YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED
NATIONS
1978
Volume 32
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK
Questions relating to the Middle East
In 1978, as in previous years, aspects of the situation in the Middle East occupied the attention of the Security Council, the General Assembly and several other United Nations bodies. A number of communications were also received, including charges and counter-charges, as events in the region evolved.
The Security Council in October 1978 renewed for nine months the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) deployed in the zone of disengagement between Egyptian and Israeli forces in the Sinai. The Council twice renewed six-month mandates for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), which continued to supervise a 1974 agreement on disengagement between Israeli and Syrian forces in the Golan Heights area. The Council took these actions at the end of May and the end of November.
For the first three months of 1978, the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine submitted periodic reports on the status of the cease-fire along the Israel-Lebanon border. In mid-March, however, he reported that Israel had launched ground, air and naval attacks in southern Lebanon. The Security Council met shortly thereafter and called on Israel to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw its forces immediately. It also decided to establish a peace-keeping force – the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) – for an initial four-month period, to confirm chat withdrawal, restore peace and assist the Lebanese Government in re-establishing its effective authority in the area. These actions were authorized by the Council by two resolutions of 19 March. In May the Council approved an increase in UNIFIL'S strength to 6,000 troops and called on Israel to complete its withdrawal.
By September, owing to factional violence within Lebanon, it had not been possible for the Lebanese Government fully to restore its authority over all its territory; the Council, on 18 September, acting at Lebanon's request, renewed UNIFIL'S mandate for another four months–until 19 January 1979. On 8 December, the Council, meeting to discuss a progress report by the Secretary-General on the implementation of UNIFIL'S mandate, issued a statement calling on those not fully co-operating with UNIFIL, particularly Israel, to desist from interfering with the operation.
The situation along the Israel-Jordan cease-fire line remained unchanged in 1978; no complaints were received from either country regarding cease-fire violations.
The General Assembly discussed several aspects of the situation in the Middle East during the year. It convened its eighth special session on 20 and 21 April to consider the question of the financing of UNIFIL and adopted a resolution for that purpose. Continued financing for UNIFIL was arranged on 3 November at the Assembly's regular 1978 session. By resolutions adopted at the same session, the Assembly arranged for the financing of UNEF and UNDOF.
The Assembly also held a special meeting on 29 November to commemorate the first annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
In early December, the Assembly discussed a comprehensive report by the Secretary-General covering developments in the Middle East in all their aspects, including the status of the cease-fire, the situation in the occupied territories, the Palestine refugee problem, Palestinian rights and the search for a peaceful settlement. The report contained an outline of events leading to the conclusion of what were known as the Camp David accords, which followed a trilateral summit conference in September between the Heads of State of Egypt, Israel and the United States, and which contained, the report noted, frameworks for peace in the Middle East and for the conclusion of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
Having considered the question of the situation in the Middle East at its regular 1978 session, the Assembly on 7 December adopted a resolution by which it condemned continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, declared that a just and lasting settlement of the Middle East problem must be based on a comprehensive solution, and called anew for the early convening of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East under United Nations auspices.
On the same date, the Assembly adopted three resolutions on the question of Palestine. By these texts, the Assembly, inter alia: endorsed again and asked for quick Security Council action on a set of recommended principles drawn up by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to be applied in efforts to establish a just and lasting peace in the Middle East; declared that the validity of agreements purporting to solve the Palestine problem required that they be within the framework of the United Nations; authorized the Committee to continue promoting implementation of its recommendations and to keep the situation under review; and asked for co-operation in this regard from other United Nations bodies.
With regard to the situation in the Arab territories occupied by Israel, the Assembly took decisions on the treatment of the civilian population in those territories – as did the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council – based on the findings of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
Decisions were also taken on questions of Israeli measures in those territories and on living conditions of the Palestinian people. The Assembly endorsed decisions of the Economic and Social Council concerning assistance to the Palestinian people and called on United Nations organizations to intensify efforts to improve their social and economic conditions.
By a six-part resolution on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), adopted on 18 December, the Assembly took decisions dealing with assistance to Palestine refugees and other persons in the area displaced as a result of the June 1967 hostilities, Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip, the return of displaced inhabitants, offers of grants and scholarships for Palestine refugees, and the financing of UNRWA. By the resolution, it urged Governments to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the needs of UNRWA, in the light of the Agency's projected budgetary deficit, and asked that UNRWA's headquarters be reconsolidated within the area of operations as soon as possible. Also considered were the health needs of Palestine refugee children.
Details of these and other related actions on Middle East questions are described in the following pages.
The situation in the Middle East:
status of the cease-fire
Egypt-Israel sector: United Nations Emergency Force
Report of Secretary-General (17 October)
Prior to the expiration of the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) on 24 October 1978, the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council a report on the activities of the Force covering the period from 25 October 1977 to 17 October 1978.
The Secretary-General observed that the situation in the area of operations had remained stable and that UNEF had continued efficiently to discharge its mandate: supervising the observance of the cease-fire and assisting in the implementation of the Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 4 September 1975 and the Protocol of 22 September 1975.1/
The Chief Co-ordinator of the United Nations Peace-keeping Missions in the Middle East, Lieutenant-General Ensio P. H. Siilasvuo, and the Force Commander, Major-General Rais Abin, had continued the practice of separate meetings with the military authorities of Egypt and Israel on matters concerning UNEF.
As of 16 October, the strength of the Force was 4,178, made up of contingents from Australia, (Canada, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Poland and Sweden, assisted by 120 military observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine.
The period under review, the report noted, had seen no major violations of the Agreement by either party; minor incursions into the buffer zone by land or air had been reported to and acted upon by the parties in a satisfactory manner. However, despite some improvement concerning the freedom of movement of certain contingents, arrangements still fell short of what was required for UNEF'S efficient operation as a military unit. The Force continued to inspect the limited forces and armaments areas and missile-restricted zones, to make available the findings to the parties, to provide escorts for mine-clearing teams, and to assist representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross with facilities for family reunions and student exchanges; during the review period, 4,785 persons crossed from Egypt to Israeli-occupied territory, and 3,704 crossed from there to Egypt.
It was emphasized in the report that, despite the prevailing quiet in the Egypt-Israel sector, the situation in the Middle East as a whole continued to be unstable and potentially dangerous and was likely to remain so unless and until a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem could be reached. The Secretary-General expressed the hope that urgent efforts would be pursued by all concerned to tackle the problem in all its aspects, with a view both to maintaining quiet in the region and to arriving at a just and durable peace settlement, as called for by the Security Council in its resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973.2/ He stated that the search for a peaceful settlement and in particular the efforts undertaken at various levels to implement that resolution had been dealt with in the comprehensive report on the Middle East problem which he had submitted on 17 October 1978 in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 32/20 of 25 November 1977 3/ (see p. 327).
Taking into account all factors involved and after consultations with the Governments of Egypt and Israel, the Secretary-General recommended the extension of the mandate of UNEF for a further period of one year.
Consideration by the
Security Council (23 October)
The Security Council met on 23 October 1978 to consider the report of the Secretary-General on UNEF. By resolution 438 (1978), adopted on the same day by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and the USSR), the Council decided to renew the mandate of UNEF for nine months, until 24 July 1979. The Council also requested the Secretary-General to submit at the end of that period a report on the developments in the situation and the steps taken to implement its resolution 338 (1973). It expressed confidence that UNEF would be maintained with maximum efficiency and economy. China did not participate in the vote.
(For text of resolution 438 (1978), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
In explaining their vote, several Council members, including Czechoslovakia, India, the USSR and Venezuela, supported the Secretary-General's view, expressed in his report, that the situation in the Middle East as a whole continued to be unstable and potentially dangerous until and unless a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem could be reached.
The representatives of the USSR and India reaffirmed the fundamental principles for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the area, namely, Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories, granting the Palestinian people their inalienable right to self-determination and the creation of their own State, and international guarantees for the security of all the States of the region without exception.
The representatives of Czechoslovakia and Kuwait emphasized that the peace-keeping operation of UNEF should not contribute to the perpetuation of occupation. Gabon said that under no circumstances should it be used as a permanent peace-keeping force.
The representative of the USSR stated that the presence of United Nations armed forces in the Middle East could not be considered separately from the over-all context of the situation there. The USSR did not object to the extension of UNEF'S mandate, on the understanding that it would not be altered and that the troops would not be drawn into the implementation of any separate agreement currently being elaborated in Washington, D.C. The USSR and Czechoslovakia stressed that any attempt to entrust any other kind of role to UNEF and to adapt those forces for the implementation of separate deals would be contrary to the decision of the Security Council on this question. They said that the road of separate talks and concessions to the aggressor did not bring peace any closer; on the contrary, the USSR added, it exacerbated the situation even further in the whole area. Czechoslovakia and the USSR also confirmed their position to the effect that they would not participate in any additional expenditures for UNEF occasioned by the 1975 Egyptian-Israeli Agreement on the Sinai. The USSR said in conclusion that the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East, which had been created for the solution of the cardinal problems of a comprehensive settlement, remained an open door to a just solution.
The representative of Kuwait observed that Kuwait did not object to the extension of the mandate of UNEF as long as the mandate remained as previously defined. He also noted that it was expected that the Secretary-General would report to the Council on any development that changed the situation and that the Council would be able to take the appropriate action accordingly.
The representative of the United States stated that his country's views on the problem of the origins of the situation in the Middle East, on the motives and objectives of the participants in the Camp David accords and the tripartite negotiations currently under way in Washington, and on the terms of an ultimate solution to the Middle East problem differed sharply from those stated or implied by the USSR representative. The United States had based its efforts to seek a lasting solution of the problem on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) 4/ and 338 (1973), which expressed the Council's commitment to work towards a full and comprehensive agreement in the Middle East. He agreed with the view that the Secretary-General should keep the Council informed of significant developments concerning UNEF, including major changes in its deployment. However, the United States disagreed with the view that the Secretary-General was obligated to seek the specific approval of the Council for every deployment within the area, since the Charter of the United Nations contemplated, and experience confirmed, the need for him to exercise reasonable latitude in using his discretion to attain the objectives of a peace-keeping force decided upon by the Council.
The representative of China stated that his country had always held a different position in principle with regard to the question of UNEF, and consequently it had not participated in the voting on the extension of the mandate of the Force.
Documentary references
Report of Secretary-General (17 October)
S/12897. Report of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 25 October 1977 to 17 October 1978).
Consideration by the
Security Council (23 October)
Security Council, meeting 2091.
S/12897. Report of Secretary-General on UNEF.
S/12899. Draft resolution.
Resolution 438 (1978), as proposed in S/12899 adopted by Council an 23 October 1978, meeting 2091, by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and USSR) (China 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, 371 (1975) of 24 July and 378 (1975) of 23 October 1975, 396 (1976) of 22 October 1976 and 416 (1977) of 21 October 1977,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Emergency Force,
Recalling the Secretary-General's view that the situation in the Middle East as a whole continues to be unstable and potentially dangerous and is likely to remain so unless and until a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem can be reached, and his hope that urgent efforts win be pursued by all concerned to tackle the problem in ail its aspects, with a view both to maintaining quiet in the region and to arriving at a just and durable peace settlement, as called for by the Security Council in its resolution 338 (1973),
1. Decides to renew the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for a period of nine months, that is, unto 24 July 1979;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to submit at the end of this period a report on the developments in the situation and on the steps taken to implement Security Council resolution 338 (1973);
3. Expresses its confidence that the Force will be maintained with maximum efficiency and economy.
S/INF/34. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1978. Decision, p. 7.
Israel-Syria sector:
United Nations Disengagement Observer Force
Communication and report
By a letter dated 17 April 1978 to the President of the Security Council, the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic charged that Israeli elements had infiltrated through the zone of disengagement between the forces in the Golan Heights in late March and had planted booby-trapped mines, with a receiver-transmitter radio set connected to the telephone cable between Damascus and Amman (Jordan), near the main highway that linked the town of Deraa with Damascus. Syrian experts had reported that the set was equipped with nuclear cells manufactured in the United States and operated through radioactive substances, whose use for military purposes was prohibited because of their damaging effect on human life. Such use by Israel, the letter continued, represented a new and dangerous manifestation in the Middle East struggle.
As the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) was due to expire on 31 May 1978, the Secretary-General submitted a report on 17 May, giving an account of the activities of the Force during the period from 30 November 1977 to 17 May 1978. The Secretary-General stated that UNDOF had continued effectively to supervise the cease-fire called for by the Council and the area of separation, and to inspect the areas of limitation of armaments and forces, with the co-operation of the parties, as provided for in the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces of 31 May 1974.5/
During the period under review, the situation in the Israel-Syria sector had remained quiet, there had been no incidents of a serious nature and no complaints referring to the UNDOF area of operation had been raised by either party. Restrictions on freedom of movement still existed, he noted, and arrangements still fell short of what was required and what was provided for in the Protocol to the Agreement on Disengagement.6/
As at 17 May, the strength of the Force was 1,245, made up of contingents from Austria, Canada, Iran and Poland, and included 85 military observers detailed from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO). Command of UNDOF continued to be exercised by Major-General Hannes Philipp, and Lieutenant-General Ensio P. H. Siilasvuo continued as Chief Co-ordinator of the United Nations Peace-keeping Missions in the Middle East.
The Secretary-General also noted that efforts to promote an early resumption of the negotiating process aimed at establishing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, called for by the Council in its resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973,7/ had continued at various levels.
The Secretary-General stated that the prevailing quiet in the sector was basically precarious, that the main elements of the Middle East problem remained unresolved and that the situation in the area as a whole would continue to be unstable and dangerous unless real progress could soon be made towards a just and durable settlement of the problem in all its aspects. He stressed that it was important and urgent that a determined effort be made to achieve progress in the search for such a settlement and, as a first step to that end, to promote an early resumption of the negotiating process in accordance with resolution 338 (1973).
In the prevailing circumstances, the Secretary-General considered the continued presence of UNDOF in the area to be essential and recommended that the Security Council extend the mandate of the Force for a further six months until 30 November 1978. He added that the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic had given assent to the proposed extension and that the Government of Israel had also expressed agree
Consideration by the
Security Council (31 May)
The Security Council met on 31 May 1978 to consider the May report of the Secretary-General on UNDOF. By resolution 429 (1978), adopted on the same day by 14 votes to 0, the Council, expressing concern over the prevailing state of tension in the area, decided to renew the mandate of UNDOF for six months, until 30 November 1978. The Council called upon the parties concerned to implement immediately its resolution 338 (1973) and requested the Secretary-General to report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement that resolution.
(For text of resolution 429 (1978), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Basing itself on its long-held position of principle with regard to the question of the Force, China did not participate in the vote.
In connexion with the adoption of resolution 429 (1978), the President of the Security Council made a complementary statement on behalf of the Council in which he said that the Secretary-General's statement that the current quiet in the sector was basically precarious. and that the main elements of the Middle East problem remained unresolved and that the situation would continue to be unstable and dangerous unless real progress could soon be made towards a just and durable settlement of the problem in all its aspects reflected the view of the Security Council.
The President added, on behalf of China, that, as China had not participated in the vote, it had taken the same position with regard to the complementary statement.
In explaining their vote on the resolution, many representatives associated themselves with the concern expressed by the Secretary-General in his report. They noted that although the presence of the Force had helped to avoid confrontations and maintain the cease-fire, only a political solution of the conflict could bring the world close to a durable peace in this area.
The representatives of Czechoslovakia, Kuwait and the USSR stated that they voted in favour of the extension of the mandate because the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic had given consent to such an extension.
The representatives of Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Gabon, India, Nigeria and the USSR observed that the presence of the Force in the area was a provisional measure. With no prospect of a peace settlement, the Indian representative said, it could be feared by some that the presence of the Force was designed to freeze the status quo indefinitely.
The representative of Kuwait stated that Israel's persistent disregard for United Nations resolutions was due to the opposition by some permanent members of the Council to the imposition of sanctions on Israel in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.8/ He also said that Israel continued to build Jewish settlements on occupied Syrian territory, Jewish immigrants were being brought in to cultivate Syrian land, and Israeli authorities had been saying that the occupied Syrian territory would never be vacated, even after achievement of a peaceful settlement.
The representatives of Czechoslovakia, Nigeria and the USSR reiterated basic interrelated principles which they considered necessary for a just and comprehensive peace: the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all occupied Arab territories; the exercise by the Arab people of Palestine of their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination; and international assurance of the independent existence and security of all States in the area.
The representatives of Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States commended the Force for efficiently discharging its mandate and expressed satisfaction that the cease-fire had been maintained and that no complaints had been raised by either party.
The representative of the USSR stated that failure to settle the Middle East conflict, the continued occupation by Israel of Arab land and the flouting of the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine had created an explosive situation which contained the seeds of a new military conflict. He maintained, as did the Czechoslovak representative, that a comprehensive and just solution could be achieved through a reconvened Peace Conference on the Middle East in Geneva with the participation of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization. The representative of the USSR said that maintenance of the status quo in the Middle East was in line with the long-term plans of imperialist circles to strengthen their control over the region, its tremendous oil resources and important strategic position. That was the reason they wanted to weaken the Arab States as much as possible and force them to act as separate entities. The USSR disapproved of countries' actions designed to substitute separate arrangements for a comprehensive Middle East settlement. He said that the presence of the United Nations armed forces in the area should not be used to protract the efforts to reach a comprehensive settlement.
The representative of the United States noted that difficult problems and serious obstacles remained in the search for peace in the Middle East, but it was to the credit of UNDOF that the efforts to reach a solution continued in a stable atmosphere. He said that the success of UNDOF in carrying out its mandate had been greatly assisted by the parties' observance of their obligations under the terms of the Disengagement Agreement.
The representative of the United Kingdom observed that the lack of incidents lately and the relative quiet continued to be important in creating a general climate in the area so that efforts to reach a solution to the problem could make progress. He cautioned that the renewal of the mandate was no substitute for true peace, but provided a further period during which the search for a just and lasting peace should be actively pursued.
Only if both sides to the conflict could find the courage to overcome old prejudices and forget painful experiences of the past, the Federal Republic of Germany observed, could progress be achieved.
The representative of Gabon expressed the hope that UNDOF would never become a permanent institution and that the parties concerned would do their best to implement Security Council resolution 338 (1973). Bolivia also was among those which considered it unfortunate that the parties had not complied with the provisions of that resolution calling for negotiations between them.
The representative of Nigeria pointed out that the conflict had extended into Lebanon, and the situation in the Middle East continued to be as explosive as ever. He expressed his disappointment that, in pursuit of its policy of expansion, Israel had seized large pieces of the territories of Egypt, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic and recently Lebanon, and that it had stubbornly held on to those lands in flagrant violation of United Nations decisions. Referring to UNDOF, he noted that it should not become a permanent substitute for the search for political solutions of the conflict, and United Nations peace-keeping forces should not be transformed into international military units for shoring up Israeli occupation forces in Arab territories.
India observed that the responsibility for the precarious peace and the situation of grave concern should be placed on the Security Council, especially on those of its permanent members which could and should do more than they had done thus far. Referring to peace-keeping operations, India said that in fact there was no peace to keep, since maintenance of cease-fires was not peace-keeping, but just a truce-keeping operation.
France expressed the belief that the continuation of UNDOF'S mandate should make it possible to avoid serious incidents in the Israel-Syria sector and to maintain the conditions necessary to a search for peace. It should not, however, replace the search for peace itself nor serve as an excuse to maintain the status quo. France hoped that efforts would be redoubled to achieve negotiations which would include all the parties to the conflict.
Report of Secretary-General (24 November)
As the mandate of UNDOF was due to expire on 30 November 1978, the Secretary-General submitted a report on 24 November giving an account of the activities of the Force during the period from 18 May to 24 November 1978.
The Secretary-General noted that, during the period covered by the report, UNDOF continued with the co-operation of the parties to fulfil the tasks entrusted to it, and that no complaints referring to the UNDOF area of operation had been raised by either party regarding the cease-fire. Efforts to correct the situation regarding freedom of movement for all contingents were being pursued. As of 24 November, the strength of the Force was 1,283 – a number above the average of about 1,250, due to rotations currently under way – made up of contingents from Austria, Canada, Iran and Poland, and including 88 military observers detailed from UNTSO. During the review period, four Austrian soldiers and one Polish soldier had died as the result of accidents or other causes.
With regard to the implementation of Security Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, the Secretary-General reaffirmed that the search for a peaceful settlement and, in particular, efforts to implement that resolution had been dealt with in a comprehensive report on the Middle East problem submitted in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 32/20 of 25 November 1977 9/ (see p. 327).
The Secretary-General noted that, during the period under review, the situation in the Israel-Syria sector had remained quiet and there had been no incidents of a serious nature. However, despite that prevailing quiet, the situation in the Middle East as a whole continued to be potentially dangerous and was likely to remain so unless and until a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem could be reached. He expressed the hope that determined efforts would be made by all concerned to tackle the problem in all it aspects, with a view to arriving at a just and durable peace settlement.
The Secretary-General considered the continued presence of UNDOF in the area to be essential in the prevailing circumstances and therefore recommended that the Security Council extend the mandate of the Force for a further six months, until 31 May 1979, to which proposal the Syrian Arab Republic had given assent and Israel had expressed agreement.
The Secretary-General considered the continued presence of UNDOF in the area to be essential in the prevailing circumstances and therefore recommended that the Security Council extend the mandate of the Force for a further six months, until 31 May 1979, to which proposal the Syrian Arab Republic had given assent and Israel had expressed agreement.
Consideration by the
Security Council (30 November)
The Security Council met on 30 November 1978 to consider the November report of the Secretary-General on UNDOF. By resolution 441 (1978), adopted on the same day by 14 votes to 0, the Council renewed the mandate of UNDOF for six months, until 31 May 1979. The Council also called upon the parties concerned to implement immediately its resolution 338 (1973) and requested the Secretary-General to report by 31 May 1979 on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement that resolution. China did not participate in the vote.
(For text of resolution 441 (1978), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
In connexion with the adoption of resolution 441 (1978), the Council President made a complementary statement on behalf of the Council in which he said that the Secretary-General's statement – to the effect that despite the current quiet in the sector the situation in the Middle East as a whole continued to be potentially dangerous and was likely to remain so unless and until a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem could be reached – reflected the view of the Security Council.
The President added, on behalf of China, that, as China had not participated in the vote on the resolution, it took the same position with regard to the complementary statement.
In explaining their vote, several representatives reiterated that peace-keeping operations were not a substitute for a just and durable peace and that they should remain provisional.
The representatives of Czechoslovakia, Kuwait and the USSR said that a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East would ensure the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied Arab territories and full respect for the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including the right to create their own independent State. Kuwait indicated that UNDOF was providing Israel with a sense of security which enabled it to continue establishing Jewish settlements in occupied Syrian territory. Since the Syrian Arab Republic had agreed to renewal of UNDOF'S mandate, however, Kuwait had voted in favour of the resolution, although it opposed automatic renewal of the mandate on the grounds that it generated a self-perpetuating process. Czechoslovakia and the USSR also said that they had voted in favour on the basis of the position taken by the Syrian Government.
The representative of the USSR emphasized that the collective efforts of all the parties concerned were needed to achieve a just settlement through existing international machinery, such as the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East. The Palestine Liberation Organization should also participate in the Conference since it was recognized internationally as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Separate deals, the USSR added, simply diverted attention from the solution of the problem.
The representative of Czechoslovakia noted that the separate Egyptian-Israeli agreement, prepared under the aegis of the United States, was not in keeping with the interests of international security inasmuch as it was opposed to efforts to solve the problem as a whole and would give rise to further instability in the area.
The representative of Canada noted that, in the four and a half years since the Disengagement Agreement had been signed in 1974, no further step had been taken for a just and durable peace.
Referring to the fact that the cease-fire had been observed without any complaints from either party, the representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States stated that it showed evidence of the willingness of the parties to co-operate in order to avoid a confrontation that could involve incalculable risks. The United Kingdom added that UNDOF continued to play an important role by creating the necessary climate of confidence in the area in which the search for a solution could go on.
The representative of France stated that the restoration of a true climate of peace could only be assured by an over-all agreement involving all the parties concerned, including the representatives of the Palestinian people, and recognized by all States concerned and by the international community as a whole.
The United States said it supported the regular renewal of the UNDOF mandate, which had helped to maintain tranquillity in the sector; although it did not suffer from the illusion that calm was equivalent to peace, it felt that only through such calm could durable, just solutions for the whole of the Middle East be pursued. The Camp David framework agreement, the United States added, set out principles that should guide the search for a comprehensive peace.
Documentary references
Communication and report
S/12650. Letter of 17 April from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/12710. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF (for period 30 November 1977 to 17 May 1978).
Consideration by the Security Council (31 May)
Security Council, meeting 2079.
S/12710. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF.
S/12721. Draft resolution.
Resolution 429 (1978), as proposed in S/12721, adopted by Council on 31 May 1978, meeting 2079, by 14 votes to 0 (China 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 durable and just peace in the Middle East area and the urgent need to continue and intensify such efforts,
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) of 22 October 1973;
(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 30 November 1978;
(c) To request the Secretary-General to submit at the end of this period a report on the developments in the situation and on the measures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).
S/12724. Note, dated 31 May 1978, by President of Security Council.
S/INF/34. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1978. Decisions, p. 6.
Report of Secretary-General (24 November)
S/12934. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF (for period 18 May to 24 November 1978).
Consideration by the Security Council (30 November)
Security Council, meeting 2101.
S/12934. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF.
S/12941. Draft resolution.
Resolution 441 (1978), as proposed in S/12941, adopted by Council on 30 November 1978, meeting 2101, by 14 votes to 0 (China did not participate in voting).
The Security Council,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force,
Decides:
(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;
(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 31 May 1979;
(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).
S/12943. Note by President of Security Council.
S/INF/34. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1978. Decisions, p. 8.
The situation in the Israel-Lebanon sector
Communications and reports (January-March)
During most of the first three months of 1978, the situation in the Israel-Lebanon sector continued to be the subject of reports on the status of the cease-fire, submitted by the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO), Major-General Emmanuel Alexander Erskine, and transmitted to the Security Council by the Secretary-General. From January to March, the Chief of Staff issued monthly reports in which he assessed the nature and frequency of incidents occurring in the sector, including incidents reported by UNTSO observation posts of crossing or firing across the Armistice Demarcation Line and flights over Lebanese territory, as well as complaints submitted by the parties and the results of UNTSO investigations.
The reports for January and February indicated a low level of air and naval activity, a few cases of firing across the Armistice Demarcation Line and a number of crossing violations and other incidents. Israeli forces personnel continued to occupy six positions on the Lebanese side of the Line. The Chief of Staff reported 26 overflights by Israeli jet aircraft for this period. He also stated that UNTSO operations in Lebanon continued to be hindered by incidents with de facto forces involving vehicle hijackings, denial of freedom of movement, forced entry into observation posts, armed thefts, mined roads and shooting at or in the vicinity of post operations.
By a letter dated 10 January 1978, the representative of Lebanon transmitted to the Secretary-General excerpts from an address by the President to accredited members of the diplomatic corps in Lebanon on 6 January concerning Lebanon's official position on solutions under consideration regarding the Middle East crisis and the Palestinian question. Referring to reports of preparations for solving the question of whether to resettle the Palestinians or leave them where they were, the President reaffirmed that any solution which failed to treat the Palestinian problem as the essence of the Middle East crisis could not be sound; Lebanon would not accept a settlement that required that the Palestinians should remain on its territory, realizing that such a prerequisite was harmful to its interests, beyond its capacity and damaging to the Palestinian cause itself.
In a letter dated 13 March to the Secretary-General, the representative of Israel charged that on 11 March a terrorist murder squad dispatched by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had infiltrated the Israeli coastline and carried out an indiscriminate attack against Israeli civilians along the Haifa-Tel Aviv highway, resulting in 37 dead and 76 wounded. The letter also contained excerpts from a statement by the Prime Minister of Israel in his press conference on 12 March.
On 15 March, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO reported heavy Israeli ground, naval and air activity on 14 and 15 March. There were bombing attacks by Israeli forces in Beirut and against a Palestinian refugee camp south of Beirut, shelling in the vicinity of Tyre from Israeli naval vessels, and air attacks; mortar, artillery and tank fire were impacting in and around several other targets along the Lebanese frontier. All UNTSO personnel were reported to be safe.
In letters dated 15 March to the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General. the representative of Lebanon charged that, at midnight on 14/15 March, Israel had committed an aggression against Lebanese territory, during which massive numbers of Israeli troops crossed into Lebanon from several axes, patrol vessels penetrated Lebanese territorial waters along the coastline from Tyre to Sidon, and Israeli warplanes bombarded several areas in Lebanese territory. An undetermined number of citizens were killed, notably in Tyre, and enormous damage was caused to property. He also stressed that Lebanon had no connexion with the commando operation on the Haifa-Tel Aviv highway, that it was not responsible for the presence of Palestinian bases in southern Lebanon, and that the only solution to the problem lay in putting an end to Israeli aggression and in Israel's withdrawing its forces from Lebanon.
In a letter to the President of the Security Council, dated 16 March, the Secretary-General drew the attention of Council members to communications he had received relating to the current situation in Lebanon. He assured the Council of his readiness to lend any possible assistance to overcome the difficulties. Annexes to the Secretary-General's letter contained: notes of 15 March from the representatives of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic, transmitting a telegram addressed to the Libyan Secretary for Foreign Affairs and a statement by the Syrian Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, respectively; a letter of 14 March from the Permanent Observer of PLO; and letters of 15 March from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States and from the representative of Algeria, the latter transmitting the text of a message from the Algerian Minister for Foreign Affairs. These statements condemned the Israeli aggression of 14/15 March and charged that it had been aimed at exterminating the Palestinian people. Several of the communications asked the Secretary-General to take action to put an end to Israeli aggression and secure Israel's immediate withdrawal from Lebanese territory.
By a letter dated 17 March, the Representative of Sri Lanka transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of a communiqué issued that day by the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, in which the Bureau, having met in emergency session to consider the Israeli invasion of Lebanon on 14/15 March, condemned the act of aggression as well as Israel's expansionist policy. That action was aimed at putting in jeopardy the existence of the Palestinian people in Lebanon and further aggravated the explosive situation in the region. The Bureau supported Lebanon's complaint to the Security Council and called upon all non-aligned countries to condemn the new aggression.
In a letter dated 17 March, the representative of Lebanon requested the President of the Security Council to call an urgent meeting of the Council. In a letter of the same date, the representative of Israel requested the Council President to convene a meeting of the Council to consider, the letter said, acts of violence against Israeli civilians, together with shelling, sabotage incursions, bombing and murder being perpetrated from Lebanese territory against Israel.
Consideration by the
Security Council (17-19 March)
The Security Council held four meetings between 17 and 19 March to consider the situation in Lebanon. At their request, the representatives of Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia, Pakistan, Qatar, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam and Yemen were invited to participate without the right to vote. The representative of Kuwait also asked the Council to invite PLO representatives to participate in the meetings. The President informed the Council that the proposal had not been made pursuant to rule 37 10/ or rule 39 11/ of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, but that, if approved, the invitation would confer on PLO the same rights as were conferred when a Member State was invited to participate under rule 37. The proposal was adopted by 10 votes to 1 (the United States), with 4 abstentions (Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom).
The representative of the United States stated before the vote that his Government opposed the proposal to invite PLO to participate in the debate with the same prerogatives as a Member State.
Subsequently, the Council also decided, by the same show-of-hands vote, to invite the representatives of PLO to be seated at the Council table for the duration of the deliberations on the item. Having opposed PLO representation in the Council on the ground that only States should be so represented, the United States stated that it also opposed the seating of PLO.
In a statement to the Council, the representative of Lebanon accused Israel of having committed a savage act of aggression against his country and urged the Council to demand the immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of the invaders. The United Nations should be enabled to uphold its Charter, he added, and prevent Israel from taking international law into its own hands and acting as judge, jury and executioner while the community of nations idly watched Lebanon's agony. He stressed the need for restoring the peace, restoring Lebanese sovereignty over its territory and re-establishing an acceptable international order in the Middle East.
The representative of Israel said he was convinced that the debate was unnecessary, since both parties involved in the issue wanted the same thing – the complete restoration of Lebanese sovereignty in the area in question. He charged the United Nations with blatant partiality vis-à-vis his country and regretted that neither the General Assembly nor the Security Council had issued a statement encouraging the peace talks between Israel and Egypt or urging their extension to Israel's other neighbours. Israel Defence Forces had crossed into Lebanon as a measure to deal with terror and terrorists, he continued, in carrying out Israel's inherent duty to exercise its right to self-defence in the protection of the inviolability of its territory and its people. He deplored the aid given by some Arab States and the USSR to PLO and maintained that the aim of the Israeli operation was not retaliation or to seize territory but to clear PLO from the area of southern Lebanon, bordering on Israel, where an absence of law and order reigned and over which the Lebanon Government had lost control, and to create conditions in which the Government of Lebanon could restore control and re-establish its sovereign right in the area.
The representative of Jordan accused Israel of having, for the past three decades, committed acts of violence and destruction and of swelling the number of refugees from many countries in the Middle East. All those acts, including occupation of territories of four sovereign States, he said, were committed in the name of security. Israel's total disregard of the United Nations Charter and innumerable United Nations resolutions continued with total impunity. He demanded that the Security Council take immediate decisive action to ensure a cessation of the armed aggression by Israel's armed forces and order their prompt withdrawal from Lebanon. Israel might wish to expand ad infinitum, but such expansion would ultimately be counter-productive and result merely in an augmentation of the area of insecurity. The only way to achieve security would be through a just, comprehensive and real peace in which all peoples in the area could participate, he said.
The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic observed that once again Lebanon had been the target of premeditated Israeli aggression. Israel could not ensure its security by occupying more territories belonging to others and by creating additional masses of refugees. He said that 99 per cent of the victims of Israeli bombardments, raids and attacks were innocent civilians, and added that aggression on this scale would not have been possible without the huge and unprecedented amount of military and financial aid granted to Israel by the United States. He went on to say that the aggressor must not be permitted to gain any advantage from its aggression for it would constitute a very dangerous precedent and encouragement to other aggressors. He called upon the Security Council to adopt a firm resolution affirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon and ensuring the immediate, total and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory.
The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya charged that the aim of Israel in the area was territorial expansion. The incident of 11 March had been used by Israel as a pretext for an attack which had been prepared long before the incident took place. Israel wanted to eliminate the Palestinian cause – to prevent the Palestinian people from fighting for their independence and survival. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reaffirmed its support for all national liberation movements in Africa and Palestine and deplored the support provided by certain countries to the Israeli aggressors. It also called for the immediate withdrawal from Lebanon of the occupation forces.
The PLO representative expressed the hope that the Council would take measures to ensure the immediate cessation of the Israeli aggression – an aggression made possible by the sophisticated weaponry supplied gratis by the United States to Israel. He recalled that it was the campaign of terror conducted in 1947 and 1948 by Israel that had driven the Palestinian people into Lebanon in the firm place. The real aim of the Israeli operation, he said, was the occupation and annexation of the territory south of the Litani River, according to a plan drawn up in 1919 by the Zionist organization. The Palestine National Council had given a positive response to the plan approved by the General Assembly to hold a peace conference with all parties concerned on an equal footing. The Israeli side, however, was obstructing peace efforts and its Prime Minister had suggested his own interpretation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) 12/ – by which the Council had set forth principles to be applied for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East – referring to some occupied areas as liberated land, not occupied land.
The representative of Egypt said that the consequences of Israel's invasion of Lebanon adversely affected efforts aimed at reaching a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. This latest Israeli attack, like previous ones, was premeditated and was coupled with the use of massive force which had resulted in great loss of civilian life. The attacks constituted a systematic attempt at the extermination of the Palestinian people. Israel still believed, he said, that its security could be achieved through aggression, occupation and expansion, rather than through the achievement of a just and lasting peace based on the principles of the United Nations Charter and the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. The attacks had not brought security to Israel but had instead led to untold losses of civilian life and acts of violence inside and outside Israel. Egypt believed that the Security Council should assume its responsibility in putting an end to the Israeli aggression by calling urgently for Israel's immediate and unconditional withdrawal.
The invasion of Lebanon, according to the representative of Kuwait, was prepared long before its implementation, in conformity with the expansionist designs of Zionism, and was carried out on the pretext of obtaining more security for Israel – the same classic pattern used earlier against Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic and the West Bank. Such an excuse would be offered time and again to an apathetic world willing to condone expansion and territorial aggrandizement in the face of brute force. There were two aspects to the illegal occupation of southern Lebanon, he said: Israel's determination to destroy the national identity of the Palestinian people and its thirst for new land. The United Nations, which had always been responsible for the destiny of the Palestinians, was in duty bound to act swiftly to stop Israel's camp sign of terror and brutality in southern Lebanon. Israel's aggression should be unequivocally condemned and eliminated.
The representative of France said that his country regarded all terrorist acts as well as acts of reprisal as totally reprehensible and deplored the dangerous chain of violence in the region. France joined in the call for a cease-fire and the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanese territory. He said France was ready to consider any proposal agreeable to all Governments concerned, including the stationing of a United Nations force, to restore peace and security in the region. He stressed that the consideration of the situation in southern Lebanon could not be divorced from the broader question of the quest for peace in the Middle East. Only in a global context, with account being taken of all aspects of the question and with the participation of the parties concerned, would it be possible truly to ensure peace.
Punitive action on such a scale, India said. could not be justified on the plea that it was meant to safeguard Israeli security. Two fundamental points for peace in the Middle East, India added, were that occupied Arab territory must be vacated by Israel and that the Palestinians should have their legitimate rights restored to them.
Nigeria condemned Israel's action on 14 and 15 March as a full-scale war against Lebanon. It noted that there was an axis of collaboration between Israel and South Africa, both of which terrorized neighbouring States with arms supplied by the West to protect their interests and accepted the notion of the policy of "hot pursuit," leading to invasion of neighbouring territories. The actions of PLO against Israel, Nigeria added, were taken in the context of a war of liberation and it joined the non-aligned movement in unequivocally condemning Israeli aggression and in calling on Israel to withdraw unconditionally and immediately from Lebanon.
Viet Nam, too, expressed its full support for and solidarity with the Lebanese and Palestinian people and condemned the Israeli aggression. The recent developments in the Middle East had shown, Viet Nam said, that Israel used every means to negate the role of the Palestinians and their representative, PLO, to exclude PLO from a solution of the Middle East problem, to destroy its international prestige, to annihilate the liberation forces of Palestine and to sow confusion and dissension among the Arab countries.
Yemen called upon the Council to act immediately to end Israel's aggression and to bring about its unconditional withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Yemen added that any road to peace in the Middle East must start with the redressing of the injustice inflicted on the people of Palestine.
The representative of the USSR pointed out that this new attack on Lebanon was another link in the whole chain of Israeli acts of aggression against the Arab States; numerous recent violations of Lebanon's sovereignty were made clear in the reports of the Chief of Staff of UNTSO. He shared the view already expressed in the Council that the current carefully premeditated aggression was dictated by Israeli's age-old desire to occupy the southern part of Lebanon and destroy the Palestine resistance movement. It was becoming more and more obvious that Israel had elevated terror and the spreading of fear to the level of State policy.
The USSR also charged that separate negotiations between Egypt and Israel were a screen for the continuation of the aggressive actions against the Arab countries. The USSR continued to favour a comprehensive settlement in that part of the world involving all parties concerned, including Pro, which should: provide for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories occupied since 1967 and for the exercise by the Palestinian Arabs of their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination and the right to create their own State; and guarantee the right to independent existence and the security of all States directly involved in the conflict and an end to the state of war existing between the Arab countries and Israel. The USSR condemned Israel's armed invasion and declared that full responsibility for its dangerous consequences on the situation in the Middle East was borne by the Government of Israel.
The representative of Canada said that as it had deplored the attack on Israeli citizens on the Haifa-Tel Aviv road, it equally deplored the military operations being conducted on Lebanese territory. He suggested that the Security Council take effective measures to end the current hostilities and to create conditions in which the vitally important peace initiative for a definitive negotiated solution of the Middle East problem could be resumed. To achieve effective peace on the ground, he continued, the fighting must end and Israeli forces must withdraw from Lebanese territory. A call for withdrawal, however, would not suffice if it was not accompanied by measures to prevent renewed violence. The Canadian representative expressed his Government's readiness to consider contributing to a peace-keeping force – appropriately constituted and with a suitable mandate to help stabilize the situation, to create conditions which would restore the territorial integrity of Lebanon, and to help establish an atmosphere conducive to further negotiations – provided that it was satisfied that such a force would be able to carry out its mandate.
The Federal Republic of Germany also supported a stronger role for the United Nations in restoring peace and security and preventing further violence in the area, and favoured setting up immediately an interim peace-keeping force in the territory from which Israel was asked to withdraw, preferably of troops from countries not permanent members of the Council, whose security functions should be transferred as soon as possible to the authorities of Lebanon.
7
The representative of the United States observed that his Government, when dealing with this question, bore in mind three fundamental principles: that Israel should withdraw from southern Lebanon; that the territorial integrity of Lebanon must be fully respected; and that the United Nations had a vital role to play in assisting the Lebanese Government to restore conditions that would facilitate the re-establishment of its authority in southern Lebanon and provide a return to security and a peaceful life for the people there. There was a need, he said, for a temporary United Nations peace-keeping operation with two primary functions: to provide security in the southern border region and to assist the Government of Lebanon in promptly re-establishing its authority in that area. With those aims in mind, he said, the United States, after wide consultations, was introducing a draft resolution for consideration by the Council.
On 19 March – following an appeal by Lebanon for immediate action in view of the lives involved and because operations were still following a bad course in the region – the Council adopted the United States draft as resolution 425 (1978) by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and the USSR).
The Council thereby: called for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries; called upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory; decided to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for southern Lebanon to confirm the withdrawal, restore peace and security, and assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area; and requested the Secretary-General to submit a report within 24 hours.
(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
The representative of China pointed out that the resolution failed to condemn the Israeli armed aggression against Lebanon and to support the just struggle of the Arab and Palestinian people. He recalled China's position of principle with regard to United Nations forces because such a practice might pave the way for superpower interference; therefore China expressed its reservations and had decided not to participate in the voting.
Several other Council members explained their vote.
The representative of the USSR said that the sponsor of the resolution had not accepted proposals made by his country on Council action, favoured in the debate by a number of other States also, aimed at condemning the open aggression by Israel against Lebanon. He also stated the USSR positions that: the sending of United Nations troops to Lebanon, in accordance with that Government's request, should not infringe the sovereign rights of the Government and should fully take account of the responsibility borne by Israel for its actions as the aggressor country; the task of such a force should be to observe the cease-fire and the withdrawal of Israeli troops and to separate the sides; the USSR could not agree to United Nations troops being given functions that were not proper to them in regard to the transfer of effective authority in that region to the Government of Lebanon; and the language of the resolution should limit the stay of those troops to a short time and they should be withdrawn when the Lebanese Government so requested. However, in view of the request by Lebanon, the USSR would not impede adoption of the resolution.
The representatives of Bolivia, Gabon and Mauritius expressed their support for the Council's decision.
Czechoslovakia said that it was sympathetic to the request made by Lebanon, but in view of the fact that the functions of the force in question were not clearly set out in the resolution, it had had to abstain.
Kuwait said that it had voted in favour of the resolution, notwithstanding its reservations on many of the provisions, because its primary goal was to secure forthwith the cessation of military operations by Israel inside Lebanon and the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops. The resolution did not strongly condemn Israel, Kuwait added, or demand in sufficiently strong terms the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon.
France said that it could not fail to back the request for the withdrawal of Israeli forces. The United Nations force in southern Lebanon must first and foremost contribute to the search for and maintenance of peace; its presence must not be used as a pretext for postponing a final settlement. France said that it was prepared to participate directly in the force.
The United States said that it deplored the tragic pattern of action in the Middle East and that the senseless violence against unarmed civilians whether in the name of liberation or security must be brought to an end. It urged the Council to proceed to consultations towards the mandate of the interim farce.
The President speaking as the representative of the United Kingdom, said that it was impossible to justify the terrorist attack on the road to Tel Aviv or the retaliatory attack by Israel. The United Kingdom had regularly emphasized the need for a United Nations force in the area. It particularly deplored the recent events in view of the ongoing peace talks in the region, and noted assurances given to the Council by the Israeli representative of Israel's intention to withdraw from Lebanon – assurances which the United Kingdom regarded as serious and binding.
The Secretary-General expressed the hope that the Council would be able to consider his recommendations (see below) at the earliest possible date, so that he might proceed without delay with the necessary arrangements for establishing the United Nations force in Lebanon. In order that no time should be lost, he told the Council that he proposed to instruct the Chief of Staff of UNTSO to establish close contact with the parties concerned and to deploy UNTSO observers, with a view to confirming the cessation of military action in the area.
Also speaking after the adoption of the resolution were some members who had agreed, at the request of Lebanon, to defer their statements.
China expressed profound sympathy and solicitude to the Lebanese and Palestinian people, victims of the latest of a series of aggressions committed by Israel under the pretext of defence and security, and expressed its utmost indignation at and strongly condemned the aggression and brutal crimes committed by the Israeli Zionists. The Chinese Government and people would always stand behind the Palestinian and other Arab peoples in their just struggle to recover lost territories and regain national rights. China was firmly against Israeli aggression and against the contention between the super-powers in the Middle East. It considered that the Security Council should strongly condemn that aggression and demand the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli troops from Lebanese territory.
The representative of the Sudan expressed hope for an immediate implementation of the resolution and stressed that terrorist actions by Israel would not bring it peace or security. A permanent settlement of the Middle East problem could only be obtained by Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and from all occupied Arab lands, and by the recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians, including the right to establish their own State in Palestine.
The representative of Mongolia said that the act of aggression carried out by Israel against Lebanon was an overt challenge to the provisions of the United Nations Charter and represented a direct threat to international peace and security.
Pakistan stated that Israel had seized the pretext of an attack on a civilian bus near Tel Aviv to occupy a large area of southern Lebanon and to terrorize the Palestinian refugees residing there. The heart of the conflict was Israel's persistent violation of the basic principles of the Charter, its defiance of United Nations decisions and, specifically, its effort to deny the legitimate rights of the disinherited people of Palestine. The security of Israel lay in a comprehensive settlement acceptable to all the parties, including the recognized representatives of the Palestinian people.
The representative of Qatar said that the current aggression constituted a new escalation in a series of aggressive acts continuously being committed by Israel against the Palestinian people and neighbouring Arab States.
Iraq condemned the Israeli massive armed attack against Lebanon and charged that the United States was the chief supporter and instigator of the continuous Zionist acts of aggression. Iraq could not agree with the resolution or its consequences; the resolution would create a new problem due to the unspecified time-limit for the presence of the United Nations force in the area which could provide the aggressor the opportunity to obtain the benefit it was seeking and impose its terms.
The PLO representative regretted that the Security Council had not seen fit to condemn the invasion of the territory of a Member State and the killing of innocent civilians.
The Israeli representative, who had also agreed to defer his statement until after the vote, denied that his country had any territorial designs on southern Lebanon, reiterated that it had acted against PLO terrorists who had usurped authority in the area under discussion, and considered the Council's resolution to be inadequate, containing no word of condemnation of those terrorists. He observed that the Council would serve the cause of peace better if it would ensure that arrangements were made to guarantee that the status quo ante would not be restored after the withdrawal of the Israeli forces. Israel was prepared to begin immediate discussions towards arrangements for the return of the area to full Lebanese sovereignty and effective control, he said.
In a further meeting, also held on 19 March 1978, the Security Council resumed its consideration of the situation in Lebanon on the basis of the report submitted by the Secretary-General in pursuance of resolution 425 (1978) adopted that morning. In his report, the Secretary-General set forth the terms of reference of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). In his view, three essential conditions must be met for the Force to be effective: it must have at all times the full confidence and backing of the Security Council; it must operate with the full cooperation of all the parties concerned; and it must be able to function as an integrated and efficient military unit. For its operation, the Force could use the same guidelines as those of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). The Secretary-General proposed a plan of action for the establishment of the Force, including the appointment of General Erskine of UNTSO as Interim Commander, to be assisted by a selected number of UNTSO military observers. As a preliminary estimate, the Secretary-General considered that the Force must have at least five battalions of about 600 men each, in addition to the necessary logistics units, with a total strength of up to 4,000. He also proposed that an appropriate number of UNTSO observers be assigned to assist UNIFIL in the same way as for UNEF and that the Force would initially be stationed in the area for a period of six months. The termination of its mandate would not affect the continued functioning of the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission.
The Secretary-General's preliminary estimate of the costs of setting up UNIFIL was approximately 368 million for six months, excluding the cost of an initial airlift. The costs of the Force were to be considered as expenses of the Organization to be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly, in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter. 13/
The President, in his capacity as the representative of the United Kingdom, introduced a draft resolution by which the Security Council would approve the report of the Secretary-General and decide that UNIFIL would be established in accordance with that report for an initial period of six months, which could be extended if the Council so decided.
The draft was adopted on 19 March as resolution 426 (1978) by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and the USSR).
China explained that, based on its consistent position, it would not participate in the voting and would not undertake to pay any expenses relating to UNIFIL.
Czechoslovakia and the USSR stated that they could not support the draft resolution; however, in view of Lebanon's request, they would not impede its adoption. They also reiterated their position that the costs to be incurred in connexion with the consequences of Israeli aggression against Lebanon, including the cost of dispatching troops to southern Lebanon, should be defrayed by the aggressor.
Kuwait said that it supported the Secretary-General's report with a view to ensuring the speediest dispatch of the United Nations forces in order to secure the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. It was the understanding of Kuwait that the deployment of UNIFIL would promote the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and enhance chances for the attainment by the people of Palestine of their national rights.
The United States and France expressed the view that the Secretary-General could act under the authority of a provision of a General Assembly resolution of 21 December 1977, authorizing commitments for unforeseen and extraordinary expenses related to the maintenance of peace and security, 14/ to make such commitments as were required to expedite initiation of UNIFIL. They also drew attention to the paragraph of the Secretary-General's report stating that the costs of the Force should be considered as expenses to be borne by Member States in accordance with Charter Article 17 (2). The United States expressed its readiness, if requested, to assist in airlifting national contingents to the area of conflict.
Canada, Lebanon and the United Kingdom expressed their satisfaction with the report. With regard to the term "parties" used therein, Lebanon stated its understanding that once the withdrawal of Israeli troops was completed, there was on Lebanese territory only one party concerned – the Lebanese Government, its authority and its forces, the Lebanese army and the Lebanese local authorities.
The Secretary-General said that he would proceed to put into effect the plan of operation outlined in his report. He stressed the necessity of co-operating with the Lebanese authorities in the process of restoring Lebanese sovereignty.
Communications and reports (March-May)
By a letter of 20 March, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People informed the President of the Security Council that his Committee's members associated themselves with the Council's call for cessation of Israel's military action and its withdrawal from Lebanon. The Committee condemned Israel's current aggression and demanded that it cease. The invasion the Chairman said, further complicated the settlement of the Middle East problem as a whole. The Committee considered it imperative for the Security Council to take more determined action to bring about the urgent establishment of peace in the Middle East.
By a letter dated 21 March, the Secretary-General informed the Council about his contacts with a number of Governments concerning the provision of contingents for UNIFIL. He stated that he had received and intended to accept, subject to the usual consultations, offers of one contingent each from Nepal, Norway and France. Iran had consented to the temporary use of a detachment from its contingent already in the Middle East.
On 22 March, the President of the Security Council informed the Secretary-General by letter that the Council had considered his letter in informal consultations on 21 March and had agreed with the proposals contained therein, and that China, not having participated in the voting on resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, had dissociated itself from the matter.
In a progress report dated 23 March, the Secretary-General stated that he had appointed the Chief of Staff of UNTSO as Interim Commander of UNIFIL, who had reported that the cease-fire seemed to be holding since 22 March. The Secretary-General reported further that Canadian, Iranian and Swedish contingents had been transferred to UNIFIL from UNDOF and UNEF and he had accepted the offers of the French, Nepalese and Norwegian Governments to provide contingents totalling 1,350 personnel for UNIFIL.
In accordance with the Secretary-General's instructions, the Chief Co-ordinator of the United Nations Peace-keeping Missions in the Middle East had had contacts with all the parties concerned on the steps to be taken for the speedy implementation of resolution 425 (1978) and on the arrangements to facilitate the return of the displaced persons who had fled southern Lebanon during the military operation. The Secretary-General's Special Representative for Lebanon, John Saunders, was to co-ordinate a humanitarian assistance operation in co-operation with the Interim Force Commander.
In progress reports dated 2, 8 and 17 April, the Secretary- General informed the Council of the strength, composition and deployment of UNIFIL as of those dates, as well as the general situation and incidents in violation of the cease-fire. Senegal, he reported, had agreed to provide a battalion of about 600 men; France and Norway had agreed to provide logistic elements. The Secretary-General described contacts which he and the Chief Co-ordinator had maintained with the Lebanese and Israeli Governments and with PLO, with a view to rapid implementation of Council resolution 425 (1978), especially in respect of the cease-fire and withdrawal of the Israeli forces.
The first casualties of UNIFIL in line of duty had occurred on 29 March, it was reported, when a member of the Swedish contingent was killed and another wounded when their vehicle hit a mine. The situation in the area had remained generally quiet, although there had been a number of firing incidents. In the western sector, occasional exchanges of fire had continued, and in the eastern sector there had been repeated exchanges of fire, mainly involving Christian de facto armed elements south of the Litani River and PLO armed elements north of the River.
On 11 and 14 April, Israeli forces had withdrawn from two areas east and south of the Litani River and their positions had been taken over by a UNIFIL contingent. Traffic of returning refugees had continued to be heavy throughout the area. The Secretary-General indicated that he would visit the area from 17 to 19 April to meet with the parties concerned at the highest level, as well as with Generals Siilasvuo and Erskine and the UNIFIL. contingents.
The Secretary-General reported that, with the consent of the Security Council, he had appointed General Erskine, Chief of Staff of UNTSO, as Commander of UNIFIL.
In an exchange of letters, the Secretary-General informed the President of the Security Council on 10 April of the various actions taken and proposals made with regard to UNIFIL arrangements, details of which had been given in his progress reports, and the Council President informed the Secretary-General on 12 April that the Council had considered the matter in informal consultations and had agreed with his proposals. China, the President said, had dissociated itself from the matter, not having participated in the voting on resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978).
On completion of his visit to the area, the Secretary-General informed the Security Council in a letter dated 19 April about the state of affairs concerning the implementation of resolution 425 (1978), especially in relation to the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. He had had extensive talks with the President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Lebanon, with Chairman Yassir Arafat of PLO, and with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister of Israel. He had been assured of Israel's firm intention to withdraw completely from Lebanese territory and he indicated that Israel had proposed that that withdrawal take place in phases: from a central area by 30 April; then from a belt along the Armistice Demarcation Line in the south and to the north, to be arranged in the near future.
On 25 April, the Secretary-General informed the Council by letter that Nigeria had agreed to make a battalion available for service with UNIFIL, which it was his intention to accept, subject to the usual consultations. This would bring the Force to about 4,000 men, the strength authorized by the Council.
The next day, the Council President informed the Secretary- General by letter that he had consulted with the Council members and they had agreed with the proposal concerning the Nigerian contingent. China, he reported, not having participated in the voting on resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), had dissociated itself from the matter.
In a letter dated 1 May, the Secretary-General informed the Council that both the Chief Coordinator and the Force Commander had reported to him that, in view of the very difficult conditions on the ground and in the light of the experience acquired, they felt strongly that the total strength of the Force should be brought to about 6,000. Inasmuch as UNIFIL had to operate over extensive areas in rugged terrain and in dangerous situations, the Secretary-General considered it necessary to increase its strength to that number, and he so recommended to the Council. Fiji, Iran and Ireland, he noted, had indicated that they would each be prepared to make a battalion available for service with UNIFIL; if the Council agreed to the proposed increase, he intended to seek additional contingents from those Governments.
Consideration by the
Security Council (3 May)
The Security Council met on 3 May to consider the Secretary-General's letter of 1 May, and adopted, as resolution 427 (1978), a draft text sponsored by Bolivia, India and Mauritius. The vote was 12 to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and the USSR). China did not participate in the vote, noting that it had always held a different position in principle on the question of the dispatch of a United Nations force.
By resolution 427 (1978), the Council approved an increase in the strength of UNIFIL to approximately 6,000 troops, took note of the withdrawal of Israeli forces that had taken place, and called on Israel to complete its withdrawal without delay. In addition, the Council deplored the attacks on UNIFIL that had occurred and demanded full respect for the Force from all parties in Lebanon.
(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Speaking after the vote, the Secretary-General expressed his appreciation to the Council for its decision. He called attention to serious incidents that had occurred the day before in the Tyre area in which three UNIFIL soldiers from the French and Senegalese contingents had been killed and a number wounded. The Chairman of the PLO, responding to an urgent message asking him to take all possible measures to avoid the risk of confrontation with UNIFIL, had given assurances of his co-operation in attempting to resolve the situation. The Secretary-General appealed to all the parties to co-operate with the Force in its mission and to avoid other incidents which might result in further casualties.
The representative of Kuwait noted that Israel's army continued to occupy 35 per cent of the area it had invaded in March and said that the withdrawal had taken place was from territory invaded after the adoption of resolution 425 (1978). Israel's procrastination and manoeuvres to prolong its occupation would continue unless the Council took a firm stand on the issue. Israel should not only be condemned but also be subjected to punitive measures in accordance with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. 15/ The Council should meet very soon to set a timetable for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and, in the event of Israel's failure to comply with that timetable, impose sanctions.
The representative of China said that Israel's criminal acts of wilfully infringing the national sovereignty of Lebanon and trampling upon the United Nations Charter were intolerable to all countries that upheld justice. The Council should condemn Israel's aggression, firmly support the Lebanese Government and people in their just struggle for the defence of their national independence, sovereignty and integrity, and enjoin Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory completely and unconditionally.
The USSR and Czechoslovakia expressed concern that, though one and a half months had elapsed since the adoption of the Council's decision calling for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Lebanese territory, that resolution remained unimplemented. They expressed concern over United Nations troops assuming functions extraneous to their task, becoming enmeshed in questions having more to do with Lebanon's internal affairs than with restoring international peace and security; the establishment of effective control by the Lebanese authorities in southern Lebanon was fully within the competence of the Lebanese Government. The USSR had serious misgivings about the advisability of increasing the troop strength of UNIFIL but, taking into account the position of the Arab parties directly concerned, it had not objected to the Council's decision. Both Council members reaffirmed their position that all the costs of eliminating the results of armed aggression against Lebanon should be defrayed by the aggressor, and expressed regret that the resolution did not contain a condemnation of the continuing Israeli aggression.
The representatives of Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States expressed the hope that the proposed increase in UNIFIL would enable it to fulfill its mandate in a more efficient way. They expressed concern about incidents in UNIFIL'S area of operation and deplored the loss of lives in the contingents from France, Senegal and Sweden as a result of those incidents.
The representatives of Gabon, India, Mauritius and Nigeria expressed support for the proposal of the Secretary-General to strengthen the Force. The increase in UNIFIL strength should enhance its capacity to fulfil its mandate and leave no room for excuses by Israel to delay the complete withdrawal of its forces from southern Lebanon, Nigeria added. India pointed out that the primary objective of UNIFIL was to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces and to restore international peace and security; another role was to assist in the restoration of governmental authority in southern Lebanon, an unprecedented secondary role of a limited character which should be discharged with great restraint. India emphasized that the question of Israeli withdrawal was not simply a matter to be left to military men, but was a political decision to be implemented by the Council. Only after Israel had finally withdrawn its forces could the Lebanese Government tackle its internal problems.
In a letter dated 3 May, the President of the Security Council informed the Secretary-General that the Council had agreed with his proposal concerning the contingents from Fiji, Iran and Ireland for UNIFIL, and that China, not having participated in the voting on the Council's resolutions on UNIFIL, dissociated itself from the matter.
Reports and communications (May-September)
On 5 May and 13 June, the Secretary-General submitted progress reports on UNIFIL. He informed the Council that the situation had remained stable in the central and western sectors but that tension had increased significantly in the Tyre area; eight UNIFIL soldiers had been killed and a number wounded. It was noted that armed elements in the area were associated with a variety of Lebanese and Palestinian factions and it was difficult or impossible to identify those involved. On 30 April the third phase of the withdrawal of Israeli forces had been completed and the positions vacated had been taken over by UNIFIL units. With the completion of that phase, the Secretary-General added, UNIFIL was deployed in a much more extensive area, extending roughly from the Litani River in the north to a line running about 18 kilometres from the River in the western and central sectors and about 2 to 7 kilometres in the eastern area.
The fourth and last phase of the withdrawal of Israeli forces had taken place on 13 June. The strength of the Force was then 6,100, comprising infantry units from Fiji, France, Iran, Ireland, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway and Senegal, and logistic units from Canada, France and Norway. In addition, 42 military observers of UNTSO assisted UNIFIL. Transport facilities were provided by Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the United States.
At the request of the Secretary-General, the Under-Secretary- General for Special Political Affairs, Roberto E. Guver, had visited the area from 19 to 24 May to discuss with the parties certain problems which required urgent clarification concerning the implementation of resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978). The President of Lebanon had emphasized to the Under-Secretary-General that the objective of UNIFIL was to assist ultimately in the restoration of the authority of the Lebanese Government in southern Lebanon, which presupposed both Israel's total withdrawal and the prevention of armed elements not under the command of the Lebanese Government from infiltrating into or undertaking hostile activities in the UNIFIL area of operations. Chairman Arafat had confirmed that, pursuant to the PLO commitment to co-operate fully with UNIFIL, it would not initiate hostile acts against Israel from southern Lebanon and would refrain from infiltrating armed elements into the UNIFIL area of operations.
Discussions were taking place with a view to working out practical arrangements for the Force's deployment and the fulfilment of its mission, in particular regarding UNIFIL'S relationship with the Christian armed elements under the command of Major Saad Haddad. With the Israeli withdrawal of 13 June and the positions evacuated having been taken over by UNIFIL, the first part of UNIFIL'S mandate had been fulfilled, the report noted, and the second phase had begun in the entire area of operations.
By a letter dated 13 June, the representative of Israel transmitted a letter to the Secretary-General from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel stating that, in the wake of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon on 13 June, members of PLO had returned to the area and that UNIFIL was permitting the transit of supplies to them. The Minister charged that some units of UNIFIL treated the PLO elements with indulgence and even co-operated with them; there were official PLO liaison officers in touch with UNIFIL. He charged further that the situation not only was in violation of a statement made by the Secretary-General when he visited Jerusalem on 18 April but also boded ill for the future. Israel looked to the Secretary-General for immediate action in conformity with his undertaking to prevent the entry into the area of elements or units of PLO and to expel those already there.
By a letter dated 14 June, the Secretary-General transmitted his reply to Israel's Foreign Minister. He expressed surprise at the allegations made, acknowledging that there were PLO liaison officers with UNIFIL, as there were liaison officers of all parties concerned, and noted that PLO had undertaken to co-operate with UNIFIL in the implementation of resolution 425 (1978). The Secretary-General gave his assurance that UNIFIL would continue to discharge in good faith its responsibilities. Its task, the Secretary-General stressed had not been facilitated by an Israeli decision not to turn over control of the remainder of the area of operations to UNIFIL, and he was trying to deal satisfactorily with the consequences of that development in co-operation with the Lebanese Government.
On 28 August, the representative of Kuwait transmitted to the Council President a letter dated 24 August from the Permanent Observer of PLO, charging that Israel on 20 August had launched an air attack against civilian Palestinian refugees in a village and a refugee camp in Lebanon which left four dead and 25 wounded.
In letters dated 5 September to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, the representative of Lebanon charged that Israeli forces, which were to have withdrawn totally from the border area of southern Lebanon on 13 June, had systematically refused to turn over control of that area to UNIFIL. He said that the Government of Lebanon had begun to implement the Council's March 1978 resolutions, with a view to regaining full control of and sovereignty over as territory, by moving units of the Lebanese army towards the south, but owing to heavy shelling and resulting casualties on 1 August, that movement had been suspended pending further arrangements to be made through UNIFIL. Since then consultations had taken place to find ways to ensure both the further deployment of the Lebanese army and the unhindered deployment of UNIFIL in the border area. He added that his Government considered that, since orders issued to the commanders of the so-called de facto Lebanese forces had not been obeyed, those commanders were to be considered as having no further authority to act on behalf of the Lebanese army, to negotiate with the United Nations or to exercise any legal command in the area. His Government expressed the view that, as the initial six months had not been sufficient for the fulfilment of the objectives of resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), it would be necessary for the Council to assess the future possibilities of UNIFIL and its ability to achieve its objectives within the framework of its current terms of reference and mandate in order to ensure full implementation of those resolutions.
In a reply dated 8 September, the representative of Israel stated to the Secretary-General that the withdrawal of the Israel Defence Forces from southern Lebanon had been completed on 13 June in fulfilment of its part in the implementation of resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), which, he noted, did not require control of any area to be turned over to UNIFIL.
As the mandate of UNIFIL was due to expire on 19 September, the Secretary-General submitted a report on 13 September on the activities of the Force for the period from 19 March to 13 September 1978.
Major problems had confronted UNIFIL after the last phase of the Israeli withdrawal on 13 June, when, the report noted, with minor exceptions, the withdrawing Israeli forces had handed over control of the evacuated area not to UNIFIL but to the Lebanese de facto armed groups in the area commanded by Major Haddad, on the grounds that they considered him to be a legitimate representative of the Lebanese army.
The strength of the Force had remained stationary since June, the report continued. During the first six months of the operation, eight members of UNIFIL had been killed and 52 injured as a result of firing incidents and mine explosions; three soldiers had been killed in accidents. In close co-operation with the Lebanese Government, UNIFIL had continued to achieve progressively wider deployment in the area turned over to the de facto armed groups. It continued to be hampered by restrictions on its freedom of movement, its activities were complicated by fire directed at its forces, and it was not in a position to exercise the control required for the full discharge of its mandate.
The Secretary-General emphasized that the situation in southern Lebanon was closely linked to the formidable problems of Lebanon as a whole, which, in turn, were inextricably linked with the problem of the Middle East. A full and satisfactory over-all solution of the problems of Lebanon was difficult to envisage except in the framework of a general settlement of the Middle East problem. He pointed out that the current situation, through no fault of UNIFIL was unacceptable. The fact that the Israeli forces had handed over control of the border area to de facto armed groups rather than to UNIFIL had prevented the full deployment of the Force and restoration of the authority of the Lebanese Government in the whole area of operation. He considered that the removal of UNIFIL would have disastrous results. Inasmuch as the Government of Lebanon had informed him that it was in full agreement, he recommended that the mandate of UNIFIL be extended for a further six-month period.
Consideration by
Security Council (18 and 19 September)
The Security Council met on 18 and 19 September to consider the report of the Secretary-General on UNIFIL and adopted at the first meeting resolution 434 (1978) – sponsored by the United States – b 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and the USSR). China did not participate in the voting.
By the resolution, the Council, after renewing the mandate of UNIFIL for a period of four months – until 19 January 1979 – called upon Israel, Lebanon and all others concerned to co-operate fully and urgently with the United Nations in the implementation of Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978. It asked the Secretary-General to submit a report on implementation within two months to allow the Council to assess the situation and examine what further measures should be taken, and to report again at the end of the four-month period. (For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Following the vote, the Secretary-General expressed the hope that the resolution would serve as a basis for speedy progress. He stressed that the full co-operation of all parties and Governments concerned was essential to the successful conclusion of the task of UNIFIL. He also expressed concern at the financial situation of UNIFIL; owing to the fact that some Governments had indicated that they would not be paying their allotted share of UNIFIL'S budget, a growing deficit was likely, resulting in a disproportionate burden falling on the small number of States which had already assumed a heavy burden in providing contingents.
The representative of China reaffirmed China's position of principle with regard to the question of the Force. It also held that the Council should condemn Israel for its acts of aggression against Lebanon. Israel had remained impenitent, he said, trying by every possible means to prevent the Lebanese Government from exercising its sovereign rights in southern Lebanon, and had recently launched air raids on Lebanese towns. The Chinese people, he said, expressed great indignation at these crimes of aggression and strongly condemned them.
Most representatives in their statements commended the performance of UNIFIL, which had undertaken the task assigned to it under very difficult circumstances and at substantial risk.
The representative of the United States called the change of the situation in southern Lebanon since March the best measure of UNIFIL'S success. He noted that the most difficult part of its task remained unfulfilled, namely, assisting the Lebanese Government in restoring its effective authority over the area.
The representatives of Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and Venezuela also noted that, despite UNIFIL's successes, serious difficulties remained, including the inability of the Force to deploy fully within its entire area of operation. That United Nations forces should be subjected to obstruction and attack in attempting to carry out their mandate was intolerable, those countries held, and they called upon the parties to co-operate in creating the conditions under which UNIFIL'S deployment could take place. Canada urged all Member States to support the activities of UNIFIL not only politically but also financially.
The representatives of France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom expressed their concern lest a situation arise whereby further renewals of the UNIFIL mandate would become automatic. Automatic and indefinite renewal was out of the question, the representative of Gabon added, and those who thought that they had found in UNIFIL'S presence in Lebanon a pretext to delay fulfilment of the Council's objective should face the facts. The Federal Republic of Germany commented that the situation in southern Lebanon could not be separated from the problems of Lebanon as a whole, linked in turn to the unresolved Middle East crisis. It was equally true, the Federal Republic of Germany said, that the over-all situation should not serve as a pretext or excuse for the parties involved to withhold co-operation from UNIFIL or to compromise its mandate; those with influence on the de facto forces should actively encourage them to co-operate with UNIFIL. France recalled the historic ties which linked that country with Lebanon and which had prompted France to participate in the international action aimed at safeguarding Lebanon's territorial integrity. France observed that UNIFIL had not been able to deploy its troops where the de facto forces were receiving active support from Israel, and it was Israel's duty to give up those practices that impeded the re-establishment of Lebanese authority in the area.
The representative of the USSR said that, despite the decisions of the Security Council and the demands of the Lebanese Government, Israel had handed over control of the important border areas to armed anti-Government elements that were virtually the agents of Israel. He emphasized that Israel's responsibility in the continuing tension in southern Lebanon was shared by those who pursued a policy of concluding separate deals with the aggressor to stimulate it to consolidate the results of its aggression and to prevent the achievement of a comprehensive and just settlement of the situation in the Middle East. Such a settlement, in the view of the USSR and Czechoslovakia, was attainable only through collective efforts of all the parties concerned within the framework of a Geneva Peace Conference. The USSR also expressed regret that the resolution just adopted did not contain a fitting condemnation of Israel for its continuous aggressive actions against Lebanon and its intervention in the internal affairs of that country. Both the USSR and Czechoslovakia maintained their position with regard to the financing of the Force.
The representative of Kuwait also noted that the resolution lacked a clear indictment and condemnation of Israel, though the overwhelming majority of United Nations Members expected such an indictment. In defiance of the Council, Israel had handed over the area adjacent to the border to the illegal rebels controlled by Israel in order to maintain its occupation by means of proxy and to abort the return of effective Lebanese authority in the area. There had been no actual Israeli withdrawal, Kuwait said, no restoration of international peace and security, no free and unimpeded deployment of UNIFIL and no return of Lebanese authority.
The representatives of India and Nigeria also noted that the fact that the Israeli forces had formally turned over the remaining areas to de facto armed groups, which had refused to accept or submit to the authority of the Lebanese Government, had posed major problems for UNIFIL. India was of the view that United Nations peace-keeping forces, which had a tradition of not getting involved militarily in internal affairs of Member States, should not deviate from that tradition and undertake only such tasks as they could fulfill peacefully; if there was a danger of going beyond past practices, the situation should be reviewed at once and the mandate of UNIFIL redefined. Nigeria felt that Israel was merely using the armed groups as a means to perpetuate its destabilizing role in southern Lebanon. It reiterated the view that United Nations peace-keeping forces must not become logistic support for aggression, occupation and the consolidation of occupied territories.
Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic had been invited, at their request, to participate in the Council's discussion without the right to vote. By 10 votes to 1 (the United States), with 4 abstentions (Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom), the Council had approved a Kuwaiti request that a representative of PLO also be invited to participate in the deliberations. The United States had requested the vote, again opposing the procedure as inappropriate.
Speaking on 19 September, the representative of Israel, noting that the Council's meeting was taking place the day following the conclusion of the summit conference at Camp David, viewed the current actions of certain armed elements abusing Lebanon's territory as deliberate attempts to sabotage the peace process in the Middle East. Armed elements of PLO were able to infiltrate areas which continued to be barred to the Lebanese army, he said, and, under the guise of an inter-Arab deterrent force, Syrian troops who had entered Lebanon during the civil war were implementing an old Syrian design for a Greater Syria.
Israel's position on the resolution was based on three major considerations; first, it had fulfilled its obligation to withdraw from Lebanon, and in the process had provided significant assistance and tangible aid to UNIFIL; second, despite the withdrawal, foreign forces remained on Lebanese soil, impeding implementation of other parts of UNIFIL'S mandate; and third, the villagers of southern Lebanon had genuine reason to fear for their lives, since their own Government could not currently guarantee their security. Local Lebanese forces defending the Christian and Shia areas in the south represented their only protection. Any discussion of Lebanon must aim at creating a permanent peace and restoring full Lebanese sovereignty, not only in the south but throughout the country, including Beirut, Israel maintained.
Lebanon wished to be associated with the Council in expressing deep appreciation for the tremendous performance of UNIFIL, its representative said. Nevertheless, he assured the Council that Lebanon did not look upon the Force as a permanent engagement. The situation in southern Lebanon was indeed linked to the problems of Lebanon as a whole, and those in turn were linked with the problem of the Middle East, but he appealed to the Council not to make Lebanon the object of debates and quarrels that went far beyond the Lebanese question. Peace in Lebanon could not, should not and, indeed, would not, he hoped, wait for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic believed that the problem in southern Lebanon could be resolved, notwithstanding the over-all conflict in the Middle East, because, for the first time, the Council had intervened and stated clearly that Israel, the aggressor, must withdraw from the territory of a sovereign Member State. As to the Syrian mission in Lebanon, it was there, he said, at the request of the legal Lebanese Government, striving to carry out its national and humanitarian mission in the shortest possible time.
The Palestinians were not in Lebanon because they wanted to be, the PLO representative said, but because they had been driven from their homes. The modalities envisaged in the Camp David document, called a "framework for peace in the Middle East," for admission of persons displaced from the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 were unacceptable. Moreover, it was not the whole international community but the criminal State and its accessory, the United States, that should bear the expenses of the crime.
Interim report of the Secretary-General
On 18 November, two months after the adoption of Council resolution 434 (1978), the Secretary-General submitted an interim report concerning implementation of that resolution. He reported that the Chief Co-ordinator and the UNIFIL Commander had maintained constant contact with the Lebanese and Israeli authorities, as well as with PLO. They had also dealt on an ad hoc basis with Lebanese de facto armed groups in southern Lebanon.
There had been no significant improvement in the deployment of the Force since September, despite these efforts. Freedom of movement was restricted and UNIFIL installations were harassed in the area under the control of the de facto armed groups, it was reported. Shortly after intensification of the fighting at Beirut in late September, the attitude of the de facto groups had hardened and tension in the UNIFIL area of operation had increased. There had also been a limited number of incidents involving Palestinian armed elements, mainly attempts at infiltration of armed personnel into the area. The Force had observed the presence of Israel Defence Force personnel in southern Lebanon on a number of occasions.
The Secretary-General regretted to inform the Council that the necessary co-operation of the de facto forces and of the Government of Israel was still lacking and that the complete deployment of UNIFIL and the progressive re-establishment of Lebanese authority was still blocked. The relationship between the Israel Defence Forces and the Lebanese de facto forces was a major factor in the current situation. While Israeli authorities had indicated they did not control those de facto forces, it had not been denied that they provided them with logistic and other forms of support. The restoration of the authority and sovereignty of the Lebanese Government in southern Lebanon was in the long run the only durable and reliable means by which normality and security for all could return to that area, the Secretary-General said. The current state of affairs, if continued, would lead to the erosion of UNIFIL. It was in the long-term interests of all concerned to avoid such a development.
Consideration by the
Security Council (8 December)
The Security Council met on 8 December 1978 to consider the interim report of the Secretary-General. The representatives of Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.
The Council President first read out a statement prepared in the course of consultations among Council members and approved by consensus. The Council, according to the statement, had studied the Secretary-General's report and associated itself with the views set forth therein regarding the obstacles placed against UNIFIL'S full deployment and against the total implementation of Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March. Expressing its deepest concern over the grave situation in southern Lebanon, the Council was convinced that the obstacles were a challenge to its authority and a defiance of its resolutions, and demanded their removal. The Council believed that the unimpeded deployment of UNIFIL in southern Lebanon would contribute significantly to the restoration of the Lebanese Government's authority and the preservation of Lebanon's sovereignty within its internationally recognized boundaries. The Council called upon all those not fully co-operating with UNIFIL, particularly Israel, to desist forthwith from interfering with UNIFIL'S operations and demanded that they comply fully without delay in the implementation of the March resolutions. It also called on Member States in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear so that UNIFIL might discharge its responsibilities unimpeded. Noting with appreciation the efforts of the Secretary-General, the United Nations staff, commanders and soldiers, and troop-contributing and other assisting countries, the Council decided to review the situation, if and when necessary, before 19 January 1979.
The representative of China said that his country was in favour of the statement's paragraphs condemning Israel, but it was not satisfactory that the statement failed to pronounce a stern condemnation befitting Israel. Moreover, in view of the different position which China had always held in principle on the question of the dispatch of United Nations forces, China dissociated itself from the contents of the statement concerning UNIFIL. It had consistently supported the Lebanese, Palestinian and other Arab people in their struggle against zionism and super-power hegemonism for the recovery of their territories and restoration of their national rights, he said, and China strongly condemned Israel for its continued aggression and obstruction of the exercise of Lebanon's sovereign rights in southern Lebanon.
Kuwait expressed its gratitude for the frankness of the interim report which, it said, placed the blame on Israel for obstructing the implementation of the Council's resolutions. The whole fiasco in southern Lebanon was due to Israel's action in handing over territories previously under its occupation to the illegal subservient rebels who sought control of the area in order to ensure complete calm for Israel. Supplies, advice and other support for the rebels, coming into southern Lebanon via the Israeli border town of Metulla, must be blocked. The Council's authority was at stake, Kuwait said; Kuwait recognized that the consensus statement would not resolve the ordeal in southern Lebanon but hoped that it might provide the required pressure which usually accompanied Council decisions.
The representative of the United Kingdom said his Government believed that Israel had considerable influence over the de facto forces and that it should cease supplying them. Any country which undermined UNIFIL's position, and thus in effect defied the Council, cast doubt on that country's readiness to accept in good faith the role of United Nations peace-keeping forces and must bear a heavy responsibility for an increase in tension and violence in the area.
Canada said it was an unacceptable situation that United Nations peace-keeping forces were being fired upon, restricted in carrying out their mission and harassed. Moreover, the authority of the Council was at stake and it must not permit its decisions to be ignored. Peace-keeping was a means to an end; if the end was not being achieved, it was reasonable for the Council to reconsider the means at its disposal, Canada added. The French representative addressed his Government's further pressing appeal to the interested parties to heed the voice of reason and abide by the Council's decisions. He stressed the importance France attached to ensuring that no faction, party or country hindered Lebanon's efforts to reassert its authority over its territory. The United States joined in the call for co-operation with UNIFIL by all involved, meaning all the organized Lebanese and Palestinian groups in the area and all Governments having influence on the situation there. It was clear, its representative said, that Israel had the ability to exercise greater influence on the de facto forces than it had expressed, and Israel had a duty to assist UNIFIL in fulfilling its mandate. Other Governments, which were friends of Lebanon, also bore responsibility for co-operating in finding a solution to that country's difficulties. He was gratified that the cease-fire in central Lebanon was holding and believed that it would continue to do so as long as the Maronite militia and the Syrian elements of the Arab deterrent force, which had been in confrontation prior to the cease-fire, continued to exercise restraint.
Czechoslovakia condemned the arrogant conduct and actions of Israel, undertaken in violation and disregard of Council decisions, and considered the President's statement fully warranted and necessary. The statement should be a serious warning to Israeli authorities, the Czechoslovak representative said, whose actions continued to be a threat to peace in the region.
Israel was carrying out a policy of threat and military provocation against Lebanon, the USSR representative said, endeavouring by maintaining essential border areas under its control to keep open the door to a new and massive incursion into that country and to strengthen its control over the frontier zone of Lebanon. The USSR continued to support a just slid comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, which could be achieved only by the collective efforts of all the interested parties; separate deals only complicated the situation and encouraged Israel in its attempts to consolidate the results of its aggression and to proceed to further expansion. The USSR representative expressed regret that the Council's statement contained no proper condemnation of Israel, in view of Israel's sabotaging of the decision of the Council, its continuing aggressive actions against Lebanon and its gross interference in Lebanon's domestic affairs. The USSR also believed that the Council should move towards more energetic and effective measures to ensure implementation of its decisions on this matter.
A matter of considerable concern to Nigeria was the escalation of defiance by the de facto armed groups and the menacing challenge they posed to UNIFIL'S authority. In its view, the Council was left with no other option but to consider measures to compel strict compliance of all parties with its resolutions. It hoped that the Council's powerful members, which afforded Israel the support that enabled it to defy the United Nations, would use their leverage to restore Lebanon's territorial integrity.
Venezuela said it was gratified that particular attention was being paid to efforts to improve UNIFIL'S ability to protect the civilian population, among which there could be a loss of confidence in UNIFIL. The debates in the Council would avail little unless UNIFIL obtained the support needed.
India said that it had reluctantly agreed to the consensus statement; it would have preferred a resolution. The statement should have included a clear call to Israel to cease logistic and other support to de facto Lebanese armed groups and to facilitate the taking over by UNIFIL of southern Lebanon from those groups. The Council should warn Israel and other parties concerned that unless their co-operation was forthcoming UNIFIL'S mandate would not be renewed and the Force would be withdrawn. The representative of Lebanon said that what was at stake, in addition to the fate of his country, was the credibility of peace-keeping. Through what UNIFIL diplomatically called the Lebanese de facto forces, Israel had pushed its border further north and established, through occupation by proxy, a shadow, client mini-State. There could be no security for any, Christian or Moslem, save in the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and authority; there could be no such restoration as long as Israeli destabilization, in the south and through the south, continued to disrupt Lebanon's unity, destroy its national character and prejudice its chances for international concern and assistance.
It was the view of Israel that the problem of the south was directly linked to the situation in the country as a whole. The problems of the Lebanese Government in reasserting its authority over its territory were not confined to southern Lebanon, the Israeli representative said. Lebanon was still under foreign occupation: Syrian forces, ostensibly there to keep the peace, dominated everywhere and in every sphere of political life and the so-called PLO constituted a virtual State within a State in Lebanon. While Israel could not be indifferent to the fate of the villagers in the south, it could not assume responsibility for their actions, taken in accordance with what they judged to be a matter of their own survival. Israel would continue to co-operate with UNIFIL, he said, but to detach the question of southern Lebanon from the situation in Lebanon as a whole would not enhance the cause of peace, and to refuse to discuss in complete candour the massacres which had been perpetrated in the north would do the Council no credit.
The Syrian representative said that his country was committed to one Lebanon. It had responded to an appeal by the Lebanese Government and people. It realized that the future of Lebanon depended on the imminent reconciliation among the different parties in Lebanon and appealed to all factions to engage in a true reconciliation. Israel, however, was actively involved in trying to prevent Lebanon from achieving this goal. Reconciliation could not be accomplished unless the Lebanese Government could exercise its authority over all Lebanese territory. In Syria's view, the Council should not have been satisfied with the statement read out; it should have ordered Israel to desist from creating more trouble in an already troubled area.
In his capacity as representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Council President reaffirmed the view that only if all communities in Lebanon seriously adopted a course of reconciliation would it be possible for the Lebanese people to pursue, under the roof of the Republic of Lebanon, their political, economic, social, cultural and religious aspirations. He was convinced that stability and peace in Lebanon were an important factor for progress towards an over-all solution of the Middle Fast conflict.
Communications (December)
By a letter of 11 December, the representative of Lebanon expressed his Government's appreciation to the Security Council for its efforts and the consensus statement of 8 December. His Government hoped that the letter would be interpreted as an invitation to all that no effort be spared to obtain substantial changes in UNIFIL'S area of operation before the end of the current mandate and further deterioration of the situation.
In letters of 21 December, the Lebanese representative drew the Secretary-General's and the Council's attention to Israeli aircraft raids inside Lebanon on 20 and 21 December; three persons had been killed and 16 wounded, and houses had been destroyed. Israeli artillery had also shelled a Lebanese army unit in southern Lebanon. His Government lodged a vigorous protest against these attacks, which he said could only be interpreted as further attempts at obstructing United Nations peace efforts.
The representative of Kuwait, on 21 December, transmitted a letter of the same date to the President of the Security Council from the Permanent Observer of PLO charging that Israel had attacked several refugee camps the day before; a number of dwellings had been destroyed, two civilians killed and several wounded. The PLO representative called for measures to condemn the perpetrators and put an end to such atrocities.
On 21 December, the representative of Israel informed the Council President of a rocket attack launched from across the Lebanese border on the town of Qiryat Shemona in northern Israel that morning which had resulted in one death and five injuries. He said a spokesman for PLO had taken responsibility for the attack. The letter also listed other terrorist acts, most involving explosive devices, during November and December.
On 23 December, the representative of Egypt transmitted to the Council a statement by the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs the day before regarding the latest Israeli shelling of Lebanese territory with long-range artillery. This new act of aggression, according to the statement, confirmed Israel's consistent policy of violating international law and imperilling lives, and was in flagrant defiance of Egyptian and United States peace efforts.
Documentary references
Communications and reports (January-March)
S/11663/Add.51-53. Further reports on status of cease-fire in Israel-Lebanon sector.
S/12521 (A/33153). Letter of 10 January from Lebanon (transmitting excerpts from address by President on 6 January 1978).
S/12598 (A/33/64). Letter of 13 March from Israel.
S/12600, S/12602 (A/33/66). Letters of 15 March from Lebanon.
S/12604. Note by President of Security Council (transmitting letter of 16 March 1978 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council (annexing notes verbales of 15 March from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Syrian Arab Republic, letter of 14 March from PLO and letters of 15 March 1978 from League of Arab States and Algeria)).
S/12606. Letter of 17 March from Lebanon.
S/12607. Letter of 17 March from Israel.
S/12809 (A/33/70). Letter of 17 March from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on 17 March 1978).
A/33/67. Letter of 15 March from Algeria (transmitting letter from Minister for Foreign Affairs) (also issued as S/12604, annex V).
A/33/68. Letter of 17 March from United Arab Emirates (transmitting letter of 14 March 1978 from PLO) (also issued as S/12604, annex III).
A/33/69. Letter of 17 March from United Arab Emirates (transmitting letter of 15 March 1978 from Secretary-General of League of Arab States) (also issued as S/12604, annex IV).
Consideration by the
Security Council (17-19 March)
Security Council, meetings 2071-2075.
S/12606. Letter of 17 March from Lebanon (request to convene Council).
S/12607. Letter of 17 March from Israel (request to convene Council).
S/12608. Letter of 17 March from Kuwait (request to extend invitation to participate in Council discussion).
S/12610. United States: draft resolution.
Resolution 425 (1978), as proposed by United States, S/12610, adopted by Council on 19 March 1978, meeting 2074, by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and USSR) (China did not participate in voting).
The Security Council,
Taking note of the letters from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon and from the Permanent Representative of Israel,
Having heard the statements of the Permanent Representatives of Lebanon and Israel,
Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and its consequences to the maintenance of international peace,
Convinced that the present situation impedes the achievement of a just peace in the Middle East,
1. Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;
2. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;
3. Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within twenty-four hours on the implementation of the present resolution.
S/INF/34. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1978, Decisions, p. 4.
S/12611. Report of Secretary-General on implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978).
S/12612. United Kingdom: draft resolution.
Resolution 426 (1978), as proposed by United Kingdom, S/12612, adapted by Council on 19 March 1978, meeting 2075, by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions, Czechoslovakia and USSR) (China did not participate in voting).
The Security Council,
1. Approves the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978), contained in document S/12611 of 19 March 1978;
2. Decides that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be established in accordance with the above-mentioned report for an initial period of six months, and that it shall continue in operation thereafter, if required, provided the Security Council so decides.
Communications and reports (March-May)
S/12614. Letter of 20 March from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People to President of Security Council.
S/12615 (A/33/71). Letter of 20 March from Mongolia (transmitting statement of 18 March 1978 by Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
S/12616. Letter of 21 March from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.
S/12618. Letter of 22 March from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.
S/12620 and Add.1-3. Progress reports of Secretary-General on UNIFIL, dated 23 March, 2, 8 and 17 April 1978.
S/12641. Letter of 10 April from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.
S/12642. Letter of 12 April from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.
S/12657, S/12666. Letters of 19 and 25 April from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.
S/12667. Letter of 26 April from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.
S/12675. Letter of 1 May from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.
Consideration by the
Security Council (3 May)
Security Council, meeting 2076.
S/12675. Letter of 1 May from Secretary-General.
S/12679. Bolivia, India, Mauritius: draft resolution.
Resolution 427 (1978), as proposed by 3 powers, S/12679, adopted by Council on 3 May 1978, meeting 2076, by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and USSR) (China did not participate in voting).
The Security Council,
Having considered the letter dated 1 May 1978 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1976) of 19 March 1978,
1. Approves the increase in the strength of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon requested by the Secretary-General
from 4,000 to approximately 6,000 troops;
2. Takes note of the withdrawal of Israeli forces that has taken place so far;
3. Calls upon Israel to complete its withdrawal from all Lebanese territory without any further delay;
4. Deplores the attacks on the United Nations Force that have occurred and demands full respect for the United Nations Force from all parties in Lebanon.
S/12681. Letter of 3 May from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.
S/INF/34. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1978. Decisions, p.5
Reports and communications (May-September)
S/12620/Add.4,5. Progress reports of Secretary-General on UNIFIL, dated 5 May and 13 June 1978.
S/12736. Letter of 13 June from Israel to Secretary-General (transmitting letter of 13 June 1978 from Minister for Foreign Affairs).
S/12738. Letter of 14 June from Secretary-General to Israel (transmitting letter of 14 June 1978 from Secretary-General to Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel).
S/12788. Letter of 20 July from Argentina.
S/12825. Letter of 28 August from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 24 August 1978 from PLO).
S/12834, S/12835. Letters of 5 September from Lebanon to Secretary-General and to President of Security Council.
S/12840. Letter of 8 September from Israel.
S/12845. Report of Secretary-General on UNIFIL (for period 19 March to 13 September 1978).
Consideration by Security
Council (18 and 19 September)
Security Council, meetings 2085, 2086.
S/12845. Report of Secretary-General on UNIFIL.
S/12848. United States: draft resolution.
S/12851. Letter of 18 September from Kuwait (request to extend invitation to participate in Council discussion).
Resolution 434 (1978), as proposed by United States, S/12848, adopted by Council on 18 September 1978, meeting 2085, by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and USSR) (China did not participate in voting).
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March and 427(1978) of 3 May 1978,
Recalling in particular that, in its resolution 425 (1978), the Council called for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries,
Gravely concerned at the serious conditions in Lebanon, which continue to endanger the achievement of a just and lasting solution of the Middle East question,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General dated 13 September 1978 on the implementation of the above-mentioned resolutions,
Commending the outstanding performance of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon in seeking to carry out its mandate as established in resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978),
Deeply grieved at the loss of life suffered by the Force,
Conscious of the progress already achieved by the Force towards the establishment of peace and security in southern Lebanon,
Noting with concern that the Force has encountered obstacles in deploying freely throughout its area of operation and that it has not been possible as yet for the Lebanese Government fully to restore its authority over all its territory in accordance with resolution 425 (1978),
Supporting the efforts of the Secretary-General and taking into account the observations in his report describing the problems encountered by the Force in carrying out its mandate,
Determined to secure urgently the total fulfilment of the mandate and objectives of the Force in accordance with resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978),
Acting in response to the request of the Lebanese Government
1. Decides to renew the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for a period of four months, that is, until 19 January 1979;
2. Calls upon Israel, Lebanon and all others concerned to co-operate fully and urgently with the United Nations in the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978);
3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council in two months on the implementation of the present resolution in order to allow it to assess the situation and to examine what further measures should be taken, and to report again at the end of the four-month period.
Interim report of the Secretary-General
S/12929. Interim report of Secretary-General, dated 18 November 1978, concerning UNIFIL under Security Council resolution 434 (1978).
Consideration by the
Security Council (8 December)
Security Council, meeting 2106.
S/12929. Interim report of Secretary-General.
S/12958. Note by President of Security Council (containing text of statement prepared in course of consultations among Council members, adopted by consensus by Council on 8 December 1978, meeting 2106).
S/INF/34. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1978. Decisions, p. 8.
Communications (December)
S/12963, S/12975 (A/33/542), S/12976. Letters of 11 and 21 December from Lebanon.
S/12977. Letter of 21 December from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 21 December 1978 from PLO).
S/12979. Letter of 21 December from Israel.
S/12984. Letter of 23 December from Egypt (transmitting statement issued by spokesman of Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 22 December 1978).
Financing of United Nations peace-keeping forces
in the Middle East
Financing of UNEF and UNDOF
The authority given to the Secretary-General by the General Assembly on 2 December 1977 16/ to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) expired on 24 October 1978 and the current appropriations for the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) also ended on the same date. 17/ The Security Council, however, by resolution 429 (1978) of 31 May 1978 renewed the mandate of UNDOF until 30 November 1978 (for details, see subchapter above) and, by its resolution 438 (1978) of 23 October 1978, renewed the mandate of UNEF until 24 July 1979 (see also subchapter above for details).
In order to allow adequate time for consideration by the General Assembly of the annual report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the Forces, the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee considered the question on 26 October and approved, by 81 votes to 3, with 8 abstentions, a resolution submitted by the Chairman to authorize the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for UNEF at a rate not to exceed $6,360,083 per month for the period from 25 October to 30 November 1978 and for UNDOF at a rate not to exceed $l,607,000 per month for the same period. The apportionment of these expenses among Member States was to be in accordance with the scheme set forth by the Assembly in a 1977 ad hoc arrangement. 18/
The Assembly, on 3 November, approved these recommendations when it adopted resolution 33/13 A, by 110 votes to 4, with 14 abstentions. (For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Several Member States spoke in explanation of vote.
The USSR confirmed its position of principle with regard to the financing of UNEF, namely that it did not intend to bear the costs connected with the exercise by UNEF of additional functions arising from the Sinai agreement of 4 September 1975. 19/ Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic reaffirmed their position against the financing of UNEF and UNDOF, considering that the expenses should be borne by Israel. The Lao People's Democratic Republic, expressing a similar view, and Viet Nam said that they would not participate in the voting or the financing. Reiterating its opposition to the establishment and financing of United Nations emergency forces, Albania said that it would not contribute. For a similar position of principle, China noted that it had not taken part in the voting and would not undertake any obligations in this regard. Benin and Democratic Yemen were against the existence of the Forces, and noted that they had not participated in the voting. The Congo also had not participated because of its reservation on the contribution it had been assessed for the expenses of the Forces.
On 30 November 1978, the Security Council, by resolution 441 (1978), renewed the mandate of UNDOF for the period 1 December 1978 to 31 May 1979 (for details, see subchapter above). Since the existing authority of the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for UNDOF and UNEF did not go beyond 30 November 1978, and because the Fifth Committee's consideration of this question had not by that time been completed, the Chairman again proposed to the Fifth Committee on 30 November a resolution to authorize the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for UNEF and for UNDOF; the rates were not to exceed $1,456,000 and $378,000, respectively, for the period from 1 to 7 December 1978 inclusive. The expenses would be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the same 1977 scheme which had been applied to resolution 33/13 A of 3 November 1978 (see above). On a proposal by the USSR, the Committee replaced the commitment-rate figures which had been used in the draft resolution to reflect amounts not to be exceeded for the period 1 to 7 December 1978 instead of monthly rates. A separate vote was taken, at the request of the USSR, on the amount of $1,456,000 for UNEF, which was approved by 57 votes to 11, with 2 abstentions. The resolution, as amended, was then approved on 30 November by 58 votes to 2, with 11 abstentions.
The General Assembly, on 1 December 1978, approved, by separate recorded vote of 90 to 12, with 3 abstentions, the operative paragraph by which it authorized the recommended commitment to UNEF. It then adopted, as a whole, the resolution proposed by the Fifth Committee, by a recorded vote of 95 to 3, with 12 abstentions, as resolution 33/13 B.
(For text of resolution and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Albania, Benin, the Congo, Iraq, the Syrian Arab Republic and Viet Nam reiterated the reservations or reaffirmed the positions they had put forward when resolution 33/13 A was adopted earlier in November. Afghanistan, which abstained, considering the estimates to be excessive, said it, too, believed that Israel should bear the costs of extending the mandates of UNEF and UNDOF.
The Fifth Committee then began consideration of the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of UNEF and UNDOF and the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Included in the Secretary-General's report was information on the current status of contributions, and expenses of the Forces from 25 October 1977 to 24 October 1978.
The Secretary-General estimated the costs of the operation of UNEF for the nine-month period from 25 October 1978 to 24 July 1979 at $59,902,000 based on a troop strength of 4,200 and on continuance of its existing area of operations and responsibilities. He also estimated that, should the Security Council decide to renew UNEF'S mandate beyond 24 July 1979 and assuming the continuance of its existing strength and responsibilities, the cost would be of the order of $6,214,000 per month.
The Secretary-General estimated the cost of operation of UNDOF for the one-year period from 25 October 1978 to 24 October 1979 inclusive at $20,781,000, or about $1,732,000 per month from 1 December 1978 onwards, based on a troop strength of 1,160 and on continuance of its existing area of operations and responsibilities.
The Secretary-General observed that as of 31 October 1978 he had received $388.4 million in contributions from Member States for the five-year period from 25 October 1973. The balance due from Member States amounted to $65.7 million of which only $22.3 million could be considered collectable. In this context, the Secretary-General expressed his serious concern at the growing difficulties he was facing in meeting obligations of the Forces on the current basis, particularly those due to troop contributors, because of the mounting shortfall.
The Advisory Committee, after examining the Secretary-General's proposals, recommended that the budgets for UNEF for the nine-month period and for UNDOF for the 12-month period should not exceed an aggregate of $77,308,000 net of staff assessment ($945,000) and miscellaneous income ($130,000, to be realized from the sale of obsolete or surplus equipment, stores, etc.).
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Panama and Sweden sponsored two resolutions in the Fifth Committee, the purpose of which, Canada said in introducing the drafts on behalf of the sponsors, was to enable the Assembly to take the necessary decisions for financing the United Nations peace-keeping forces in the Middle East, the first relating to UNEF and the second to UNDOF. Both texts were approved together by the Fifth Committee on 4 December 1978 by a recorded vote of 76 to 3, with 10 abstentions.
The General Assembly on 8 December adopted both texts – that relating to the expenses of UNEF as resolution 33/13 C and that relating to the expenses of UNDOF as resolution 33/13 D – by separate recorded votes of 94 to 3, with 11 abstentions.
By the preambular paragraphs of the two parallel resolutions, the Assembly reaffirmed previous decisions that a procedure different from that applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget was necessary for peace-keeping operations, bearing in mind the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of such operations and taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries were in a position to make relatively larger contributions.
With regard to UNEF, the subject of resolution the 33/13 C, the Assembly appropriated $58,059,000 for the operation of the Force for the nine-month period ending 24 July 1979. This figure would be apportioned in various specific amounts among four groups of States, as defined in an Assembly resolution of 11 December 1973 20/ (the five permanent members of the Security Council, States listed as economically developed, those defined as economically less developed, and others defined as least developed States). The amounts were sub-divided into proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979, and in accordance with previous adjustments. 21/ An amount of $7,672,129 was appropriated by the terms of resolution 33/13 D for the operation of UNDOF for the period from 1 June to 24 October 1978, and $12,159,828 was appropriated to the Special Account for UNDOF for the period from 25 October 1978 to 31 May 1979.
The Assembly specified that the apportionment formula to be applied in both cases was an ad hoc arrangement, without prejudice to the positions of principle that might be taken by Member States in any consideration by the Assembly of arrangements for the financing of peace-keeping operations.
Two Member States, Viet Nam and Djibouti, were to be included in the groups of States defined as economically less developed and least developed, respectively, and their contributions were to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Assembly resolution 33/11 of 3 November 1978, relating to the scale of assessments for apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations. (For page reference to text of resolution 33/11, refer to INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS.)
The Assembly also stressed the need for voluntary contributions for the Forces, both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General, and asked him to ensure that the Forces were conducted with maximum efficiency and economy.
Member States' shares in the Tax Equalization Fund of an estimated staff-assessment income of $743,000 and $121,634 were to be set off against the apportionments for UNEF and UNDOF for the period from 25 October 1978 to 24 July 1979 and from 25 October 1978 to 31 May 1979, respectively. In addition, the Secretary- General was authorized to enter into commitments for the two Forces until 24 October 1979 at a monthly rate not to exceed $6,082,333 gross ($6 million net) for UNEF and $1,682,833 gross ($1,666,000 net) for UNDOF, should their mandates be extended beyond the above periods.
(For texts of resolutions 33/13 C and D and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Both in the Fifth Committee, at the request of the USSR, and in the Assembly, separate votes were taken on the operative paragraphs of resolution 33/13 C regarding the appropriation of $58,059,000 to the Special Account for UNEF for the period from 25 October 1978 to 24 July 1979, and authorization to the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for that Force not to exceed $6,082,333 gross for the period 25 July to 24 October 1979. Both paragraphs were approved by recorded votes: in the Committee by 72 votes to 12, with 1 abstention, and by 71 votes to 12, with 1 abstention, respectively; in the Assembly by 94 votes to 11, with 2 abstentions, and by 93 votes to 11, with 3 abstentions, respectively.
Speaking in explanation of vote on the two resolutions, Albania, Democratic Yemen, Iraq, the USSR and Viet Nam reiterated their positions of principle. Bulgaria and the German Democratic Republic stated that they would not participate in financing additional expenditure which was the result of the separate agreement between Egypt and Israel of September 1975, and could not therefore support the proposals for financing UNEF and UNDOF.
Also before the Fifth Committee was a report of the Secretary-General on the application of article IV of the United Nations Financial Regulations concerning appropriations voted by the General Assembly. It was submitted in response to a 1977 ACABQ request for information on unliquidated UNEF/UNDOF obligations related to reimbursement to Governments for troop contingents and/or logistic support; in the period from 1 October 1973 to October 1977, the excess of income over expenditure amounted to almost $17.7 million. According to the Financial Regulations, that amount would require to be credited against assessments of Member States. The Advisory Committee considered that the situation should be brought more closely in line with the requirements laid down in the Financial Regulations.
The Secretary-General proposed in his report that the Assembly approve special arrangements for the Forces whereby appropriations and/or logistic support to them be retained beyond the 12-month period stipulated in regulations 4.3 and 4.4, 22/ and that such arrangements be made applicable also to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. The Advisory Committee recommended acceptance of that proposal.
Three draft resolutions on this subject were submitted in the Fifth Committee.
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Ireland, Norway, Panama and Sweden proposed a resolution to have the Assembly temporarily suspend the provisions of the two relevant regulations, as well as concomitant regulations concerning adjustment of assessments affected by them, in respect of $17,693,065 which might otherwise have to be surrendered. The amount would be entered in a separate account and held in suspense pending a further decision by the Assembly at its 1979 regular session. Canada noted, in introducing the draft, that this was only a book surplus; UNEF/UNDOF operations had incurred a deficit in real terms since some Member States had refused to pay their assessed contributions.
The USSR said that it was absolutely opposed to suspending application of the Financial Regulations. It introduced a draft resolution by which the Assembly would have considered that any revision of the existing Financial Regulations and Rules of the United Nations was inexpedient in the case of UNEF/UNDOF and would have directed the Secretary-General to apply them immediately and distribute among Member States any unexpended balances remaining in the UNEF/UNDOF Special Account.
On 7 December 1978, the Fifth Committee approved the 12-power text by a recorded vote – requested by the United States – of 64 to 10, with 11 abstentions. The USSR withdrew its draft resolution. The Assembly adopted the Committee's recommended text of 14 December as resolution 33/13 E by a recorded vote of 105 to 9, with 14 abstentions.
(For text of resolution and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
A third resolution, which would in effect have the Assembly endorse the Secretary-General's proposals on special arrangements for UNEF and UNDOF with regard to unliquidated obligations, was submitted by Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ghana, Norway, Panama, Senegal and Sweden. It was subsequently approved by the Fifth Committee and adopted by the Assembly as resolution 33/13 F.
In view of the mounting deficit in the Special Account for UNEF and UNDOF due to some States withholding their contributions to the Forces, and the resulting difficulties in paving the amounts due troop-contributing Governments because of lack of funds in the Special Account, the Assembly said that it was convinced of the need to make special provisions for the liquidation of outstanding obligations of the Forces to Governments providing contingents and/or logistic support. The Assembly approved special arrangements for UNEF and UNDOF in regard to the application of article IV of the Financial Regulations, whereby appropriations required in respect of obligations owed to such Governments would be retained beyond the stipulated 12-month period. Claims received for goods and services rendered or claims covered by reimbursement rates would remain payable beyond the stipulated period; other unliquidated obligations owed for the financial period in question for which claims had not been received would remain valid for an additional four years following the 12-month period. After that, any unliquidated obligations would be cancelled and the remaining balance of any appropriations retained therefore would be surrendered.
A paragraph by which the Assembly took note of the Secretary-General's and ACABQ's reports on the subject was added orally by Japan.
The Fifth Committee approved the 11-power text on 7 December by a recorded vote – requested by the United States – of 67 to 10, with 7 abstentions; the Assembly adopted it on 14 December by a recorded vote of 111 to 9, with 9 abstentions.
(For text of resolution 33/13 F and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
The Federal Republic of Germany, explaining its vote, said that it had voted in favour of the 12-power text with some misgivings; its acquiescence should not be interpreted as agreement with the idea that assessment in whatever form could be levied on Member States to make up for withheld or late payments.
Italy said that it had abstained on the 11-power text, considering it would be dangerous to allow unliquidated obligations to remain valid for an additional four years.
The USSR said that it opposed both resolutions because it felt they would further undermine the financial discipline of the United Nations and exacerbate the financial difficulties it was experiencing.
Financing of UNIFIL
By its resolution 425 (1978) of 19 March 1978 (for details, see subchapter above), the Security Council decided to establish a United Nations interim force for southern Lebanon. By its resolution 426 (1978) of the same date (see also subchapter above), the Council decided that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) should be established in accordance with a report of the Secretary-General on implementation of resolution 425 (1978) for an initial period of six months, continuing in operation thereafter if the Council so decided.
In approving that report, the Council in effect approved the paragraph therein stating that the costs of the Force were to be considered as expenses of the Organization to be borne by the Members in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations. 23/
The eighth special session of the General Assembly was held on 20 and 21 April 1978 to consider the question of the financing of UNIFIL. It was convened in conformity with an Assembly resolution of 21 December 1977 24/ on unforeseen and extraordinary expenses for the biennium 1978-1979, by which the Secretary-General was authorized to convene a special session if, as a result of a decision of the Security Council, commitments relating to the maintenance of peace and security should arise in an estimated total exceeding $10 million.
For the study of this problem, the Assembly had before it reports on financial arrangements from the Secretary-General and from ACABQ. In his report, the Secretary-General indicated that for the six-month period from 19 March to 18 September 1978, it was estimated that a force of 4,000, all ranks, would cost $58.7 million gross ($58.4 million net of staff assessment). He also indicated that authority would be needed to enter into commitments for UNIFIL and for apportionment of such amounts beyond 18 September should the Council decide to extend UNIFIL'S mandate.
The Advisory Committee recommended that UNIFIL's budget for the initial six months not exceed $54 million. It also recommended that the Secretary-General be allowed the necessary flexibility to apply reductions recommended by ACABQ in a manner consistent with good management and efficiency, and that he be authorized to enter into commitments for UNIFIL from 19 September to 31 October 1978 in order to allow adequate time to consider the question of financing UNIFIL by the General Assembly at its regular 1979 session should UNIFIL be extended beyond 18 September.
The subject was allocated to the Fifth Committee for consideration and report. Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ghana, Iceland Ireland, Italy, the Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Nepal, Norway, Portugal and Sweden submitted a draft resolution on the question which the Committee approved on 21 April 1978 by 90 votes to 13, with 3 abstentions. The Assembly adopted the text on the same day, by a recorded vote of 99 to 14, as resolution S-8/2.
By the resolution, the Assembly reaffirmed that a different procedure was needed from that applied to meet expenses of the regular budget and took into account both the limited capacity of some States to contribute towards peace-keeping operations and the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the Security Council in this regard.
The Assembly appropriated $54 million for UNIFIL'S operation from 19 March to 18 September 1978 and asked the Secretary-General to maintain a Special Account for the Force. As an ad hoc arrangement, without prejudice to Members' positions of principle, the Assembly set forth an apportionment scheme for the six-month period for four groups of countries: $33,075,000 to be apportioned among the Council's permanent members; $19,764,000 among the economically developed Member States which were not permanent members of the Council; $1,139,400 among Member States designated as economically less developed (States excepted for this purpose from this group were listed); and $21,600 among 37 additional States also listed as economically less developed. Amounts for the individual States were to be determined by the scale of assessments for 1978. 25/
An amount of $278,000 in estimated staff-assessment income was to be set off against the apportionment as Member States' shares in the Tax Equalization Fund. The Secretary-General was authorized to enter into commitments not to exceed $6 million per month from 19 September to 31 October 1978, should UNIFIL'S mandate be extended, to be apportioned according to the same scheme. He was asked to ensure that UNIFIL was administered with maximum efficiency and economy. The Assembly invited voluntary contributions to the Force both in cash and in services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General. By a second section of the resolution, the Assembly called upon Israel to fulfil its responsibilities under Security Council resolution 425 (1978) of 19 March 1978.
(For text of resolution S-8/2 and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Speaking in explanation of vote, China said it did not consider that the costs of UNIFIL should be regarded as expenses of the Organization; it would not assume any responsibility for financing UNIFIL and would not participate in the vote.
Israel said that it had no alternative but to abstain, in view of the fact that it had been singled out in a wholly unjustified manner. The Byelorussian SSR, Poland and the USSR said that if the second section had been put to a separate vote they would have voted in favour of that section; but they had voted against the resolution.
Iraq said that it would not participate in the vote; the United Nations must refrain from aggravating the problems caused by Zionist aggression, it added. The Syrian Arab Republic, which stated it was motivated by the fact that no distinction had been made between the aggressor and its victim in apportioning expenses, opposed the resolution; moreover, it did not believe that UNIFIL was the right way to end Israeli occupation. For similar reasons Democratic Yemen said that it declined to participate in the vote.
Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mongolia and Viet Nam said that they opposed the resolution in accordance with their position that the cost of financing UNIFIL should be borne exclusively by the aggressor; for that reason Hungary stated that it would not share any financial responsibility for it. Algeria and Benin said that, because the Assembly had not seen fit to condemn Israeli aggression, they would not participate in the vote, and Benin added that it would assume no financial responsibility deriving from the resolution. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya also stated that it would not participate, fearing that this decision, like previous ones, might set a serious legal and political precedent by making withdrawal of aggressors conditional upon creation of international forces to take their place.
Despite their vote in favour, Bangladesh, Greece, Kuwait, Mauritania, Morocco, Qatar, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, the United Republic of Cameroon, and Yemen expressed misgivings at what they considered to be a financial burden imposed on the United Nations by Israeli aggression; they emphasized the temporary nature of the arrangement and were of the conviction that these measures must be contingent upon the immediate withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces from southern Lebanon.
By its resolution 427 (1978) of 3 May 1978 (for details, see subchapter above), the Security Council had approved an increase in the strength of UNIFIL from 4,000 to 6,000 troops. The Secretary-General had received the concurrence of ACABQ to enter into commitments initially under the terms of the General Assembly's resolution of 21 December 1977 26/ on unforeseen and extraordinary expenses for 1978-1979 in the amount of $6,906,000 for additional expenses of UNIFIL arising from Council resolution 427 (1978).
By its resolution 434 (1978) of 18 September 1978 (for details, see subchapter above), the Security Council had renewed the mandate of UNIFIL for four months, until 19 January 1979.
The Secretary-General reported again on the financing of UNIFIL to the General Assembly at its thirty-third session, which convened on 19 September 1978. In his report, the Secretary- General indicated that the Assembly would need to appropriate formally $6.9 million authorized for UNIFIL for the six-month period to 18 September 1978 and action would need to be taken in respect of estimates and appropriations for the period from 19 September 1978 to 18 January 1979, as well as in respect of authority to enter into commitments and for the apportionment of such amounts for the period beyond 18 January 1979, should UNIFIL'S mandate be extended.
The Secretary-General estimated that the total cost of UNIFIL for the four months up to 18 January 1979, based on an average troop strength of 5,900, would be $46,858,000. The Advisory Committee recommended that the budget for UNIFIL for this period should not exceed $44.6 million gross ($44.2 million net of staff assessment).
Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Italy, the Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Senegal and Sweden submitted a resolution in the Fifth Committee, which considered the question at the 1978 session, to meet the financial requirements of UNIFIL for the mandate period from 19 September. The Fifth Committee approved the text on 27 October by 67 votes to 12, with 1 abstention; the Assembly adopted it on 3 November as resolution 33/14, by a recorded vote of 114 to 13, with 4 abstentions.
Resolution 33/14 paralleled the format of resolution S-8/2 (see above) which the Assembly had adopted in April on the same subject. The Assembly appropriated $6.9 million to the Special Account for UNIFIL, that amount being the additional commitments entered into by the Secretary-General, with ACABQ's concurrence, for the period from 19 March to 18 September 1978. It also decided to appropriate $44,568,000 for the operation of UNIFIL for a four-month period beyond 18 September 1978, and to continue the maintenance of the Special Account for the Force. The Assembly established an ad hoc arrangement, without prejudice to Member States' positions of principle, for the apportionment of the expenses, based on the scheme indicated in resolution S-8/2 for apportionment of specific amounts to the four groups of countries, with proportions for individual States to be determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979. The amounts for apportionment among the States of the four groups were $27,297,900, $16,311,888, $940,385 and $17,827.
The Assembly also authorized the Secretary-General to enter into commitments at a rate not to exceed $11,142,000 per month for the period from 19 January to 31 October 1979, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond 19 January 1979. The Assembly also decided to include Djibouti and Viet Nam in the second and first groups, respectively, of economically less developed Member States referred to in Assembly resolution S-8/2, their contributions to be determined in accordance with the Assembly's current decision (resolution 33/11 of 3 November 1978) on the scale of assessments for apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations. (For page reference to text of resolution 33/11, refer to INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS.)
(For text of resolution 33/14 and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Norway requested, and the Fifth Committee concurred, that a paragraph be included in the Committee's report to the Assembly, in the light of an ACABQ recommendation regarding authorization to enter into commitments for UNIFIL, that the Committee ask the Secretary-General to submit, if UNIFIL'S mandate should be renewed beyond 19 January 1979, the cost estimates for the Force to ACABQ for examination and for recommendations to him on the actual level of resources to be committed.
Algeria, Benin, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Hungary, Iraq, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Poland, the Syrian Arab Republic, the USSR and Viet Nam, during the discussion of the subject, reiterated their positions of principle with regard to contributing towards expenses arising from the establishment and maintenance of UNIFIL and other peace-keeping forces. Albania, the German Democratic Republic and the Ukrainian SSR also stated that they refused to sanction any act of aggression and for that reason they would not contribute to the financing of UNIFIL and opposed the resolution.
The Congo expressed regret that it could not participate in the vote on the resolution so long as its challenge regarding its assessed contribution – which the Congo felt did not realistically reflect its material position – had not been reviewed.
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
Financing of UNEF AND UNDOF
General Assembly – 33rd session
Fifth Committee, meetings 23, 47-49, 53, 54.
Plenary meetings 44, 68, 75, 84.
A/33/373 and Corr.1. Report of Secretary-General.
A/33/391 and Corr.1. Report of ACABQ.
A/C.5/33/45. Application of article IV of United Nations Financial Regulations. Report of Secretary-General.
A/C.5/33/L.8. Draft resolution submitted by Fifth Committee Chairman in consultation with Secretariat, approved by Fifth Committee on 26 October 1978, meeting 23, by 81 votes to 3, with 8 abstentions.
A/33/346. Report of Fifth Committee (part I).
Resolution 33/13 A, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/33/346, adopted by Assembly on 3 November 1978, meeting 44, by 110 votes to 4, with 14 abstentions.
The General Assembly,
Recalling that the present appropriation for the United Nations Emergency Force, as provided by section I, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution 32/4 B of 2 December 1977, does not extend to periods beyond 24 October 1978,
Recalling further that the present authority of the Secretary- General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, as provided by section III of General Assembly resolution 32/4 C of 2 December 1977, expires on 24 October 1978,
Taking note of Security Council resolution 438 (1978) of 23 October 1978, by which the Council renewed the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for the period from 25 October 1978 to 24 July 1979 inclusive,
Noting further that the present mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, which was renewed by the Security Council in resolution 429 (1978) of 31 May 1978, continues until 30 November 1978 inclusive,
1. Decides to authorize the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Emergency Force at a rate not to exceed $6,360,083 per month for the period from 25 October to 30 November 1978 inclusive, and for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $1,607,000 per month for the period from 25 October to 30 November 1978 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 Forces;
2. Also decides to apportion the above-mentioned expenses among Member States in accordance with the scheme set forth in General Assembly resolutions 32/4 B and C.
A/C.5/33/L.20. Draft resolution submitted by Fifth Committee Chairman in consultation with Secretariat, as orally amended by Controller on suggestion by USSR, approved by Fifth Committee on 30 November 1978, meeting 47, by 58 votes to 2, wish 11 abstentions.
A/33/346/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II).
Resolution 33/13 B, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/33/346/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 1 December 1978, meeting 68, by recorded vote of 95 to 3, with 12 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Albania, Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Mongolia, Sao Tome and Principe, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
The General Assembly,
Recalling that the present authority of the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Emergency Force and for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, as provided by paragraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 33/13 A of 3 November 1978, expires on 30 November 1978,
Taking note of Security Council resolution 438 (1978) of 23 October 1978, by which the Council renewed the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for the period from 25 October 1978 to 24 July 1979 inclusive, and of Security Council resolution 441 (1978) of 30 November 1978, by which the Council renewed the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 December 1978 to 31 May 1979 inclusive.
1. Decides to authorize the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Emergency Force and for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at rates not to exceed $1,456,000 and $378,000, respectively, for the period from 1 to 7 December 1978 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 Forces;
2. Also decides to apportion the above-mentioned expenses among Member States in accordance with the scheme set forth in General Assembly resolutions 32/4 B and C of 2 December 1977.
A/C.5/33/L.21. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Sweden: draft resolution, as orally amended by Fifth Committee Chairman, approved (draft resolution A and B together) by Fifth Committee on 4 December 1978, meeting 49, by recorded vote of 76 to 3, with 10 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Albania, Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
A/33/346/Add.2. Report of Fifth Committee (part III), draft resolution A.
Resolution 33/13 C, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/33/346/Add.2, adopted by Assembly on 8 December 1978, meeting 75, by recorded vote of 94 to 3, with 11 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Albania, Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia Democratic Yemen, German Democratic Republic, Hungary Mongolia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
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, 378 (1975) of 23 October 1975, 396 (1976) of 22 October 1976, 416 (1977) of 21 October 1977 and 438 (1978) of 23 October 1978,
Recalling its resolutions 3101 (XXVIII) of 11 December 1973, 3211 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, 3374 B (XXX) of 28 November 1975, 31/5 C of 22 December 1976, 32/4 B of 2 December 1977, 33/13 A of 3 November 1978 and 33/13 B of 1 December 1978,
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,
1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section 11, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution 3211 B (XXIX) the amount of $58,059,000 for the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force for the period from 25 October 1978 to 24 July 1979 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 $35,561,137 for the above-mentioned nine-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979;
(b) To apportion an amount of $21,249,594 for the mentioned nine-month period among the Member Stabs referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and section II, paragraph 2 (b), of resolution 3374 B (XXX) in the proportions determined by the scale of assessment for 1978 and 1979;
(c) To apportion an amount of $1,225,045 for the above-mentioned nine-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and section II, paragraph 2 (c), of resolution 3374 B (XXX) in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979;
(d) To apportion an amount of $23,224 for the above-mentioned nine-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (d) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), section IV, paragraph 1, of resolution 3374 B (XXX), section III, paragraph 1, of resolution 31/5 C and section III, paragraph 1, of resolution 32/4 B in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments of 1978 and 1979;
3. Decides that, in accordance with the provisions of its resolution 973 (X) of 15 December 1955, there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraph 2 above, their respective share in the Tax Equalization Fund of the estimated staff assessment income of $743,000 approved for the period from 25 October 1978 to 24 July 1979 inclusive;
II
Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Emergency Force at a rate not to exceed $6,082,333 gross ($6 million net) per month far the period from 25 July to 24 October 1979 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of nine months authorized under its resolution 438 (1978) of 23 October 1978, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;
III
1. Stresses the need for voluntary contributions to the United Nations Emergency Force both in cash and in the foam of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General;
2. 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 Djibouti and Viet Nam shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in paragraph 2 (d) and (c), respectively, 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 4 of Assembly resolution 33/11 of 3 November 1978;
2. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions to the United Nations Emergency Force until 24 October 1978 of the Member States listed in paragraph 1 of the present section shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the appropriations apportioned in section I above.
A/33/346/Add.2. Report of Fifth Committee (part III), draft resolution B.
Resolution 33/13 D, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/33/346/Add. 2, adopted by Assembly on 8 December 1978, meeting 75, by recorded vote of 94 to 3, with 11 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Albania, Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
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 Forces 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, 389 (1975) of 28 May 1975, 981 (1975) of 30 November 1975, 390 (1976) of 28 May 1976, 398 (1976) of 30 November 1976, 408 (1977) of 26 May 1977, 420 (1977) of 30 November 1977, 429 (1978) of 31 May 1978 and 441 (1978) of 30 November 1978,
Recalling its resolutions 3101 (XXVIII) of 11 December 1973, 3211 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, 3374 C (XXX) of 2 December 1975, 31/5 D of 22 December 1976, 32/4 C of 2 December 1977, 33/13 A of 3 November 1978 and 33/13 B of 1 December 1978,
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 $7,672,129 authorized and apportioned by section III of Assembly resolution 32/4 C for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 June to 24 October 1978 inclusive;
II
1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $12,159,828 for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 25 October 1978 to 31 May 1979 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 $7,447,895 for the period from 25 October 1978 to 31 May 1979 inclusive among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of the General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments far 1978 and 1979;
(b) To apportion an amount of $4,450,497 for the period from 25 October 1978 to 31 May 1979 inclusive among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and section II, paragraph 2 (b), of resolution 3374 C (XXX) in proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979;
(c) To apportion an amount of $256,572 for the period from 25 October 1978 to 31 May 1979 inclusive among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and section II, paragraph 2 (c), d resolution 3374 C (XXX) in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979;
(d) To apportion an amount of $4,864 for the period from 25 October 1978 to 31 May 1979 inclusive among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (d) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 3374 C (XXX), section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 31/5 D and section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 32/4 C in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1978;
3. Decides that, in accordance with the provisions of its resolution 973(X) of 15 December 1855, there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraph 2 above, their respective share in the Tax Equalization Fund of the estimated staff assessment income of $121,634 approved for the period from 25 October 1978 to 31 May 1979 inclusive;
III
Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $1,682,833 gross ($1,666,000 net) per month for the period from 1 June to 24 October 1979 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 441 (1878) of 30 November 1978, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;
IV
1. 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;
2. 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 Djibouti and Viet Nam shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in paragraph 2 (d) and (c), respectively, 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 4 of Assembly resolution 33/11 of 3 November 1978;
2. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 24 October 1978 of the Member States, requested in paragraph 1 of the present section shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the appropriations apportioned in section II above.
A/C.5/33/L.27. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Ireland, Norway, Panama, Sweden: draft resolution, as orally amended by sponsors, approved by Fifth Committee on 7 December 1978, meeting 53, by recorded vote of 64 to 10, with 11 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Mongolia, Ukrainian, SSR, USSR.
Abstaining: Burma, Burundi, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, France, Madagascar, Malawi, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia.
A/C.5/33/L.29. USSR: draft resolution.
A/33/346/Add.3 and Corr.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part IV), draft resolution A.
Resolution 33/13 E, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/33/346/Add.3 and Corr.1, adopted by Assembly on 14 December 1978, meeting 84, by recorded vote of 105 to 9, with 14 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hale, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Yemen, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, France, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Madagascar, Malawi, Poland, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Yugoslavia.
The General Assembly,
Having regard to the financial position of the Special Account for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force as set forth in the report of the Secretary-General and referring to paragraph 6 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,
Mindful of the fact that it is essential to provide the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force with the necessary financial resources to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities under the relevant Security Council resolutions,
Concerned that the Secretary-General is facing growing difficulties in meeting the obligations of the Forces on a current basis, particularly those due to the troop-contributing Governments,
Concerned that the financial situation of the Forces will soon be reaching a critical stage,
Decides that the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations shall be suspended temporarily in respect of the amount of $17,693,065 which otherwise would have to be surrendered pursuant to these provisions, this amount to be entered in a separately identified account of the United Nations and held in suspense pending a further decision by the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session.
A/C.5/33/L.30. Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ghana, Norway, Panama, Senegal, Sweden: draft resolution, as orally revised by Japan, approved by Fifth Committee on 7 December 1978, meeting 53, by recorded vote of 67 to 10, with 7 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Mongolia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
Abstaining: Burma, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, Italy, Malawi, Poland, Romania.
A/33/346/Add.3 and Corr.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part IV), draft resolution B.
Resolution 33/13 F, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/33/346/Add.3 and Corr.1, adopted by Assembly on 14 December 1978, meeting 84, by recorded vote of 111 to 9, with 9 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Yemen, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Poland, Romania, Sao Tome And Principe.
The General Assembly,
Aware of the special nature of the operations of the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and the difficulties inherent in their financing,
Considering the mounting deficit in the Special Account for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force due to the withholdings of certain Member States of their contributions to the Forces, and the resulting difficulties to pay the troop-contributing Governments the amounts due to them on a current basis, mainly because of the lack of funds in the Special Account,
Convinced of the need to make special provisions for the liquidation of the outstanding obligations of the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force to Governments providing contingents and/or logistic support to the Forces,
1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General and the related comments of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions;
2. Approves the following special arrangements for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force in regard to the application of article IV of the United Nations Financial Regulations, whereby appropriations required in respect of obligations owed to Governments providing contingents and/or logistic support to the Force shall be retained beyond the period stipulated under financial regulations 4.3 and 4.4:
(a) At the end of the period provided in regulation 4.3, any unliquidated obligations of the financial period in question relating to goods supplied and services rendered by Governments for which claims have been received, or which are covered by established reimbursement rates, shall be transferred to accounts payable; such accounts payable shall remain recorded in the Special Account until payment is effected.
(b) Any other unliquidated obligations of the financial period in question owed to Governments for goods supplied and services rendered, as well as other obligations owed to Governments, for which required claims have not yet been received, shall remain valid for an additional period of four years following the end of the twelve-month period provided in regulation 4.3; claims received during this four-year period shall be treated as provided under subparagraph (a) above, if appropriate; at the end of the additional four-year period any unliquidated obligations shall be cancelled and the then remaining balance of any appropriation retained therefore will be surrendered.
Financing of UNIFIL
General Assembly – 8th special session.
Fifth Committee, meetings 1-3.
Plenary meeting 2.
A/S-8/3. Report of Secretary-General.
A/S-8/4. Report of ACABQ.
A/C.4/S-8/L.1. Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ghana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Nepal, Norway, Portugal, Sweden: draft resolution, approved by Fifth Committee on 21 April 1978, meeting 3, by 90 votes to 13, with 3 abstentions.
A/S-8/9. Report of Fifth Committee.
Resolution S-8/2, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/S-8/9, adopted by Assembly on 21 April 1978, meeting 2, by recorded vote of 99 to 14, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Chad, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Poland, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam.
The General Assembly,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, established pursuant to Security Council resolution 425 (1978) of 19 March 1978 for the period from 19 March to 18 September 1978 inclusive, and the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,
Reaffirming its previous decisions regarding the fact that, in order to meet the expenditures caused by such operations, a different procedure from the one applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget of the United Nations is required,
Taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries are in a position to make relatively larger contributions and that the economically less developed countries have a relatively limited capacity to contribute towards peace- keeping operations involving heavy expenditures,
Bearing in mind the special responsibilities of the States permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of such operations, as indicated in General Assembly resolution 1874 (S-IV) of 27 June 1963 and other resolutions of the Assembly,
Urging all concerned to implement strictly Security Council resolution 425 (1978) in all its parts.
I
1. Decides to appropriate an amount of $54 million for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for the period from 19 March to 18 September 1978 inclusive and requests the Secretary-General to maintain the Special Account for the Force;
2. Decides, 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 $33,075,000 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the States permanent members of the Security Council in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978;
(b) To apportion an amount of $19,764,000 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the economically developed Member States which are not permanent members of the Security Council in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978;
(c) To apportion an amount of $1,139,400 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the economically less developed Member States in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978;
(d) To apportion an amount of $21,600 for the above-mentioned six-month period to the following of the economically less developed Member States in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta and Yemen;
3. Decides that, for the purpose of the present resolution, the term "economically less developed Member States" in paragraph 2 (c) above shall mean all Member States except Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, the German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (a) and (d) above;
4. Decides that, in accordance with the provisions of its resolution 973 (X) of 15 December 1955, there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraph 2 above; their respective share in the Tax Equalization Fund of the estimated staff assessment income of $278,000 approved for the period from 19 March to 18 September 1978 inclusive;
5. Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon at a rate not to exceed $6 million per month for the period from 19 September to 31 October 1978 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the initial period of six months, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;
6. Invites voluntary contributions to the United Nations interim Force in Lebanon both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to take all necessary action to ensure that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon is administered with a maximum of efficiency and economy;
II
Calls upon Israel to fulfil its responsibilities under Security Council resolution 425 (1978).
General Assembly – 33rd session
Fifth Committee, meetings 21-24.
Plenary meeting 44.
A/33/292. Report of Secretary-General.
A/33/328. Report of ACABQ.
A/C.5/33/L.10. Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Sweden: draft resolution, approved by Fifth Committee on 27 October 1978, meeting 24, by 67 votes to 12 with 1 abstention.
A/33/347. Report of Fifth Committee.
Resolution 33/14, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/33/347, adopted by Assembly on 3 November 1978, meeting 44, by recorded vote of 114 to 13, with 4 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Mongolia, Poland, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
Abstaining: Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Sao Tome and Principe, Yemen.
The General Assembly,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon as well as the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,
Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, 427 (1978) of 3 May 1978 and 434 (1978) of 18 September 1978,
Recalling its resolution S-8/2 of 21 April 1978,
Reaffirming its previous decisions regarding the fact that, in order to meet the expenditures caused by such operations, a different procedure from the one applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget of the United Nations is required,
Taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries are in a position to make relatively larger contributions and that the economically less developed countries have a relatively limited capacity to contribute towards peace-keeping operations involving heavy expenditures,
Bearing in mind the special responsibilities of the States permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of peace-keeping operations decided in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
I
Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section 1, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 the additional amount of $6,900,000 being the amount of the commitments entered into by the Secretary-General, with the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, under the provisions of Assembly resolution 32/214 of 21 December 1977 for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 March to 18 September 1978 inclusive, in order to meet additional expenses of the Force arising from Security Council resolution 427 (1978) of 3 May 1978, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set forth in Assembly resolution S-8/2;
II
1. Decides to appropriate an amount of $44,568,000 for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for the period from 19 September 1978 to 18 January 1979 inclusive, and requests the Secretary-General to continue to maintain the Special Account for the Force;
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 $27,297,900 for the above-mentioned four-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1978 and 1979;
(b) To apportion an amount of $16,311,888 for the above- mentioned four-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of resolution S-8/2 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1978 and 1979;
(c) To apportion an amount of $940,385 for the above-mentioned four-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of resolution S-8/2 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1978 and 1979;
(d) To apportion an amount of $17,827 for the above-mentioned four-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (d) of resolution S-8/2 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1978 and 1979;
3. Decides that, in accordance with the provisions of as resolution 973 (X) of 15 December 1955, there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraph 2 above, their respective share in the Tax Equalization Fund of the estimated staff assessment income of $370,000 approved for the period from 19 September 1978 to 18 January 1979 inclusive, reduced by $118,000 being the decrease in the estimated staff assessment income for the period from 19 March to 18 September 1978 inclusive;
III
Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon at a rate not to exceed $11,142,000 per month for the period from 19 January to 31 October 1979 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of four months authorized under its resolution 434 (1978) of 18 September 1978, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;
IV
1. Invites voluntary contributions to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to take all necessary action to ensure that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon is administered with a maximum of efficiency and economy;
V
1. Decides that Djibouti and Viet Nam shall be included in the Group of Member States mentioned in section I, paragraph 2 (d) and (c), respectively, and that their contributions for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4 of Assembly resolution 33/11 of 3 November 1978;
2. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions of the Member States listed in paragraph 1 of the present section to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon in respect of the appropriation apportioned under General Assembly resolution S-8/2 for the operation of the Force from 19 March to 18 September 1978 shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be further set off against the appropriations apportioned in section II above.
Other documents
ST/ADM/SER.B/235. Assessment of Member States contributions for financing of UNIFIL for period 19 March to 18 September 1978 inclusive.
ST/ADM/SER.B/238 and Corr.1,2. Assessment of Member States contributions for financing of UNEF from 25 October 1978 to 24 July 1979 inclusive and of UNDOF from 1 June 1978 to 31 May 1979 inclusive.
The search for a peaceful settlement
The situation in the Middle East
Communications
By a letter dated 4 January 1978, the representative of Sri Lanka transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of a communiqué issued by the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries condemning the recent assassination of Said Hamami, representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in London, an act which, it said, threatened efforts to bring about a just and lasting peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem; it asked that justice be swiftly meted out to those responsible.
In a letter of 27 January to the Secretary-General, the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya cited extracts from a speech of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat informing the People's Assembly of Egypt on 21 January that he had requested that the United States President be informed of Egypt's demand that it be armed; Libya's concern resulted from what it said was the overt threat to the peace and security of the African continent contained in the statement, which also constituted an interference in the internal affairs of African States. On 15 February, the Libyan representative transmitted the text of a letter dated 14 February from the Libyan Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his capacity as Chairman of the thirtieth session of the Co-ordinating Committee for the Liberation of Africa, of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), concerning economic cooperation between Israel and South Africa, in particular drawing attention to an announcement by the South African régime on 13 February of a decision to lend Israel $2 billion in exchange for an arrangement under which South Africa would undertake the production of certain export goods in Israel, gaining tariff advantages.
In a letter dated 23 May to the Secretary-General, the representative of Israel drew attention to a cable sent on 21 May by the Israeli Minister of Justice to the President of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization regarding an attack by three terrorists the day before against passengers waiting to board an El Al flight at Orly airport, Paris. A member of the French security forces was killed and several persons injured. A group affiliated with PLO had claimed responsibility for the attack, the cable added.
In a further letter, dated 6 June, Israel drew the attention of the President of the Security Council to a terrorist attack involving the blowing up of a public bus in Jerusalem on 2 June, in which five Israeli children and a tourist were killed and 20 people wounded. Shortly thereafter, the letter said, a constituent of PLO had published a statement taking responsibility for the act.
By a letter dated 12 October, the representative of Mauritania transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of a statement issued by his Government concerning the Camp David agreements between Israel and Egypt, reaffirming its support for the cause of the Palestinian people and appealing to all Arab States to avoid anything that might exacerbate inter-Arab differences or weaken their cohesion and unity.
By a letter of 23 November, the representative of Israel drew the attention of the Secretary-General to the blowing up of a public bus on the Jerusalem-Jericho highway on 19 November, resulting in four deaths and 36 injuries. The letter added that an Arab terrorist group within PLO had taken responsibility for the blast, which had been timed to coincide with the anniversary of Egyptian President Sadat's meeting with Prime Minister Menachem Begin in Jerusalem in 1977.
On 21 December 1978, the representative of Israel drew the attention of the President of the Security Council to three bombing incidents which had taken place in Jerusalem on 17 and 20 December and left 29 people injured. The first involved the blowing up of a public bus, for which a PLO group had taken responsibility, the letter said; the second involved an explosive device that went off at a restaurant and a hand grenade thrown at a group standing near Herod's Gate outside the wall of the old City.
Report of the Secretary-General (17 October)
In pursuance of a General Assembly resolution of 25 November 1977, 27/ the Secretary-General, on 17 October, submitted a comprehensive report covering the developments in the Middle East in all their aspects, including the search for a peaceful settlement. After giving a detailed account of the efforts undertaken by the United Nations in that regard since 1967, including efforts aimed at reconvening the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East, the Secretary-General described the chain of events leading from President Sadat's announcement on 9 November 1977 that he was prepared to go to Israel in order to achieve progress towards a peaceful settlement to the conclusion of two agreements between Egypt and Israel at the end of a summit conference in September 1978 between the President of Egypt, the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the United States at Camp David, near Washington, D.C.
Following the November 1977 initiative, the report noted, the Egyptian President had, at the invitation of the Government of Israel, travelled to Jerusalem on 19 November for a two-day visit. On his return to Egypt, he had invited the parties to the Middle East conflict, including PLO and the two Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Peace Conference, to talks in Cairo to prepare for a resumption of the Geneva Conference. The invitation had been accepted by Israel and the United States. The Secretary-General had designated the Chief Co-ordinator of the United Nations Peace-keeping Missions in the Middle East to be present at the meeting, while at the same time suggesting that consideration be given to the holding of a preparatory meeting at United Nations Headquarters, New York, or any other generally agreed venue, of all those invited to the Cairo meeting.
The Cairo Conference had convened on 14 December 1977 and, after several meetings, had recessed to await the result of a summit meeting between the President of Egypt and the Prime Minister of Israel scheduled to be held at Ismailia, Egypt, on 25 and 26 December. At the conclusion of that meeting, it had been decided to establish two working groups at the ministerial level for political and military matters, respectively.
The two working groups had begun to meet in January 1978 but became inactive shortly thereafter. Subsequently, the United States Government had undertaken an effort to reactivate direct negotiations between Egypt and Israel. This had led to a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the two countries and the Secretary of State of the United States at Leeds Castle, near London, from 17 to 19 July 1978 and, later on, to the Camp David summit conference, following which the United States President had informed the Secretary-General that the President of Egypt and the Prime Minister of Israel had concluded two agreements – one on a framework for peace in the Middle East and the other on a framework for the conclusion of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
Consideration by the General Assembly
The General Assembly considered the report of the Secretary-General when it discussed the situation in the Middle East at five plenary meetings held between 5 and 7 December 1978.
Among the many documents submitted to the Secretary-General during the year on the situation in the Middle East were:
– a note verbale of 23 October from Senegal requesting circulation of the text of a declaration published on 11 October by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, following an extraordinary meeting in New York, by which the Ministers reaffirmed the principles and proclaimed the commitments of their countries on the questions of Palestine and Jerusalem and the problems of the Middle East;
– a note verbale of 15 November from Iraq transmitting a letter of 13 November from PLO enclosing several declarations signed during the previous three months by various Arab municipal officials and citizens, student, teacher and professional unions, and other organizations, opposing the Camp David accords; and
– a note verbale of 1 December from Senegal transmitting the texts of the final declaration, decisions and recommendations of the Jerusalem Committee of the Islamic Conference, which met in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on 19 and 20 November.
On 7 December, the Assembly adopted, by a recorded vote of 100 to 4, with 33 abstentions, resolution 33/29, sponsored by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Chad, the Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Qatar, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia.
By this resolution, the Assembly condemned Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and repeated United Nations resolutions, and declared that a just and lasting settlement of the Middle East problem must be based on a comprehensive solution, under United Nations auspices, which would take into account all aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular the attainment by the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories.
The Assembly called anew for the early convening of the Peace Conference on the Middle East, under United Nations auspices and USSR/United States co-chairmanship, with the participation on an equal footing of all the parties concerned, including PLO.
Further, the Assembly requested the Security Council to take all necessary measures in order to ensure the implementation of the relevant United Nations resolutions and to facilitate the achievement of a comprehensive settlement aiming at the establishment of a just and lasting settlement.
Finally, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to follow up the implementation of this resolution and inform all concerned, including the Co-Chairmen of the Peace Conference, and to report to the Security Council periodically and the Assembly in 1979 on the development of the situation.
(For text of resolution and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
In the debate which preceded the adoption of the resolution, it was again generally emphasized that the situation in the Middle East continued to represent a serious threat to international peace and that efforts towards a peaceful settlement, taking into consideration the interest of all parties concerned, should be urgently pursued.
Several speakers, including the representatives of Austria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal, Somalia, Turkey and Yugoslavia, maintained that the Palestinian question was at the heart of the Middle East problem and that there could be no durable settlement without the realization by the Palestinian People of their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination and the right to their own homeland.
For the representative of Pakistan, the Middle East problem was the direct outcome of the great injustice done to the Palestinian people in 1947 when they were driven out of their homes and their State was partitioned in order to provide a homeland for European Jews. The Palestinians, he said, were as much entitled to exercise the right of self-determination in their own land as any other people. Their existence as an independent nation had been recognized in the 1922 establishment of the Palestine Mandate, long before any corresponding recognition of Israel. At the same time that the United Nations had recommended the creation of Israel, it had also sanctioned the establishment of the Palestinian State, and nothing had occurred since 1947 to invalidate that action.
A number of speakers stressed that a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East problem should be sought within the United Nations, on the basis of the decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. They also urged the reconvening of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East, with the participation of all parties concerned, including PLO.
The German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, the Ivory Coast and Jordan, among others, recalled the joint USSR/United States statement made on 1 October 1977, 28/ which called for a settlement of the Middle East problem covering all the issues involved, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories, the resolution of the Palestinian question, and respect for the right of all States in the area to sovereignty and political independence.
Many spokesmen expressed their Governments' positions with regard to President Sadat's initiative, the negotiations at Camp David and the subsequent agreements concluded between Egypt and Israel.
Some representatives, including those of Egypt, Israel, the United States and a number of Western European countries, supported the agreements and welcomed them as a first step towards a comprehensive settlement.
The representative of the United States said that the Camp David frameworks represented an unprecedented opportunity for the people of the Middle East to find a just, lasting and comprehensive solution of the conflict. The agreements, he said, were firmly rooted in guidelines established by the Security Council by resolutions 242 (1967) 29/ and 338 (1973), 30/ which pointed the way to peace but did not in themselves provide a means to achieve it. The Camp David accords built on that foundation, laying out in more detail the principles and procedures that would govern the next negotiating steps. The accords, he said, offered a practical means for achieving the legitimate goals of all parties.
The representative of Israel said that the events of the past 12 months had created a new reality in the Middle East, precisely because the negotiating process, for the first time, had taken the rights and interests of both sides into account. Direct negotiations between Egypt and Israel on issues which seemed intractable had recently brought the two States very close to the conclusion of the first Arab-Israeli peace treaty. Israel, he said, sought the full implementation of both, Camp David accords and viewed the peace treaty with Egypt as the first step in the search for a peace settlement covering the entire Middle East. As soon as the "rejectionist States came to terms with the reality of a Jewish State in the Middle East, negotiations could begin towards a solution of all the outstanding issues. Resolution 33/29, Israel said, was a regurgitation, with minor changes, of the resolution adopted on this subject the year before. It took no account of developments that had taken place since and was entirely divorced from the realities of the situation to which it purported to relate.
The representative of Egypt said that his country had tried through its initiative to unfreeze the situation in order to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. As a framework for peace in the Middle East, the Camp David documents were only the first step. Egypt was seeking a total withdrawal by Israel from all the occupied Arab lands as well as ensurance of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. The path leading to peace, he said, was an open and broad one, and all those who were convinced of the need to bring a just and lasting peace to the area had a duty to join in the efforts being made.
The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, speaking on behalf of the nine member States of the European Community, said that the results reached at Camp David had renewed hope for a settlement, and those States hoped that subsequent negotiations would lead to a just, comprehensive and lasting peace. Meanwhile, no obstacle should impede the negotiating process. The nine, in a London declaration of 29 June 1977, had recognized and called for the realization of Israel's right to a safe and guaranteed existence, and the right of the Palestinian people to give effective expression to their national identity, which would have to take into account the need for a homeland. The resolution, however, did not reflect the balance to be found in that statement, was not consistent with their views on many points of substance concerning the settlement of the conflict, and at times prejudged questions which, in their view, should be the subject of negotiations between all interested parties at a time when important developments were taking place.
The representative of Austria said that the agreements achieved at Camp David were greeted with hope in his country as in most European countries. His Government was nevertheless aware that the agreements covered only part of the problem and had to be viewed as a step towards a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict, one with which the other Arab States could associate themselves, and one which had to include the necessary provisions for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
Similar views were expressed by Greece, Japan, Nepal and Portugal. Other delegations, however, expressed serious doubts as to whether the agreements constituted a step towards real peace in the Middle East, while still others saw in them a means of preventing the Palestinian people from realizing their inalienable rights.
The representative of the USSR said that the situation in the Middle East had been gravely complicated by the recent attempts, through separate deals between Egypt and Israel, to undermine an over-all settlement. Agreements concluded on such a basis, he said, could only be regarded as a conspiracy at the expense of the Arabs, with the purpose of helping Israel to consolidate its position in the occupied territories and of preventing the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Such agreements were at variance with the principles contained in the pertinent Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, which were generally recognized as a basis for a just settlement in the Middle East. It was clear that the Camp David agreements could neither resolve any of the cardinal problems of the region nor remove any of the factors which had given rise to the Middle East conflict.
The USSR continued to emphasize the need for a prompt, fundamental and comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, in keeping with United Nations resolutions, on the basis of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied in 1967, and the exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination and the right to form their own independent State on the basis of international guarantees for the security of all States in the area, and their right to an independent existence and development.
Similar views were expressed by the representatives of other Eastern European countries, including Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary and Poland, as well as by Cuba. The Ukrainian SSR added that the agreements said nothing about the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all occupied Arab territories, nor did they acknowledge the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to create their own national State; in other words, they ignored the basic prerequisites for a settlement as contained in United Nations resolutions.
Representatives of Arab countries who took part in the debate, including those of Algeria, Bahrain, Democratic Yemen, Qatar, Somalia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, generally emphasized the need for a comprehensive settlement on the granting of national rights to the Palestinian people and on the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem.
The representative of Kuwait stated that the issue of Israeli troop withdrawal was a sine qua non for the establishment of peace in the area. The incorporation of Arab territory into Israel, he said, whether under the pretext of the Bible or security, would undoubtedly sow the seeds of discord and confrontation. The Assembly's role was to reaffirm its support for the principle of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force. Israel must be made to understand that it stood alone in its violation of the Charter.
The representative of Jordan said that the solution of the Middle East conflict should be based on justice and equity and the right of every people to self-determination and statehood. It should be sought within the framework of the United Nations and its resolutions, with the participation of all the parties to the conflict, including PLO and the joint USSR/United States statement on the convening of the Geneva Peace Conference must be implemented. Also, Israel's attitude must change; it must accept to live and let live in amity and equity with its Palestinian and other Arab neighbours.
The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said that a just peace in the Middle East must be comprehensive, and based on justice and equality. The settlement must include the exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, as provided for in United Nations resolutions, and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the occupied Arab territories. Any attempt to settle the problem without taking those elements into consideration was doomed to failure. The Palestinian people and the Arab States had rejected the Camp David agreements precisely because they failed to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinians and because they brought no change in Israel's expansionist policies. The agreements' promise of local autonomy to the Palestinian people fell far short of their legitimate ambition to build an independent State.
Also rejecting the Camp David agreements, the representative of PLO said that a just and desirable peace in the Middle East could not be achieved outside the framework of the United Nations or by means of bilateral agreements. Any attempt to settle the Middle East crisis not aimed at enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable national rights would fail. A just solution, he said, also required recognition of PLO, which was the embodiment of the very essence of the Palestinian people and of their unity.
Nigeria said that Israel's acts of land grabbing and its ruthless pursuit of territorial expansion at the expense of its Arab neighbours constituted the most formidable obstacles to peace in the Middle East. The prevailing situation, according to Zambia, was a direct result of the intransigence of Israel.
The representative of Albania said that the Arab people should beware of the intrigues of the Zionists and the two super-powers in the name of an alleged peace. Real peace could not be established until the Israelis withdrew from the occupied territories and until the Palestinians' rights to self-determination and sovereignty were granted.
Romania believed that the threat of war in the area would continue to exist as long as the territories occupied by force were not restored to their Arab owners. The only way to solve the whole complex of problems was through a political process, a process of negotiations among the parties directly concerned.
The representatives of Cyprus and India saw no contradiction between the national rights of the Palestinian Arab people and the right of the State of Israel to exist. Both were equally entitled to exist in peace within recognized and secure borders. The United Nations could play a role in securing those rights for both parties, India added, through its peace-keeping procedures and arrangements.
The representative of China, who in accordance with his Government's consistent position with regard to Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) did not participate in the vote, reaffirmed Chinese support for the Arab and Palestinian people in their struggle to recover their lost territories and for the restoration of their national rights. He also expressed China's opposition to super-power rivalry, interference and expansion in the Middle East.
Australia said that it had abstained in the vote on the resolution because of the absence of any acknowledgement of the Camp David accords, which it considered an important step towards a comprehensive and just peace in the region. Costa Rica felt that the resolution prejudged the outcome of partial efforts being made, which should be recognized and encouraged. Bolivia and Chile said that they felt the resolution might hamper the negotiations being conducted by the two nations. Finland said that it had abstained because the text left important elements of the situation unrecognized.
The question of Palestine
Communications (January December)
In a letter dated 17 January 1978 to the Secretary-General, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People stated that the Committee wished to draw attention to the fundamental principles relating to the Palestine question which it had set out in its 1976 report; 31/ its recommendations had been endorsed by the General Assembly on 24 November 1976. 32/ The Committee Chairman said he was convinced that the Secretary-General would do everything in his power to ensure that those principles were applied in any effort aimed at establishing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
On 18 January, the Committee Chairman addressed letters on the same lines to the President of the thirty-second (1977) session of the General Assembly and to the President of the Security Council. On the same date, he addressed identical letters on that subject to the representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the USSR and the United States, as well as a similar letter to the representative of Israel in which he also expressed the hope that the Government of Israel would make a positive contribution to the application of the fundamental principles in any effort to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. These letters as well as a telegram of support for the cause of the Palestinian people, which the Chairman sent to the Chairman of the Executive Committee of PLO, Yassir Arafat, on 11 January, were transmitted to the Secretary-General on 19 January.
A number of other communications to the Secretary-General also addressed the question of Palestine either exclusively or among other subjects:
– by a note verbale of 2 June, the representative of Cuba transmitted the final communiqué of the Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries issued at Havana on 20 May;
– by a letter of 6 September, the representative of Yugoslavia transmitted the documents of the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Belgrade from 25 to 30 July;
– the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, which met in extraordinary session in New York on 17 August, reiterated, in a communiqué issued and transmitted by the representative of Sri Lanka on that date, provisions of a resolution adopted at the Belgrade Conference of Foreign Ministers reaffirming their total support for the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people, under the leadership of PLO to recover their inalienable rights in Palestine;
– by another letter, of 2 October, Sri Lanka transmitted the texts of a communiqué issued by those Foreign Ministers on 2 October following an extraordinary meeting in New York to consider action on issues before the forthcoming Assembly session, including the question of Palestine;
– by a letter of 14 June, the representative of Senegal transmitted the texts of resolutions on both the Middle East question and the Palestine problem adopted at the Ninth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, which met at Dakar in April; the same representative transmitted by notes verbales of 23 October and 1 December, respectively, the text of a declaration issued on 11 October at an extraordinary meeting in New York of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the States members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference following their discussion of the questions of Palestine and Jerusalem and the problem of the Middle East, as well as the texts of the final declaration, decisions and recommendations issued by the Jerusalem Committee of that Organization meeting in Jeddah on 19 and 20 November; and
– by a letter of 8 November, the representative of Iraq transmitted a statement issued by the Ninth Arab Summit Conference in Baghdad on 6 November.
Report of the Committee on Palestinian Rights
In its 1978 report to the General Assembly, which it presented on 22 September, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People reviewed its activities during the year, particularly its efforts to bring to the attention of all States and officials directly concerned with the Palestine question those points within its mandate which the Committee considered essential for a Middle East settlement.
In the light of events in Lebanon, the Committee authorized its Chairman to address the President of the Security Council – which he did by a letter of 20 March (see p. 302) – unanimously associating the Committee with the provisions of Council resolution 425 (1978) of 19 March, which called upon Israel to cease immediately its military action against the territorial integrity of Lebanon and to withdraw forthwith from Lebanese territory.
The report also noted the Committee's reactions to developments in the occupied territories, as expressed in letters to the Secretary-General. By a letter dated 21 June, the Chairman observed that Israel's clarification regarding a plan for autonomy in the territories confirmed that Israel had no intention of honouring relevant United Nations resolutions, and that it constituted a violation of the principle of self-determination. In a letter of 30 June, the Acting Chairman outlined the main elements contained in a number of petitions received from Palestinians in the occupied territories; the elements were that PLO was the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people whose United Nations-affirmed rights were not subject to bargaining and who rejected any solution that did not clearly recognize their right to self-determination and to establish their own independent State. In a letter of 22 August, the Committee Chairman requested action to ensure attention to complaints by Palestinian prisoners and detainees in the occupied territories communicated to him by PLO. (See also p. 348.)
The report also noted Committee representation at various conferences and meetings, and the establishment, in compliance with an Assembly resolution of 2 December 1977, 33/ of the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights within the United Nations Secretariat and the guidance given to it by the Committee regarding themes for studies, a scenario for a film, subjects for pamphlets and the scope of bulletins to be issued by the Special Unit.
In the recommendations presented in the report, the Committee unanimously reiterated the validity of recommendations it had made to the General Assembly in 1976. These included the date originally suggested for the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces – 1 June 1977 – whose retention was a symbolic reminder of the urgency of a peaceful solution under United Nations auspices. The Committee felt that, had implementation of its recommendations been started, conflict in the area might have been avoided.
The report reiterated the four basic principles relating to the problem of Palestine within the Middle East situation:
(1) the question of Palestine was at the heart of the Middle East problem and consequently no solution to that problem could be envisaged without taking into account the rights of the Palestinian people;
(2) the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to return to their homes and to self-determination, independence and national sovereignty would contribute to a solution of the crisis in the Middle East;
(3) the participation of PLO on an equal footing with other parties, on the basis of relevant Assembly resolutions, 34/ was indispensable in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations; and
(4) acquisition of territory by force was inadmissible and on Israel devolved the obligation to withdraw completely and quickly from all territory so occupied.
International Day of Solidarity with
the Palestinian People (29 November)
In compliance with the Assembly's resolution of 2 December 1977, 35/ the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights, in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, organized on 29 November 1978 the first annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. A special meeting of the Committee was held at United Nations Headquarters, a special exhibition of photographs and posters was presented, and publications were prepared and distributed on various aspects of Palestinian rights. Similar arrangements were made at the Geneva Office of the United Nations. A film prepared by the Department of Public Information was not completed in time for release.
Messages in commemoration of the International Day, expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people in the struggle to secure their inalienable rights, were transmitted to the Secretary- General from the heads of State or Government of Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Democratic Kampuchea, Egypt, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Qatar, the USSR and Yugoslavia.
Messages were also read out on behalf of the heads of State or Government of Bahrain, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, Iraq, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as on behalf of the Chairman of the Executive Committee of PLO. In addition, statements were made by the Secretary-General, the Presidents of the Assembly and the Security Council, representatives of the regional groups of States at the United Nations, the Chairmen of the Special Committee against Apartheid and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and representatives of OAU, PLO, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States. A number of other statements from heads of State, foreign ministers and representatives of international organizations and liberation movements were also received.
The messages were subsequently circulated in a special bulletin issued by the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights.
Consideration by the General Assembly
The General Assembly considered the question of Palestine at nine plenary meetings held between 27 November and 7 December 1978, on the last day of which it adopted three resolutions sponsored by 34 countries, on the subject.
The first (resolution 33/28 A) was adopted by a recorded vote of 97 to 19, with 25 abstentions. By the resolution, the Assembly expressed grave concern that no just solution to the Palestine problem had been achieved, which problem therefore continued to aggravate the Middle East conflict, of which it was the core, and to endanger international peace and security. The Assembly reaffirmed that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East could not be established without the achievement, inter alia, of a just solution of the problem of Palestine on the basis of the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It called once more for the invitation of PLO to participate on an equal footing with other parties in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East held under United Nations auspices.
The Assembly declared that the validity of the agreements purporting to solve the problem of Palestine required that they be within the framework of the United Nations and its Charter and resolutions on the basis of the full attainment and exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and with PLO participation.
The Assembly endorsed the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, expressed regret that they had not been implemented and that the Security Council had not taken a decision on them, as urged by the Assembly in 1977, 36/ and again urged the Council to do so as soon as possible. In the event that the Council failed to do so by 1 June 1979, the Assembly requested and authorized the Committee to consider the situation and make appropriate suggestions.
(For text of resolution 33/28 A, list of sponsors and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
The second text (resolution 33/28 B) was adopted by a recorded vote of 103 to 14, with 24 abstentions. Expressing appreciation to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People for its efforts, the Assembly asked it to keep the situation under review and to report and make suggestions to the Assembly or to the Security Council as appropriate. The Assembly authorized the Committee to continue its efforts to promote implementation of its recommendations, to be represented at appropriate conferences, and to report thereon to the Assembly. Further, it requested the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, established under General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 November 1948, 37/ to co-operate fully with the Committee. The Assembly also decided to circulate the Committee's report to all competent United Nations bodies and urged them to take the necessary action for implementation of the Committee's recommendations. The Secretary-General was asked to continue to provide the Committee with all necessary facilities.
(For text of resolution 33/28 B, list of sponsors and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
The third decision (resolution 33/28 C) was adopted by a recorded vote of 98 votes to 17, with 26 abstentions. The Assembly thereby took note of the establishment of the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights and requested the Secretary-General to ensure that it continued to discharge its tasks in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and under its guidance. The Secretary-General was also requested to consider, in consultation with the Committee, the strengthening and possible reorganization and renaming of Special Unit, and to ensure the full co-operation of the Department of Public Information and other Secretariat units with the Special Unit. The Assembly invited all Governments and organizations to lend their co-operation to both bodies.
(For text of resolution 33/28 C, list of sponsors and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
The Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, during the debate in the General Assembly, said that unfortunately the Security Council had been incapable of acting during the year on the Committee's recommendations because of the unconstructive attitude of certain of its Western members. This paralysis of the Council, which was creating a dangerous situation for peace in the Middle East, was difficult to understand because the recommendations were all based on United Nations resolutions, he said. Partiality by those countries encouraged Israel's failure to implement those resolutions. Israel continued its refusal to withdraw from the occupied territories, and continued to strengthen its settlements,
claiming sovereignty over Palestinian lands. He noted the call of the July 1978 Belgrade Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries for a special session of the Assembly on the question of Palestine should the Security Council continue to be paralysed, and expressed the hope that the permanent members who were hostile to the Committee would be more flexible. In reply to criticism that the Committee had not taken into account the rights of Israel in its recommendations, he pointed out that the Committee's mandate did not extend to that area; Israel's rights did not need any defenders because Israel not only enjoyed its rights but went beyond them, while Palestinian attempts to gain their rights were constantly frustrated.
The Chairman said that the Committee was not opposed in principle to other peace efforts, but they should take into account the rights of all parties concerned, who also should participate in the efforts.
Introducing his Committee's report, the Rapporteur said that in the Committee's recommendations a prescription for peace had been drawn up and had won the endorsement of the international community, but it was a great disappointment that nothing tangible had been done to give the Palestinians cause for optimism. Since the Security Council had taken no decisive action, the Committee perforce had had to limit itself to reaffirming the validity of its recommendations, stressing the urgency of their implementation, making its work more widely known, and providing guidance for studies and film production to make the evaluation of the Palestine question better understood. That question was central to the Middle East situation and must be dealt with through participation of the recognized representatives of the Palestinians for a lasting solution.
The PLO representative said that for 30 years the Assembly had sought a solution to end the tragedy of the Palestinian Arab people who had suffered from the greatest political crime of contemporary society: their land despoiled, their national entity destroyed, their people expelled and their human rights lost. At Camp David, the internationally recognized rights of the Palestinians to self-determination and independence had been ignored. He said that the Camp David agreement did not mention the inalienable national rights of the Palestinians, ignored PLO, violated international law, failed to mention any obligation regarding Jerusalem, did not make the removal of Israeli settlements mandatory, and sanctioned Israeli military presence in the occupied territories. His organization considered those accords, which had been concluded without consultation with the Palestinian people, as bilateral agreements between Egypt and Israel which in no way constituted a framework for a just and lasting peace. They were an effort to divide the Palestinians in the occupied territories from those in exile, and to dilute the international personality of the Palestinians. The Palestinians and Arab countries rejected those accords.
The PLO representative said that PLO believed that the United Nations was the most suitable framework for the establishment of a just peace, and appealed to the Assembly to redouble its efforts in this regard.
Representatives of the Arab States who spoke – including those of Algeria, Bahrain, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen – emphasized the role that PLO, as the representative of the Palestinian people and the guardian of their inalienable rights, had to play in efforts to reach a solution to the problem of Palestine. That problem, which they said Israel wished to reduce to a problem of refugees, was in fact the heart of the question of the Middle East; Israeli intransigence and ignoring of United Nations resolutions was the reason for lack of progress towards a solution.
A number of these States, as well as others, including Cuba, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Mongolia and the USSR, referred to the unanimous rejection of the Camp David accords by the leaders of the Arab States at the Arab Summit Conference in Baghdad in November 1978 because it was felt that those agreements prejudiced the rights of the Palestinian and Arab peoples in Palestine and the occupied territories, took place outside the framework of collective Arab responsibility, and would not lead to the just peace to which the Arab nation aspired.
The representative of Jordan said that Israel could not continue to justify its actions on claims of security. Its autonomy plan allowed it to follow a policy of unrestricted colonization. There were two approaches to the Palestine problem. One avenue was an amicable, just and functional solution based on relevant United Nations resolutions such as Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 38/ and General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 November 1948 39/ on the right to return. The solution should be negotiated and implemented by all parties to the conflict in order to be workable; Israel could not alone decide with whom it would negotiate. The second avenue was to a non-solution, if Israel persisted in its policy of raw power ignoring norms of responsible international behaviour.
The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said that, unfortunately, the United Nations thus far had proved incapable of bringing about a genuine solution involving the liberation of the Palestinian people. The reasons for this failure were that the United States supported Israeli aggression, allowed Israel to arm and attached no importance to United Nations resolutions on the subject. Until the Palestinians achieved an independent status and until Israel renounced its Zionist doctrine, total peace could not be achieved. Israel could find security only in peace, which first required its evacuation of all occupied territories.
Oman said that the United Nations had recognized the rights of the Palestinians for 30 years, since its adoption of resolution 181 (II) in 1947, 40/ which provided for their right to an independent State; however, the resolution had been consigned to the archives. After four wars, Oman said, Israel occupied 64 per cent of the Palestinian territory as well as Egyptian and Syrian territory.
The Sudan and Yemen said that the conflict in the Middle East was first and foremost between the indigenous people who were living peacefully in their land and waves of alien immigrants whose only goal was to colonize Palestine, substituting themselves for the indigenous people.
The representative of the USSR stressed that a solution of the Palestine problem was significant not only for the Arab people of Palestine but also for the fate of peace and security in the Middle East and in the whole world. A just and lasting peace required an over-all settlement of which an integral part must be the legitimate rights of those people to self-determination and to form their own State. Israel's policy was designed to ensure that the Palestinians remained exiled and dispersed without a national existence and to destroy PLO. The Camp David agreements were separate deals designed to undermine the national liberation struggle of the Arab peoples, to consolidate occupation of Arab lands and to impart a semblance of legality to Israeli occupation and annexation. Authentic peace in the Middle East was possible only through the collective efforts of all parties concerned, including PLO, especially through the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East.
Other Eastern European States also rejected the policy of separate deals as leading to further dangerous complications, and agreed with the view of the USSR that negotiations should be conducted under United Nations auspices, within the framework of a reconvened Geneva Peace Conference. Afghanistan, Cuba, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Viet Nam held similar views.
Bulgaria and the German Democratic Republic referred to a statement of 23 November 1978 by the member States of the Warsaw Treaty organization which reiterated the policy of those countries based on principles they considered could bring about a comprehensive Middle East settlement – the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories, the realization of the inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine to self-determination, including its rights to independence and the formation of its own independent State; and the establishment of international guarantees of the inviolability of the frontiers of all States in the Middle East. These points were also emphasized in the debate by the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland and the Ukrainian SSR.
The representative of Poland said that Israel's expansionist policies, exemplified in its settlements, and its negative attitude towards the implementation of United Nations resolutions seriously hindered a Middle East settlement on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and other relevant resolutions. A just and lasting solution had to take into account the legitimate rights and interests of all States and peoples in the region.
The Romanian representative said that one of the main goals of the United Nations was to promote the right of all peoples to self-determination. International recognition of the Palestinian people as a distinct national entity had been attained, but their national rights could be fully exercised only within an independent State, which would be a corner-stone for peace. Israel must understand that its own security was linked with the guarantee of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. The Lebanese representative pointed out that Lebanon viewed the issue from a special perspective because, as the only current battleground in the Middle East, it had a vital interest in peace. The Palestine problem was a human problem involving millions who constituted a "Diaspora in revolt" which would continue until it achieved its national identity.
The representative of Egypt declared that the Palestinian people indisputably had a right to self-determination, and its denial was the reason for the unique Palestinian tragedy. Egypt strove to make it possible for the Arabs to recover their rights and to end the occupation of Arab territories; the Israeli evacuation of Sinai under the Camp David framework would open the way for the recovery of Palestinian rights and sovereignty over their national territory. Israel could not claim sovereignty over the West Bank, of which Jerusalem was an integral part, or the Gaza Strip because sovereignty belonged to the persons living in those territories. The Camp David documents, he said, made clear the need for the participation of all parties involved in the conflict before a settlement of the question of Palestine could be arrived at, which would preserve the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. It was the responsibility of the United Nations to seize the opportunity to break the deadlock, resist obstructive attitudes and achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. He hoped that those who attacked Egypt would realize that it had always provided and would continue to provide support for the Palestinian people.
The representative of Israel said that the Middle East stood at a crucial turning point in history with the opportunity to break out of a seemingly endless cycle of violence into a new era of peace and co-operation. But efforts were being made to sabotage the peace process between Israel, Egypt and the United States which had just begun, and the General Assembly had not tried to extend it to other parties. Instead of encouraging negotiations between the parties themselves, as called for by Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the Assembly had endorsed recommendations designed to bypass the negotiating process. Its current three-part resolution was unacceptable to Israel in all its parts. The Assembly's negativism was inspired by the so-called PLO, he said, which rejected resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), rejected the existence of Israel and dominated the Committee on the rights of the Palestinians. The Special Unit on Palestinian Rights, he added, was a PLO propaganda outlet improperly paid for by United Nations funds. The Assembly's support for PLO was support for terrorism and it had seen fit to celebrate on 29 November its solidarity with the terrorists themselves. Under the terms of the Camp David peace agreements, the representative continued, the Israeli military government and civilian administration would withdraw from Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district when a self-governing authority was freely elected by their inhabitants the Israel Defence Forces would be redeployed in those areas for security purposes. The final status of those areas would be negotiated during the following five years. Some States, which he called "rejectionist" States, were trying to defeat this process, but Israel was ready to negotiate peace treaties with all its neighbours.
The representative of the United States said that the United Nations must break the sterility of debate and lack of progress on the Palestine question that had persisted since 1948. Efforts to solve the Palestinian problem must recognize that there were 3 million people who identified themselves as Palestinians, one third in the West Bank and Gaza, with a strong sense of identity. At Camp David, efforts had been made to devise a framework for progress through negotiations towards a just, equitable solution. Those efforts were rooted in the guidelines of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). The agreements reached provided a more detailed statement of the principles and procedures that would govern the negotiations. For the first time, they provided the means for the Palestinians to have an effective voice in the determination of their own future, and recognized that there were dimensions of the question beyond the humanitarian which must be addressed. It was essential to take full advantage of what was the most promising effort ever made to resolve the Palestinian question which was of central importance to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East to which the United States was committed.
Greece and Sweden looked upon the accords as a possible step in the right direction, while observing that the aim was a comprehensive solution seen as just and equitable by all the parties concerned. Argentina, Bolivia and the Dominican Republic could not support the provision of resolution 33/28 A which denied the validity of initiatives seeking to achieve peace in the area.
The current resolutions, the United States added, did not advance the cause of peace. In purporting to support the aspirations of the Palestinian people, the resolutions attempted to advance the cause of an organization which had not accepted as the basis for peace resolution 242 (1967) and the concept of peaceful negotiations, attempted to undermine developments which promised progress, and allowed the use of the Organization's limited financial resources for partisan, unconstructive and one-sided activities, such as those performed by the Committee and the Special Unit.
A number of States, however, expressed support for the work done by the Committee and endorsed its recommendations. These included Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Guyana, Hungary, Kuwait, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Pakistan, Turkey, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, the United Republic of Cameroon and Yugoslavia. Kuwait added that the acceptance by PLO of the Committee's report added special importance to it.
Morocco, Oman, Somalia and Viet Nam also expressed gratification concerning the creation and work of the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights.
Argentina felt that some of the recommendations had lost a part of their value owing mainly to the time which had elapsed since their formulation. Nepal felt the report did not demonstrate a realistic approach to the question since it failed to take into consideration the reality of the existence of the State of Israel; some portions of the recommendations could not be implemented without recognizing that fact.
The representative of China said that the Arab and Palestinian people engaged in their just struggle constituted an important force in the current struggle of the worlds people to fight aggression and great-power hegemonism and win and safeguard national independence. In an irresistible historical trend, the situation would become more favourable to the Palestinians, who had won broad international support, and more unfavourable to Israel, which had become even more isolated and which had refused to recognize the national rights of the Palestinian people and to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Israel's intransigence resulted from the backing and abetment of the super-powers motivated by their respective global and strategic needs and rivalry over the Middle East. One of these super-powers backed Israel with military and economic aid; the other harboured ulterior motives and had sent a steady stream of manpower to Israel, and sowed dissension among the Arab States by widening their differences to undermine their unity.
Although it had voted in favour of the resolutions, China maintained its reservations on some of the resolutions referred to therein.
The Swedish representative said that there were two essential elements for a viable Middle East settlement: Israel's right of existence and the Palestinian people's right to self- determination, which was central to the wider issue. The basis for a comprehensive and lasting solution must be Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), whose principles must be supplemented by recognition of Palestinian national rights, including their right to express their national identity within a State of their own, living in peace with Israel. In Sweden's view, PLO was the most representative spokesman of the Palestinian Arabs, although Sweden did not accept without reservation all its political aims and methods. One of the most serious obstacles to peace was the Israeli settlements policy in the occupied territories, a policy which Israel should reconsider.
Malaysia added that recent measures in this regard were clearly provocative acts which could only make a solution more difficult. Peru also felt that both the question of Palestine and the problem of the Middle East should be resolved in the context of the basic guidelines laid down in resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
Speaking on behalf of the nine member States of the European Community, the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany reiterated the principles for a Middle East settlement which the nine had set out in their London Declaration of 29 June 1977: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force; the need for Israel to end the territorial occupation which it had maintained since the conflict in 1967; respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every State in the area and its right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries; and the recognition that, in the establishment of a just and lasting peace, account must be taken of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.
The view of the nine States was that Israel should recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, the Arab side, including the Palestinians, should recognize Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which had been accepted by both Israel and its neighbours, were a basis for a meaningful and successful peace-making process. It was hoped that the Camp David accords would prove to be an important step towards a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement, which required the participation in negotiations of representatives of all parties to the conflict, including the Palestinians. The spokesman for the European Community added that the Committees recommendations suffered from the same fundamental lack of balance as the resolution that had created the Committee.
The representative of Sri Lanka pointed out that the three-part resolution was sponsored by the members of the working group of non-aligned countries on the question of Palestine. The countries of the non-aligned movement had reaffirmed total support for the struggle of the Palestinian people to recover their inalienable rights in Palestine and had called for intensification of co-ordination between that movement and PLO. The evacuation of territories occupied by the force was vital; Israel, however, was intensifying its settlements policy, making a solution more difficult and the situation more explosive and a threat to international peace and security. It was the duty of the United Nations to play an expanded and more in____ role in promoting a just settlement and the implementation of such a settlement.
Guyana, India and Malaysia held that the United Nations bore primary responsibility for the problem of Palestine, since it was responsible for its partition, and had a moral obligation to respond positively to the pleas of the Palestinian people and to help them in their just cause. The Security Council, as the custodian of international peace and security, was urged to deal with this problem effectively by, among others, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Hungary, Kuwait and Nigeria.
The negative attitude of certain members was blamed for lack of action by Afghanistan, the German Democratic Republic, Iraq and Viet Nam.
Further communications
By a letter of 12 December, Israel transmitted to the President of the Security Council documentation to support its contention that Arab States which during the discussion had invoked General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 41/ on the future government of Palestine – envisaging the creation of a Palestinian Arab State and a Jewish State – had rejected and defied that resolution following its adoption.
By letters dated 16 November and 20 December to the Secretary-General, the representative of Israel registered his Government's strong objection to a two-part study issued by the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat, which surveyed the origins and evolution of the Palestine problem from 1917 to 1977. The letters charged that the study was propaganda designed to give currency to a completely misleading version of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that United Nations machinery and funds had been misused; annexed was a schedule of illustrations in support of charges.
By a letter of 21 December to the Secretary-General, the Israeli representative registered his Government's strong protest against an exhibit at United Nations Headquarters from 29 November to 3 December, presented by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which, he said, had been mounted by PLO and represented a misuse of United Nations facilities.
By a letter of 23 November to the Secretary-General, the representative of Israel requested that passages in a film being produced by the Department of Public Information under the guidance of the Committee, showing Israeli representatives speaking in the General Assembly, be deleted.
Assistance to the Palestinian people
Pursuant to a 1977 Economic and Social Council resolution, 42/ the Secretary-General in May 1978 submitted to the Council the first part of an annual report on assistance to the Palestinian people. Additional sections were presented in July 1978.
The report contained information from agencies and organizations within the United Nations system on action taken by them to intensify efforts to identify the social and economic needs of the Palestinian people. The organizations had also been asked by the Council to consult with PLO in establishing and implementing projects to ensure the improvement of the social and economic conditions of those people.
Information received from the International Labour Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Universal Postal Union, the International Telecommunication Union, the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund, the World Food Programme, and the Economic Commission for Western Asia (ECWA) was presented in the report.
The Council took note of the Secretary-General's report on 21 July 1978 by decision 1978/43 which it adopted, without objection, on the recommendation of its Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee. The decision had been orally proposed by the Chairman of that Committee following informal consultations and approved there without objection on 19 July. (For decision, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
At the June/July 1978 session of the UNDP Governing Council, a PLO representative addressed the Council as an observer, cited the needs of the Palestinian people and asked the Council for assistance in this respect. In a response following the Governing Council's discussions, the UNDP Administrator said that since 1976 UNDP had been in touch with the Palestinian National Fund regarding project ideas and the procedure for implementing the Economic and Social Council's 1976 43/ and 1977 44/ resolutions on assistance to the Palestinian people, with the ECWA Executive Secretary, and with the PLO representative to ECWA to whom on 3 May 1978 UNDP'S position regarding implementation of the resolutions had been explained. Such UNDP efforts would continue within the mandate available to it, the Administrator said.
On 20 December, the General Assembly took into consideration the Secretary-General's report, the report of the 1978 session of the UNDP Governing Council and the response of the Administrator, and endorsed the resolutions of the Economic and Social Council concerning assistance to the Palestinian people. The Assembly called upon UNDP, in consultation with the agencies and United Nations organizations, to intensify its efforts, in co-ordination with ECWA, to implement the Council's resolutions so as to improve the social and economic conditions of the Palestinian people by identifying their social and economic needs, establishing concrete projects and providing funds for this purpose.
The Assembly took these actions when it adopted resolution 33/147, on the recommendation of the Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, by a recorded vote of 102 to 5, with 35 abstentions. The text of the resolution, submitted by 37 sponsors, had been approved by the Second Committee on 12 December by a recorded vote of 93 to 5, with 33 abstentions. (For text of resolution, list of sponsors and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Before voting on the text, the Second Committee first rejected – by a recorded vote, taken at the request of Saudi Arabia, of 36 in favour to 65 against, with 30 abstentions – an Australian proposal that consideration of the text be deferred to the Assembly's 1979 session, inasmuch as consensus did not seem possible.
Speaking in explanation of vote, the Federal Republic of Germany, on behalf of the nine member States of the European Economic Community, said that, even though those countries agreed that assistance should be given to the Palestinian people through the United Nations system, they could not vote in favour of the resolution because it called for implementation of other resolutions with which they disagreed; moreover, it might have an adverse effect on United Nations assistance programmes.
Israel considered the resolution a manoeuvre for PLO entry into other organizations and specialized agencies of the United Nations system as it had done in ECWA. It said that the resolution was inspired by narrow political interests and did not reflect a sincere preoccupation with Palestinians economic and social conditions, and that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East was the United Nations agency for assisting Palestinian Arabs.
In the view of the United States, the resolution sought to use United Nations assistance programmes for political ends. While it supported assistance for the Palestinian people, the United States rejected Council resolutions referred to in the resolution that had been instrumental in heightening the political importance of a group. The issue was not whether voluntary United Nations assistance should be provided to the Palestinians but whether it should be channelled through PLO.
Sweden, speaking also on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, stated that these countries recognized that the international community should provide economic and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. However, they had been unable to support a decision which might have long-term harmful effects on the United Nations development system, in particular UNDP.
Related General Assembly decisions
The General Assembly at its 1978 session adopted a number of additional resolutions related to the search for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.
By resolution 33/71 A of 14 December, the Assembly expressed concern over rapid Israeli military build-up, evidence of Israeli attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and in particular the use by Israel of cluster bombs against refugee camps and civilian targets in southern Lebanon. Recognizing that the continued escalation of Israeli armament constituted a threat to international peace and security, it called for international cooperative action to avert this threat. In particular, it asked the Security Council to call on all States, under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 45/ to refrain from supplying military arms and equipment, fissionable material or nuclear technology to Israel and to ensure that supplies dill not reach Israel through other parties. It also requested the Council to establish machinery to supervise these measures. (See p. 63.)
The Assembly repeated its strong condemnation of the growing collaboration in political, military, economic and other fields between Israel and South Africa when, by resolution 33/183 D of 24 January 1979, it reaffirmed that such collaboration encouraged the racist régime in South Africa to persist with its policy of apartheid and was a hostile act against the oppressed people of South Africa and the entire African continent. The Assembly demanded that Israel terminate all forms of collaboration with South Africa and asked the Special Committee against Apartheid to keep the matter under constant review. (See p. 196.)
Israel and other States which had not ended their collaboration with South Africa in the nuclear field, in particular France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States, were called upon to do so by resolution 33/183 G of the same date; they were also called on to take measures to prevent such collaboration by corporations, institutions and other bodies and individuals within their jurisdiction (see p. 198).
The collusion of these States with South Africa in the nuclear field was strongly condemned by the Assembly on 13 December 1978, when, by resolution 33/40, it also condemned economic, diplomatic, political or military collaboration by all States with South Africa (see p. 839).
On 29 November, by resolution 33/24, the Assembly stated that it considered that Israel's activities, in particular the denial to the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination and independence, constituted a serious and increasing threat to international peace and security, and expressed its indignation at continued violations of the human rights of peoples under foreign domination and alien subjugation and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights. It reaffirmed their inalienable right to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without external interference, and strongly condemned all Governments which did not recognize the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independence. It further condemned the expansionist activities of Israel, the continuous bombing of civilian Arab and Palestinian populations and the destruction of their villages and encampments. (See p. 694.)
(For page references to texts of resolutions referred to above, refer to INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS.)
Documentary references
The situation in the Middle East
COMMUNICATIONS
S/12517 (A/33/52). Letter of 4 January from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on 4 July 1978).
S/12545 (A/44/56). Letter of 27 July from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
S/12562. Letter of 15 February from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (transmitting letter of 14 February 1978 from Chairman of 30th session of Co-ordinating Committee for Liberation of Africa, Tripoli).
S/12730. Letter of 6 June from Israel.
S/12978. Letter of 21 December from Israel.
A/33/110. Letter of 23 May from Israel.
A/33/306. Letter of 12 October from Mauritania (transmitting statement concerning Camp David agreements).
A/33/388. Letter of 23 November from Israel.
REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL (17 OCTOBER)
S/12896 (A/33/311). Report of Secretary-General. (Chapter VI I: Initiative of President of Egypt.)
CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
General Assembly – 33rd session
Plenary meetings 69-73.
A/33/2. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1977-16 June 1978, Chapter I A.
A/33/52 (S/12517). Letter of 4 January from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on 4 January 1978).
A/33/53 (S/12521). Letter of 10 January from Lebanon (transmitting excerpts from address by President on 6 January 1978).
A/33/56 (S/12545). Letter of 27 January from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
A/33/64 (S/12598). Letter of 13 March from Israel.
A/33/66 (S/12602). Letter of 15 March from Lebanon
A/33/67. Letter of 15 March from Algeria (transmitting letter from Minister for Foreign Affairs) (also issued as S/12604, annex V).
A/33/68. Letter of 17 March from United Arab Emirates (transmitting letter of 14 March 1978 from PLO) (also issued as S/12604, annex III).
A/33/69. Letter of 17 March from United Arab Emirates (transmitting letter of 15 March 1978 from Secretary-General of League of Arab States) (also issued as S/12604, annex IV).
A/33/70 (S/12609). Letter of 17 March from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on 17 March 1978).
A/33/71 (S/12615). Letter of 20 March from Mongolia (transmitting statement of 18 March 1978 by Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
A/33/78 (S/12640). Letter of 11 April from Morocco.
A/33/110. Letter of 23 May from Israel.
A/33/118. Note verbale of 2 June from Cuba (transmitting final communiqué of Ministerial Meeting of Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, Havana, 15-20 May 1978).
A/33/151. Letter of 14 June from Senegal (transmitting resolutions of 9th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Dakar, 24-28 April 1978).
A/33/161 (S/12758). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting texts of Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1 A and B (XXXIV) of 14 February 1978).
A/33/206. Letter of 6 September from Yugoslavia (transmitting documents of Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, Belgrade, 25-30 July 1978).
A/33/209, A/33/229. Letters of 21 August and 1 September from Israel.
A/33/266 (S/12863). Letter of 25 September from Lebanon (transmitting address by President on 23 September 1978).
A/33/279 (S/12875). Letter of 2 October from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued at Extraordinary Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, New York, 2 October 1978).
A/33/288 (S/12879). Letter of 5 October from Lebanon (transmitting appeals of 5 October 1978 by International Committee of Red Cross).
A/33/306. Letter of 12 October from Mauritania (transmitting statement concerning Camp David agreements).
A/33/311 (S/12896). Report of Secretary-General.
A/33/329 (S/12901). Letter of 17 October from Lebanon (transmitting appeal of 17 October 1978 by International Committee of Red Cross).
A/33/352. Note verbale of 23 October from Senegal (transmuting Declaration by Ministers for Foreign Affairs of States members of Organization of Islamic Conference published on 11 October 1978).
A/33/380. Note verbale of 15 November from Iraq (transmitting letter of 13 November 1978 from PLO enclosing documents (Appendices I-VII)).
A/33/386 (S/12933), A/33/387, A/33/388. Letters of 22 and 23 November from Israel.
A/33/393. Letter of 24 November from Bulgaria (transmitting message of 21 November 1978 to Chairman of PLO Executive Committee on occasion of commemoration of International Day of Solidarity with Palestinian People).
A/33/400. Letter of 8 November from Iraq (transmitting statement issued by 9th Arab Summit Conference, Baghdad, on 6 November 1978).
A/33/406. Letter of 29 November from USSR (forwarding message to Chairman of PLO Executive Committee on occasion of observance of International Day of Solidarity with Palestinian People).
A/33/488 (S/12966). Letter of 12 December from Israel. (Annex: Documentation of Arab rejection and defiance of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.
A/33/541. Note verbale of 1 December from Senegal (transmitting final declaration, decisions and recommendations of Jerusalem Committee at its 8th session, Jeddah, 19 and 20 November 1978).
A/33/542 (S/12975). Letter of 21 December from Lebanon.
A/33/L.12 and Add.1. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Chad, Congo Cuba, Djibouti, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Qatar, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.
Resolution 33/29, as proposed by 21 powers, A/33/L.12 and Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1978, meeting 73, by recorded vote of 100 to 4, with 33 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Canada, Guatemala, Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Samoa, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay.
The General Assembly,
Having discussed the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East,"
Recalling its previous resolutions on the subject in particular resolutions 3414 (XXX) of 5 December 1975, 31/61 of 9 December 1976, 32/20 of 25 November 1977 and 33/28 of 7 December 1978,
Taking into account the decisions of the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Belgrade from 25 to 30 July 1978, concerning the situation in the Middle East and the question of Palestine,
Deeply concerned that the Arab territories occupied since 1967 have continued, for more than eleven years, to be under illegal Israeli occupation and that the Palestinian people, after three decades, is still deprived of the exercise of its inalienable national rights,
Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible and that all territories thus occupied must be returned,
Reaffirming also the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region, based on full respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations as well as for its resolutions concerning the problem of the Middle East including the question of Palestine,
Convinced that the early convening of the Peace Conference on the Middle East with the participation of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, is essential for the realization of a just and lasting settlement in the region,
1. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and repeated resolutions of the United Nations;
2. Declares that peace is indivisible and that a just and lasting settlement of the Middle East problem must be based on a comprehensive solution, under the auspices of the United Nations, which takes into account all aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular the attainment by the Palestinian people of all its inalienable national rights and the Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories;
3. Reaffirms that until Israel withdraws from all occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, and until the Palestinian people attains and exercises its inalienable national rights, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in which all countries and peoples in the region live in peace and security within recognized and secure boundaries, will not be achieved;
4. Calls anew for the early convening of the Peace Conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations and co-chairmanship of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, with the participation on an equal footing of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3375 (XXX) of 10 November 1975;
5. Urges the parties to bee conflict and all other interested parties to work towards the achievement of a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the problems and worked out with the participation of all parties concerned within the framework of the United Nations;
6. Requests the Security Council, in the exercise of its responsibilities under the Charter, to take all necessary measures in order to ensure the implementation of relevant resolutions of the United Nations, including General Assembly resolution 33/28 and the present resolution, and to facilitate the achievement of such a comprehensive settlement aiming at the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to follow up the implementation of the present resolution and to inform all concerned, including the Co-Chairmen of the Peace Conference on the Middle East;
8. Also requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council periodically on the development of the situation and to submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session a comprehensive report covering, in all their aspects, the developments in the Middle East.
S/13125. Note, dated 28 February 1979, by Secretary-General.
The question of Palestine
COMMUNICATIONS (JANUARY-DECEMBER)
S/12531. Letter of 18 January from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People to President of Security Council.
S/12534. Letter of 13 January from Secretary-General (transmitting text of General Assembly resolution 32/40 A of 2 December 1977).
S/12517 (A/33/52). Letter of 4 January from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on 4 January 1978).
S/12521 (A/33/53). Letter of 10 January from Lebanon (transmitting excerpts from address by President of 6 January 1978).
S/12609 (A/33/70). Letter of 17 March from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on 17 March 1978).
S/12615 (A/33/71). Letter of 20 March from Mongolia (transmitting statement of 18 March 1978 by Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
S/12875 (A/33/279) Letter of 2 October from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued at Extraordinary Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, New York, 2 October 1978).
A/33/54. Letter of 17 January from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.
A/33/55. Letter of 19 January from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People (transmitting telegram of 11 January to Chairman of PLO Executive Committee, letters of 18 January to President of 32nd session of General Assembly, to President of Security Council and to Israel, and identical letters of 18 January to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic, USSR and United States).
A/33/118. Note verbale of 2 June from Cuba (transmitting final communiqué of Ministerial Meeting of Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, Havana, 15-20 May 1978).
A/33/151. Letter of 14 June from Senegal (transmitting resolutions of 9th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Dakar, 24-28 April 1978).
A/33/206. Letter of 6 September from Yugoslavia (transmitting documents of Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, Belgrade, 25-30 July 1978).
A/33/208. Letter of 17 August from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on 17 August 1978).
A/33/352. Note verbale of 23 October from Senegal (transmitting declaration by Ministers for Foreign Affairs of States members of Organization of Islamic Conference published on 11 October 1978).
A/33/400). Letter of 8 November from Iraq (transmitting statement issued by 9th Arab Summit Conference, Baghdad, on 6 November 1978).
A/33/541. Note verbale of 1 December from Senegal (transmitting final declaration, decisions and recommendations of Jerusalem Committee at its 8th session, Jeddah, 19 and 20 November 1978).
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PALESTINIAN RIGHTS
S/12874. Letter of 27 September from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People (transmitting reports of Committee submitted to General Assembly at 31st and 32nd sessions).
A/33/35 and Corr.1 and Corr.1/Rev.1. Report of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.
A/33/154, A/33/165. Letters of 21 and 30 June, respectively, from Chairman and Acting Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People to Secretary-General.
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF SOLIDARITY WITH
THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE (29 NOVEMBER)
A/33/393. Letter of 24 November from Bulgaria (transmitting message of 21 November 1978 from First Secretary of Central Committee and President of State Council to Chairman of PLO Executive Committee).
A/33/394. Letter of 24 November from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (transmitting telegram from Secretary-General of General People's Congress to Secretary-General and to Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People).
A/33/401. Letter of 29 November from Egypt (transmitting message from President).
A/33/402. Letter of 29 November from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (transmitting telegram from Secretary for Foreign Affairs).
A/33/403. Letter of 29 November from Yugoslavia (transmitting message of 28 November 1978 from President to Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People).
A/33/406. Letter of 29 November from USSR (transmitting message of 29 November 1978 from General Secretary of Central Committee and Chairman of Presidium of Supreme Soviet to Chairman of PLO Executive Committee).
A/33/407. Letter of 30 November from Qatar (transmitting message to Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People).
A/33/409. Letter of 30 November from Democratic Kampuchea (transmitting message of 24 November 1978 from President of Presidium to Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People).
A/33/411. Letter of 29 November from Afghanistan (transmitting message from Secretary-General of Central Committee, President of Revolutionary Council and Prime Minister).
A/33/421. Letter of 1 December from Jordan (transmitting message from King of Jordan).
CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
General Assembly – 33rd session
Fifth Committee, meetings 51, 52.
Plenary meetings 59,61,62,64-68,73.
A/33/35 and Corr.1 and Corr.1/Rev.1. Report of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.
A/33/52 (S/12517). Letter of 4 January from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on 4 January 1978).
A/33/53 (S/12521). Letter of 10 January from Lebanon (transmitting excerpts from address by President of 6 January 1978).
A/33/67. Letter of 15 March from Algeria (transmitting letter from Minister for Foreign Affairs)(also issued as S/12604, annex V).
A/33/68. Letter of 17 March from United Arab Emirates (transmitting letter of 14 March 1978 from PLO)(also issued as S/12604, annex III).
A/33/69. Letter of 17 March from United Arab Emirates (transmitting letter of 15 March 1978 from Secretary-General of League of Arab States)(also issued as S/12604, annex IV).
A/33/70 (S/12609). Letter of 17 March from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on 17 March 1978).
A/33/71 (S/12615). Letter of 20 March from Mongolia (transmitting statement of 18 March 1978 by Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
A/33/279 (S/12875). Letter of 2 October from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued at Extraordinary Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, New York, 2 October 1978).
A/33/380. Note verbale of 15 November from Iraq (transmitting letter of 13 November 1978 from PLO enclosing documents (Appendices I-VII).
A/33/L.11 and Add.1. Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, German Democratic Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Jordan, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia: draft resolution A.
Resolution 33/28 A, as proposed by 34 powers, A/33/L.11 and Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1978, meeting 73, by recorded vote of 97 to 19, with 25 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstaining: Austria, Bahamas, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Nepal, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Samoa, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Uruguay.
The General Assembly,
Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, 3375 (XXX) of 10 November 1975, 31/20 of 24 November 1976 and 32/40 A and B of 2 December 1977,
1. Expresses its grave concern that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has been achieved and that this problem therefore continues to aggravate the Middle East conflict, of which it is the core, and to endanger international peace and security;
2. Reaffirms that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established without the achievement, inter alia, of a just solution of the problem of Palestine on the basis of the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
3. Calls once more for the invitation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate, on the basis of General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX), 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;
4. Declares that the validity of agreements purporting to solve the problem of Palestine requires that they be within the framework of the United Nations and its Charter and its resolutions on the basis of the full attainment and exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, and with the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization;
5. Endorses the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People as contained in paragraphs 55 to 58 of its report;
6. Expresses its regret and concern that the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 31/20 and 32/40 A have not been implemented;
7. Notes with regret that the Security Council has not taken the action it was urged to take by the General Assembly in paragraph 4 of its resolution 32/40 A;
8. Once again urges the Security Council to consider and take as soon as possible a decision on the recommendations endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 31/20 and 32/40 A and in the present resolution;
9. Authorizes and requests the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in the event that the Security Council fails to consider or to take a decision on those recommendations by 1 June 1979, to consider that situation and to make the suggestions it deems appropriate;
10. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirty-fourth session.
S/13047. Note by Secretary-General.
A/C.5/33/67, A/33/441. Administrative and financial implications of inter alia, 34-power draft resolution B, A/33/L.11 and Add.1.
Statement by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.
A/33/L.11 and Add.1. Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, German Democratic Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia: draft resolution B.
Resolution 33/28 B, as proposed by 34 powers, A/33/L.11 and Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1978, meeting 73, by recorded vote of 103 to 14, with 24 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstaining: Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Coast Rica, Ecuador, Fiji, Finland, France, Honduras, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, New Zealand, Samoa, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Uruguay.
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolutions 3376 (XXX) of 10 November 1975, 31/20 of 24 November 1976 and 32/40 A and B of 2 December 1977,
Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,
1. Expresses its appreciation to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People for its efforts in performing the tasks assigned to it by the General Assembly;
2. Requests the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to keep the situation relating to the question of Palestine under review and to report and make suggestions to the General Assembly or to the Security Council, as may be appropriate;
3. Authorizes the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to continue to exert all efforts to promote the implementation of its recommendations, to send delegations or representatives to international conferences, where such representation would be considered by it to be appropriate, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session and thereafter;
4. Requests the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, established under General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, to co-operate fully with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and to make available to the Committee at its request, the relevant information and documentation which the Commission has at its disposal;
5. Decides to circulate the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to all the competent bodies of the United Nations and urges them to take necessary action, as appropriate, in accordance with the Committees programme of implementation;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People with all the necessary facilities for the performance of its tasks, including summary records of its meetings.
A/C.5/33/67, A/33/441. Administrative and financial implications of, inter alia, 34-power draft resolution C, A/33/L.11 and Add.1. Statement by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee. A/33/L.11 and Add.1. Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, German Democratic Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia: draft resolution C.
Resolution 33/28 C, as proposed by 34 powers, A/33/L.11 and Add.1, and as orally amended by sponsors, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1978, meeting 73, by recorded vote of 96 to 17, with 26 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Uruguay.
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 32/40 B of 2 December 1977,
Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,
Noting, in particular, the information contained in paragraphs
47 to 54 of that report,
1. Takes note of the establishment, within the Secretariat of the United Nations, of a Special Unit on Palestinian Rights in accordance with paragraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 32/40 B;
2. Requests the Secretary General to ensure that the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights continues to discharge me tasks assigned to it in paragraph 1 of resolution 32/40 B in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and under its guidance;
3. Further requests the Secretary-General to consider, in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the strengthening and the possible reorganization and renaming of the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights;
4. Also requests the Secretary-General to ensure the full co-operation of the Department of Pubic Information and other units
of the Secretariat in enabling the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights to perform its tasks;
5. Invites all Governments and organizations to lend their co-operation to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights in the performance of their tasks.
FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS
S/12966 (A/33/488). Letter of 12 December from Israel.
A/33/376, A/33/387, A/33/543, A/33/545. Letters of 16 and 23 November and 20 and 21 December from Israel.
OTHER DOCUMENTS
The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem, Part I: 1917-1947. U.N.P. Sales No.: E.78.I.19; Part II: 1947-1977. U.N.P. Sales No.: E.78.I.20.
The Right of Return of the Palestinian People. U.N.P. Sales No. E.78.I.21.
The Right of Self-Determination of the Palestinian People. U.N.P. Sales No.: E.78.I.22.
ASSISTANCE TO THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
Economic and Social Council – 2nd regular session, 1978.
Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee, meetings 1,3-5,11.
Plenary meeting 32.
E/1978/55 and Add.1-3. Report of Secretary-General.
E/1978/117 (Part 11). Report of Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee, draft decision, as orally proposed by Third Committee Chairman following informal consultations, approved without objection by Committee on 19 July 1978, meeting 11.
Decision 1978/43, taking note of report of Secretary-General on assistance to Palestinian people, as recommended by Third Committee, E/1978/117 (Part II), adopted without objection by Council on 21 July 1978, meeting 32.
General Assembly – 33rd session
Second Committee, meeting 59-61.
Plenary meeting 90.
E/1978/53/Rev.1. Report of Governing Council of UNDP on its 25th session, Geneva, 12 June-3 July 1978, Chapter II, paras. 48-50 and 55.
A/C.2/33/L.80. Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Benin, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, USSR, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen: draft resolution, as orally amended by sponsors, approved by Second Committee on 12 December 1978, meeting 60, by recorded vote of 93 to 5, with 33 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Central African Empire, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.
Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Malawi, United States.
Abstaining: Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Burma, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala,* Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay.
*Subsequently, Guatemala advised the Secretariat that its vote against the draft resolution had been erroneously recorded as an abstention.
A/33/446/Add.1. Report of Second Committee (part II) (on report of Economic and Social Council), draft resolution IV.
Resolution 33/147, as recommended by Second Committee, A/33/446/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 20 December 1978, meeting 90, by recorded vote of 102 to 5, with 35 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Malawi, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Burma, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Portugal, Samoa, Singapore, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay.
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolutions 3236 (XXIX) and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974,
Recalling also Economic and Social Council resolutions 1978 (LIX) of 31 July 1975, 2026 (LXI) of 4 August 1976 and 2100 (LXIII) of 3 August 1977,
Taking into consideration the reports of the Secretary-General on assistance to the Palestinian people,
Taking note of the report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme on its twenty-fifth session and of the response of the Administrator of the Programme,
1. Endorses the resolutions of the Economic and Social Council concerning assistance to the Palestinian people;
2. Calls upon the United Nations Development Programme, in consultation with the specialized agencies and other organizations within the United Nations system, to intensify its efforts, in co-ordination with the Economic Commission for Western Asia, to implement the relevant resolutions of the Economic and Social Council in order to improve the social and economic conditions of the Palestinian people by identifying their social and economic needs and by establishing concrete projects to that end, without prejudice to the sovereignty of the respective Arab host countries, and to provide adequate funds for that purpose.
The situation in the occupied territories
During 1978, the question of the violation of human rights in the territories occupied by Israel as a result of hostilities in the Middle East was again considered by the Commission on Human Rights, the Economic and Social Council, the General Assembly's Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, and by the General Assembly. Also during the year, the Secretary-General received a number of communications concerning the treatment of the civilian population in the occupied territories.
Decisions of the Commission on Human
Rights and the Economic and Social Council
At its session in February/March 1978, the Commission on Human Rights 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 first resolution, the Commission expressed concern over the deteriorating situation in those territories, and called on Israel to take immediate steps for the return of the Palestinians.
Reaffirming that Israel's settlement policies in the territories were a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (the fourth Geneva Convention) of 12 August 1949, and United Nations resolutions, and declaring that Israel's breaches of that Convention were war crimes, the Commission condemned, and demanded that Israel cease, the annexation of parts of the occupied territories, the establishment and expansion of settler colonies therein, the expulsion of the Arab inhabitants, the confiscation of their property, mass arrests and ill-treatment and torture of detainees, interference with religious freedoms and customs, and the illegal exploitation of the natural wealth and resources of the occupied territories. It reaffirmed that all measures taken to change the physical character, demographic composition and institutional structure or status of those territories, including Jerusalem, were null and void, and asked the international community not to recognize them and avoid actions which might be used by Israel in pursuit of its policies. It called on Israel to accord prisoner-of-war status to Arabs detained as a result of their struggle for self-determination. The Commission also again condemned the destruction of the Syrian city of Quneitra.
By the second resolution, the Commission expressed concern at the consequences of Israel's refusal to apply the fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, reaffirmed the applicability of that Convention, deplored Israel's failure to acknowledge its applicability, and called on Israel to abide by it and other obligations under international law. It urged States parties to exert all efforts to ensure compliance with the Convention's provisions in the occupied territories.
By a resolution on the right to self-determination, the Commission affirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination without external interference and the establishment of a fully independent and sovereign State in Palestine, their right to return to their homes and their right to regain their rights by all means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It also urged support for the Palestinian people through the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). (For further details, see p. 687.)
On 5 May, the Economic and Social Council adopted resolution 1978/24 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, by which it commended the Commission on Human Rights for its vigilance and decisions on that question and requested it to pursue its efforts in that regard.
(For details, see p. 687; for page reference to text of resolutions, refer to INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS.)
Communications
During the year a number of communications were received concerning measures taken by Israel in the occupied territories and related subjects.
The representative of Egypt, by a letter of 12 April, transmitted a letter of 4 April from the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Secretary-General in which the Minister said that Israel had embarked upon an intensified search to explore and exploit oil, both inland and off shore, in occupied Egyptian territories in violation of international law. He added the it was the responsibility of Member States to advise oil companies and other entities that any form of assistance or co-operation extended to Israel in this field was illegal.
In a reply dated 10 May, the representative of Israel stated to the Secretary-General that under international law Israel was entitled to explore for and utilize publicly owned oil resources in Sinai, and that utilization could be carried out by a government agency or by a concessionaire. It was Israel's understanding that the background to the Egyptian complaint was a dispute between two oil companies, one of which Israel held was illegally granted a concession by Egypt after 1967 and the other was granted a concession by the Israeli military authorities. Israel maintained that it was not legitimate to bring a commercial dispute of this kind before the United Nations.
Two communications were received concerning settlements in the occupied territories.
By the first letter, dated 9 February, the representative of Kuwait transmitted a letter of 6 February from the Permanent Observer of PLO to the President of the Security Council stating that Israel had decided to convert three new military installations near Nablus in the occupied West Bank into permanent civilian settlements, in violation of United Nations resolutions and the Geneva Conventions.
By the second letter, dated 30 August, the representative of Jordan drew the attention of the Secretary-General to a report of an Israeli decision to expand some of the 17 settlements which had been established by Israel in the West Bank. The plan included the construction of permanent housing and industrial facilities for the settlers and the doubling of their numbers within two months. The plan further included the construction of 5,000 housing units in the city of Khan Al-Ahmar, 11 miles from Jerusalem.
Two notes verbales were received by the Secretary-General from the representative of Jordan, dated 21 February and 12 April, regarding the situation in Jerusalem. The first transmitted the text of a memorandum dated 5 January from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Jordan seeking United Nations intervention to bring about a cessation of diggings, sequestrations and demolitions under way and to prevent further actions threatening four Arab quarters of Jerusalem adjacent to the Western Wall of Haram Esh-Sharif Holy Sanctuary. The second transmitted the text of a communication from the Government of Jordan seeking United Nations intervention, including an on-the-spot inspection, to prevent further actions by Israel to evacuate and threatening to demolish the Zawiyah of Abu-Median al-Ghouth, an Islamic hospice adjacent to Al-Aqsa Mosque.
By a letter dated 11 April, the representative of Morocco also charged that Israel, under its policy of Judaization of the Holy City of Jerusalem, intended by construction of a road to destroy that sanctuary and its mosque, and asked the Secretary-General to intervene so that Israel would refrain from carrying out its plan.
In a letter dated 31 May to the Secretary-General, the representative of Israel denied the charges made by Jordan and Morocco, stating that it was the policy of his Government to protect every historic and religious site in Jerusalem. He added that the diggings cited in two communications had been conducted 20 metres from the site in question to lay foundations for another building and there were no grounds to suspect any injury to the nearby site.
In a letter to the Secretary-General dated 22 June, the representative of Jordan stated that Israel's reply was not only not an answer to Jordan's specific charges of serious violations of United Nations resolutions by Israel, it was primarily a repetition of distorted, false and abusive references to the record of the Government of Jordan during the unity of the two Banks of Jordan between 1948 and 1967. Annexed to the letter was a letter addressed to the Secretary-General on 20 January 1972 by which Jordan had responded to attacks levelled against it in serving the Holy Places between 1948 and 1967 and also concerning the status of Jerusalem and the accomplishments of Jordan during that period. 46/
On 18 August, the representative of Israel stated in a letter to the Secretary-General that, contrary to the impression which the Jordanian letter sought to create, no amount of distortion could exonerate Jordan from its bleak record in Jerusalem during 19 years of illegal occupation. Jerusalem since 1967 had been accessible to all faiths, he said. The work being carried out to which Jordan had referred was connected with vital projects for urban renewal and restoration, and had been carried out with the utmost caution.
A number of complaints and replies were also received by the Secretary-General regarding Israel's references to the occupied West Bank as the Judaea and Samaria districts of the West Bank.
By a letter dated 19 June, the representative of Qatar, on behalf of the Arab group of States at the United Nations, drew attention to Israel's use of Israeli names to describe Arab territories, requesting the Secretary-General to ensure that United Nations documents were not misused in this way. It was, he said, an act consistent with Israel's policy of change of status of the occupied territories and a violation of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and United Nations resolutions.
In a letter of 17 July, the representative of Israel said that the name West Bank had been used in English only since about 1950, when Jordan annexed the districts. On the other hand, the limited areas administered by Israel since 1967 had been known for thousands of years as Judaea and Samaria.
By a letter dated 9 August, the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, on behalf of the Arab group, said that the Israeli letter of 17 July had evaded the central issue, namely, Israel's policy aiming at the destruction of the identity of the Palestinian people, the denial of their inalienable rights and the annexation of occupied Arab lands by all means, including alteration of the names of some of the territories concerned.
Also in reply to the letter from the representative of Israel, the representative of Jordan, in a letter dated 8 September, said that the Arab group's protest over Israel's illegal and unilateral alteration of the status and names of the occupied West Bank was consistent with United Nations resolutions and the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. The letter asserted that Israel was the only country whose admission to the United Nations had been conditional upon its acceptance and implementation of two General Assembly resolutions: by the first – resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 – the Assembly had recommended a plan of partition with economic union; 47/ the representative stated that withdrawal from the Palestinian territories outside those earmarked for the proposed Israeli State was an imperative prerequisite. By the second, he said, the Assembly had resolved – by resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 – that Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes should be permitted to do so and that compensation should be paid for the property of those not choosing to return. 48/ Upon gaining admission, however, Israel had reneged on its pledge to implement those resolutions.
In a letter dated 22 November, the representative of Israel said that all the member States of the League of Arab States had rejected the Assembly's 1947 resolution recommending a plan of partition with economic union, and that the subsequent aggression across international boundaries by the armies of seven Arab States following the termination of the Mandate over Palestine in May 1948 precluded them from invoking the benefits of the Assembly's resolution. Moreover, Jordan's annexation of Judaea and Samaria in 1950 was in violation both of international law and of the Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement of 1949. The letter added that conditional membership was not provided for in the Charter of the United Nations.
By a note verbale of 5 July, the representative of Jordan brought to the attention of the Secretary-General a communication dated 31 May from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Jordan to all accredited Jordanian embassies, indicating that the Israeli military authorities had requested all West Bank mayors to provide information on all office-holders and professional people residing in or outside the West Bank. Such a move would, it was said, lead to future denial of permits to visit or reunite with families living in the West Bank.
In a letter to the Secretary-General, dated 7 August, the representative of Israel, replying to Jordan's letter of 5 July, stated that the registration of all the inhabitants of Judaea, Samaria and Gaza had been suggested to the military administration in order to facilitate the procedures for arranging family visits or reunions, but the suggestion had never been implemented or even endorsed by the Israeli Government.
By a letter dated 19 December, the representative of Kuwait transmitted to the Security Council President a letter of the same date from the Permanent Observer of PLO charging Israel with repressive measures in the occupied territories, including the arrest of students at Bir Zeit University, the demolishing of Arab houses, the fencing off of land and the imposition of curfews in some villages.
In addition, the Secretary-General received letters of 21 and 30 June and 22 August from the Chairman and the Acting Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People with reference to the occupied territories.
The first letter from the Chairman cited press reports quoting the Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs on the plan for autonomy in the occupied territories, which, the Chairman said, confirmed that Israel had no intention of honouring United Nations resolutions opposing the occupation of territories by force. On 30 June, the Acting Chairman transmitted the texts of five communications received by the Secretary-General from groups of Palestinians in the occupied territories, which had been transmitted to the Committee. The Committee was convinced, the letter noted, that, on the basis of the signatures appended to the documents, they represented the true sentiments and aspirations of the Palestinian people.
By the August letter, the Chairman drew attention to data communicated to him by the Permanent Observer of PLO relating to the treatment of Palestinian prisoners in the custody of Israeli authorities, charging assaults, humiliations and torture constituting a violation of the fourth Geneva Convention, and recounting protest demonstrations and hunger strikes. The letter invited appropriate action to ensure that the demands of the prisoners were met.
By a letter of 1 September to the Secretary-General, the representative of Israel charged that the Chairman's August letter was an illustration of how the machinery of the United Nations was being abused by the Committee to disseminate falsehoods and propaganda of a terrorist organization which enjoyed virtual immunity from censure in the United Nations.
Consideration by the General Assembly
Report of the Special Committee
The tenth report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories was presented to the General Assembly at its regular session in 1978. In accordance with an Assembly request of 13 December 1977, 49/ the report included a special chapter on prison conditions in the occupied territories.
In its report covering the period from 17 October 1977 to 10 November 1978, the Special Committee stated that the Government of Israel had continued to deny the Special Committee access to the occupied territories, but that it had been possible to follow the situation of the civilians in those territories closely by relying on oral and written testimony, reports of statements by responsible persons in the Israeli Government, reports in the Israeli and Arab press and information submitted to it by Governments and non-governmental bodies, as well as unedited film material of certain events in the occupied territories.
The Special Committee reviewed information received and heard witnesses at meetings held in March, June, October and November. The information thus received was divided into two categories in the report, the first giving examples concerning the policy of settlement and annexation, and the second citing cases concerning the situation of civilians as a consequence of the occupation.
In assessing this information, the Special Committee noted that in general no significant changes in the human rights situation of the civilian population of the occupied territories had taken place during the period under review.
The principal conclusions of the Special Committee were that the Government of Israel continued to implement a policy of settlement and annexation of the occupied territories, and that recent unequivocal statements by the Prime Minister and other Government officials proved not only that such a policy existed but also that it was being accelerated. Referring to reports concerning the future of the Egyptian territory occupied by Israel in June 1967, the Committee regretted that Israel was perpetuating the occupation of the other territories and was intensifying its efforts aimed at their annexation. Noting that the Government of Israel based its policies on the doctrine that the territories occupied in 1967 formed part of the Jewish homeland, the Special Committee considered that from this doctrine followed the continued military occupation, the denial to the Palestinian people of the right to self-determination, and the denial of other rights, including the right to return of civilians who had fled during and after the 1967 hostilities.
The result, the Special Committee concluded, was that the Government of Israel was consciously following a policy in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention.
The Special Committee reiterated its view that the fundamental violation of human rights lay in the very fact of occupation, which was the direct cause of a daily pattern of incidents and their repercussions affecting the life and liberty of the civilians in the occupied territories. The Government of Israel carried out complementary policies of establishing settlements while at the same time subjecting the civilian population to measures designed to put before them the constant reality of being a people under military subjugation. Such measures included the practice in the military courts of fining or imprisoning parents for security offences committed by their minor children who had previously been tried and convicted, and the promulgation of military orders susceptible of wide interpretation which purported to lay down the law but which in fact rendered the civilian population liable to prosecution before a military tribunal. Moreover, civilians were subject to arbitrary measures such as reprisals on their property on only the suspicion of having committed an offence.
The Special Committee stated that, in furtherance of its policy of annexation and settlement, the Government of Israel continued to employ such measures as the expropriation of property for reasons of military security and the exploitation of natural resources in the occupied territories, including the exploitation of petroleum resources in Sinai and the water table of the northern West Dank. These policies had provoked a pattern of resistance in a civilian population determined to assert its right to self-determination, which in turn had resulted in an increase in the frequency of incidents and a growth in the prison population.
In the chapter containing the special report on the treatment of prisoners, the Special Committee noted that prison conditions in general continued to deteriorate and that reports of serious overcrowding and lack of adequate medical attention continued. Although Israeli officials had from time to time made statements acknowledging the adverse prison conditions, there was no evidence of improvement. Regarding the ill-treatment of prisoners, the Special Committee found that despite new arrangements announced in December 1977 50/ for visiting persons under interrogation for security offences, there had been no significant reduction in the number of serious allegations of ill-treatment.
The Special Committee reiterated the proposal that it had made in previous years for the adoption of an arrangement 51/ based on the protecting power formula envisaged under the fourth Geneva Convention in an effort to ensure protection of the civilian population in the occupied territories.
The report of the Special Committee was considered by the Assembly's Special Political Committee, which also had before it a report by the Secretary-General describing measures he had taken to carry out an Assembly request of 13 December 1977 52/ that he provide the necessary facilities and staff to the Special Committee and also ensure the widest possible dissemination of its activities and findings.
The Special Political Committee discussed the Special Committee's report at seven meetings held between 20 and 28 November, following which it recommended three draft resolutions for adoption by the General Assembly.
On 18 December 1978, the Assembly adopted the three recommended resolutions concerning the 1978 report of the Special Committee.
By the first (resolution 33/113 A), the Assembly reaffirmed that the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 was applicable to all the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. It strongly deplored Israel's failure to acknowledge the applicability of the Convention to those territories and called upon Israel to acknowledge and comply with its provisions in all those territories, including Jerusalem. The Assembly again urged all States parties to the Convention to exert all efforts to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in those territories.
The Assembly adopted resolution 33/113 A by a recorded vote of 140 to 1, with 1 abstention. In the Special Political Committee, the text, sponsored by Afghanistan, Bangladesh; India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan and Yugoslavia, was approved on 28 November by a roll-call vote, requested by Kuwait, of 104 to 1
with 1 abstention.
(For text of resolution and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
By the terms of resolution 33/113 B, the Assembly determined that the measures taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the occupied Arab territories, had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction of efforts aimed at reaching a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
The Assembly strongly deplored the persistence of Israel in carrying out such measures, particularly the establishment of settlements in Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, and called upon Israel to comply strictly with its international obligations in accordance with the principles of international law and the fourth Geneva Convention, and to desist forthwith from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status, geographical nature or demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
The Assembly adopted resolution 33/113 B by a recorded vote of 139 to 1, with 1 abstention. In the Special Political Committee, a separate vote was taken at the request of the United States on the two paragraphs of the resolution by which the Assembly determined that all measures taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories had no legal validity, and deplored the persistence of Israel in carrying out those measures, in particular the establishment of settlements there. The two paragraphs were approved jointly by a roll-call vote – at the request of Kuwait – of 105 to 1, with 5 abstentions. The text of the resolution as a whole was then approved by the Special Political Committee on 28 November by a roll-call vote, taken at Kuwait's request, of 110 to 1, with 3 abstentions. The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Turkey and Yugoslavia.
(For text of resolution and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
By the third decision (resolution 33/113 C), the Assembly commended the efforts of the Special Committee in performing its tasks and for its thoroughness and impartiality, deplored Israel's continued refusal to allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories and again called on it to allow such access. The Assembly also deplored Israel's continued and persistent violation of the fourth Geneva Convention and other applicable international instruments and condemned in particular those violations which the Convention designated as "grave breaches" thereof.
The Assembly condemned the following Israeli policies and practices and demanded that Israel desist from them immediately: annexation of parts of the occupied territories; establishment of new or expansion of existing Israeli settlements on private and public Arab lands, and the transfer of an alien population thereto; evacuation, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories and denial of their right to return; 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; destruction and demolition of Arab houses; mass arrests, administrative detention and ill-treatment of the Arab population; ill-treatment and torture of detainees; pillaging of archaeological and cultural property; interference with religious freedoms and practices as well as family rights and customs; and illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories.
The Assembly reaffirmed that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of any part of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, were null and void, and that Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constituted a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention and United Nations resolutions.
The Assembly 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 aid, which might be used by Israel in pursuit of its policies of annexation and colonization.
The Special Committee was asked to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the occupied Arab territories, to consult with the International Committee of the Red Cross as appropriate to safeguard the welfare and human rights of their population, to continue to investigate the treatment of civilians in detention in those territories, and to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arose thereafter.
The Secretary-General was asked to provide the necessary facilities and staff to the Special Committee, to disseminate widely its activities and findings through the Department of Public Information, where necessary to reprint Special Committee reports which were no longer available, and to report on these tasks to the Assembly in 1979.
Resolution 33/113 C was adopted by a recorded vote of 97 to 3, with 38 abstentions; the Special Political Committee had approved the text on 28 November by a roll-call vote – requested by Kuwait – of 83 to 3, with 29 abstentions. The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali and Pakistan. (For text of resolution and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCE below.)
Introducing the report of the Special Committee in the Special Political Committee, the Committee Chairman said that, because his Committee was refused access to the occupied territories and in view of the delicate nature of its mandate, great care had been taken in its gathering of facts to ensure that they would stand up to tests of their veracity and to include only information which the Special Committee considered unimpeachable. On the evidence before it, the Special Committee had concluded that the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 was being flouted by the Government of Israel as a matter of policy.
The representative of Israel considered that discussions under this agenda item did not promote a Middle East settlement but were part of a campaign which, he said, should have no place in what was supposedly a house of peace. The Special Committee in its report, he continued, had confessed its role as a political instrument serving the aims of certain Governments. By stating that the international community should act to end what it called the military occupation of all the territories occupied by Israel, the Special Committee took into its hands the question of peace in the Middle East, relegating human rights to a secondary position and brushing aside the Security Council and its resolutions. Posing as an unbiased judge, the Committee had charged Israel with, among other things, bad prison conditions; in countries where the press was not free, far more serious activities could be reported and would be true. In fact, visitors to the occupied territories noted the absence of large numbers of troops, and the administration was in the hands of 600 Israelis as against 16,000 local Arabs. Travel was almost completely free for Arabs to cross the Jordan River into Jordan and into other countries in a formal state of war with Israel. Education in the schools was in Arabic, the laws in force were the same as when the areas were controlled by Jordan and Egypt, except that Israel had abolished capital punishment, and there were free municipal elections, which in some cases had led to the election of PLO sympathizers as mayors.
Israel was not suggesting that there were no irregularities in the administration of the areas in question, he observed, but the situation was very satisfactory in comparison with that in a number of countries receiving less attention from the United Nations.
The Israeli representative said that there were no frontiers between Israel and Judaea, Samaria and Gaza; there were only armistice lines, which had been specifically defined as not being frontiers and as having no political significance. His Government did not accept formulations like "occupied territories" and did not agree that the fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to those areas; that Convention related to national territories of States occupied by other States, and Judaea, Samaria and Gaza did not have that status. Nevertheless, he said, his Government actually was going well beyond the requirements of the Convention in its treatment of the population of the areas in question.
Israel, he continued, was committed under the Camp David agreements to the early establishment of self-rule in those areas and the prospects for peace were now better than ever before. He believed that the Special Political Committee should note the efforts to reach a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East and then turn to other matters. The only way to achieve peace in the Middle East was through compromise and negotiation.
The representative of PLO charged that Israel had refused access to the Special Committee because it was seeking to hide atrocities and violations of human rights from the international public. Its confiscation of land had deprived the people of their source of livelihood and forced them to emigrate. Its settlements were in direct competition with Arab villages for scarce water resources. Subject to the arbitrary judgement of the military authorities, Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories could be detained, imprisoned, tortured, subjected to collective penalties, deported or stripped of their lands and property without recourse to any tribunal. Students were continually being gaoled and books censored. Zionism, he said, had created a political entity based on racial discrimination and racism, dangerous to the world at large; the Palestinian people were only its immediate victims. Under the Camp David accords, only a fraction of the Palestinian demands were to be fulfilled, with Israel retaining authority in the occupied territories, which meant permanent statelessness for the Palestinians in real terms.
The Arab countries – including Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Tunisia – generally supported the conclusions in the Special Committee's report. They considered that the intensification of expropriation and expulsion measures and the increase in the number of settlements had an obvious purpose – to enable Israel to establish itself more firmly in the territories in order to annex them. They also considered that the situation continued to deteriorate as Israel continued to display total disregard for the decisions of the international community; that Israel was altering the geographical and demographic character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention; that Israel's attitude in refusing admission to the Special Committee confirmed suspicions that it was seeking to cover up serious violations of human rights committed against the inhabitants of the occupied Arab territories; and that the United Nations must face up to its responsibility and redouble its efforts to protect the human rights of the Palestinian people, bring about compliance by Israel with its decisions concerning those territories, and in particular end Israel's occupation.
The representative of the United Arab Emirates said that the attempt to discredit the Special Committee could have been foreseen in view of the history of Zionism. The only positive result of Israel's refusal to admit the Special Committee was that it enabled the international community to understand what Israel's real objective was: to annex the occupied territories through building settlements there. Even if certain economic advantages did exist under the Israeli occupation, he said. they were much less important to the people than their independence.
Kuwait stated that the establishment of the settlements had affected human rights in three ways: while Arabs had not always lost their land, they had lost access to water and therefore could not work the land; the settlements had been used as a pretext to prevent the return of those displaced; and they had created a new body of people in the occupied territories, altering the face of the region, which would soon affect even the exercise of self-determination by the original inhabitants who had stayed in the territories.
Tunisia said that the policy of settlement and annexation was based on the so-called homeland doctrine; from there to saving that there were no "occupied territories," only "liberated territories," was no more than a step, which the occupying power had already taken.
It was clear, Jordan said, that the Israeli authorities were totally obsessed by security and were oblivious to the welfare of the indigenous population. Morocco rejected Israeli leaders' recent statements that the Israeli settlements in Judaea and Samaria, as they called the West Bank, and in the Gaza Strip, were there by right. Afghanistan and the Syrian Arab Republic would have liked the Special Committee to study the situation in the Golan Heights as well.
Concern at serious encroachments by the occupying authorities on the inviolability of the status of Jerusalem was expressed by, among others, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Qatar and Somalia.
The spokesman for Hungary said that a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict could only be conceived within the framework of an international conference with the participation of all the parties involved, including PLO, based on Israel's withdrawal from all the territories occupied in 1967, on recognition of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and on guarantees enabling all the States in the area to live in peace within recognized, secure borders. Israel was currently trying to change the legal status of the occupied territories by creating new settlements and applying to them Israeli laws and regulations in flagrant violation of the relevant 1949 Geneva Conventions and United Nations resolutions. This view was shared by a number of Eastern European and other States, among them Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Mongolia and the Ukrainian SSR.
The representative of the USSR said that the Israeli leaders did not hide their designs for annexation and colonization of the occupied territories. That policy, practiced at the expense of the legitimate inalienable rights of the Palestinian Arab people and other peoples, was a violation of the principles of international law, including those of the fourth Geneva Convention. The policy of militarized settlement had always been regarded by Israel's rulers as an effective means of fulfilling their plans to create a "greater Israel" with the idea that the settlements would be reference points for their country's future frontiers. The intensification of that policy confirmed that the Camp David agreements, reached behind the backs of the Arab people, were aimed at preventing the achievement of a just and over-all solution to the problem, enabling Israel to retain the Arab territories and impeding the realization of the inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine.
Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, Kuwait and the Ukrainian SSR were also among States which rejected separate agreements, which they felt aggravated the conflict, hindered the just cause of the Palestinians and made a comprehensive solution even more remote.
The validity of the application of the fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Arab territories was reaffirmed by a number of other States in addition to the Arab countries, among them Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria and Pakistan.
The representative of India said that Israel's unwillingness to accept the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention, and its refusal to abide by its terms, was inexcusable. He deplored the fact that nothing had been done to alleviate prison conditions in the occupied territories. Allegations of shocking treatment of Arab inhabitants during interrogation were too serious to be ignored, India continued, and it was difficult to imagine how a people who had suffered grievous persecution through the course of history could indulge in such gross violations of the human rights of others. If the charges were not true or were exaggerated, the only effective way of disproving them was to let the Special Committee study the situation at first hand.
In the view of Nigeria, each settlement established by Israel in the occupied territories represented an element in a conscious and explicit policy of colonization. The settlements, involving the systematic eviction of Arab families from their lands, had been justified on grounds of military security, but immediately thereafter the sequestrated property tract had been turned over to Israeli immigrants. This policy was illegal, and politically it was futile and self-defeating.
Cyprus and Greece said that they were opposed to any policies of annexation, demographic dismemberment or oppression by an occupying power, wherever they were practiced.
The Byelorussian SSR, Democratic Yemen and Zambia said it was important to note that Israel's activities and arrogance in utter defiance of the United Nations and international public opinion would be impossible without Western support, particularly that of the United States. Imperialist forces, in the view of Bangladesh and the Byelorussian SSR, wished to exercise control over the petroleum resources and strategic position of the Middle East. Albania, which held a similar view, added that both super-powers, while working against Arab unity, had always proclaimed their role as peacemakers, thus camouflaging their true hegemonistic aims in the region.
Bangladesh, India and the Niger felt that a Special Committee recommendation concerning the establishment of an impartial and effective mechanism to safeguard the human rights of the population of the occupied territories deserved international support.
China considered that the question of the territories occupied by Israel was an inseparable component of the entire Middle East question. The Palestinian and Arab peoples were victims not only of Israeli aggression and expansion but also of super-power competition of hegemony in the Middle East and in the whole world, and it was that competition for spheres of influence that had for so long prevented the achievement of peace in the region.
The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, speaking on behalf of the nine member countries of the European Economic Community (EEC), said that a settlement in the Middle East must be based on Israel's withdrawal from the territories it had occupied since 1967. Thus, Israel's officially stated intention to expand settlements in the occupied territories was a cause for concern, since it could jeopardize negotiations designed to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Since the fourth Geneva Convention was fully applicable to those territories, the EEC countries were opposed to any unilateral modification of the status of Jerusalem and the Holy Places.
Speaking in explanation of vote, the United States said that it supported the first of the three resolutions because it considered that the fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to the territories occupied in 1967. It also supported the second – although it did not think it was as balanced as it might have been and had not taken into account progress made in recent months because it was opposed to settlements in occupied territories since they might prejudice negotiations on territorial aspects of final peace treaties and were inconsistent with the Geneva Convention. It opposed the third resolution because it contained allegations that had not been adequately verified and because the Special Committee's report was one-sided.
Colombia also had doubts about the veracity of some of the allegations of Israeli policies and practices condemned by the Assembly in the third resolution, although it had voted in favour.
Expressing views similar to that of the United States on the first two resolutions, the Federal Republic of Germany, on behalf of EEC, added that the nine countries interpretation of the term "Palestinian territories" remained uncharged. The nine abstained on the third resolution because of their reservation on the previous resolution by which the Special Committee had been established and because, in the absence of conclusive proof of the use of torture by the Israeli authorities, the resolution went beyond the conclusions of the Special Committee.
Guatemala said that it had voted against the third resolution because it believed it might prejudice current peace negotiations, which it hoped would be successful. Finland and Norway could not accept the wording, and in some cases the substance, of some of the provisions of that resolution; Portugal expressed similar reservations despite its vote in favour. The Ivory Coast said that it doubted whether, in the absence of on-the-spot investigations, the Special Committee's report could be termed objective.
Living conditions of
the Palestinian people
The Secretary-General submitted a report to the General Assembly in 1978 on the social and economic impact of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, as requested by the Assembly on 19 December 1977. 53/ In preparing the report, the Secretary-General was asked to consult with PLO and to collaborate with relevant United Nations organs and specialized agencies, particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the Economic Commission for Western Asia
(ECWA).
The Secretary-General reported that in order to carry out this task, he had employed a team of three consultants – a physical planner, an economist and a sociologist – who, together with an official from UNRWA or ECWA, would visit the countries concerned and the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, as well as the headquarters of PLO, UNRWA and ECWA.
By notes verbales of 9 May, addressed to the representative of Israel and to the representatives of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, the Secretary-General had requested such information as they might have available on the subject. He had also informed them of his intention to send the mission of consultants to their countries, requesting them to extend to the mission all possible assistance.
The representative of Israel replied to the Secretary-General by a note verbale of 31 May agreeing to transmit information relevant to the topic, which was subsequently transmitted, but no reference was made to the consultants' mission. Following the Secretary-General's reiteration of his request that the mission be given access to the occupied territories in a note verbale of 27 July, the representative of Israel had informed him on 18 August that, on the basis of a number of visitors' reports recording an improvement in the living conditions of Palestinians in those territories, it was considered unnecessary that an expert mission be sent.
The representatives of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic had informed the Secretary-General, in notes verbales of 30 May, 17 July and 26 May respectively, that their Governments would welcome the team of consultants, although no reference had been made in the replies to the Secretary-General's request for information.
The Secretary-General had received no reply to two requests for information contained in notes verbales of 9 May and 5 September addressed to the Permanent Observer of PLO.
The Secretary-General informed the Assembly that, because of insufficient information received on the topic and because the situation prevailing in Beirut, Lebanon, precluded a visit by the mission, it had not been possible to prepare a full report on the subject in 1978, but that, if possible, the report would be submitted in 1979.
On 18 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 33/110 on the living conditions of the Palestinian people. By the resolution, it took note of the report of the Secretary-General and asked him, in collaboration with the relevant United Nations organs and specialized agencies, particularly UNRWA, ECWA and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, to prepare and submit to the Assembly's 1979 regular session a comprehensive and analytical report on the social and economic impact of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. In preparing the report, the Secretary-General was asked to consult and co-operate with PLO.
Resolution 33/110 was adopted, by a recorded vote of 109 to 2, with 24 abstentions, on the recommendation of the Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, where, on 28 November, the text, sponsored by 29 powers, was approved by a roll-call vote – taken at the request of Iraq – of 89 to 2, with 23 abstentions. (For list of sponsors, voting details and text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Documentary references
Communications
S/12562. Letter of 15 February from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (transmitting letter of 14 February 1978 from Chairman of 30th session of Co-ordinating committee for Liberation of Africa, Tripoli).
S/12563. Letter of 9 February from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 6 February 1978 from PLO).
S/12575 (A/33/60). Note verbale of 21 February from Jordan (transmitting memorandum of 5 January 1978 from Minister for Foreign Affairs).
S/12640 (A/33/78). Letter of 11 April from Morocco.
S/12669 (A/33/88). Note verbale of 12 April from Jordan. (Annex: Communication from Government.)
S/12725 (A/33/116). Letter of 31 May from Israel.
S/12752 (A/33/153). Letter of 19 June from Qatar.
S/12762 (A/33/164). Letter of 22 June from Jordan. (Annex: Letter of 20 January 1972 attaching statement of Permanent Mission of Jordan to United Nations.
S/12767 (A/33/175). Note verbale of 5 July from Jordan. (Annex: Communication of 31 May 1978 from Minister of State Foreign Affairs.)
S/12777 (A/33/184), S/12805 (A/33/203). Letters of 17 July and 7 August from Israel.
S/12806 (A/33/204). Letter of 9 August from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/12816 (A/33/211). Letter of 18 August from Israel.
S/12820 (A/33/218). Letter of 22 August from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People to Secretary-General.
S/12838 (A/33/230), S/12844 (A/33/233). Letters of 30 August and 8 September from Jordan.
S/12933 (A/33/386). Letter of 22 November from Israel.
S/12873. Letter of 19 December from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 19 December 1978 from PLO).
A/33/179 and Corr.1. Letter of 12 April from Egypt (transmitting letter of 4 April 1978 from Minister for Foreign Affairs).
A/33/99. Letter of 10 May from Israel.
A/33/154, A/33/165. Letter of 21 and 30 June from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People to Secretary-General.
A/33/229. Letter of 1 September from Israel.
Consideration by the General Assembly
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE
General Assembly – 33rd session
Special Political Committee, meetings 29-34, 37.
Fifth Committee, meeting 62.
Plenary meeting 87.
A/33/2. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1977-16 June 1978, Chapter 1 C.
A/33/60 (S/12575). Note verbale of 21 February from Jordan (transmitting memorandum of 5 January 1878 from Minister for Foreign Affairs).
A/33/78 (S/12640). Letter of 11 April from Morocco.
A/33/88 (S/12669). Note verbale of 12 April from Jordan. (Annex: Communication from Government.)
A/33/116 (S/12725). Letter of 31 May from Israel.
A/33/151. Letter of 14 June from Senegal (transmitting resolutions of 9th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Dakar, 24-28 April 1978).
A/33/153 (S/12752). Letter of 19 June from Qatar.
A/33/154. Letter of 21 June from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People to Secretary- General.
A/33/164 (S/12762). Letter of 22 June from Jordan. (Annex: Letter of 20 January 1972 attaching statement of Permanent Mission of Jordan to United Nations.)
A/33/165. Letter of 30 June from Acting Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People to Secretary-General.
A/33/175 (S/12767). Note verbale of 5 July from Jordan. (Annex: Communication of 31 May 1978 from Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.)
A/33/184 (S/12777), A/33/203 (S/12805). Letters of 17 July and 7 August from Israel.
A/33/204 (S/12806). Letter of 9 August from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/33/206. Letter of 6 September from Yugoslavia (transmitting documents of Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, Belgrade, 25-30 July 1978).
A/33/211 (S/12816). Letter of 18 August from Israel.
A/33/218 (S/12820). Letter of 22 August from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People to Secretary-General.
A/33/230 (S/12838), A/33/233 (S/12844). Letters of 30 August and 8 September from Jordan.
A/33/356. Report of Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of Population of Occupied Territories. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report).
A 33/369. Report of Secretary-General.
A 33/386 (S/12933). Letter of 22 November from Israel.
A/SPC/33/L.15. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 28 November 1978, meeting 37, by roll-call vote of 104 to 1, with 1 abstention:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.
Against: Israel.
Abstaining: Guatemala.
A/33/439. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution A.
Resolution 33/113 A, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/33/439, adopted by Assembly on 18 December 1978, meeting 87, by recorded vote of 140 to 1, with 1 abstention, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democrats Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Israel.
Abstaining: Guatemala.
The Genera Assembly,
Recalling its resolutions 3092 A (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973
3240 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, 3525 B (XXX) of 15 December 1975, 31/106 B of 16 December 1976 and 32/91 A of 13 December 1977,
Considering that the promotion of respect for the obligations
arising from the Charter of the United Nations 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 to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to all the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.
2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to acknowledge the applicability of that Convention to the territories it has occupied since 1967;
3. Calls again 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 once more all States parties to that Convention to 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/33/L.16. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Turkey, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 28 November 1978, meeting 37, by roll-call vote of 110 to 1, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Israel.
Abstaining: Bahamas, Guatemala, Venezuela.
A/33/439. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution B.
Resolution 33/113 B, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/33/439, adopted by Assembly on 18 December 1978, meeting 87, by recorded vote of 139 to 1, with 1 abstention:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Israel.
Abstaining: Guatemala.
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 32/5 of 28 October 1977,
Expressing grave anxiety and concern over the present serious situation in the occupied Arab territories as a result of the continued Israeli occupation and the measures and actions taken by the Government of Israel, as the occupying Power, and designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of those territories,
Considering that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to all the Arab territories since 5 June 1967,
1. Determines that all such measures and actions taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction of efforts aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
2. Strongly deplores the persistence of Israel in carrying out such measures, in particular the establishment of settlement in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories;
3. Calls upon Israel to comply strictly with its international obligations in accordance with the principles of international law and the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons In Time Of War, of 12 August 1949;
4. Calls once more upon the Government of Israel, as the occupying Power, to desist forthwith from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status, geographical nature or demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
5. Urges all States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War to respect and to exert all efforts in order to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in all the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
A/SPC/33/L.17. Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan: draft resolution.
A/SPC/33/L.1 7/Rev.1. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan: revised draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 28 November 1978, meeting 37, by roll-call vote of 83 to 3, with 29 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Central African Empire, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tare, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Guatemala, Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Suriname, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.
A/SPC/33/L.18, A/C.5/33/76, A/33/520. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution C recommended by Special Political Committee in A/33/439. Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.
A/33/439. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution C.
Resolution 33/113 C, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/33/439, adopted by Assembly on 18 December 1978, meeting 87, by recorded vote of 97 to 3, with 38 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Guatemala, Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Samoa, Suriname, Swaziland, 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 all its resolutions on the subject, in particular resolutions 32/91 B and C of 13 December 1977, as well as those adopted by the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights and other United Nations organs concerned and by the 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 and for its thoroughness and impartiality;
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, of 12 August 1949, and other applicable international instruments, and condemns in particular those violations which that Convention designates as "grave breaches" thereof;
5. Condemns the following Israeli policies and practices:
(a) Annexation of parts of the occupied territories;
(b) Establishment of new Israeli settlements and expansion of the existing settlements on private and public Arab lands, and transfer of an alien population thereto;
(c) Evacuation, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories and denial of their right to return;
(d) Confiscation and expropriation of private and public 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) Destruction and demolition of Arab houses;
(f) Mass arrests, administrative detention and ill-treatment of the Arab population;
(g) Ill-treatment and torture of persons under detention;
(h) Pillaging of archaeological and cultural property;
(i) Interference with religious freedoms and practices as well as family rights and customs;
(j) Illegal exploitation of hoe natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories;
6. Reaffirms that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional stature or status of she occupied territories, or any part thereof, including Jerusalem, are null and void, and that Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories constitutes 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;
7. Demands that Israel desist forthwith from the policies and practices referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the present resolution.
8. Reiterates its call upon all States, in particular those States parties to she Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and upon international organizations and the specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid actions, including those in the field of aid, which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any of the other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;
9. 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 she population of she occupied territories and to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever she need arises thereafter;
10. Requests she Special Committee to continue to investigate the treatment of civilians in detention in the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
11. 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 continue 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 Department of Public Information of the Secretariat and, where necessary, to reprint those reports of the Special Committee which are no longer available;
(d) To report to the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session on the tasks entrusted to him in the present paragraph;
12. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty-fourth session the item entitled "Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories."
LIVING CONDITIONS OF
THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
General Assembly – 33rd session
Second Committee, meetings 38, 49.
Plenary meeting 87.
A/33/354. Report of Secretary-General.
A/C.2/33/L.18 and Corr.1. Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Second Committee on 28 November 1978, meeting 49, by roll-call vote of 89 to 2, with 23 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chile, China, Colombia. Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain. Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire.
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay.
A/C.2/33/L.36. Administrative and financial implications of 29-power draft resolution, A/C.2/33/L.18. Statement by Secretary-General.
A/33/405. Report of Second Committee (on human settlements), draft resolution I.
Resolution 33/110, as recommended by Second Committee, A/33/405, adopted by Assembly on 18 December 1978, meeting 87, by recorded vote of 109 to 2, with 24 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad And Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameron, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay.
The General Assembly,
Recalling also the Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements, 1976, and the relevant recommendations for national action adopted by Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements,
Recalling also resolution 3, entitled "Living conditions of the Palestinians in occupied territories, contained in the recommendations for international co-operation adopted by the Conference, and Economic and Social Council resolutions 2026 (LXI) of 4 August 1976 and 2100 (LXIII) of 3 August 1977,
Recalling General Assembly resolutions 31/110 of 18 December 1976 and 32/171 of 19 December 1977,
1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Arab territories and notes that it has not been possible to prepare the full report called for in General Assembly resolution 32/171 in time for submission to the Assembly at its thirty-third session;
2. Requests, therefore, the Secretary-General, in collaboration with the relevant United Nations organs and specialized agencies, particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the Economic Commission for Western Asia and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, to prepare and submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session a comprehensive and analytical report on the social and economic impact of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Arab territories;
3. Also requests the Secretary-General, in preparing the above-mentioned report, to consult and co-operate with the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people;
4. Urges all States to co-operate with the Secretary-General, in the preparation of the report.
Questions pertaining to refugees in the Near East
In 1978, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continued its education, health and relief programmes for Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but not without serious financial and, in Lebanon, security problems. In March, the Agency launched an emergency assistance programme to provide some 67,000 displaced refugees with food, blankets, clothing and shelter following Israeli military action in southern Lebanon.
The Agency did not receive enough voluntary contributions during the year to meet budgeted expenditures, in spite of solicitation procedures it had introduced. Its total expenditure was $131.2 million, although the original budget for 1978 was $148.2 million. Because of lack of income there were cutbacks in services, such as a reduction in the flour component of the basic monthly ration, and there was less than full compensation for cost-of-living increases for staff.
Because of the deterioration in security in Lebanon, UNRWA moved its headquarters from Beirut in July, partly to Vienna, Austria, and partly to Amman, Jordan. Lack of facilities prevented the relocation of all of headquarters in the area of operations.
In December, the General Assembly, by a six-part resolution, called upon all Governments urgently to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of UNRWA, particularly in the light of a projected budgetary deficit. It also requested that UNRWA's headquarters be reconsolidated within the area of operations as soon as practicable. The Assembly endorsed the efforts of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to continue humanitarian assistance.
Activities in 1978
During the year, the number of refugees registered with UNRWA rose through natural increase to 1,778,815, of whom 825,262 received monthly rations. The Agency also distributed monthly rations to about 231,000 displaced persons and refugee children, the latter registered with UNRWA for services only, in Jordan at the expense of the Jordanian Government. About 37 per cent (661,000) of the registered population lived in camps.
The Agency continued its efforts, in cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO), to maintain health education and integrated family health care for refugees, with emphasis on preventive medicine, including supplementary feeding of nutritionally vulnerable groups. Specialized treatment programmes and laboratory facilities were modestly improved. Expenditure on health services totalled $22 million in 1978.
Expenditure on education increased during the year to $76.2 million, representing 58 per cent of the Agency's total expenditure. The programme, operated jointly with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), included the first nine years of general education (10 Years in Lebanon), some assistance for refugee pupils in government and private secondary schools, vocational and teacher training for 4,500 men and women in eight Agency centres, and 339 university scholarships. Of UNRWA's 16,000 employees in the five field offices, almost all of whom were Palestine refugees, nearly 11,000 were working in the educational field and 8,986 were teachers.
In addition to some 307,000 children enrolled in 617 UNRWA elementary and lower secondary schools during the 1977/78 school year, there were also some 78,167 pupils enrolled in government and private schools; about 9,026 children of displaced persons were in Agency schools in Jordan. Double-shifting was necessary in 73 per cent of UNRWA schools despite the 91 school rooms built or under construction during the year.
The eight UNRWA/UNESCO training centres had places for 4,540 young men and women. By the end of 1978, a total of nearly 29,000 trainees had been graduated from these centres. The UNRWA/UNESCO Institute of Education continued to emphasize in-service refresher courses for qualified teachers and ad hoc courses in educational techniques and knowledge to meet special needs and curricula development.
Consideration by the General Assembly
The question of the refugees in the Near East was considered by the General Assembly in 1978 both in its Special Political Committee and in plenary meetings.
During its discussion of the item, between 25 October and 6 November, the Special Political Committee had before it several reports, including: the annual report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA; reports by the Secretary-General on Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip, on population and refugees displaced since 1967 and on offers of scholarships and grants for higher education for Palestine refugees; a report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine; and a report by the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA.
Report of the Commissioner-General
In his report covering the period from 1 July 1977 to 30 June 1978, the Commissioner-General gave an account of the various activities of UNRWA. He noted that the Agency's mandate was concerned only with the provision of services to Palestine refugees pending a general settlement in the Middle East, although the refugee problem had dimensions which went far beyond the purely humanitarian. The issue was essentially political in nature when considered in all of its aspects.
The Commissioner-General stated that the major disruption of the period was displacement of about 67,000 of the 206,000 registered Palestine refugees in Lebanon by the Israeli military action there in March 1978.
The Commissioner-General emphasized again that the most critical problem faced by UNRWA was its uncertain and inadequate financing. He observed that the Agency had completed the year 1977 with a deficit of $3.8 million and an inadequate working capital of only $15.8 million. The Agency estimated its deficit for 1978 at some $13.8 million. It was probable, as a result, that substantial portions of the budget for 1978 could not be implemented.
Reports of the Secretary-General
In October 1978, the Secretary-General submitted three reports to the General Assembly pursuant to three Assembly resolutions of 13 December 1977, 54/ respectively.
The first report concerned Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip. The Assembly had requested a report on compliance with its call on Israel to take immediate steps to return refugees to camps from which they had been removed in the Gaza Strip, to provide them with adequate shelter, and to desist from further removal of refugees and destruction of their shelters.
The Secretary-General reported that the Government of Israel, in a reply of 15 September to his request in March for information, had said that the security situation prevailing in the Gaza district was stable and had referred to what it termed the vast amelioration in the economic and social conditions of the refugees there. Israel's reply recounted the economic progress which it said had been achieved since 1967 in gross national product, employment and housing, stating that for the first time since 1948 refugees in the district had been given the possibility of moving out of the squalid conditions of the camps into decent housing. By the end of August, over 2,700 families had moved from camps into housing projects, and plans were in hand for further housing schemes, it said.
The Secretary-General noted that, according to reports received from the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, although no punitive demolition of refugee shelters in the Gaze Strip had taken place during the year, the Agency had not secured any settlement in respect to its claim for compensation for refugee shelters demolished on punitive grounds in former years. The Agency had continued to bring to the notice of the Israeli authorities the need to provide satisfactory housing for 2,554 refugee families affected by the demolitions.
In the period between 1 July 1977 and 30 June 1978, a total of 565 families, comprising 3,470 persons, had moved from camp shelters to new housing in projects established by Israel; 38 other refugee families, comprising 255 persons, had constructed and moved into new housing; and 984 shelter rooms had been demolished in the camps following moving.
With reference to the repeated comment by the Israeli Government that the refugees lived in "squalid conditions" in the camps, the Commissioner-General reiterated that such references were more generalized than was warranted by the facts.
The Secretary-General's second report, on population and refugees displaced since 1967, responded to the Assembly's request for a report on compliance with its call upon Israel to take immediate steps to return the displaced inhabitants and to desist from obstructing: that return or taking measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories.
In a reply of 15 September to the Secretary General's March request for information, the Israeli Government maintained that it had continued its policy of "open bridges" across the cease-fire lines, permitting the movement of about 1 million residents and visitors in the past year; special arrangements were also made for family reunion and the amelioration of hardship cases among the residents of the occupied territories. However, it said, subversive activities by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), exacerbated by the actions of certain Arab Governments assisting the infiltration of Arab terrorists and arms, had necessarily placed serious limitations on the return of persons displaced in 1967. Nevertheless, Israel said, in the decade from 1967 to 1977, over 47,000 persons had been permitted to rejoin their families in the administered areas.
According to information obtained from the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, the number of displaced registered refugees who were known by the Agency to have returned to the occupied territories since 1967 was about 9,250, the Secretary-General reported. So far as was known to UNRWA, 204 displaced registered refugees or their family members had returned from east Jordan to the West Bank, 29 from east Jordan to the Gaza Strip and 18 from Egypt to the Gaza Strip between 1 July 1977 and 30 June 1978.
The Secretary-General submitted his third report in response to an Assembly appeal to all States to make special allocations, scholarships and grants to Palestine refugees. The Assembly had also invited United Nations agencies to consider assisting Palestine refugee students in higher education, and had asked UNRWA to act as recipient, trustee and awarder of such special allocations and scholarships.
Egypt, the Federal Republic of Germany, Kuwait, Poland, the Sudan, the USSR, the United States and Yugoslavia had informed the Commissioner-General of UNRWA that they were already providing scholarships for higher education to Palestinians, and Denmark had advised that scholarships were available.
The Secretary-General noted that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation and the International Telecommunication Union had reported that they had already held discussions with representatives of Palestinian organizations on this subject; UNESCO had referred to its long-standing involvement with UNRWA and provision of scholarships for specialized training for its staff, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization and the Universal Postal Union had indicated that the request for assistance had been considered.
Report of the United Nations
Conciliation Commission for Palestine
In accordance with a General Assembly resolution of 13 December 1977, 55/ the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine submitted to the Assembly in 1978 its thirty-second report, covering the period from 1 October 1977 to 30 September 1978. The Commission had been requested under the terms of the resolution to exert continued efforts towards the implementation of paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194 (III) of December 1948 56/ and to report to the Assembly by 1 October 1978.
The Commission indicated in its report that the events which had occurred in the area had further complicated an already very complex situation, and that the circumstances which had limited the Commission's possibilities of action had remained essentially unchanged. The Commission noted, however, that diplomatic activity towards the achievement of a lasting peace had been resumed and expressed the hope that the situation in the region would improve.
Report of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA
On 19 October 1978, the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, established to assist in reaching solutions to the Agency's financial problems, reported to the General Assembly. It emphasized that income in 1978 had not been sufficient to enable UNRWA to maintain its services to Palestine refugees at the budgeted levels. It noted that, while contributions had risen, the increase had not been sufficient to offset higher costs, although the new forward planning procedure on a voluntary basis for solicitation of contributions, introduced in 1977, had facilitated the forward planning of the Agency's activities.
The Working Group reiterated its conviction that as long as a just and lasting settlement of the problem of the Palestine refugees had not been achieved, the humanitarian services provided by UNRWA in the form of relief assistance, health care and education remained indispensable.
Noting that the basic financial problems of UNRWA could not be solved without the establishment of a firmer and broader basis for its financing, the Group urged Governments which had not contributed in the past to participate in the financing of the Agency.
General Assembly discussion
The Commissioner-General of UNRWA in presenting his report to the Special Political Committee pointed out that the Agency's services were provided on a continuing and institutionalized basis and did not constitute emergency or disaster relief.
He noted that the special problems in 1978 with which the Agency had had to cope included the tragic events in Lebanon which had forced it to relocate its headquarters. The Agency would continue to provide services to Palestine refugees in Lebanon to the extent possible given the circumstances.
Referring to the financial problems of UNRWA, the Commissioner-General indicated that the estimated budgeted expenditures were $137.7 million and the pledged or expected income amounted to $126.4 million, leaving a deficit of $11.3 million. He stressed that UNRWA was at the point where non-structural economies were unlikely to suffice; in order to survive and provide some services to the Palestine refugees, the Agency would have to dismantle some parts of its institutional structure.
With regard to the new income solicitation procedure by which non-contributing States had been requested to contribute and the major contributors asked to consider contributions of specified amounts which would make UNRWA financially viable, he observed that the response had been sufficiently encouraging to warrant its continuation, with modifications, but that no new contributors had come forward. He urged the international community to give practical expression, at the annual pledging conference, to the decisions of principle it had taken.
The Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA introduced the Group's report, emphasizing the financial difficulties encountered and noting that the new forward planning procedure for solicitation of contributions had made it possible to avoid an immediate financial crisis and a drastic cutback on programmes in 1978. However, he said that the longer-term problems of financial security for UNRWA remained unsolved. The continuation of its services was an obligation of the United Nations.
In the course of the discussion of this item in the Special Political Committee, most speakers acknowledged that, despite the contributions of some Member States, UNRWA's income was not sufficient to enable it to maintain all its services at the budgeted levels. Many speakers, including the representatives of Arab States, pointed out that there could be no peace in the Middle East until Israel withdrew from the occupied territories and the Palestinian people exercised their right to self-determination and were able to set up their own State.
The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic stated that the United Nations, since it was responsible for creating the Palestinian refugee problem, should assume its responsibility to the refugees by ensuring that UNRWA was able to maintain its activities and even expand their scope. This would in no way prejudice the right of the refugees to choose whether they wished to return to their homeland or receive compensation. A number of representatives, such as those of Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria and Norway, also felt that the Agency's programmes should not be reduced, and preferably should be expanded, particularly in the field of educational services, which were very important to the future of a young generation of Palestinians.
The representative of Morocco said that the figures given by the Commissioner-General concerning the return of registered refugees showed that Israel had not changed its policy and continued to invoke security pretexts to prevent their return. Egypt and Morocco held the view that the refugee problem would become increasingly acute until Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, which provided for the return of the refugees to their homes and the payment of proper compensation to those who did not wish to return, was implemented. Lebanon reaffirmed its categorical refusal to allow the settlement of Palestine refugees on Lebanese soil and reminded the international community and States directly concerned of their historical responsibility in that respect.
The representative of Jordan recalled that his Government had spent $30.7 million during 1978 for assistance to a category of Palestinians known as displaced inhabitants, dispersed after June
1967, whether refugees or inhabitants of cities in the occupied territories, which had been the direct responsibility of his Government. He expressed regret that the actual percentage of refugees receiving all services from UNRWA was considerably less than 17.5 per cent of the registered population. He also noted with regret the almost insignificant response to the Assembly's appeal for special allocations, scholarships and grants to Palestinian refugees.
The representative of PLO observed that, in spite of statements to the contrary by United States officials, the Camp David agreements contained provisions which set up obstacles to the return to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of persons displaced in the 1967 war. As far as the refugee aspects of the problem were concerned he said, the framework for peace stated that, during a transitional period, representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and a self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza would constitute a continuing committee to decide by agreement on the modalities of admission to persons displaced from those territories in 1967, together with necessary measures to prevent disruption and disorder. The absolute right of return had thus been transformed into a selective privilege.
The representative of Israel charged that the Arab States were responsible for creating the refugee problem, and were using them as pawns in an unrelenting war against Israel. He drew attention to the fact that one of the elements of the Camp David accords was the commitment to deal with the refugee problem with a view to its permanent solution and that a negotiated solution was also a requirement under Security Council resolution 242 (1967). 57/ Essentially, his Government's approach was that the refugees deserved a chance once again to become useful and productive members of a society of which they were a part; they should be resettled and integrated in Arab countries where opportunities were excellent. The Agency had ended up by creating a welfare system providing free education, health services and social relief which in a way made it attractive to be a refugee, thus perpetuating the problem and encouraging others to seek refugee status.
The representative of the United States said that the Camp David accords had stated that negotiations must lead to a resolution of the Palestinian problem hi all its aspects, including a just and permanent solution of the refugee problem. The accords also dealt with issues beyond the refugee question, and people must begin to think in the broader terms which they established, she said.
Canada was among those States which felt that the framework for peace agreed at Camp David provided a good basis for an equitable solution; although not intended to solve all outstanding problems, it provided the means for the parties concerned to reach agreement through further negotiations.
A number of representatives – including those of Afghanistan, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Guyana, Indonesia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, the Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire – stated that although the General Assembly had thus far dealt with the problem from a humanitarian point of view, the root of the problem was essentially political; the issue, they maintained, should be discussed against the political background. The refugee problem could be solved only within the context of a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East crisis based on such fundamental principles as the exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable right to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State.
The representatives of the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, the USSR and others called for the implementation of the Assembly's 1948 resolution (194 (III)), recognizing the right of the refugees to repatriation or compensation.
Referring to the Camp David accords and the separate negotiations following them, the USSR, Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European States believed that they could only lead to new complications in the Middle East situation, that they encouraged the aggressor in its expansionist policies and were designed to perpetuate the problems of the Palestine refugees. The achievement of a just and lasting peace required the collective participation of all interested parties, including PLO, at a specially convened Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East.
The representative of Romania expressed his concern over an Israeli decision to increase the number of Israeli inhabitants in the settlements established on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; this was a violation of the principles of international law and United Nations resolutions.
The representative of Japan, among others, pointed to the international recognition of the fact that the crux of the Middle East problem was the Palestine question and that no real peace could be achieved so long as that question remained unresolved. Pending its solution, he felt, as did the representative of Ghana, that it was essential that every possible effort be made to assure the Palestine refugees a stable existence, enabling them to be productive and contribute to society.
A number of speakers, including those of Afghanistan, Canada, Democratic Yemen, the German Democratic Republic, Guyana, Indonesia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United Arab Emirates, stated that the major disruption of the period covered by the Commissioner-General's report had been yet another displacement of Palestine refugees by the Israeli military operations in Lebanon. Those operations had aggravated even further the problem of the refugees as well as the situation in the Middle East as a whole.
Many States, for example, Egypt, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States and Zaire, expressed concern that the renewed fighting in Lebanon had forced the relocation of the Agency's headquarters, and felt that its headquarters should be consolidated within the area of its operations as soon as possible.
Most speakers, among them those of Chile, Iraq, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Yugoslavia and Zaire, were concerned that the financial difficulties experienced by UNRWA in the past had not been overcome and that its current deficit was again of a magnitude that might force it to reduce the level and quality of its services to the refugees.
Finland and Sweden were among States which considered that financing the work of UNRWA was the common responsibility of all Member States. The Federal Republic of Germany, speaking on behalf of the member States of the European Economic Community (EEC), said that too small a group of countries bore too large a part of the burden. He added that EEC was well aware that the problem of the Palestinians could not be dealt with, much less solved, as a mere question of refugees; it required a just and lasting solution to the Middle East problem as a whole.
Indonesia, Iraq, Oman, Somalia and Turkey were among those expressing the view that a different method should be found to finance UNRWA. Several States, among them Iran, Mauritania, Qatar, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United Arab Emirates, felt that the Agency's budget should be incorporated in whole or in part into the United Nations regular budget. Kuwait suggested that contributions should be reserved for projects, while staff salaries should be financed under the United Nations budget. The Byelorussian SSR and the USSR, however, maintained their position that UNRWA operations should be financed through voluntary contributions.
Decisions of the General Assembly
On 3 and 6 November 1978, the Special Political Committee approved six draft resolutions and forwarded them to the General Assembly for adoption. On 18 December, the Assembly approved all six resolutions without modification.
By the first (resolution 33/112 A), on assistance to Palestine refugees, the Assembly noted with regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in resolution 194 (III) had not been effected, that no progress had been made in reintegrating them by repatriation or resettlement and that their situation continued to be a matter of serious concern.
It expressed thanks to UNRWA, the specialized agencies and private organizations for their work in assisting the refugees, requested reconsolidation of UNRWA headquarters as soon as practicable, noted with regret that the Conciliation Commission had been unable to achieve progress and asked it to continue its efforts and to report by 1 October 1979, directed attention to the continuing seriousness of the Agency's financial situation, and called on all Governments urgently to make the most generous contributions possible.
Resolution 33/112 A, sponsored by the United States, was approved by the Special Political Committee on 3 November by 108 votes to 0, with 1 abstention; the Assembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 136 to 0, with 2 abstentions.
(For text of resolution and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
In explanation of vote, Israel said that it had abstained because it could not accept the interpretation of Assembly resolution 194 (III); a solution to the problem of both Arab and Jewish refugees could be envisaged only in terms of population exchange through negotiations.
By resolution 33/112 B. the Assembly endorsed the efforts of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who were currently displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 hostilities. It appealed to all Governments, organizations and individuals to contribute generously to UNRWA and to other concerned organizations for those purposes.
The resolution, sponsored by Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, was approved by the Special Political Committee on 3 November and adopted by the Assembly, in both instances by consensus. (For text of resolution 33/112 B, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCE below.)
By resolution 33/112 C, the Assembly appealed to all States to make special allocations, scholarships and grants to Palestinian refugees, in addition to their contributions to the regular budget of UNRWA, and invited United Nations agencies including the United Nations University, to consider the inclusion of assistance for higher education for the Palestinian refugee students. It appealed to all States, the specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations to contribute generously to Palestinian universities in the occupied territories and to offer scholarships to Palestinian refugee students in those universities, and asked UNRWA to act as recipient and trustee for such allocations and scholarships and to award them to qualified candidates.
Austria, Japan, Jordan and Yugoslavia sponsored resolution 33/112 C in the Special Political Committee, which approved it on 6 November by a vote, requested by Israel, of 111 to 0, with 2 abstentions; the Assembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 136 to 0, with 2 abstentions. (For text of resolution and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
The United States withdrew its sponsorship of the resolution as originally submitted, in view of a Libyan amendment to appeal for contributions to Palestinian universities in the occupied territories, rather than to scholarships for their students; this, the United States said, implied a new financial commitment for Member States, especially for the United States if it remained a sponsor. Israel said that it had abstained because of the resolution's political implications; it felt that a good purpose should not be subverted into yet one more act of political hostility.
By resolution 33/112 D, the Assembly commended the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA for its work, noted its report with approval, and requested the Group to continue its efforts for the financing of UNRWA for a further period of one year.
Canada, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, the Philippines, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Yugoslavia and Zaire sponsored the resolution in the Special Political Committee, which approved it by consensus on 6 November; the Assembly adopted it without vote.
(For text of resolution 33/112 D, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
By resolution 33/112 E, dealing with Palestine refugees in the Gaze Strip, the Assembly called once more upon Israel to take effective steps immediately for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they had been removed and to provide: adequate shelters for their accommodation, and to desist from further removal of refugees and destruction of their shelters. It asked the Secretary-General to report on Israel's compliance in 1979.
This resolution was sponsored in the Special Political Committee by Afghanistan, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal and Yugoslavia. The Committee approved it on 6 November by a vote, requested by Israel, of 109 to 1, with 2 abstentions; the Assembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 136 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
(For text of resolution 33/112 E and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
The United States said that it had abstained in the vote because it felt that it was illogical to call for the return of refugees to camps when they had been provided with more adequate housing. Israel opposed the text for similar reasons. Canada said that it would abstain on such resolutions as long as there was evidence of progress.
Finally, by resolution 33/112 F, dealing with population and refugees displaced since 1967, the Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable right of all the displaced inhabitants to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, declared that any attempt to restrict or attach conditions to the free exercise of the right of return was inconsistent with that inalienable right and was inadmissible, deplored the refusal of Israeli authorities to take steps for their return, and reiterated its call upon Israel to take such steps immediately and to desist from all measures that obstructed such return, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories. The Secretary-General was asked to report in 1979 on Israel's compliance.
Afghanistan, Cuba, Cyprus, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal and Yugoslavia sponsored the text, which the Special Political Committee approved on 6 November by a vote, requested by Israel, of 95 to 4, with 18 abstentions; the Assembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 115 to 4, with 22 abstentions.
(For text of resolution 33/112 F and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
In explanation of vote, Israel said that the provision by which the Assembly reaffirmed the right of displaced inhabitants to return to their homes and declared that any attempt to restrict the exercise Or that right was inadmissible sought to assert new propositions and principles for which there was no justification and which ran counter to the sovereign rights of States, the Charter of the United Nations and international law; the demands were impractical and contrary to the basic requirements of Israel's security. Moreover, the problems involved were the subject of current negotiations between the parties concerned and it was not helpful for the Assembly to prescribe solutions.
New Zealand, Portugal and the Federal Republic of Germany (speaking on behalf of the nine member States of EEC) said they regretted that they could not support the resolution because the wording of the paragraph referred to by Israel might in practice rule out any possibility of a negotiated arrangement for the return of the refugees. Canada said it opposed that text because it could prejudice peace negotiations. Austria, Finland and Sweden felt that the latter part of the paragraph lacked clarity, while Australia and the United States said that the resolution did not reflect recent developments towards the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the area.
Health needs of Palestinian refugee children
In accordance with a 1977 General Assembly resolution, 58/ the Secretary-General reported to the Assembly in October 1978 on the health needs of Palestinian refugee children. The report annexed a survey carried out during the first half of 1978 by WHO experts attached to UNRWA, in collaboration with the Governments of the host countries. The Agency regularly carried out nutrition surveys of Palestine refugee children as part of its routine health activities, the report noted.
The findings revealed a satisfactory general nutritional state of the UNRWA-assisted refugee children, substantiated by the absence of severe nutritional failure among infants and small children – the most vulnerable refugee groups – and by the negligible occurrence among them of specific clinical deficiency signs. The main nutritional problem was a mild to moderate protein-energy malnutrition. The same problem existed to a similar extent among the non-refugee population of the same ages, although both groups had realized a marked improvement in their growth pattern, reflecting a significant rise in their general nutritional state.
Another finding was a relatively high proportion of infants and small children with moderate-low levels of haemoglobin, which reflected the presence of widely spread iron-deficiency anaemia – one fourth being definitely anaemic. While the size of the problem was currently manageable, the situation called for remedial action, the survey noted.
The Assembly on 15 December expressed its appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report and to the Governments and agencies involved in conducting the survey. It requested Member States and concerned agencies to cooperate with UNRWA in taking effective action to remedy deficiencies identified in the survey, and asked the Secretary-General to keep the situation under constant review and to report again in 1979.
The Assembly took these actions when it adopted, without vote, resolution 33/81, on the recommendation of its Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, where the text had been approved, also without vote, on 22 November. The sponsors were Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Senegal, the Syrian Arab Republic and Tunisia. (For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)
Pledges and contributions
For the calendar year 1978, governmental and intergovernmental contributors pledged the equivalent of $122,338,708 towards UNRWA'S budget. In addition, contributions were received from the United Nations and its organizations, non-governmental organizations, private individuals and business corporations. Total income from all sources in 1978 was $130,504,701.
On 7 December, the Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly for the Announcement of Voluntary Contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East met at United Nations Headquarters, New York, at which 41 States pledged contributions for 1979 in cash or in kind. Pledges announced, plus those projected, were estimated at $126.6 million.
CONTRIBUTIONS PLEDGED TO UNRWA FOR THE
YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1978
(in US dollar equivalents)
Contribution Contribution
Contributor pledged Contributor pledged
Argentina 4,800 Malaysia 1,500
Australia 490,467 Monaco 630
Austria 107,000 Netherlands 2,491,913
Bahrain 15,000 New Zealand 132,309
Belgium 1,035,783 Nigeria 20,880
Brazil 10,000 Norway 2,989,954
Canada 4,519,792 Oman 25,000
Chile 2,000 Pakistan 20,843
Cyprus 1,299 Philippines 3,000
Denmark 1,725,834 Qatar 60,000
Egypt 8,580 Republic of Korea 5,000
European Economic Saudi Arabia 6,300,000
Community 15,452,987 Sierra Leone 1,000
Finland 249,703 Singapore 1,500
France 1,385,172 Spain 50,000
Gaza authorities 40,744 Sri Lanka 1,000
Germany, Federal Sweden 8,808,781
Republic of 5,057,215 Switzerland 1,708,834
Ghana 5,220 Syrian Arab Republic 109,783
Greece 30,000 Thailand 17,628
Holy See 2,500 Trinidad and Tobago 2,488
Iceland 15,000 United Arab Emirates 270,000
India 12,195 United Kingdom 7,729,214
Indonesia 6,000 United States 51,500,000
Iran 30,000 Yugoslavia 25,000
Iraq 121,600
Ireland 139,300 United Nations and
Israel 898,133 specialized agencies
Italy 240,904 United Nations 4,127,286
Jamaica 3,000 UNESCO 993,414
Japan 6,500,000 WHO 244,886
Jordan 259,008
Kuwait 600,000 Non-governmental sources 1,443,153
Lebanon 76,500
Libyan Arab Miscellaneous income
Jamahiriya 1,000,000 & exchange adjustments 1,357,254
Luxembourg 11,655 Total 130,504,701
Documentary references
Consideration by the General Assembly
General Assembly – 33rd session
Ad Hoc Committee of General Assembly for Announcement of Voluntary Contributions to UNRWA, meeting 1 (A/AC.195/SR.1) of 7 December 1978.
Special Political Committee, meetings 13-23.
Fifth Committee, meeting 46.
Plenary meeting 87.
A/33/13. Report of Commissioner-General of UNRWA, 1 July 1977-30 June 1978.
A/33/151. Letter of 14 June from Senegal (transmitting resolutions of 9th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Dakar, 24-28 April 1978).
A/33/276. Report of United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report for period 1 October 1977-30 September 1978).
A/33/285. Palestine refugees in Gaza Strip. Report of Secretary-General.
A/33/286. Population and refugees displaced since 1967. Report of Secretary-General.
A/33/287 and Corr.1. Offers of scholarships and grants for higher education for Palestine refugees. Report of Secretary-General.
A/33/320. Report of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA.
A/SPC/33/L.6 and Rev.1. United States: draft resolution and revision, approved by Special Political Committee on 3 November 1978, meeting 22, by 108 votes to 0, with 1 abstention.
A/33/374. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution A.
Resolution 33/112 A, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/33/374, adopted by Assembly on 18 December 1978 meeting 87, by recorded vote of 136 to 0, with 2 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstaining: El Salvador, Israel.
Assistance to Palestine refugees
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 32/90 A of 13 December 1977 and all previous resolutions referred to therein, including resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948,
Taking note of 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 1977 to 30 June 1978,
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 all the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near Ernst, recognizing that the Agency is doing all it can within the limits of available resources, and also expresses its thanks to the specialized agencies and private organizations for their valuable work in assisting the refugees;
3. Notes with regret that a part of the headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East has been relocated outside of the area of its activity and requests that the headquarters be reconsolidated within the area of its operations as soon as practicable;
4. 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 the paragraph and to report as appropriate, but no later than 1 October 1979;
5. 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 report of the Commissioner-General;
6. Notes with profound concern that, despite the commendable and successful efforts of the Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions, this increased level of income to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 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;
7. 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 report of the Commissioner-General, and therefore urges non-contributing Governments to contribute regularly and contributing Governments to consider increasing their regular contributions.
A/SPC/33/L.7. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden: draft resolution, approved by consensus by Special Political Committee on 3 November 1978, meeting 22.
A/33/374. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution B.
Resolution 33/112 B, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/33/374, adopted by consensus by Assembly on 18 December 1978, meeting 87.
Assistance to persons displaced as a result of
the June 1967 hostilities
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 32/90 B of 13 December 1977 and all previous resolutions referred to therein,
Taking note of 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 1977 to 30 June 1978,
Concerned about the continued human suffering resulting from the June 1967 hostilities in the Middle East,
1. Reaffirms its resolution 32/90 B and all previous resolutions referred to therein;
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, on 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/SPC/33/L.8. Austria, Japan, Jordan, United States, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.
A/SPC/33/L.8/Rev.1. Austria, Japan, Jordan, Yugoslavia: revised draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 6 November 1978, meeting 23, by 111 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.
A/33/374. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution C.
Resolution 33/112 C, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/33/374, adopted by Assembly on 18 December 1978, meeting 87, by recorded vote of 136 to 0, with 2 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia,
German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstaining: United States, Israel.
Offers by Member States of grants and scholarships for
higher education, including vocational training,
for the Palestine refugees
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 212 (III) of 19 November 1948 on assistance to Palestine refugees,
Recalling also its resolution 32/90 F of 13 December 1977,
Cognizant of the fact that the Palestine refugees have, for the last three decades, lost than lands and means of livelihood,
Having examined with appreciation 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 1977 to 30 June 1978,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 32/90 F,
Noting that less than one per thousand of the Palestinian refugee students has the chance to continue higher education, including vocational training,
Noting also that over the past five years the number of scholarships offered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East has dwindled to half of what it was because of the Agency's regular budgetary difficulties,
1. Expresses its regret that the response to the appeal contained in General Assembly resolution 32/90 F, as reported by the Secretary-General, has not been commensurate with the needs of the Palestine refugees for higher education and vocational training;
2. Appeals to all States to make special allocations, scholarships and grants to Palestinian refugees, in addition to their contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East;
3. Invites relevant United Nations agencies, including the United Nations University, to consider the inclusion, within their
respective spheres of competence, of assistance for higher education for the Palestinian refugee students;
4. Appeals to all States, the specialized agencies and non-governmental organization to contribute generously to Palestinian universities in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, as well as to offer scholarships to Palestinian refugee students in those universities;
5. Requests the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to act as recipient and trustee for such special allocations and scholarships and to award them to qualified Palestinian refugee candidates;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session on the implementation of the present resolution.
A/SPC/33/L.9. Canada, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Yugoslavia, Zaire: draft resolution, approved by consensus by Special Political Committee on 6 November 1978, meeting 23.
A/SPC/33/L.12, A/C.5/33/58, A/33/493. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution D recommended by Special Political Committee in A/33/374. Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.
A/33/374. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution D.
Resolution 33/112 D, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/33/374, adopted without vote by Assembly on 18 December 1978, meeting 87.
Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the East
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolutions 2656 (XXV) of 7 December 1970, 2728 (XXV) of 15 December 1970, 2791 (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2964 (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3090 (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3330 (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 D (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 C of 23 November 1976 and 32/90 D of 13 December 1977,
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 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 1977 to 30 June 1978,
Gravely concerned at the critical financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which has already reduced the essential minimum services being provided to the Palestine refugees and which threatens even greater reductions in the future,
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 efforts to assist in ensuring the Agency's financial security;
2. Notes with approval 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.
A/SPC/33/L.10. Afghanistan, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 6 November 1978, meeting 23 by 109 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions.
A/33/374. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution E.
Resolution 33/112 E, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/33/374, adopted by Assembly on 18 December 1978, meeting 87, by recorded vote of 136 to 1, with 4 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United
Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Israel.
Abstaining: Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, United States.
Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip
The General Assembly,
Recalling Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967,
Recalling also its resolutions 2792 C (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 C (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3089 C (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3331 D (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 C (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 E of 23 November 1976 and 32/90 C of 13 December 1977,
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 1977 to 30 June 1978, and the report of the Secretary-General of 11 October 1978,
1. Calls once more 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;
2. 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 its thirty-fourth session on Israel's compliance with paragraph 1 of the present resolution.
A/SPC/33/L.11. Afghanistan, Cuba, Cyprus, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 6 November 1978, meeting 23, by 95 votes to 4, with 18 abstentions.
A/33/374. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution F.
Resolution 33/112 F, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/33/374, adopted by Assembly on 18 December 1978, meeting 87, by recorded vote of 115 to 4, with 22 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Empire, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom.
*Subsequently Mongolia advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.
Population and refugees displaced since 1967
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 (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3331 D (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 C (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 D of 23 November 1976 and 32/90 E of 13 December 1977,
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 1977 to 30 June 1978, and the report of the Secretary-General of 12 October 1978,
1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of all the displaced inhabitants to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and declares that any attempt to restrict, or to attach conditions to, the free exercise of the right of return by any displaced person is inconsistent with that inalienable right and inadmissible;
2. Deplores the continued 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 all 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. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency Or Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report to the General Assembly by the opening of the thirty-fourth session on Israel's compliance with paragraph 3 of the present resolution.
HEALTH NEEDS OF PALESTINIAN REFUGEE CHILDREN
General Assembly – 33rd session
Second Committee, meetings 30,32,38,44.
Plenary meeting 85.
A/33/181. Report of Secretary-General.
A/C.2/33/L.23. Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia: draft resolution, as orally amended by sponsors, approved without vote by Second Committee on 22 November 1978, meeting 44.
Report of Second Committee (on operational activities for development), draft resolution II.
Resolution 33/81, as recommended by Second Committee, A/33/415, adopted without vote by Assembly on 15 December 1978, meeting 85.
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 212 (III) of 19 November 1948 on assistance to Palestine refugees,
Recalling its resolution 32/111 of 15 December 1977 on the health needs of Palestinian refugee children,
Recalling Economic and Social Council resolution 1978/40 of 1 August 1978 on the International Year of the Child,
1. Expresses its appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report on the health needs of Palestine refugee children, and to the host Governments, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and the World Health Organization for conducting the survey on this question;
2. Requests Member States and the agencies concerned, in particular the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund, to co-operate with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East in taking effective action to remedy the basic deficiencies in the annex to the report of the Secretary-General;
3. Requests the Secretarial to keep the situation under constant review and report his findings to the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session.
Notes
1/ See Y.U.N., 1975, p. 213.
2/ See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, resolution 338 (1973).
3/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 293, resolution 32/20.
4/ See Y.U.N., 1967, p. 257, resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.
5/ See Y.U.N., 1974, p. 198.
6/ Ibid., p. 199.
7/ See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, resolution 338 (1973).
8/ For text of Chapter VII of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.
9/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 293, resolution 32/20.
10/ Rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure reads: "Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may be invited, as a 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 (1) of the Charter." For text of Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.
11/ Rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure reads: "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."
12/ See Y.U.N., 1967, p. 257, resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.
13/ For text of Article 17(2) of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.
14/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 1017, resolution 32/214, operative para.1(a).
15/ For text of Chapter VII of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.
16/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 282, resolution 32/4 C, section III.
17/ Ibid., p. 282, resolution 32/4 B, section I.
18/ Ibid., p. 282, resolution 32/4 B, section I, and 32/4 C, section II, of 2 December 1977.
19/ See Y.U.N., 1975, p. 213.
20/ See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 222, resolution 3101 (XXVIII).
21/ See Y.U.N., 1975, pp. 235 and 236, resolutions 3374 B (XXX) of 28 November and 3374 C (XXX) of 2 December 1975, respectively; Y.U.N., 1976, pp. 226 and 227, resolutions 31/5 C and 31/5 D of 22 December 1976, respectively; and Y.U.N., 1977, p. 282, resolutions 32/4 B and C of 2 December 1977.
22/ The texts of regulations 4.3 and 4.4 read as follows:
"Regulation 4.3: Appropriations shall remain available for twelve months following the end of the financial period to which they relate to the extent that they are required to discharge obligations in respect of goods supplied and services rendered in the financial period and to liquidate any other outstanding legal obligations of the financial period. The balance of the appropriations shall be surrendered.
"Regulation 4.4: At the end of the twelve-month period provided in Regulation 4.3 above, the then remaining balance of any appropriations retained shall be surrendered. Any unliquidated obligations of the financial period in question shall at that time be cancelled or, where the obligations remain a valid charge, transferred as an obligation against current appropriations."
23/ For text of Article 17(2) of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.
24/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 1017, resolution 32/214.
25/ Ibid., p. 1034, resolution 32/39 of 2 December 1977.
26/ See footnote 24.
27/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 293, resolution 32/20.
28/ Ibid., p. 289.
29/ See Y.U.N., 1967, p. 257, resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.
30/ See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973.
31/ See Y.U.N., 1976, p. 234.
32/ Ibid., p. 245, resolution 31/20.
33/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 304, resolution 32/40 B.
34/ See Y.U.N., 1974, p. 226, resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974; and Y.U.N., 1975, p. 247, resolution 3375 (XXX) of 10 November 1975.
35/ See footnote 33.
36/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 303, resolution 32/40 A of 2 December 1977.
37/ See Y.U.N., 1948-49, p. 174, resolution 194 (III).
38/ See footnote 29.
39/ See footnote 37.
40/ See Y.U.N., 1947-48, p. 247, resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.
41/ Ibid., p. 247, resolution 181 A (II).
42/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 329, resolution 2100 (LXIII) of 3 August 1977.
43/ See Y.U.N., 1976, p. 248, resolution 2026 (LXI) of 4 August 1976.
44/ See footnote 42.
45/ For text of Chapter VII of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.
46/ See Y.U.N., 1972, p. 181.
47/ See Y.U.N., 1947-48, p. 247, resolution 181 (II) and annex.
48/ See Y.U.N., 1948-49, p. 174, resolution 194 (III).
49/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 324, resolution 32/91 C.
50/ Ibid., p. 312.
51/ See Y.U.N., 1972, p. 432.
52/ See footnote 49.
53/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 328, resolution 32/171.
54/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 339, resolution 32/90 C; and p. 340, resolutions 32/90 E and 32/90 F.
55/ Ibid., p. 337, resolution 32/90 A.
56/ Operative paragraph 11 of 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, p. 174, for full text of resolution.
57/ See Y.U.N., 1967, p. 257, resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.
58/ See Y.U.N., 1977, p. 341, resolution 32/111 of 15 December 1977.
specsess8.78
Document Type: Yearbook
Document Sources: United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI)
Subject: History, Human rights and international humanitarian law, Jerusalem, Middle East situation, Refugees and displaced persons
Publication Date: 31/12/1978