.10. Report on status of cease-fire in Israel-Lebanon sector (during July 1975).

S/11663/Add.11-13. Further reports on status of cease-fire in Middle East (special reports on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector on 4 August, on 20 and 21 August, and on 29 and 30 August 1975).

S/11663/Add.14. Further report on status of cease-fire in Middle East (on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector during August 1975).

S/11663/Add.15. Further report on status of cease-fire in Middle East (special report on developments m Israel-Lebanon sector on 3 September 1975).

S/11663/Add.16-18. Further reports on status of cease-fire in Middle East (on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector during September, October and November 1975).

S/11663/Add.19. Further report on status of cease-fire in Middle East (special report on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector on 2 December 1975).

S/11663/Add.20. Further report on status of cease-fire in Middle East (on developments in Israel-Lebanon sector during December 1975).

S/11688 (A/10085). Letter of 14 May 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11690 (A/10086). Letter of 14 May 1975 from Israel.

S/11693 (A/10087). Letter of 20 May 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11702 (A/10096), S/11715 (A/10110), S/11726 (A/10118).  Letters of 27 May and 6 and 15 June 1975.

S/11727 (A/10119). Letter of 16 June 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11728 (A/10120). Letter of 16 June 1975 from Israel.

S/11747 (A/10131). Letter of 7 July 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11749 (A/10133). S/11755 (A/10134). Letters of 8 and 14 July 1975 from Israel.

S/11776 (A/10161). Letter of 24 July 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11790 (A/10170). Letter of 5 August 1975 from Israel.

S/11791 (A/10172). Letter of 6 August 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11792 (A/10173). Letter of 6 August 1975 from Israel.

S/11810 and Corr.1 (A/10206 and Corr.1). Letter of 21 August 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11617 (A/10213). Letter of 26 August 1975 from Israel.

S/11821 (A/10216), S/11822 (A/10231), S/11892. Letters of 4 and 12 September and 3 December 1975 from Lebanon.

S/11893. Letter of 3 December 1975 from Egypt.

S/11897. Letter of 4 December 1975 from Algeria (circulating text of declaration adopted by Co-ordinating Committee of Non-Aligned Countries).

Consideration by Security Council (4-8 December 1975)

Security Council, meetings 1859-1862.

S/11892. Letter of 3 December 1975 from Lebanon (request to convene Council).

S/11893. Letter of 3 December 1975 from Egypt (request to convene Council).

S/11897. Letter of 4 December 1975 from Algeria (circulating text of declaration adopted by Co-ordinating Committee of Non-Aligned Countries).

S/INF/31. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1975, Decisions, p. 7.

S/11898. Guyana, Iraq, Mauritania, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania: draft resolution, rejected by Council, having received the negative vote of a permanent member, on 8 December 1975, meeting 1862, by 13 votes to 1 (United States), with 1 abstention (Costa Rica).

S/11901. United States: amendments to 5-power draft resolution, S/11898.

Other documents

A/10001. Report of Secretary-General on work of Organization, 16 June 1974-15 June 1975, Part One, Chapter I A 3.

Financing of the United Nations Emergency Force and of the

United Nations Disengagement Observer Force

The authority given to the Secretary-General by the General Assembly on 29 November 1974 19/ to enter into commitments for the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) expired on 31 October 1975.  Although the Security Council–by its resolution 378 (1975) of 23 October 1975 (see p. 217)–had renewed the mandate of UNEF until 24 October 1976 and–by resolution 369 (1975) of 28 May 1975 (see p. 223)–had renewed UNDOF'S mandate until 30 November 1975, by the end of October the Assembly had not yet discussed the Secretary-General's report on the financing of the two Forces.  Therefore, on 30 October, at its thirtieth session, the Assembly extended the Secretary-General's authorization to enter into commitments for the Forces–not to exceed $6,666,667 –for one month, until 30 November 1975, to allow time for consideration of the report.

The Assembly took this action in adopting resolution 3374 A (XXX), by 100 votes to 3, with 2 abstentions, on a recommendation of its Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, which had approved the text on the same day by 93 votes to 3, with 1 abstentions.  The resolution's operative paragraphs incorporated an Argentine amendment, sub-amended by the Philippines, modifying the text originally suggested by the Fifth Committee Chairman to add a provision that the authorized expenses were to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set forth in an Assembly resolution of 11 December 1973. 20/

(For text of resolution 3374 A (XXX), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

After the Fifth Committee had considered the matter, the Assembly, on 28 November, appropriated expenses to the Special Account for the operation of both UNEF and UNDOF, and, on 2 December–after the Security Council by its resolution 381 (1975) of 30 November had renewed the mandate of UNDOF for a further six months, until 31 May 1976 (see p. 223)–appropriated further expenses for the operation of UNDOF for that period.

The Assembly appropriated these expenses by adopting two resolutions with similar formats–resolutions 3374 B and C (XXX).  Thus, by the first operative section of resolution 3374 B (XXX), the Assembly appropriated $40 million for the operation of the Forces from 25 April to 24 October 1975; by resolution 3374 C (XXX), it appropriated $1,600,000 for UNDOF for the period from 25 October to 30 November 1975, and authorized the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for UNDOF for the period 1 June to 31 October l976–at a rate not to exceed $1,288,636 per month–should its mandate be extended beyond 31 May 1976.

By other parallel sections of the resolutions, the Assembly appropriated, respectively, $94,275,000 to the Special Account for the operation of UNEF for the period 25 October 1975 to 24 October 1976, and $7,731,818 for UNDOF for the period from 1 December 1975 to 31 May 1976.  It also decided to apportion–as an ad hoc arrangement without prejudice to the positions of principle taken by Members regarding arrangements for financing peace-keeping operations–various specific amounts for the 12-month and six-month periods of the extended mandates of the Forces, in accordance with the four categories established for that purpose in 1973 (permanent members of the Security Council, economically developed States not permanent members of the Council, and two categories of economically less developed States). 21/  Portugal, however, was transferred from the category of States identified as economically developed in the 1973 apportionment scheme to one of the two categories of economically less developed Members.

By other, analogous, provisions of the resolutions, the Assembly reaffirmed its previous definition of the term "economically less developed Member States," and stressed the need for voluntary contributions to the Forces both in cash and in acceptable services and supplies.  The Secretary-General was asked to ensure that the Forces were conducted with a maximum of efficiency and economy.

Another section of the resolutions provided for the inclusion of Bangladesh, Grenada and Guinea-Bissau–which had become Member States after the adoption of the 1973 apportionment scheme–in the second category of economically less developed Member States for purposes of apportionment of expenses for the Forces.

In adopting both resolutions, the Assembly had borne in mind that the economically more developed countries were in a position to make relatively larger contributions to peace-keeping operations involving heavy expenditures, as well as the special responsibilities of permanent members of the Security Council in financing such operations.  It also reaffirmed its previous decisions that, in order to meet the expenditures caused by such operations, a different procedure was required from that applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget o£ the United Nations.

Resolution 3374 B (XXX) was adopted by the Assembly by 90 votes to 3, with 11 abstentions.  The Fifth Committee, on 27 November, approved the text, which was proposed by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Ethiopia, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal and Sweden.  At the request of the USSR, the Committee voted separately on the first of the four operative sections of the text and or the two paragraphs of the second section below, approving the text as a whole by 82 votes to 5 with 10 abstentions.  It adopted the first section–appropriating $40 million for the Forces for the six-month period ending 24 October 1975–by 77 votes to 3, with 11 abstentions.  The paragraph by which the Assembly appropriated $94,275,000 for UNEF for the 12-month period ending 24 October 1976 was approved by 79 votes to 4, with 13 abstentions; that indicating the ad hoc arrangements for apportionment of expenses was approved by 81 votes to 4, with 11 abstentions.

Resolution 3374 C (XXX)–on UNDOF–was adopted by the Assembly by 76 votes to 2, with 10 abstentions.  The Fifth Committee had approved it on 1 December 1975 by 62 votes to 2, with 10 abstentions.  The text was based on a proposal by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal and Sweden.

When the Fifth Committee began consideration of the matter on 25 November 1975, it had before it the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the Forces.  After reviewing the status of contributions, expenditures and obligations of Forces during the first two financial periods of their existence, the Secretary-General estimated the cost of UNEF during the mandate period to expire on 24 October 1976 to be $96.5 million; the estimated cost of UNDOF until that date was $16 million; the estimated costs for both Forces for their third year of operation–$112.5 million–did not include approximately $10 million needed for the operation and maintenance of required additional aircraft and naval vessels.  The Committee was informed that the Secretary-General had approached Member States with the request that they furnish the aircraft and ships without charge to the Nations; although no positive response had been received to date, he was reasonably confident either of obtaining the shipment itself or voluntary contributions with which to obtain it.

The Secretary-General explained that the primary cause for the increase in estimates for UNEF was that the area of operation to be covered by monitoring and supervision had increased nearly four-fold and troop strength was also expected to be increased.  He also reported that out of a total of $159.8 million authorized for the first two years of the Forces, $10.2 million had to be assumed to be uncollectable, inasmuch as it was assessed against Member States which had declared they did not intend to make any payments for UNEF/UNDOF.

The Assembly's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), commenting on the Secretary-General's estimates, recommended a reduction in the non-military manning table of UNEF to save $150,000, and a reduction of $2.3 million in the remaining estimates.

The Advisory Committee also noted the Secretary-General's reminder that, when the Assembly had adopted a standard reimbursement formula for troop-contributing countries on 29 November 1974, 22/ it had not specified whether a "usage factor" for personal clothing, gear and equipment issued by Governments to their troops serving in the Force should be paid over and above the standard pay and allowances, nor had it appropriated any funds to cover that factor.  The Secretary-General had included in the estimates an amount of $2.8 million for "other troop-related costs," intended to cover the usage factor.  However, in the opinion of ACABQ it was premature to include such estimates before the Assembly had decided on whether such costs were payable.

On 27 November 1975, the Fifth Committee approved, without objection, a Philippine proposal recommending that the Assembly endorse the recommendations of ACABQ relating to reductions in the non-military manning table of the Forces, those in which ACABQ recapitulated its recommendations indicating areas where savings might be made, and those in which it gave its opinion on the costs of the Force for 1975-1976.  It also endorsed ACABQ'S proposal for approval of the Secretary- General's recommendation that the Force be administered as a unit, continuing the Special Account which had been found to be an effective and economic mechanism for administering and accounting for the expenses of UNEF and UNDOF.

The General Assembly endorsed the ACABQ recommendations on 15 December 1975 by 115 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions.

On the same date, the Assembly, also on recommendation of the Fifth Committee, approved the principle of paying troop contributors for the usage factor for personal clothing, gear and equipment issued by Governments to their troops, as referred to in the Secretary-General's report, and asked him to negotiate with the troop contributors to arrive at sound and reasonable settlements ("sound and reasonable settlements" replaced the originally drafted "fair and reasonable settlements" as the result of a Brazilian amendment in the Fifth Committee).

This decision, which the Assembly adopted by 101 votes to 3, with 13 abstentions, was approved by the Fifth Committee on 6 December by 65 votes to 1, with 8 abstentions.  It was based on a twice-revised proposal by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal and Sweden, which incorporated amendments by the United Kingdom and Canada, accepted by the sponsors, as well as the Brazilian amendment mentioned above.  Algeria did not insist on its amendment that negotiations arrive at "a formula for" fair and reasonable settlements, but emphasized that such a formula equitable to all troop-contributors without discrimination as to nationality should be reached.

During the debate on the question in the Fifth Committee, the collective responsibility of Member States for peace-keeping operations, which required all Members to participate in the financing of the Forces, was stressed by many representatives, including those of Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and the United States; most of them agreed with Australia and Japan that the special scale of assessments for the operation adopted in 1973 should be maintained.  The Federal Republic of Germany said it had accepted the special scale as a compromise solution, but maintained that expenses of peace-keeping force should be assessed in accordance with the regular scale of assessments and it could not accept any further violations of the principle of collective responsibility.  Mexico, on the other hand, said that if the mandate of the Forces continued to be extended, the developing countries should be asked to make only a token contribution to their financing.  Yugoslavia pointed out that the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the Security Council and the relative capacities of the developed and developing countries to contribute should be borne in mind.

The Federal Republic of Germany, Indonesia and the USSR were among those Members which commented on what they considered to be the lack of detailed information in the Secretary-General's report, making it difficult to arrive at a judgement on the proposals before them.  Belgium, the Byelorussian SSR, Italy and Poland, also, said they considered that there was insufficient justification for the estimates submitted.

The USSR was concerned that the financial report and accounts and the report of the Board of Auditors for 1974 in respect of UNEF, as well as the conclusions of the team of internal auditors which had worked in the area of UNEF operations, were not produced for the information of the Committee.  Japan also considered that the auditors' findings could assist in ascertaining whether the operations were conducted as economically as possible.  France, too, regretted that information on possible improvements in the management of the Forces through the use of internal and external auditors had not been supplied.

A number of representatives expressed satisfaction with the success of the peace-keeping operations and supported their maintenance as an effective instrument for maintaining peace in the Middle East.  Some of these agreed with Ireland, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia that the estimates were not excessive in the light of the enlarged mandate and area to be covered by the operations.  Many Members, however, although not objecting to the existence of the Force, held the view stated by Afghanistan and the USSR that they considered the operations as a temporary measure and were concerned at the escalating costs and continuous extension of the Forces.  Belgium, Finland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Poland and the USSR were among those which stressed the need for maximum economy and efficiency through good management.  Poland added that civilian personnel in the mission area should be kept to a minimum.

Italy, Ireland and Japan, among others, expressed concern over the $10.2 million deemed to be uncollectable.  Ireland said such a situation jeopardized the political basis of the Forces, endangered their broad geographical base and especially jeopardized the future participation of small countries in peace-keeping operations.  Failure to pay assessed contributions on time, according to Austria, also endangered the participation of the small countries.  Poland reminded Members of the Assembly's call for voluntary contributions, which it said could take the form of services and supplies, to help reduce the costs of the Forces.

Austria, Finland, Indonesia and Sweden, as troop contributors, expressed particular concern about the question of reimbursements.  They agreed that Governments must be given fair compensation, support in cash and in kind, and must be assured that there were no unreasonable delays in remuneration.  Sweden added that efforts should be made to broaden the basis of recruitment of peace-keeping forces to include small States, and Austria was concerned about the unresolved question of depreciation.  The USSR, on the other hand, was among those which considered that the amounts paid by the United Nations to troop-contributing countries were too high.

Austria, Finland, Indonesia, Ireland and Pakistan, while acknowledging that the standard reimbursement formula adopted in 1974 had been satisfactorily implemented, were among the States which believed that troop-contributing countries should also be reimbursed for justified claims relating to the usage factor.  Other delegations, however, including the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR, expressed reservations with respect to the inclusion of the $2.8 million estimate under "other troop-related costs"; they believed that the standard reimbursement formula adopted in 1971 was intended to cover the usage factor.

Poland stressed that the various contingents must function as an integral unit, without differentiation regarding their United Nations status.  Instances of non-compliance by Israel, Poland said, had increased costs, reduced the effectiveness of the Forces and hampered reduction in troop numbers.  It pointed out that reference was made in the disengagement agreements to the need for UNEF to enjoy freedom of movement and communications and other necessary facilities.  The USSR also requested that action be taken to eliminate any discrimination against any of the contingents.

Some representatives expressed reservations with respect to their country's position on the resolutions adopted.

Iraq said it was opposed in principle to the idea of an emergency force in the Middle East; both Iraq and China reiterated their position that the Forces should not be maintained, they would make no financial commitment for them, nor would they participate in the vote.

Albania, the Libyan Arab Republic and the Syrian Arab Republic also reiterated their opposition to the creation of UNEF and UNDOF as reflected in their vote.  The Libyan Arab Republic believed that the presence of the Force perpetuated the illegal occupation of Arab territory by Israel.  The Syrian Arab Republic was opposed in principle to even a minimal contribution because it felt the resolutions placed the aggressor and the victim of aggression on an equal footing.  Albania opposed the creation and financing of the Forces, which it said constituted interference in the internal affairs of other countries and which had been created at the instigation of the two super-powers to preserve the status quo of "no war, no peace."

The United Arab Emirates, while convinced that the Forces were needed in the Middle East, was concerned that every extension enabled the aggressor to strengthen, its hold on Arab territories.  The Congo, although it, too, favoured the presence of the Forces, said it could not vote for the resolutions as the economically less developed countries were thereby requested to carry the financial burden of operations whose purpose was to encourage genocide in occupied Palestine.  The Sudan said it had decided to vote for UNDOF on the understanding that the countries subjected t aggression in the Middle East would not be required to bear any of the financial burden; it said the aggressor State should pay all the costs.

Democratic Yemen said although it had contributed in the past to the maintenance of UNEF, that should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) or 338 (1973). 23/ Israel, it said, had taken advantage of UNEF's presence to consolidate its occupation of Arab lands, and Democratic Yemen would no longer participate.

Israel said it was astonished at the way certain States tried to use the Committee, which should deal exclusively with budgetary and administrative matters, as a forum for political warfare against Israel.  Arab leaders had openly boasted of the surprise attack on Israel in 1973, it said, yet Arab representatives continued to brand Israel as the aggressor.  As long as the United Nations had a responsibility with regard to the Middle East conflict, all Members would have to bear their share of the decisions of the Security Council, taking into consideration the interests of all the parties concerned and without assigning responsibility for aggression.  Israel continued to believe that the conflict could best be resolved by bilateral and direct contacts between the parties concerned.

Documentary references

General Assembly–30th session

Fifth Committee, meetings 1725, 1748-1752, 1754, 1761 1762, 1770, 1773.

Plenary meetings 2389, 2420, 2423, 2440.

A/C.5/L.1237 and Rev.1. Draft resolution and revision submitted by Fifth Committee Chairman, as further orally amended by Argentina, by Iran and by Philippines, approved by Fifth Committee on 30 October 1975, meeting 1725, by 93 votes to 3, with 4 abstentions.

A/10324. Report of Fifth Committee (part 1).

Resolution 3374 A (XXX), as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/10324, adopted by Assembly on 30 October 1975, meeting 2389, by 100 votes to 3, with 2 abstentions.

The General Assembly,

Recalling that the present authority of the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, as provided in section 11, paragraph 4, of General Assembly resolution 3211 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, expires on 31 October 1975,

Taking note of Security Council resolution 378 (1975) of 23 October 1975, which renewed the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for the period from 25 October 1975 to 24 October 1976 inclusive,

Noting further that the present mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, which was renewed by the Security Council in resolution 369 (1975) of 28 May 1975, continues only until 30 November 1975 inclusive,

1. Decides to authorize the Secretary-General to enter into commitments not to exceed $6,666,667 for the United Nations Emergency Force (including the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force) for the period from 1 to 30 November 1975 inclusive, in order to allow adequate time for consideration by the General Assembly of the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the Force;

2. Also to apportion the above-mentioned expenses among Member States in accordance with the scheme set forth in General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) of 11 December 1973.

A/10350 and Corr.1 and Add.1. Report of Secretary-General.

A/10376. Report of Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).

A/C.5/L.1262. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Sweden: draft resolution, as orally amended by Committee Chairman, approved by Fifth Committee on 27 November 1975, meeting 1752, as follows: section I, by 77 votes to 3, with 11 abstentions; section II, para. 1, by 79 votes to 4, with 13 abstentions; section II, para. 2, by 81 votes to 4, with 11 abstentions; sections III and IV, as parts of draft resolution as a whole approved by 82 votes to 5, with 10 abstentions.

A/10324/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), draft resolution.

Resolution 3374 B (XXX), as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/10324/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 28 November 1975, meeting 2420, by recorded vote of 90 to 3, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Albania, Libyan Arab Republic, Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Panama,* Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.

*Subsequently, Panama informed the Secretariat that owing to a misunderstanding it had abstained, although it was a sponsor of the text.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Emergency Force and of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force as well as the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 340 (1973) of 25 October 1973, 346 (1974) of 8 April 1974, 362 (1974) of 23 October 1974, 368 (1975) of 17 April 1975, 371 (1975) of 24 July 1975 and 378 (1975) of 23 October 1975,

Recalling its resolutions 3101 (XXVIII) of 11 December 1973, 3211  B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974 and 3374 A (XXX) of 30 October 1975,

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

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 such operations, as indicated in General Assembly resolution 1874 (S-IV) of 27 June 1963 and other resolutions of the Assembly,

I

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section II, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution 3211 B (XXIX) the amount of $40 million authorized and apportioned by section II, paragraph 4, of the same resolution for the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force and of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 25 April to 24 October 1975 inclusive;

II

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $94,275,000 for the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force for the period from 25 October 1975 to 24 October 1976 inclusive;

2. Decides further, as an ad hoc arrangement, without prejudice to the positions of principle that may be taken by Member States in any consideration by the General Assembly of arrangements for the financing of peace-keeping operations and notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 of Assembly resolution 3374 A (XXX) of 30 October 1975;

(a) To apportion an amount of $59,638,365 for the above-mentioned twelve-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) in the proportions provided therein;

(b) To apportion an amount of $32,647,432 for the above-mentioned twelve-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), excluding Portugal, in the proportions provided therein;

(c) To apportion an amount of $1,932,638 for the above-mentioned twelve-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), including Portugal, in the proportions provided therein;

(d) To apportion an amount of $56,565 for the above-mentioned twelve-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (d) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII) in the proportions provided therein;

III

1. Reaffirms for the purpose of the present resolution the definition of the term "economically less developed Member States" contained in paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII), except that Portugal is to be included among these Member States;

2. Stresses the need for voluntary contributions to the United Nations Emergency Force both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to take all necessary action to ensure that the United Nations Emergency Force is conducted with a maximum of efficiency and economy;

IV

1. Decides that Bangladesh, Grenada and Guinea-Bissau shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in paragraph 2 (d) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and that their contributions for the United Nations Emergency  Force shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d) of Assembly resolution 3371 A (XXX) of 30 October 1975;

2. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions of Bangladesh, Grenada and Guinea-Bissau to the United Nations Emergency Force until 24 October 1975 shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the appropriations apportioned in section II above.

A/C.5/L.1268. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Sweden: draft resolution, approved by Fifth Committee on 1 December 1975, meeting 1754, by 62 votes to 2, with 10 abstentions.

A/10324/Add.2 and Corr.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part III).

Resolution 3374 C (XXX), as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/10324/Add.2 and Corr.1, adopted by Assembly on 2 December 1975, meeting 2423, by 76 votes to 2, with 10 abstentions.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Emergency Force and of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force as well as the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 350 (1974) of 31 May 1974, 363 (1974) of 29 November 1974, 369 (1975) of 28 May 1975 and 381 (1975) of 30 November 1975,

Recalling its resolutions 3101 (XXVIII) of 11 December 1973, 3211 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, 3374 A (XXX) of 30 October 1975 and 3374 B (XXX) of 28 November,

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

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 such operations, as indicated in General Assembly resolution 1874 (S-IV) of 27 June 1963 and other resolutions of the Assembly,

I

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section II, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution 3211 B (XXIX) the amount of $1,600,000 for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 25 October to 30 November 1975 inclusive, to be apportioned in accordance with section II of Assembly resolution 3374 B (XXX), notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 of Assembly resolution 3374 A (XXX);

II

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $7,731,818 for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 December 1975 to 31 May 1976 inclusive;

2. Decides further, as an ad hoc arrangement, without prejudice to the positions of principle that may be taken by Member States in any consideration by the General Assembly of arrangements for the financing of peace-keeping operations:

(a) To apportion an amount of $4,891,148 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) in the proportions provided therein;

(b) To apportion an amount of $2,677,529 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), excluding Portugal, in the proportions provided therein;

(c) To apportion an amount of $158,502 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), including Portugal, in the proportions provided therein;

(d) To apportion an amount of $4,639 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (d) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII) in the proportions provided therein;

III

Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $1,288,636 per month for the period from 1 June to 31 October 1976 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 381 (1975) of 30 November 1975, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;

IV

1. Reaffirms for the purpose of the present resolution the definition of the term "economically less developed Member States" contained in paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII), except that Portugal is to be included among these Member States;

2. Stresses the need for voluntary contributions to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to take all necessary action to ensure that the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force is conducted with a maximum of efficiency and economy;

V

1. Decides that Bangladesh, Grenada and Guinea-Bissau shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in paragraph 2 (d) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and that their contributions for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d) of Assembly resolution 3371 A (XXX) of 30 October 1975;

2. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions of Bangladesh, Grenada and Guinea-Bissau to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 24 October 1975 shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the appropriations apportioned in sections I and II above.

A/C.5/L.1265. Philippines: draft decision.

A/C.5/L.1281. Draft report of Fifth Committee (part IV), draft decision, para. 41.

A/10324/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), draft decision, para. 8.

A/10324/Add.3. and Corr.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part IV), draft decision, para. 40 (b).

A/10034. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly during its 30th session, 16 September-17 December 1975. Other decisions, p. 148 (item 107, para. (b)).

A/C.5/L.1267. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Federal Republic of, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Sweden: draft decision.

A/C.5/L.1267/Rev.1. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Sweden: revised draft decision.

A/C.5/L.1267/Rev.2. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Sweden: revised draft decision.

A/C.5/L.1281. Draft report of Fifth Committee (part IV), draft decision, para. 40.

A/10324/Add.3. and Corr.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part IV), para. 40 (a).

A/10034. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly during its 30th session, 16 September-17 December 1975. Other decisions, p. 148 (item 107, para. (a)).

Other documents

S/11849. Report of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 15 July-16 October 1975), Chapter VI.

ST/ADM/SER.B/222. Assessment of Member States' contributions for financing of UNEF (1973) from 25 October 1975 to 24 October 1976 inclusive, and of UNDOF from 25 October 1975 to 31 May 1976 inclusive.

Consideration by the General Assembly

On 16 September 1975, when the General Assembly met to close its twenty-ninth (1974) session, it decided to include in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth (1975) session the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East."  The Assembly had not discussed the question since 1972, although it had been on the agenda of both the twenty-eighth (1973) and twenty-ninth sessions.

The General Assembly considered the item at seven plenary meetings held between 1 and 5 December and adopted, as resolution 3414 (XXX), by a roll-call vote of 84 to 17, with 27 abstentions, a resolution put forward by 29 Member States.

By the preamble to this text, the Assembly among other things expressed itself as being guided by the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and resolutions of the United Nations, as well as those principles of international law which prohibited the occupation or acquisition of territory by the use of force and which considered any military occupation, however temporary, or any forcible annexation of such territory or part thereof, as an act of aggression.

The Assembly expressed grave concern at the continuation of the Israeli occupation of Arab territories and at Israel's persistent denial of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, and recalled the relevant resolutions of the Assembly and the Security Council, particularly those concerning the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people and its right to participate in any efforts for peace.

The early reconvening of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East, with the participation of all the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was essential for the realization of a just and lasting settlement in the region, in the Assembly's view, and it was convinced that the current situation continued to constitute a serious threat to international peace and security and that urgent measures should be taken in order to ensure Israel's full compliance with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council on the questions of Palestine and the Middle East.

Also by the preamble to the resolution, the Assembly recognized that peace was indivisible and that a just and lasting settlement of the question of the Middle East had to be based on a comprehensive solution, under United Nations auspices, which took into consideration all aspects of the Middle East conflict, including, in particular, the enjoyment by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights, as well as the total withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967.

By the operative part of the text, the Assembly:

(1) reaffirmed that the acquisition of territory by force was inadmissible and therefore all territories thus occupied had to be returned;

(2) condemned Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories in violation of the Charter, principles of international law and repeated United Nations resolutions;

(3) requested all States to desist from supplying Israel with any military or economic aid as long as it continued to occupy Arab territories and deny the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people;

(4) requested the Security Council to take all necessary measures for the speedy implementation, according to an appropriate time-table, of all the Councils and the Assembly's relevant resolutions aiming at the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region through a comprehensive settlement, worked out with the participation of all parties concerned, including PLO, and within the framework of the United Nations, which ensured complete Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories, as well as full recognition of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of those rights; and

(5) requested the Secretary-General to inform all concerned of, including the Co-Chairmen of the Peace Conference on the Middle East, and to follow up the implementation of, this resolution and report thereon to the Security Council and to the General Assembly at its thirty-first (1976) session.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, the Comoros, the Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, the German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Indonesia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Uganda, the Ukrainian SSR and Yugoslavia.

Introducing the 29-power proposal on behalf of the sponsors, the representative of Madagascar stated that its objectives were strictly within the limits of the United Nations Charter and the relevant decisions and recommendations of the Organization itself.  The recourse to the Security Council advocated by the sponsors was aimed at preventing further deterioration of the situation, and also at enabling the United Nations to take the initiative in the search for a peaceful solution.

Prior to voting on the draft resolution, the Assembly heard the views of some 30 countries.  Many representatives, including those of Democratic Yemen, Kuwait, Mongolia, Oman, Poland, Romania and the United Arab Emirates, called for the elimination of the results of Israeli aggression, recognition of the rights of the Palestinians, including their right to a State of their own, implementation of the relevant United Nations resolutions towards that end, and resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference with the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization.  Several speakers were gratified that the Security Council, in its resolution 381 (1975) adopted on 30 November 1975 (see p, 223), had decided to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question and that PLO representatives would be invited to participate.

The spokesman for Egypt said that unlike Israel, which had had a negative attitude towards all international efforts undertaken in the past for the establishment of a just and durable peace in the area, his country had welcomed every peace initiative.  Egypt, he said, believed that the prevailing circumstances in the area provided a unique opportunity for peace and that the primary duty of the Assembly was to seize that opportunity to push matters forward through, among other things, a resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference.

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said that even though it had serious doubts about the usefulness of the "step-by-step" policy of the United States, it had accepted the 1974 Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian forces 24/ on the Golan Heights on the understanding that the Agreement was only a step towards the establishment of a just and durable peace in the area and was to be followed by serious and sincere measures for the achievement of that objective.  However, he said, 18 months had passed and no real progress had been made.  In fact, the opposite had taken place: Israel had simply gained more time for the implementation of its policy of annexation in the occupied Arab territories.  The presence of the United Nations Disengagement Observer  Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights was being used by Israel to freeze the situation and consolidate its occupation of Syrian territory.  Israel had sought to obtain an automatic extension of the Force, and to make that extension the central issue of any discussion of the Middle East situation.  For that reason, he said, the Syrian Arab Republic had insisted that the extension of UNDOF'S mandate had to be linked with a decision by the Security Council to reconvene in January 1976 to debate the whole Middle East situation–including the Palestinian cause–with PLO participation and on the basis of all the relevant United Nations resolutions.

According to the spokesman for the USSR, important changes had taken place regarding recognition of the inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine, and favourable conditions had been created for real progress.  The USSR, he said, continued to believe that any settlement of the Middle East question must involve the solution of three cardinal problems, namely, the withdrawal of Israeli troops, the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, and the guarantee of the right of all countries in the Middle East to an independent existence and development.

On 9 November, he went on to say, the USSR had proposed to the United States the resumption of the work of Geneva Peace Conference because it continued to believe that the Conference was the machinery best suited to the search for a solution.  It was precisely the forum where all aspects of a settlement could be considered and resolved, with the participation on an equal footing of all the parties directly concerned: Egypt, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic, PLO and Israel–as well as the USSR and the United States, as Co-Chairmen of the conference.  In order for the Conference to succeed, however, its tasks and objectives must be defined very clearly at the outset.  With the exception of Israel and its supporters, all States, he noted, had spoken in favour of a speedy and just settlement based on the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967 and the exercise of the inalienable rights by the people of Palestine.  Through its stubborn pursuit of a policy of aggression and expansionism, Israel found itself in complete isolation.  Not until it renounced that policy, declared its readiness to withdraw from all occupied territories and recognized PLO would its vows of peace be believed as genuine and not merely a smoke screen.

The representative of Jordan said that international neglect, indifference and ineffective action had compounded the problem of the Middle East and made it more corrosive.  Had the Security Council been able to push effectively in 1967 for a just solution, the war of 1973 and the resulting dangerous international confrontation might not have occurred.  Because of the deep, direct impact which the situation continued to have on the international situation, he observed, the international community could no longer postpone its concern.  In Jordan's view, it had the duty to force Israel to undertake an agonizing reappraisal so that it would deal with the Palestinian reality and come to terms with Palestinian national rights and the inevitability of Palestinian self-determination.  The world could not sustain, morally or physically, the continuation of the current situation in the Middle East: it was too dangerous, too explosive and too unjust.

Speaking on behalf of the nine members of the European Economic Community, Italy's representative said that although the disengagement agreements between the parties represented a significant step in the right direction, the situation in the Middle East was still a matter for concern.  The members of the Community believed that the only way to a just and durable peace in the area was through progress in negotiating the problems which were at the very core of the situation.  They believed that the principles embodied in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338  (1973) 25/ should underlie the search for an over-all settlement, namely: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force; the need for Israel to end the occupation of territories seized since 1967; respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all the States of the region; and recognition of the right of the Palestinians to the expression of their national identity.  For the members of the Community, the representative of Italy added, these principles could not be dissociated.  Together they should form the basis of an over-all negotiating formula which could be found in the resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference or in any other framework acceptable to the parties concerned.  As a token of their continued interest in Middle Eastern affairs, the members of the Community were prepared to participate in a system of international guarantees within the framework of the Security Council to ensure the security of all the parties concerned.

The spokesman for Israel said that, instead of striving for consensus and compromise, the General Assembly had allowed itself to be dominated by a group of extremists whose declared purpose was to oppose any move towards peace.  By thus encouraging dissent, intransigence and fanaticism, the Assembly had turned into a world centre of anti-Semitic prejudice, and a mechanism to be used by those who opposed accommodation.  Predicting that the United Nations would disappear "in infamy into the limbo of history," the Israeli representative rejected the view propounded by the Arab States regarding the responsibility for starting the 1967 Middle East war.  Israel, he said, had not planned to go to war, nor did it seek territorial gains.  Far from resorting to aggression, Israel was, in fact, threatened with annihilation.  The results of the 1967 war were brought upon the Arabs by themselves; to state otherwise would be to indulge in a cynical rewriting of history.

Regarding a possible solution to the current situation, the representative went on to say that Israel was firmly convinced that only Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) gave any hope for an advance towards peace in the area, and the only basis on which Israel, as a sovereign State, could be expected to negotiate.  The provisions of those two resolutions had, he recalled, been at the basis of the first Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East and the negotiating process which led to the disengagement agreements between Israel on the one hand and Egypt and Syria on the other.  The mechanism created by the Security Council was thus beginning to show results, and the task of the United Nations should consist in maintaining the momentum towards negotiation and preventing disruptive elements like PLO from sabotaging the agreements already reached.

As to its attitude towards PLO, Israel's representative asked those representatives who supported the right of all States in the area to exist how they could reconcile that view with their support of an organization whose stated policy called for Israel's destruction.  Instead of asking Israel to change its attitude towards PLO, it would be far more logical to ask that organization to declare in advance its acceptance of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).  The central issue in the Middle East, he said, was not a question of territory or even a question of Palestinian rights.  It was rather a matter of change of heart towards Israel on the part of the Arab countries.  Israel was prepared to enter into negotiations within the framework of the Geneva Conference at any time without any pre-conditions, but only on the basis of recognition of Israel's sovereign rights.  It would not negotiate its own suicide.

The PLO representative said that, while the Israeli representative spoke of peace, 30 Zionist enemy planes had that morning attacked Palestinian refugee camps and villages in Lebanon, killing scores of innocent people, including many women and children.  To those who still wondered why PLO rejected resolution 242 (1967), the answer, he said, was simple: that resolution referred to the Palestinians simply as refugees without national political rights.  To most of the world that resolution had become an anachronism, because it addressed itself basically to the task of removing the traces of the 1967 Israeli aggression against neighbouring Arab States, while avoiding the cardinal issue of the Middle East problem, namely, the introduction of racist Zionism into Palestine and the resulting Israeli occupation of Palestine.  The United Nations was fighting an uphill battle in dealing with Israel, but the Palestinians would continue their struggle with the support of all anti-Zionist, anti-racist, anti-apartheid and freedom-loving peoples.

The United States representative said that after the October 1973 war it had concluded that the best way to find a solution to the Middle East problem would be by means of a step-by-step process carried on by parties ready to negotiate on issues that allowed room for manoeuvre.  Once into that process, the parties would have a stake in its success and a momentum would be created which could lead to lasting agreements and ultimately to an over-all settlement.  That remained the objective of United States policy in the Middle East, he said, and his Government intended to persevere in assisting the parties as they desired, to achieve a negotiated settlement within the framework established by the two key Security Council resolutions.  The 29-power text did not, however, help the process towards peace, as it was one-sided and sought to bypass the serious work of negotiations among the parties.

Documentary references

General Assembly–29th session (conclusion)

Plenary meeting 2350.

A/9995 (S/11589), A/9996 (S/11591). Letters of 2 and 6 January 1975 from Israel.

A/9997. Letter of 6 January 1975 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9999. Letter of 10 January 1975 from Israel.

A/10036 (S/11599). Letter of 16 January 1975 from Lebanon.

A/10037-A/10039 (S/11600-S/11602). Letters of 16, 17 and 20 January 1975 from Israel.

A/10041 (S/11604). Letter of 21 January 1975 from Lebanon.

A/10043 (S/11605). Letter of 22 January 1975 from Israel.

A/10051 (S/11639). Letter of 24 February 1975 from Yemen (transmitting resolutions adopted by Moslem-Christian Meeting on Jerusalem, Cairo, Egypt, 16 January 1975).

A/10072 (S/11669). Letter of 10 April 1975 from Egypt.

A/10077 (S/11676). Letter of 21 April 1975 from Israel.

A/10085 (S/11688). Letter of 14 May 1975 from Lebanon.

A/10086 (S/11690). Letter of 14 May 1975 from Israel.

A/10087 (S/11693). Letter of 20 May 1975 from Lebanon.

A/10096 (S/11702), A/10110 (S/11715), A/10118 (S/11726). Letters of 27 May and 6 and 15 June 1975 from Israel.

A/10119 (S/11727). Letter of 16 June 1975 from Lebanon.

A/10120 (S/11728). Letter of 16 June 1975 from Israel.

A/10131 (S/11747). Letter of 7 July 1975 from Lebanon.

A/10133 (S/11749), A/10134 (S/11755). Letters of 8 and 14 July 1975 from Israel.

A/10137 (S/11762). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting text of Commission on Human Rights resolution 6 A (XXXI) of 21 February 1975).

A/10161 (S/11776). Letter of 24 July 1975 from Lebanon.

A/10170 (S/11790). Letter of 5 August 1975 from Israel.

A/10172 (S/11791). Letter of 6 August 1975 from Lebanon.

A/10173 (S/11792). Letter of 6 August 1975 from Israel.

A/10206 and Corr.1 (S/11810 and Corr.1). Letter of 21 August 1975 from Lebanon.

A/10213 (S/11817). Letter of 26 August 1975 from Israel.

A/10216 (S/11821), A/10231 (S/11822). Letters of 4 and 12 September 1975 from Lebanon.

A/9631/Add.1. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly during its 29th session, Vol. II, 16 September 1975.  Decisions, p. 1 (item 109).

General Assembly–30th session

Plenary meetings 2422-2427, 2429.

A/10001. Report of Secretary-General on work of Organization, 16 June 1974-15 June 1975, Part One, Chapter I A and B.

A/10002. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1974-15 June 1975, Chapter 3.

A/10278, A/10377 (S/11882). Letters of 2 October and 21 November 1975 from Israel.

A/10389 (S/11885). Note verbale of 21 November 1975 from Syrian Arab Republic (annexing letter of 20 October 1975 to Commander of UNDOF).

A/10390 (S/11886). Letter of 26 November 1975 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/10392. Letter of 1 December 1975 from Ivory Coast.

A/10418 (S/11894). Letter of 3 December 1975 from Israel.

A/L.783 and Add.1. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

Resolution 3414 (XXX), as proposed by 29 powers A/L.783, adopted by Assembly on 5 December 1975 meeting 2429, by roll-call vote of 84 to 17, with 27 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Conga, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, 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, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Iceland, Israel, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Grenada, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East,"

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and resolutions of the United Nations as well as those principles of international law which prohibit the occupation or acquisition of territory by the use of force and which consider any military occupation, however temporary, or any forcible annexation of such territory, or part thereof, as an act of aggression,

Gravely concerned at the continuation of the Israeli occupation of Arab territories and Israel's persistent denial of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people,

Recalling relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, particularly those concerning the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people and its right to participate in any efforts for peace,

Convinced that the early reconvening of the Peace Conference on the Middle East with the participation of all the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, is essential for the realization of a just and lasting settlement in the region,

Convinced that the present situation prevailing in the Middle East continues to constitute a serious threat to international peace and security, and that urgent measures should be taken in order to ensure Israel's full compliance with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council on the questions of Palestine and the Middle East,

Recognizing that peace is indivisible and that a just and lasting settlement of the question of the Middle East must be based on a comprehensive solution under the auspices of the United Nations, which takes into consideration all aspects of the Middle East conflict, including, in particular, the enjoyment by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights, as well as the total withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967,

1. Reaffirms that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible and therefore all territories thus occupied must be returned;

2. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and repeated United Nations resolutions;

3. Requests all States to desist from supplying Israel with any military or economic aid as long as it continues to occupy Arab territories and deny the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people;

4. Requests the Security Council, in the exercise of its responsibilities under the Charter, to take all necessary measures for the speedy implementation, according to an appropriate time-table, of all relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council aiming at the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region through a comprehensive settlement, worked out with the participation of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, and within the framework of the United Nations, which ensures complete Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories as well as full recognition of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of those rights;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to inform all concerned, including the Co-Chairmen of the Peace Conference on the Middle East, and to follow up the implementation of the present resolution and report thereon to the Security Council and to the General Assembly at its thirty-first session.

S/11920. Letter of 18 December 1975 from Secretary-General (transmitting text of resolution 3414 (XXX) of 5 December 1975).

The question of Palestine

On 23 September 1975, the Secretary-General submitted a report, as requested by the General Assembly in resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, concerning the question of Palestine." 26/  The Assembly had asked him to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) on all matters concerning the question of Palestine and to report to the Assembly at its regular 1975 session on the implementation of the resolution.

The Secretary-General reported that he had established contacts with PLO and the Secretariat had also been in touch with PLO representatives as occasion required.  In this connexion, the report recalled that following the adoption of Assembly resolution 3237 (XXIX), 27/ also of 22 November 1971, concerning observer status for PLO, that organization had appointed permanent observers to the United Nations, both in New York and in Geneva, Switzerland.  Contacts had also been established between PLO and the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, whose activities were of direct interest to large numbers of Palestinians.

Also in this connexion, Turkey on 18 February 1975 transmitted to the Secretary-General the texts of two letters exchanged between PLO and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey, concerning the continuation of contacts destined to strengthen and develop mutual relations.

Also, the Economic and Social Council decided on 3 July at its fifty-ninth session–in accordance with its rules of procedure–to invite the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate, without the right to vote, in its deliberations on any matter of particular concern to that organization.

Consideration by General Assembly

At its thirtieth (1975) session, the General Assembly considered the item entitled "Question of Palestine: report of the Secretary-General" at 10 plenary meetings held between 3 and 10 November, during which it heard statements by the representatives of some 50 countries and by the representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The PLO representative said that the two resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on 22 November 1974 at its twenty-ninth session (3236 (XXIX)) and 3237 (XXIX)), recognizing PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, had opened new horizons permitting the consolidation of PLO's international status, the broadening of the international recognition accorded to it, and the expansion of support for its cause.

The PLO spokesman said that the Palestinians rejected all measures which ignored the totality and indivisibility of the Palestine question–such as a disengagement of forces here, a partial solution there, a stage-by-stage settlement of one front or another, the discussion of Jerusalem, a review of the problems of the refugees, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip.  To treat them as separate items, unrelated to one another, could only lead to further complications, precipitating tension and causing war.

The PLO representative also stated that the Palestinians rejected Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 28/ because it referred to them as refugees without national political rights.  Acceptance would reduce the Palestinian problem to a question of international charity and would mean extinction as a political community struggling to achieve independence.  That resolution, he said, had become an anachronism and had been bypassed by Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX) by which the Assembly recognized the right of the Palestinians to self-determination in their homeland.  His people, he said, looked to the current thirtieth session with hope that the Assembly would adopt a "deterrent" resolution by which it would impose sanctions on Israel, reconsider Israel's membership in the United Nations and set up a special committee to combat Zionism and put an end to its crimes.

According to the PLO representative, the area was closer to war than to peace; all the solutions offered by the United States had only increased the dangers inherent in the situation and complicated matters, as had the measures taken by the "Zionist enemy" in the occupied territories.

The spokesman went on to say that PLO had unfalteringly adhered to the goal of establishing a national authority in order to found a secular democratic State in all of Palestine where Moslems, Christians and Jews could dwell in brotherhood and equality, free from fear and anxiety.  The Palestinians' only homeland was Palestine, he declared.  Their sole aim was to liberate that homeland and live in it in peace.  He reiterated that other than PLO–the official voice and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people–there existed no party which could speak for his people.

The representative of Israel observed that the process of negotiation in the Middle East was well under way as he spoke and the various elements of the Agreement in the Sinai between Egypt and Israel (see page 213) were being implemented by both sides.  A majority of Assembly Members had applauded the Agreement, he noted, and had expressed the hope that it would be the forerunner of an ongoing process towards peace in the Middle East.  By contrast, the policy of the Palestine Liberation Organization, as enunciated by its leader, Yasser Arafat, was that no Palestinian or Arab side would be allowed to recognize Israel or conciliate with it.

The Assembly, he went on to state, could not evade its responsibility: it could either accept the machinery set up by the Security Council in its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) 29/ in the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East as the framework for peaceful negotiations and ultimate peace in the area, or it could support the PLO philosophy that a political settlement was doomed to failure.  The Assembly could vote for a negotiating process leading towards peace or for a policy calling for the destruction of Israel and rejecting out of hand any process of negotiation or compromise.  He recalled that Mr. Arafat had interpreted resolution 3236 (XXIX) as comprising the "liquidation of Zionist existence, since the Palestinian homeland is Palestine and Palestine at present is Israel."

The major part of historic Palestine, he went on to say, was the present-day Kingdom of Jordan and the bulk of Palestinian Arabs lived in Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.  Approximately l.5 million of them were Jordanian citizens holding Jordanian passports.  It was obvious that the problem should be solved in the context of a peace agreement between Israel and Jordan.

The Israeli representative went on to describe PLO as an uneasy coalition of a varying number of feuding terrorist organizations unable to achieve any consensus among themselves.  Their so-called democratic secular State in which Moslems, Christians and Jews would live in amity raised the question, he said, as to why, during 19 years of control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by Jordan and Egypt respectively, no democratic State had been created.  He observed that the influence of PLO in the Middle East was declining, its activities had been curtailed in Egypt, it was not allowed to enter Jordan and was tightly controlled by the Syrian Government.  It was free to be active only in Lebanon with, he noted, catastrophic and tragic results.  In Israel, by contrast, orderly democratic secret elections had taken place, despite PLO opposition.  Israel lived on a basis of mutual respect with over a million Palestinian Arabs.  The gross national product had grown in the West Bank and Gaza, the unemployment rate had dropped, schools had increased, and there was complete freedom of movement and religion.  Israel, he said, was proud that it had created the foundations from which to advance further towards the solution of the Palestine Arab problem on a basis of growing understanding that would be achieved, he added, if the process of negotiation and dialogue was encouraged and not obstructed by the General Assembly.

The representative of Jordan rejected the Israeli argument as an attempt to confuse Jordan with Palestine and to obliterate the rights of the Palestinians in the land of Palestine and on Palestinian soil.  Those rights could not be discussed nor could Israel's responsibility be concealed by forcing the Palestinians to seek an alternative homeland.  A solution to the Palestinian question required, first, ending the Israeli occupation and, second, enabling the Palestinians who were driven away from their homes to exercise their right to return thereto.  Israel, he said, could not escape its responsibility by alleging that Palestine covered both banks of the Jordan River and that consequently most of the Palestinians were not displaced because they had not left that area.  The historical borders of Palestine were well known, he said, and the vast majority of the Palestinians were either under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza or refugees residing in Arab countries.

A number of speakers, among them Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Guinea, Hungary, India, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Yugoslavia, felt that a positive situation had developed with the Assembly's consideration of the Palestine question the previous year, and welcomed its action with regard to PLO and the rights of the Palestinian people.  Many of them felt strongly that the current session had to continue the momentum begun in 1974, and they called for measures to implement Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX).  These States and others, including Dahomey, the German Democratic Republic, Indonesia and Zambia, deplored Israel's attitude towards Assembly resolutions concerning the rights of the Palestinian people and urged it to comply with the provisions of those resolutions, to recognize PLO and to withdraw from the territories it had occupied since 1967.

The representative of the USSR said that the Geneva Peace Conference was the appropriate machinery for consideration of all aspects of a Middle East settlement; its work should be resumed, with the participation of all interested parties, including the representatives of PLO.  He also said that lasting peace in the Middle East for all States of the area required: first, that Israeli forces be withdrawn from all Arab territories occupied since 1967; second, that the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including their inalienable right to establish their own State, be ensured; and, third, that the rights of all countries in the Middle East to independent existence and development be guaranteed.  Partial measures, agreed to behind the backs of the Palestinian people and in disregard of their interests, would not achieve a lasting settlement.

A number of other Members, including the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania and the Ukrainian SSR, expressed similar views.

The representative of Kuwait said that the international community had now realized that peace in the Middle East would remain as evasive as a mirage in the desert until the rights of the Palestinians were recognized.  He proposed the establishment of a committee to undertake implementation of the provisions of Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX) on the rights of the Palestinians.  The representative of the Sudan favoured the formation of a committee similar to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to "put an end to the practices and activities of racist Zionism."

The Indian representative said that for over 27 years the United Nations had stood by and done virtually nothing for the Palestinian Arabs except to treat them as refugees.  They should be enabled to live in their own land with honour and dignity as a sovereign and independent nation–without prejudice to the existence and security of all the established States in the Middle East.

According to the representative of China, the essence of the problem lay in Israeli Zionist aggression and the two super-powers' contention for hegemony in the Middle East versus the struggle of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples.  One super-power proposed a "comprehensive solution" and the other a "step-by-step solution," yet neither had any intention of bringing about a thorough settlement.  Both needed to maintain a state of "no war, no peace," to facilitate their contention for spheres of influence, places of strategic importance and oil resources in the Middle East, and sales of munitions for huge profits.  One super-power refused to recognize the national rights of the Palestinian people and sent large quantities of advanced weapons to Israel.  The other super-power demonstrated its sincerity by declaring support for the Palestinian people while it withheld arms during the October 1973 war, demanded repayment of debts and sent large numbers of emigrants to Israel to supply Zionism with military recruits.

The representative of the United States said his Government recognized that an equitable negotiated solution of the Palestinian problem had to be an important element in any over-all settlement in the Middle East.  The framework established by Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and agreed to by the parties to the Geneva Conference had, he said, facilitated the notable progress that had been made in the past two years and provided for further progress.  The United States had, he recalled, voted against Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX) because it had had reservations about the efficacy of meeting the interests and concerns of the Palestinians through resolutions of the General Assembly rather than through the give-and-take of the negotiating process.  It believed that the exhortation to exercise any Palestinian rights in Palestine created a serious political and legal problem, since part of the geographic entity known as Palestine constituted the territory of a Member State.

The United States, he went on to say, was prepared to consult with all the countries involved about the substance and form of a reconvened Geneva Conference and how best to assure that legitimate Palestinian interests were brought into the negotiating process; but it was not prepared, he said, to countenance changes by the General Assembly in the painstakingly negotiated framework for negotiations established by the Security Council and accepted by the parties.

Speaking on behalf of the nine members of the European Economic Community, the representative of Italy said the Community continued to insist on the need to implement Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).  A peace settlement in the Middle East, taking account of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, had to respect Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized borders on an equal footing with other States in the region.  The right of the Palestinian people to express their national identity also had to be recognized, he said.

On 10 November, the General Assembly adopted two draft resolutions.  The first, sponsored by 47 Members and revised by them, was adopted by a roll-call vote of 101 to 8, with 25 abstentions, as resolution 3375 (XXX).

The Assembly, by the preambular part of this text, among other things reaffirmed its resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1971, 30/ by which it recognized the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people.  It expressed the belief that the realization of those rights was a prerequisite to achieving a just and lasting peace in the area, and that the participation of the Palestinian people was essential in any efforts and deliberations in that regard.

By the operative part of the text, the Assembly

(1) requested the Security Council to consider and adopt the necessary resolutions and measure in order to enable the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable national rights in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX);

(2) called for the invitation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in all efforts deliberations and conferences on the Middle East which were held under the auspices of the United Nations, on an equal footing with other parties on the basis of that 1974 resolution;

(3) requested the Secretary-General to inform the Co-Chairmen of the Peace Conference on the Middle East of this current resolution and to take all necessary steps to secure the invitation of PLO to participate in the work of the Conference, a well as in all other efforts for peace; and

(4) requested the Secretary-General to submit report on the matter to the General Assembly a soon as possible.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Chad, the Congo, Cyprus,  Dahomey, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, the Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Cameroon, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zambia.

The second draft resolution, sponsored and revised by 55 States, was adopted by the Assembly by a roll-call vote of 93 to 18, with 27 abstentions, as resolution 3376 (XXX).

The Assembly thereby, after expressing its deep concern that no just solution to the problem of Palestine had been achieved, and its recognition that the problem of Palestine continued to endanger international peace and security:

(1) reaffirmed its resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974;

(2) expressed its grave concern that no progress had been achieved towards: (a) the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights in Palestine, including the right to self-determination without external interference and the right to national independence and sovereignty; and (b) the exercise by Palestinians of their inalienable right to return to their homes and property from which they had been displaced and uprooted;

(3) decided to establish a Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, composed of 20 Member States to be appointed by the General Assembly at the current session;

(4) requested that Committee to consider and recommend to the Assembly a programme of implementation, designed to enable the Palestinian people to exercise the rights recognized in resolution 3236 (XXIX), and to take into account, in the formulation of its recommendations, all the powers conferred by the Charter upon the principal organs of the United Nations;

(5) authorized the Committee, in the fulfilment of its mandate, to establish contact with, and to receive and consider suggestions and proposals from, any State and intergovernmental regional organization and the Palestine Liberation Organization;

(6) requested the Secretary-General to provide the Committee with all the necessary facilities for the performance of its tasks;

(7) requested the Committee to submit its report and recommendations to the Secretary-General no later than 1 June 1976 and asked him to transmit the report to the Security Council;

(8) requested the Security Council to consider, as soon as possible after 1 June 1976, the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of the inalienable rights recognized in resolution 3236 (XXIX);

(9) requested the Secretary-General to inform the Committee of the action taken by the Security Council in accordance with the preceding paragraph;

(10) authorized the Committee, taking into consideration the action taken by the Security Council, to submit to the General Assembly, at its thirty-first (1976) session, a report containing its observations and recommendations; and

(11) decided to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its 1976 session.

(For text of resolution 3376 (XXX), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, the Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, the Gambia, the German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Uganda, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates, the Upper Volta, Yemen and Yugoslavia.

Speaking in explanation of vote, New Zealand, which abstained in the voting on both texts, regretted that they were one-sided and had been negotiated essentially among the Arab delegations.  They made no reference to the key Security Council resolutions and took as their starting point Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, which dealt solely with the rights of the Palestinian people and ignored the rights and interests of the other principal parties.

Sweden, while supporting the participation of PLO in negotiations on the Middle East, said it had had to abstain from voting on the 47-power text because it was based exclusively on Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX), which lacked the fundamental prerequisite of a confirmation of Israel's rights.

Finland abstained on the second text because it did not reflect the principles and purposes of Security Council resolution 242 (1967).

Nepal, which supported both texts, said that, nevertheless, the rights of the Palestinian people should in no way preclude the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognized boundaries.

Canada abstained on the 47-power text because its reference to Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX) called into question the existence of the State of Israel, which clearly was not a subject for negotiation.  With regard to the second text, Canada said it could not support the establishment of a United Nations special committee on Palestine because such a committee would, in Canada's view, both complicate and interfere with existing arrangements without itself contributing to a resolution of the basic problems.

Norway said it could not support either text because neither contained a reference to Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) or 338 (1973), therefore leaving in doubt the basis on which negotiations on the Middle East would take place or on which the work of the newly established committee would be based.

Fiji said it could not support the second text because it made no mention of Israel's sovereignty or of its right to secure and recognized boundaries.

Brazil–which did not participate in either vote–and the Dominican Republic expressed regret that the two texts were based on Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX), which in their view was ambiguous and could only tend to aggravate the conflict, and not on Security Council resolution 242 (1967) which provided, in their opinion, a solid foundation for the search for peace.  Austria expressed similar views.

The representatives of China and Iraq said they had reservations about the Geneva Peace Conference, and Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) which were the bases for that Conference, and had therefore not participated in the vote.  Both countries reiterated their support for the struggle of the Palestinians to regain their national rights and recover their lost territories.

The representative of Israel stated that the two resolutions were utterly unacceptable to his Government, whose position regarding PLO was that it was the umbrella organization for a number of terrorist groups bent on the destruction of the State of Israel; it was far from representing the Arabs of Palestinian origin and had no right to participate in any consultations or negotiations on matters of peace.  The adoption of the two resolutions, he said, was a tragic blow to the peace effort mechanism in the Middle East.  Israel would not participate in any negotiations with the so-called Palestine Liberation Organization, and would not co-operate in any manner within the framework of the newly adopted resolutions.

Credentials

At a meeting of the Credentials Committee on 29 September 1975, the representative of the Libyan Arab Republic made a statement regarding the credentials of the delegation of Israel to the thirtieth (1975) session of the General Assembly.  Among other things, the representative said that the Assembly had recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, and had reasserted the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and to return to their homeland and property in Palestine.  How ever, the Zionist regime, which was illegally granted home and membership in the United Nations persisted in disregarding the overwhelming will of the United Nations.  The Zionists pursued a policy of genocide and mass slaughter aimed at the total destruction of the Arab people of Palestine.

The United States representative said that in his view statements made by members of the Committee with respect to the credentials of certain States constituted an abuse of the functions of the Credentials Committee, whose task was to verify the powers presented and not to pass judgement on whether certain Governments were liked or disliked.  Such statements were more appropriate for the floor of the General Assembly.  He noted that the credentials of the State referred to had not been challenged.

Communications

On 14 November 1975, in a letter to the President of the General Assembly, the representative of Israel stated that on 13 November an explosive charge was set off by PLO terrorists in the centre of Jerusalem near Zion Square, killing six persons and wounding over 30 others.  There was no doubt, the letter said, that the two resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on the so-called question of Palestine had given encouragement to the PLO murderers to commit further outrages.

By a letter dated 1 December 1975, the representative of the Ivory Coast transmitted to the Secretary-General excerpts from an address by the President of the Republic of the Ivory Coast delivered on 16 October, which included views on the question of Palestine.

Documentary references

A/10048. Letter of 18 February 1975 from Turkey (annexing exchange of letters dated 15 December 1974 and 12 February 1975 between PLO and Turkey).

A/10265. Report of Secretary-General.

Economic and Social Council–59th session

Plenary meeting 1954.

E/5740. Resolutions and decisions of Economic and Social Council, 59th session (decision 129 (LIX)).

A/10003. Report of Economic and Social Council on work of its organizational session for 1975 and of its 58th and 59th sessions, Chapter VII F.

Consideration by General Assembly

General Assembly–30th session

Fifth Committee, meeting 1735.

Plenary meetings 2390-2399, 2443.

A/10001. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1974-15 June 1975, Part One, Chapter I C.

A/10048. Letter of 18 February 1975 from Turkey.

A/L.768 and Add.1. Cyprus, Dahomey, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Niger, Oman, Senegal, Sudan, United Republic of Cameroon, Zambia: draft resolution.

A/L.768/Rev.1 and Rev.1/Add.1. Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Chad, Congo, Cyprus, Dahomey, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia: revised draft resolution.

Resolution 3375 (XXX), as proposed by 47 powers, A/L.768/Rev.1, adopted by Assembly on 10 November 1975, meeting 2399, by roll-call vote of 101 to 8, with 25 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, 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, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Costa Rica, Germany, Federal Republic of, Honduras, Israel, Netherlands, Nicaragua, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Swaziland, Sweden, Uruguay.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the item entitled "Question of Palestine,"

Reaffirming its resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, in which it recognized the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people,

Recognizing the necessity of achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East at the earliest possible time,

Believing that the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations is a prerequisite to achieving a just and lasting peace in the area,

Convinced that the participation of the Palestinian people is essential in any efforts and deliberations aiming at the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

1. Requests the Security Council to consider and adopt the necessary resolutions and measures in order to enable the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable national rights in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX);

2. Calls for the invitation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East which are held under the auspices of the United Nations, on an equal footing with other parties, on the basis of resolution 3236 (XXIX);

3. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Co-Chairmen of the Peace Conference on the Middle East of the present resolution and to take all necessary steps to secure the invitation of the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the work of the Conference as well as in all other efforts for peace;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on this matter to the General Assembly as soon as possible.

A/10265. Report of Secretary-General.

A/L.770 and Add.1. Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

A/C.5/1705. Administrative and financial implications of 55-power draft resolution, A/L.770. Statement by Secretary-General.

Resolution 3376 (XXX), as proposed by 55 powers, A/L.770, and as orally amended by sponsors, adopted by Assembly on 10 November 1975, meeting 2399, by roll-call vote of 93 to 18, with 27 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore,

Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, 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, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, Fiji, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Swaziland, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, New Zealand, Paraguay, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Uruguay.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of that resolution,

Deeply concerned that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has yet been achieved,

Recognizing that the problem of Palestine continues to endanger international peace and security,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 3236 (XXIX);

2. Expresses its grave concern that no progress has been achieved towards:

(a) The exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights in Palestine, including the right to self-determination without external interference and the right to national independence and sovereignty;

(b) The exercise by Palestinians of their inalienable right to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted;

3, Decides to establish a Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People composed of twenty Member States to be appointed by the General Assembly at the current session;

4. Requests the Committee to consider and recommend to the General Assembly a programme of implementation designed to enable the Palestinian people to exercise the rights recognized in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX), and to take into account, in the formulation of its recommendations for the implementation of that programme, all the powers conferred by the Charter upon the principal organs of the United Nations;

5. Authorizes the Committee, in the fulfilment of its mandate, to establish contact with, and to receive and consider suggestions and proposals from, any State and intergovernmental regional organization and the Palestine Liberation Organization;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Committee with all the necessary facilities for the performance of its tasks;

7. Requests the Committee to submit its report and recommendations to the Secretary-General no later than 1 June 1976 and requests the Secretary-General to transmit the report to the Security Council;

8. Requests the Security Council to consider as soon as possible after 1 June 1976, the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of the inalienable rights recognized in paragraphs 1 and 2 of resolution 3236 (XXIX);

9. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Committee of the action taken by the Security Council in accordance with paragraph 8 above;

10. Authorizes the Committee, taking into consideration the action taken by the Security Council, to submit to the General Assembly, at its thirty-first session, a report containing its observations and recommendations;

11. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirty-first session.

Credentials

General Assembly–3Oth session

Credentials Committee, meeting 67.

Plenary meetings 2351, 2369.

A/10270. First report of Credentials Committee, pare. 6 and Annex. (Para. 9: resolution, proposed by Committee Chairman, adopted without vote by Credentials Committee on 29 September 1975, meeting 67.)

A/10270, pare. 12. Draft resolution, proposed by Committee Chairman, approved unanimously by Credentials Committee on 29 September 1975, meeting 67.

Resolution 3367 A (XXX), as recommended by Credentials Committee, approving first report of Credentials Committee, A/10270, adopted without vote by Assembly on 1 October 1975, meeting 2369.

Communications

A/10362. Letter of 14 November 1975 from Israel.

A/10377 (S/11882). Letter of 21 November 1975 from Israel.

A/10390 (S/11886). Letter of 26 November 1975 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/10392. Letter of 1 December 1975 from Ivory Coast.

A/10418 (S/11894). Letter of 3 December 1975 from Israel.

S/11908. Letter of 11 December 1975 from Secretary-General (transmitting text of resolution 3375 (XXX) of 10 November 1975).

S/11919. Letter of 18 December 1975 from Secretary-General (transmitting text of resolution 3376 (XXX) of 10 November 1975).

Other documents

Palestine Question: A Select Bibliography. U.N.P. Sales No.: E/F.76.I.14.

The question of Jerusalem

During 1975, several communications relating to the situation in and around Jerusalem and its Holy Places were received by the United Nations Secretary-General.

On 24 February 1975, the representative of Yemen, in his capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group of countries at the United Nations, transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of resolutions adopted by the Moslem-Christian Meeting on Jerusalem, held in Cairo, Egypt, on 16 January 1975.  By the resolutions, the Meeting among other things condemned Israeli measures aimed at changing the character of the Holy City and denounced the confiscation of Arab land by the occupying authorities, the evacuation of Arab inhabitants and the conducts of excavations that destroyed cultural property.  It asked that the Security Council meet with a view to imposing appropriate sanction against Israel under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter 31/ and that the General Assembly suspend the membership of Israel at its forthcoming session until the resolutions relating Jerusalem had been implemented and Arab sovereignty over the City had been restored.

By a note verbale of 26 September, the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic charged that the Israeli occupation authorities continued to obliterate Arab landmarks and monuments in the occupied Arab territories, a further example of which was excavations undertaken by an Israeli archaeological mission and involving three Arab Omayyad palaces in the vicinity of the Holy Shrine.  A proposed Israeli organizational plan of the area would, the note asserted, distort the features the three palaces.  The Syrian representative requested that this plan be halted and the palaces and other Arab monuments be restored and preserved against obliteration by any development or housing project in the future.

(See also pp. 251-54.)

Documentary references

E/5635. Report of Commission on Human Rights on its 31st session, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 February-7 March 1975, Chapters VII and XXIII A (resolution 6 (XXXI)).

S/11639 (A/10051). Letter of 24 February 1975 from Yemen (annexing resolutions adopted by Moslem-Christian Meeting on Jerusalem, Cairo, Egypt, 16 January 1975).

S/11799 (A/10178). Letter of 7 August 1975 from Jordan.

S/11809 (A/10204), S/11878. Letters of 20 August and 14 November from Israel.

A/10001. Report of Secretary-General on work of Organization, 16 June 1974-15 June 1975, Part One, Chapter ID.

A/10286. Note verbale of 26 September 1975 from Syrian Arab Republic.

The situation in the occupied territories

During 1975, various United Nations bodies dealt with questions relating to the civilian population of territories occupied by Israel as a result of hostilities in the Middle East.  A number of communications from Arab States and from Israel concerning the treatment of the civilian population in those territories were received by the Secretary-General.

The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories reported to the General Assembly in October.  Earlier in the year, the Commission on Human Rights–after considering the Special Committee's 1974 report–adopted two resolutions by which, among other things, it deplored Israel's continued grave violations of the basic norms of international law, declared that all measures taken by Israel to change the status of occupied Arab territories were null and void, and called upon Israel to comply with its obligations under the (fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949.

In its 1975 report, the Special Committee concluded that the general situation in the occupied territories had not changed to any substantial degree, and that the state of occupation and the consequent interference with daily life over such a long period were resulting in a growing sense of frustration and resentment among the youth of the occupied areas.  The Special Committee reiterated its conviction that the termination of the occupation would alone provide the surest guarantee of restoring the basic human rights to the population of the occupied territories.

During its thirtieth session, the General Assembly on 15 December 1975 adopted four resolutions on the question.  By the first–3525 A (XXX)–the Assembly among other things demanded that Israel desist from annexing and colonizing the occupied territories and from all policies and practices in contravention of international law, including expropriation of Arab property, displacement of inhabitants, ill-treatment of the population, interference with religious customs and illegal exploitation of resources.  The Assembly called on all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories.

By the second–3525 B (XXX)–the Assembly deplored the failure of Israel to acknowledge the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to the territories it had occupied since 1967, and called on Israel to comply with the provisions of that Convention.

By the third–3525 C (XXX)–the Assembly requested the Special Committee to continue its efforts to assess the nature, extent and value of the damage caused by the destruction in the Syrian town of Quneitra.

By the fourth resolution–3525 D (XXX)–the Assembly declared that all measures taken by Israeli authorities to change established religious practices in the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque were null and void, called on Israel to rescind and desist from all such measures and requested the Secretary-General to investigate and report on the situation.

In another action at its thirtieth session, the General Assembly on 15 December 1975 adopted resolution 3516 (XXX), by which among other things it requested the Secretary-General to submit to it in 1976 a final comprehensive report on the adverse economic effects on the Arab States and peoples resulting from repeated Israeli aggression and continued occupation of their territories.

Details of these developments are to be found in the sections that follow.

Treatment of the civilian population in the Israeli-occupied territories and related matters

Communications

During 1975, a number of communications from Arab States and from Israel concerning the treatment of the civilian population in Israeli-occupied territories and related matters were received by the Secretary-General.

On 15 April and 24 June 1975, Egypt charged that Israel violated the human rights of the population of the occupied territories, in contravention of the (fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, by forcibly transferring segments of the population of Sinai from the areas of Ain Sadr and the Al-Hama and Al-Rama mountains to other areas.  Members of several Bedouin tribes, Egypt said, had been transferred since 1967 from their original living areas to other locales.  Egypt stated that these Israeli actions should be rescinded and the immediate return of the people involved should be secured.

By a letter dated 29 July, Israel said that for imperative military and security reasons, 400 Bedouin families–about 1,500 people–were transferred to either Bir Malka or Jabel Risan according to their choice.  Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) were present at the time of the transfers.  The Bedouin were compensated monetarily and were provided with food supplies, job opportunities and public services.  Israel stated that on 2 June the sheikhs of the area voiced their appreciation for the assistance provided.  Israel felt that the transfers were not contrary to, and indeed grew out of, the provisions of the fourth 1949 Geneva Convention.

Egypt, by a letter of 31 July, said that Israel was trying to justify its violations of the Convention by worn-out military and security pretexts.  On 8 August, Israel charged that Egypt, by a so-called war of attrition launched in 1969, had severely jeopardized the lives of the Bedouin population in Sinai.  Thus the situation necessitating the transfer of certain people to more secure areas was, in Israel's view, created by Egypt.

On 7 August 1975, Jordan charged that Israeli occupation authorities committed flagrant violations of the religious sanctity of a prominent Islamic shrine, the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron.  Recent Israeli measures had reached an extreme level, with acts of desecration having intensified.  Moslems had been obstructed in their prayers, portions of the Mosque had been demolished and Moslems whose ancestors had built the Mosque had been restricted to one entrance.

Israel said on 20 August that Jordan's charge were completely baseless.  It stated that prior to 1967, Jordan's occupation authorities in Jerusalem had denied Jews access to the Wailing Wall and had destroyed places of worship.  Jewish access to the Cave of Machpela in Hebron had also been forbidden.  Currently, the conduct of prayers there by the Moslem Waqf was not obstructed; rather, arrangements based on mutual respect enabled both Moslems and Jews to worship.

The Syrian Arab Republic, citing the specific example of an Israeli archaeological mission in the vicinity of the Holy Shrine, informed the Secretary-General on 26 September 1975 that the Israeli occupation authorities continued to obliterate cultural landmarks and monuments in the occupied territories.  The United Nations was requested to work to halt the encroachment on Arab cultural landmarks.  (See also p. 249.)

Decisions of the Commission on Human Rights

At its thirty-first session, in February-March 1975, the Commission on Human Rights had before it, among other documents, the 1974 report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. 32/  On 3 February 1975, the Commission approved a request made by the League of Arab States that representation with observer status be accorded at the current session to the Palestine Liberation Organization.

On 21 February, the Commission adopted two resolutions on the question of the violation of  human rights in the territories occupied as

a result of hostilities in the Middle East.  By the preambular part of the first resolution, the Commission among other things expressed alarm at the continuation of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms by Israel in the occupied Arab territories; it also expressed deep concern over Israel's persistence in establishing settlements in those territories.

By the operative part of the text, the Commission inter alia deplored Israel's continued grave violations of the basic norms of international law and of relevant international conventions.  It reaffirmed the inalienable right of the Arab people to return to their homes and property.  It reaffirmed that military occupation of territory constituted a grave threat to international peace and security and declared that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic structure and status of occupied Arab territories were null and void.  The Commission censured in the strongest terms all measures taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem, and condemned Israel for its deliberate destruction of the Syrian town of Quneitra.

The Commission called upon Israel once more to comply with its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the fourth Geneva Convention, and also to implement all relevant United Nations resolutions.  All States were called upon to do their utmost to ensure that Israel respected the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention and desisted from its current policies in the occupied territories.

The Secretary-General was requested to bring the Commission's resolution to the attention of all Governments, competent United Nations organs, specialized agencies and regional intergovernmental organizations and to give it the widest possible publicity.  He was asked to report to the Commission at its next session when, it was decided, the matter would be given high priority.

By the second resolution, the Commission expressed its deep concern over Israel's continued policies in the occupied territories, including the treatment of religious personalities such as Archbishop Hilarion Capucci, Archbishop of the Greek Catholic Church in the occupied Arab West Bank. 33/

The Commission deplored the desecration of Moslem and Christian shrines, disrespect for religious leaders and violations of rights of worship in the occupied territories.  It called upon Israel to ensure freedom of worship and to accord the esteem, regard and protection due the religious shrines and personalities in accordance with established traditions in the region, particularly in Jerusalem.  It further called upon Israel to release Archbishop Capucci immediately.

Report of the Special Committee in 1975

The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories held meetings during March, May, September and October 1970, and presented its seventh report to the Secretary-General on 13 October.

The Special Committee said that, although still denied access by the Government of Israel to the occupied territories to conduct its investigations on the spot, it had continued to follow developments on a day-to-day basis.  It continued its monitoring of reports of statements by members of the Government of Israel and of a representative section of the Arab press.  It had before it allegations made by Governments and evidence furnished to substantiate them; it heard the testimony of seven persons.  It took note of information contained in United Nations documents, some of which included the texts of letters from the Governments of Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as information communicated to it by ICRC and studies and reports prepared by organizations and individuals engaged in research on Middle East questions.

The Special Committee reported on evidence it received relating to the continued existence of a policy of annexation and settlement of the occupied territories by Israel, and on the abnormal situation of the civilian population living under military occupation.  That situation, it said, involved mass arrests, administrative detention, military court trials and the continuing occurrence of incidents reflecting resistance to the occupation.  Evidence relating to a policy of reprisal against civilians–including the expulsion of community leaders and the closure of businesses–was also reported.

Other allegations reported by the Special Committee included incidents at the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron and the ill-treatment of persons under detention.

The Special Committee, in accordance with a 1974 General Assembly request, 34/ selected an expert to undertake a preliminary survey on the possible causes and the extent of damage with regard to the destruction in the town of Quneitra.  The expert appeared before the Special Committee on 30 September and 1 October 1975; the Committee was unable to complete a final survey on the nature, extent and value of the damage in time to submit a report to the General Assembly at its regular 1975 session.

In the conclusions to its report the Special Committee said, among other things, that Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories had not changed to any substantial degree.  The general situation, it stated, continued to give cause for concern because the civilian population had been living under military occupation since June 1967; that fact had created a state of restlessness, manifested in 1975 by a marked increase of incidents, by reprisals by the military occupying authorities and by a noticeable increase in the number of persons in custody.  The Special Committee said that the state of occupation and the consequent interference with daily life over such a long period were affecting the youth of the occupied territories, and their sense of frustration and resentment at occupation grew with its prolongation.

The Special Committee concluded that the policy of annexation pursued by Israel in Jerusalem and the forcible eviction of local Arab inhabitants from their land, among other practices were contrary to the fundamental premises of relevant international conventions.  It also stated that the evidence it received reflected a tendency towards collective punishment as an alternative to proper investigation of incidents of violence.

With regard to allegations of ill-treatment and torture of persons under detention, the Special Committee said it was unable to reach a conclusive finding since that would only be possible after a free investigation inside the occupied territories.

The Special Committee was of the view that Archbishop Capucci was tried in a court–the District Court of Jerusalem–which, having been established in the occupied part of that City, was not properly constituted under international law.

The Special Committee reiterated its conviction that the termination of the occupation would alone provide the surest guarantee of the restoration of the basic human rights of the population of the occupied territories.  It again proposed the adoption  of  an arrangement inspired by the protecting-power formula envisaged under the 1949 Geneva Conventions to protect civilian populations of occupied territories. 35/

Consideration by the General Assembly

The report of the Special Committee was considered during the General Assembly's regular 1975 session by the Special Political Committee, which also had before it a report by the Secretary-General prepared in response to two 1971 Assembly resolutions, 36/ asking him among other thing; to render all necessary facilities to the Special Committee and to ensure the widest circulation of its reports.

In his report, the Secretary-General said that the United Nations Office of Public Information had taken appropriate steps to ensure wide circulation of the reports of the Special Committee and had disseminated information regarding its activities and findings.

On 15 December 1975, the General Assembly adopted four resolutions on the 1975 report of the Special Committee.

By the first of these (3525 A (XXX)), the Assembly commended the Special Committee for its efforts, deplored Israel's continued refusal to allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories and called again upon Israel to allow such access.  It deplored Israel's continued violation of the fourth 1949 Geneva Convention and other applicable international instruments and it condemned, in particular, the following Israeli policies and practices: the annexation of parts of the occupied territories; the establishment of Israeli settlements in those territories and the transfer thereto of an alien population; the destruction and demolition of Arab houses; the confiscation and expropriation of Arab property and other property transactions; the evacuation, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories and the denial of their right to return; the mass arrests, administrative detention and ill-treatment of the Arab population; the pillaging of archaeological and cultural property; the interference with religious freedoms and practices and family rights and customs; and the illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories.

The Assembly declared that those policies and practices constituted grave violations of the Charter of the United Nations and were an impediment to peace.  It reaffirmed that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the occupied territories were null and void.

Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories, the Assembly said, was a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention, and it urged all States to refrain from any action which Israel would exploit in carrying out its policy of colonizing the occupied territories.

The Assembly demanded that Israel desist forthwith from the annexation and colonization of the occupied Arab territories, as well as from the other policies and practices referred to.  It reiterated its call to all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid actions–including actions in the field of aid–which might be used by Israel in pursuance of its policies.

The Special Committee was asked by the Assembly to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices, to consult with the International Committee of the Red Cross as appropriate, and to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arose.

The Assembly requested the Secretary-General: to render the necessary facilities to the Special Committee, including those required for its visits to the occupied territories; to make available additional staff as might be necessary to assist the Special Committee; to ensure the widest circulation of the Special Committee's reports; and to report to the Assembly at its 1976 session, when the item would be included in the provisional agenda.

This resolution, as amended by the United Arab Emirates, was adopted by the Assembly on 15 December 1975 by a recorded vote of 87 to 7, with 26 abstentions.  The Special Political Committee had approved the resolution on 5 December by a roll-call vote of 81 to 4, with 20 abstentions.  The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Benin, the Comoros, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Senegal.

(For text of resolution 3525,(XXX), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By the second resolution (3525 B (XXX)), the Assembly, noting that Israel and the Arab States whose territories had been occupied by Israel since June 1967 were parties to the fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, reaffirmed that that Convention was applicable to all the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.  It deplored the failure of Israel to acknowledge the applicability of the Convention to the occupied territories, and called once more upon Israel to acknowledge and comply with the provisions of the Convention in all the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem.  It further urged all States parties to the Convention to exert all efforts to ensure respect for and compliance with the provisions thereof in all the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

The Assembly adopted the resolution, by a recorded vote of 112 to 2, with 7 abstentions, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, which had approved the text on 5 December by a roll-call vote of 106 to 1, with 3 abstentions.  The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Benin, the Comoros, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, the Philippines and Senegal.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By the third resolution (3525 C (XXX)), the General Assembly noted that the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories had not been able to submit to it a full report on the destruction in the town of Quneitra, in accordance with an Assembly request of 29 November 1974. 37/  It requested the Special Committee to continue its efforts to undertake the survey and to assess the nature, extent and value of the damage caused.  The Secretary-General was asked to continue to make available to the Special Committee all the facilities necessary in the performance of its tasks and to report to the Assembly in 1976.

The Assembly adopted this resolution by a recorded vote of 87 to 2, with 32 abstentions.  The Special Political Committee had approved the text

on 5 December by a roll-call vote of 84 to 2, with 24 abstentions.  The sponsors of the resolution were Afghanistan, Benin, the Comoros, India, Pakistan, the Philippines and Senegal.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The Assembly, by the preambular part of the fourth resolution on this question it adopted on 15 December 1973 (3525 D (XXX)), noted with concern the actions of the Israeli authorities with regard to the sanctuary of the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in the city of Al Khalil; it considered that those actions constituted grave violations of human rights and religious freedoms and of the norms of international law.  It considered also that the violations were a challenge to the susceptibilities of hundreds of millions of Moslems all over the world and that they constituted a new threat to peace and security in the area.

By the operative part of the text, the Assembly declared all measures taken by Israeli authorities with a view to changing the institutional structure and established religious practices in the sanctuary of Al-Ibrahimi Mosque null and void, and it called upon Israel to rescind and to desist forthwith from all such measures.  The Assembly requested the Secretary-General to investigate the situation by contacting the Islamic, Arab and other authorities concerned and to report as soon as possible on its call to Israel to rescind and desist from the measures described.  It called upon Israel to co-operate with the Secretary-General and to facilitate his task.

The Assembly adopted the resolution, by a recorded vote of 82 to 5, with 33 abstentions, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, which had approved the text on 5 December by a roll-call vote of 78 to 4, with 26 abstentions.  The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Benin, the Comoros, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines and Senegal.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

During the debate in the Special Political Committee, the Chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories said that the report of his Committee was based on information acquired from Israeli sources, including statements by members of Israel's Government.  He defended the Special Committee against criticism by Israel and other States that it was guided by preconceived ideas, and said it could not accept the view that its reports hindered progress towards a peaceful and early settlement of the Middle East question.

He went on to say that the Special Committee continued to be concerned about the situation in the occupied territories, and in particular about the plans approved by the Government of Israel to establish more settlements in Jerusalem and in other occupied areas.  On the question of Quneitra, he said that the Special Committee's expert needed more time to complete the assessment of the value of the damage caused.

The current report, he said, indicated that the occupation of Arab territories by Israel was becoming a permanent feature in the Middle East, and as such was undermining one of the basic assumptions of the fourth 1949 Geneva Convention–that any occupation resulting from military conquest would be temporary.

The most serious violation of human rights in the occupied territories, he said, was the Israeli policy of settlement and annexation of territory.  That policy, which sought to alter the geographic character and demographic composition of the territories, continued in defiance of many specific provisions of international law.

The representative of Israel, as in previous years, maintained that the Special Committee lacked objectivity and that its latest report was no more reliable than the preceding ones.  The report's conclusions, he said, were as misleading as its omissions were revealing.

With regard to the settlements established in the administered areas since 1967, Israel had no sinister designs, as contended by the Special Committee.  The settlements were of great importance to Israel's defence network and all allegations of demographic change were unwarranted.

The representative stated that the Israeli Government held that the fourth Geneva Convention did not apply in the administered areas for a number of legal reasons and that it reserved its position on the matter.  He also stressed that the Special Committee had no right to form an opinion on the legal probity of measures adopted by Israeli authorities.

Many Members–among them the Byelorussian SSR, India, Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, the Sudan, the Upper Volta, Yemen and Yugoslavia–commended the Special Committee for its work, accomplished despite the refusal of the Israeli Government to co-operate by allowing it to visit the occupied territories.

Egypt said that Israel was seeking to eliminate Arab identity by acts against educational establishments, national leaders and cultural sites; such acts were part of the Israeli policy to flout all sacred values.

In Jordan's view, Israel, by annexing West Bank towns and villages to Jerusalem, was radically altering the character and composition of the City and destroying its Arab heritage.

The Syrian Arab Republic said that Israel was practicing a policy of expansion and economic exploitation throughout the occupied territories.  In the Golan Heights, the Israeli settlements were aimed at perpetuating the occupation.

Afghanistan and Greece were among the Members which considered that the most serious aspect of the occupation–the policy of annexation–was contradictory to the alleged desire of the Israel Government to achieve a just settlement of the Middle East problem.

The representative of the United Arab Emirate. said that international law provided formulas, such as reservations or denunciations, by which State could absolve themselves from their treaty commitments.  He challenged Israel to specify the reasons for which it considered that the fourth Geneva Convention did not apply to the occupies territories.

The representative of the USSR said that the report of the Special Committee showed that Israel had applied a deliberate policy of annexation of the occupied territories and that the living conditions of the population in those territories had not changed.  The USSR agreed with the Special Committee that the question of Israeli violations of human rights in the occupied territories would not be resolved, nor a general political settlement achieved, until the occupation was ended.

Italy, speaking on behalf of the nine member States of the European Economic Community (EEC), said that the nine considered that the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention were applicable in the occupied territories.  They felt obliged, however, to exercise caution with regard to the sources of information used as a basis for evaluating the facts.  The Special Committee had encountered insurmountable obstacles; as a result, its report lacked the requisite authority.  The countries of EEC supported all efforts designed to reach an over-all settlement.

The representative of China commended the Special Committee for its report, and said that Israel pursued its policy of aggression and expansion because it enjoyed the protection of the super-powers, whose struggle for hegemony was the root cause of the failure to achieve a settlement of the Middle East question.  The Arab people could achieve victory only by linking their struggle against Israeli Zionism with the struggle against super-power hegemonism.

The representative of Costa Rica stated that the composition of the Special Committee violated the elementary standards of legal equity and impartiality required of a body which carried out investigatory tasks.  Costa Rica felt that the Special Committee had reached its conclusions before beginning its investigations, and it could not accept the activities of the Special Committee unless concern for the victims of all conflicts in the area could be ensured.

Several Members, including Senegal and the United Arab Emirates, voiced their disagreement with statements concerning the impartiality of the Special Committee.

Following the vote on the four draft resolutions before the Special Political Committee, a number of Members, including Colombia, Italy (on behalf of the member States of EEC) and the United States, stated that they considered that many of the charges against Israel contained in the resolutions had not been sufficiently verified.  Norway abstained on the resolution concerning the investigation of the destruction of Quneitra because it believed the membership of the Special Committee was too narrow.

Also, Italy (for the members of EEC) and the United States had not supported the resolution concerning the situation in the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque because they felt the text prejudged Israeli actions while at the same time, by an operative provision, asked for an investigation into the situation.

Related General Assembly decisions

At its thirtieth session, in 1975, the General Assembly on 10 November adopted a resolution–3382 (XXX)–on the importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights.  The Assembly thereby, among other things, strongly condemned all Governments which did not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, including notably the Palestinian people.  (See also pp. 615-17.)

Documentary references

Communications

A/10074, A/10128. Letters of 15 April and 24 June 1975 from Egypt.

A/10163 (S/11780). Letter of 29 July 1975 from Israel.

A/10164 (S/11784). Letter of 31 July 1975 from Egypt.

A/10174 (S/11797). Letter of 8 August 1975 from Israel.

A/10178 (S/11799). Letter of 7 August 1975 from Jordan.

A/10204 (S/11809). Letter of 20 August 1975 from Israel.

A/10286. Note verbale of 26 September 1975 from Syrian Arab Republic.

Decisions of the Commission on Human Rights

E/5635. Report of Commission on Human Rights on its 31st session, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 February-7 March 1975, Chapters Vii and XXIII A (resolution 6 (XXXI)) and B (decision 2 (XXXI)).

A/10137 (S/11762). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting Human Rights Commission resolution 6 A (XXXI) of 21 February 1975).

Report of the Special Committee in 1975

A/10272. Report of Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of Population of Occupied Territories.  Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report).

Consideration by the General Assembly

General Assembly–30th session

Special Political Committee, meetings 985-991.

Fifth Committee, meeting 1769.

Plenary meeting 2441.

A/10001. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1974-15 June 1975: Part One, Chapter I E; Part Three, Chapter I D 2.

A/10272. Note by Secretary-General (covering note).

A/10370. Report of Secretary-General.

A/SPC/L.340. Afghanistan, Benin, Comoros, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Senegal: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 5 December 1975, meeting 991, by roll-call vote of 81 to 4, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Chad, China, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Costa Rica, Israel, Nicaragua, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Burundi, Can-ada, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

A/SPC/L.345 and Corr.1, A/C.5/1755. Administrative and financial implications of 8-power draft resolution, A/SPC/L.340.  Statements by Secretary-General.

A/10008/Add.25, A/10501. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolutions A and C recommended by Special Political Committee in A/10461.  Reports of Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) and Fifth Committee.

A/L.788. United Arab Emirates: amendment to draft resolution A recommended by Special Political Committee in A/10461.

A/10461. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution A.

Resolution 3525 A (XXX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/10461, and as amended by United Arab Emirates, A/L.788, adopted by Assembly on 15 December 1975, meeting 2441, by recorded vote of 87 to 7, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Barbados, Costa Rica, Haiti, Israel, Liberia, Nicaragua, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Can-ada, Central African Republic, Colombia, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations as well as the principles and provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Bearing in mind the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, as well as of other relevant conventions and regulations,

Recalling its resolutions on the subject, as well as those adopted by the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights and other United Nations bodies concerned and by specialized agencies,

Having considered the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories which contains, inter alia, public statements made by leaders of the Government of Israel,

1. Commends the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories for its efforts in performing the tasks assigned to it by the General Assembly;

2. Deplores the continued refusal by Israel to allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories;

3. Calls again upon Israel to allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories;

4. Deplores the continued and persistent violation by Israel of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949 and other applicable international instruments;

5. Condemns, in particular, the following Israeli policies and practices:

(a) The annexation of parts of the occupied territories;

(b) The establishment of Israeli settlements therein and the transfer of an alien population thereto;

(c) The destruction and demolition of Arab houses;

(d) The confiscation and expropriation of Arab property in the occupied territories and all other transactions for the acquisition of land involving the Israeli authorities institutions or nationals on the one hand and the inhabitants or institutions of the occupied territories on the other;

(e) The evacuation, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories, and the denial of their right to return;

(f) Mass arrests, administrative detention and ill-treatment of the Arab population;

(g) The pillaging of archaeological and cultural property;

(h) The interference with religious freedoms and practices, as well as family rights and customs;

(i) The illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories;

6. Declares that those policies and practices of Israel constitute grave violations of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the principles and provisions of international law concerning occupation, and constitute as well an impediment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace;

7. Reaffirms that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the occupied territories or any part thereof, are null and void;

8. Reaffirms further that Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories is a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and of the relevant United Nations resolutions, and urges all States to refrain from any action which Israel will exploit in carrying out its policy of colonizing the occupied territories;

9. Demands that Israel desist forthwith from the annexation and colonization of the occupied Arab territories as well as from all the policies and practices referred to in paragraph 5 above;

10. Reiterates its call upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid actions, including actions in the field of aid, which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

11. Requests the Special Committee, pending the early termination of the Israeli occupation, to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, to consult, as appropriate, with the International Committee of the Red Cross in order to ensure the safeguarding of the welfare and human rights of the population of the occupied territories, and to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arises thereafter;

12. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To render all necessary facilities to the Special Committee, including those required for its visits to the occupied territories with a view to investigating Israeli policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

(b) To make available additional staff as may be necessary to assist the Special Committee in the performance of its tasks;

(c) To ensure the widest circulation of the reports of the Special Committee, and of information regarding its activities and findings, by all means available through the Office of Public Information of the Secretariat;

(d) To report to the General Assembly at its thirty-first session on the tasks entrusted to him;

13. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty-first session the item entitled "Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories."

A/SPC/L.341. Afghanistan, Benin, Comoros, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 5 December 1975, meeting 991, by roll-call vote of 106 to 1, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Haiti, Malawi, Nicaragua.

A/10461. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution B.

Resolution 3525 B (XXX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/10461, adopted by Assembly on 15 December 1975, meeting 2441, by recorded vote of 112 to 2, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal

Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, Liberia.

Abstaining: Barbados, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Haiti, Malawi, Nicaragua, Paraguay.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 3092 A (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973 and 3240 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974,

Considering that the promotion of respect for the obligations arising from the Charter of the United Nation and other instruments and rules of international law is among the basic purposes and principles of the United Nations,

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

Noting that Israel and those Arab States whose territories have been occupied by Israel since June 1967 are parties to that Convention,

Taking into account that States parties to that Convention undertake, in accordance with article 1 thereof not only to respect but also to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances,

1. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, is applicable to all the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Deplores the failure of Israel to acknowledge the applicability of that Convention to the territories it has occupied since 1967;

3. Calls once more upon Israel to acknowledge and to comply with the provisions of that Convention in all the Arab territories it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

4. Urges all States parties to that Convention exert all efforts in order to ensure respect for and compliance with the provisions thereof in all the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

A/SPC/L.342. Afghanistan, Benin, Comoros, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 5 December 1975, meeting 991, by roll-call vote of 64 to 2, with 24 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, Nicaragua.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

A/SPC/L.344, A/C.5/1751. Administrative and financial implications of 7-power draft resolution, A/SPC/L.342. Statements by Secretary-General.

A/10008/Add.25, A/10501. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolutions A and C recommended by Special Political Committee in A/10461.  Reports of ACABQ and Fifth Committee.

A/10461. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution C.

Resolution 3525 C (XXX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/10461, adopted by Assembly on 15 December 1975, meeting 2441, by recorded vote of 87 to 2, with 32 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore,

Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, Malawi.*

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Central African Republic, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

*Subsequently Malawi advised the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 3240 C (XXIX) of 29 November 1974,

Having considered the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, in particular section V thereof concerning action by the Special Committee to implement the provisions of paragraph 3 of resolution 3240 C (XXIX),

Noting that the Special Committee was not able to submit to the General Assembly at its current session a full report in accordance with the request made in paragraph 3 of resolution 3240 C (XXIX),

1. Requests the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories to continue its efforts to undertake a survey of the destruction in Quneitra and to assess the nature, extent and value of the damage caused by such destruction;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to make available to the Special Committee all the facilities necessary in the performance of its tasks and to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-first session.

A/SPC/L.343. Afghanistan, Benin, Comoros, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 5 December 1975, meeting 991, by roll-call vote of 78 to 4, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Costa Rica, Israel, Nicaragua, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Burma, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

A/10461. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution D.

Resolution 3525 D (XXX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/10461, adopted by Assembly on 15 December 1975, meeting 2441, by recorded vote of 82 to 5, with 33 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia,

Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Costa Rica, Israel, Liberia, Nicaragua, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Burma, Canada, Central African Republic, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi,* Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

*Subsequently Malawi advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote against.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2253 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2254 (ES-V) of 14 July 1967 and 3240 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974 and Security Council resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971,

Taking note of the information contained in the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories,

Noting with concern the actions of the Israeli authorities in changing the institutional structure and established religious practices in the sanctuary of Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in the city of Al-Khalil,

Considering that these actions constitute grave violations of human rights and religious freedom and of the norms of international law, in particular article 27 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

Considering also that these violations of established religious rights are a challenge to the susceptibilities of hundreds of millions of Moslems all over the world,

Considering furthermore that these violations, which have already caused civil and religious disturbances, constitute a new threat to peace and security in the area,

1. Declares all measures taken by the Israeli authorities with a view to changing the institutional structure and established religious practices in the sanctuary of Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in the city of Al-Khalil null and void;

2. Calls upon Israel to rescind and to desist forthwith from all such measures;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to investigate the situation in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque by contacting the Islamic, Arab and other authorities concerned, and to report as soon as possible on the implementation of paragraph 2 above;

4. Calls upon Israel to co-operate with the Secretary-General and to facilitate his task.

Permanent sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories

In a report submitted on 5 November 1975 to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session, the Secretary-General transmitted a report containing information he had received from certain Governments and agencies concerning the adverse effects on the Arab States and peoples of repeated Israeli aggression and continued occupation of their territories.

The Secretary-General did so in response to a request made by the Assembly on 17 December 1974; 38/ by that decision it among other things reaffirmed the rights of the Arab States and peoples whose territories were under Israeli occupation to full and effective permanent sovereignty over all their resources and wealth and to the restitution of and full compensation for the exploitation, depletion and loss of those resources, and asked the Secretary-General–with the assistance of relevant specialized agencies and United Nations organs–to prepare the above-mentioned report.

In the report, the Secretary-General said he had decided to invite the Member States directly concerned and the relevant specialized agencies and United Nations organs to provide relevant information as a basis for the report.  Accordingly, he had, on 18 March 1975, sent notes verbales to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syrian Arab Republic, and, on 19 March, had also requested information from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Economic Commission for Western Asia (ECWA), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the International Labour Organisation, the World Health Organization, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the International Monetary Fund.

The replies received were attached as annexes to the Secretary-General's report.

The item was considered by the Assembly's Second (Economic and Financial Committee at meetings on 1 and 5 December 1975.  Introducing the Secretary-General's report, the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs said that an analysis of the information collected from the Governments concerned and from United Nations bodies had led the Secretary-General to conclude that, since he was not in a position to comment on or interpret the resulting aggregate, it should be communicated in its entirety to the General Assembly.

The Second Committee on 5 December 1975 approved a 45-power draft resolution by a roll-call vote of 91 to 2, with 21 abstentions.  It was adopted by the Assembly on 15 December 1975, by a roll-call vote of 100 to 2, with 30 abstentions, as resolution 3516 (XXX).

By the operative part of this text, the General Assembly: noted that the Secretary-General's report was inadequate as it did not incorporate the necessary substantive and comprehensive studies required by the terms of Assembly's 1974 resolution; requested the heads of the relevant specialized agencies and United Nations organs, particularly UNCTAD and ECWA, to co-operate actively and adequately with the Secretary-General in the preparation of a final, comprehensive report; and requested the Secretary-General to submit that report to the Assembly at its 1976 session.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The text was sponsored in the Second Committee by Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Chad, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, the Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Cameroon, the United Republic of Tanzania, the Upper Volta, Yemen and Yugoslavia.

The representative of Pakistan, who introduced the draft resolution in the Second Committee, observed that the report submitted by the Secretary-General did not include any of the substantive studies or research requested by the Assembly in 1974; it was a report consisting only of annexes of Government replies and information already available in some United Nations agencies.  In view of the unsatisfactory result of the previous mandate–despite its clarity–the sponsors submitted their draft resolution, he said, with a view to providing the Secretary-General with an even clearer mandate.  Similar views were expressed by China, Cyprus, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda and the USSR.

The spokesman for Israel said it was obvious that the Assembly's resolution of 17 December 1974 had been politically biased, aimed at creating confusion and exploiting fake issues for political purposes.  Israel, he said, had not only committed aggression but on the contrary had been a victim of continuous aggression since its establishment in 1948; it had itself endured extremely adverse economic effects as a result of that aggression and of the Arab States' illegal policy of economic boycott and embargo.

The United States representative felt that the item did not fall within the competence of the Second Committee and, further, that the 45-power text contained improper criticism of the Secretariat, which had been entrusted with an impossible task.

Documentary references

Genera Assembly–30th session

Second Committee, meetings 1708, 1712.

Fifth Committee, meeting 1769.

Plenary meeting 2441.

A/10290 and Add.2. Report of Secretary-General.

A/C.2/L.1490, Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Chad, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Second Committee on 5 December 1975 meeting 1712, by roll-call vote of 91 to 2, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Gabon, German Democratic Republic Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, 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, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland Italy, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

A/C.2/L 1494, A/C.5/1759. Administrative and financial implications of 45-power draft resolution, A/C.2/L.1490. Statements by Secretary-General.

A/10471. Administrative and financial implications of inter alia, draft resolution IX recommended by Second Committee in A/10467. Report of Fifth Committee.

A/10467. Report of Second Committee (on report of Economic and Social Council), draft resolution IX.

Resolution 3516 (XXX), as recommended by Second Committee, A/10467, adopted by Assembly on 15 December 1975, meeting 2441, by roll-call vote of 100 to 2 with 30 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, 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, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands. New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 3336 (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, entitled "Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories," in paragraph 5 of which it requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant specialized agencies and United Nations organs, including the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, to prepare a report on the adverse economic effects on the Arab States and peoples resulting from repeated Israeli aggression and continued occupation of their territories,

Recalling the statement, made at the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly on behalf of the co-sponsors in introducing the revised draft resolution, underlining the need to seek the assistance of relevant United Nations organizations in preparing the report requested of the Secretary-General, as these organizations had the machinery needed to carry out studies and research which would be useful in preparing the report,

Recalling further the statements on administrative and financial implications submitted by the Secretary-General in which he proposed that the report would be prepared on the basis of inquiries from and visits to the States concerned and consultations with the relevant specialized agencies and United Nations organs, including the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,

Recalling also that, in his two statements, the Secretary-General indicated that a large part of the work involved would be carried out in co-operation with the Economic Commission for Western Asia, and that the Commission would require four economists, appointed for six months each, and General Service secretarial support as well as travel funds for the preparation of the report,

Noting that, in view of the staffing proposals for the Economic Commission for Western Asia, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions recommended an additional provision in the amount of $37,000 to cover the cost of two economists only for a period of six months each and that the General Assembly approved this additional appropriation to supplement the staff and resources of the Commission in the work involved in the preparation of the report,

Noting also that the report of the Secretary-General was not prepared in conformity with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 3336 (XXIX), the related statements made on behalf of the co-sponsors and by the Secretary-General, and the administrative and financial implications and provisions approved by the Assembly, but contained only annexes setting forth information available to Governments and to some of the relevant specialized agencies and United Nations organs which were not involved in the preparation of substantive studies related to the report,

1. Notes that the report of the Secretary-General is inadequate as it did not incorporate the necessary substantive and comprehensive studies required in conformity with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 3336 (XXIX) and related documents, including the record of the meeting of the Second Committee, the statements on administrative and financial implications and the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions;

2. Requests the heads of the relevant specialized agencies and United Nations organs, particularly the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the Economic Commission for Western Asia, to cooperate actively and adequately with the Secretary-General in the preparation of a final comprehensive report;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-first session his final comprehensive report, which should fulfil the above-mentioned requirements.

Questions pertaining to refugees in the Near East

In 1975, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) maintained its relief, health and education programmes of assistance for Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the occupied West Bank of Jordan and the Gaza Strip.  This was achieved despite the Agency's precarious financial position and the civil war in Lebanon, which affected the Agency's programmes in that country and severely disrupted the operations of the Agency's headquarters in Beirut.

The Agency's grave financial situation nearly caused the suspension of its services in the final quarter of 1975; however, substantial additional contributions were received by mid-November and, by deferring some non-recurrent capital expenditure, among other measures, UNRWA was able to maintain its programmes and avoid a deficit.

During the second half of 1975, the Agency's work in Beirut both at its headquarters and at the Lebanon Field Office was directly affected by the civil war in Lebanon.  The disruption at the headquarters was at first palliated by the redeployment elsewhere in the Agency's operational area of senior staff from the Education and Health Departments.  But, as communications deteriorated, UNRWA was unable to discharge effectively its responsibility for the direction, supervision and support of its programmes in other fields and, in December, after consulting with the Secretary-General, the Commissioner-General decided that the headquarters had to be temporarily relocated.  The major part of the headquarters, including the Education and Health Departments (which employed about two thirds of the staff in the field) moved to Amman, Jordan, and, in the absence of sufficient office accommodation there, a smaller unit, including the Commissioner-General's office and the Finance and Legal Departments, was accommodated in Vienna, Austria.  The Lebanon Field Office moved into the headquarters building from a more exposed location in Beirut and continued to operate its programmes, but with increasing difficulty.

In addition to the problems created by internal conflict, Israeli air raids and attacks from the sea during July, August, September and December of 1975 caused loss of life among refugees and damage to Agency installations and refugee shelters in Lebanon.

In December, the General Assembly, by its four-part resolution 3419 (XXX), once again endorsed the efforts of UNRWA'S Commissioner-General to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to persons in the area who had been displaced and were in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 hostilities.  The Assembly also extended the mandate of the Working Group on the Financing of the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for one year and called upon all Governments to make generous contributions to UNRWA.  In addition, the Assembly called once more upon Israel to take immediate steps for the return of inhabitants displaced from their homes and camps in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and to desist from all measures that obstructed the return of the displaced inhabitants, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories.  It also reiterated its call upon Israel to take effective steps immediately for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps in the Gaza Strip from which they were removed, to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation, and to desist from further removal of refugees and destruction of their shelters.  For details of these and other Assembly decisions, see below.

Activities in 1975

The number of refugees registered with UNRWA at the end of 1975 rose through natural increase by 44,539, to 1,652,436, of whom an average of 828,000 were eligible to receive basic monthly rations and 1,423,232 were eligible for health and education programmes.  The Agency also distributed monthly rations to about 201,000 displaced persons and 38,500 displaced refugee children in east Jordan at the expense of the Jordanian Government.  There were 589,951 registered refugees (about 36 per cent of the total) and 44,771 displaced persons accommodated in 53 camps established before the 1967 hostilities and 10 emergency camps established afterwards.

The Agency, in co-operation with the World Health Organization (WHO), continued to provide health services–with emphasis on preventive medicine, including supplementary feeding of nutritionally vulnerable groups, and health education.  Expenditure on health services totalled $12.4 million in 1975.  During the year, the Agency opened new clinics for the treatment of diabetes and cardiovascular and ophthalmic diseases.

Expenditure on education increased in 1975 to 550.8 million, representing 45.4 per cent of the Agency's budget.  The programme, operated jointly with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), included nine years of primary education (10 years in Lebanon), some assistance for refugee pupils in government and private secondary schools, vocational and teacher training in eight centres and over 300 university scholarships.  Of UNRWA'S more than 15,500 employees, almost all Palestine refugees themselves, over 9,000 were teachers.

In the 1975/76 school year, an estimated 289,000 children were enrolled in the 592 UNRWA/UNESCO elementary and preparatory schools in Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, east Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  An estimated 85,000 more refugee pupils were enrolled in government and private schools in the same area, and, in east Jordan, almost 10,400 children of displaced persons were in Agency schools.  Some 68 per cent of UNRWA/UNESCO schools had to arrange classes on a shift basis, despite the construction of 61 new schoolrooms during the year.

The number of training places in the eight UNRWA/UNESCO training centres in 1975/76 totalled 3,240 in vocational and 1,260 in teacher-training courses.  However, the centre at Siblin in south Lebanon, which had 512 vocational and 160 teacher-training places, was unable to operate because of the civil war.  By the end of 1975, a total of more than 23,200 trainees had been graduated from Agency centres.  With most of the Agency's teachers professionally qualified, the UNRWA/UNESCO Institute of Education emphasized in-service refresher courses for subject teachers, head teachers, supervisors and teacher-training instructors.  During the latter half of the year, the Institute had to be relocated in Amman.

In 1975, the Agency's operations were again affected by hostilities.  In Lebanon, air raids and attacks from the sea by Israeli forces in July, August, September and December caused loss of life among refugees and damage to Agency installations and refugee shelters in the Rashidieh, Ein el-Hilweh, El Buss, Nabatieh, Nahr el-Bared and Beddawi camps.  In all, 42 registered refugees were reported killed and 101 registered refugees injured.  Damage caused to UNRWA installations in camps included the complete destruction of an UNRWA/UNESCO school in Nabatieh.

The severe fighting which took place in Lebanon during the year undoubtedly caused heavy casualties among refugees but no accurate figures were available.  There was extensive damage by artillery, mortar and machine-gun fire to UNRWA installations and shelters in the camps located in and around Beirut and, to a limited extent, in north Lebanon.  There was also looting of books and furniture from schools, of flour and other food from distribution centres and milk and supplementary feeding centres, and of drugs from clinics.  There were also casualties among refugees living in Beirut outside camps.  Agency installations in the Beirut suburbs, particularly schools, were damaged, looted or occupied by families which had had to evacuate their homes.

Consideration by General Assembly

When the situation of refugees in the Near East was considered by the General Assembly in 1975, the subject was referred to the Assembly's Special Political Committee, which discussed it at seven meetings held on 11 November and between 14 and 21 November.

The Special Political Committee had before it for its consideration of this item: (1) the annual report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA; (2) a report of the Secretary General concerning displaced persons who had fled the Israeli-occupied territories since the 1967 hostilities; (3) a report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine; and (4) two reports of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA.

Report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA

In his annual report to the General Assembly, covering the period from 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA referred to the Assembly's decision in 1974 to extend the Agency's mandate until 30 June 1978. 39/  He noted that on 1 May 1975, the Agency had completed its twenty-fifth year of service to the Palestine refugees, and that during that time no progress had been made on the return of refugees to their homes or on the payment of compensation.  While UNRWA had preserved the health of the refugees, he said, despite the deplorable living conditions in the most crowded camps, and while it had developed an impressive education system, the perpetuation of refugee status could be no occasion for celebration.  The Commissioner-General noted too that 1975 marked the eighth anniversary of the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, many of them refugees for the second time and comparatively few of whom had been allowed to return.

Referring to the decisions of the General Assembly in 1974 to grant the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) observer status at the United Nations 40/ and to request the Secretary-General to establish contacts with PLO on all matters relating to the question of Palestine, 41/ the Commissioner-General stated that consequently the Agency had established contact with the Executive Committee of PLO on matters concerning the refugees.

On the financial situation of UNRWA, the Commissioner-General stated that to maintain the Agency's programmes for the refugees, it was essential to place its finances on a more stable basis.  He reported that while UNRWA had been able to eliminate its deficit for 1974, by the end of June 1975 the total deficit faced by the Agency, had been $30 million.  This had subsequently been reduced to $13.2 million as a result of lower flour prices, special contributions from Saudi Arabia ($10 million) and the United States ($6 million) and other savings.  However, the Agency was still likely to be in acute financial difficulty by early 1976, the Commissioner-General added, with an estimated deficit of $55 million that year.

The Commissioner-General noted that the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General of UNRWA were gradually coming to be regarded as ultimately responsible for ensuring that UNRWA, had sufficient funds to maintain its services, though no text of the General Assembly expressly ascribed that responsibility to them.  Each year a financial and administrative breakdown was more narrowly avoided, he said, and there was growing disillusionment about the effectiveness of fund-raising on voluntary basis.  If the Assembly were to direct that the Agency's programmes should be maintained in full, as an obligation of the United Nations acting on behalf of the international community the only certain means of ensuring that the necessary funds were provided would be by levying an assessment on all Member States, the Commissioner-General continued.  If, however, that financing of the Agency was to remain on a voluntary basis then some means of avoiding the incompatibility between programmes and income was desirable, he said.

In his report, the Commissioner-General also reviewed the Agency's activities during 1975 in the fields of relief, health and education, and indicated the effect that disturbances in Lebanon–both the civil war and Israeli military actions–had had on them, including the frequent closure of schools and training centres and the closure of both the Agency's headquarters and its Lebanon Field Office for several days during each period of violence.

Report of the Secretary-General

On 16 September 1975, the Secretary-General submitted a report in response to a request by the General Assembly for information concerning Israel's compliance with the Assembly's resolution of 17 December 1974 dealing with the displaced persons who had fled from the Israeli-occupied areas. 42/ By that resolution the Assembly had called upon Israel to take immediate steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants, to desist from all measures that obstructed their return–including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories–to take effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed in the Gaza Strip, to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation and to desist from further removal of refugees and destruction of their shelters.  The resolution further deplored Israeli military attacks on refugee camps and called upon Israel immediately to desist from such attacks.

In response to his request for information on the implementation of that resolution, the Secretary-General reported, Israel had stated on 8 September 1975 that it continued to seek to reconcile its desire to assist in the return of displaced persons with its responsibility for the safety, welfare and security of the population in the administered areas and in Israel, as well as for the security of the State itself.  The prevailing situation did not permit a large-scale return of the displaced persons; the facilities established by Israel for the orderly movement of people across the cease-fire lines were being exploited by certain Arab Governments for the purpose of subversion in order to facilitate the entry of terrorists and the transport of explosives into Israeli-administered territory, Israel stated.  Nevertheless the number of displaced persons who had returned to their homes since 1967 stood at 55,000, it said.

With regard to the security measures taken by Israel in refugee camps in the Gaza area in 1971, Israel stated that those measures had been taken for safety and security reasons, to end the campaign of murder and sabotage unleashed there by the terrorist organizations.  Israel referred to the joint survey of refugees affected by the demolition of their shelters, conducted in 1973 by the Israeli authorities and representatives of UNRWA, and stated that plans were at an advanced stage to provide more families with suitable housing.

The Secretary-General also reported that he had obtained from the Commissioner-General of UNRWA such information as was available on the return of registered refugees to the occupied territories.  So far as was known to the Agency, the figure of 8,000 given in the Secretary-General's 1971 report 43/ had increased by a few hundred.

The report of the Secretary-General also included further information received from the Commissioner-General about developments in the Gaza Strip, according to which there had been 13 cases of punitive demolition of refugee shelters during the year.  The construction of municipal facilities in the Rafah camp had entailed the demolition of shelters affecting 228 families, all of whom had accepted the option offered by the Israeli authorities to purchase new accommodation in a nearby housing project.  Twelve other refugee families who had applied for new accommodation in a housing project were required to demolish their shelters before being given new accommodation.  The authorities had paid compensation to these 240 families for private additions or improvements they had made to their UNRWA-built shelters, but no compensation had been paid to UNRWA for the shelters themselves.

The Agency had protested to the Israeli authorities about the punitive demolitions and about the reduction in the available shelter accommodation in the Gaza Strip.  It had also expressed its concern for the refugee families affected by the large-scale demolitions of 1971 who were still in need of re-housing.  Of the 156 hardship cases from the Rafah camp, only 53 had been given free accommodation in accordance with the Israeli authorities declared intention.  The Agency had been informed that the authorities had reconsidered their plans in respect of the remaining 210 hardship cases from the Rafah, Beach and Jabalia camps, and were now contemplating providing land and a cash grant to each family to construct their own housing.  The Agency had also continued to press the authorities on the need to provide better accommodation for facilities still inadequately housed but not falling within the category of greatest hardship.

Report of Conciliation Commission for Palestine

The twenty-ninth report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, covering the period 30 September 1971 to 29 September 1975, was submitted in response to a request by the General Assembly of 17 December 1974 44/ that it exert continued efforts towards the implementation of paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 45/ concerning the repatriation or compensation of refugees.

The Commission said among other things that it had been encouraged by the efforts which had been made towards a Middle East settlement which could lead to a just and lasting peace in the area.  However, the circumstances governing the possibilities open to the Commission had remained essentially unchanged.  The Commission expressed the hope that recent developments would lead to further intensive efforts that would enable it to carry forward its work vigorously.

Reports of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA

The Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, established by the General Assembly in 1970 to assist in reaching solutions to the Agency's financial problems, met several times during 1975 to consider those problems, and issued two reports.

On 25 September 1975, the Working Group submitted a special report to the General Assembly in order to draw attention to the acute financial crisis faced by UNRWA.  It indicated that despite the generosity of many Governments in responding to the appeals made by the Secretary-General, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA and the Working Group, the 1975 budget of the Agency remained heavily in deficit and the Agency's working capital was almost completely exhausted.  It would be necessary very shortly, the report continued, in the absence of additional contributions, for the Commissioner-General to take the first steps to reduce services.

The Working Group believed that UNRWA's services to the Palestine refugees had to be maintained at least at their existing level until a just settlement of the problem was achieved.  Any reduction of UNRWA's services would cause widespread human suffering and unforeseeable political consequences, the Working Group stated, and it called upon all Member States to make sufficient contributions urgently to cover the Agency's $13.2 million deficit.

In its second report, submitted on 5 November 1970 in response to the General Assembly's request of 17 December 1974, 46/ the Working Group reemphasized the Agency's financial difficulties, adding that unless additional contributions were received in the immediate future, a complete suspension of the Agency's services might become inevitable.  The Working Group believed that any reduction in services provided by the Agency would create serious problems for the refugees themselves, for the countries in which they lived and for the prospects for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East as a whole.

The Group expressed the view that the continuation of UNRWA's services was an obligation of the United Nations acting on behalf of the international community and that the Agency's financing should be put on a firmer basis.  The Working Group therefore urgently requested that, in conformity with their international responsibilities in general and the requirements of the critical situation facing UNRWA in particular, those Governments which had not contributed in the past and those which had up until that time contributed inadequately be willing to reconsider seriously their position and contribute more generously.

General Assembly discussion

In presenting his annual report to the Special Political Committee, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA stated that during the period dealt with in the report, many Palestine refugees had continued to live in difficult conditions.  Their situation had been aggravated by the further outbreak of civil strife in Lebanon, which had disrupted the Agency's activities, not only in Lebanon itself, but in the Syrian Arab Republic and Jordan too, since Beirut was the main port of entry for the Agency supplies.  The effect on work at the Agency's headquarters and in the Lebanon Field Office had been severe and disruption had been caused to education and health services.

It was in those conditions that UNRWA had been going through the worst financial crisis in its history, the Commissioner-General continued.  There were three distinct but related problems, he said: insufficient income to meet expenditure; insufficient cash to meet cash expenditures which were due; and insufficient assets to cover liabilities.  He queried how reductions in services could be made in the education programme and in a health programme that was only rudimentary.  He stressed that since UNRWA had inadequate working capital, it was unable to hold large stocks of commodities and ordering had to be done on a hand-to-mouth basis.  Plans for cuts in rations had been worked out, but a decision to take such a step had been deferred.

The Commissioner-General continued by stating that the prospects for 1976 were alarming, with an estimated deficit of $55 million; the General Assembly would have to give him directions as to what he should do if funds became insufficient to maintain UNRWA services.  The remedy was to provide greater financial stability to the Agency, the Commissioner-General added. In the absence of mandatory financing, the only solution would be some consensus among contributors, he said.

In the 25 years during which the Agency had been providing services for the Palestine refugees, the emphasis of the programme had changed, the Commissioner-General stated: apart from maintaining the physical well-being of the refugees, with the assistance of WHO, it had also succeeded in establishing, in co-operation with UNESCO, a system of education and training for over a quarter of a million refugee children.  The UNRWA programmes, he said, could be regarded as a form of technical assistance until such time as the political problems involved could be solved.

The representative of Norway, in his capacity as Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, said that the Working Group believed that the provision of relief assistance, health services and educational facilities to the Palestine refugees was a common responsibility of all States Members of the Organization.  If UNRWA's financial position was to be improved without any reductions in the Agency's services, it was imperative, he said, that Member States should follow up their verbal support of the Agency with increased contributions.

During the discussion in the Special Political Committee, many Members commended the Commissioner-General and the staff of UNRWA for the programmes the Agency had managed to carry out on behalf of the refugees, and expressed concern over UNRWA'S precarious financial situation, especially in the light of the projected deficit of $55 million in 1976.  The generally expressed view was that the Agency provided indispensable services and that it was essential to maintain them without any reduction.

On the method of funding UNRWA, the representative of Italy, speaking on behalf of the nine States of the European Economic Community, stated that the current situation whereby a small number of countries provided the major part of the Agency's budget no longer met the requirements of the time.  The representative of Italy, among other Members, including Norway, Spain, Sweden and Turkey, appealed to countries which had not contributed to UNRWA to do so, and those which had contributed to increase their contributions.

The representative of the United States said that the financial crisis affecting UNRWA should be heeded by every nation represented in the Committee, since what was at issue was not only the problem of a worthy organization but also something much more important, and potentially much more tragic–namely, the lives of 1.5 million refugees who depended directly on UNRWA.  In 1975 half of the Member States of the United Nations had contributed nothing to UNRWA and others had made only nominal contributions; he called for all Member States to assume their share of the responsibility which their votes in the General Assembly for UNRWA resolutions had created.

The representative of Japan said that he still believed that the voluntary contributions system was the only practical method of financing the Agency's expenditure.  The representatives of Austria and Finland stated that the Agency's financial problem was both immediate and long-term: for the immediate problem the only solution was to increase the amount of voluntary contributions considerably: with regard to the long-term problem, the comprehensive study of UNRWA's finances should continue in order to prevent any recurrence of the financial crisis.  The representative of Chile said that, when considering the report of the Commissioner-General, one noticed that the greater part of the assistance provided to the Agency came from a comparatively small number of countries, while other countries gave insufficient assistance and 70 others gave none at all.  Therefore, the United Nations and the Special Political Committee should promote the idea of mobilizing the will of all Members to co-operate in that humanitarian and just cause.

Czechoslovakia and Hungary said that the problems of funding UNRWA would be solved at once if those who were responsible for the plight of the refugees assumed material responsibility for them.  They added that their countries would continue to give material and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people along bilateral lines.  The USSR noted that since the very beginning of history the principle had existed that the consequences of aggression should be borne by the aggressor and by those who had supported the aggression.  The USSR therefore was opposed to changing the system of voluntary contributions; it would continue, however, it said, to help the Arab people in their struggle against aggression.

A number of Members agreed with the Commissioner-General that the financing of UNRWA had to be placed on a firmer basis.  The representative of Egypt stated that the Commissioner-General and his staff had to be able to plan their programmes on the basis of a stable budget, which could not be achieved with the existing system of financing.  He added that, while voluntary contributions were of inestimable help, they could not be expected to cover all UNRWA's expenses, which should come out of the regular budget of the United Nations.  The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic stated that the Agency's budget had to be incorporated into the regular budget of the United Nations or made the subject of a special budget.  Alternatively, the salaries of the local employees could be paid by the United Nations, like those of the international staff, he said.  This latter view was shared by Mali and Jordan.

The Agency had the following alternatives, the representative of Jordan said: the elimination of the ration and supplementary feeding programmes plus the cessation of the preventive health activities; the closure of the schools and training centres; or the reduction of all the services by $55 million.  Any of those measures would involve the dismissal of some or all of the 15,500 Palestinian staff, he said.  Jordan endorsed the Commissioner-General's view that the only certain means of ensuring that the necessary funds were provided to UNRWA would be the levying of an assessment on all Member States.  The representative of Jordan added that the problem of the Palestinians was a question not only of refugees but also of the restoration of the inalienable rights of people, including national independence and self-determination and the right of return to all those who had been displaced and dispossessed.

Representatives of the Arab countries stressed that the question of the Palestine refugees was primarily a political issue.  The representative of Iraq said that the creation of UNRWA had been a direct consequence of the partition of Palestine and the establishment of the Zionist State by a resolution adopted by the General Assembly.  The Western powers had made a mistake by assuming that the refugees would eventually settle down and become integrated in the host countries, he said; the Palestinian people were determined to continue their struggle to preserve their national existence and realize their legitimate rights which had been recognized by the United Nations in numerous resolutions.  The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic stated that the refugee problem would not be solved unless the United Nations used every means to ensure the implementation of its own resolutions and to bring about the immediate and complete withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories and the restoration to the Palestinian people of their homeland.

Many representatives said that the solution of the refugee problem was to be found in the implementation of the relevant United Nations resolutions.  Had they been implemented, Morocco said they would certainly have helped to alleviate the serious situation of the Palestine refugees.  Many Members, including Egypt, Iraq, the Philippines and Yemen, affirmed their support for the Assembly's decision of 22 November 1971, by which the Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine. 47/

The representative of the USSR recalled the ever since the United Nations had been confronted with the problem of the Palestine refugees, the USSR had stressed that the problem was basically a political one and that no partial solution, even at the humanitarian level, would help to solve the problem or establish a just and lasting peace in the region.  A just solution had to be found on the basis of the relevant decisions of the United Nations, he said, and particularly on the basis of Security Council resolution 338 (1973) 48/ and General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX).

The representative of the Byelorussian SSR stated that Israel should withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967 and guarantee the right of the Palestinian people, including the right to form a State.  He added that if a genuine political settlement was to be achieved, it was essential to reconvene in Geneva, Switzerland, the Peace Conference on the Middle East with the participation of all interested parties, including PLO.

The representative of Greece said that every situation which involved the forcible uprooting a people was a matter of concern to the entire international community.  It was regrettable and disquieting that the General Assembly was still considering the question of the Palestine refugees after so many years, he added.  While it was essential to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, it should be recognized that the question was in essence a political one which required return of the Palestinian people to their homeland, he said; therefore it was scandalous that in some quarters the reproach was being made that Palestinian people had not become integrated into the neighbouring Arab countries.

The representative of Israel stated that the problem of the Palestine refugees had not been solved because of the intransigence and callousness of the Arabs, who had exploited the problem of the refugees in their political and terror campaign against Israel.  It was absurd, be added, that after so long a time over one and a half million Palestinians were officially registered as refugees with an international Agency.  It should be noted, he added, that 85 per cent of all the refugees had never left the area where they had lived but had simply moved a few miles.  However, it was at the Arab Governments' insistence that relief had continued, instead of being replaced by constructive programmes of rehabilitation through the provision of suitable employment; this was the cause of the tremendous financial and logistic burden on the Agency, he said.  In contrast to that negative attitude of the Arab Governments towards the Palestine refugees, Israel had done everything it could to restore the refugees' dignity as human beings and to enable them to gain a decent living and provide for their families, he continued.  Israel had from its inception proclaimed its desire for a just and lasting peace with the Arab States, he added; once that peace was achieved, the refugee problem would be solved.

The representative of PLO, who had been allowed to participate in the work of the Special Political Committee as an observer in accordance with the Assembly's decision of 22 November 1971, 49/ said that since large numbers of Palestinian continued to live in refugee shelters, the work and services of UNRWA were of great importance.  The financial difficulties of the Agency should be a source of concern to all who saw, felt and understood the injustice inflicted on the Palestine refugees, he said.  In PLO'S view, responsibility for the current financial crisis of the Agency lay, first, with Israel because it had forcibly expelled the indigenous Palestinian population, second, with the United Nations since it had created Israel and had allowed it to flout all relevant United Nations resolutions, and third, with the Western powers because they had supported Israel both materially and morally, thus enabling it to maintain its control over Palestine and perpetuating the plight of the Palestine refugees.  Those who had created the problem of the Palestinian people should see to it that UNRWA operated without handicaps, financial or otherwise, until those people were able to exercise their inalienable right to return to their homeland, the PLO representative stated.

General Assembly decisions

Four draft resolutions on questions relating to the Palestine refugees were submitted to the Special Political Committee, which approved them on 20 and 21 November 1975.  The General Assembly adopted them on 8 December.

By the first of these, the Assembly, expressing its concern at the continued human suffering resulting from the June 1967 hostilities, endorsed the efforts of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to persons in the area who were displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of those hostilities.  It also strongly appealed to all Governments, organizations and individuals to contribute generously to UNRWA and to the other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

These decisions were taken by the Assembly when it adopted resolution 3419 A (XXX), without a vote, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee.  The text, proposed by Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Yugoslavia and Zambia, was approved by that Committee on 20 November 1975 by consensus.  (For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By a second resolution, the Assembly among other things noted with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in its resolution of 11 December 1948 had not been effected, that no substantial progress had been made in the programme it endorsed on 26 January 1952 50/ for the reintegration of refugees; either by repatriation or resettlement, and that therefore the situation of the refugees continued to be a matter of serious concern.

By this text, the Assembly noted with regret that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine had been unable to find a means of achieving progress in the implementation of the provisions of paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194 (III), and it asked the Commission to exert continued efforts towards that end and to report no later than 1 October 1976.

The Assembly also directed attention to the continuing seriousness of the financial position of UNRWA; it noted with concern that, despite the commendable and successful efforts of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to collect additional contributions, the increased level of income was still insufficient to cover essential budget requirements in 1975, and that, at currently foreseen levels of giving, deficits would recur each year; and it called upon all Governments as a matter of urgency to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the Agency's anticipated needs, urging non-contributing Governments to contribute and contributing Governments to consider increasing their contributions.

These decisions were taken by the Assembly when it adopted resolution 3419 B (XXX) by a recorded vote of 121 to 0, with 1 abstention.  The text was approved on 20 November 1975 by the Special Political Committee–on a proposal by the United States–by a vote of 79 to 0, with 2 abstentions.  (For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By the third resolution, the General Assembly reaffirmed the right of the displaced inhabitants to return to their homes and camps in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and deplored the refusal of the Israeli authorities to take steps for their return.  It called once more upon Israel immediately: to take steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants; to desist from all measures that obstructed their return, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories; to take effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation; and to desist from further removal of refugees and destruction of their shelters.  The Assembly also condemned Israeli military attacks on refugee camps and called upon Israel to desist from such attacks.

Finally, the Assembly asked the Secretary-General, after consulting the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, to report not later than the opening of its 1976 session on Israel's compliance with and implementation of the resolution.

The Assembly took these decisions when it adopted resolution 3419 C (XXX) by a roll-call vote of 97 to 3, with 28 abstentions.  The text was sponsored in the Special Political Committee by Bangladesh, the Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Yugoslavia, and was approved by that Committee on 21 November by a roll-call vote of 84 to 3, with 18 abstentions.  (For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The representatives of Australia, Austria, Colombia, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, Swaziland, Sweden and the United Kingdom explained that they could not support the text because it condemned only one side and made no mention of the acts of violence to which the Israeli population had been subjected.  For the same reasons the United States explained its vote against the text.  Burma, Ireland, Italy and Japan explained that, while voting for the text, they, too, had reservations with regard to references to Israeli attacks alone.

The representative of Israel, explaining his vote against this resolution to the Assembly, stated that the text did not take any notice of the fact that, in spite of all the difficulties, Israel had continued as in previous years to facilitate the return of persons displaced in 1967 and to provide proper and decent housing for the refugees concerned.  In addition, he stated that Israel directed its action not against the refugee camps, but against the installations of the terror organizations which were placed in or near population centres because of the protection that proximity afforded.

By the preambular part of the fourth resolution, the Assembly among other things expressed its grave concern at the alarming financial situation of UNRWA, which was endangering the essential minimum services being provided to the Palestine refugees, and it emphasized the urgent need for extraordinary efforts to maintain, at least at their existing minimum level, the activities of UNRWA.  By the operative part of the text, the General Assembly commended the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA for its work and requested it to continue its efforts, in co-operation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, for the financing of UNRWA for a further period of one year.

These decisions were taken by the Assembly when it adopted resolution 3419 D (XXX), unanimously, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, which approved it, also unanimously, on 21 November 1975, on a proposal by Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Sudan and Yugoslavia.  (For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Pledges and contributions for 1975

For the calendar year 1975, Governments and one intergovernmental organization pledged the equivalent of $106,902,825 towards UNRWA's budget.  As at 31 December 1975, the equivalent of $97,771,992 had been received in payment of those pledges.  A total of $8,205,319 was also received (in cash and in kind) in 1975 against prior years' pledges.  In addition, contributions were received from United Nations organizations and non-governmental organizations, private individuals and business corporations.  Total income from all sources in 1975 was $113,578,226.

CONTRIBUTIONS PLEDGED TO UNRWA FOR

YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1975

(showing equivalent in U.S. dollars of pledges or

contributions in cash, kind and services)

   Contribution

*In addition to their direct contributions to UNRWA, the member States of the European Economic Community (EEC) also contributed through the EEC, as shown at the end of the table.

Documentary references

General Assembly–30th session

Special Political Committee, meetings 974, 977-982.

Fifth Committee, meeting 1762. Plenary meetings 2373, 2430.

A/10001. Report of Secretary-General on work of Organization, 16 June 1974-15 June 1975, Part One, Chapter I F.

A/10013 and Corr.1. Report of Commissioner-General of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in Near East (UNRWA), 1 July 1974-30 June 1975.

A/10114. Note by Secretary-General (attaching statement issued on 10 June 1975 by Secretary-General regarding financial situation of UNRWA).

A/SPC/L.334. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Yugoslavia, Zambia: draft resolution, approved by consensus by Special Political Committee on 20 November 1975, meeting 981.

A/10411. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution A.

Resolution 3419 A (XXX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/10411, adopted without vote by Assembly on 8 December 1975, meeting 2430.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967 2341 B (XXII) of 19 December 1967, 2452 C (XXIII) of 15 December 1968, 2535 C (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, 2672 B (XXV) of 8 December 1970, 2792 B (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 B (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3089 A (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973 and 3331 C (XXIX) of 17 December 1974,

Taking note of the annual 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 1974 to 30 June 1975,

Concerned about the continued human suffering resulting from the June 1967 hostilities in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its resolutions 2252 (ES-V), 2341 B (XXII) 2452 C (XXIII), 2535 C (XXIV), 2672 B (XXV), 2792 B (XXVI) 2963 B (XXVII), 3089 A (XXVIII) and 3331 C (XXIX);

2. Endorses, bearing in mind the objectives of those resolutions, the efforts of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, as far as practicable, or an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who are at present displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 hostilities;

3. Strongly appeals to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously for the above purposes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and to the other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

A/10271. Report of United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine.  Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report for period 30 September 1974-29 September 1975).

A/SPC/L.335. United States: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 20 November 1975, meeting 981, by 79 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.

A/10411. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution B.

Resolution 3419 B (XXX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/10411, adopted by Assembly on 8 December 1975, meeting 2430, by recorded vote of 121 to 0, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, 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, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Israel.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 3331 (XXIX) of 17 December 1974 and all previous resolutions referred to therein, including resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the annual 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 1974 to 30 June 1975,

1. Notes with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) has not been effected, that no substantial progress has been made in the programme endorsed by the Assembly in paragraph 2 of resolution 513 (VI) of 26 January 1952 for the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continues to be a matter of serious concern;

2. Expresses its thanks to the Commissioner-General and to the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for their continued dedicated and effective efforts under difficult circumstances to provide essential services for the Palestine refugees, and to the specialized agencies and private organizations for their valuable work in assisting the refugees;

3. Notes with regret that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine has been unable to find a means of achieving progress in the implementation of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) and requests the Commission to exert continued efforts towards the implementation of that paragraph and to report as appropriate, but no later than 1 October 1976;

4. Directs attention to the continuing seriousness of the financial position of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as outlined in the Commissioner-General's report;

5. Notes with profound concern that, despite the commendable and successful efforts of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to collect additional contributions, this increased level of income to the Agency is still insufficient to cover essential budget requirements in the present year, and that, at presently foreseen levels of giving, deficits will recur each year;

6. Calls upon all Governments as a matter of urgency to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, particularly in the light of the budgetary deficit projected in the Commissioner-General's report, and therefore urges non-contributing Governments to contribute regularly and contributing Governments to consider increasing their regular contributions.

A/10253. Report of Secretary-General.

A/SPC/L.336. Bangladesh, Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia, Syrian Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 21 November 1975, meeting 982, by roll-call vote of 84 to 3, with 18 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, Swaziland, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

A/10411. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution C.

Resolution 3419 C (XXX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/10411, adopted by Assembly on 8 December 1975, meeting 2430, by roll-call vote of 97 to 3, with 28 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, 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, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, Nicaragua, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2452 A (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, 2672 D (XXV) of 8 December 1970, 2792 E (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 C and D (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3089 C (XXVII) of 7 December 1973 and 3331 D (XXIX) of 17 December 1974.

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 1974 to 30 June 1975, and the report of the Secretary-General of 16 September 1975,

1. Reaffirms the right of the displaced inhabitants to return to their homes and camps in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

2. Deplores the refusal of the Israeli authorities to take steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants;

3. Calls once more upon Israel:

(a) To take immediate steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants;

(b) To desist from all measures that obstruct the return of the displaced inhabitants, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories;

4. Reiterates its call upon Israel:

(a) To take effective steps immediately for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation;

(b) To desist from further removal of refugees and destruction of their shelters;

5. Condemns Israeli military attacks on refugee camps and calls upon Israel to desist from such attacks;

6. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report to the General Assembly by the opening of the thirty-first session on Israel's compliance with paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the present resolution.

A/10115. Letter of 10 June 1975 from Chairman of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA to Secretary-General.

A/10268. Special report of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA.

A/10334. Report of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA.

A/SPC/L.337. Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, India, Indonesia, Iran Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Sudan, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved unanimously by Special Political Committee on 21 November 1975, meeting 982

A/SPC/L.338, A/C.5/1720, A/10424. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution D recommended by Special Political Committee in A/10411 Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.

A/10411. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution D.

Resolution 3419 D (XXX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/10411, adopted unanimously by Assembly on 8 December 1975, meeting 2430.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2656 (XXV) of 7 December 1970, 2728 (XXV) of 15 December 1970, 2791 (XXVI) of December 1971, 2964 (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3090 (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973 and 3330 (XXIX) of 17 December 1974,

Having considered the report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

Taking into account the annual 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 1974 to 30 June 1975,

Gravely concerned at the alarming financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, imminently endangering the essential minimum services being provided to the Palestine refugees,

Emphasizing the urgent need for extraordinary efforts in order to maintain, at least at their present minimum level, the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

1. Commends the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for its work;

2. Notes with appreciation the report of the Working Group;

3. Requests the Working Group to continue its efforts, in co-operation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, for the financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for a further period of one year;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary services and assistance to the Working Group for the conduct of its work.

Notes

 1/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 190-91.

 2/ See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, text of resolution 338 (1973).

 3/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 198-200.

 4/ Ibid., pp. 226-27, text of resolution 3236 (XXIX).

 5/ See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, text of resolution 338 (1973).

 6/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 190-91.

 7/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967).

 8/ For text of Article 17 of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.

 9/ See footnotes 5 and 7, respectively.

10/ See footnote 5.

11/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 198-99.

12/ See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, text of resolution 338 (1973).

13/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.

14/ See footnote 12.

15/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 226-27, text of resolution 3236 (XXIX).

16/ Rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure reads as follows:  "Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may be invited, as the result of a decision of the Security Council, to participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council when the Security Council considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected, or when a Member brings a matter to the attention of the Security Council in accordance with Article 35 (l) of the Charter."

17/ Rule 39 of the rules of procedure reads as follows:  "The Security Council may invite members of the Secretariat or other persons, whom it considers competent for the purpose, to supply it with information or to give other assistance in examining matters within its competence."

18/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, for text of resolution 242 (1967).

19/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 216-17, for text of resolution 3211 B (XXIX), section II.

20/ See Y.U.N., 1973, pp. 222-23, text of resolution 3103 (XXVIII).

21/ Ibid.

22/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 215-16.

23/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, for text of resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967; and Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, text of resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973.

24/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 198-200.

25/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, for text of resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967; and Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, text of resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973.

26/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 226-27, text of resolution 3236 (XXIX).

27/ Ibid., p. 227, text of resolution 3237 (XXIX).

28/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, for text of resolution 242 (1967).

29/ See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, text of resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973.

30/ See footnote 26.

31/ For text of Chapter VII of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.

32/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 231-32.

33/ Ibid., p. 230.

34/ Ibid., p. 238, text of resolution 3240 C (XXIX) of 29 November 1974.

35/ See Y.U.N., 1972, pp. 185-86.

36/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 236-37, text of resolution 3240 A (XXIX) and p. 238, text of resolution 3240 C (XXIX), both of 29 November 1974.

37/ See footnote 34.

38/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 240-41, text of resolution 3336 (XXIX).

39/ See Y.U.N., 1974, pp. 249-50, text of resolution 3331 A (XXIX) of 17 December 1974.

40/ Ibid., p. 227, text of resolution 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974.

41/ Ibid., pp. 226-27, text of resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974.

42/ Ibid., p. 251, text of resolution 3331 D (XXIX).

43/ Ibid., pp. 243-44.

44/ See footnote 39.

45/ Operative paragraph 11 of General assembly resolution 194 (III) states, in part, that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property…".  See Y.U.N., 1948-49, pp. 174-76 for full text of resolution 194 (III).

46/ See Y.U.N., 1974, p. 252, text of resolution 3330 (XXIX).

47/ See footnote 41.

48/ See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, text of resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973.

49/ See footnote 40.

50/ See Y.U.N., 1951, pp. 315-16, text of resolution 513 (VI).