Yearbook of the United Nations 1983 (excerpts)

YEARBOOK

OF THE

UNITED NATIONS

1983

Volume 37

Department of Public Information

United Nations, New York

MIDDLE EAST

In 1983, the situation in the Middle East continued occupy the attention of the Security Council, the General Assembly and several other United Nations bodies. Aside from the annual debate in the Assembly on the Middle East situation as a whole, the major aspects considered were the Palestine question, the situation in Lebanon and between other individual Arab States and Israel, the situation in the territories occupied by Israel, and Palestine refugees. The United Nations continued to maintain two major peace-keeping operations in the region financed by special assessments on Member States.

Details on these subjects together with the full texts of the related resolutions or decisions adopted can be found under the relevant subject headings in the following pages. For texts of resolutions and decisions of major organs mentioned but not reproduced in this chapter, refer to INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS.

Topics related to this chapter. Disarmament: Nuclear-weapon-free zones – Middle East, nuclear weapons and Israel. Africa: Israel-South Africa relations. Mediterranean countries: Libyan Arab Jamahiriya-United States dispute. Disasters and emergency relief: Lebanon. Regional economic and social activities: Western Asia. Human rights. Refugees and humanitarian assistance: Lebanon.

_____________________

Middle East situation

__________________________

General aspects

The situation in the Middle East was again considered in 1983 as an item on the agenda of the General Assembly's regular session and, in December, the Assembly adopted five resolutions (38/180 A-E) on different aspects of the situation. Three of these (38/180 A-C) are dealt with elsewhere in this chapter (see INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS).

Communications. By a letter of 4 January , Israel drew attention to statements made by Arab and other countries on 20 December, in connection with the Assembly's consideration of the Middle East situation and the Palestine question, and asserted that the statements indicated that the countries in question maintained their attitude with regard to Israel's right to exist.

By a letter of 14 January,(2) Israel submitted complaints about what it described as terrorist incidents, for which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had claimed responsibility, in which explosive devices had been used against civilian targets.

By letters of 25 February(3) and 3 November,(4) Israel said that it objected to offensive references made about it by speakers in the Security Council during consideration of the dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United States (see Chapter VIII of this section), the situation in Grenada (see Chapter VI of this section) and the question of Namibia (see TRUSTEESHIP AND DECOLONIZATION, Chapter III).

On 24 March,(5) the Federal Republic of Germany transmitted the conclusions adopted at a meeting of heads of State and Government of the European Community (EC) at Brussels, Belgium, on 22 March. The meeting expressed concern at the continued lack of progress towards peace between Israel and its neighbours, and reaffirmed EC's previous position on a settlement, built on the right to a secure existence for all States in the region, including Israel, and justice for all the peoples, including the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Welcoming the September 1982 peace initiatives(6) of the United States and of the Arab Summit Conference at Fez, Morocco, the EC members expressed regret that no initiatives had succeeded in ending the fighting; they called for a cease-fire, cessation of all military operations and withdrawal of forces to internationally recognized frontiers, and for a just settlement negotiated in accordance with Security Council resolutions and acceptable to both parties.

On 21 April,(7) the Federal Republic of Germany and Thailand transmitted the joint declaration of the Fourth Meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the States members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations and EC, held at Bangkok, Thailand, on 24 and 25 March, which stressed the urgency for a Middle East peace settlement and called on all parties to the conflict to seize the opportunity for progress towards that end. The hope for a lasting Middle East peace settlement was reiterated in a letter of 22 June,(3) by which the Federal Republic of Germany transmitted the conclusions adopted at a meeting of the EC heads of State and Government at Stuttgart on 19 June.

On 21 November,(9) the Sudan transmitted a letter of the same date from the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations. in reply to a 16 November address to the General Assembly by Chaim Herzog, President of Israel, who had called for negotiations without pre-conditions. The Observer stated that, by annexing Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and Arab lands and cities, it was Israel which had established pre-conditions.

By a letter of 6 December 1983,(10) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya expressed concern that an agreement between the United States and Israel reached during the visit of the Israeli Prime Minister to Washington at the end of November, would endanger peace and security in the Arab region.

Report of the Secretary-General. In a September report to the General Assembly and the Security Council,(11) the Secretary-General submitted his observations on the Middle East situation. He noted that developments in the Middle East during the previous year had given little cause for hope for a solution and had made a comprehensive settlement even more difficult. Preoccupation with events in Lebanon (see below, under INCIDENTS AND DISPUTES BETWEEN ARAB COUNTRIES AND ISRAEL) had overshadowed the consideration of other major aspects of the Middle East problem; delay in getting to its roots, he warned, could create a far more fundamental crisis.

Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, realization of the rights of the States in the area to live in peace within secure boundaries, and the future and rights of the Palestinians were still the main elements of the conflict, the Secretary-General stated. Lack of mutual recognition and communication had created a dangerous impasse. The June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon(12) and its aftermath had again shown that the use of force could not resolve the Middle East conflict, but only complicate it.

The safety and survival of all the parties, he concluded, could be achieved only through an agreed settlement which took account of the basic aspirations and vital interests of each, based on principles outlined in Security Council resolution 242 (1967),(13) and which recognized the rights of the Palestinian people. He hoped that, confronted with the increasing dangers of the conflict which threatened the security of the region and beyond, the major Powers would find it possible to work with each other in the search for a just and durable Middle East peace, with the Council providing a practical framework and becoming a key instrument, and other means of approaching the problem, for example, through the institution of a suitable negotiating process, including, in an appropriate form, an international conference.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item "The situation in the Middle East”, the General Assembly, on 19 December 1983, adopted five resolutions, all by recorded vote. Three of them dealt with: the situation in the Syrian Golan Heights (38/180 A) (see below, under INCIDENTS AND DISPUTES BETWEEN ARAB COUNTRIES AND ISRAEL); the Palestinian cultural heritage (38/180 B); and the status of Jerusalem (38/180 C) (see below, under PALESTINE QUESTION).

Resolution 38/180 D dealing with the Middle East situation in general, as follows:

The General Assembly,

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

Reaffirming its resolutions 36/226 A and B of 17 December 1981, ES-9/l of 5 February 1982 and 37/123 F of 16 December 1982,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) of 19 March 1978, 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981, 508 (1982) of 5 June 1982, 509 (1982) of 6 June 1982, 511 (1982) of 18 June 1982, 512 (1982) of 19 June 1982, 513 (1982) of 4 July 1982, 515 (1982) of 29 July 1982, 516 (1982) of 1 August 1982, 517 (1982) of 4 August 1982, 518 (1982) of 12 August 1982, 519 (1982) of 17 August 1982, 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982 and 521 (1982) of 19 September 1982,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 12 October 1982,

Welcoming the world-wide support extended to the just cause of the Palestinian people and the other Arab countries in their struggle against Israeli aggression and occupation in order to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights, was affirmed by previous resolutions of the General Assembly relating to the question of Palestine and to the situation in the Middle East,

Gravely concerned that the Arab and Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, still remain under Israeli occupation, that the relevant resolutions of the United Nations  have not been implemented and that the Palestinian people is still denied the restoration of its land and the exercise of its inalienable national rights in conformity with international law, as reaffirmed by resolutions of the United Nations,

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem,

Reiterating all relevant United Nations resolutions which emphasize that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law and that Israel must withdraw unconditionally from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Reaffirming further the imperative necessity of establishing a comprehensive, just and  lasting peace in the region, based on full respect for the Charter and the principles of international law,

Gravely concerned also at recent Israeli actions involving the escalation and expansion of the conflict in the region, which further violate the principles of international law and endanger international peace and security,

Recognizing the great importance of the time factor in the endeavours to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its conviction that the question of Palestine is the core of the conflict in the Middle East and that no comprehensive. just and lasting peace in the region will be achieved without the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights and the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from all the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories;

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

3. Declares once more that peace in the Middle East is indivisible and must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the Middle East problem under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of relevant resolutions of the United Nations, which ensures the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem and which enables the Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to exercise its inalienable rights, including the right to return and the right to self-determination, national independence and the establishment of its independent sovereign State in Palestine, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations relevant to the question of Palestine, in particular General Assembly resolutions ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 36/120 A to F of 10 December 1981, 37/86 A to D of 10 December 1982 and 37/86 E of 20 December 1982;

4. Welcomes the Arab Peace Plan adopted unanimously at the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference, held at Fez, Morocco, on 25 November 1981 and from 6 to 9 September 1982;

5. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of the Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, and demands the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from all the territories occupied since June 1967;

6. Rejects all agreements and arrangements which violate the recognized rights of the Palestinian people and contradict the principles of just and comprehensive solutions to the Middle East problem to ensure the establishment of a just peace in the area;

7. Deplores Israel's failure to comply with Security Council resolutions 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 and 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 and General Assembly resolutions 35/207 of 16 December 1980 and 36/226 A and B of 17 December 1981, determines that Israel's decision to annex Jerusalem and to declare it its "capital" as well as the measures to alter its physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and status are null and void and demands that they be rescinded immediately, and calls upon all Member States, the specialized agencies and all other international organizations to abide by the present resolution and all other relevant resolutions, including Assembly resolutions 37/86 A to E;

8. Condemns Israel's aggression, policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories and outside these territories, particularly Palestinians in Lebanon. including the expropriation and annexation of territory, the establishment of settlements, assassination attempts and other terrorist, aggressive and repressive measures, which are in violation of the Charter and the principles of international law and the relevant international conventions;

9. Strongly condemns the imposition by Israel of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, its annexationist policies and practices, the establishment of settlements, the confiscation of lands, the diversion of water resources and the imposition of Israeli citizenship on Syrian nationals, and declares that all these measures are null and void and constitute a violation of the rules and principles of international law relating to belligerent occupation, in particular the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;

10. Considers that the agreements on strategic co-operation between the United States of America and Israel signed on 30 November 1981, together with the recent accords concluded in this context, would encourage Israel to pursue its aggressive and expansionist policies and practices in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, would have adverse effects on efforts for the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and would threaten the security of the region;

11. Calls upon all States to put an end to the flow to Israel of any military, economic and financial aid, as well as of human resources, aimed at encouraging it to pursue its aggressive policies against the Arab countries and the Palestinian people;

12. Strongly condemns the continuing and increasing collaboration between Israel and the racist régime of South Africa, especially in the economic, military and nuclear fields, which constitutes a hostile act against the African and Arab States and enables Israel to enhance its nuclear capabilities, thus subjecting the States of the region to nuclear blackmail;

13. Reaffirms the call for the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East – as specified in paragraph 5 of the Geneva Declaration on Palestine, adopted on 7 September 1983 by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine – under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of relevant resolutions of the United Nations;

14. 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-ninth session a comprehensive report covering the developments in the Middle East in all their aspects.

General Assembly resolution 38/180 D

19 December 1983 Meeting 102 101-18-20 (recorded vote)

15-nation draft (A/38/L.46 & Add.1); agenda item 34.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: plenary 87-89, 91-95, 102.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, 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, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Austria, Barbados, Belize, Burma, Chad, Chile, Dominican Republic Fiji, Finland, Guatemala, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Malawi, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay.

Israel rejected the resolution as unbalanced impeding a peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict by presenting that conflict was as the root of all Middle East problems and the sole danger in the region to world peace, and contradicting Security Council resolution 242(1967),(13) the only agreed basis for a negotiated settlement. The United States said it opposed resolutions that hindered the peace process, contributed to a continued diplomatic deadlock and eroded confidence in the Assembly's role in solving the Middle East problems.

Portugal dissociated itself from any appeal it considered prejudicial to joint efforts and in particular from any resolution which, because of its language, measures advocated, discriminatory references or legal implications, might harm constructive efforts. Finland regretted especially that the principles of Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)(14) were not reaffirmed; it particularly reserved its position on elements in the preamble and paragraphs 10 and 11, and voiced reservations on paragraph 13.

Although the text corresponded to a large extent to its position, Austria said it had abstained in view of some formulations. Sweden had strong reservations on paragraphs 10 and 11 and felt that the resolution lacked balance. Spain could not support paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, but believed that paragraphs 4, 6 and 13 did not exclude other ways for a peaceful and negotiated Middle East solution. New Zealand was disappointed that the resolution did not reflect the balance of resolution 242 (1967) and was not well calculated to contribute to a negotiated settlement. Honduras found both positive and negative elements in the text

Though voting in favour, Brazil and the Philippines voiced reservations on some provisions. Mexico and Thailand said they would have abstained had there been separate votes on paragraphs 6 and 10: Thailand felt that they prejudged the outcome of agreements, which a sovereign State had the right to conclude. Peru cautioned that the wording of paragraphs 6, 10 and 11 could be misinterpreted; in its understanding, references to relations between specific States and others were strictly linked to the Palestine question as the core of the Middle East problem. It would also have liked to see specific references to resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as a basis on which the parties could reach an understanding.

Greece said it voted in favour on the basis of its attachment to the principle of the United Nations Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, stating that Member States should refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Bolivia and Togo said they voted in favour in keeping with their position on the Middle East situation; its position, Bolivia added, was based on respect for the territorial integrity of all States and the rejection of the forceful acquisition of territory. Malta remarked that its support did not mean that it agreed with every provision.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reaffirmed its opposition to allusions that would give some semblance of legitimacy to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or recognize the Zionist entity Iran spoke similarly, terming that entity an artificially forged State.

By a separately adopted paragraph of resolution 38/6, on co-operation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to intensify his efforts to implement United Nations resolutions relevant to the Middle East situation and to the Palestine question (see Chapter XI of this section).

Also under the agenda item on the situation in the Middle East, the General Assembly on 19 December, adopted resolution 38/180 E by a recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

Recalling its resolutions 36/226 A of 17 December 1981 and 37/123 F of 20 December 1982, in which it stated inter alia, its concern over certain factors which exacerbate the situation in the Middle East,

Deeply concerned at recent developments in the Middle East and the critical situation confronting the region resulting from the continued escalation of Israel's policy of aggression, expansion and annexation in the region,

Expressing grave concern over the continued supply of modern arms and war materials to Israel, augmented by substantial economic aid, without which Israel's policy of aggression and of flouting United Nations resolutions could nor he maintained,

Deeply aware that the recent reported agreements following the memorandum of understanding between the United States of America and Israel will increase Israel's intransigence and its war potential and escalate its expansionist and annexationist policies in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, at a time when it is defying United Nations resolutions,

1. Declares, accordingly, the international responsibility of any party or parties that supply Israel with arms or economic aid that augment its war potential;

2. Expresses deep concern at and condemns all steps which may result in augmenting the capability of Israel and contributing to its policy of aggression against countries in the region;

3. Demands that all States, particularly the United States of America, in the light of the said agreements, refrain from taking any step that would support Israel's war capabilities and consequently its aggressive acts, whether in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 or against countries in the region;

4. Calls upon all States to review, in the light of the present resolution, any agreements whether military economic or otherwise, concluded with Israel.

General Assembly resolution 38/180 E

19 December 1983     Meeting 102    81-27-29 (recorded vote)

19-nation draft (A/38/L.50); agenda item 34.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bahrain, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Financial implications. 5th Committee, A/38/756; S-G, A/C.5/38/105.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: 5th Committee 70: plenary 87-89, 91-95, 102.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Chad, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Malawi, Mexico, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Rejecting the resolution, Israel said it was beyond the Assembly's authority to dictate the nature of bilateral relations, which it said were solely within the jurisdiction of the States involved, the sponsors' audacity was heightened by the fact that the Arab States, which considered themselves in confrontation with Israel – Iraq, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Saudi Arabia and the Syrian Arab Republic – had over the past decade contracted for the delivery of armaments worth over $100 billion. The United States-Israel understanding had as its sole objective the promotion of peace and security, while the resolution sought to perpetuate regional instability and tension. In a 16  December letter,( 5) Israel gave what it said was a breakdown of figures of arms purchases by Arab States. Were they as sincerely interested in mutual disarmament as Israel, they would have entered into a direct dialogue.

The United States rejected the resolution as an inadmissible intrusion into the right of a State to conduct relations with another: its relationship with Israel was central to the pursuit of peace and not aimed against any State in the region.

Finland said that the arms race in the region was not the sole responsibility of the countries mentioned in the resolution, which was too one-sided and sweeping in order to contribute effectively to the search for a halt to that arms race and for a peaceful settlement. In the opinion of Honduras, the text lacked positive elements. Portugal dissociated itself from any act or appeal prejudicial to joint efforts, and in particular to discriminatory references or legal implications that might harm constructive efforts. Though expressing doubts as to whether the United States-Israel agreement would contribute to a peaceful settlement, New Zealand did not consider it appropriate to judge agreements between sovereign States, a point taken up by Singapore. This latter view was also shared by the Philippines and Thailand, which added that any Assembly action questioning that right might have ramifications beyond the Middle East situation. Colombia said it could not accept a text condemning only one of the parties in the Middle East. Ecuador, too, could not agree to condemning specific agreements or to accepting suggestions to sever relations with Israel. Rather than promoting peace, Venezuela believed that certain paragraphs were disruptive and could lead in the opposite direction. Bolivia did not agree with the drafting style and some of the text's content. Austria had reservations in particular on paragraph 4.

Though voting in favour, Greece dissociated it self from that paragraph. Turkey stressed that its affirmative vote reflected concern over Israel's tendency to use every opportunity to achieve its aggressive aims; the reference to "international responsibility" in paragraph 1 was inappropriate. Seychelles voted in favour for reasons of principle. While concurring with the resolution's thrust, Malta said it did not agree with all provisions.

Though condemnation and denunciation might not be the best way to proceed, Egypt felt that the resolution reflected genuine concern over the developments in the Middle East, including the recent United States-Israel agreement, as a result of which doubts and preoccupations had arisen.

Iran reserved its right with regard to any paragraph which recognized an artificially forged State, the Zionist entity.

The agreement between the United States and Israel was also dealt with by the Assembly in its resolution 38/180 D (see above).

Iran did not press to a vote a draft resolution(16) by which the Assembly would have: considered the strategic alliance between Israel and the United States as a factor of escalation of Middle East tension threatening international peace and security; condemned the recent United States-Israeli aggression in the region, as well as any attempted use or threat of use of force, resulting from the alliance, against the States of the region and aimed at destroying the Palestinians' struggle to regain their rights in their homeland; and requested the Secretary-General to seek Member States' views and to prepare a study on the consequences of the alliance, particularly on the Palestinians.

Persons detained by Israel

In 1983, the General Assembly again took up the case of the Palestinian Ziad Abu Eain, this time in connection with the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel and southern Lebanon. The Assembly and the Economic and Social Council had first considered this case in 1981,(17) and in January 1982 the Secretary-General had reported on implementation of the Assembly's demand that Abu Eain be released.(18)

Information on persons detained by Israel in the Israeli-occupied territories was provided by the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories (see below, under TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL). Cases of arrest and detention of staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East in Lebanon by Israeli authorities were reported on by the Secretary-General (see below under PALESTINE REFUGEES).

In March 1983.(19) the Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed the human rights of persons detained by Israel (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVIII).

Communications. On 5 May,(20) Jordan transmitted a letter of 3 May from the PLO observer to which a letter was attached from the Committee to Defend the Rights of Prisoners at Ansar (Insar) Detention Camp in southern Lebanon, expressing appreciation for the humanitarian role played by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and listing a number of violations of prisoners' rights by Israeli authorities.

By a letter of 18 November,(21) the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People protested the arrest by Israeli authorities of Mohammed Mi’ari and Maysara Sayyid, representatives of two non-governmental organizations based in Israel, on the grounds that they had violated security laws because they had attended the International Conference on the Question of Palestine (see below, under PALESTINE QUESTION).

In a letter of 13 December,(22) Saudi Arabia stated that an ICRC press release issued that day reported that Israel had violated a written agreement, negotiated by ICRC, between PLO and Israel for the simultaneous freeing of six Israeli prisoners and about 100 prisoners detained in Israel itself, as well as all others (some 4,300) in southern Lebanon. Although registered for release, some prisoners from Insar Camp and other military command posts in southern Lebanon had not been freed, among them Ziad Abu Eain, who had been taken to an Israeli prison.

Israel, on 16 December,(23) submitted a press statement of 14 December by its Ministry of Defence pointing out that the Red Cross representative in Israel, in a letter of 29 November to the Ministry, had admitted that the original mistake which prevented the release of Abu Eain, sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of two Israeli youths in Tiberias in May 1979, derived from an oversight in the Red Cross list by which its representatives at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv had acted. ICRC claimed that its oversight had been compounded by an error by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) at the airport. However, due to the absence of Abu Eain's name from the list the Red Cross and IDF had agreed that another prisoner also sentenced to life imprisonment would be sent to Algeria; thus, Israel had fulfilled its commitment to release 63 prisoners. The Ministry emphasized that the prisoner exchange had at the last moment been moved up by 24 hours; despite the pressures of short notice, IDF had abided by the agreement and, if during the release of 4,500 detainees and 63 prisoners in exchange for six Israeli soldiers some snags had occurred, Israel was not prepared to change what had been implemented.

Speaking on 30 November before the Special Political Committee (SPC), the PLO observer charged that Israeli authorities had kidnaped Abu Eain at the airport as he was about to depart for Algeria. He had been imprisoned again and subjected to torture. Immediate action was required to force Israel to observe the agreement and release him.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, the General Assembly, on 15 December adopted resolution 38/79 A by recorded vote.  The Assembly took this action on the recommendation of SPC.

The General Assembly,

Having heard the statement of the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization relative to the fate of Ziad Abu Eain,

Taking note of the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross of 13 December 1983,

1. Condemns Israel for the fact that one prisoner, Ziad Abu Eain, who had been registered before embarkation by delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross at Tel Aviv Airport, was taken at the last minute by the Israeli authorities;

2. Demands the immediate release of Ziad Abu Eain, as well as the other prisoners who were duly registered to be freed from Insar Camp and other military command posts in southern Lebanon but have not in fact been released, and the securing of their transfer to Algiers in conformity with the agreement reached through the good offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross;

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

General Assembly resolution 38/79 A

15 December 1983     Meeting 98   110-2-29 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/38 /718) by recorded vote (75-3-30), 7 December (meeting 47); 19-nation draft (A/SPC/38/L.35), amended in Assembly by Saudi Arabia (A/38/L.48); agenda item 69.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Mali, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: SPC 36-42, 45-48; plenary 98.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia,a/ Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, Iceland, Jamaica, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Nepal, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Zaire.

a/ Later advised the Secretariat that it intended to vote in favour.

The draft was amended in the Assembly by Saudi Arabia to add the second preambular paragraph, and to replace the original paragraphs 1 and 2 – which would have, respectively, condemned Israel for having kidnaped Ziad Abu Eain, and demanded his immediate release – with those adopted. The amendments were adopted by recorded votes: the second preambular paragraph by 115 to 2, with 17 abstentions, paragraph 2 by 107 to 2, with 24 abstentions; and paragraph 1 by 106 to 2, with 26 abstentions.

Speaking before the Committee vote, Israel said that the release of more than 4,500 prisoners for six Israeli prisoners, not counting the condemned criminals whose names had been on the list given to ICRC at the airport, proved that it had honoured the agreement. Regarding Abu Eain, there had been confusion over the several lists; the definitive one was drawn up by ICRC and he was not included.

The United States said that, since the information provided was diametrically opposed, the Committee needed an independent detailed statement from ICRC.

PLO pointed out that ICRC had confirmed that Abu Eain's name had been on its list; furthermore, The Jerusalem Post of 7 December cited numerous sources involved in the exchange, all of which confirmed that he had been listed.

Sri Lanka noted that the draft did not fall within the terms of reference of the Committee on Israeli practices in the occupied territories, since Sri Lanka was a member of that Committee, its vote would have a bearing on the Committee's work and, in the longer term, on the human rights and interests of the inhabitants of the occupied territories.

Austria hoped that not freeing Abu Eain was simply a mistake and requested Israel to free him as soon as possible.

In the Assembly, Argentina explained that its vote was based on the 13 December ICRC press communiqué and on the humanitarian nature of the resolution which it hoped would help ensure the success of the exchange of prisoners; however, paragraph 1 should have confined itself to reflecting the fact that one of the parties had failed to abide by the exchange agreement.

In the absence of full clarification, Canada could not adopt a position on either party and also could not accept the emotive and condemnatory language of paragraph 1.

In other action, also taken on 15 December, the Assembly in resolution 38/83 I called again on Israel to release all detained Palestine refugees.

Credentials of Israel

By a letter of 19 October 1983 to the General Assembly President,(24) 50 States conveyed their reservations on the credentials of Israel, citing the following reasons: Israel was continuing its flagrant and persistent violation of the United Nations Charter and international law and flouted with impunity United Nations resolutions on the Middle East situation and the Palestine question.

On 20 October,(25) Israel responded that the completely unfounded attack on its credentials was an attempt to abuse the credentials procedure and was one more manifestation of the obsessive hatred of States bent on Israel's destruction, in violation of international law and the Charter; the approach by the 50 States was liable to affect adversely the ability of the United Nations to perform its primary functions for maintaining international peace and security.

On 24 October, by a recorded vote, the Assembly decided not to act on an amendment by Iran(26) to reject the credentials of Israel (see Chapter XI of this section).

REFERENCES

(1)A/38/61-S/15549. (2)A/38/73-S/15562. (3)S/15625. (4)S/16119. (5)A/38/124-S/15657. (6)YUN 1982, p. 387. (7)A/38/168-S/15736. (8)A/38/297-S/15867. (9)A/38/601 & Corr.1 (10)S/16201. (11)A/38/458-S/16015. (12)YUN 1982, p. 428. (13)YUN 1967, p. 257, SC res. 242 (1967), 22 Nov. 1967. (14)YUN 1973, p. 213, SC res. 338 (1973), 22 Oct. 1973. (15)A/38/750-S/16223 & Corr.1 (16)A/38/L.49. (17)YUN 1981, p. 907. (18)YUN 1982, p. 1084. (19)E/1983/13 (res. 1983/27). (20)A/38/179-S/15748. (21)A/38/595-S/16171. (22)A/38/735. (23)A/38/749. (24)A/38/520 & Add.1. (25)A/38/521. (26)A/38/L.4.

__________________

Palestine question

__________________

The Palestine question continued in 1983 to be a concern of the General Assembly and of its Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (Committee on Palestinian rights). An International Conference on the Question of Palestine adopted in September a Declaration and a Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights. The Assembly, in one of five December resolutions on the Palestine question, endorsed the Conference's call for an international peace conference on the Middle East (38/58 C). It urged United Nations agencies and organizations to take into account the recommendations of the five regional preparatory meetings of the Conference (38/58 D); again endorsed the 1976 recommendations of the Committee on Palestinian rights (38/58 A), and requested the expansion of United Nations public information activities on the Palestine question (38/58 E). In a fifth resolution (38/58 B), the Assembly dealt with the United Nations Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights. The status of Jerusalem and restitution of Palestinian cultural property were the subject) of two other December resolutions (38/180 C and B), adopted under the agenda item on the situation in the Middle East (see above).

United Nations bodies also continued to examine the situation in the territories occupied by Israel (see under TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL) and to provide and encourage assistance to Palestinians (see below and under PALESTINE REFUGEES).

Communications. By a letter of 4 January 1983,(1) Israel drew attention to statements made on 20 December 1982 by Arab and other countries, during the General Assembly's consideration of the Palestine question and the Middle East situation (see above).

On 16 February,(2) Mongolia transmitted a message of 15 February from its President to the Chairman of the National Council of Palestine, expressing support for the struggle of the Palestinian people for their inalienable rights and for national independence.

By a letter of 26 August,(3) Israel stated that it would withhold from its contributions to the United Nations the amounts proportionate to the expenses incurred by the anti-Israel activities of the Committee on Palestinian rights and the Division for Palestinian Rights which, it said, were designed to exacerbate tensions and polarize the situation in the Middle East.

In connection with the August/September International Conference on the Question of Palestine (see below), several letters were addressed to the Secretary-General. On 11 August,(4) Israel protested against the holding of an exhibition sponsored by the Conference secretariat on United Nations premises in New York. In reply, the Secretary-General informed Israel on 19 August(5) that he had asked for the exhibition's closure because the proper procedures for holding exhibitions at Headquarters had not been fully observed. On 25 August,(6) Israel strongly protested the release of a series of studies prepared for the Conference which, it said, were propaganda serving the cause of international terror, not the cause of international peace. On 27 September,(7) it stated that numerous irregularities had accompanied the preparations for and holding of the Conference, further compounded by placing PLO on an equal footing with participating States.

Two messages to the Conference participants expressed support for the rights of the Palestinians and their struggle for national independence. On 30 August,(8) the USSR transmitted a message of 29 August from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Council of Ministers of the USSR; on 5 September,(9) Bulgaria forwarded a message from the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party and President of the State Council.

International Conference on the Question of Palestine. In pursuance of two 1982 General Assembly resolutions,(10) an International Conference on the Question of Palestine was convened at Geneva from 29 August to 7 September 1983.

The Conference adopted the Geneva Declaration on Palestine and the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights. In the Declaration, the Conference reaffirmed that a just solution to the Palestine question, the core of the Middle East problem, was crucial. It emphasized that the time factor was important in achieving a solution, and expressed its conviction that partial solutions were inadequate and that delays in seeking a comprehensive solution did not eliminate tensions in the region.

The Conference considered that various peace proposals presented in 1982,(12) such as the Arab peace plan adopted by the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference at Fez should serve as guidelines for concerted international efforts. These guidelines included: attainment by the Palestinians of their legitimate rights, including the rights to return, self-determination and to establish their own independent State in Palestine; equal participation of PLO, the representative of the Palestinians, in all efforts on the Middle East; the need to end Israel's occupation of and to secure its withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; the need to reject Israeli policies and practices in those territories and any de facto situation created by Israel contrary to international law and United Nations resolutions, particularly the establishment of settlements; the need to reaffirm as null and void all Israeli measures altering the character and status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land, and in particular the so-called "Basic Law" on Jerusalem and its proclamation as the capital of Israel, and the right of all States in the region to exist within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, with justice and security for all, the pre-condition of which was the recognition and attainment of Palestinian rights.

To give effect to these guidelines, the Conference considered it essential that an international peace conference on the Middle East be convened (see below).

The Programme of Action enumerated national and international measures to be taken in the political, economic and information fields. It invited the Security Council to establish promptly an independent, sovereign Palestinian State in Palestine through the implementation of United Nations resolutions and by facilitating the organization of an international peace conference.

Reservations and statements of position on the Declaration and the Programme by 17 States were annexed to the Conference report.(11)

The Declaration and the Programme which were summarized in the Secretary-General's Middle East report,(13) were transmitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council by the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights on 10 October.(14)

As authorized by the Assembly in 1981,(15) that Committee acted as Preparatory Committee for the Conference; its activities in that regard during its second session (13 meetings from 4 February to 27 July 1983 in New York and one meeting on 29 August at Geneva) were summarized in a report to the Assembly.(16) Reviewing the question of the Conference date and venue, the Preparatory Committee decided on 20 June to change the original dates set in 1982(17) (16-27 August) to 29 August-7 September.

In preparation of the Conference, the Committee organized five regional meetings: for Africa, at Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania (29 March-1 April);(18) for Latin America, at Managua, Nicaragua (12-15 April);(19) for Western Asia, at Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (25-29 April);(20) for Asia, at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (3-7 May);(21) and for Europe, at Geneva (4-8 July).(22)

Activities of the Committee on Palestinian rights. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in 1983 continued to follow developments in the Israeli-occupied territories and action by Israel which the Committee regarded as violations of international law or of United Nations resolutions. The Committee brought such actions, including Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, exploitation by Israeli authorities of Arab-owned lands and other matters affecting the rights of the Palestinians (for details, see below, under TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL), to the attention of the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council.

In its annual report to the Assembly,(23) the Committee found that there was abundant evidence that its recommendations made in 1976,(24) endorsed by the Assembly the same year,(25) had been clearly understood by nations and peoples in all regions, and that those recommendations were seen to be fair, legally founded and peaceful, and should therefore be lasting when implemented. The Committee felt that the International Conference had given a new impetus to the attainment of Palestinian rights as a prerequisite for an overall Arab-Israeli settlement. Considering the Conference's Declaration and Programme of Action to be of great value for a settlement of the Palestine question, the Committee appealed to the Assembly and to the Security Council to endorse them and to support their implementation. The Committee endorsed the Conference's recommendation for an international peace conference on the Middle East (see below) and recommended resolute action by all nations, particularly those in the region, through the Council, in the search for durable and comprehensive peace. Among the Committee's recommendations regarding the Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights was continued expansion of the Division's efforts concerning seminars.

The Committee met at United Nations Headquarters on 29 November 1983 in observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, commemorated each year in accordance with a 1977 Assembly resolution.(26) The New York meeting and a similar one at Geneva were addressed by a number of United Nations officials and government representatives.

With the Committee's participation, the Eighth United Nations Seminar on the Question of Palestine, which had as its central theme the inalienable rights of the Palestinians, was held at Jakarta, Indonesia, from 9 to 13 May 1983. The Seminar's comments on various aspects of the question – including restoration of Palestinian rights and Israeli policies in the occupied territories (see below, under TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL) – were annexed to the Committee's annual report.

The Committee also acted as the Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on the Question of Palestine (see above).

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions (38/58 A and B) dealing with the work of the Committee on Palestinian rights, both under the agenda item on the question of Palestine.

On 13 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 38/58 A by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 3376(XXX) of 10 November 1975, 31/20 of 24 November 1976, 32/40 of 2 December 1977, 33/28 of 7 December 1978, 34/65 A and B of 29 November 1979 and 34/65 C and D of 12 December 1979, ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 35/169 of 15 December 1980, 36/120 of 10 December 1981, ES-7/4 of 28 April 1982, ES-7/5 of 26 June 1982, ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982 and 37/86 A of 10 December 1982,

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. Endorses the recommendations of the Committee contained in paragraphs 94 to 98 of its report and draws the attention of the Security Council to the fact that action on the Committee's recommendations, as repeatedly endorsed by the General Assembly, at its thirty-first session and subsequently, is long overdue;

3. Requests the Committee to keep under review the situation relating to the question of Palestine as well as the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights adopted by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine and to report and make suggestions to the General Assembly or the Security Council, as appropriate;

4. Requests the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, established under General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1918, as well as other United Nations bodies associated with the question of Palestine, to co-operate fully with the Committee and to make available to it, at its request, the relevant information and documentation which they have at their disposal;

5. Authorizes the Committee 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-ninth session and thereafter;

6. Decides to circulate the report of the Committee to all the competent bodies of the United Nations and urges them to take the necessary action, as appropriate in accordance with the Committee's programme of implementation;

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

General Assembly resolution 38/58 A

13 December 1983      Meeting 95    126-2-19 (recorded vote)

20-nation draft (A/38/L.36 & Add.1); agenda item 33.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Financial implications. 5th committee, A/38/725; S-G, A/C.5/38/75 & Add.1.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: 5th committee 62; plenary 73, 79-82, 85, 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, 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, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Paragraph 2 was adopted separately by a recorded vote of 118 to 5, with 18 abstentions.

Abstaining on that paragraph, Costa Rica said it could not support the whole of the Geneva Declaration. Norway could not endorse the outcome of the Conference and could not accept certain elements in the Declaration and the Programme of Action. In New Zealand's view, the resolution did not adequately reflect the balance of principles embodied in Security Council resolution 242 (1967).(27) (See also explanations of vote following resolution 38/58 B, below.)

Also on 13 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 38/58 B by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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 86 to 91 of that report,

Recalling its resolutions 32/40 B of 2 December 1977, 33/28 C of 7 December 1978, 34/65 D of 12 December 1979, 35/169 D of 15 December 1980, 36/120 B of 10 December 1981 and 37/86 B of 10 December 1982,

1. Notes with appreciation the action taken by the Secretary-General in compliance with General Assembly resolution 37/86 B;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to ensure that the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat continues to discharge the tasks detailed in paragraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 32/40 B, paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 34/65 D and paragraph 3 of resolution 36/120 B, in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and under its guidance,

3. Also requests the Secretary-General to provide the Division for Palestinian Rights with the necessary resources to accomplish its tasks and to expand its work programme, inter alia, through:

(a) Closer contacts with the media and wider dissemination of the Division's information material, particularly where information on the question of Palestine is inadequate;

(b) Increased contacts with non-governmental organizations and the convening of symposia and meetings for non-governmental organizations in different regions in order to heighten awareness of the facts relating to the question of Palestine;

4. Further requests the Secretary-General to ensure the continued co-operation of the Department of Public Information and other units of the Secretariat in enabling the Division for Palestinian Rights to perform its tasks and in covering adequately the various aspects of the question of Palestine;

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 Division for Palestinian Rights in the performance of their tasks;

6. Notes with appreciation the action taken by Member States to observe annually on 29 November the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People and the issuance by them of special postage stamps for the occasion.

General Assembly resolution 38/58 B

13 December 1983     Meeting 95   127-3-17 (recorded vote)

20-nation draft (A/38/L.37 & Add.1); agenda item 33.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Financial implications. 5th Committee, A/38/725; S-G, A/C.5/38/75 & Add.1.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: 5th Committee 62; plenary 73, 79-82, 85, 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, 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, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Canada, Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.

The United States considered all five resolutions on the Palestine question (38/58 A-E) to be without merit and obstructive to the peace process it felt that they attempted to dictate the outcome of negotiations and called for costly activities by various United Nations bodies to propagate partial and partisan views of the Palestinian issue.

Finland abstained on both resolutions (38/58 A and B) saying that they lacked balance; it considered the attainment of Palestinian rights to be part of and within the framework of a comprehensive Middle East solution based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967)(27) and 338 (1973),(28) a view also shared by Norway.

Speaking for the EC members on all the resolutions on Palestine, Greece reiterated their reservations on elements in the Geneva Declaration and notably the Programme of Action, which were not in accordance with their position regarding the principles for a comprehensive peace settlement.

Uruguay said its affirmative vote was consistent with its joining in the Conference's consensus; the five resolutions were essentially inspired by the Declaration and Programme of Action, on certain elements of which, however, it had reservations. Such reservations were also voiced by Peru.

Trinidad and Tobago reaffirmed its reservations on the implications of certain language of the Declaration and the Programme of Action. Reservations on parts of the Declaration and the Programme were also voiced by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which affirmed that its positive vote did not alter its position on any references which might be construed as legitimizing the Zionist occupation of Palestine or as recognizing the Zionist entity. A similar position was held by Iran. Albania voiced reservations on the references to some previous United Nations resolutions.

Bolivia stated that its positive vote was in keeping with its desire to co-operate in the efforts to establish conditions for peace. Ecuador declared its support for any measure designed to settle the Palestine question.

In resolution 38/17, the Assembly condemned the constant and deliberate violations of the fundamental rights of the Palestinians, as well as Israel's expansionist activities in the Middle East which, it determined, constituted an obstacle to the achievement of self-determination and independence by the Palestinians and a threat to peace and stability in the region.

Proposed peace conference

The Geneva Declaration on Palestine, adopted on 7 September by the Conference on the Palestine question (see above),(11) called for an international peace conference on the Middle East based on the Charter of the United Nations and relevant United Nations resolutions, with the aim of achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. An essential element of a solution would be the establishment of an independent Palestinian State in Palestine. The peace conference should be convened under United Nations auspices, with the participation of all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including PLO, as well as the United States, the USSR and other concerned States, on an equal footing. The Security Council would have primary responsibility to create institutional arrangements on the basis of United Nations resolutions in order to guarantee and carry out the accords of the peace conference.

In its 1983 report,(23) the Committee on Palestinian rights recommended that action be taken to convene a peace conference, and appealed to all parties concerned, the USSR and the United States to co-operate.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the question of Palestine, the General Assembly, on 13 December, adopted resolution 38/58 C by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 36/120 C of 10 December 1981, in which it decided to convene, under the auspices of the United Nations, an International Conference on the Question of Palestine on the basis of its resolution ES-/2 of 29 July 1980,

Recalling also its resolution 37/86 C of 10 December 1982 in which it, inter alia, reiterated the responsibility of the United Nations to strive for a lasting peace in the Middle East through a just solution of the problem of Palestine,

Having considered the report of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, held at Geneva from 29 August to 7 September 1983,

Convinced that the Conference, in adopting by acclamation the Geneva Declaration on Palestine and the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights, made an important and positive contribution to the attainment of a comprehensive, just and durable peace in the Middle East through a just solution of the problem of Palestine, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict,

Conscious of the importance of the time factor in achieving a just solution of the problem of Palestine,

1. Takes note with satisfaction of the report of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine;

2. Endorses the Geneva Declaration on Palestine, adopted by acclamation on 7 September 1983;

3. Welcomes and endorses the call for convening an International Peace Conference on the Middle East in conformity with the following guidelines:

(a) The attainment by the Palestinian people of its legitimate inalienable rights, including the right to return, the right to self-determination and the right to establish its own independent State in Palestine;

(b) The right of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate on an equal footing with other parties in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East;

(c) The need to put an end to Israel's occupation of the Arab territories, in accordance with the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and, consequently, the need to secure Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

(d) The need to oppose and reject such Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and any de facto situation created by Israel as are contrary to international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, particularly the establishment of settlements, as these policies and practices constitute major obstacles to the achievement of peace in the Middle East;

(e) The need to reaffirm as null and void all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and property situated thereon, and in particular the so-called "Basic Law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel;

(f) The right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, with justice and security for all the people, the sine qua non of which is the recognition and attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people as stated in subparagraph (a) above;

4. Invites all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, as well as the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other concerned States, to participate in the International Peace Conference on the Middle East on an equal footing and with equal rights;

5. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Security Council, urgently to undertake preparatory measures to convene the Conference;

6. Invites the Security Council to facilitate the organization of the Conference;

7. Also requests the Secretary-General to report on his efforts no later than 15 March 1984;

8. Decides to consider at its thirty-ninth session the report of the Secretary-General on the Conference.

General Assembly resolution 38/58 C

13 December 1983     Meeting 95   124-4-15 (recorded vote)

21-nation draft (A/38/L.38 & Add.1 agenda item 33.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Financial implications: 5th committee, A/38/725; S-G, A/C.5/38/75.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: 5th committee 62; plenary 73, 79-82, 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Belgium, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Solomon Islands, United Kingdom.

The United States felt that the resolution was unhelpful to the peace process. In Israel's view, the guidelines for the conference were contrary to and undermined Security Council resolution 242 (1967),(27) the only basis for a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Though acknowledging that Israel's right to exist was implicitly recognized in resolution 38/58 C, Canada said it could not support it because it repeated certain one-sided elements in the Geneva Declaration.

Greece said the EC members had reservations on certain elements in the Programme of Action, also adopted at the Geneva Conference, that were not in accordance with their position on a comprehensive peace settlement. Norway also could not endorse the Declaration and Programme of Action. Supporting in principle the idea of a Palestine settlement under United Nations auspices New Zealand doubted the practicality of such a proposal until all parties concerned were prepared to participate with realistic expectations. In Costa Rica's opinion, the guidelines for the conference (in paragraph 3) prejudged its results and jeopardized the possibility of the parties to the conflict entering peace negotiations.

Finland, Sweden, and Trinidad and Tobago reiterated their reservations on the Geneva Declaration and Programme of Action.

Brazil would have preferred a more careful and less detailed wording of the conference guidelines, and cautioned that the Secretary-General might not be given enough time to report on the organization of the conference as he was requested in paragraph 7.

Albania did not agree that the United States and the USSR should be invited to participate in the conference; it feared that the super-Powers would try to manipulate it for their own purposes. Jordan believed that paragraph 4 went beyond what was agreed on in the Geneva Declaration.

The Syrian Arab Republic held a similar view and would have preferred paragraph 6 to reflect more explicitly the call in the Declaration on the Security Council to create institutional arrangements based on relevant United Nations resolutions; these were shortcomings, it felt, which weakened the text and attenuated the Geneva Declaration.

Spain stressed that its support for the convening of a conference did not imply exclusion of other peace plans. Portugal expressed the conviction that a peace conference was premature as conditions guaranteeing the presence of all parties did not currently exist.

Uruguay said its affirmative vote was consistent with its participation in the Geneva consensus and its desire for peaceful solutions. Bolivia believed that the resolution complemented Security Council resolutions 242 (1967)(27) and 338 (1973),(28) which had established the guidelines for a negotiated solution. Reaffirmation of those resolutions, the Dominican Republic believed, would have given resolution 38/58 C greater objectivity and consistency.

Colombia saw in the resolution a contribution to the search for a final settlement but believed that, in order to create the necessary climate for final negotiations, the regional and extra-regional causes of the conflict must be borne in mind. Malawi believed that any serious consultations should be encouraged. Ecuador supported any measure designed to settle the Palestine question.

Singapore would have liked to see reflected the recognition of Palestinian rights and the preservation of Israel's right to exist; any action denying the rights of one side or destroying the existence of the other, it believed, would be doomed to failure.

Iran and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, on the other hand, rejected any recognition as a party to negotiations of what they called the illegitimate entity of zionism in occupied Palestine.

Honduras explained that it did not participate in the vote in conformity with its principle that the guidelines for and participation in any international peace conference must be based of the free and unanimous consent of the States directly concerned.

PLO regarded the resolution as an encouragement to find a solution through the United Nations.

The call for a conference was repeated in Assembly resolution 38/180 D of 19 December 1983.

Explaining its vote on that resolution, Mexico said it supported the holding of a conference as an important factor for world peace and the appropriate framework for parties to find satisfactory formulae for accommodation, provided there was the necessary political and diplomatic will.

Jerusalem

Communications. On 1 March 1983,(29) Jordan transmitted a letter of 31 January from the Minister for Occupied Territories Affairs to the Minister of Waqf and Islamic Religious Affairs of Jordan, on the activities of the "Temple Mount Fund" organization which he charged sought the demolition of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, on the pretext of working on the restoration of the so-called "Third Temple" and restoring Temple Mount to Jewish sovereignty.

By a letter of 14 March,(30) Jordan gave an account of what it described as Israeli assaults on the Al-Aqsa Mosque from dune 1967, culminating in an act of desecration on 11 March 1983, when approximately 45 settlers equipped with large amounts of weapons and explosives had attempted to reach the Mosque through a secret tunnel. Jordan alleged that Israel had continually persisted in committing and encouraging such acts against the Mosque and the other Holy Places in Jerusalem.

On 16 March,(31) Iran transmitted a government communiqué condemning what it called Israel's latest attempt to destroy the Mosque.

By a letter of 6 December,(32) Israel gave details of a bomb explosion on a civilian passenger bus in Jerusalem on the same day, for which PLO claimed responsibility; the crime was intended to divert attention from the fighting between PLO rival gangs, it added. On 7 December,(33) Israel pointed out that responsibility for that explosion, which had killed 4 and injured 46 people, was claimed by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, as well as by the rival faction of PLO under Abu Musa. Reference to the 6 December explosion was also made by the Israeli Prime Minister in a message of 8 December to the Secretary-General, transmitted by Israel on the same date.(34)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 19 December 1983, under the agenda item on the situation in the Middle East, the General Assembly adopted resolution 38/180 C by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 36/120 E of 10 December 1981 and 37/123 C of 16 December 1982, in which it determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which had altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called "Basic Law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, were null and void and must be rescinded forthwith,

Recalling Security Council resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, in which the Council, inter alia, decided not to recognize the "Basic Law" and called upon those States that had established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;

1. Declares once more that Israel’s decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem is illegal and therefore null and void and has no validity whatsoever;

2. Deplores the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980);

3. Calls once again upon those States to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 38/180 C

19 December 1983     Meeting 102   137-1-3 (recorded vote)

16-nation draft (A/38/L.45 & Add.1); agenda item 34.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: plenary 87-89, 91-95, 102.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, 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, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Dominican Republic, Guatemala, United States.

Explaining its vote, Israel said only the Jewish people had regarded Jerusalem as the centre of their national and spiritual life. Reunited since 1967, the city enjoyed unprecedented freedom and prosperity, with the adherents of all faiths guaranteed free access to and worship at their Holy Places.

Ecuador considered null and void Israeli measures which could modify the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and status of the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, a city holy to the three great religions. New Zealand did not recognize Israel's annexation of Jerusalem and did not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; it supported the principle of the city's internationalization, incorporated in the 1947 Assembly resolution on the future of Palestine.(35) Portugal expressed its support for all provisions that could bring success to a negotiated, comprehensive and peaceful Middle East solution, which it felt applied particularly to resolution 38/180 C.

Speaking on behalf of the EC members, Greece stressed the importance they attached to Security Council resolution 478 (1980), by which the Council had decided not to recognize the "Basic Law" on Jerusalem.

Greece said its vote was based on its attachment to the Charter principle that all Members should refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, and to the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (Helsinki Final Act), signed on 1 August 1975 at Helsinki, Finland. Singapore expressed support for all efforts to restore the rights of the Palestinians and a return to a just and durable Middle East peace. Spain believed that a Middle East solution must be based, among other things. On Israel's withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967 and on respect for Palestinian rights. Colombia spoke similarly. Bolivia regarded as null and void Israel's actions relating to the occupied territories.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reaffirmed its opposition to all allusions giving some semblance of legitimacy to Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories or recognizing the Zionist entity. Iran also reserved its position on any paragraphs which constituted recognition of what it called an artificially forged State.

Israel's decision to annex Jerusalem and declare it its capital, as well as the measures to alter its physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and status, were declared as null and void by the Assembly in another 19 December resolution (38/180 D). The Assembly demanded that they be rescinded immediately and called on Member States, specialized agencies and international organizations to abide by all United Nations resolutions on Jerusalem. Among the guidelines established in the Declaration of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine(11) and endorsed by the Assembly in a 13 December resolution (38/58 C), in relation to the proposed international peace conference on the Middle East (see above), was a guideline stressing the need to reaffirm as null and void all measures by Israel altering the character and status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and property, and in particular the "Basic Law" and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. By a resolution of 15 December (38/83 K), the Assembly called for the establishment of a university at Jerusalem for Palestine refugees (see below, under PALESTINE REFUGEES).

Other action. Among the recommendations in the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights, adopted by the Conference on the Palestine question (see above), was that States should fully comply with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and its specialized agencies, including those rejecting Israel's annexation and declaration of Jerusalem as its capital.(11)

Jerusalem was also discussed at the Eighth United Nations Seminar on the Question of Palestine (see above). The Seminar(23) concluded that the question was among the most difficult to solve. It confirmed that the occupation end Judaization of Jerusalem and Israel's unilateral acts to annex the city should continue to be condemned and declared null and void and without legal effect, and that the Security Council should enforce its decisions. Israeli practices, the Seminar concluded, were impeding the decolonization of Jerusalem which was inseparable from the emergence of Palestine as a State. The status of Jerusalem as envisaged in United Nations resolutions remained the basis of a solution.

Aid programmes for Palestinians

During 1983, United Nations assistance – particularly education and training – continued to be provided to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and neighbouring Arab States, much of it financed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). This was in addition to aid supplied by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) (see below, under PALESTINE (REFUGEES) and to humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Lebanon (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapters III and XXI).

Action relating to assistance for Palestinians was taken in 1983 by the UNDP Governing Council, the Industrial Development Board of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Intensified efforts to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinians were requested by the Economic and Social Council in resolution 1983/43 of 25 July. A co-ordinated programme of such assistance, taking into account the recommendations of the five regional preparatory meetings of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine and United Nations resolutions, was called for by the General Assembly in resolution 38/58 D of 13 December. Inter-agency co-ordination of assistance to Palestinians was the subject of Assembly resolution 38/145, adopted on 19 December.

UNDP action. Reporting in April 1983(37) to the Governing Council, the UNDP Administrator reviewed the progress in implementing the programme of assistance to the Palestinian people. He reported that, on the basis of regular consultations with the parties concerned, UNDP had developed by the end of 1982 nine new project proposals for the West Bank and Gaza, which were annexed to his report. The proposals, which would involve the private sector to a greater degree than previous projects, included assistance to community centres, specialized training for the glass and ceramics industry, and assistance to private medical institutions. In addition, extensions and new phases of ongoing projects in the fields of health manpower development, the development and strengthening of health institutions, specialized training in agricultural development, and children's institutions were to start in 1983. All but one project under way or envisaged were located in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Governing Council, on 24 June,(38) recommended that urgent efforts be made, with all parties concerned, to meet the economic and social needs of the Palestinians. Following the Administrator's recommendation, the Council reiterated its 1982 appeal(39) to Governments and intergovernmental organizations to provide for that purpose at least an additional $8 million for the 1982-1986 programming cycle to supplement the funds available from UNDP Special Programme Resources. This appeal was endorsed by the General Assembly on 13 December 1983 in resolution 38/145 (see below).

In his annual report for 1983,(40) the Administrator noted that under the assistance programme, which had commenced field operations in 1980, 6 of the 14 projects approved had been completed in 1983, all of them, except one in the Syrian Arab Republic, in the West Bank and Gaza. Five more projects were under implementation at the end of the year. At the end of 1983, all funds available from UNDP central resources for the programme, amounting to $7.5 million, were fully committed. Projects established during the year were in the pipeline, awaiting receipt of contributions from Governments and intergovernmental institutions following appeals for contributions by the Council and the Assembly.

UNIDO action. Following consideration of a March 1983 report by the UNIDO Executive Director on technical assistance to the Palestinian people,(41) the Industrial Development Board, on 13 May, adopted a conclusion on such assistance.(42) The Board took note of the efforts of UNIDO in approving a number of technical co-operation projects and in finding ways to implement them. It expressed concern at the destruction of Palestinian industrial production capacities by the Israeli army in Lebanon following the Israeli invasion in June 1982,(43) and urged the UNIDO secretariat to assist in reactivating such capacities in the occupied territories and in establishing new capacities for the Palestinians, and to intensify efforts in providing technical assistance to them in co-operation with PLO. The Board called on Israel to give UNIDO access to the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 to enable it to implement its technical co-operation projects for the Palestinians, and requested the Executive Director to submit in 1984 proposals for expanding its technical assistance programme.

UNCTAD action. On 2 July 1983, at its sixth session, UNCTAD adopted, by a roll-call vote of 84 to 2, with 20 abstentions, resolution 146(VI) on assistance to the Palestinian people.(44) The Conference requested the Secretary-General of UNCTAD to set up a special economic unit to monitor and investigate the policies of the Israeli occupation authorities hampering the economic development of the occupied Palestinian territories (see below, under TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL), and to report periodically to the Trade and Development Board and the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, on progress in implementing the resolution.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ACTION

In May 1983 the Secretary-General submitted to the Economic and Social Council a report on assistance to Palestinians provided or planned by United Nations organizations and agencies.(45) Acting on the recommendation of its Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee, the Council on 25 July adopted by a roll-call vote resolution 1983/43.

Assistance to the Palestinian people

The Economic and Social Council,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 37/134 of 17 December 1982,

Recalling also Council resolution 1982/48 of 27 July 1982,

Noting with deep concern that the continued detention of Palestinian civilians in Al Ansar Camp by the Israeli invasion army has deprived many of their dependants of their sole source of income, in addition to having other adverse economic and social consequences,

Noting also the need to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people,

1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on assistance to the Palestinian people;

2. Expresses its gratitude to the Governments and United Nations bodies which provided humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian victims of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon;

3. Takes note with appreciation of the assistance provided by United Nations bodies to the Palestinian people;

4. Deplores the non-compliance of Israel with Economic and Social Council resolution 1982/48;

5. Calls upon the Israeli occupation authorities to facilitate the efforts of all United Nations bodies intending to implement assistance projects for the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories;

6. Requests the competent programmes, organizations, agencies and organs of the United Nations system to sustain and intensify their efforts, in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization, in providing economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people;

7. Also requests that United Nations assistance to the Palestinians in the Arab host countries should be rendered in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization and with the consent of the Arab host Governments concerned;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session, through the Economic and Social Council, on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.

Economic and Social Council resolution 1983/43

25 July 1983 Meeting 39      48-1-1 (roll-call vote)

Approved by Third Committee (E/1983/114) by vote (35-1), 18 July (meeting 12); draft by Bangladesh, for Group of 77 (E/1983/C.3/L.3), orally revised; agenda item 2.

Meeting number. ESC: 39.

Roll call vote in Council as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, France, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, India, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, USSR, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Against: United States.

Abstaining: Liberia.

Before the vote, Israel urged Council member not to adopt the draft, for the following reasons The third preambular paragraph referred to the continued detention of Palestinian civilians in Al Ansar (Insar) Camp (see above, under PERSONS DETAINED BY ISRAEL), whereas there were only members of the PLO terrorist organization in the camp whose release would threaten Israel's security It was inappropriate to mention Israel in the context of the reference in paragraph 2 to humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian victims of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, since there had been civil war in Lebanon for eight years, involving considerable destruction and heavy loss of life. Paragraph 4 deploring Israel's non-compliance with a 1982 Council resolution(46) totally disregarded Israel’s position on the matter. The wording of paragraph 5 implied that the Israeli authorities were not facilitating United Nations efforts to provide assistance to the Palestinians; nothing could be further from the truth – Israel had co-operated fully with UNDP, the most important of the agencies.

Speaking for the 10 member States of the European Economic Community (EEC), Greece said they would continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians, particularly to those in Lebanon who had suffered from the 1982 Israeli invasion; assistance would be given directly and through the Community, as well as through United Nations agencies and bodies.

Norway stated its support particularly for the activities of the specialized agencies but stressed that its attitude towards PLO remained unchanged.

Speaking also on behalf of Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR, the German Democratic Republic said the resolution should have condemned Israel and its protector, the United States, and should have urged Israel to withdraw its troops from the occupied territories; appealing to Israeli occupation forces to facilitate implementation of assistance projects would not bring liberation of the Palestinians nearer.

Action by the Conference on the Palestine question. In September 1983, taking up recommendations made at the five regional preparatory meetings, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine,(11) in its Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights (see above), called for measures to alleviate the Palestinians' economic and social burdens resulting from continued Israeli occupation of their territories, and for increased contributions to the programmes and projects of United Nations bodies providing humanitarian, economic and social assistance to those people. The Conference referred in particular to: the appeal of the UNDP Governing Council for an additional $8 million during 1982-1986 to help meet the needs of the Palestinians (see above); the proposed establishment within UNCTAD of a Special Economic Unit on Assistance to the Palestinian People; and the setting up of a special legal aid fund to assist them in securing their rights under conditions of occupation.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December 1983, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions (38/58 D and 38/145) dealing with assistance to the Palestinian people.

Under the agenda item On the question of Palestine, the Assembly, on 13 December, adopted resolution 38/58 D by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, held at Geneva from 29 August to 7 September 1983,

Taking note of the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights,

Bearing in mind its resolution 38/145 of 19 December 1983 on assistance to the Palestinian people,

Urges the meeting of specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system to be convened in 1984, referred to in General Assembly resolution 38/145, to take into account the recommendations of the five regional preparatory meetings of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine and the United Nations resolutions concerning economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people in developing a co-ordinated programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people, and to ensure the implementation of that programme.

General Assembly resolution 38/58 D

13 December 1983     Meeting 95  144-2 (recorded vote)

20-nation draft (A/38/L.39 & Add.1); agenda item 33.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Meeting number. GA 38th session: plenary 73, 79-82, 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Israel rejected the resolution on the grounds that it sought to accord legitimacy to the International Conference, thus serving the narcissistic excesses of the PLO propagandists and their fellow travellers; if implemented, the proposed recommendations would pour additional money down what appeared to be a bottomless drain.

Speaking for the EC member States, Greece said they understood that the resolution dealt only with economic and social assistance. Even though UNDP was already involved in co-ordinating assistance and a general meeting of specialized agencies seemed unnecessary, Canada said it voted in favour in support of the principle of international assistance to the Palestinians. Finland voted in favour with reservations as it felt the resolution was unbalanced.

Costa Rica believed that the United Nations system must play its part in assisting the Palestinians.

On 19 December, the Assembly, acting on the recommendation of its Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, adopted resolution 38/145 by recorded vote.

Assistance to the Palestinian people

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 37/134 of 17 December 1982,

Recalling also Economic and Social Council resolution 1983/43 of 25 July 1983,

Recalling further the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights, adopted by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine,

Noting the need to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people,

1. Endorses Economic and Social Council resolution 1983/43;

2. Endorses also decision 83/11 of 24 June 1983 of the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme in which the Council called upon Governments and intergovernmental organizations to provide additional special contributions to the Programme amounting to at least 8 million dollars during the third programming cycle, so as to ensure the implementation of the United Nations Development Programme assistance programme for the Palestinian people;

3. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To convene in 1984 a meeting of the relevant programmes, organizations, agencies and organs of the United Nations system to develop a co-ordinated programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people and to ensure its implementation;

(b) To provide for the participation in the meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Arab host countries and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations;

(c) To utilize existing inter-agency mechanisms to prepare proposals for assistance projects to be considered at the meeting;

4. Requests that the meeting should look into the most effective inter-agency machinery to co-ordinate and intensify United Nations assistance to the Palestinian people;

5. Requests the relevant programmes, organizations, agencies and organs of the United Nations system to intensify their efforts, in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization, to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people;

6. Also requests that United Nations assistance to the Palestinians in the Arab host countries should be rendered in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization and with the consent of the Arab host Government concerned;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session, through the Economic and Social Council, on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 38/145

19 December 1983     Meeting 102    140-2-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by Second Committee (A/38/701) by recorded vote (131-2), 14 November (meeting 39); 11-nation draft (A/C.2/38/L.24/Rev.1), orally revised; agenda item 12.

Sponsors: Bangladesh, China, Democratic Yemen, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Qatar, Sudan, Tunisia, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: 2nd Committee 24, 26-28, 30, 36-37, 39; plenary 73, 79-82, 95, 102.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 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, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Ireland.a/

a/ Later advised the Secretariat it had intended to vote in favour.

Israel, stating that it was endeavouring to help Palestinian Arabs and had improved their standard of living, said it continued to favour legitimate aid to those living in the administered territories and had co-operated with UNDP and other United Nations bodies to assist the Arab populations of Judaea, Samaria and Gaza. Recent UNDP Governing Council decisions had tended to intensify such co-operation; but it would continue to oppose co-operation with PLO. The international community should dissociate itself from the so-called International Conference.

The United States, pointing out that it would have supported a resolution on humanitarian assistance and that it had contributed more than $1 billion to UNRWA, said the approved text mentioned PLO which the United States did not recognize and which, by refusing to recognize Israel, had impeded the Middle East peace process.

Jordan expressed support for any assistance to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and to Palestinian refugees, but stressed that this did not imply endorsement of the imbalance in paragraphs 5 and 6; it had sole responsibility for the initiation, planning and organization of social and economic services to all Jordanian citizens, and any assistance to them must be subject to its acceptance.

Expressing support for the resolution because of its substance, Australia voiced reservations to the reference to the Conference, in which it had not participated.

Speaking for the EC members, Greece said they would continue to offer assistance to the Palestinians directly and through the Community, and to the competent United Nations agencies which could best decide on channels through which to assist the Palestinians. Japan stressed that assistance to the Palestinians by UNDP and other United Nations bodies should be provided by the same procedure as that to national liberation movements, in close co-operation with the countries concerned. Norway said it agreed to assisting the Palestinians, but its position towards PLO remained unchanged.

The USSR said its vote was based on its position of principle regarding the need for a just and comprehensive Middle East settlement.

Commenting on the United States statement, the PLO observer said no amount of money contributed to UNRWA could compensate the Palestinians for the occupation of their homeland.

The Assembly's Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee decided on 17 November,(47) by 75 votes to 2, with 20 abstentions, to include in the 1984-1985 budget $218,000 to establish within the UNCTAD secretariat a Special Economic Unit (Palestinian People). The Secretary-General, in his revised budget estimates,(48) stated that to establish the Unit two new Professional posts were requested at the P-5 and P-3 levels, together with one General Service post.

Palestinian cultural property

In 1983, the General Assembly took up the question of the restitution of Palestinian cultural property, seized by Israel during its June 1982 invasion of Lebanon,(43) a question first addressed by the Assembly in December 1982.(49)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the situation in the Middle East, the Assembly, on 19 December 1983 adopted resolution 38/180 B by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 38/180 B

19 December 1983     Meeting 102    121-1-20 (recorded vote)

15-nation draft (A/38/L.44 & Add.1); agenda item 34.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: plenary 87-89, 91-95,102.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, 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, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Israel said the resolution ignored the fact that it had returned the files and that the so-called Palestine Research Centre's true function was not research but the production of anti-Israel propaganda and the collection of intelligence data for use by terrorists against Israel end Jewish civilian targets in Israel and throughout the world.

Finland felt that it was unclear whether that property had been returned or not. Sweden spoke similarly. Recalling the support of the EC members for the 1982 resolution,(49) Greece said they also noted that there was now some uncertainty about the facts.

The Philippines had reservations on the formulation of some of the resolution's provisions. Greece explained that it voted in favour on the basis of its attachment to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter, on the non-use of force against other States, and to the principles in the Helsinki Final Act. Ecuador condemned Israeli policies that violated the rights of the inhabitants of the occupied territories (see below, under TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL). Singapore said it supported all efforts aiming at restoring legitimate Palestinian rights. Portugal declared its support for any resolution that could bring success to the Middle East peace efforts. Similar positions were taken by Bolivia, Colombia and Spain.

Iran reserved its rights regarding any paragraphs that recognized an artificially forged State, the Zionist entity. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya also opposed all allusions giving a semblance of legitimacy to Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories or recognizing that entity.

Public information

Expanded information activities of the United Nations Secretariat, in particular of its Department of Public Information (DPI) relating to the Palestine question, were recommended by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine in September 1983. The General Assembly took up these recommendations in a December resolution.

Conference on the Palestine question. The International Conference on the Question of Palestine (11) in its Programme of Action (see above), stated that the dissemination of information world-wide and the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) remained vital in heightening awareness of the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination and the establishment of an independent Palestinian State. It called on DPI, in co-operation with the Committee on Palestinian rights, to: co-ordinate all United Nations information activities on Palestine through the Joint United Nations Information Committee, expand publications and audio and visual coverage of the Palestine question; publish newsletters and articles on Israeli violations of human rights in the occupied territories (see below, under TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL); organize fact-finding missions for journalists to the area; and disseminate information on the Conference results. The Conference also called on United Nations bodies to organize meetings, symposia and seminars on topics relating to specific problems of the Palestinians by establishing closer liaison with NGOs, the media and other interested groups. Organizations were urged to increase international awareness of the economic and social burdens borne by the Palestinians as a result of continued Israeli occupation, to intensify their support of Palestinian rights, to investigate the conditions and Israeli policies in the occupied territories, and to disseminate information.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the question of Pales tine, the General Assembly, on 13 December 1983, adopted resolution 38/58 E by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, held at Geneva from 29 August to 7 September 1983,

Convinced that the world-wide dissemination of accurate and comprehensive information and the role of non-governmental organizations and institutions remain of vital importance in heightening awareness of and support for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian State,

Requests that the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat, in full co-operation and co-ordination with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, should:

(a) Disseminate all information on the activities of the United Nations system relating to Palestine;

(b) Expand publications and audio-visual coverage of the facts and developments pertaining to the question of Palestine;

(c) Publish newsletters and articles in its relevant publications on Israeli violations of the human rights of the Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories, and organize fact-finding missions to the area for journalists;

(d) Organize regional encounters for journalists;

(e) Disseminate appropriate information on the results of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine.

General Assembly resolution 38/68 E

13 December 1983     Meeting 95  125-3-15 (recorded vote)

20-nation draft (A/38/L.40 & Add.3); agenda item 33.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Financial implications. 5th Committee, A/38/725; S-G, A/C.5/38/75.

Meeting numbers. GA 33th session: 5th Committee 62; plenary 73, 79-82, 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Canada, Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom.

Canada felt the resolution proposed duplicating machinery already in place for disseminating information on Palestine and implied that DPI, which received its mandate from the Assembly, must submit its programmes to a selective and non-representative Committee; it also stated that it could not support resolutions which took little account of the concerns of one party, and voiced reservations on the objectives of the Conference. Israel rejected the resolution as a drain on United Nations funds and another blow to the credibility of the United Nations Secretariat which, it felt, had been forced to abandon legitimate functions for extraneous interests.

Norway could not endorse the outcome of the Conference. Speaking for the EC member States, Greece said they trusted that DPI would continue to be guided by impartiality and would maintain its normal decision-making process; unnecessary burdens on the United Nations budget should be avoided. Reservations about the cost of information activities were also voiced by New Zealand. Costa Rica abstained on the grounds that Assembly resolution 38/58 B on the Division for Palestinian Rights (see above) already contained the necessary provisions on information.

Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay reaffirmed their reservations on certain parts of the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Conference, while Finland stated its general reservations on the resolution.

Malawi said it voted in favour to promote the peace-building process. In the opinion of Honduras, the resolution could help achieve Palestinian rights.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya affirmed that its positive vote did not alter its position on any references that might be construed as legitimizing the Zionist occupation of Palestine or as recognition of the Zionist entity. Iran held a similar position.

In resolution 38/58 B of the same date, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to ensure the continued co-operation of DPI and other Secretariat units in enabling the Division of Palestinian Rights to perform its tasks and in covering the various aspects of the Palestine question. It also requested him to expand the Division's work programme through closer contacts with the media and wider dissemination of the Division's information material increased contacts with NGOs and the convening of symposia and meetings in different regions to heighten awareness of the Palestine question.

Among the recommendations of the Committee on Information, endorsed by the Assembly in resolution 38/82 B of 15 December, was the preparation of a detailed account of the coverage by widely representative world media of developments from June to December 1982 affecting the Palestinians to be submitted to the Assembly in 1983.

REFERENCES

(1)A/38/61-S/15549. (2)S/15609. (3)A/38/367 & Corr.1. (4)A/38/350. (5)A/38/351. (6)A/38/364 & Corr.1. (7)A/38/454. (8)A/38/373. (9)A/38/398. (10)YUN 1982, p. 420, GA res. ES-7/7, 19 Aug. 1982, and p. 422, GA res. 37/86 C, 10 Dec. 1982. (11)Report of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine (Geneva, 29 August-7 September 1983 (A/CONF.114/42), Sales No. E.83.I.21. (12)YUN 1982, p. 387. (13)A/38/458-S/16015. (14)A/38/497-S/16038. (15)YUN 1981, p. 271, GA res. 36/120 C; 10 Dec. 1981. (16)A/38/46. (17)YUN 1982, p. 420, GA res. ES-/7, 19 Aug. 1982. (18)A/CONF.114/1. (19)A/CONF.114/2. (20)A/CONF.114/3. (21)A/CONF.114/4. (22)A/CONF.114/5. (23)A/38/35. (24)YUN 1976, p. 235. (25)Ibid., p. 245, GA res. 31/20, 24 Nov. 1976. (26)YUN 1977, p. 304, GA res. 32/40 B, 2 Dec. 1977. (27)YUN 1967, p. 257, SC res. 242(1967), 22 Nov. 1967. (28)YUN 1973, p. 213, SC res. 338 (1973), 22 Oct. 1973. (29)A/38/115-S/15639 & Corr.1. (30)A/38/117-S/15642. (3l)A/38/118-S/15646. (32)S/16203. (33)S/16205. (34)A/38/717-S/16209. (35)YUN 1947-48, p. 247, GA res. 181 A (II), 29 Nov. 1947. (36)YUN 1980, p. 426, SC res. 478 (1980), 20 Aug. 1980. (37)DP/1983/14. (38)E/1983/20 (dec. 83/11). (39)YUN 1982, p. 423. (40)DP/1984/5/Add.2. (41)DD/B/301. (42)A/38/16 (1983/11). (43)YUN 1982, p. 428. (44)Proceedings of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Sixth Session, Belgrade, 6 June-2 July 1983, vol. I, Report and Annexes (TD/326, vol. I), Sales No. E.83.11.D.6. (45)E/1983/72 & Add.1. (46)YUN 1982, p. 720, ESC res. 1982/48, 27 July 1982. (47)A/38/760. (48)A/C.5/38/4. (49)YUN 1982, p. 489, GA res. 37/123 B, 16 Dec. 1982.

_________________________________________

Incidents and disputes

between Arab countries and Israel

_________________________________

The 1981 bombing by Israeli aircraft of a nuclear research centre near Baghdad, Iraq, was again taken up by the General Assembly in December 1983. The Security Council, on several occasions through-out the year, dealt with the situation in Lebanon and in the Syrian Golan Heights and extended the mandate of the United Nations peace-keeping forces there. Israel and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya exchanged several communications referring to discussions in the Council and the Assembly.

Armed incident involving Iraqi

nuclear facilities

The 1981 bombing by Israeli aircraft of a nuclear research centre near Baghdad(1) was again the subject in 1983 of a General Assembly resolution (38/9). The Secretary-General reported on implementation of a November 1982 resolution on the issue and transmitted a study by a Group of Experts reviewing the consequences of the attack.

Communication. On 12 August 1983,(2) Iraq transmitted to the Secretary-General a massage from its President to the World Assembly for Peace and Life against Nuclear War (Prague, Czechoslovakia, 21-26 June), stating that the attack by Israel on peaceful Iraqi nuclear installations using conventional weapons must be regarded as equivalent to an attack using nuclear weapons; an attack such as Israel's entailed the risk of exposure to radiation and the possible outbreak of nuclear war.

Report of the Secretary-General. In September 1983,(3) the Secretary-General reported on the implementation of a November 1982 General Assembly resolution on armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations.(4) In response to a note requesting Israel to inform him of action it had taken, Israel, on 29 June, had replied that it had no policy of attacking nuclear facilities; that the resolution, which demanded that it withdraw its officially declared threat to repeat its armed attack against nuclear facilities, was one-sided and biased; and that it would be regrettable if the Assembly were required to deal once again with the issue since attempts should be made to address essential Middle East issues. The Secretary-General also reported that he had appointed a Group of Experts to study the consequences of the Israeli attack (see below).

Israel reiterated this statement in a 13 September letter.(5)

Study by Group of Experts. In October 1983, the Secretary-General transmitted to the Assembly a study on the consequences of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear installations,(6) prepared by a six-member Group of Experts appointed in accordance with the Assembly's November 1982 resolution.(4) In meetings held from 18 to 22 April at Vienna and from 11 to 15 July in New York, the Experts reviewed economic, legal, health and their consequences of the attack, carried out by 14 Israeli air force planes. Stating that it had not been possible to assess accurately the extent of the damage, they concluded that the virtual total destruction of the Tammuz-1 reactor and damage to their parts of the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Centre had resulted in losses of several hundred million dollars of investment and had set back the Iraqi nuclear research and training programme by at least five years. No radiological health problems had been caused, although some could have occurred had the bombs struck the irradiated fuel stored at the site and there could have been an appreciable risk of health consequences had the reactor been operational.

According to the Experts, the more general consequences of the attack included its potentially serious damage to international norms and institutions: it represented a challenge to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)(7) and the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); it undermined international legal constraints on acts of aggression including those of the Charter of the United Nations; it introduced new risks and uncertainties, threatening further peaceful nuclear development and co-operation, and it violated the 1974 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States(8) and the 1974 Declaration and the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order.(9)

Noting that Iraq was a party to NPT, the Experts felt that, if Israel became a party, accepted full-scope safeguards and complied with the Assembly's demand to refrain from its threat to repeat such attacks, the situation would substantially improve. They hoped that the incident would give new impetus to efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, to the establishment of additional legal instruments against attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities, and to the improvement of international mechanisms for obtaining redress for damages.

On 31 October 1983,(10) Israel stated that the report was biased, predetermined conclusions having dictated the choice of facts and arguments also, while Iraq had been invited to make its views known to the Group, Israel had not been invited to do so. The report omitted reference to Israel's statement that it had no policy of attacking nuclear facilities and, in dealing with the issue of the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, made no reference to the principle of free and direct negotiations among the States of the region. Israel urged that United Nations energies be devoted to supporting positive international initiatives and that an effort be made to prevent Iraq's misuse of the United Nations and IAEA as forums for repeated extraneous political issues.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 10 November 1983, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 38/9.

Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear

installations and its grave consequences for the

established international system concerning

the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the

non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and

international peace and security

The General Assembly,

Having considered the item entitled "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security",

Recalling the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly,

Taking note of the relevant resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency,

Taking note also with appreciation of the report of the Secretary-General,

Viewing with deep concern Israel's continued refusal to comply with those resolutions,

Reiterating its alarm over the information and evidence regarding the acquisition and development of nuclear weapons by Israel,

Recalling Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations, which enjoins all Member States to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

Noting that serious radiological effects would result from an armed attack with conventional weapons on a nuclear installation, which could also lead to the initiation of radiological warfare,

1. Reiterates its condemnation of Israel's continued refusal to implement Security Council resolution 487(1981), unanimously adopted by the Council on 19 June 1981;

2. Notes that the statements made so far by Israel have not removed apprehensions that its threat to repeat its armed attack against nuclear facilities, as well as any similar action against such facilities, will continue to endanger the role and activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency and other international instruments in the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and in safeguarding against further proliferation of nuclear weapons;

3. Considers that any threat to attack and destroy nuclear facilities in Iraq and in other countries constitutes a violation of the Charter of the United Nations;

4. Reiterates its demand that Israel withdraw forthwith its threat to attack and destroy nuclear facilities in Iraq and in other countries;

5. Once again requests the Security Council to consider the necessary measures to deter Israel from repeating such an attack on nuclear facilities;

6. Reaffirms its call for the continuation of the consideration, at the international level, of legal measures to prohibit armed attacks against nuclear facilities, and threats thereof, as a contribution to promoting and ensuring the safe development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes;

7. Expresses its deep appreciation to the Secretary-General and the Group of Experts on the Consequences of the Israeli Armed Attack against the Iraqi Nuclear Installations for their comprehensive study;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session on the implementation of the present resolution;

9. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty-ninth session the item entitled "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security".

General Assembly resolution 38/9

10 November 1983    Meeting 52 123-2-12 (recorded vote)

25-nation draft (A/38/L.7/Rev.2); agenda item 28.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: plenary 42, 44, 46, 52.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, 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, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Chile, Colombia, Fiji, Guatemala, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Malawi, Paraguay.

The United States said the resolution went far beyond the content of unanimously adopted Security Council resolution 487(1981);(11) to adopt measures two and a half years later was unnecessary and unproductive and detracted from the attention that should be given to a practical and realistic search for a peaceful settlement to the problems of the region. Its negative vote, the United States added also reflected the view that the Secretary-General's study was superfluous and certain aspects of it were open to question; it treated the existence of a state of war between Israel and Iraq in the most cursory fashion, referred to an Israeli "threat" not mentioned previously and made no reference to specific Israeli declarations on the subject.

Also casting a negative vote, Israel said it would have voted for paragraph 6, had there been a separate vote, in keeping with its position that it had no policy of attacking nuclear facilities and fully supported international efforts to arrive at an early arrangement on the status of such facilities.

Chile believed that many paragraphs went beyond the item under discussion or presupposed intentions that were not sufficiently supported, and that the Security Council should decide whether further action was needed; the item should not be kept permanently on the Assembly's agenda.

Canada felt that the text had improved over the previous year's resolution,(4) in particular by omitting references to "acts of aggression" which, if taken in connection with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, could have severe consequences.

The United Kingdom regarded the last preambular paragraph as too categorical in its assertions; it also had reservations on the wording of paragraphs 2 to 6, stressing that it did not regard paragraph 6 as either prejudicing the issue of whether further legal measures to prohibit armed attacks against nuclear facilities were needed, or prejudging the forum for discussion of the subject.

The Federal Republic of Germany considered the text too complex to be constructive and believed other international bodies would be more suitable for discussing the subject. It expressed doubts on the concept of radiological warfare as contained in the last preambular paragraph; as to paragraph 6, it felt that the outcome of the work of the Committee on Disarmament, in seeking a solution to the question of prohibiting military attacks on nuclear facilities, including the scope of such prohibition, should not be prejudged.

Belgium reserved its position in particular on the preamble, saying it referred to problems which had nothing to do with the condemned action. France could not accept the use in the future of certain elements of the resolution's operative part to harm the principle of United Nations universality.

The United Kingdom remarked on the risks of the item's becoming another subject of ritual debate. Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and Norway held a similar position. For the Federal Republic of Germany, repeated condemnation of Israel was not likely to promote conditions in which the problems resulting from a two-year-old event could eventually be solved. The Netherlands pointed out that the Security Council was already seized of the question by virtue of paragraph 7 of its resolution 487(1981) and that IAEA was fully competent to deal with the matter.

Iraq responded that the reason behind the request again to include the item in the Assembly agenda was that the Israeli attack had not been an isolated act and that there had been a threat, officially stated a number of times, to repeat that act; it was the Assembly's duty to see to it that that threat was not carried out and was withdrawn in a meaningful way, not in the senseless statement that Israel had no policy of attacking nuclear facilities. Iraq also pointed out that Israel had refused to comply with the Security Council's requests; the point of the resolution was that action must be taken to make Israel realize that it could not with impunity carry out, or threaten to repeat, such an attack.

Other action. The IAEA General Conference decided to withhold Agency research contracts to Israel if it did not withdraw by 1984 its threat to attack nuclear facilities in Iraq and other countries (see also PART II, Chapter I).

Lebanon situation

Military activity in Lebanon, in the aftermath of the June 1982 Israeli invasion, was again a focus of attention in the Security Council in 1983. On 23 November, by resolution 542(1983), the Council repeated its call for strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity, and requested the parties concerned immediately to accept a cease-fire and to observe the cessation of hostilities. As reported by the Secretary-General in December, a cease-fire agreement was reached on 26 November and on 20 December PLO troops were evacuated from Tripoli. In 1983, the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was extended three times, in January, July and October.

Armed incidents and military activity

Communications (February-September). On 16 February 1983,(12) Egypt transmitted excerpts from a statement by its Deputy Prime Minister before the National Security Committee, the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Arab Affairs of the People's Assembly, expressing concern at Israeli measures being taken against Palestinians in southern Lebanon.

Mongolia, on 18 May,(13) transmitted a statement of 16 May by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemning actions of the Israeli military against the Lebanese people and criticizing United States-Israeli proposals for peace with Lebanon, saying they were in fact a gross violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and would lead to that country's dismemberment, transforming it into a United States-Israeli military base.

Concern over the situation in Lebanon was expressed at two meetings of the heads of State and Government of EC (Brussels, Belgium, 22 March; Stuttgart, Federal Republic of Germany, 19 June). In March, they reaffirmed their support for a sovereign and independent Lebanon and for its Government, and called for re-establishment of its unrestricted authority over the whole of its territory. They expressed support for United States efforts to achieve that objective, as well as for the peace-keeping role of the United Nations and multinational forces, and called on all concerned to conclude negotiations without further delay. In June, they called for the complete and prompt withdrawal of foreign forces, except for those whose presence was requested by the Lebanese Government, as a pre-condition for restoring full sovereignty and final peace in Lebanon. In their view, the signing of an Israel-Lebanon agreement on 17 May was a step to be followed by others; they considered, however, that peace would not become a reality unless the security and legitimate interests of the other States and peoples of the region were taken into account. These conclusions were transmitted by the Federal Republic of Germany in letters of 24 March(14) and 22 June.(15)

On 2 September,(16) Lebanon transmitted a letter of the same date from its Minister for Foreign Affairs and Emigration to the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States informing him of Israel's decision to withdraw in the next few days its troops from parts of Mount Lebanon and asking for help in securing the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanese territory.

By a letter of 9 September,(17) Lebanon stated that since 2 September military action had been escalating and the Lebanese army had had to intervene so as to protect its own positions, maintain law and order in greater Beirut, open international lines of communication and protect the civilian population in various localities from armed elements controlled and directed from abroad. Shelling had been extensive and had spared neither Beirut nor localities in Mount Lebanon. Casualties had been numerous and destruction enormous. The efforts by the League of Arab States, the United Nations and many friendly Governments had not enabled Lebanon to restore its sovereignty and authority over all of its territory, or to prevent the resurgence of hostilities. Stressing that that situation could not be allowed to continue without endangering international peace and security and imperilling its fate, Lebanon urged the Security Council to declare a cease-fire and take whatever measures deemed necessary to implement it, in accordance with the Charter.

On 13 September,(18) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya transmitted a letter from its head of State stating that the situation in Lebanon had become so explosive as to make peace and security almost impossible; the situation was being aggravated by the internationalization of the conflict and the introduction of extraneous parties under the name of peace-keeping forces from France, the United States and other countries.

Reports of the Secretary-General (September). On 5 September, the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on the situation in the Beirut area.(19) On the basis of information from the Observer Group Beirut (OGB) – 50 United Nations military observers deployed by the Council in August 1982(20) at the request of Lebanon and set up as an arm of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) to monitor the situation following intensification of military activities in and around Beirut – he summarized developments relating to the withdrawal of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) from the area.

Preparations for the withdrawal of IDF had been observed by OGB from late duly 1983, and an increasing number of convoys had been noted on the Beirut-Damascus highway, consisting largely of trucks carrying accommodation and heavy equipment, water tanks and stores. On 3 September, OGB had observed heavy IDF traffic moving west on the highway and south towards Khalde and Damur. That evening, Israeli forces with tanks and armoured personnel carriers had closed off and secured various road junctions in eastern and southern Beirut. No IDF traffic had been observed on the Damascus highway after dawn on 4 September. Early that morning, OGB heard jet aircraft overhead, and it had been reported that IDF had also used other routes to the south. After IDF movement ceased, OGB patrols had sought to verify the situation. Although their task had been made extremely difficult by the hostilities which immediately developed, OGB had been able to confirm that IDF check-points on the main roads around Beirut had been removed.

In the early hours of 4 September, intensive mortar, artillery and automatic weapons fire began east, north and south of Beirut, and in particular on and around the Beirut-Damascus highway. OGB teams observed armed groups operating in some of those areas, especially on the Ridge Line between Alayh and Suq Al-Gharb, in the Shouf mountains. During the daylight hours on 4 September, the north-western edge of the Shouf overlooking Beirut was engulfed by smoke and artillery fire. Similarly, the town of Khalde, to the south of Beirut, was also largely obscured by smoke and fire. Artillery fire from the north and north-east of Beirut continued throughout the evening and night of 4/5 September, the principal targets being Beit Meri, Broummana, Dazi, the western area of Beirut International Airport, Babdun, Aynas and Aley. On the morning of 5 September, heavy shelling was noted around the headquarters of the Lebanese army at Yarze. OGB had not observed any change in deployment of the multinational force, which had come under occasional fire.

OGB had also closely observed the Palestine refugee camps in the Sabra and Shatila areas, where the atmosphere had remained calm, although they were hit by some shells on 5 September.

OGB had maintained close liaison with the Lebanese army, which had deployed throughout Beirut during the preceding week. On 4 September, OGB observed the movement of Lebanese army units under fire from armed groups, towards Khalde. That evening, OGB was informed that the army had entered Khalde, sustaining light casualties, and had also moved troops and equipment east on the Beirut-Damascus highway.

In his report on the situation in the Middle East, submitted to the Council and the General Assembly on 30 September,(21) the Secretary-General stated that, following the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon,(22) which had radically altered the situation in which UNIFIL had to function, the Security Council had instructed the Force, as interim tasks, to maintain its positions in its area of deployment and to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to the local population to the extent possible.(23) With the Council's approval, UNIFIL continued to carry out these interim tasks.

The Secretary-General reported that, following the Israeli withdrawal from the Beirut area, fighting had broken out in some areas evacuated by those forces. On 8 September 1983, he had appealed to all concerned to support efforts to achieve a cease-fire and to help restore national unity with the participation and co-operation of all the Lebanese parties. He had also asked the United Nations Co-ordinator of Assistance for the Reconstruction and Development of Lebanon to try to alleviate the suffering of the afflicted people in the area and to help provide them with emergency humanitarian assistance (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter III). He had further instructed OGB to continue to follow closely the events in the area and to facilitate such efforts.

Concluding his 5 September report, the Secretary-General stated that, throughout the preceding several days, shells had impacted close to OGB headquarters and its teams had been compelled to limit their patrols, but had been instructed to maintain, to the extent possible, intensified patrolling activity; though being small in numbers and unarmed, the observers were an important independent source of information and their presence represented the concern of the international community.

SECURITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION (September)

As requested by Lebanon on 9 September,(17) the Security Council convened on 12 September to consider the escalating military action. Lebanon, at its request, was invited to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

Speaking before the Council, Lebanon again called for a cease-fire, an immediate and effective cessation of all hostilities and the withdrawal of all illegitimate foreign forces. This call was repeated in a draft resolution it submitted to the Council (24) by which the Council would also have called on all parties to refrain from all acts that violated Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and endangered its people's safety and unity. It would have authorized the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, in consultation with the Lebanese Government, United Nations observers to monitor the situation, and would have requested all parties to co-operate fully with the observers. The Council would have called on all involved to facilitate the activities of ICRC, the United Nations Co-ordinator of Assistance for the Reconstruction and Development of Lebanon, and United Nations agencies, and to enable them to evacuate the dead and wounded and provide food, medical supplies and humanitarian assistance. It would have called on all States and parties to support Lebanon in its efforts to ensure the complete and immediate withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces whose presence did not have the Government's approval. The Secretary-General would have been requested urgently to initiate consultations on additional steps, including possible deployment of United Nations forces, to assist the Government in ensuring peace and public order and securing the full protection of civilians in all areas of hostilities, and to report to the Council on the implementation of the resolution within 72 hours.

As the Council did not act on the draft, Lebanon, by a letter of 19 September,(25) voiced concern that the Council should have been unable, with a tragedy of such magnitude, to respond with a positive contribution to peace in Lebanon. It expressed the hope that the draft would be submitted to a vote at an appropriate time when a positive response was likely or if any Council members felt that further action was necessary in the light of new developments.

Communications (November). On 8 November,(26) the USSR transmitted a TASS statement of 4 November accusing the United States of intending to conduct a large-scale military operation in Lebanon.

On 9 November,(27) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya transmitted a letter of the same date from its head of State stating that the multinational forces in Lebanon had completed their task and their continued presence only aggravated the already dangerous situation there.

By a letter of 11 November,(28) Iran rejected United States accusations that in October Iran had destroyed the headquarters of the United States Marines in Beirut; those accusations, it said, were a premeditated move to confuse the situation in the region and divert world public opinion from the discontent of the Lebanese people regarding the presence of those forces in their country.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (November)

At two meetings on 11 November, the Security Council, in resuming consideration of the Secretary-General's 12 October report(29) on UNIFIL (see below), returned to the situation in Lebanon. The Council invited Israel, Lebanon, the Sudan and the Syrian Arab Republic, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

At the start of the second meeting, the President made the following statement on behalf of the Council members:(30)

During the Council's discussions, the USSR alleged that Israel, jointly with the United States, was preparing for new aggression in the Near East and a large-scale military operation in Lebanon, thus; further exacerbating tension there. Public threats and a new campaign of provocation against the Syrian Arab Republic were being accompanied by an unprecedented concentration of the United States fleet near the coast of Lebanon; the United States intended further to extend its area of interference, in co-operation with the Israeli aggressor which had firmly entrenched itself on Lebanese soil.

The Syrian Arab Republic also stressed that those provocations presaged joint aggression against it, its forces and Lebanon, threatening regional and international security. Israel had isolated southern Lebanon from the rest of the country, thus putting the final touches on its expansionist schemes. With regard to its forces in Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic stated that they would not be withdrawn until the last Israeli soldier had been withdrawn unconditionally, and the independence and unity of Lebanon, as an integral part of the Arab nation, had been guaranteed. It also called for withdrawal of the multinational forces from Lebanon and for a rejection of the 17 May agreement imposed on Lebanon under the shadow of occupation.

Rejecting the allegations, the United States said its forces were in Lebanon at the invitation of the Lebanese Government and would remain there until their tasks were discharged; their purpose, along with the forces of three other countries, was to assist that Government in rebuilding its domestic institutions and in extending its sovereignty throughout its territory, which must ultimately involve the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces. Lebanon stated that it held firm to its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and to the unity of its people. The events taking place on Lebanese territory were proof that the war that had been raging for nine years was not internal, but one of regional ambitions and conflicting international interests. Confirming that the multinational forces, UNIFIL and the international observers were present at its request, Lebanon reiterated its determination to ensure the withdrawal of all unauthorized non-Lebanese forces, with the Council being called on to assist.

Israel stated that, since the 18 October Council meeting on UNIFIL (see below), large-scale killings had taken place in Lebanon, affecting primarily innocent civilians; however, when Arabs were killing Arabs, the United Nations had been informed by various Arab representatives over the years that it should not become interested in such events since they were "family affairs". With regard to the 17 May agreement it had signed with Lebanon, Israel pointed out that it provided for full Israeli withdrawal to the international boundary between the two countries, within the context of the agreement and subject to the fulfilment of all its provisions.

In Jordan's view, Israel, in its statement, had avoided the main problem that was threatening international peace and security – it did not respect the Council and its decisions.

At a meeting on 23 November, urgently requested by France in a letter of 22 November (31) the Council unanimously adopted resolution 542(1983), prepared during Council consultations.

The Security Council,

Having considered the situation prevailing in northern Lebanon,

Recalling the statement made on this question by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1983,

Deeply concerned by the intensification of the fighting, which continues to cause great suffering and loss of human life,

1. Deplores the loss of human life caused by the events taking place in northern Lebanon;

2. Reiterates its call for the strict respect for the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;

3. Requests the parties concerned immediately to accept a cease-fire and scrupulously to observe the cessation of hostilities;

4. Invites the parties concerned to settle their differences exclusively by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force;

5. Pays tribute to the work done by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and by the International Committee of the Red Cross in providing emergency humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in Tripoli and its surroundings;

6. Calls upon the parties concerned to comply with the provisions of the present resolution;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the situation in northern Lebanon, to consult with the Government of Lebanon, and to report to the Security Council, which remains seized of the question.

Security Council resolution 542 (1983)

23 November 1983       Meeting 2501 Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/16179).

Meeting numbers. SC 2475, 2496, 2496, 2501.

As requested by the Council, the Secretary-General reported on 21 December(32) that, on 26 November, a cease-fire agreement had been reached by the parties involved in recent fighting in the Tripoli area and that, on 20 December, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and his troops had been evacuated from Tripoli (see below).

Communications (December). On 4 December,(33) the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted a letter of the same date from its Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, complaining of an escalation of military operations by the United States in northern Lebanon and requesting measures to halt hostile United States policy in Lebanon and the Middle East.

Also on 4 December,(34) the United States said that aircraft from its Sixth Fleet had that day carried out air strikes against Syrian anti-aircraft concentrations which had been the source of attacks against United States aircraft on 3 December.

The Syrian Arab Republic replied on 6 December(35) that the air strikes against the positions of its troops in Lebanon had not been carried out in self-defence but were an act of aggression.

On the same date,(36) the USSR transmitted a TASS statement of 5 December condemning the United States 4 December raid.

On 9 December,(37) Viet Nam transmitted a statement of 8 December by the spokesman for its Foreign Ministry, condemning the escalation of United States military operations in Lebanon and the Middle East, carried out as part of a United States-Israel joint plan to bring pressure on Arab countries in the hope of compelling them to accept a solution detrimental to their interests and to the national interests of the Palestinians.

On 12 December,(38) Bulgaria transmitted a declaration of the Bulgarian Telegraph Agency, charging the United States with trying, through its air raid, to force the Lebanese people to accept the Israel-Lebanon agreement, which ran counter to the Lebanese people's interests, and to establish favourable conditions for open armed aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

The General Assembly, in resolution 38/17 of 22 November 1983, strongly condemned the massacre of Palestinians and other civilians at Beirut as well as the Israeli aggression against Lebanon, as endangering stability, peace and security in the region. In resolution 38/83 I of 15 December, on protection of Palestine refugees, the Assembly dealt also with the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. (For texts of these resolutions, refer to INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS.)

Other action. The Commission on Human Rights, on 7 March 1983,(39) adopted a resolution on persons detained by Israel during the conflict in Lebanon. (See also above, under PERSONS DETAINED BY ISRAEL, and ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVIII.)

PLO troop withdrawal

Late in December 1903, PLO forces were evacuated from Lebanon.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

In a statement(40) made during consultations of the Security Council on 3 December 1983, the Secretary-General indicated that, on humanitarian grounds, he had authorized the flying of the United Nations flag alongside the national flag of the ships which were to evacuate the armed PLO elements, numbering some 4,000, from Tripoli. The Lebanese Government, which had been fully consulted, had no objection to that practice.

Also on 3 December, the Council President made the following statement:(41)

Communications. By a letter of 7 December,(42) Israel pointed out that responsibility for a bomb explosion on a passenger bus on 6 December at Jerusalem (see above, under JERUSALEM) was claimed by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. In this connection, it recalled that Arafat had asked that the United Nations flag be put at his disposal, supposedly on humanitarian grounds, to enable him and his terrorists to escape from Tripoli and that the Security Council had acceded to his request.

On 8 December,(43) Israel transmitted a message of the same date from its Prime Minister to the Secretary-General requesting that he cancel the arrangements to give PLO safe conduct under the United Nations flag, in view of the bomb explosion, for which PLO had claimed responsibility.

By a letter of 17 December,(44) France announced that, in agreement with the Greek Government, it had decided to assist in the evacuation of Palestinian fighters from Tripoli to Yemen and Tunisia.

On 21 December,(45) Greece stated that, as requested by the PLO Chairman and for humanitarian reasons, it had made five vessels available for the evacuation of PLO forces from Tripoli on 20 December. The operation had been carried out in collaboration with France, after consultations with the other Governments concerned, specifically Israel Italy, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Greek vessels had flown the United Nations flag in addition to the national flag throughout the operation.

By a letter of 23 December,(46) Israel stated that the escape of Yasser Arafat and his troops from Tripoli without assurances that they would abandon the path of terror should be viewed as a dangerous precedent by all those committed to combating international terrorism.

Report of the Secretary-General. As requested by the Security Council in resolution 542(1983) of 23 November (see above), the Secretary-General reported on 21 December(32) that, on 20 December, the United Nations Co-ordinator of Assistance for the Reconstruction and Development of Lebanon and Special Representative of the Secretary-General had received confirmation that Yasser Arafat and his PLO forces had that day sailed from Tripoli in five Greek ships escorted by French naval units. The Greek ships had flown the Greek and United Nations flags and, in the territorial waters of Lebanon, the Lebanese flag. The evacuation had proceeded without incident. On 17 December, 94 seriously wounded PLO armed elements had left for Larnaca, Cyprus, on an Italian ship under the auspices of ICRC.

With regard to the Israeli Prime Minister's 8 December request to cancel the arrangements to give PLO safe conduct under the United Nations flag, the Secretary-General stated that he had not been able to accede to that request since the humanitarian reasons on which his decision was based had remained valid; he had been informed by the Permanent Observer of PLO that on 8 December Arafat had publicly stated that PLO opposed and strongly condemned any action against civilians.

Peace-keeping operation

UNIFIL activities

During 1983, the Security Council extended the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon three times, in January, July and October – by resolutions 529(1983), 536(1983) and 538(1983), respectively – as had been recommended by the Secretary-General in his reports on the activities of the Force. UNIFIL had been established by the Council in 1978.(47)

Report of the Secretary-General (January). In a report of 13 January,(46) the Secretary-General described the activities of UNIFIL since the previous extension of the Force's mandate in October 1982.(49) He stated that UNIFIL had continued to carry out its interim humanitarian and administrative tasks endorsed by the Council(23) after the June 1982 Israeli  invasion of Lebanon, and to do its best to maintain peace and order in its area of deployment and prevent activities likely to militate against a peaceful atmosphere. Stressing that it was essential that armed incursions, harassment, arbitrary arrests and other such activities did not occur, he reported that with the assistance of UNIFIL and the Lebanese battalion attached to it, the Lebanese gendarmerie was playing an increasingly active role in maintaining law and order in the UNIFIL area.

The Secretary-General emphasized that UNIFIL would be able to hand over its responsibilities to the Lebanese authorities only after the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. When current negotiations concerning such withdrawal were completed, it would be possible to define in detail UNIFIL's future role. A withdrawal of UNIFIL before the Lebanese Government was in a position to take over with its own security forces would have grave consequences and would be a serious blow to the early restoration of the Government's authority in southern Lebanon, and could lead to violent incidents between the various factions in the UNIFIL area, which would once again jeopardize the safety of the civilian population. In the mean time, UNIFIL's presence was an important factor in ensuring the well-being and prosperity of the civilian population in the area.

For those reasons, the Secretary-General recommended an extension of UNIFIL's mandate, mentioning in that context that Israel had expressed the view that the Force should not be extended for more than two or three months.

Annexed to the report was a letter of 13 January 1983, by which Lebanon asked that UNIFIL's zone of operation be extended to the whole of Lebanese territory for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces and armed elements from Lebanon, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government in re-establishing its effective authority. Lebanon emphasized that it did not wish or envisage any involvement of UNIFIL in any conflict between armed Lebanese elements; it sought a UNIFIL role which would support the Lebanese army in restoring government authority throughout the country.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (January)

The Security Council, by resolution 529(1983) of 18 January, extended UNIFIL's mandate for six months.

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 425(1978) and 426(1978), and all subsequent resolutions on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Recalling further its resolutions 508(1982) and 509(1982),

Having taken note of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the President of the Security Council and to the Secretary-General of 13 January 1983, and of the statement he made at the 2411th meeting of the Council,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General and taking note of his observations,

Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon,

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

2. Calls upon all parties concerned to co-operate with the Force for the full implementation of the present resolution;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress made in this respect.

Security Council resolution 529 (1983)

18 January 1983   Meeting 2411  13-0-2

Draft by Jordan (S/15564).

Meeting number. SC 2411.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: China, France, Guyana, Jordan, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Togo, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Poland, USSR.

Prior to the vote, the President, with the consent of the Council, invited Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. Following adoption of the resolution, the Secretary-General stated that he would do his utmost to make UNIFIL's presence as effective as possible in carrying out its interim tasks. In particular, he said, UNIFIL would assist the Lebanese Government in assuring the security of all inhabitants of its area without discrimination, and would try to prevent local armed groups from operating there unless authorized by the Central Government. He pointed out that, with the departure of the Nigerian contingent in January 1983 and the detailing of 482 men of the French infantry battalion to the multinational force in Beirut,(50) UNIFIL was well below its authorized strength of 7,000.

Lebanon believed that extending UNIFIL's mandate for six months would give it a stability it could not enjoy in a shorter time and allow it to carry out the tasks awaiting it. Reaffirming its 13 January request with regard to UNIFIL's role, Lebanon said it went along with the draft which had been submitted and thus relinquished its initial request in the light of the existing situation, as it wished to facilitate the Council's task and enable it unanimously to extend UNIFIL's mandate, which must not be interrupted or renewed in a spirit of resignation.

Jordan said UNIFIL remained essential in the implementation of the two main purposes for which it had been formed: to ensure the withdrawal of the invading Israeli forces and enable the Lebanese Government to exercise full sovereignty over its territory. In view of Israel's practices in Lebanon, which sought to prolong the Lebanese ordeal and contributed to depriving the country of its sovereignty and independence, and its attempts to prevent UNIFIL from discharging its responsibilities, Jordan considered it necessary for the Council to denounce those practices and adopt all measures to implement the purposes of the United Nations Charter in order to deter the aggressor and preserve international peace and security.

The Netherlands said that UNIFIL was still a stabilizing element in southern Lebanon; its withdrawal could have grave consequences and be a set-back for the Lebanese Government's efforts to restore peace and reassert its authority. The Netherlands urgently called on Israel to respect UNIFIL's mandate and stop hindering it from performing its duties. Only when the negotiations in progress on the withdrawal of all foreign forces or armed elements from Lebanon were completed, the Netherlands said, would it be possible to define the future role of UNIFIL as envisaged by Lebanon; the Netherlands could not accept any new UNIFIL mandate in which the peace-keeping operations of the Force were not clearly defined and it was of the opinion that any new mandate should be directed to restoring Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Based on the belief that a Lebanon once again restored to prosperity and peace with all its neighbours would also advance peace and security in the Middle East, the Netherlands said it would continue its participation in UNIFIL.

Israel emphasized that the resolution did not change UNIFIL's mandate, subject, however, to the Secretary-General's observation in his October 1982 report on UNIFIL(51) in which he stated that the events in Lebanon had radically altered the circumstances in which UNIFIL was established and under which it had functioned since March 1978;(47) in the new circumstances, UNIFIL had outlived its usefulness and its presence was no longer called for in southern Lebanon. Israel believed that security arrangements should be arrived at through the ongoing negotiations between the two countries which were also aimed at ensuring that Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be restored within its internationally recognized boundaries, while at the same time permanently precluding the possibility of hostile action against Israel and its citizens from Lebanese soil.

The United States believed that the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate reaffirmed international support for the goal of restoring the Lebanese Government's sovereignty throughout its territory and of securing the withdrawal of all external forces, and that it was a positive element in negotiations between the Government and other parties in the Middle East. It was not yet possible, however, to define precisely the role UNIFIL might be called upon to play in the arrangements under negotiation.

The USSR pointed out that references to resolutions 508(1982)(52) and 509(1982),(53) demanding an end to all military actions in Lebanon and immediate and unconditional Israeli withdrawal, were contained in all Council decisions extending UNIFIL’s mandate since June 1982. It was the Council’s duty to strive for implementation of those decisions, and it would be inadmissible to depart from previous decisions on the necessity of unconditional withdrawal of the Israeli forces whose presence in Lebanon could not be equated with that of Arab forces under an agreement with the Lebanese Government and in keeping with decisions taken at pan-Arab meetings. It would be illegal to give United Nations forces unaccustomed functions which might lead to their interfering in the internal affairs of Lebanon in contravention of the United Nations Charter.

Nicaragua hoped the resolution would be a positive element in consolidating the role of the United Nations with regard to the Middle East and would lead to alleviating or halting the sufferings of the peoples of Palestine and Lebanon.

Pakistan considered the presence of UNIFIL a critical factor in restoring peace and tranquillity.

Malta hoped that the negotiations under way would reap rapid and positive results and that Israel would start its overdue troop withdrawal.

In Zimbabwe's view, the continuation of Israel's occupation of Lebanon in defiance of the Council's decisions and the presence and activities of its troops made the extension of UNIFIL's mandate necessary.

Report of the Secretary-General (July). In his report to the Council covering UNIFIL activities from 19 January to 12 July 1983,(54) the Secretary-General stated that during the six months under review the UNIFIL area of deployment had been generally quiet. UNIFIL had continued to operate its checkpoints and to patrol its area, with a view to contributing to maintaining order and ensuring the security of the population. It had continued its interim tasks, protecting and assisting the local population.

After the 1982 invasion, he reported, the capability of UNIFIL to achieve its objectives had been contingent on the co-operation of the Israeli authorities controlling the area. A major problem had been the increased activities of local groups, armed and uniformed by Israel, whose activities led to a number of incidents involving UNIFIL, the worst of which had resulted in the death of a Fijian soldier on 29 May 1983.

The report pointed out that UNIFIL had continued to co-operate with the Lebanese authorities as well as UNRWA, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and ICRC in assisting the local population, particularly in implementing vaccination programmes, health and hygiene surveys and training activities. During the reporting period, the UNIFIL hospital in Naqoura had treated more than 4,000 patients.

The Secretary-General observed that, despite the difficulties encountered by the Force, its presence in southern Lebanon was generally recognized as an important element of stability. The situation in the UNIFIL area had been comparatively less tense and disturbed than elsewhere in the region, and the population of the area was increasing and its economy prospering. However, in the existing circumstances, UNIFIL's activities were inevitably in the nature of a holding action, pending further developments and decisions of the Security Council.

Although, as a result of the Israeli invasion, the circumstances under which the Force was established had been radically altered, the task of assisting the Lebanese Government in ensuring the return of its effective authority in southern Lebanon remained especially relevant. A withdrawal of UNIFIL from its area before the Government could assume effective control would be a serious blow to the prospect of an early restoration of the Government's authority in southern Lebanon, as well as to the welfare of the inhabitants. For these reasons, the Secretary-General considered it essential that UNIFIL's mandate be extended on an interim basis for a three-month period, as requested by Lebanon in a letter of 5 July.(55)

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (July)

The mandate of UNIFIL was extended for a further three months by the Security Council when it adopted resolution 536(1983) on 18 July.

The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lebanon,

Recalling its resolutions 425(1978) and 426(1978), and all subsequent resolutions on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Recalling further  its resolutions 508(1982), 509(1982) and 520(1982), as well as all its other resolutions on the situation in Lebanon,

Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries,

Having taken note of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the President of the Security Council of 5 July 1983,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General and taking note of his observations and recommendation expressed therein,

Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon,

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

2. Calls upon all parties concerned to co-operate with the Force for the full implementation of its mandate as defined in resolutions 425(1978) and 426(1978) and the relevant decisions of the Security Council;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the progress made in this respect.

Security Council resolution 536(1983)

18 July 1983  Meeting 2456    13-0-2

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/15871).

Meeting number. SC 2456.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: China, France, Guyana, Jordan, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Togo, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Poland, USSR.

Prior to the resolution's adoption, the President, with the consent of the Council, invited Lebanon, at its request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

Lebanon said it was not requesting a change in the nature of UNIFIL's mandate or a new redeployment by asking the Council to renew the Force's mandate for another interim period of three months, during which it hoped that war and destruction would end. By sending troops to serve with UNIFIL, Lebanon had met the commitments required of it by the Council. In addition, it had explored all possibilities to ensure total withdrawal of all unauthorized foreign forces from the country, and was exerting maximum efforts to build a strong army, reform public institutions, maintain internal unity and lay the foundations of a stable and strong State. Lebanon needed the concerted attention of the Council to enable it to disengage from the vortex of political conflicts in the region and thus save not only itself but also the cause of peace in the Middle East. Though the problems facing Lebanon were clearly greater than those addressed by a renewal of UNIFIL's mandate, the Council, by its renewal, would reaffirm its commitment to Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and unity.

The United States also felt that renewal of the mandate would be a reaffirmation of that commitment and one of securing the withdrawal of all unauthorized external forces.

France fully supported Lebanon's request and the Government's attempts to restore its authority throughout the whole of its territory. Expressing concern over the situation of the civilian population – in particular the Palestinians – in Lebanon, especially in the southern part, France urgently appealed to Israel not to limit UNIFIL's opportunities for action.

According to the USSR, the United States and Israel were striving to impose on Lebanon conditions for a settlement aimed at turning the country into an American-Israeli protectorate. A settlement could not be achieved through separate deals such as the one-sided agreement signed on 17 May 1983 or arm-twisting, but by strict compliance with the Council's demands for unconditional Israeli withdrawal. Israel was continuing to provoke incidents with UNIFIL personnel, posing a threat to their life and security. These acts were a violation of previous Council decisions, particularly resolution 523(1982),(49) which insisted that there should be no interference under any pretext with the operations of UNIFIL and that it should have full freedom of movement in discharging its mandate; it was the Council's duty to ensure respect for its decisions. In the light of the Secretary-General's recommendations and Lebanon's request for renewal of UNIFIL's mandate, and bearing in mind that the goals and functions of UNIFIL would continue to be determined by the 1978 mandate(47) and subsequent Council decisions, the USSR did not object to an extension.

The Netherlands believed that UNIFIL still had a stabilizing effect and played a useful humanitarian role, and its presence indicated that it might be available for duties connected with a future Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as provided for in the May agreement between the two countries. However, implementation of the agreement was still very much in doubt, for, in order to attain Lebanon's objective that all external forces withdraw from its territory as soon as possible, the co-operation of all concerned was necessary. Bearing in mind that UNIFIL had for more than a year been largely prevented from carrying out its tasks and that it was not likely that it would be able to assume useful functions in the future, the Netherlands concluded that prolongation of UNIFIL based on the current mandate should not be indefinite. Barring entirely new circumstances that would enable it to reconsider its position, the Netherlands said its battalion would be withdrawn from Lebanon as of 19 October.

The United Kingdom believed that the Force was no longer carrying out a conventional or traditional United Nations peace-keeping role; however, it was playing a helpful, protective and humanitarian role. The United Kingdom expressed concern that the troop contributors were being asked to undertake something different from the conventional peace-keeping role, and to do so in difficult and dangerous conditions. It believed that to withdraw UNIFIL would be to remove an element of stability in Lebanon.

Report of the Secretary-General (October). On 12 October,(29) the Secretary-General reported that, during the three months since his 12 July report,(54) the UNIFIL area had continued to be generally quiet and UNIFIL activities had remained essentially unchanged. Events in the Aley and Shouf regions had had no direct impact on the UNIFIL area of deployment, except for an influx of displaced persons from those regions. UNIFIL had continued to carry out its interim tasks, protecting and assisting the local population and trying to prevent activities likely to hamper the restoration of the Lebanese Government's authority in the area. In addition, UNIFIL had continued to co-operate with UNRWA, UNICEF and ICRC.

The activities of local groups armed and uniformed by the Israeli forces had been limited and, with UNIFIL assistance, the Lebanese internal security forces had continued to play an active part in maintaining law and order in the area.

Despite the circumstances, the Secretary-General stated, UNIFIL remained an important stabilizing element in southern Lebanon, its presence also representing the United Nations commitment to support Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and to help bring about the withdrawal of the Israeli forces. A withdrawal of UNIFIL before the Lebanese national army and security forces were in a position to assume effective control of the area, he added, would seriously harm the prospect of restoring the Lebanese Government's authority there, as well as the security and welfare of the population. It was particularly important to avoid such a development at a time when the Lebanese Government and people, following the recent cease-fire in the Aley and Shouf regions, were exerting their best efforts for national reconciliation.

After quoting a 10 October letter from Lebanon requesting that the UNIFIL mandate be extended for a further six months, the Secretary-General recommended to the Security Council that the mandate be extended for another interim period, stressing the need for all parties to co-operate with the Force in performing its task.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (October)

The Security Council, by resolution 538(1983) of 18 October, extended UNIFIL's mandate for six months, until 19 April 1984.

The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the representative of Lebanon,

Recalling its resolutions 425(1978) and 426(1978) and all subsequent resolutions on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Recalling further its resolutions 508(1982), 509(1982) and 520(1982), as well as all its other resolutions on the situation in Lebanon,

Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and taking note of the conclusions and recommendations expressed therein,

Taking note of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the Secretary-General,

Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon,

1. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of six months, that is, until 19 April 1984;

2. Calls upon all parties concerned to co-operate fully with the Force for the full implementation of its mandate, as defined in resolutions 425(1978) and 426(1978) and the relevant decisions of the Security Council;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the progress made in this respect.

Security Council resolution 538(1983)

18 October 1983    Meeting 2480    13-0-2

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/16046).

Meeting number. SC 2480.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: China, France, Guyana, Jordan, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Togo, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Poland, USSR.

Prior to the resolution's adoption, the President, with the consent of the Council, invited Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

Lebanon said the presence of UNIFIL was a consecration of the United Nations commitment to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon and to the assurance of the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the south, and constituted a fundamental factor for stability in the region. Renewal of UNIFIL's mandate for a further six months would enable the Lebanese authorities to restore legitimacy in the south up to the internationally recognized boundaries and to find solutions to bring about the withdrawal of all unauthorized forces from all Lebanese territory.

The Netherlands said that, since the June 1982 Israeli invasion,(22) it had become practically impossible for UNIFIL to carry out its original mandate, and its capability to carry out its interim tasks was necessarily contingent on the co-operation of the Israeli authorities who, as the occupying Power, controlled the area. The situation in southern Lebanon had not changed to the extent that the original peace-keeping functions of UNIFIL might be restored within the foreseeable future. However, it still hoped that the Council, in agreement with the Lebanese Government, might devise a more meaningful role for UNIFIL. In view of these considerations, the Netherlands stated that it had decided not to withdraw from UNIFIL altogether as it had indicated in July (see above), but to retain a limited contingent; however, it must be recognized that the international community could not be expected to continue supporting Lebanon indefinitely.

France emphasized that Israel had not withdrawn from southern Lebanon and had an operational battalion in the UNIFIL zone; it hoped that this was only temporary and that there, as everywhere else in Lebanon, the country's unity, integrity and independence would be restored. It believed that the Council would be called upon to give UNIFIL, in addition to the missions it was already carrying out, new tasks in the area. The Force had demonstrated its usefulness by restoring security to the countryside; similarly, it seemed that the observers with UNTSO could be invited to carry out other missions in other areas.

The USSR believed the further extension of the UNIFIL mandate was testimony to the continuing explosive situation in Lebanon. Israel continued to occupy a considerable portion of Lebanese territory and its recent so-called redeployment of its forces was aimed essentially at long-term entrenchment along new lines and at the perpetuation of its occupation, and ultimately annexation, of southern Lebanon. Along with Israel' the so-called multinational force was consolidating its position; on the pretext of ensuring the defence of that interventionist corps, an armada of the United States and its allies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was lying off the Lebanese coast. The USSR held it imperative that Israel withdraw unconditionally from Lebanon and that neither United States troops nor any foreign troops accompanying them remain on Lebanese soil. With regard to UNIFIL, the USSR agreed with the Secretary-General that, in the difficult circumstances of Israeli occupation, the Force remained an important element of stability in its area of operations.

The United Kingdom felt that it could not be right simply to continue extending the UNIFIL mandate without giving thought to how it could be updated to reflect the changed circumstances.

The Syrian Arab Republic believed that if the Council wished to carry out its duties towards the people of Lebanon, it must without delay fulfil its commitments under resolution 509(1982)(53) and put an end to any attempt to distort that resolution. There were serious attempts to put the Syrian forces, which were part of the Arab peace-keeping forces, on the same level as the Israeli invading forces; these attempts were rejected by Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the other Arabs, and they had already been rejected by the majority of the Council members.

Israel declared that it was determined to proceed towards implementing the May agreement aimed at restoring Lebanese sovereignty; however, it had now become clear that the Syrian Arab Republic and PLO had no intention of respecting that sovereignty. Israel's withdrawal from the Shouf mountains was a first step towards total withdrawal and had been announced well in advance to give the Lebanese Government and army a chance to extend their control. The Syrian Arab Republic and its proxies had prevented it from doing so, having turned Lebanon into a battleground, exploiting enmity between groups and encouraging all-out war. Israel hoped that the cessation of hostilities and the cease-fire would endure, leading to true reconciliation free of outside intervention. Under no circumstances would Israel agree to return to the state of affairs prevailing 16 months previously when Lebanese territory had been used as a base for terrorist operations against Israeli citizens.

Composition

As at 12 October 1983, the composition of UNIFIL was as follows:(29)

Infantry bone/battalions

Fiji 625

Finland 495

France 147

Ghana 550

Ireland 655

Netherlands 731

Norway 605

Senegal 559

Headquarters camp command

Ghana 154

Ireland     83

Logistic units

France 793

Italy     41

Norway 199

Sweden 143

         ______

          5,780

In addition, the Force was assisted by 73 unarmed military observers of UNTSO. The Lebanese army unit serving with UNIFIL to help maintain order in UNIFIL's area of operation was at a strength of 166 all ranks, following the transfer to Beirut in June of the greater part of the unit for training purposes.

Nigeria discontinued its participation in UNIFIL in January 1983. The French infantry battalion remained at reduced strength, in accordance with a temporary arrangement whereby the greater part of the battalion was released to the French authorities. The Norwegian battalion moved into the area vacated by the Nepalese battalion in November 1982.(50)

Following the departure of the Nigerian battalion, a readjustment of the areas of responsibilities of various units took place. The areas held by the Fijian, Finnish, Irish and Senegalese battalions were enlarged, and the reduced French infantry unit was deployed in the central sector of UNIFIL's area of operation. The military observers of UNTSO continued to man the five observation posts along the armistice demarcation line and to maintain teams at Tyre, Metulla and Château de Beaufort, in addition to four mobile teams.

Between 19 October 1982 and 12 October 1983, 13 members of the Force died, including four as a result of firing. Since UNIFIL's establishment in 1978, 96 members of the Force had died, 41 as a result of firing or mine explosions, 42 in accidents and 13 from natural causes. Also, some 120 had been wounded.

Financing

In December 1983, the General Assembly appropriated $159,421,666 gross ($157,640,833 net) for UNIFIL for the period 19 December 1982 to 18 December 1983. For UNIFIL operation from 19 December 1983 to 18 April 1984, the Assembly appropriated $46,964,000. For the period from 19 April to 18 December 1984, the Secretary-General was authorized to enter into commitments at a monthly rate of $11,741,000 gross ($11,581,000 net), should the Council decide to continue the Force's mandate and subject to the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).

The Assembly apportioned the expenses for the Force among all Member States in accordance with a special scale used for this purpose since the establishment of the Second United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF II) in 1973.(56) It again invited States to make voluntary contributions and requested the Secretary-General to ensure that UNIFIL be administered with a maximum of efficiency and economy.

The Assembly made these appropriations on the recommendation of ACABQ, which, in a November 1983 report, approved the Secretary-General's cost estimates contained in a report also submitted in November.

On 7 October,(57) the United Kingdom submitted a paper on the financing of United Nations peace-keeping operations, including UNIFIL. The United Kingdom stated that it shared the Secretary-General's concern that the shortfall in the UNIFIL Special Account could jeopardize the functioning of UNIFIL; it noted with particular regret that some members of the Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations were among the States withholding contributions. In conclusion, the United Kingdom expressed the hope that Member States and in particular the Committee members would give priority to the question of the financing of peace-keeping operations and that States withholding contributions would reconsider their policy.

Report of the Secretary-General. In a 1 November report to the General Assembly,(58) the Secretary-General noted that as at 30 September, contributions totalling $610.7 million had been received for UNIFIL, out of $805.8 million apportioned among Member States for the periods from inception of the Force on 19 March 1978 to 18 October 1983. The balance due of $195.1 million included $154.4 million apportioned among Member States which had stated that they did not intend to pay and $19.5 million transferred to the UNIFIL Special Account. Accordingly, only $21.2 million of the unpaid balance could be considered collectible, leaving a shortfall of $173.9 million. As at 30 September, voluntary contributions to the Suspense Account, established in accordance with a 1979 Assembly resolution(59) to facilitate reimbursement to Governments contributing troops, equipment and supplies to the Force, amounted to only $18,356.

The Secretary-General estimated the costs of UNIFIL for the six-month period from 19 October 1983 to 18 April 1984 inclusive at $70,446,000 gross ($69,486,000 net), based on a Force strength of 5,200 troops. Should the Security Council decide to renew the Force's mandate beyond 18 April 1984 with its existing strength and responsibilities, the Assembly was requested to authorize commitments for UNIFIL for the period to 18 December 1984 at a rate not to exceed $11,741,000 gross ($11,581,000 net) per month.

Expressing concern that the shortfall placed an increasingly heavy burden on the troop-contributing countries, particularly the less wealthy, and, if not remedied, could jeopardize the functioning of the operation, the Secretary-General appealed to all Member States to pay their assessments without delay and to make voluntary contributions.

In his three reports on UNIFIL to the Security Council (see above), the Secretary-General had kept the Council informed of the accumulating short-fall and had also made similar appeals for payment of assessments and voluntary contributions.

ACABQ recommendations. ACABQ, in a report of 17 November 1983,(60) stated that it had no objection to the estimate for UNIFIL for the current six-month period. It recommended that the Assembly authorize $23,482,000 gross ($23,162,000 net) for the operation of UNIFIL for the period 19 October-18 December 1983. For the period 19 December 1983-18 April 1984, ACABQ also concurred with the Secretary-General's estimate and recommended that the Assembly appropriate $46,964,000 gross ($46,324,000 net). In administering this appropriation, the Committee added, the Secretary-General should have the usual flexibility to revise apportionments between objects of expenditure.

With regard to requirements for the period 19 April-18 December 1984, ACABQ recommended approval of the Secretary-General's request that he be authorized to enter into commitments at a rate not to exceed $11,741,000 gross ($11,581,000 net) per month, i.e. on the basis of the cost estimate for the six-month period ending 18 April 1984. The Secretary-General's authority would be subject to obtaining the prior concurrence of ACABQ for the actual level of commitments to be entered into for each mandate period that might be approved subsequent to 19 April 1984.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December 1983, acting on the recommendation of the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions (38/38 A and B) dealing with the financing of UNIFIL.

On 5 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 38/38 A by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 425(1978) and 426(1978) of 19 March 1978, 427(1978) of 3 May 1978, 434(1978) of 18 September 1978, 444(1979) of 19 January 1979, 450(1979) of 14 June 1979, 459(1979) of 19 December 1979, 474(1980) of 17 June 1980, 483(1980) of 17 December 1980, 488(1981) of 19 June 6981, 498(1981) of 18 December 1981, 501(1982) of 25 [February 1982, 511(1982) of 18 June 1982, 519(1982) of 17 August 1982, 523(1982) of 18 October 1982, 529(1983) of 18 January 1983, 536(1983) of 18 July 1983 and 538(1983) of 18 October 1983,

Recalling its resolutions S-8/2 of 21 April 1978, 33/14 of 3 November 1978, 34/9 B of 17 December 1979, 35/44 of 1 December 1980, 35/115 A of 10 December 1980, 36/138 A of 16 December 1981, 36/138 C of 19 March 1982 and 37/127 A of 17 December 1982,

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

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

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

I

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section I, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 an amount of $15,229,666 gross ($15,087,833 net), being the amount authorized and apportioned under the provisions of section V of Assembly resolution 37/127 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 December 1982 to 18 January 1983, inclusive;

II

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $80,331,000 gross ($79,466,000 net), being the amount authorized with the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and apportioned under the provisions of section VI of General Assembly resolution 37/127 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 January to 18 July 1983, inclusive;

III

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $40,379,000 gross ($39,925,000 net), being the amount authorized with the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and apportioned under the provisions of section VI of General Assembly resolution 37/127 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 July to 18 October 1983, inclusive;

IV

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $23,482,000 gross ($23,162,000 net), being the amount authorized with the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and apportioned under the provisions of section VI of General Assembly resolution 37/127 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 October to 18 December 1983, inclusive;

V

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $46,964,000 for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for the period from 19 December 1983 to 18 April 1984, 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, to apportion the amount of $46,964,000 among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in Assembly resolution 33/14 and the provisions of section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 34/9 B, section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 35/115 A, section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 36/138 A and section IX, paragraph 1, of resolution 37/127 A, in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985;

3. Decides that there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided in paragraph 2 above, their respective share in the estimated income of $13,333 other than staff assessment income approved for the period from 19 December 1983 to 18 April 1984, inclusive;

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 $626,667 approved for the period from 19 December 1983 to 18 April 1984, inclusive;

VI

Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon at a rate not to exceed $11,741,000 gross ($11,581,000 net) per month for the period from 19 April to 18 December 1984, inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force, beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 538(1983), subject to obtaining the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions for the actual level of commitments to be entered into for each mandate period that may be approved subsequent to 19 April 1984, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;

VII

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

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

VIII

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

General Assembly resolution 38/38 A

5 December 1983      Meeting 83      80-11-7 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/38/678) by recorded vote (94-126), 2 December (meeting 54); 17-nation draft (A/C.5/38/L.14, part A), approved together with part B (see below); agenda item 119  (b).

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

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: 5th Committee 49, 54; plenary 83.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows (resolutions 38/38 A and 8 together):

In favour: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR.

Abstaining: Afghanistan, Burundi, Cape Verde, Congo, Iraq, Maldives, Yemen.

Also on 5 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 38/38 B by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

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

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

Recalling its resolutions 34/9 E of 17 December 1979 35/115 B of 10 December 1980, 36/138 B of 16 December 1981 and 37/127 B of 17 December 1982,

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

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

Decides that the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations shall be suspended in respect of the amount of $5,599,876, which otherwise would have to be surrendered pursuant to those provisions, this amount to be entered in the account referred to in the operative part of General Assembly resolution 34/9 E and held in suspense until a further decision is taken by the Assembly.

General Assembly resolution 38/38 B

5 December 1983    Meeting 83  80-11-7 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/38/678) by recorded vote (94-12-6), 2 December meeting 54); 17-nation draft (A/C.5/38/L.14, part B, approved together with part A (see above)) agenda item 119 ((b).

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

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: 5th Committee 49, 54: plenary 83. (For recorded vote in Assembly, see above under resolution 38/38 A.)

Introducing the drafts, Ireland emphasized that UNIFIL continued to confront very serious financial difficulties. Under the Charter, responsibility for maintaining peace was shared by all Member States and the withholding of contributions was not consistent with the Charter.

Lebanon said the UNIFIL deficit threatened the normal operation of the Force, whose maintenance for the coming six months was particularly important; any withdrawal before the Lebanese army and security services were in a position to assume effective control of the southern part of the country would once again prevent the Lebanese Government from re-establishing its authority and would compromise the peace efforts by certain friendly countries.

The USSR stated that it did not participate in the financing of UNIFIL based on its position of principle that all costs related to the consequences of the armed aggression against Lebanon must be borne by the aggressor. A similar position was held by Democratic Yemen, Mongolia, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen. Iraq added that the cost of UNIFIL must under no circumstances be covered by the regular United Nations budget. Hungary said it did not consider itself under any obligation to finance UNIFIL. Albania reiterated its refusal to take part in the Force's financing.

Viet Nam, which did not participate in the vote, also said the peace-keeping forces had not performed their function but on the contrary had exacerbated the situation and added to insecurity in the region and throughout the world.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, explaining its non-participation, said that after the invasion of Lebanon the Force had not deterred the Zionist entity from committing continued acts of aggression, thus proving its ineffectiveness. UNIFIL's presence could not solve the problem in the region; the solution would be for the aggressor to cease its actions and, with the Power supporting it, shoulder responsibility for its acts.

Algeria, Benin and Iran said they did not participate in the vote in accordance with their established positions.

Voting in favour, Israel expressed the view that peace-keeping operations should be limited in time and could not be a substitute for the peaceful settlement of disputes; the extended presence of UNIFIL was merely the necessary consequence of the hostility of the neighbouring States towards Israel. Cyprus, reaffirmed the importance it attached to United Nations peace-keeping forces.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNIFIL

(as at 31 December 1983; in US dollars)

         Total

Assessments Paid in      Contributions

Country        in 1983     1983      outstanding*

Afghanistan       2,039 –  7,370

Albania 4,080 – 17,456

Algeria      52,902 –      204,567

Angola 2,039 –  7,492

Antigua and Barbuda 2,039 –  3,932

Argentina     290,494 242,908      188,751

Australia   3,218,546     3,231,569    1,090,930

Austria   1,527,146     1,006,001      521,145

Bahamas 4,080   4,297  4,080

Bahrain 4,080   2,690  1,390

Bangladesh 6,180  18,485  2,994

Barbados 4,080   2,051  4,683

Belgium   2,606,853     3,487,915    1,306,854

Belize 2,039   3,237    695

Benin 2,039 –  8,358

Bhutan 2,039   2,039      –

Bolivia 4,080 – 17,456

Botswana 2,039     891  1,850

Brazil     565,472 –    1,016,949

Bulgaria      73,171 –      278,338

Burma 4,080   3,290  1,996

Burundi 2,039 –  8,358

Byelorussian SSR     736,140 –    3,389,839

Canada   6,294,496     4,154,327    2,140,169

Cape Verde 2,039   1,093  4,051

Central African Republic 4,080 – 17,456

Chad 2,039 –  8,358

Chile      28,553  18,826 25,014

China   2,238,154     1,494,606      743,548

Colombia      44,870  69,031 15,287

Comoros 2,039 –  8,358

Congo 4,080 – 17,456

Costa Rica 8,158 – 26,345

Cuba      36,964 –      184,093

Cyprus 4,080   3,486  1,996

Czechoslovakia   1,554,493 –    7,130,015

Democratic Kampuchea 4,080 – 17,456

Democratic Yemen 2,039 –  8,358

Denmark   1,529,041     1,007,896      521,145

Djibouti 2,039 –  5,822

Dominica 2,039 –  8,650

Dominican Republic      12,238 – 43,603

Ecuador 8,158   5,141  6,638

Egypt      28,553  61,601  9,726

El Salvador 4,080 – 16,429

Equatorial Guinea 4,080 – 17,456

Ethiopia 2,039 –  6,479

Fiji 4,080   4,934  1,996

Finland     978,992 790,244      333,533

France  16,121,590    23,334,520    5,500,564

Gabon 8,158 – 27,342

Gambia 4,080 – 17,456

German Democratic Republic   2,834,993 –   12,002,403

Germany, Federal Republic of  17,403,341    11,469,237    5,934,104

Ghana 8,264   8,284      –

Greece     162,531 134,917 55,588

Grenada 2,039   4,658  3,043

Guatemala 8,158   7,788  3,991

Guinea 2,039 –  2,643

Guinea-Bissau 2,039 –  5,744

Guyana 4,080 –  4,163

Haiti 2,039 –  8,358

Honduras 4,080 –  5,889

Hungary      95,080 –      536,490

Iceland      61,186  40,340 20,846

India     149,875 293,213 17,845

Indonesia      53,406  40,695 22,364

Iran     237,468 –      953,338

Iraq      48,949 –      191,771

Ireland     365,858 342,270 23,588

Israel      94,070 122,635 31,964

Italy   7,609,644     7,092,156    2,598,776

Ivory Coast      12,238   3,315 24,025

Jamaica 8,158   5,766  3,991

Japan  21,001,539    20,313,096   10,298,018

Jordan 4,080   2,690  1,993

Kenya 4,080   2,388  7,821

Kuwait     101,344 101,344      –

Lao People's Democratic Republic 2,039 –  8,358

Lebanon 8,284  42,512      –

Lesotho 2,039 –  6,696

Liberia 4,080 – 17,456

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya     105,676 –      382,366

Luxembourg     121,743  80,051 41,692

Madagascar 4,080 – 14,296

Malawi 2,039   4,548    695

Malaysia      36,712  35,711 28,819

Maldives 2,039     891  2,919

Mali 2,039 –  5,148

Malta 4,080   2,690  1,390

Mauritania 4,080 – 17,456

Mauritius 4,080   3,290  4,047

Mexico     357,440 294,424      122,292

Mongolia 4,080 – 17,456

Morocco      20,395 – 54,317

Mozambique 2,039 – 10,423

Nepal 2,039   2,775  1,153

Netherlands   3,620,947     2,336,405    1,776,209

New Zealand     530,920 431,697      180,664

Nicaragua 4,080  11,371  6,085

Niger 2,039 –  6,251

Nigeria      77,123  99,742 37,919

Norway   1,039,547 803,294      236,253

Oman 4,080   2,690  1,390

Pakistan      24,601  24,142 13,128

Panama 8,158 – 30,986

Papua New Guinea 2,039   6,272    297

Paraguay 4,080 – 17,456

Peru      28,426 –      102,269

Philippines      36,838  21,709 39,220

Poland   1,501,345 –   10,130,044

Portugal      73,550     136 96,338

Qatar      12,238   3,620 16,580

Romania      77,755 –      346,109

Rwanda 2,039   1,271  1,674

Saint Lucia 2,039     302  6,224

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2,039   2,046    695

Samoa 2,039     302  4,463

Sao Tome and Principe 2,039 –  6,891

Saudi Arabia     347,263 297,717      119,515

Senegal 2,039     375  6,315

Seychelles 2,039   1,193  1,148

Sierra Leone 4,080 – 17,260

Singapore      36,585  28,905 12,507

Solomon Islands 2,039 –  8,952

Somalia 2,039 –  4,846

South Africa     836,853 –    3,647,000

Spain     784,354     1,631,110      856,646

Sri Lanka 4,206   6,437  1,390

Sudan 2,039   5,186  1,705

Suriname 2,039   1,041    998

Swaziland 4,080 – 17,456

Sweden   2,691,592     2,169,521      917,215

Syrian Arab Republic      12,238 – 47,945

Thailand      32,886  31,016  9,863

Togo 4,080 –  9,799

Trinidad and Tobago      12,238   9,878  4,170

Tunisia      12,238  21,903  5,988

Turkey     130,277 120,602 69,849

Uganda 2,039     302  7,577

Ukrainian SSR   2,701,070 –   12,624,643

USSR  26,175,047 –  116,003,777

United Arab Emirates      64,508 – 84,567

United Kingdom  11,562,616    10,879,690    7,596,233

United Republic of Cameroon 4,080 –  8,947

United Republic of Tanzania 2,039 –  8,358

United States  62,712,575    41,303,287   21,409,288

Upper Volta 2,039 –  8,358

Uruguay      16,316  16,648 21,623

Vanuatu 2,039 –  3,932

Venezuela     233,716  78,892      396,505

Viet Nam 8,284 – 48,414

Yemen 2,039 –  8,358

Yugoslavia     187,130 228,909      337,759

Zaire 4,206 – 22,934

Zambia 4,206   4,023  1,390

Zimbabwe       4,078           904        6,220

Total 204,687,820   139,985,300  235,916,612

*Covers the period from the inception of UNIFIL (19 March 1978) to 18 April 1984, as at 31 December 1983.

SOURCE: ST/ADM/SER.B/271.

Israel-Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

Communications. By a letter of 16 September 1983,(61) Israel said that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had introduced extraneous matters during the Security Council discussion on 6 September of the downing of a Korean airliner (see Chapter VII of this section). Israel added that a correct presentation of those matters was contained in a letter that it had sent in 1973(62) (which referred to an incident that year in which 106 persons died when a Libyan airliner crashed after being shot at by Israeli fighter aircraft over the Sinai).

In a letter of 21 September 1983,(63) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said the letter from the Zionist representative had failed to mention the extraneous matter referred to in the Security Council – namely, the iniquitous aggression by the Zionist entity in shooting down the Libyan airliner – because it was ashamed to recall that crime.

In reply, Israel, on 27 September,(64) transmitted excerpts from its 1973 letter. It added that it was astonished that the Libyan letter had been circulated as a United Nations document, since it referred to Israel by a designation other than its official name.

By a letter of 8 December 1983 (65) Israel quoted from a statement made earlier that day by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in the General Assembly’s debate on the Middle East, describing it as an outburst of racist and religious incitement and asking the Secretary-General to ensure that such an outrage was not repeated.

In response the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in a letter of 14 December,(66) said the Zionist representative had forgotten that the entity he represented continued to disregard all United Nations resolutions and that steps should be taken to ensure that the representative did not repeat his insults against the Arab nation and the United Nations.

Israel-Syrian Arab Republic

Communications. On 19 and 20 January 1983,(67) the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted to the Security Council President and the Secretary-General, respectively, a letter of 19 January from the Vice-Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Minister for Foreign Affairs, drawing attention to the seriousness of repeated hostile declarations by Israel, threatening to use force against anti-aircraft defence facilities on Syrian territory.

Israel, by letters of 21 and 24 January to the Council President and the Secretary-General, respectively,(68) responded that the Syrian Arab Republic had engaged in a deliberate policy of beefing up its military arsenal through the introduction of long-range Soviet missiles, capable of penetrating deep into the airspace of neighbouring countries, and Israel, which over the past decades had been uninterruptedly the target of Syrian hostility, had reasons to be concerned.

By a letter of 27 January,(69) the Syrian Arab Republic stated that Israel was trying to camouflage its military preparations; Israel's huge military arsenal had as its sole objective the pursuit of aggression, occupation, expansion and annexation and the realization of its "strategic interest".

Peace-keeping operation

UNDOF activities

The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), established by the Security Council in 1974,(70) continued in 1983 to supervise the observance of the cease-fire between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic in the Golan Heights area and to ensure, in accordance with its mandate, that there were no military forces in the area of separation. On the Secretary-General's recommendation, the Council extended UNDOF's mandate twice during the year, in May and November, by resolutions 531(1983) and 543(1983).

Reports of the Secretary-General. With the mandate of UNDOF expiring on 31 May and 30 November 1983, the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council two reports on the activities of the Force for the six-month periods from 19 November 1982 to 20 May 1983(71) and 21 May to 21 November 1983 (72)

In both reports, the Secretary-General stated that UNDOF had continued to perform effectively with the co-operation of the parties and that, during the periods under review, the situation in the Israel-Syria sector had remained quiet, without serious incidents.

As at 21 November, UNDOF maintained 34 positions and 14 outposts, and conducted 29 patrols daily and 25 at irregular intervals. It continued to conduct fortnightly inspections of armaments and forces in the area of limitation, and to clear land-mines.

The Secretary-General stated that, despite the prevailing quiet in the sector, the Middle East situation as a whole continued to be potentially dangerous and was likely to remain so without a comprehensive settlement. In the circumstances, he considered the continued presence of UNDOF to be essential and recommended, with the assent of the Syrian Arab Republic and the agreement of Israel, that the Council extend its mandate for further periods of six months each.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Security Council renewed UNDOF's mandate twice during 1983. On 26 May, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 531(1983), by which it extended the mandate for six months.

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);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 30 November 1983;

(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).

Security Council resolution 531(1983)

26 May 1983       Meeting 2445   Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/15793).

Meeting number. SC 2445.

On 29 November, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 543(1983), by which it extended the UNDOF mandate for a further six months.

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);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 31 May 1984;

(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).

Security Council resolution 543(1983)

29 November 1983      Meeting 2502       Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/16187).

Meeting number. SC 2502.

Following adoption of each resolution, the President made the following statement on behalf of the Council: (73)

Composition

As at 21 November 1983, the composition of UNDOF was as follows:(72)

Austria    530

Canada    220

Finland    395

Poland    145

United Nations military observers            6

          1,296

In addition, UNTSO observers assigned to the Israel-Syria Mixed Armistice Commission assisted UNDOF as required.

UNDOF financing

The financing of UNDOF from I December 1982 to 30 November 1983, totalling $34,372,996, had been dealt with by the General Assembly in November 1982.(74)

In a paper on the financing of United Nations peace-keeping operations, submitted on 7 October 1983,(57) the United Kingdom drew attention to the shortfall in payments (see below) to UNDOF taken together with UNEF until the latter's liquidation in 1980; the policy of certain Member States in withholding contributions to peace-keeping forces was undermining the United Nations ability to carry out its basic tasks, it stated.

Report of the Secretary-General. In an October 1983 report to the General Assembly on the financing of UNDOF,(75) the Secretary-General stated that as at 30 September, a total of $588.9 million in contributions for UNDOF together with UNEF II had been received for the period from inception in 1974(70) to 30 November 1983. The balance due from Member States amounted to $79.1 million, $15.2 million of which was estimated to be collectible. The balance of $63.9 million comprised the amount of $27.9 million apportioned to Member States which had stated that they did not intend to pay for UNDOF and $36 million of assessed contributions due from China between 25 October 1971 and 31 December 1981, transferred to a special account in accordance with a 1981 Assembly resolution.(76)

According to the Secretary-General, there was a shortfall of approximately $4.3 million in the UNDOF Special Account in respect of the period from 25 October 1979 to 30 November 1983. The shortfall of UNDOF for periods before 24 October 1979, together with UNEF II until its liquidation in 1980, was estimated at $59.6 million. In the circumstances, troop contributors had not been reimbursed fully or on time; they had again conveyed to the Secretary-General their very serious concern over the situation, which placed a heavy burden on them.

Appropriations for UNDOF for the period after 30 November 1983 were estimated at $2,914,916 gross ($2,880,000 net) per month.

ACABQ recommendations. ACABQ, in a report of 17 November 1983,(77) recommended that the Secretary-General's cost estimate for UNDOF for the period from 1 December 1983 to 30 November 1984 be approved, it added that requirements for that period should not exceed $34,979,000 gross, or $34,560,000 net (i.e. $606,000, or 1.7 per cent, higher than the cost for the preceding 12 months). The Committee further recommended that the Secretary-General be permitted the usual flexibility to transfer credits between items of expenditure, should that be necessary in the interest of good management and efficiency.

ACABQ also recommended that the staffing proposals – one new P-3 post and one new local- level post – be approved. It noted the Secretary-General’s statement that in the event of a finalization of plans for relocating UNDOF's headquarters before 30 November 1984, the matter would be brought to its attention should additional funds be needed.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December, the General Assembly, acting on the recommendation of its Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, adopted two resolutions (38/35 A and B), dealing with the financing of UNDOF.

In December, the Assembly adopted resolution 38/35 A by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 350(1974) of 31 May 1974, 363(1974) of 29 November 1974, 369(1975) of 28 May 1975, 381(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, 441(1978) of 30 November 1978, 449(1979) of 30 May 1979, 456(1979) of 30 November 1979, 470(1980) of 30 May 1980, 481(1980) of 26 November 1980, 485(1981) of 22 May 1981, 493(1981) of 23 November 1981, 506(1982) of 26 May 1982, 524(1982) of 29 November 1982 531(1983) of 26 May 1983 and 543(1983) of 29 November 1983,

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 D of 8 December 1978, 34/7 C of 3 December 1979, 35/44 of 1 December 1980, 35/45 A of 1 December 1980, 36/66 A of 30 November 1981 and 37/38 A of 30 November 1982,

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 $17,186,496 gross ($16,983,996 net) authorized and apportioned by section III of Assembly resolution 37/38 A for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1983, inclusive;

II

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $17,489,500 for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 December 1983 to 31 May 1984, 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, to apportion the amount of $17,489,500 among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in Assembly resolution 3101(XXVIII) and the provisions of section II, paragraphs 2 (b) and 2 (c), and section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 3374 C (XXX), section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 31/5 D, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 32/4 C, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 33/13 D, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 34/7 C, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 35/45 A, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 36/66 A and section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 37/38 A, in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985;

3. Decides that there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided in paragraph 2 above, their respective share in the estimated income of $10,000 other than staff assessment income approved for the period from 1 December 1983 to 31 May 1984, inclusive;

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 $199,500 approved for the period from l December 1983 to 31 May 1984, inclusive;

III

Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $2,914,916 gross ($2,880,000 net) per month for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1984 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 543(1983), 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.

General Assembly resolution 38/35 A

1 December 1983    Meeting 79 109-3-14 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/38/652) by vote (79-3-12), 30 November (meeting 51); 9-nation draft (A/C.5/38/L.13, part A); agenda item 119 (a).

Sponsors: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: 5th Committee 49, 51; plenary 79.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Chine, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of,  Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, 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, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Democratic Yemen, Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Algeria, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Mongolia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yemen.

Also on 1 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 38/35 B by recorded vote.

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 5 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 Disengagement Observer Force with the necessary financial resources to enable it to fulfil its responsibilities under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council,

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

Recalling its resolutions 33/13 E of 14 December 1978, 34/7 D of 17 December 1979, 35/45 B of 1 December 1980, 36/66 B of 30 November 1931 and 37/33 B of 30 November 1982,

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

Concerned that the application of the provisions of regulations 5.2(b) , 5,2(d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations would aggravate the already difficult financial situation of the Forces,

Decides that the provisions of regulations 5.2(b), 5.2(d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations shall be suspended in respect of the amount of $5,191,637, which otherwise should have to be surrendered pursuant to those provisions, this amount to be entered into the account referred to in the operative part of General Assembly resolution 33/13 E and held in suspense until a further decision is taken by the Assembly.

General Assembly resolution 38/35 B

1 December 1983    Meeting 79  108-12-6 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/38/652) by vote (79-12-4), 30 November (meeting 51); 9-nation draft (A.5/38/L.13, part B); agenda item 119 (a).

Sponsors: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden.

Meeting numbers: GA 38th session; 5th Committee 49, 51; plenary 79.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, 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, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.

Abstaining: Algeria, Congo, Iraq, Poland, Romania, Yemen.

Separate votes on the two draft resolutions were taken in the Committee at the request of the USSR. Introducing them, Canada said they took into account the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the Security Council and the ability of developed countries to make relatively larger contributions to the financing of peacekeeping operations; the sponsors felt that broad international participation was essential for the success of those operations.

Explaining its non-participation in the vote, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said the presence of such forces in the area would not solve the problems caused by Zionist aggression; the aggressor and the States supporting the Zionist entity in its aggression should bear the responsibility. Iran said the presence of UNDOF in the Middle East was due solely to the Zionist occupation and the refusal to recognize the rights of the Palestinians. International law placed the responsibility for such situations on the aggressor and its supporters. It was the task of the super-Powers and the permanent Council members to lead the struggle for the maintenance of peace. Benin said it did not participate in the vote in accordance with its well-known position of principle on the financing of United Nations peace-keeping forces.

Casting a negative vote on both resolutions, Albania said it objected to the dispatch of United Nations forces, because reality had shown that they could not serve to defend the freedom and independence of people or international peace and security. In the opinion of Democratic Yemen, the United Nations forces in the Middle East had gone beyond their defined functions and their operations were solely the result of actions by the Zionist entity. The Syrian Arab Republic said UNDOF was a result of that entity, the occupation of Arab territories and the refusal to recognize Palestinian rights; resolution 38/35 A made no distinction between aggressor and victim, which, under international law, must be compensated for damage done by the aggressor.

Abstaining on both texts, Iraq could not support the inclusion in the regular United Nations budget of expenditure which should be borne by the Zionist entity as the party solely responsible.

Abstaining on resolution 38/35 A, the USSR said that, while supporting UNDOF operations, it regarded them only as a step towards the main objective: the complete liberation of Arab territories occupied by Israel. It considered the proposed expenditure for the period from 1 December 1983 to 30 November 1984 too high in relation to that for the previous period; the increase for several expenditures was unjustified and would require an excessive increase in Member States' contributions. Nor was there in the USSR's opinion any justification for the Secretary-General's proposal to assign to additional permanent posts the functions which could be performed by existing staff through better organization. Voting against resolution 38/35 B, the USSR opposed departures from the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, saying that the surplus balances in the Special Account for UNEF and UNDOF should be reimbursed to Member States.

Voting in favour, the United States reaffirmed its support for United Nations peace-keeping operations.

Israel said it voted in favour in view of the importance it attached to UNDOF operations. It could not be seriously claimed that Israel should defray the cost of UNDOF; Israel would pay its share, as it had always done for all United Nations peace-keeping operations whether it approved of them or not.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNDOF

(as at 31 December 1983; in US dollars)

      Total

Assessments Paid in contributions

Country    in 1983   1983  outstanding*

Afghanistan   513 –     3,354

Albania 1,025 –    21,296

Algeria      13,265 –    51,458

Angola   513 –     1,768

Antigua and Barbuda   513 – 835

Argentina      73,163  39,638    48,654

Australia     811,913 540,617   271,296

Austria     383,211 253,611   129,600

Bahamas 1,025   2,214 686

Bahrain 1,025     679 346

Bangladesh 1,568   4,062     1,029

Barbados 1,025     679 346

Belgium     654,249 584,989   454,764

Belize   513     662 173

Benin   513 –    10,457

Bhutan   513     340 173

Bolivia 1,025 –    13,328

Botswana   513 – 629

Brazil     141,781 –   259,533

Bulgaria      18,335   6,114   119,560

Burma 1,025     679 346

Burundi   513 –    10,457

Byelorussian SSR     185,333  94,307   802,260

Canada   1,584,024     1,051,800   532,224

Cape Verde   513 –     5,697

Central African Republic 1,025     225    21,071

Chad   513 –    10,457

Chile 7,175   4,755     2,420

China     573,291 388,383   184,908

Colombia      11,275  11,275   –

Comoros   513 –     7,056

Congo 1,025 –    21,296

Costa Rica 2,051   2,051   –

Cuba 9,936 –    14,922

Cyprus 1,025     679 346

Czechoslovakia     391,448 261,918   974,883

Democratic Kampuchea 1,025 –    21,296

Democratic Yemen   513 –     5,537

Denmark     384,061 254,461   129,600

Djibouti   513 –     1,512

Dominica   513 –     2,222

Dominican Republic 3,072   1,018    11,608

Ecuador 2,051   1,990 692

Egypt 7,175  16,485     2,420

El Salvador 1,025 –     6,629

Equatorial Guinea 1,025     315    15,063

Ethiopia   513 – 830

Fiji 1,025     994 346

Finland     245,980 163,036    82,944

France   4,046,018     3,197,523 1,367,898

Gabon 2,051 –     9,278

Gambia 1,025     346 679

German Democratic Republic  712,314 589,590 1,871,439

Germany, Federal Republic of 4,369,880     2,894,168 1,475,712

Ghana 2,108   4,198 692

Greece      40,713  26,890    13,823

Grenada   513   7,645 671

Guatemala 2,051   1,311     1,371

Guinea   513 – 513

Guinea-Bissau   513 –     1,216

Guyana 1,025 –     1,025

Haiti   513 –     9,793

Honduras 1,025 –     1,340

Hungary      24,136 –   246,238

Iceland      15,373  10,189     5,184

India      38,254  25,813    12,441

Indonesia      13,492   9,635    12,582

Iran      38,254 –   192,351

Iraq      13,492 –   104,313

Ireland      91,677  60,573    31,104

Israel      23,684  15,213     8,471

Italy   1,908,388     1,806,714   646,272

Ivory Coast 3,072   8,059     1,036

Jamaica 2,051   1,990 692

Japan   5,267,629     3,243,184 3,536,041

Jordan 1,025     679 661

Kenya 1,025     340     1,611

Kuwait      25,340  16,701     8,639

Lao People's

     Democratic Republic   513 –     2,305

Lebanon 2,108  17,238    21,090

Lesotho   513 –     1,471

Liberia 1,025 –    14,150

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya      26,479 –   214,924

Luxembourg      30,465  20,097    10,368

Madagascar 1,025 –     3,092

Malawi   513   1,323 343

Malaysia 9,223   3,056     7,169

Maldives   513 – 648

Mali   513 –     1,100

Malta 1,025     679 346

Mauritania 1,025 –    11,563

Mauritius 1,025     654 982

Mexico      89,512  59,282    30,412

Mongolia 1,025     679     8,787

Morocco 5,125   3,055     8,635

Mozambique   513 –     8,602

Nepal   513     738 343

Netherlands     907,932 600,348   307,584

New Zealand     133,521  88,593    44,928

Nicaragua 1,025   3,262     1,340

Niger   513 –     1,131

Nigeria      19,304  21,120    13,020

Norway     261,070 172,942    88,128

Oman 1,025     975 908

Pakistan 6,206   4,241     4,112

Panama 2,051 –    20,991

Papua New Guinea   513     934   –

Paraguay 1,025 –    21,296

Peru 7,119 –    29,494

Philippines 9,279   3,112     6,167

Poland     383,678 –   579,333

Portugal      18,504 –    18,504

Qatar 3,072     947     7,468

Romania      19,586 –   103,743

Rwanda   513     499 173

Saint Lucia   513 –     1,489

Saint Vincent and

    the Grenadines      513     498 173

Samoa   513 –     1,482

Sao Tome and Principe   513 –     1,587

Saudi Arabia      86,555  56,835    29,720

Senegal   513     308 205

Seychelles   513     340 173

Sierra Leone 1,025 –    12,437

Singapore 9,166   6,056     3,110

Solomon Islands   513 –     2,222

Somalia   513 – 830

South Africa     210,392 – 2,930,436

Spain     196,504 –   196,510

Sri Lanka 1,082   1,959 346

Sudan   513   6,452 332

Suriname   513     170 911

Swaziland 1,025 –    21,296

Sweden     676,162 223,877   452,285

Syrian Arab Republic 3,072 –    30,214

Thailand 8,311   5,547     2,764

Togo 1,025 –     1,840

Trinidad and Tobago 3,072   2,036     1,036

Tunisia 3,072   6,995     2,054

Turkey      32,681  38,222    14,086

Uganda   513 –     7,531

Ukrainian SSR     680,404 353,041 2,984,834

USSR   6,583,567     3,232,829      27,018,505

United Arab Emirates      16,060 –    19,216

United Kingdom   2,901,400     1,920,128   981,272

United Republic of Cameroon 1,025 –     2,497

United Republic of Tanzania   513 –     7,661

United States  15,748,006    10,434,296 5,313,710

Upper Volta   513     340     2,828

Uruguay 4,099 –     7,248

Vanuatu   513 – 835

Venezuela      56,087  18,682    83,761

Viet Nam 2,108 –    18,134

Yemen     513 –    10,057

Yugoslavia      46,920  58,194    73,427

Zaire 1,082     396     4,751

Zambia 1,082     736 346

Zimbabwe       1,026         1,275             686

Total  51,424,618    32,981,723      55,660,900

*Includes contributions due to UNDOF from its inception on 31 May 1974 through 31 May 1934, as at 31 December 1983, and those due for UNEF II (1973-1979); between 1974 and 1979 there was a single account for the two Forces.

SOURCE: ST/ADM/SER.B/271.

REFERENCES

(1)YUN 1981, p. 275. (2)A/38/341. (3)A/38/342. (4)YUN 1982, p. 427, GA res. 37/18, 16 Nov. 1982. (5)A/38/411. (6)A/38/337. (7)YUN 1968, p. 17, GA res. 2373(XXII), annex, 12 June 1968. (8)YUN-1974, p. 403, GA res. 3281(XXIX), 12 Dec. 1974. (9)Ibid., pp. 324 & 326, GA res. 3201(S-VI) & 3202(S-VI), 1 May 1974. (10)A/38/545. (11)YUN 1981, p. 282, SC res. 487(1981), 19 June 1981. (12)A/38/93-S/15610. (13)S/15773. (14)A/38/124-S/15657. (15)A/38/297-S/15867. (16)A/38/380 (S/15953). (17)S/15974. (18)S/15981. (19)S/15956. (20)YUN 1982, p. 475, SC res. 516(1982), 1 Aug. 1982. (21)A/38/458-S/16015. (22)YUN 1982, p. 428. (23)Ibid., p. 450, SC res. 511(1982), 18 June 1982. (24)S/15990. (25)S/15994. (26)A/38/576-S/16131. (27)S/16138. (28)A/38/581. (29)S/16036. (30)S/16142. (31)S/16178. (32)S/16228. (33)A/38/679 (S/16196). (34)S/16197. (35)A/38/706 (S/16202). (36)A/38/708- S/16207. (37)A/38/721. (38)A/38/728. (39)E/1983/13 (res. 1983/27). (40)S/16194. (41)S/16193. (42)S/16205. (43)A/38/717-S/16209. (44)S/16224. (45)S/16230. (46)A/39/57- S/16233. (47)YUN 1978, p. 312, SC res. 425(1978), 19 March 1978. (48)S/15557. (49)YUN 1982, p. 478, SC res. 523(1982), 18 Oct. 1982. (50)Ibid., p. 491. (51)Ibid. p. 490. (52)Ibid., p. 450, SC res. 508(1982), 5 June 1982. (53)Ibid., SC res. 509(1982), 6 June 1982. (54)S/15863. (55)S/15868. (56)YUN 1973. p. 213, SC res. 340(1973), 25 Oct. 1973. (57)A/38/489. (58).A/38/473 & Corr.1. (59)YUN 1979 p. 352, GA res. 34/9 D, 17 Dec. 1979. (60)A/38/589. (61)S/15988. (62)YUN 1973, p. 249. (63)S/15996. (64)S/16008. (65)A/38/713. (66)A/38/741. (67)S/15566 (A/38/76). (68)S/15569 (A/38/80). (69)A/38/84-S/l5576 & Corr.1. (70)YUN 1974, p. 205. SC res. 350(1974), 31 May 1974. (71)S/15777. (72)S/16169. (73)S/15797, S/16188. (74)YUN 1982, p. 501, GA res. 37/38 A, 30 Nov. 1982. (75)A/381472 & Corr.1. (76)YUN 1981, p. 1299, GA res. 36/116 A, 10 Dec. 1981. (77)A/38/588.

______________________________

Territories occupied by Israel

_____________________________________

During 1983, the situation in the territories occupied by Israel as a result of previous armed conflict in the Middle East was again considered by the General Assembly and its Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. The territories consisted of the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip.

The Assembly, in December, adopted eight resolutions (38/79 A-H) dealing with specific aspects of the report of the Committee. By the first (38/79 A), it demanded the release of Ziad Abu Eain and other prisoners registered to be freed by Israel (see above, under MIDDLE EAST SITUATION); by another (38/79 E), it demanded that Israel rescind the imprisonment of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and the expulsion of the Islamic Judge of Hebron (see below). The Assembly demanded information from Israel about the results of the investigations of the assassination attempts against three Palestinian mayors (38/79 H), and condemned Israeli policies against Palestinian educational institutions (38/79 G). Also censured were Israel's policies on the Syrian Golan Heights (38/79 F). The Assembly strongly condemned a number of Israeli policies and practices and demanded that Israel desist from them (38/79 D). By two other resolutions the Assembly reprimanded Israel for its failure to comply with the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (fourth Geneva Convention) (38/79 B) and determined that Israel's actions in the occupied territories violated the Convention (38/79 C) (see below).

The situation in the occupied territories was also the subject of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine (see above, under PALESTINE QUESTION), and the Secretary-General dealt with the situation there in his September report on the Middle East and Palestine.(1) The occupation of the territories, in particular Israel's policy of establishing settlements there (see below), was also considered by the Security Council during several meetings in February, May and July/August. Because of the negative vote of a permanent member (United States), a draft resolution to have the Council denounce Israeli measures in the occupied territories, in particular its settlements policy, was not adopted when the Council met in July/August. In April, the Council expressed concern at the alleged mass poisoning of West Bank schoolchildren and requested an inquiry.

Communications. During the year, a number of communications were addressed to the Secretary-General and to the President of the Security Council concerning Israeli measures in the territories, including Jerusalem (see above, under PALESTINE QUESTION).

On 7 January,(2) Jordan transmitted letters of 5 and 6 January from the observer for PLO charging that Israeli authorities had intensified their activities against Palestinians in the West Bank, that Israeli troops had mounted a large-scale arrest campaign and that Palestinian prisoners had been tortured.

On 13 January,(3) Jordan transmitted letters of 10 and 12 January from the PLO observer containing further charges concerning repressive Israeli measures against Palestinians in the West Bank, which included the closing of a number of schools confiscation of books, arrest of students, imposition of curfews and attacks against Palestinian property.

In a letter of 22 March,(4) the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People expressed the Committee's deep concern at what he called recent violations by Israel of the legal and human rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and Jerusalem, such as the closing of Palestinian schools and universities, firing at Palestinian demonstrators, attacks against the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, curfews and other oppressive measures in refugee camps.

By a letter of 29 March,(5) Iraq, as Chairman of the Arab Group of Member States, drew the Council's attention to what it described as the increasing deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, with an intensified Israeli campaign of repression against Palestinian and Syrian civilians.

On 1 July(6) and 13 July,(7) Jordan transmitted to the Council President letters of 29 June and 12 July, respectively, from the PLO observer complaining about Israeli actions against Palestinians in the occupied territories, including those in refugee camps and under detention.

By a letter of 11 July,(8) Israel stated that there had been various attempts in the past months to disrupt order by violent means in areas it referred to as Judaea and Samaria; to illustrate its point, Israel gave a sample of instances of violence directed against civilian Jewish targets.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission. The Commission on Human Rights (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, (Chapter XVIII) dealt with violations of human rights in the occupied territories in two resolutions adopted on 15 February 1983.(9,10) In another resolution of the same date, on the right to self-determination,(11) the Commission condemned Israel's continued occupation of the Palestinian and other Arab territories, as well as its aggression and practices against the Palestinians in those territories. The Commission condemned in the strongest terms the September 1982 massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps(12) and requested the General Assembly to declare 17 September a day to commemorate the victims. It reaffirmed the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, rejected the plan of "autonomy" within the framework of the 1978 Camp David accords (formally called A Framework for Peace in the Middle East, Agreed at Camp David (United States), and Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel) and declared that those accords had no validity in so far as they purported to determine the future of the Palestinians and of the territories occupied since 1967.

The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, by a resolution of 31 August 1983,(13) strongly affirmed that the perpetuation of Israeli occupation of the territories could only be a source of increasing human rights violations and tension. The Sub-Commission recommended that the Commission condemn Israel for its continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories and for its persistence in colonizing those territories aimed at changing their demographic composition, institutional structure and status; and call on Israel to withdraw from them.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its annual report, approved on 19 August 1983 and transmitted to the General Assembly by the Secretary-General.(14) the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories (Committee on Israeli practices), established in 1968,(15) presented information on the situation of the civilian population, on Israeli administration in the territories, Israel's annexation and settlement policies (see below), and treatment of detainees. The report, with an annexed map showing Israeli settlements established, planned or under construction, covered the situation since the adoption of the Committee's previous report in August 1982.(16) As in previous years, the Committee worked without the co-operation of Israel.

During the reporting period, the Committee held three series of meetings. At the first, from 13 to 15 December 1982 in New York, it reviewed its mandate and decided on the organization of its work. At the second series of meetings, between 0 May and 11 June 1983, beginning at Geneva and moving to Amman (Jordan), Damascus Syrian Arab Republic) and Rafah (Egypt), the Committee heard the testimony of persons living n the occupied territories and conducted consultations with a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic on the ;situation in the occupied Syrian territory. At Egypt's request, the Committee visited Rafah for hearings on Israeli practices regarding Palestinian refugees in Egypt. During a third series of meetings, from 8 to 19 August, it examined communications and adopted its report.

In its conclusions, the Committee noted that the imposition of the so-called "civil administration" and "village leagues" had caused serious problems in maintaining public order, and the dissolution of elected municipal councils in the principal towns of the West Bank and their replacement by military governors had further complicated life for the population. The Committee also noted a tendency by the occupation authorities to put pressure on Arabs to leave their homes and emigrate – parallel to a policy of expulsion on other pretexts.

The Committee stated that hardly a day went by in the territories without some incidents involving violence being reported which were, for the most part, directed against the military presence.

Violence by Israeli settlers also had increased considerably, culminating in the events at Hebron (Al-Khalil) (see below). While the settlers, all of whom were armed and subject to no authority other than the Israeli Government, went unpunished, the population of the territories were the subject of severe reprisal measures if they attempted to react to the acts perpetrated against them. The Committee reiterated its conviction that Israel, under the fourth Geneva Convention, remained fully responsible for the acts of the settlers.

The right to freedom of education was impeded by several measures by the authorities, including the requirement established in late 1982 that non-local academics sign a commitment concerning allegiance to PLO – a requirement that had led to the automatic expulsion of some 28 professors and teachers – and the repeated closure of schools and universities. The Committee hoped for urgent action to curtail the cycle of violence provoked by denial of that right.

Information received by the Committee indicated that recourse of the population to judicial remedies had rarely given satisfaction and, other than the granting of temporary injunctions and similarly dilatory remedies, had not provided any firm or long-lasting safeguard of the interests of the population. The Committee felt that the judicial authorities appeared to be completely subjected to the discretion of the military occupation authorities.

As for the treatment of detainees, the Committee noted that a camp for the detention of young persons, mostly arrested for stone-throwing, had been established. The camp, known as Far'a camp had been the subject of several reports reflecting the inhuman conditions in which detainees were kept. In spite of avowed Israeli intentions to improve those conditions, the Committee noted no improvement; on the contrary, hunger-strikes and other acts of protest had recurred in most prisons and places of detention during the last year.

The overall picture, the Committee stated reflected a further deterioration of the human rights situation in the territories, with the treatment of the population becoming harsher in all respects. In the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, there was a constant cycle of repressive measures, resistance and reprisals. In the Golan Heights, Israel continued to deny the population their rights. The majority of Syrians expelled after the Israeli occupation in 1967 were still being denied the right to return to their homes a right they should be given in accordance with international law (see also below, under GOLAN HEIGHTS) In all, the situation of civilians in the territories was more intolerable than ever, a fact which, the Committee noted, had given rise to protest movements in Israel.

The Committee reiterated that the expropriation of Arab land, the establishment of Jewish settlements and the transfer of civilians to the territories violated the fourth Geneva Convention, which remained the principal international instrument in humanitarian law applicable to the territories.

The Committee concluded that Israel's policy was designed to implement its sovereignty over the territories and that the right to self-determination had been disregarded. In certain cases, as in the Golan Heights, outright efforts of annexation were being undertaken. The responsibility of the international community, the Committee believed, was more urgent than ever; it called for urgent action to prevent further deterioration and protect the very basic rights of the civilians in the territories.

In October, following the Assembly’s December 1982 request,(17) the Secretary-General reported on the facilities he had continued to provide to the Committee, including coverage of its activities in the form of press releases, news bulletins, and radio and television specials.(18)

Recommendations of the Conference on the Palestine question. The International Conference on the Question of Palestine,(19) in its Declaration on Palestine (see above, under PALESTINE QUESTION), stressed the need to end Israel's occupation of the Arab territories, to secure Israel’s withdrawal from them, and to oppose and reject Israeli policies in the occupied territories as major obstacles to peace in the Middle East.

In its Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights, the Conference recommended that all States: consider Israel's continued presence in the territories as exacerbating instability in the region and endangering international peace and security; oppose and reject Israel's expansionist policies in the territories, in particular the alteration of their geographic nature and demographic composition, and the attempt to alter, through domestic legislation, the legal status of those territories; declare null and void such measures as the annexation and expropriation of land and water resources, and the alteration of demographic, geographic, historical and cultural features; alleviate the economic and social burdens borne by the Palestinians as a result of continued Israeli occupation; review the situation of Palestinian women in the territories; review economic, cultural, technical and other relations with Israel, to ensure that the agreements governing them would not be construed as implying recognition of any modification of the legal status of the territories, or an acceptance of Israel's illegal presence there; express concern that the laws applicable in the territories had been totally eclipsed by military orders designed to establish a new "legal régime"; and express concern that Palestinians and other Arabs in the territories were deprived of juridical and other kinds of protection, and that they were victims of repressive legislation, involving mass arrests, torture, destruction of houses and expulsion of people from their homes, flagrantly violating human rights.

The Conference invited the Security Council to ensure Israel's withdrawal from the Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, in accordance with a specific timetable; to guarantee the safety and legal and human rights of the Palestinians pending Israeli withdrawal; and to keep under constant attention Israeli actions against the Palestinians which violated United Nations resolutions, particularly a 1947 General Assembly resolution(20) guaranteeing all persons in Palestine equal and non-discriminatory rights.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, the General Assembly, on 15 December 1983, adopted by recorded vote resolution 38/79 D. The Assembly took this action on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee.

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and by 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, 33/113 C of 18 December 1978, 34/90 A of 12 December 1979, 35/122 C of 11 December 1980, 36/147 C of 16 December 1981 and 37/88 C of 10 December 1982, and also those adopted by the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights, in particular its resolution 1983/1 of 15 February 1983, 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 officials 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. Demands that Israel allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories;

4. Reaffirms the fact that occupation itself constitutes a grave violation of the human rights of the civilian population of the occupied Arab territories;

5. Condemns 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;

6. Declares once more that Israel's grave breaches of that Convention are war crimes and an affront to humanity;

7. Strongly condemns the following Israeli policies and practices:

(a) Annexation of parts of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem;

(b) Imposition of Israeli laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Syrian Golan Heights, which has resulted in the effective annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights;

(c) Establishment of new Israeli settlements and expansion of the existing settlements on private and public Arab lands, and transfer of an alien population thereto;

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

(e) 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;

(f) Excavation and transformation of the landscape and the historical, cultural and religious sites, especially at Jerusalem;

(g) Pillaging of archaeological and cultural property;

(h) Destruction and demolition of Arab houses;

(i) Collective punishment, mass arrests, administrative detention and ill-treatment of the Arab population;

(j) Ill-treatment and torture of persons under detention;

(k) Interference with religious freedoms and practices as well as family rights and customs;

(l) Interference with the system of education and with the social and economic development of the population in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories;

(m) Interference with the freedom of movement of individuals within the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories;

(n) Illegal exploitation of the natural wealth resources and population of the occupied territories;

8. Strongly condemns the arming of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories to commit acts of violence against Arab civilians and the perpetration of acts of violence by these armed settlers against individuals, causing injury and death and wide-scale damage to Arab property;

9. Reaffirms that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the occupied territories, or any part thereof, 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 and of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations;

10. Demands that Israel desist forthwith from the policies and practices referred to in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 above;

11. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to take immediate steps for the return of all displaced Arab and Palestinian inhabitants to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

12. Urges the international organizations and the specialized agencies, in particular the International Labour Organisation, to examine the conditions of Arab workers in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem;

13. Reiterates its call upon all States, in particular those States parties to the Geneva Convention, 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;

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

15. Requests the Special Committee to continue to investigate the treatment of civilians in detention in the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

16. Condemns Israel's refusal to permit persons from the occupied territories to appear as witnesses before the Special Committee and to participate in conferences and meetings held outside the occupied territories;

17. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To provide all necessary facilities to the Special Committee, including those required for its visits to the occupied territories, with a view to investigating the 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-ninth session on the tasks entrusted to him in the present paragraph;

18. Requests the Security Council to ensure Israel's respect for and compliance with all the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to initiate measures to halt Israeli policies and practices in those territories;

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

General Assembly resolution 38/79 D

15 December 1983    Meeting 98 115-2-27 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/38/718) by recorded vote (93-2-20), 5 December, (meeting 45); 13-nation draft (A/SPC/38/L.38); agenda item 69.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Financial implications. 5th Committee, A/38/730; S-G, A/C.5/38/85, A/SPC/38/L.43.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: SPC 36-42, 45-48; 5th committee 62; plenary 98.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, 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, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Swaziland Sweden, United Kingdom, Zaire.

Paragraph 6 was approved in the Committee by a recorded vote of 85 to 20, with 10 abstentions.

The United States considered the text to be of an extremely biased and polemical nature, it objected in particular to what it felt was the extraordinary expense of the Committee's activities.

In Sweden's opinion, the text went beyond the Assembly's competence. Though endorsing the condemnation of Israeli policies and practices, Sweden was not convinced that the language used was in all cases fully justified by established facts. Austria said it had abstained owing to certain unacceptable phrases.

Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, was also condemned by the Assembly on 19 December in resolution 38/180 D on the Middle East, by which the Assembly demanded the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from all territories occupied since June 1967 and condemned Israel's aggression, policies and practices against the Palestinians in and outside these territories, particularly Palestinians in Lebanon, including the expropriation and annexation of territory, the establishment of settlements, assassination attempts, and other terrorist, aggressive and repressive measures.

In resolution 38/58 C of 13 December, endorsing the call for convening an international peace conference on the Middle East (see above, under PALESTINE QUESTION), the Assembly also acknowledged the need to put an end to Israel's occupation of the Arab territories and the need to secure Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

Settlements policy

Israel's policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories and incidents involving Israeli settlers were considered by the Security Council during several meetings in February, May, July and August 1983. The International Conference on the Question of Palestine in September, in its Programme of Action (see above, under PALESTINE QUESTION), invited the Council to take urgent action to bring about a cessation of the establishment of settlements, among other Israeli actions. Israel's settlements policy was dealt with also by the General Assembly, the Committee on Israeli practices, the Committee on Palestinian rights and the Commission on Human Settlements (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVII).

Communications (January). By a letter of 21 January,(21) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights expressed the Committee's concern at what he called Israel's continuing violation of human rights of the Palestinians in the occupied Arab territories by its persistent establishment of settlements in the West Bank and other repressive measures.

On 24 January,(22) Jordan transmitted a letter of 8 January from its Minister for Occupied Territories Affairs to the Minister for Foreign Affairs detailing what were termed the latest Israeli acts of confiscation and annexation of Palestinian lands in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem during December 1982.

SECURITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION (February)

At the urgent request of Jordan, in a letter of 8 February 1983,(23) as Chairman of the Group of Arab States, the Security Council met on 11, 14 and 16 February to resume consideration of the situation in the occupied territories, in particular Israel's settlements policy.

Meeting numbers. SC 2412-2414.

The President, with the consent of the Council, invited Algeria, Cuba, Democratic Yemen Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Greece, India, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, the Niger, Senegal, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Yugoslavia to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

At  Jordan's  request,  in  a  letter  of  11 February,(24) the Council that day also decided that an invitation under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedures a/ should be accorded to the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations.

a/ Rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure states: “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."

Virtually all speakers during the debate expressed concern at Israel's continued settlements policy. They agreed that such policy violated international law – particularly The Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907. and the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention (see below) – defied United Nations resolutions and exacerbated the situation in the occupied territories. The view that Israel's settlements policy could not be reconciled with the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, as specified in Council resolution 242(1967),(25) was widely held, that principle was reaffirmed by the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Poland and the United Kingdom, among others.

Opening the debate, the Syrian Arab Republic charged that Israel's settlements policy was accompanied not only by expropriation, expulsion, deportation and oppression, but also by notions of superiority and racial discrimination; it warned that Israel's persistence in changing the demographic and geographical nature of the occupied territories could only aggravate tension.

Speaking similarly, Turkey added that Israel's policy reduced the chances for a just solution to the Palestine question. The United Kingdom said it opposed the policy as it was against the interests of peace, conflicted with the interests of the Arab inhabitants of the territories and ignored their rights. Each construction or expansion of a settlement, the Netherlands felt, would increase the resentment of the inhabitants; Israel's stated intention further to expand its settlement programme could only undermine the basis for dialogue and trust, which were essential for any constructive negotiations.

In defiance of unanimous condemnation by world opinion, China stated, Israel had accelerated the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, had approved the establishment of four additional settlements and had declared its intention to settle hundreds of thousands of Israelis within five years; in order to realize that wild scheme, Israeli authorities were expropriating large tracts of land, seizing and demolishing civilian dwellings and displacing thousands of Palestinians.

Poland and others said the expanded construction of new settlements, the expropriation of Arab property and such methods as the demolition and sealing of habitations and commercial premises were an integral part of Israel's policy of creeping annexation. Guyana agreed and said such annexation, combined with violent oppression of the rights of the Arab population, was designed to force their acquiescence to perpetual second-class citizenship.

In Zimbabwe's opinion, the policy was part of an overall expansionist plan to settle the Middle East question through extermination and expulsion of the Palestinians. Iran reiterated that Israel intended to annex the West Bank and Gaza, a view shared by Kuwait, which said that this was being achieved by destroying their Palestinian and Arab character. Also, in the opinion of the German Democratic Republic. the growing number of Israeli settlements was an essential part of the de-Arabization of the territories: the process of "creeping annexation" of the West Bank and Gaza had already made considerable headway.

Jordan said that Israel's military attempts and diplomatic manoeuvres could not camouflage the reality of its occupation, or the fact that it was denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination; to legitimize its occupation, it had created new faits accomplis by, among other measures, intensifying its settlement activities.

India charged that all of Israel's actions in the occupied territories were proof that it had every intention to perpetuate its illegal occupation over the West Bank and Gaza, to add to its illegitimate annexation of the Golan Heights (see below), and that it had no desire to contribute to a fair and durable solution of the Palestinian problem.

In Pakistan's view, Israeli policies in the territories had the single objective of annexation in order to build a "greater Israel".

Egypt said Israel had first camouflaged its settlements policy under the pretext of security. then it had used religious arguments and historical claims under the label of "liberated" or "administered" territories; currently it was trying to swallow up the rest of the occupied territories whose inhabitants were being transformed by force from full-fledged to third-class citizens.

The USSR stated that since 1967 Israel had been waging in the territories a campaign of colonial plunder, preparing the ground for final absorption; by its settlements policy, Israel was moving towards converting the land belonging to the Arabs into ghetto-type enclaves or a kind of bantustan reduced to the role of agrarian appendage to the Israeli economy.

Greece said the settlements policy had resulted in untold human suffering and loss of life; the situation in the territories could not be isolated from the problem of the self-determination of the Palestinians and from the realization of their rights, including the right to create their own State.

Israel's settlements policy, a natural corollary of its aggressive and expansionist policy, Democratic Yemen stated, was aimed at creating a new fait accompli that made it impossible to implement United Nations resolutions on the Palestinians' rights to return and to self-determination; in addition to the continued occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, there was an occupation of what was now called the "North Bank", i.e., Lebanon.

Lebanon, on the other hand, stressed that the situation in the occupied territories could in no way be compared to the situation in some parts of Lebanon.

Several speakers saw in Israel's settlements policy an obstacle to peace prospects in the Middle East. Among those expressing that view were Malta and Turkey. Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza might well be considered a time bomb threatening the entire region, said Kuwait. Yugoslavia considered Israel's continued aggression, expansion and annexation of Arab territories to be a threat to peace and security of the region and of the world. A similar position was held by Greece and Jordan, among others.

In Malta's opinion, Israel should be asked to desist from its unacceptable policies and should be persuaded to join the search for justice for the Palestinians, within a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Pakistan believed that any progress towards peace in the Middle East was unimaginable unless Israel halted all settlement in the West Bank; even the United States, in putting forward its peace proposals, had acknowledged that a halt to Israeli settlements was indispensable for the continuation of peace efforts. By building further settlements, the United Arab Emirates stated, Israel aimed to disrupt and sabotage all such efforts; from the course taken, it was evident that Israel sought the capitulation of the Palestinians into accepting the occupation of their territories and enslavement by Israel.

France called on Israel not to compromise the chances for peace by regrettable initiatives such as establishing settlements against the unanimous international opinion. The United Kingdom felt an added urgency for appealing to Israel to freeze its settlements and to create no new obstacles to the peace process; it was the common responsibility of the Council members to urge the parties to seize the opportunity for peace that appeared to exist at the moment. Strong support for the call for an immediate settlement freeze, made by the United States President on 1 September 1982, was declared by the Netherlands, which cautioned that a continuation of Israel's policy would constitute one of the most serious obstacles to a peaceful Middle East settlement, the need for which was more pressing than ever.

As a pre-condition for a peace settlement, a number of speakers, among them Greece, Guyana, India, Kuwait, Nicaragua, Poland, the Syrian Arab Republic, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe, called for complete and immediate Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, as requested by the Council in several resolutions. The USSR said the aggressor must comply with the Council's demand for unconditional withdrawal, and the Council must erect a solid barrier to Israel's annexationist designs, as provided for by the United Nations Charter.

In the case of further non-compliance by Israel with the Council's demands, several countries, among them the United Arab Emirates, called for strict Council action. It was the Council's duty to take appropriate measures when an occupying Power failed to meet its obligations under international law, Turkey stated. It was imperative that Israel be restrained without prevarication, India felt. China said the Council must unequivocally condemn Israel's aggressive and expansionist conduct, consider measures to stop Israeli expansion in the occupied territories and compel Israel to withdraw from them. The Council was duty-bound to end the dispersal and continuous violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, said Yugoslavia. In Yemen's view, the Council had no other option but to recognize the rights of the Palestinians.

Israel's recent actions in the occupied West Bank and the annexationist threats hanging over the occupied territories had made effective Council action in accordance with the Charter more urgent, Guyana and others believed. In the face of Israel's open defiance of Council decisions, Pakistan stated, the Council could not escape its responsibilities to act firmly and decisively under the Charter. As long as Israel's allies were not willing to compel Israel to comply with those decisions, Zimbabwe said, the Council had no other option but to implement Chapter VII of the Charter; the existence of a threat to peace by Israel's policy had already been ascertained. Nicaragua pointed out that on 15 February 1983,(9) in a resolution on human rights violations in the occupied territories (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVIII), the Commission on Human Rights had requested the General Assembly once again to appeal to the Council to adopt against Israel the measures provided for in Chapter VII. Kuwait called on the Council to shoulder its responsibilities and implement the provisions of the Charter.

Cuba, Nicaragua, the Syrian Arab Republic and others called for sanctions against Israel. In addition, the Syrian Arab Republic said, the Council must expel Israel from the United Nations as a non-peace-loving State.

Algeria felt that the time had come for the Council to revise its position and co-ordinate its action with the General Assembly, so that the Palestinians could return to the land from which they had been ousted and recover their property.

Iran condemned any compromise with or concession to what it called the Zionist régime.

PLO said the Council must invoke all the power vested in it by the Charter to compel Israel to accept and carry out the Council's decisions and, in the case of failure, the Council should prescribe the remedies detailed in the Charter.

Communications (March). On 1 March 1983,(26) Jordan transmitted a letter of 16 February from its Minister for Occupied Territories Affairs to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, detailing what were termed Israel's settlement activities in the West Bank and Jerusalem during January which included confiscation of land, establishment of new settlements and consolidation of the settlement machinery.

By another letter of 1 March,(27) Jordan transmitted a report issued in January by its Ministry of Labour on the effects of Israeli settlements on the situation of Arab workers in the occupied territories.

On 23 March,(28)Jordan transmitted a report by the Minister for Occupied Territories Affairs detailing what was described as the latest information on Israel's settlement activity during February in the territories, including Jerusalem.

SECURITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION (May)

The Security Council considered the situation in the occupied territories at another meeting on 20 May, urgently requested on 13 May by Qatar in its capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group.(29)

Meeting number. SC 2438.

In addition to the States previously invited, the Council invited Mali and Qatar, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

Statements were made by India, Jordan, Qatar (for the Arab Group), the Syrian Arab Republic and PLO.

Opening the debate, Qatar stressed that the situation in the occupied territories continued to deteriorate and said it was the international community's desire for compromise that had encouraged Israel to scorn the United Nations and in particular the Council; the Arab Group maintained that the only way of countering Israel's challenge and intransigence was to remove the restrictions which had prevented the imposition of sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter.

The Syrian Arab Republic said the latest statistics indicated that Israel had expropriated 60 per cent of the territories on the West Bank; Israel falsely invoked external security as justification for building settlements and moving in alien settlers, while removing Arabs from the area between Nablus and Jerusalem; if the Council wished to regain credibility, it must impose mandatory sanctions or expel Israel from the United Nations as a non-peace-loving country.

As Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, India said that recent events in the territories again documented the increasing number of acts of colonization, brutality and repression by the Israeli authorities which threatened international peace and security; the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries, at a meeting on 19 May in New York, had stated that the Council should take effective action not only to prevent further bloodshed and misery in the territories but also to find a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Palestine question.

In Jordan's opinion, the situation was extremely explosive, with Israel's colonization programme continuing unabated; the Council and particularly its permanent members had a special responsibility to halt that policy.

In disregard of United Nations calls for a settlement freeze, PLO stated, Israel planned 16 additional settlements during the coming year in various parts of Palestine and the Golan Heights; and even if there was a freeze on new settlements, Israel could still expand the population of existing ones and connect them by highways so that they could be converted into big towns and cities. Israel was escalating its genocide and repression PLO charged, because the Palestinian National Council had reiterated its adherence to United Nations resolutions whose implementation Israel feared.

Communications (May-July). On 25 May,(30) Jordan transmitted what it described as the latest information on Israeli settlement activities during March and April.

By a letter of 18 July,(31) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights expressed the Committee's deep concern over the reported intention of Israel to establish Jewish settlers in the centre of Hebron, despite local Arab resistance.

On 26 July,(32) Jordan complained about an attack that day against Arab civilians by armed Israeli settlers in Hebron, who had broken into the Islamic University in the city and fired at students and staff, killing three persons and wounding 40 others; the attack, following a similar one on 7 July, confirmed that such acts, prepared by the Israeli occupation authorities, were part of a comprehensive plan to force the Arab population to abandon their homes and land to Israeli settlers.

SECURITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION (July-August)

Consideration of the situation in the occupied territories was resumed by the Security Council at five meetings held between 28 July and 2 August. In a letter of 27 July,(33) Democratic Yemen, as Chairman of the Arab Group, had requested that the Council meet immediately.

Meeting numbers. SC 2457-2461.

In addition to the countries previously invited, the Council invited Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Iraq, Israel, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Sudan and Tunisia, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

On 2 August, the Security Council voted on a draft resolution,(34) sponsored by Algeria, Bahrain, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. The vote was 13 to 1, with l abstention, as follows:

In favour: China, France, Guyana, Jordan, Malta Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Poland, Togo, USSR, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

Abstaining: Zaire.

Owing to the negative vote of a permanent member, the draft was not adopted.

By the draft, the Council would have determined that Israel's settlement policies had no legal validity, were a serious obstacle to Middle East peace and contravened article 49 (6) of the fourth Geneva Convention. It would have called on Israel to abide by that provision, to rescind its previous measures to desist from any action changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the territories and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territories and to force transfers of Arab populations from there. It would have strongly deplored Israel's persistence in pursuing those policies and would have called on it to dismantle existing settlements and cease planning and establishing new ones. Further, the Council would have: rejected all Israeli illegal actions, especially those resulting in the expulsion, deportation and forcible transfers of Arabs; condemned the recent attacks against Arab civilians, especially that in Al-Khalil (Hebron); called on all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used in connection with its settlements; and reaffirmed its determination, in the event of Israeli non-compliance, to examine ways in accordance with relevant Charter provisions to secure implementation of the resolution.

Introducing the draft on behalf of the League of Arab States, Jordan said that, despite the Council's attempts to deal with the matter, Israel's arbitrary measures against the Arab population had intensified and its settlement activities increased jeopardizing peace and security in the area and internationally; the elements of the draft, which reflected the past positions of the Council, were basic principles for dealing with the deteriorating situation.

The United States stressed that it shared the anguish about the loss of life and destruction of property in the West Bank and disapproved of Israel's settlements policy; the draft, however, did not adequately address the recent criminal attacks against Israeli settlers and contained unacceptable elements, in particular the implication that Israel had carried out forcible large-scale transfers of the Arab population, an allegation for which there was not sufficient evidence. The future of Israeli settlements was a key issue that needed to be addressed in negotiations; as emphasized by the United States President on 1 September 1982, a settlements freeze would foster the kind of atmosphere needed for peace. The United States, however, did not believe that it was practical or appropriate to call for a dismantling of existing settlements, nor could it accept continuing the sterile argument as to whether the settlements were legal or not, an argument that had dominated discussions to the detriment of the basic issue, namely, how to bring about a just and peaceful solution to the conflict over the occupied territories.

Zaire felt that the text, like previous ones, would not lead to action, which undermined the Council's credibility The paragraph condemning attacks against the Arab civilian population was not balanced, murder, whether by Israelis or by Arabs, could not be tolerated. The latter view was also shared by the Netherlands.

On the other hand, Guyana saw the draft as a genuine attempt to deal with a deteriorating situation; Israel must be held responsible for the recent incidents in the occupied territories, which could only lead to greater tension.

The USSR said that the United States, by voting against a text representing the united view of all Arab nations and a minimum action, had blocked the path to a just Middle East peace and sanctioned an annexation by Israel of the West Bank. The argument that there was no evidence to support the allegation of mass deportation or forcible transfers was based either on misinformation or misinterpretation, said PLO; Israel's settlements policy was meant to facilitate the acquisition of territory so that it might become a bargaining chip in so-called negotiations.

Condemning the attack of 26 July, France stated that Israel, as the occupying Power responsible for protecting the Palestinian civilian population must prevent such tragedies. Calling for respect of democratic freedoms and for cessation of the escalation of violence and repression, France noted that Israel's policy of fait accompli in the territories was harmful to peace efforts and that its settlements were without legal basis and created an atmosphere of tension.

Malta said there could no longer be any doubt that Israel was embarking on an insidious effort to take over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; in just three years, the number of both settlements and settlers had more than doubled.

The actions set forth in the draft were urgent and immediate tasks, Nicaragua said. In Poland's opinion, the text constituted the least the Council could do, and an end must be put to the deteriorating situation before the policy of faits accomplis in annexing Arab territories achieved its sinister long-range objectives. Among the non-members, Yugoslavia called for adoption of the draft bearing in mind the urgency of the situation. Similarly, Djibouti said the Council, as the guardian of peace and security, must take the necessary measures so that Israel would cease its inhuman and barbaric practices against the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States remarked that, out of pragmatic considerations and to achieve a compromise, the draft sought not to achieve justice for the Palestinians but to mitigate flagrant injustices; not only was Israel's settlements policy illegal, but it was making Jews cannon-fodder for the expansionist, revisionist objectives of the Government.

Most of the 38 speakers during the debate again denounced Israel's settlements policy as illegal and contrary to international law, as well as an obstacle to a Middle East peace settlement. Israel's claims that, far from constituting an obstacle to peace, the settlements were vital for its security and, as an effective early warning system, a deterrent to war, were rejected by a number of countries, among them Bahrain, Democratic Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania and Saudi Arabia. Jordan alleged that Israel's settlements policy was a tactic designed to undermine and abort peace efforts. Mauritania said prospects for peace in the Middle East and the rest of the world were threatened if Israel's practices continued with impunity, a position also held by a number of other countries.

The view that Israel's settlements policy was a step towards assimilation and annexation of the occupied territories was reiterated by many speakers, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Democratic Yemen, the German Democratic Republic, Guyana, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States. Widely held also was the opinion that the establishment or expansion of settlements and the violation of human rights of the Arab population of the territories were two complementary trends. In that context, most speakers condemned the events at Hebron.

Jordan, which opened the debate, charged that those events, as well as systematic Israeli terrorism in the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, were a step towards emptying those areas. The suppression at Al-Khalil was but the other half of Israel's expansionist policy. As part of the official occupation machinery, the settlers played a central role of organizing and implementing terrorist activities in a deliberate manner conducive to a psychological and social climate in which it was difficult for the Arab citizens to stay, in preparation for a wide-scale evacuation. The incident of 26 July was just one example of Israel's feverish quest to expel indigenous Arabs and replace them with Jewish settlers.

The premeditated and cold-blooded attack against the Islamic University of Hebron and the repression at Bir Zeit, Jerusalem, Nablus and elsewhere were designed to help achieve Israel's openly proclaimed objective of creeping colonization of the West Bank and Gaza, charged Mauritania.

A similar view was expressed by Qatar and others. As the Palestinians had refused to acquiesce to repressive measures, the confiscation of land and limitation of freedoms, and to gradual Judaization, Qatar said, Israel was determined to liquidate them physically.

Nicaragua stated that the situation was becoming more critical day by day; the appeals of the Israeli Government to the settlers not to take the law into their own hands had no credibility, because punishment of the guilty was practically non-existent and the sentences imposed were ridiculously out of proportion to the seriousness of the crimes.

The Sudan said that the recent events in the territories were part of Israel's scheme to drive out indigenous Arabs and to Judaize the territories in full. A similar view was expressed by several others, among them Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Djibouti, the Syrian Arab Republic, Togo and the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States. The Syrian Arab Republic added that while official Israeli circles and their mouthpieces in the United States were vigorously striving to absolve the ruling classes in Israel of responsibility for the settlers' crimes, each settler was keen on implementing the official settlements policy on which Israel had been based since its beginning.

In the opinion of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the arming of settlers was a concrete expression of the ideas of fanatical Zionists calling for the expulsion of all gentiles from Israel.

The German Democratic Republic said the violence against Palestinian students at Hebron demonstrated anew that the aggressive policy pursued by Israel and its accomplices was aimed at preventing the Palestinians from exercising their inalienable rights, particularly the right to an independent State.

China charged that it was the recent Israeli decision to establish a settlement in Al-Khalil that had further aggravated tension. Facts revealed that the terrorist tactics used by the Israeli authorities to persecute the indigenous inhabitants of the occupied territories were entirely premeditated with the express aim of changing the demographic composition so as to legitimize the Israeli settlements scheme.

A similar position was held by others, including Morocco and Pakistan. Morocco believed that there was an organic relationship between the oppression of Arabs and the establishment of illegal Israeli settlements; the events at Al-Khalil had coincided with the Israeli decision to build settlements in the heart of that city. Pakistan considered that the tragic death of Palestinians in Hebron was a manifestation of the deteriorating situation in the occupied territories for which Israel must assume full responsibility. The settlements had become the main source of violence and conflict; that the settlers were allowed to carry arms was a constant source of harassment and provocation to Arab inhabitants, inevitably leading to tension and clashes.

In Bahrain's opinion, the continuous violence in the occupied territories was an inevitable result of Israel's occupation and aggressive expansionist policy, and of its systematic terrorization of the inhabitants carried out in full view of the Israeli army and security forces.

In Turkey's view, the occurrences in Al-Khalil were yet another manifestation of the fact that Israel was adamant in the pursuit of its policies of repression, thus further aggravating the plight of the Palestinians and the Middle East situation.

Saudi Arabia complained that the Israeli authorities were oblivious to the fact that Al-Khalil and most of the towns of Gaza and the West Bank were under constant curfew; thus, Jewish settlers could rampage through Arab areas, setting fires, engaging in sabotage and committing murder, encouraged and supported by the Israeli authorities.

Afghanistan charged that the Israeli Government did virtually nothing to prevent armed settlers from engaging in cynical attacks. The Israeli authorities had implied that the recent violence against Palestinians was justified because of an attack on a Jewish settler; reports from different sources had indicated that the wounded settler, attacked by unidentified persons, was not attended by the Israeli military, which had thought he was an Arab; had he been taken promptly to the hospital he would have been saved.

Kuwait alleged that the act of aggression at Al-Khalil had been committed by armed Israeli settlers in full view of the Israeli Government, which was not merely content with establishing settlements and importing tens of thousands of Jews to settle therein; it implanted armed bands among the settlers, with whom it co-ordinated action.

Egypt also held Israel directly responsible for the aggression against the students of Al-Khalil University, adding that the ensuing arbitrary measures by the Israeli occupation authorities reaffirmed the plight of Palestinians in the territories and the extent of the danger to which they were exposed. In view of Israel's persistence in building settlements and the terrorism by armed groups of settlers, the Arab inhabitants had no recourse but to exercise their natural right to defend what remained of their properties, territories and homeland.

The killing at Hebron and the building of Israeli settlements was also denounced by Iran.

PLO recalled that on 10 July Israel's Deputy Prime Minister had told reporters that the Israeli cabinet had decided on a two-stage plan for the construction of a Jewish quarter at Hebron, projecting a settlement in the coming three years of 500 Jewish families in the commercial heart of the city, which would entail the eviction or expulsion of the population – or its elimination should it insist on defending its right to stay.

Israel, on the other hand, stressed that the murder at Hebron was unreservedly condemned by its Government and people; it would do everything possible to apprehend the culprits for their crimes. However, while condemning the murder of Arabs, the Council did not condemn the murder of Jews. Referring to its settlements policy, Israel defended the right of Jews to live in any part of the "Land of Israel"; they did not regard themselves as foreigners in Judaea or Samaria or any other part of the "Land of Israel". It could not be accepted that Jews should be prohibited from settling in areas which were the very heart of their homeland; however, it had never been Israel's aim to exercise control over the lives and activities of the Arab inhabitants of Judaea and Samaria, with whom Jews sought to live as equals. It was Israel's policy that no single Palestinian Arab resident of these areas legally holding claim to land should be made homeless by the establishment of Jewish villages, many of which had been established on Jewish-owned land expropriated in 1948 by Jordan or Egypt, land that had been barren for centuries. With regard to article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention, Israel pointed out that it banned forcible transfers, not voluntary acts of individuals taking up residence; no Arab inhabitants had been displaced by the establishment of Jewish villages.

In the view of the United Kingdom, the latest atrocity at Hebron was one of a series that would not be stopped until the underlying causes had been removed. Israel's settlements policy undermined confidence that it was ready to negotiate freely about the final state of the occupied territories; the United Kingdom called on Israel to put an end to that damaging policy and to declare an immediate settlements freeze.

The call for a settlements freeze was also supported by the Netherlands, which added that the events at Hebron were evidence of the dangerous consequences of Israel's settlements policy, a major source of tension, each construction or expansion of a settlement would only increase the strong and justified resentment of the inhabitants.

In the opinion of the USSR, the Council could not remain indifferent to the illegal acts systematically perpetrated by Israel on Arab soil. The Council should in particular be mindful of the fact that in resolution 465(1980)(35) it had declared that there was no legal validity to the steps taken by Israel to alter the physical character, demographic composition and institutional structure or status of the occupied territories. At that time, the Council had called on Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of new ones. Israel's response to those minimal demands was the annexation of eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, further aggressive sorties against neighbouring Arab States and the invasion of Lebanon, in addition to the construction of dozens of new settlements on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip where it continued methodically to carry out plans to locate thousands of new settlers. The United States gave in to every new demand Israel made, at the expense of the Arabs; a further step in that direction was the current United States position that the Israeli settlements on Arab lands were legal.

China said the worsening situation demanded an unequivocal response from the Council, which should strongly condemn the Israeli authorities for engineering the incidents at Al-Khalil, stop all expansionist activities in the occupied territories and compel Israel to withdraw from them.

Jordan believed that Israel would not have gone so far in its expansionist policies had the Council been able to discharge its responsibilities as outlined in the Charter and had the great Powers shouldered their duties with regard to Israel's intransigence and persistence in creating settlements in the territories and in terrorizing the Arab citizens in order to force them to nee their homes as was the case in Al-Khalil. The credibility of any peace initiative, it added, would depend on a clear acknowledgement of the situation and clear rejection of Israeli settlements.

Pakistan called on the Council to reaffirm that the settlements were illegal and to make yet another effort to compel Israel to respect its resolutions; Israel could be restrained only if the Council could fulfil its responsibility to censure Israel's conduct and condemn its policies of repression and violence.

Poland said the recurrence of acts of terror and violence, such as the ones at Hebron, should be a grim reminder that the Council should fulfil its responsibility and take effective and urgent action by declaring the illegality and inadmissibility of Israeli settlements which had become a deadly weapon in Israel’s annexation policy.

The time had come for the Council, as the primary body for maintaining international peace and security, to take the necessary action under Chapter VII of the Charter, Nicaragua stated.

The call for such action was also supported by several non-members of the Council, including Afghanistan and the Syrian Arab Republic. Unless the Council effectively forced Israel to cease its illegal activities, Afghanistan warned, there would be an increasing danger of violence and armed clashes. The Council's failure to take mandatory action had served to encourage Israel to continue Judaizing the occupied territories, said the Syrian Arab Republic, which called on the United States to enable the Council to take effective steps in accordance with Chapter VII to evacuate the aggressors from the occupied territories, unconditionally, and to enable the Palestinians to exercise their rights to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State under PLO leadership.

Saudi Arabia called once more on the international community not to permit Israel to disregard United Nations resolutions. As for the latest events at Al-Khalil, it urged the Council to condemn explicitly the Israeli acts and to declare null and void all settlements measures by Israel. There should also be a statement to the effect that the Council would be forced to take measures in accordance with the Charter to implement its resolutions.

Bahrain appealed to the Council to discharge its responsibilities under the Charter and fulfil its obligations to protect the population of the territories from the aggression by armed Israeli bands; it should not be difficult for the Council to compel Israel to implement its resolutions.

Kuwait said the Council must reaffirm its resolutions with regard to the illegality of the Israeli settlements and must exert a new effort to compel Israel to respect those resolutions as well as the international covenants which obliged the occupying Power not just to protect the lives of civilian in their occupied territories but also not to make any changes in their demographic nature and legal status, above all, it was required to put an end to the Israeli occupation and to give the Palestinian the opportunity to exercise their rights. Kuwait called on the countries assisting Israel, foremost the United States, to cease supporting it and to stop putting obstacles in the way of the Council so that it might carry out its mandate by condemning Israel and imposing the appropriate sanctions.

Qatar urged the Council to give rein to the will of the international community, which Israel has thus far been able to obstruct, and to discharge its responsibility.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya called on the Council to shoulder its responsibilities under the Charter and condemn Israeli practices and policies, take concrete steps to deter the aggressor, a firm the illegality of settlements, and condemn the States which assisted Israel in its settlements poll and violation of human rights.

The Sudan said it was incumbent on the Council, which was responsible for the maintenance international peace and security, to take measures in accordance with the Charter that would put an end to the Israeli practices falling outside international law and United Nations resolutions.

Turkey firmly believed that it was the duty of the international community to remind Israel of its responsibilities under the 1949 Geneva Conventions; it was incumbent on the Council to take measures to prevent Israel from further violating international law and the inalienable rights of the Palestinians.

Democratic Yemen said if the Council was to uphold the seriousness of its resolutions and shoulder its responsibilities under the Charter, it was called upon to condemn Israel's expansionist policies and practices and take immediate steps to deter the aggressor and put an end to Israel's flouting of Council resolutions, especially resolutions 465 (1980)(35) and 476 (1980),(36) which emphasized the illegality of the Israeli settlements.

Egypt stressed that the Council could not afford to disregard the plight of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The terrorists of Al-Khalil should be arrested and brought to trial to prevent the repetition of such actions. The deteriorating situation in the occupied territories required explicit and decisive Council action, with the international community holding Israel completely responsible.

The Council must face up to the explosive situation in the territories and a repetition of the events at Hebron must be prevented, said Mauritania. There must be a thorough examination of the terrorism of which the Palestinians were victims, and the latest cold-blooded crimes – for which the responsibility of the occupying authorities could neither be denied nor even limited – must be vigorously condemned.

Speaking for the non-aligned countries, India called for determined and urgent Council action to prevent further bloodshed and misery. The Council should condemn the recent incidents at Hebron and other cities and fix responsibility for these atrocities on the occupying Israeli forces. It should again declare the illegality and inadmissibility of Israeli settlements practices and secure the annulment of all measures taken by Israel in that direction. Lastly, the Council should strive to find a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the Palestine question on a priority basis.

Cuba felt that the time had come for the Council to exercise its responsibilities under the Charter and take appropriate action to put a timely end to the misdeeds of the Israeli occupying forces and promote a just and lasting Middle East settlement, especially its root cause – the Palestine problem.

Bangladesh held it imperative for the Council to proceed urgently, with all the authority and resources at its disposal, to implement its resolutions and decisions; recent developments in the occupied territories had demonstrated that a lack of firm and expeditious Council action only aggravated the situation.

In Yugoslavia's view, the Council should reaffirm that the Israeli settlements were illegal and inadmissible, as well as make one more effort and exert pressure to halt such Israeli policy.

Again stressing the importance of implementing the recommendations of the Committee on Palestinian rights, Senegal, speaking on the Committee's behalf, said that the acts of violence in recent months indicated the urgent need to rectify the situation that had continued for too long, a situation whose consequences for international peace and security were more incalculable than ever.

The German Democratic Republic felt that the recent events in the West Bank underscored the urgent need for immediate and unconditional Israeli withdrawal and for a just solution to the Middle East problem, the core of which was the Palestine question; it was time that the Council rose to its responsibility for preserving peace and security and that it took resolute measures for immediate cessation of Israeli aggression and occupation. Several other speakers took a similar position.

According to PLO, the Council had the power under the Charter to ask for an immediate termination of the occupation, on whose illegality there was unanimity. If a Member State refused to comply, the Council could apply the Charter provisions; there was no room in the United Nations for people rejecting the Council's decisions, especially when that rejection brought so much misery and bloodshed. PLO expected from the Council action in very clear-cut language demanding that Israel withdraw immediately and unconditionally from the occupied territories; as stated in a message from its Chairman, PLO called on the international community, represented in the Council, to condemn Israel's racist practices, to seek to put an end to them and to support the inalienable rights of the Palestinians.

The answer lay in the Council and in the collective will to deter Israel from persisting in breaching the Council's resolutions and the United Nations Charter, the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States said.

Communications (August-November). By letter of 2 August 1983,(37) Greece transmitted a government statement deploring the attack of 26 July and expressing the hope that Israel would arrest and punish the culprits and ensure that such criminal acts against the Arab population would not be repeated.

By letters of 5 August,(38) 26 August,(39) 20 October(40) and 11 November,(41) Jordan transmitted what it said was information on Israel's settlement activities from May through October.

Recommendations of the Conference on the Palestine question. The International Conference on the Question of Palestine,(19) in its Declaration adopted in September (see above, under PALESTINE QUESTION), considered that the various proposals consistent with international law, such as the Arab peace plan adopted at the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference at Fez in September 1982,(42) should serve as guidelines for concerted international effort to resolve the Palestine question. These guidelines stressed the need to oppose and reject Israeli policies in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and any de facto situation contrary to international law and United Nations resolutions, in particular the establishment of settlements, as major obstacles to a Middle East peace.

In its Programme of Action, the Conference recommended that States should not encourage migration to the occupied territories until Israel had put a definitive end to its illegal settlements policy. The Conference invited the Security Council to take urgent action to bring about an immediate and complete cessation of the establishment of settlements, to consider urgently the reports of the Security Council Commission established in 1979 (43) which had examined the situation concerning the settlements, and to reactivate that Commission.

Similar recommendations had also been made at the regional preparatory meetings for the Conference.

Activities of the Committee on Palestinian rights. In its 1983 report to the General Assembly,(44) the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People stated that it had continued to follow closely developments in the occupied territories, in particular the establishment and enlargement of Israeli settlements, the annexation of vast areas of Arab-owned land, and other violations by Israel of the rights of the Palestinians. In communications throughout the year to the Secretary-General and the Security Council President, the Committee had expressed its concern over those Israeli policies. In addition to its letters of protest, the Committee had urged the Council to reactivate, as a matter of priority, its 1979 Commission to examine the situation relating to Israeli settlements. The Committee recalled that the Commission had unanimously adopted its latest report as far back: as November 1980,(45) but the report had not been considered by the Council.

The Committee pointed out that, during 1983, Israel had pursued its settlements policy despite international censure, United Nations decisions and public and parliamentary questioning within Israel itself. The Committee stated that the policy constituted a network of settlement programmes and several other administrative and economic procedures designed to force individual and mass transfers from the West Bank and Gaza, with the objective of evacuating the indigenous Arab population. The Committee noted that the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem had increased from 91,000 in April 1979 to some 140,000 in 1982; it was Israel's declared policy to place up to 400,000 non-indigenous, colonial settlers there within five years and 1.4 million Jews over the coming 30 years. By the end of 1982, approximately 153 settlements were estimated to have been established in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; this represented an area of some 2.453 square kilometres, or 44 per cent of the coral West Bank territory. Four more new settlements had been approved on 16 January 1983. A close look at Israeli settlement activities revealed that the intention was to fragmentize the demographic, geographic, economic and social unity of the occupied territories.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In two of its 15 December resolutions on the report of the Committee on Palestinian rights, the General Assembly also dealt specifically with Israel's settlements policy. By the first (38/79 C), it deplored Israel's persistence in establishing settlements. By the second (38/79 D), it condemned: the establishment of settlements on Arab lands and transfer of an alien population thereto, and the arming of Israeli settlers and the perpetration of violence by them against Arab civilians. The Assembly also reaffirmed that Israel's measures to change the occupied territories were null and void.

In a 13 December resolution (38/58 C), the Assembly endorsed as a guideline for convening an international peace conference on the Middle East (see above, under PALESTINE QUESTION) the need to oppose Israeli policies and practices, in particular establishing settlements, as one of the major obstacles to achieving Middle East peace. In a resolution of 19 December (38/166), the Assembly rejected Israeli plans and actions to change the demographic composition of the occupied territories, particularly the increase and expansion of settlements, and other actions displacing Palestinians therefrom; and recognized the need for a comprehensive report on the impact of the Israeli settlements on the living conditions of the Palestinians, to be submitted by the Secretary-General in 1984.

Explaining in the Special Political Committee its abstention on the draft which became resolution 38/79 C, the United States said that the text diverted attention from the fundamental question of whether settlements advanced or hindered the peace process; to persist in arguing about the legality of the settlements policy was to embark on an unproductive debate. The immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel could create the confidence needed for wider participation in peace talks; parallel and positive action by the Arabs would be required if the peace process was to succeed, the United States added.

Sweden, which also abstained, saw in Israel's settlements policy a flagrant violation of international law; the most constructive action Israel could take to improve peace prospects would be to dismantle the settlements.

Fourth Geneva Convention

The applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (fourth Geneva Convention), to the Israeli-occupied territories was reaffirmed in 1983 by the General Assembly (in resolutions 38/79 B and C) and by the Commission on Human Rights.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. In one of two resolutions on human rights violations in the occupied Arab territories, adopted on 15 February 1983,(10) the Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed that the fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to all those territories, including Jerusalem. Condemning Israel's failure to acknowledge its applicability, the Commission called on Israel to abide by and respect the obligations arising from that and other international instruments, and urged once more all States parties to ensure respect for and compliance with the Convention in the occupied territories.

In another resolution of 15 February,(46) the Commission reaffirmed that the Convention continued to apply to Syrian territory occupied by Israel. (For further details, see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVIII.)

Recommendations of the Conference on the Palestine question. The International Conference on the Question of Palestine,(19) in its Programme of Action adopted in September (see above, under PALESTINE QUESTION), recommended that all States act in accordance with their obligations under international law, especially with regard to the 1949 Geneva Conventions which required the parties to respect those Conventions in all circumstances, and in particular ensure respect by Israel for the Conventions in the occupied territories; and strive for the adoption of international measures so that Israel would implement in the West Bank and Gaza the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention, in the light of a 1980 Security Council resolution(35) determining that all Israeli measures to change the character, composition, structure or status of the territories had no legal validity and violated the Convention.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December 1983, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions (38/79 B and C) demanding that Israel comply with the Convention, both under the agenda item on the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. On 15 December, the Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted resolution 38/79 B by recorded vote.

The General 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, 32/91 A of 13 December 1977, 33/113 A of 18 December 1978, 34/90 B of 12 December 1979, 35/122 A of 11 December 1980, 36/147 A of 16 December 1981 and 37/88 A of 10 December 1982,

Recalling also Security Council resolution 465(1980) of 1 March 1980 in which, inter alia, the Council affirmed that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

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,

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 Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Condemns once again the failure of Israel as the occupying Power to acknowledge the applicability of that Convention to the territories it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. Strongly demands that Israel acknowledge and comply with the provisions of that Convention in Palestinian and other Arab territories it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

4. Urgently calls upon all States parties to that Convention to exert every effort in order to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

General Assembly resolution 38/79 B

15 December 1983     Meeting 98   146-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/38/718) by recorded vote (112-1-1), 5 December (meeting 45); 12-nation draft (A/SPC/38/L.36); agenda item 69.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: SPC 36-42, 45-48; plenary 98.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.

Also on 15 December 1983, the Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted resolution 38/79 C by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 32/5 of 28 October 1977, 33/113 B of 18 December 1978, 34/90 C of 12 December 1979, 35/122 B of 11 December 1980, 36/147 B of 16 December 1981 and 37/88 B of 10 December 1982,

Recalling also Security Council resolution 465(1980) of 1 March 1980,

Expressing grave anxiety and concern at the present serious situation in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, as a result of the continued Israeli occupation and the measures and actions taken by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, 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 Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that all such measures and actions taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, are in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and constitute a serious obstruction of efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and therefore have no legal validity;

2. Strongly deplores the persistence of Israel in carrying out such measures, in particular the establishment of settlements in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem;

3. Demands that Israel comply strictly with its international obligations in accordance with the principles of international law and the provisions of the Geneva Convention;

4. Demands once more that the Government of Israel the occupying Power, desist forthwith from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status, geographical nature or demographic composition of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

5. Urgently calls upon all States parties to the Geneva Convention to respect and to exert every effort in order to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

General Assembly resolution 38/79 C

15 December 1983      Meeting 98 147-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/38/718) by recorded vote (113-1-1), 5 December (meeting 45); 12-nation draft (A/SPC 38/L.37); agenda item 69.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: SPC 36-42, 45, 48; plenary 98.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, 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, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.

At the request of the United States, the Special Political Committee adopted paragraph 1 of the draft that became resolution 38/79 B separately, by a recorded vote of 114 to 1. Explaining its support of that paragraph and its abstention on the text as a whole, the United States stressed that it attached great importance to the Convention, which should be applied consistently to all situations of war or military occupation without regard to the nature of the conflict; the text as a whole, however, was a sterile, ritualistic condemnation of Israel.

Israel said the first text was irrelevant and redundant, as the principles of the Convention were applied in practice to the population of the territories; its position, Israel added, was supported by well-known authorities in the field of international law. The second text was in essence a repetition of the first, with encumbering variations.

Sweden expressed its conviction that the Convention was fully applicable to all Israeli-occupied territories.

In resolution 38/79 D of 15 December, the Assembly condemned Israel's continued and persistent violations of the Convention, in particular those designated by the Convention as "grave breaches”, which the Assembly declared were war crimes and an affront to humanity.

The Convention's applicability was reaffirmed in two other Assembly resolutions: a 19 December resolution (38/144) on permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied territories; and resolution 38/79 G of 15 December. by which the Assembly also condemned Israel's repression against and closing of Palestinian universities, in clear contravention of the Convention, and demanded that Israel comply with it and rescind all measures against educational institutions (see below).

Golan Heights

In 1983, the General Assembly (in resolutions 38/79 F and 38/180 A) and the Commission on Human Rights dealt with the situation in the Syrian Golan Heights. The Golan Heights, a part of the Syrian Arab Republic near the borders with Israel and Lebanon, had been occupied by Israel since 1967.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. On 15 February 1983,(46) the Commission on Human Rights declared once more that Israel's December 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights(47) was an act of aggression and that it had no validity. The Commission called on Israel to rescind that decision and emphasized the necessity of total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories as an essential prerequisite for a Middle East peace. The Commission determined that the continued occupation and effective annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel, as well as the inhuman treatment of the Syrian population, gravely violated the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,(48) the fourth Geneva Convention and United Nations resolutions. The Commission reaffirmed that the Hague Convention of 1907 and the fourth Geneva Convention continued to apply to Israeli-occupied Syrian territory. It strongly deplored the negative vote of a permanent member of the Security Council which had prevented the. adoption of measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Report of the Secretary-General. As requested by the General Assembly, the Secretary-General submitted in October 1983 a report(49) on implementation of a December 1982 resolution(50) in which the Assembly had condemned Israel for refusing to heed demands to rescind its 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Golan Heights, and calling on Member States not to recognize such measures. He reported that in reply to his note verbale of 10 March 1983, Israel had stated on 27 September that its position was set out fully in December 1981.(51) As at 12 October 1983, eight Member States had replied to the Secretary-General's request for relevant information.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December 1983, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions dealing with the situation in the Golan Heights. On 15 December, under the agenda item on the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, the Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted resolution 38/79 F by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned that the Arab territories occupied since 1969 have been under continued Israeli military occupation,

Recalling Security Council resolution 497(1981) of 17 December 1981 and General Assembly resolutions 36/226 B of 17 December 1981, ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982 and 37/88 E of 10 December 1982,

Recalling its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 3414(XXX) of 5 December 1975, 31/61 of 9 December 1976, 32/20 of 25 November 1977, 33/28 and 33/29 of 7 December 1978, 34/70 of 6 December 1979 and 35/122 E of 11 December 1980, in which it, inter alia, called upon Israel to put an end to its occupation of the Arab territories and to withdraw from all those territories,

Reaffirming once more the illegality of Israel's decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, which has resulted in the effective annexation of that territory,

Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and that all territories thus occupied by Israel must be returned,

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

1. Strongly condemns Israel, the occupying Power, for its refusal to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, particularly Council resolution 497(1981), in which the Council, inter alia, decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights was null and void and without international legal effect and demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;

2. Condemns the persistence of Israel in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Arab Golan Heights;

3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel. the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the Syrian Arab Golan Heights are null and void and constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect;

4. Strongly condemns Israel for its attempts and measures to impose forcibly Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Arab Golan Heights and calls upon it to desist from its repressive measures against the population of the Syrian Arab Golan Heights;

5. Calls once again upon Member States not to recognize any of the legislative or administrative measures and actions referred to above;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session a report on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 38/79 F

15 December 1983      Meeting 98 144-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/38/718) by recorded vote (114-1-1), 5 December (meeting 45); 13-nation draft (A/SPC/38/L.40); agenda item 69.

Sponsors:Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India,  Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Pakistan, Qatar Senegal.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: SPC 36-42, 45-48; plenary 98.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, 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, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.

Israel said that the text bore witness to the relentless hostility of Syrian leaders and their refusal to contemplate negotiations on the basis of Security Council resolution 242(1967);(25) the text rejected any thought of peace and ignored the causes for Israel's presence in the Golan Heights.

The United States called on Israel to fulfil its obligations to the population in the Golan Heights, but remarked that the resolution went beyond the Security Council's 1981 resolution declaring Israel's decision null and void.(52)

Sweden considered the annexation of the Golan Heights to be a flagrant violation of international law; it stressed that its support for the draft did not alter its opposition to the February 1982 resolution(53) mentioned in the preamble.

The Syrian Arab Republic said that the occupation authorities were imposing Israeli identity by force on the Golan Heights population. Israel’s 1981 decision extending its law there was calculated to establish a Greater Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile, and Israeli statements that the Golan Heights were an indivisible part of Israel confirmed those intentions.

On 19 December 1983, under the agenda item "The situation in the Middle East", the General Assembly adopted resolution 38/180 A by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 30 September 1983,

Recalling Security Council resolution 497(1981) of 17 December 1981,

Reaffirming its resolutions 36/226 B of 17 December 1981, ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982 and 37/123 A of 16 December 1982,

Recalling its resolution 3314(XXIX) of 14 December 1974, in which it defined an act of aggression, inter alia, as "the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof” and provided that "no consideration of whatever nature whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression",

Reaffirming the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem,

Noting that Israel's record, policies and actions establish conclusively that it is not a peace-loving Member State and that it has not carried out its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations,

Noting further that Israel has refused, in violation of Article 25 of the Charter, to accept and carry out the numerous relevant decisions of the Security Council in particular resolution 497(1981), thus failing to carry out its obligations under the Charter,

1. Strongly condemns Israel for its failure to comply with Security Council resolution 497(1981) and General Assembly resolutions 36/226 B, ES-9/1 and 37/123 A;

2. Declares once more that Israel's continued occupation of the Golan Heights and its decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights constitute an act of aggression under the provisions of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 3314(XXIX);

3. Declares once more that Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is illegal and therefore null and void and has no validity whatsoever;

4. Declares all Israeli policies and practices of, or aimed at, annexation of the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, to be illegal and in violation of international law and of the relevant United Nations resolutions;

5. Determines once more that all actions taken by Israel to give effect to its decision relating to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights are illegal and invalid and shall not be recognized;

6. Reaffirms its determination that all relevant provisions of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect of their obligations under these instruments in all circumstances;

7. Determines once more that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights since 1967 and their annexation by Israel on 14 December 1981, following Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on that territory, constitute a continuing threat to international peace and security;

8. Strongly deplores the negative vote by a permanent member of the Security Council which prevented the Council from adopting against Israel, under Chapter VII of the Charter, the "appropriate measures" referred to in resolution 497(1981) unanimously adopted by the Council;

9. Further deplores any political, economic, financial military and technological support to Israel that encourages Israel to commit acts of aggression and to consolidate and perpetuate its occupation and annexation of occupied Arab territories;

10. Firmly emphasizes once more its demand that Israel the occupying Power, rescind forthwith its illegal decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Syrian Golan Heights which resulted in the effective annexation of that territory;

11. Reaffirms once more the overriding necessity of the total and unconditional withdrawal by Israel from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 including Jerusalem, which is an essential prerequisite for the establishment of a comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East;

12. Determines once more that Israel's record, policies and actions confirm that it is not a peace-loving Member State, that it has persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter and that it has carried out neither its obligations under the Charter nor its commitment under General Assembly resolution 273(III) of 11 May 1949;

13. Calls once more upon all Member States to apply the following measures:

(a) To refrain from supplying Israel with any weapons and related equipment and to suspend any military assistance that Israel receives from them;

(b) To refrain from acquiring any weapons or military equipment from Israel;

(c) To suspend economic, financial and technological assistance to and co-operation with Israel;

(d) To sever diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with Israel;

14. Reiterates its call to all Member States to cease forthwith, individually and collectively, all dealings with Israel in order totally to isolate it in all fields;

15. Urges non-member States to act in accordance with the provisions of the present resolution;

16. Calls upon the specialized agencies and other international institutions to conform their relations with Israel to the terms of the present resolution;

17. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 38/180 A

19 December 1983     Meeting 102    84-24-31 (recorded vote)

14-nation draft (A/38/L.43 & Add. 1); agenda item 34.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Guinea Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: plenary 87-89, 91-95, 102.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows;:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Chad, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Malawi, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Israel said the text was a blatant attempt to harm Israel and legitimize Arab, in particular Syrian, aggression, for which the Golan Heights had served as a launching pad. Instead of condemning the Syrian Arab Republic, Israel was castigated; attempts to vilify it as a non-peace loving State were ridiculous in the light of the sacrifices it had already made for peace. Instead of calling for negotiations and conciliation, the text grotesquely called on States to refrain from supplying Israel with the necessary means of defence and sought to isolate it so that Arab warmakers were emboldened to strike across its borders.

The United States said such ritualistic exercises failed to make a positive contribution to resolving the Middle East conflict, hardened the positions of the parties and made negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbours less likely.

In spite of its full support for the text's central theme, Sweden opposed paragraphs 12 to 16, because of their content as well as the fact that they could not be reconciled with the division of responsibilities between the Assembly and the Security Council.

In Finland's view, the text, in particular paragraphs 8 and 12 to 14, did not respect the Charter provisions on the competence of the main organs of the United Nations.

Speaking for the States members of EC, Greece said they had repeatedly stressed the need for a balanced approach; they also could not accept formulations criticizing a permanent Security Council member for exercising its right.

Though stating its support for all provisions which could bring success to peace efforts and its adherence to the rule that nullified any unilateral decision which might change the legal status of territories subjected to military occupation, Portugal dissociated itself in particular from discriminatory references or legal implications that might harm peace efforts.

New Zealand said it was disappointed that the text did not adequately reflect the balance of principles embodied in Council resolution 242(1967) and was not well calculated to contribute to a negotiated settlement.

Although abstaining, Ecuador reiterated support for the condemnation of attempts to legalize the acquisition of territory by force through a unilateral declaration.

Peru believed that certain statements and recommendations in the resolution tended to prejudice the efforts to achieve a Middle East solution within the framework of the United Nations and that the measures proposed were not the best way to begin a peace process but could lead to even greater scorn for international law and an even greater erosion of the Organization's effectiveness.

Brazil felt that Israel's complete isolation would be of no advantage to the peace process, but could, on the contrary, be a pretext for Israel to act with still greater contempt for the rule of law and for the principles of mutually respectful relations among peoples.

Urging Israel to return the Golan Heights to the Syrian Arab Republic, Bolivia said it could not agree with the drafting style and part of the text's content. In Thailand's opinion, the text did not present a complete picture and lacked balance. Speaking similarly, Singapore added it could not support texts which impinged on the sovereign right of third countries having diplomatic relations with Israel. A like view was held by Honduras and the Philippines. Colombia could not accept resolutions that condemned the conduct of only one party Egypt said it fully supported the view that Israel's decision on the Golan Heights was null and void and that it must withdraw, however, it could not subscribe to certain negative aspects, in particular paragraph 13. Venezuela also voiced serious reservations on certain paragraphs, saying that, rather than promoting peace and understanding, they were disruptive. Though fully supporting the restitution of the Golan Heights to the Syrian Arab Republic, Argentina believed that the areas of competence of the main bodies of the United Nations must be respected. Mexico and Spain had reservations on paragraphs 12 to 14; in Mexico's view, they dealt with questions that might fall under the jurisdiction of another United Nations body. In addition, Spain reserved its position on the eighth preambular paragraph.

Israel's actions in the Golan Heights negated the principles of the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention, Security Council resolution 242(1967) and other United Nations resolutions, Nepal felt. However Nepal reserved its position on paragraphs 8, 9 and 12 to 14 and on the fourth and eighth preambular paragraphs, adding that the measures called for were a prerogative of the Security Council.

Greece said it would have voted against paragraph 14 and would have abstained on paragraphs 8, 13(c) and 13(d), had separate votes been taken. Togo would have abstained in separate votes on paragraphs 8 and 12.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reaffirmed its opposition to all direct or indirect allusions that would give a semblance of legitimacy to Israeli occupation. Iran reserved its rights with regard to any provisions that might directly or indirectly constitute recognition of what it called the Zionist entity, an artificially forged State.

West Bank officials

In 1983, the General Assembly again called on Israel to allow the return of three West Bank officials so that they could resume the functions for which they had been elected and appointed. Israel had deported the three Palestinian officials in 1980,(54) on the ground that they had systematically engaged in inciting the local Arab population to acts of violence and subversion, abusing their public offices. The Assembly also considered again the 1980 assassination attempt against the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh.(55)

Expulsion of Hebron and Halhul

Mayors and of the Islamic Judge of Hebron

Report of the Secretary-General. In June 1983,(56) the Secretary-General informed the General Assembly of Israel's response to its December 1982 demand that Israel rescind the illegal expulsion and imprisonment of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and the expulsion of the Sharia (Islamic) Judge of Hebron.(57) He reported that, in reply to his note verbale of 10 March 1983, Israel had stated on 24 May that its position in that matter remained the same as in former years and that it would like to draw the Secretary-General's attention to the fact that the three officials had never recanted their statements and actions and had never committed themselves to desist from inciting anti-Israel hatred. In addition, Israel charged that they were engaged in a continuous anti-Israel propaganda campaign throughout the world, in co-ordination with and with the assistance of PLO.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, the General Assembly, on 15 December 1983, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted by recorded vote resolution 38/79 E.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 468(1980) of 8 May 1980, 469(1980) of 20 May 1980 and 484(1980) of 19 December 1980 and General Assembly resolutions 36/147 D of 16 December 1981 and 37188 D of 10 December 1982,

Deeply concerned at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron,

Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in particular article 1 and the first paragraph of article 49, which read as follows:

"Article 1

"The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."

"Article 49

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory  of  the  occupying  Power  or  to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive . . .",

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Demands once more that the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling and imprisoning the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and in expelling the Sharia Judge of Hebron and that it facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders so that they can resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed;

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

General Assembly resolution 38/79 E

15 December 1983       Meeting 98 146-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/38/718) by recorded vote (115-1-1), 5 December (meeting 45); 12-nation draft (A/SPC/38/L.39); agenda item 69.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: SPC 36-42, 45-48; plenary 98.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, 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, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu. Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.

Israel said the three Palestinians had openly incited Palestinian Arabs to acts of violence and subversion against Israel. Following expulsion, they had had full recourse to the Israel judicial system and the orders against them had been upheld by the Supreme Court; their belligerent behaviour attested to their total lack of remorse.

The United States said the text omitted any reference to factors contributing to the deportation; that was, however, contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention and they should be allowed to return.

Prosecution in assassination attempts

Report of the Secretary-General. In October 1983,(58) the Secretary-General reported to the General Assembly on implementation of a December 1982 resolution(59) concerning the 1980 assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh. In reply to his note verbale of 10 March 1983, the Secretary-General stated, Israel, on 27 September, had drawn his attention to its statement before the Special Political Committee in December 1982.(60)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, the General Assembly, on 15 December 1983, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted by recorded vote resolution 38/79 H.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 471(1980) of 5 June 1980, in which the Council condemned the assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh and called for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of those crimes,

Recalling also General Assembly resolutions 36/147 G of 16 December 1981 and 37/88 G of 10 December 1982,

Recalling once again the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in particular article 27, which states, inter alia:

Reaffirming the applicability of that Convention to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Expresses deep concern that Israel, the occupying Power has failed for three years to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators of the assassination attempts;

2. Demands once more that Israel, the occupying Power inform the Secretary-General of the results of the investigations relative to the assassination attempts;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session a report on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 38/79 H

15 December 1983     Meeting 98   145-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/38/718) by recoreded vote (114-1-1); 5 December (meeting 45); 11-nation draft (A/SPC/38/L.42); agenda item 69.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Qatar.

Meeting numbers. GA 38th session: SPC 36-42, 4548; plenary 98.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, 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, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.

Expressing sympathy for the victims and condemning those responsible, the United States said it could not support a text maligning the Israeli legal process and implying, without offering evidence that the Israeli authorities were not making any effort to apprehend and prosecute the would-be assassins.

The United Arab Emirates said that the Israeli authorities had ordered that the identity of the criminals not be revealed and the security services had not been empowered to pursue investigations since such acts were fundamental to Israel's settlements policy; it was clear that the military authorities were involved in the affair, since terrorists could not act in the occupied territories without the authorities' consent.

West Bank students

The alleged mass poisoning of Palestinian school-girls in the West Bank was the subject of several communications in 1983. Following informal consultations, the President of the Security Council made a statement on 4 April requesting the Secretary-General to inquire into the problem and report on the findings. In pursuance of that request the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an independent investigation.

Communications (March/April). On 29 March,(61) Jordan transmitted to the President of the Security Council a letter of the same date from the Deputy Permanent Observer of PLO, alleging that more than 1,000 Palestinian schoolgirls in the West Bank had been poisoned as part of a new phase in Israel's campaign against the Palestinians, and calling on the United Nations to form an international medical committee to investigate, document and report on the poisoning.

The illness among Arab schoolgirls in the West Bank was the subject of a number of other communications.

On 30 March,(62) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights stated that local residents believed the illness to have been induced by some kind of poison, perhaps gas, in the girls' classrooms. Pending results of investigations, by ICRC and the United Nations, among others, the Chairman urged the Secretary-General to exercise his office to ascertain the full extent, cause and perpetrators of that event.

By a letter dated 31 March,(63) Iraq, as Chairman of the Arab Group, requested an urgent Security Council meeting to discuss the situation.

On 3 April,(64) Israel rejected the charges by Iraq and Jordan as unfounded, and asserted that extensive clinical, laboratory and environmental analyses by Israeli medical authorities had yielded no traces of poisoning. Nevertheless, it added, the Ministry of Health had requested international health authorities, among them WHO, to assess independently the causes of the phenomenon.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

On 4 April, the Security Council President issued the following statement on behalf of the Council members:(65)

By a letter of 5 April,(66) Israel rejected the Council's statement, asserting that it did not take into account the investigations by Israeli medical authorities and other medical teams, and that it contained an unwarranted reference to cases of mass poisoning; the request for an independent inquiry by the Secretary-General was therefore unjustified.

Report of the Secretary-General. In pursuance of the Security Council's request of 4 April, the Secretary-General submitted on 10 May a report(67) indicating that he had contacted the Director-General of WHO and had requested that an independent inquiry be conducted. In his report annexed to the Secretary-General's report, the Director-General gave an overview of WHO's investigations and findings. In his conclusions, he stated that the WHO inquiry had not been able to indicate any specific cause of the reported health emergency; however, the initial medical records and interviews with cases in the first outbreak and with local health and other authorities suggested that an environmental agent could have provoked at least some cases.

The Director-General recommended that. in view of the anxiety under which the population !lived in the occupied territories and given the susceptibility of girls during adolescence, everything possible should be done to protect the local population from unnecessary alarm. For that purpose, WHO presence should be made available in the event of any suspected recrudescence of the ill-defined health emergency, so that all could feel reassured. He added that although it appeared unlikely that the patients would suffer any significant sequelae, there should be provision for clinical follow-up by WHO should any of them or their families so request.

Referring to the Director-General's conclusions as well as to the findings of several other medical authorities, Israel, in a letter of 25 August,(68) stated that they were fully corroborated by the conclusions reached in medical literature on similar phenomena in other countries. Israel noted with regret the Council's silence on the matter since the publication of the Director-General's and other reports.

Economic and social conditions

Both the current and future economic and social conditions of Palestinians in the occupied territories were studied by the Organization in 1983. The living conditions of Palestinians were the subject of reports by the Secretary-General and UNCTAD. The General Assembly, in December, adopted resolution 38/166 on the subject.

Living conditions of Palestinians

Report of the Secretary-General. As requested by the General Assembly in December 1982,(69) the Secretary-General submitted in June 1983 a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in the occupied territories, prepared with the help of three experts.(70) Since permission to visit the occupied territories had not been granted by the Israeli Government, the experts had had to rely on secondary information sources. From 11 February to 24 March, they had visited Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic, where they had had discussions with government and United Nations officials. Discussions had also been held with PLO officials at Damascus and Amman. Meetings had been held with five professors who had been expelled from universities in the West Bank in October 1982, the former Mayors of Halhul and East Jerusalem, the head of the PLO Palestinian Fund, and Palestinians living outside the territories. The experts had also gathered information from several United Nations organizations.

In their report, the experts considered physical factors such as housing, infrastructure, land and settlements, and water resources; economic factors such as employment, income, gross domestic product and gross national product, capital formation, consumption and savings, taxation, sectoral structure of the economy, agriculture and industry; and social and cultural factors, including education and health care.

Summarizing their findings, the experts stated that the shortages of basic facilities in the territories were quite evident and infrastructural facilities were not commensurate with the growing needs of the Palestinian communities. They observed a tendency to segregate services provided to Israeli settlements and Palestinian towns and villages in certain sectors, such as postal services, telecommunications, agriculture and industry. There was pressure on the Palestinian communities to obtain other services, such as water and electricity, from a common network serving the Israeli settlements as well as Israel. The continual expropriation of land by the occupying authorities had reduced the land available to the Palestinian residents; the increase in the establishment of Israeli settlements and their location on the periphery of Arab towns and villages had become an obstacle to the growth and expansion of the latter.

Though the economy of the occupied territories had improved, it continued to be handicapped by lack of long-term planning and programming designed to generate development for the benefit of the indigenous population. The trend had been towards further integration of the economy with that of Israel, thus exposing it to a high rate of inflation. The level of taxation was a burden to the Arab population, as certain elements of the Israeli tax system were not in consonance with the underdeveloped nature of the economy of the territories. Local employment had been falling in the agricultural and industrial sectors and rising in all other sectors. More workers from the territories were commuting to Israel, where their conditions of employment had not shown any appreciable improvement. That almost two thirds of the labour force was in one way or another working in and for the Israeli economy was a deterrent to initiating employment opportunities within the territories that would serve indigenous economic interests.

Agriculture continued to be hindered by loss of land through continuing expropriation, lack of capital for improving production methods and shrinkage in markets. The structure of industry had not shown any significant change over the years of occupation; it was dominated by small enterprises, a high proportion of which were in sub-sectors executing orders for Israeli enterprises. The industrial sector was handicapped by a lack of capital for improving buildings and equipment, difficulties in importing new technology, export restrictions and competition from Israeli products.

The social and cultural conditions of the Palestinians in the territories had continued to deteriorate. The traditional family pattern was breaking down owing to pressures caused by incomes that were inadequate to meet escalating costs of living. Daily activities had been disrupted by frequent curfews, the ever-present possibility of confrontation with Israeli settlers and restrictions in movement, association and expression. Arab residents were deprived of many Arab-language books and periodicals, and there had been instances where Israeli settlers had interfered with their freedom of worship.