Middle East situation – Yearbook of the United Nations 1979 (excerpts)

YEARBOOK

OF THE

UNITED

NATIONS

1979

Volume 33

Department of Public Information

United Nations, New York

Questions relating to the Middle East

In 1979, as in previous years, aspects of the situation in the Middle East occupied the attention of the Security Council, the General Assembly and several other United Nations bodies.  A number of communications were also received, including charges and countercharges, as events in the region evolved.

Following a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that entered into force on 25 April, several withdrawals were made from the Sinai peninsula by Israel. The mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), deployed in the zone of disengagement between Egyptian and Israeli forces in the Sinai, lapsed on 24 July and was not renewed by the Security Council.  The Council in May and November renewed six-month mandates for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), which continued to supervise a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israeli and Syrian forces in the Golan Heights area, noting that, despite the quiet prevailing in the sector, the over-all situation in the Middle East remained potentially dangerous.

At the beginning of 1979, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) had been operational for 10 months. The Force had been established to confirm withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon, restore international peace and security and assist the Lebanese Government in restoring its authority to the southern part of the country.

The mandate was largely unimplemented in 1979.  Lebanese de facto forces, composed of Christian and allied militias, continued to occupy the border area turned over to them by Israeli forces after their withdrawal in June 1978.  The de facto forces, alone or supported by Israeli forces, continued to encroach on the UNIFIL area of operation, and incursions by Israeli forces continued to be reported.  Efforts by UNIFIL to control infiltration by other armed elements, which included the Palestine Liberation Organization as well as the Lebanese national movement and other Lebanese groups, also led to incidents.  Heavy exchanges of fire over and across UNIFIL's area of operation were frequent. Following a cease-fire arranged by UNIFIL on 26 August, the situation remained generally quiet, despite isolated cases of firing.

The Security Council extended UNIFIL's mandate three times during 1979: in January, for a period of five months; in June, for the following six months; and in December, for a further six months until 19 June 1980 (resolutions 444 (1979), 450 (1979) and 459 (1979)).

The General Assembly discussed several aspects of the situation in the Middle East during the year.  Financing for UNDOF was arranged by the Assembly at its regular session on 25 October and on 3 and 17 December. At the last two meetings, the Assembly also arranged financing for the liquidation of UNEF.  Financing for UNIFIL was arranged by the Assembly on 1 November and 17 December.

At the end of October, the Secretary-General submitted a comprehensive report on the situation in the Middle East which was discussed by the Assembly.  The report dealt with: the status of the cease-fire and the activities of the United Nations peace-keeping forces in the area; United Nations efforts concerning the situation in the occupied territories and the question of Jerusalem; the Palestine refugee problem, the question of the rights of the Palestinian people; and developments in connexion with the search for a peaceful settlement. The Secretary-General said that the general situation was unstable and would remain so without a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects

of the Middle East problem.

Throughout the year, Lieutenant-General Ensio P. H. Siilasvuo continued as Chief Coordinator of United Nations Peace-keeping Missions in the Middle East.

Having considered the question of the situation in the Middle East at its regular 1979 session, the Assembly on 6 December adopted resolution 34/70, by which it condemned continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, declared that a just and lasting settlement of the Middle East question must be based on a comprehensive solution, and called anew for the early convening of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East under United Nations auspices.

On 29 November and 12 December, the Assembly adopted four resolutions – 34/65 A-D – on the question of Palestine.  By these texts, the Assembly: expressed its regret and concern that the recommendations drawn up in 1976 by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to be applied in efforts to establish peace in the Middle East, had not been implemented; declared that the 1978 Camp David accords, and other agreements concluded outside the framework of the United Nations purporting to determine the future of the Palestinian people and occupied territories, had no validity; authorized the Palestinian Rights Committee to continue promoting implementation of its recommendations and asked for co-operation in this regard from other United Nations bodies; and requested the Secretary-General to ensure the co-operation of the Secretariat in an expanded programme of information on the subject.

The Security Council met in March to discuss the accelerating erosion of the status of Jerusalem and the rest of the Arab territories occupied by Israel, as a result of the Israeli settlement and colonization of those territories.  On 22 March, it adopted a resolution by which it determined that the Israeli settlement policy had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.  It called again on Israel to abide scrupulously by the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its measures and to desist from changing the legal status, geographical nature or demographic composition of the occupied Arab territories.  The Council also set up a three-member Commission to examine the situation. The Assembly, by resolution 34/133, endorsed a decision of the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme concerning assistance to the Palestinian people and called on United Nations organizations to intensify efforts to improve their social and economic conditions.

The Assembly also adopted three resolutions – 34/90 A-C – on the treatment of the civilian population in the occupied territories, based on the findings of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. In a related action – resolution 34/29 –  it called on Israel to rescind a decision to deport the Mayor of Nablus, a West Bank city. Decisions were also taken declaring illegal Israeli measures to exploit resources, wealth and economic activities in those territories (resolution 34/136) and asking for a comprehensive report on living conditions of the Palestinian people (resolution 34/113).

By six resolutions – 34/52 A-F – on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), adopted on 23 November, the Assembly took decisions dealing with assistance to Palestine refugees and other persons in the area displaced as a result of the June 1967 hostilities, Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip, the return of displaced inhabitants, offers of grants and scholarships for Palestine refugees, and the financing of UNRWA. It also urged Governments to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the needs of UNRWA, in the light of the Agency's budgetary deficit, and asked that UNRWA's headquarters be relocated within its area of operations as soon as possible.  Also considered were the health needs of Palestinian refugee children.

In September, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of a Co-ordinator of Assistance for the Reconstruction and Development of Lebanon.

Details of these and other related actions on Middle Eastern questions are described in the following pages.

Situation in the Middle East:  status of the cease-fire

Egypt-Israel sector: United Nations Emergency Force

Reports of the Secretary-General

The mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) had been renewed in 1978 until 24 July 1979. 1/   On 19 July, the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council a report on the activities of the Force for the period from 18 October 1978 to 19 July 1979.  He observed that during that period the situation in the Egypt-Israel sector had remained quiet and there had been no incidents of a serious nature.  The Force had continued to man and control a buffer zone in the western part of the Sinai, carrying out periodic inspections of the area of limited forces and armaments on both sides of the zone, supervising the cease-fire and assisting in the implementation of the Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 4 September 1975 and the Protocol of 22 September 1975. 2/  A peace treaty signed on 26 March between Egypt and Israel entered into force on 25 April (see p. 355).  On 25 May, Israeli forces withdrew from a northern coastal area in the Sinai to the east of El Arish, and Egyptian authorities took over that area.

However, despite the recent developments in the sector, the situation in the Middle East as a whole continued to be unstable and potentially dangerous and was likely to remain so without a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem.

The Secretary-General noted that, as before, UNEF was composed of contingents from Australia, Canada, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Poland and Sweden.  On 15 March, part of the Finnish contingent had been detached to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, reducing UNEF's total strength as at 16 July to 4,031. The Force was assisted by 120 military observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO).

In concluding his report, the Secretary-General pointed out that the original context in which UNEF was created and had functioned had changed during the period under review.  The Governments of Egypt and Israel favoured an extension of its mandate, but others opposed that course.  The Secretary-General recalled that UNEF's continued operation was to be referred to the Security Council for decision, according to guidelines approved by the Council in its resolution of

27 October 1973. 3/

The Council did not renew UNEF's mandate upon its expiration.

In a further comprehensive report on the situation in the Middle East, of 24 October 1979, the Secretary-General recalled the observations he had made on UNEF in his July report and noted that two further Israeli withdrawals had taken place from other Sinai areas on 25 July and 25 September.

Communications

By a letter of 24 July to the President of the Security Council, the Secretary-General took note of recent Council consultations on UNEF and understood that it had been agreed that there should be no extension of the UNEF mandate, which would lapse at midnight on 24 July. Accordingly, he intended to make the necessary arrangements for an orderly withdrawal of UNEF.

In a letter of 24 July to the Council President, Kuwait dissociated itself from the Council's inaction on the continued presence of UNTSO in the Egypt-Israel sector, because it regarded United Nations involvement within the framework of the bilateral treaty as unacceptable. In a further letter of 31 July to the Secretary-General, Kuwait stated that its position represented also that of the Arab group of Member States at the United Nations.

By a letter of 27 July, Egypt asked that a letter to the Secretary-General of the previous day be circulated as a Council document. It expressed the Egyptian Government's appreciation of the exemplary manner in which UNEF had carried out its functions, assuring the Secretary-General of full co-operation in facilitating the orderly withdrawal of the Force and reaffirming its acceptance of the UNTSO military observers on Egyptian territory.

In a letter of 27 September, Qatar, as current Chairman of the Arab group, informed the Secretary-General that the group was opposed to any action or undertaking by any organ of the United Nations, including UNTSO, which could facilitate the recognition, endorsement, approval and implementation of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.

Documentary references

Reports of the Secretary-General

S/l3460 and Corr.1. Report of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 18 October 1978-19 July 1979).

S/13578 (A/34/584). Report of Secretary-General, Chapter II A and D.

Communications

S/13467. Letter of 24 July from Kuwait.

S/13468. Letter of 24 July from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

S/13475. Letter of 27 July from Egypt (circulating letter of 26 July 1979).

S/13478 (A/34/392).Letter of 31 July from Kuwait.

S/13559 (A/34/520).Letter of 27 September from Qatar.

Other documents

A/35/2. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1979-15 June 1980, Chapter 1D.

Israel-Syria sector: United Nations

Disengagement Observer Force

Communications and reports

In a letter of 13 March 1979, the Secretary-General informed the Security Council that in accordance with a decision of the Government of Iran the Iranian contingent would be repatriated from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).  He proposed to transfer a company of the Finnish contingent of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to UNDOF as a temporary measure.  In a letter of 14 March, the Council President informed him that following informal consultations on that day the Council members had agreed with his proposal, adding that China had dissociated itself from the matter.

In a letter of 26 July to the Council President, the Secretary-General, noting that with the termination of UNEF's mandate on 24 July the logistic support provided to UNDOF by UNEF was no longer available, proposed, subject to the usual consultations, that the logistic component of UNDOF be increased by 200 men, bringing its over-all 200 men, bringing its over-all strength to about 1,450.  Replying on 1 August the Council President informed him that Council members had agreed with his proposal.  China, however, had dissociated itself from the matter.

In a note verbale of 9 August, the Secretary-General informed the Council that, subject to the usual consultations, he intended to accept an offer from Finland to bring the strength of its UNDOF contingent to 390, to equal that of the Iranian battalion which it had replaced in March. In a reply dated 16 August, the Council President informed the Secretary-General that the Council members agreed with his proposal, with China again dissociating itself from the matter.

With the mandate of UNDOF due to expire on 31 May, the Secretary-General submitted a report, dated 24 May, giving an account of the activities of the Force to date from 25 November 1978. The Secretary-General observed that UNDOF had continued to supervise the cease-fire between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic the area of separation – to ensure that there were no military forces there – and the areas of limitation of armaments and forces, in accordance with a 1974 Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces 4/ in the Golan Heights area.

During the period under review, the cease-fire had been maintained, no complaints having been lodged by either side in this regard. The Secretary-General noted, however, that restrictions on contingents' freedom of movement still existed, and efforts to correct that situation were continuing.

As at 18 May, the strength of the Force was 1,025, with contingents drawn from Austria, Canada, Finland and Poland and including 91 military observers detailed from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO).  On 21 April, Colonel Guenther G. Greindl of the Austrian contingent was designated Officer-in-Charge, pending appointment of a new Force Commander to replace Major-General Hannes Philipp, whose term of duty had ended.

The Secretary-General noted that, despite the prevailing quiet in the sector, the situation in the Middle East as a whole continued to be potentially dangerous and was likely to remain so without a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem. He expressed the hope that determined efforts would be made by all concerned to achieve a just and durable peace settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem.  He expressed the hope that determined efforts would be made by all concerned to achieve a just and durable peace settlement, as called for by the Security Council in its resolution 338 (1973). 5/

He considered the continued presence of UNDOF in the area to be essential and recommended that the Council extended its mandate for a further six months, until 30 November.  He added that Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic had agreed to the proposed extension. The Council, by resolution 449 (1979) of 30 May, renewed UNDOF's mandate for six months (see section below).

Before the mandate expired on 30 November, the Secretary-General, on 23 November, submitted a report on the activities of the Force for the period from 25 May to that date. He stated that UNDOF had continued, with the co-operation of the parties, to fulfil the tasks entrusted to it. The situation in the sector had remained quiet and there had been no serious incidents. The strength of the Force as at 23 November was 1,260, made up of contingents from Austria (538), Canada (210), Finland (389) and Poland (101), with 22 United Nations military observers detailed from UNTSO.

However, given the over-all situation in the Middle East, the Secretary-General considered the continued presence of UNDOF in the area to be essential and recommended that its mandate be extended until 31 May 1980, indicating that the Governments concerned had expressed agreement.

In a letter of 29 November, the Secretary-General informed the Council that, if it decided to extend the mandate of UNDOF, he planned, subject to Council consent, to appoint Colonel Greindl Commander of UNDOF as from 1 December. He understood that Austria intended to confer on him the rank of Major-General upon appointment. Replying on 30 November, the Council President informed the Secretary-General that Council members had considered the matter in consultations and agreed with his proposal, adding that China had dissociated itself from the matter.

Decisions of the Security

Council (May and November)

On 30 May, the Council met to consider the report of the Secretary-General on UNDOF covering the period from 25 November 1978 to 24 May 1979 (see section above).

The Council had before it a draft resolution prepared in the course of consultations among the members. The text was immediately put to the vote, without debate, and adopted by 14 votes to 0, with one member (China) not participating in the vote.

By resolution 449 (1979), the Council, having considered the Secretary-General's report, decided to renew the mandate of UNDOF until 30 November 1979, to call on the parties concerned to implement immediately Council resolution 338 (1973), and to request the Secretary-General to report in six months on measures taken to implement that resolution and on developments in the situation.

The Council President then made the following statement.

In connexion with the adoption of the resolution on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, I have been authorized to make the following complementary statement on behalf of the Security Council regarding the resolution just adopted:

"As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force states in paragraph 28 that, 'Despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, the situation in the Middle East as a whole continues to be potentially dangerous and is likely to remain so unless and until a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem can be reached.'  This statement of the Secretary-General reflects the view of the Security Council."

Further, on behalf of the delegation of China, I wish to state that, as it has not participated in the vote on this resolution, it takes the same position with regard to the statement which I have just read out on behalf of the members of the Council.

In a letter of 30 May, Kuwait reaffirmed the views on UNDOF it had expressed during the Council's meeting of 30 November 1978, 6/ reiterating that it accepted the extension of the mandate only because the Syrian Arab Republic accepted it.

The Council met again on 30 November to consider the Secretary-General's report on UNDOF covering the period from 25 May to 23 November 1979 (see section above), and a draft resolution on extension of UNDOF's mandate.  The draft was adopted, without debate, by 14 votes to 0; China did not participate in the vote. By resolution 456 (1979), the Council renewed UNDOF's mandate until 31 May 1980, again called for implementation of resolution 338 (1973), and asked the Secretary-General to report at the end of six months on measures taken to implement it and on developments.

The Council President then made the following statement.

In connexion with the adoption of the resolution on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, I have been authorized to make the following complementary statement on behalf of the Security Council regarding the resolution just adopted:

Documentary references and texts of resolutions

Communications and reports

S/13166. Letter of 13 March from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

S/13167. Letter of 14 March from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.

S/13350. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF (for period 25 November 1978-24 May 1979).

S/13479. Letter of 26 July from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

S/13480. Letter of 1 August from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.

S/13499. Note verbale of 9 August from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

S/13500. Letter of 16 August from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.

S/13637. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF (for period 25 May-23 November 1979).

S/13665. Letter of 29 November from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

S/13666. Letter of 30 November from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.

Decisions of the Security

Council (May and November)

Security Council, meetings 2145, 2174.

S/13350. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF (for period 25 November 1978-24 May 1979).

S/13357. Draft resolution.

Resolution 449 (1979), as proposed in S/13357, adopted by Council on 30 May 1979, meeting 2145, by 14 votes to 0 (China did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

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

Decides:

(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 30 November 1979;

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

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decision, p.6.

S/13362. Note by President of Security Council.

S/13363. Letter of 30 May from Kuwait.

S/13578. (A/34/584). Report of Secretary-General, Chapter II B.

S/13637. Report of Secretary-General on UNDOF (for period 25 May-23 November 1979).

S/13660. Draft resolution.

Resolution 456 (1979) as proposed in S/13660, adopted by Council on 30 November 1979, meeting 2174, by 14 votes to 0 (China did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

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

Decides:

(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 31 May 1980;

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

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decision, p.11.

S/13662. Note by President of Security Council.

S/13864. Letter of 30 November from Kuwait.

Other documents

A/34/2. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1978-15 June 1979, Chapter 1 C.

Situation in the Israel-Lebanon sector

Communications and report (1-19 January)

The President of the Security Council received a number of complaints at the beginning of 1979 concerning incidents in the Israel-Lebanon sector, in which the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was deployed to assist the Lebanese Government in re-establishing its authority in the area.

By a letter of 14 January, Israel informed him of an attack against a guest-house in the town of Ma'alot near the border with Lebanon carried out the previous day by three terrorists who were killed in subsequent fighting. One civilian woman also died, two others were wounded and a soldier was injured. Radio stations in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic had broadcast a statement from the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a constituent of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), taking responsibility for the attack, Israel said.

On 16 and 19 January, Kuwait transmitted letters from the Acting Observer of PLO to the United Nations concerning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. On 15 and 19 January, Israeli naval artillery bombarded coastal Rashidiyah and Burj ash Shamali, and another force shelled an inland area extending from Nabatiyah to Hasbani. Six persons were killed, nine wounded and several houses destroyed.

In a letter of 19 January, Yemen expressed its Government's condemnation of Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps inside Lebanon on 16 and 18 January, the continued presence of Israeli military personnel in that country and interference by Israel in Lebanese domestic affairs. Yemen considered it imperative that the Council take action against Israel under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. 7/

In a letter of 12 January, the Secretary-General informed the Council that the French infantry battalion and the Iranian contingent of UNIFIL would be withdrawn. Subject to the renewal of the mandate of UNIFIL and the usual consultations, he intended to accept the offer of the Netherlands to provide an infantry battalion on 1 March and of Fiji and Nigeria to increase their contingents by 300 and 150 respectively. Replying on 17 January, the President stated that Council members agreed with the Secretary-General's proposals, although China had dissociated itself from the matter.

With the mandate of UNIFIL due to expire on 19 January, the Secretary-General submitted a report to the Council on 12 January, giving an account of activities of the Force from 14 September 1978 to date.

He noted that during the period under review the UNIFIL activities had been concentrated on three objectives: to ensure that the area was not used for hostile activities and to promote a progressive return to normal conditions; to extend its deployment in the border area, which had been handed over to Lebanese de facto armed groups by the Israeli forces during the last phase of their withdrawal in June 1978; and to assist the Government of Lebanon in restoring its effective authority in the area.  It had also continued to support the United Nations emergency relief and reconstruction programme for southern Lebanon (see p. 419).

As at 12 January, the strength of UNIFIL was 5,888, with contingents drawn from Fiji, France, Iran, Ireland, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway and Senegal and including 36 military observers from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO). The Force continued to be commanded by Major-General Emmanuel Alexander Erskine.

A joint working group of UNIFIL and the Lebanese army was set up in December 1978 to work out ways of promoting deployment of the army in southern Lebanon. Through these efforts, in January 1979 small teams of Lebanese military personnel were attached to the UNIFIL contingents in order to represent the Lebanese Government in the area.

In the area where it had full control, UNIFIL had continued to prevent the entry of armed personnel and to provide the population with some measure of assurance and safety. However, despite energetic efforts by the Chief Co-ordinator of United Nations Peace-keeping Missions in the Middle East and the Force Commander, there had been virtually no further progress deploying the Force in the area in the south held by de facto armed groups composed of Christian and allied militias; the Israeli authorities maintained that UNIFIL suggestions on further deployment should be discussed with Major Saad Haddad of the Lebanese de facto groups. Although it was obliged to deal with Major Haddad on a pragmatic basis, UNIFIL considered that it could not officially recognize his status or his right to control the remainder of UNIFIL's area of operation.

Incidents involving the de facto armed groups had occurred almost daily. The Secretary-General called the attention of the Council to a pattern of behaviour on the part of the de facto forces suggesting a deliberate intention to harass UNIFIL in its efforts to fulfil the tasks assigned to it by the Council in its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426(1978) of 19 March 1978. 8/  The Force lacked the co-operation of both the de facto groups and the Israel Defence Force. There were, in addition, a number of incidents during the reporting period involving Palestinian armed elements and Lebanese de facto forces and between Israeli forces and Palestinian elements outside the UNIFIL area of operation, as well as occasional incidents involving Palestinian and Lebanese groups and UNIFIL, mainly attempts at infiltration.  On a number of occasions, UNIFIL had also observed the presence of Israeli military personnel on Lebanese territory.

The Force had reached the end of its second mandate period with the tasks assigned it unfinished.  The Secretary-General added that UNIFIL performed an essentially stabilizing function and that its premature withdrawal would inevitably disrupt the fragile peace existing in southern Lebanon.  He said the Lebanese Government had informed him of its full agreement with his recommendation for a six-month extension of the Force's mandate.  He reiterated that the situation in southern Lebanon could not be divorced from the situation in the rest of the country and in the region as a whole.

Consideration by the

Security Council (19 January)

The Security Council met on 19 January to consider the Secretary-General's report on UNIFIL.

At their request, Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic were invited to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. Kuwait asked the Council, in a letter of 19 January, to invite the PLO representative to participate in the discussion.  The Council President observed that the proposal had not been made pursuant to rule 37 9/ or rule 39 10/ of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.  If approved, the invitation would confer on PLO the same rights as those conferred on Member States when invited to participate under rule 37.

At the request of the United States, the Council took a vote on the Kuwaiti proposal, which was adopted by 10 votes to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom).

The United States recalled that it had consistently taken the position that representatives of PLO could be granted a hearing under rule 39 but not with the same rights as a Member State.  It believed that the special procedure employed was not appropriate.

Before the discussion, a draft resolution, prepared in the course of consultations among members, was adopted as resolution 444 (1979) by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and the USSR).  China did not participate in the voting.

By the preamble, the Council, having studies the Secretary- General's report and expressing concern over the situation in southern Lebanon, reaffirmed the necessity for strict respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon.  Re-emphasizing the temporary nature of UNIFIL, the Council, by the operative paragraphs of the resolution:  deplored the lack of co-operation, particularly on Israel's part, with UNIFIL's efforts to implement fully its mandate; expressed satisfaction with the declared policy of the Lebanese Government and the steps taken for deployment of its army in the south; and invited that Government to draw up, in consultation with the Secretary-General, a phased programme of activities to be carried out over the following three months to promote the restoration of its authority.  Deciding to renew the mandate of UNIFIL for a period of five months, until 19 June, the Council urged all Member States in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear on those concerned so that UNIFIL could discharge its responsibilities fully and unhampered.  It reaffirmed its determination, in the event of continuing obstruction of UNIFIL's mandate, to examine practical ways in accordance with the United Nations Charter to secure the full implementation of resolution 425 (1978) of 19 March 1978.

After adoption of the resolution, the President said he was authorized to make the following statement on behalf of the Council.

In a statement to the Council, the Secretary-General appealed to the parties concerned to modify their attitude so as to afford UNIFIL the co-operation necessary for it to be effective. He believed strongly that UNIFIL's success would benefit all parties and make a major contribution to peace in the area. He believed that the current situation was serious and UNIFIL's credibility was at stake.

In response to questions from Council members concerning a reported Israeli military operation in southern Lebanon early that morning, the Secretary-General said that the incident, which involved a heavy exchange of fire between armed elements to the north of the Litani River and de facto forces and Israeli forces in the south, had taken place north of the UNIFIL area and UNIFIL had not been involved in the action.

The majority of speakers considered the Secretary-General's report to be a realistic appraisal of a potentially dangerous situation. They deplored Israel's aggressive actions, which blocked the deployment of UNIFIL on the internationally recognized borders of Lebanon and made it impossible for the Force to complete its mandate.

Most members stressed the fact that UNIFIL could succeed only with the co-operation of the parties directly concerned and discussed ways of securing that co-operation. Bangladesh, France, Kuwait, Nigeria, Norway, the United Kingdom and Zambia believed that the role of UNIFIL was seriously diminished by the active harassment the Force was experiencing in southern Lebanon near the Litani River.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway said that full deployment of the Force would be a positive contribution to the security of all States in the region. He shared the Secretary- General's concern about harassment of UNIFIL by de facto forces – a situation that went beyond a mere lack of co-operation.  The United Kingdom said that the pattern of behaviour of those forces suggested a deliberate attempt to harass UNIFIL.  Bangladesh and Zambia believed that the collusion between Israeli authorities and the armed groups under Major Haddad were maintaining for Israel a de facto occupation zone in Lebanon. Kuwait held a similar view: UNIFIL, instead of protecting Lebanon and assisting it to safeguard its territorial integrity and sovereignty, was being held hostage to rebels supported and controlled by Israel.

Jamaica and Portugal emphasized UNIFIL's role in restoring peace and security to its area of operation and deplored the attitude of parties that did not give the Force their full co-operation.  Gabon said that the parties concerned must be made to realize that they must co-operate with UNIFIL. Bangladesh, Bolivia and Kuwait also felt that pressure should be brought to bear on reluctant parties.  The United Kingdom considered that refusal to co-operate with the peace-keeping forces threatened the fragile equilibrium in Lebanon.

Bangladesh, China, Czechoslovakia, Kuwait and the USSR felt that it was the Council's duty to condemn Israel for criminal aggression against Lebanon. Bangladesh said the Council should have called directly on Israel to desist from interfering with UNIFIL's operations and to cease forthwith its military collaboration with the outlaw forces in the area. Czechoslovakia, Jamaica and Kuwait, among others, believed that the only way to restore peace was for Member States to exert pressure on Israel.

The USSR said it had been shown that Israel and its protégés, the anti-Government detachments under Major Haddad's command, were responsible for the continuing tension in the area. While it expressed dissatisfaction that the resolution did not contain a firm condemnation of Israel, it had not opposed its adoption because the Arab parties directly interested wanted the mandate extended. The USSR, however, confirmed its position on such questions as control of the Force by the Council, the principles for selection of national contingents and the system of financing, including its view that the costs should be borne by the aggressor. Czechoslovakia, in abstaining, also confirmed its position with regard to the finances of the Force.

The United States stressed the need for co-operation by all parties – not only by Israel and the de facto forces. It said that those who had directed the infiltration into the UNIFIL area and, through it, into Israel by armed Palestinian elements should also cease such activities.

Bangladesh, Gabon and Kuwait considered that the Council faced a problem in connexion with the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate. Gabon said it might become necessary to review either the nature of UNIFIL or its mandate. Bangladesh said that the Council should perhaps seriously consider either the withdrawal of UNIFIL or the strengthening of its mandate into an enforcement role under relevant provisions of the Charter. As matters stood, UNIFIL had no authority to use force against harassment, and its presence was being turned to the advantage of the aggressors. Kuwait expressed dissatisfaction at the renewal of the mandate of a force which, it said, was a victim of Israel's trickery, but believed that without UNIFIL's presence Israel would invent an excuse to invade the area. Meanwhile, Kuwait said, UNIFIL's task of restoring peace and security could not be carried out, thereby making the Council a party to the failure of its own decisions.

Nigeria felt it was essential to recall a cardinal aspect of the mandate – the principle of strict respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon within its recognized boundaries – in order to avoid UNIFIL's being turned into a force for the protection of Israel's northern border.

China, which did not take part in the vote because of its position with regard to United Nations peace-keeping operations, felt that Lebanon's territorial integrity was at risk and approved of those paragraphs of the resolution condemning Israel's obstruction of the exercise of sovereignty by the Lebanese Government in southern Lebanon.

The question of the mandate's duration was discussed by Bangladesh, Bolivia, France, Jamaica, Nigeria and the United States. France said that by renewing the mandate for five months, instead of the six months that had been requested, the Council had indicated that it refused to accept the existing situation, one which endangered its authority. France could not have supported a renewed mandate carrying the implication that UNIFIL would become a permanent fixture in the region. It had accepted five months rather than the four months it favoured because of the technical difficulties a short mandate would produce for the Secretary-General and his services.

Jamaica, Nigeria and the United States would have preferred a full six-month renewal but could not accept UNIFIL's permanent presence in the area.

A number of countries, including Bangladesh, China, France, Kuwait, the United Kingdom and the United States, endorsed the President's statement inviting Lebanon to undertake activities to restore its legal presence in southern Lebanon. France and Kuwait expressed approval of the initial measures taken in that connexion by Lebanon in collaboration with UNIFIL. The United Kingdom also welcomed these efforts and hoped to see in the following three months a determined attempt to extend the presence of the Lebanese Government, civilian as well as military, to the south.

Jamaica referred to the recent action by Israeli forces, as reported by the Secretary-General. That attack must be seen as outright defiance of the Council, not only because Israeli troops had crossed the UNIFIL area of operation, but also because the invasion had taken place at the height of the Council's consideration of the renewal of the Force's mandate.

Lebanon said that it would have preferred a more explicit condemnation of Israel and further strengthening of UNIFIL's effective capabilities. The latest Israeli aggression, that same morning, against Lebanon was further proof that Israel had opted for continued war in Lebanon while pretending to seek peace elsewhere. The Lebanese Government had no desire to perpetuate UNIFIL's presence, but it strongly believed that there was a clear international commitment which Israel's defiance should not be allowed to destroy. Lebanon expressed satisfaction that the resolution called for a definitive plan of action, within a limited time-frame. It felt capable of being fully associated with UNIFIL in the execution of that plan, and the Lebanese Parliament completely supported the joint action.

Israel expressed regret that the Council had so far failed to come to grips with the central issue. Instead, Israel said, it had again produced an unbalanced political resolution singling out Israel for criticism but without facing the real threat to UNIFIL, in the implementation of its mandate and to international peace and security. The frequency and gravity of terrorist-instigated incidents had increased. According to Israel, armed PLO terrorists south of the Litani River threatened the inhabitants of northern Israel, the villagers of southern Lebanon and the men of UNIFIL. Israel, in striking at PLO bases, was exercising its inherent right of self-defence. Israel said it also considered the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon a threat to the peace and security of that country.

Israel remained committed to the restoration of international peace and of genuine Lebanese authority throughout Lebanon. To detach the question of southern Lebanon from the situation in Lebanon as a whole would not enhance the cause of peace.

The PLO representative said that his organization had co-operated with UNIFIL from the beginning, as the Secretary- General's report had made clear. It was totally committed to respect for Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. He denied that acts of the Palestinians in defence of their rights could be regarded as terrorism. In the PLO's view, Israel, for the past 30 years, had subjected the Palestinian people to criminal acts.

The Syrian Arab Republic said that the documented incidents described in the Secretary-General's report pointed to Israel as the only culprit in the Lebanese situation. Moreover, Syrian forces were in Lebanon with the express permission of the Lebanese Government, as part of the Arab Deterrent Force agreed upon by the League of Arab States.

Communications and reports

(23 January-25 April)

In letters of 23 January and 11 April to the Secretary-General, the representative of Lebanon submitted new charges that Israeli forces had shelled and attacked by air villages and refugee camps in Lebanon, causing injuries and three deaths. In a letter of 8 March, he protested against an incident that had taken place on 6 March within UNIFIL's area of operation, in which a Lebanese army officer had been physically assaulted by an Israeli major, following an incident near the village of Haris involving the French battalion of UNIFIL and unidentified armed elements with the major.

Kuwait transmitted on 23 January and on 11, 24 and 25 April several letters to the President of the Security Council from the Permanent Observer or Deputy Permanent Observer of PLO: on 22 January, PLO called attention to an Israeli armoured advance and artillery and rocket bombardment of several towns and refugee camps in Lebanon; on 10 April, it called for immediate measures to halt such acts as an Israeli air force raid that day on Tyre and Damour in which five persons were killed; and on 23 and 24 April, PLO protested against Israeli naval and air force raids on those and preceding days on refugee camps in Lebanon, including northern Lebanon, resulting in several deaths, among which were women and children.

On 2 February, the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted to the Secretary-General two letters of 31 January from the PLO Deputy Permanent Observer, by one of which he reported that explosives planted in a car in Beirut by the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, had caused the death of the Chief of Security of the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, four of his assistants and five civilian passers-by, and injuries to 20 others. (See also p. 382.)

In a letter of 24 January to the Council President and in letters of 16, 19 and 22 April to the Secretary-General, the Israeli representative submitted complaints of infiltration, and of indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets in Israel, causing eight Israeli deaths on 22 April by a terrorist gang, and numerous injuries and property damage during that period, committed by PLO elements operating from Lebanese territory. He listed additional incidents since the beginning of the year in which he said 17 children had been casualties of PLO outrages. (See also p. 356.)

In a special report of 19 April, the Secretary-General drew the Council's attention to incidents in which de facto forces under Major Haddad had shelled UNIFIL positions, including its headquarters at Naqoura and barracks at Tyre, on 15 and 18 April in connexion with the move of the Lebanese army contingent into southern Lebanon. In an exchange of fire, a UNIFIL soldier was killed, eight UNIFIL members were wounded by shelling, and buildings and vehicles were damaged.

In an interim report of the same date, submitted pursuant to resolution 444 (1979) (see preceding section), the Secretary-General informed the Council on the phased programme of activities

to promote restoration of the authority of the Lebanese Government in southern Lebanon, and described the situation in UNIFIL's area of operation where the number of incidents – infiltration attempts, hijacking of vehicles and firing – involving UNIFIL with armed elements and de facto forces had increased during the review period. There had been numerous breaches of the cease-fire by armed elements deployed west and north of the UNIFIL area, by the de facto forces under Major Haddad and, on occasion, by Israeli forces.

On 3 February, two Fijian soldiers had been killed and four wounded in an attack on UNIFIL positions in the Qana area, and four members of a Norwegian medical team had been killed in a helicopter crash. A French soldier had been killed and two wounded in a small-arms attack on UNIFIL headquarters on 29 March. There had been 200 recorded border violations by Israeli military personnel up to 8 April, as well as airspace violations, heavy exchanges of fire between Lebanese de facto forces and armed elements north of the Litani River, and several incidents involving Israeli forces and Palestinian armed elements outside the UNIFIL area of operation.

Efforts had been concentrated on the first phase of the programme  of activities in the south, which included four points: (a) the increase of the presence of civilian administration by the Lebanese Government, including reinforcement of the Lebanese gendarmerie, (b) the further deployment of Lebanese military personnel; (c) the intensification of United Nations and UNIFIL efforts to consolidate the cease-fire and to end harassment by the de facto forces; and (d) intensified efforts to secure further deployment of UNIFIL and control of the border area, placing special emphasis on enlisting the co-operation of the Government of Israel.

The Secretary-General observed that little progress had been achieved on the basis of the above plan, as Major Haddad had expressed strong opposition to the move of the Lebanese army contingent into southern Lebanon and had threatened to fire on UNIFIL and Lebanese army units if the proposed move took place.

In response to diplomatic efforts, Israel agreed to co-operate with UNIFIL to facilitate the planned move. On 17 April, the Lebanese army contingent left Beirut, arrived in southern Lebanon early the following morning and was deployed in the UNIFIL area.

The Secretary-General viewed the situation with anxiety, observing that UNIFIL was blocked in fully implementing its mandate and, by force of circumstances, was playing a role substantially different from the role it was set up to play; nevertheless it was performing an invaluable task in bringing calm to a sorely affected area.

In a letter of 25 April, the representative of Lebanon, drawing the Council's attention to the grave situation resulting from what he said was Israel's obstruction of the implementation of the phased programme of activities called for in resolution 444 (1979), requested a meeting of the Council to examine the Secretary-General's special and interim reports of 19 April.

Consideration by the

Security Council (26 April)

The Security Council met without formal debate on 26 April in response to Lebanon's request of 25 April.

The President referred to extensive consultations that had been held with the members of the Council and other interested parties, as a result of which he had been authorized to make the following statement on behalf of the Council members.

Communications and report (30 April-15 May)

By a letter of 30 April to the Council President, the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted the text of a telegram of 25 April from the Chairman of PLO to the Secretary-General, charging that for five consecutive days the Palestinian and Lebanese people in southern Lebanon had been subjected to a war of elimination carried out by Israeli forces by air, ground and sea, using all manner of destructive weapons given them by the United States.

In a letter of 1 May to the Council President, Israel expressed support for the objective set out in his statement of 26 April (see preceding section) regarding the return of the Lebanese Government's effective authority over all its territory, and charged that that objective could not be realized unless the foreign domination of Lebanon imposed by Syrian and PLO forces was withdrawn.

In a letter of 2 May, Lebanon inquired of the Council President what measures had been taken towards urgent implementation of the phased programme of activities. If none had been taken, Lebanon felt it was imperative that the Council should meet without delay to take appropriate measures.

Referring to the Syrian role in Lebanon, in a letter of 4 May to the President, the Syrian representative stately that his country was committed to one Lebanon and his Government's forces were there in response to an appeal by the Lebanese Government and people and as part of the Arab Deterrent Force under the direct command of the Lebanese Government, which had the full right to decide on the duration of its mission in Lebanon.

By letters dated 30 April and 8 May, Kuwait transmitted to the President letters of 27 April and 7 May from the Permanent Observer of PLO, complaining of the use against civilians on 18 April and since then of a type of artillery weapon known as the fragmentation shell, causing scores of deaths, hundreds of injured and heavy damage, and of aerial bombardment by Israeli forces on 6 May of Lebanese villages and Palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon.

In a letter of 7 May to the President, Lebanon, referring to the increasing difficulties encountered by UNIFIL, said it was imperative that the Council consider taking further steps in accordance with the Charter to implement fully resolution 425 (1978), towards which the phased programme was only a first step. The programme of activities had not been carried through because of forceful opposition, and Israel's responsibility in this regard had been proved. The measures called for by the Council on 26 April concerning UNIFIL's safety were only a first step towards completing the programme, which should give the Force full freedom of movement in the border areas. Beyond the programme, UNIFIL must acquire control of the so-called enclave, up to the internationally recognized boundaries.

Lebanon felt that UNIFIL should have a greater military credibility. It hoped that the Council would find a way to redefine UNIFIL's mission in a manner guaranteeing the implementation of resolution 425(1978), and asked that its letter be submitted for Council consideration at the earliest possible time. Lebanon charged that Israeli military personnel were still inside Lebanon, that they exercised a determining influence in the border area and that their continued use of the so-called de facto Christian forces, which were equipped, financed and controlled by Israel, remained a major obstacle to implementation of the Council's resolutions and restoration of Lebanese national sovereignty.

By a letter of 9 May to the Secretary-General, the representative of Sri Lanka transmitted a communiqué issued that day by the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, condemning Israel for its continued violation of the territorial integrity of Lebanon. The Bureau also expressed concern for the safety of UNIFIL and called on the Security Council to take steps to end Israeli aggression and restore Lebanese authority over its territory.

On the same date, and again on 14 May, Israel submitted to the Council President charges of a series of terrorist activities in Israeli territory over the preceding six months carried out by PLO elements operating from Lebanon, where, it asserted, some 14,000 to 16,000 armed terrorists were to be found, several hundred of them inside the UNIFIL area of operation. Their criminal activities had resulted in the deaths of 17 civilians and the injury of 240 others. It was time, Israel continued, for every effort to be made to achieve a negotiated peace between Israel and Lebanon. To that end, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had on 7 May in a Knesset address made a direct appeal to President Elias Sarkis of Lebanon, inviting him to discuss a peace treaty between their two countries. The 14 May letter charged that a PLO explosion in Tiberias that day had killed two persons and wounded 32 others.

In a special report on UNIFIL of 9 May, the Secretary-General informed the Council of an incursion that morning by Israeli troops and tanks into the UNIFIL area of operation in the vicinity of the village of Shaqra. The Force had lodged a strong protest. Subsequently, de facto forces had appeared, and Major Haddad, with two Israel Defence Force officers, had asked to search some houses that they suspected were occupied by armed elements, which, they said, had raided the Israeli village of Ramin the night before. Their request was refused by the UNIFIL Commander. Soldiers of the UNIFIL Irish battalion had then searched two houses but found nothing. Following further discussions, the Israeli forces had withdrawn.

Consideration by the

Security Council (15 May)

The Council met without formal debate on 15 May to consider Lebanon's letter of 7 May (see preceding section).

The Council President made the following statement as a result of consultations held with Council members.

In the absence of any objections to this line of action, the President of the Council will proceed with his present diplomatic efforts.

Communications (16-30 May)

In a letter of 16 May, Israel, referring to the statement by the Council President, informed him that the Israeli Government supported the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon, and reiterated that the situation in southern Lebanon could not be detached from the situation in the country as a whole. It asserted that PLO constituted a menace not only to Israel, UNIFIL and the citizens of southern Lebanon, but also to the restoration of Lebanese authority in the south where there were some 2,000 armed PLO terrorists. That restoration, it said, was also hampered by the presence of the Syrian army.

On 17 May, Lebanon transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of a resolution adopted at the Tenth Conference of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Islamic States, held at Fez, Morocco, between 8 and 12 May. The Conference had strongly condemned Israeli acts of aggression in Lebanon, called for measures to end them and apply sanctions, and called on the Security Council to enforce its resolutions regarding southern Lebanon.

In letters of 24 and 29 May to the Secretary-General, Lebanon charged that Israeli warplanes, ships and artillery had again attacked towns, villages and refugee camps in southern Lebanon on 23 May, causing deaths, injuries and material damage.

On 25 May, Kuwait transmitted to the Council President a letter of the preceding day to the Secretary-General from the PLO Permanent Observer, charging that on 22 and 23 May Israeli aircraft, ships and artillery had caused 11 deaths, numerous injuries and destruction in Palestinian refugee camps and settlements in southern Lebanon, and had seized a merchant vessel flying a Panamanian flag.

By a letter of 30 May, Lebanon transmitted a memorandum to the Council, proposing: a review of the question of southern Lebanon; the revival of the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission (ILMAC) and creation of conditions that would make it operationally more effective; respect for the General Armistice Agreement of 22 March 1949 between Israel and Lebanon; 12/ and a redefinition of the mandate and prerogatives of UNIFIL, so as to assure its freedom of deployment, secure Israel's total and unconditional withdrawal, and restore the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon.

On the same date, Lebanon requested the Council President to call an urgent meeting to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation in southern Lebanon resulting from escalation of Israeli attacks.

Consideration by the

Security Council (31 May)

The Security Council met on 31 May in response to Lebanon's request of 30 May.

The representatives of Israel and Lebanon, at their request, were invited to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. On a proposal by Kuwait, the Council also decided, by 10 votes to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom), to invite the PLO representative to participate in the discussion in accordance with the procedure established at a previous meeting (see p. 322). The United States, which had requested the vote, reiterated its position: it was prepared to agree to a hearing of PLO's representative only under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. 13/

In a statement to the Council, the Secretary-General reported that since 26 May there had been a heavy daily exchange of artillery and mortar fire between the de facto forces and armed elements situated in the Tyre pocket and to the north of the Litani River. Some of the de facto forces' fire had been directed at targets in the UNIFIL area of operation, causing casualties among the civilian population and the destruction of some UNIFIL buildings. As a result, the inhabitants of the area were in a state of extreme disturbance, and that had inevitably shaken their confidence in UNIFIL.

The reason given by Major Haddad for shelling targets in the UNIFIL area was that firing was being directed at de facto forces from inside that area – an allegation that was totally rejected by UNIFIL in a public statement on 30 May. All firing ceased on the morning of 31 May, the armed elements and de facto forces agreeing to the cease-fire.

The Secretary-General was deeply concerned at the prevailing situation. He had no doubt that, if the cease-fire was not maintained, the exodus of the civilian population would increase, as would the risk of loss of life both to the population and to UNIFIL personnel. The Secretary-General noted that there had been continuous efforts aimed at further deployment of the Force in the whole of its area of operation.

The representative of Lebanon, after reviewing the efforts undertaken since 15 May to create better conditions for implementation of relevant Council resolutions, asked the Council to issue an injunction to end all acts of hostility against Lebanon and all Israeli violation of its sovereignty, to make a strong and determined effort to fulfil the mandate of UNIFIL, and to restore immediately the General Armistice Agreement of 1949, which he considered to be the only valid framework for peace in southern Lebanon.

Lebanon was prepared to discuss a resolution which would articulate those proposals. However, should hostilities continue and Israel persist in its defiance, Lebanon felt strongly that a condemnation of that country would become imperative, as would the search for new avenues provided for by the Charter. Only peace, not further violence, could bring an end to the Palestinian dispersion – a Diaspora-in-revolt – the representative said. The Christians in southern Lebanon were first and foremost Lebanese citizens. They should not be considered accessories to Israel's strategic interest. Their future depended on Lebanon's restored independence and sovereignty, and their security was best guaranteed by UNIFIL.

The representative of Israel reiterated that his Government supported the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries. According to Israel, PLO terrorist groups were responsible for the situation in southern Lebanon. In the preceding few months, there had been a marked escalation in criminal acts against Israel perpetrated from Lebanese territory. In those circumstances, Israel was compelled to exercise its inherent right of self-defence. Its actions were specifically directed against concentrations of terrorists in Lebanon. Unfortunately, for years those terrorists had chosen to take cover behind refugees in camps and Lebanese civilians in towns and villages throughout that country.

The PLO representative said that Israel had distorted the facts. His organization was committed to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity of Lebanon. The Palestinians were not in Lebanon by choice; they were there because they had been expelled from their homes and property in Palestine and supplanted by immigrants. In PLO's view, the destruction of the Palestinian nation was the greatest act of terror committed in recent history. No other people was as interested in peace, because no other people had suffered as long. For the sake of peace, the Palestinians would continue to struggle until their rights were restored. It was their right to fight against the illegal occupation of their land.

Ninety-nine per cent of the victims of Israeli air attacks were civilians, according to PLO, and the aeroplanes and weapons used were made in the United States.

Communications and report (31 May-11 June)

In a letter of 31 May, the Secretary-General  informed the Security Council of Norway's  decision to withdraw its helicopter unit from UNIFIL at the end of the current mandate. He  intended to accept the offer of the Italian Government to provide a replacement unit, subject to the usual consultations.

The Council President informed him on 7 June that, following informal consultations that day, Council members agreed with his proposals. China had dissociated itself from the matter.

In a letter of 5 June, Israel informed the Secretary-General that on 4 June, in Israeli waters, an Israeli navy coastal patrol had intercepted and sunk a speedboat armed with missiles and a floating rocket-launcher. Israel also reported similar terrorist acts, and others, against Israeli civilians in April and May, for which PLO had claimed responsibility.

By a letter of 6 June, Kuwait transmitted a letter of 25 May to the Secretary-General from the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee charging that the Israeli air force had attacked two villages south of Beirut, inflicting heavy casualties on Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, and had continued attacks by land, sea and air against southern Lebanon.

In a letter of 11 June to the Secretary-General, the representative of Lebanon complained that Israeli war-planes had been overflying Beirut and other areas of Lebanon for seven consecutive days. Shelling was also continuing. He submitted a list of 12 incidents that had occurred in Lebanon between 6 and 10 June, after the latest cease-fire of 31 May.

In a report of 8 June, before expiration of UNIFIL's mandate on 19 June, the Secretary-General gave an account of the activities of the Force during the period from 13 January to date. Contacts with the parties had been maintained both at United Nations Headquarters, New York, and in the area. The deployment of a Lebanese army battalion in the UNIFIL area of operation and an increase of Lebanese civilian administrative personnel in southern Lebanon represented important steps towards restoring Lebanese authority and sovereignty.

Despite all efforts, however, a stalemate had persisted since mid-April, aggravated by  heightened tension in the area. Continued representations to the Israeli authorities had thus far failed to achieve the change of position required for a significant improvement in UNIFIL's  deployment.

Incidents involving Lebanese and Palestinian armed elements and UNIFIL, mostly attempts at infiltration, had significantly increased during the five months under review: UNIFIL had reported 291 border violations.

There had, however, been certain developments  that might lead to a relaxation of tension. The PLO leadership had reaffirmed its commitment not to initiate any action from inside the UNIFIL area of operation and had stated that it would not shell Israel Defence Force or de facto force targets  from Lebanese territory unless first attacked. A joint communiqué issued by PLO and allied Lebanese parties stated that all armed forces would be evacuated from villages and towns and that PLO offices would be removed from Tyre.

The Secretary-General again emphasized the indispensable function performed by UNIFIL in bringing calm to the area and in reducing the threat to international peace and security. For that  reason, he recommended the extension of UNIFIL's  mandate for a further six months and said that the Lebanese Government had informed him of its agreement with that recommendation.

The Secretary-General reiterated his view that UNIFIL could not continue to function without an adequate security zone around its Naqoura headquarters, cessation of harassment of the civilian population and UNIFIL by the de facto forces, a change in the Israeli authorities' position and continuation of the over-all co-operation of PLO.

Consideration by the

Security Council (12 and 14 June)

On 12 June, the Security Council resumed its debate on the complaint by Lebanon of 30 May and its consideration of the 25 May letter from Kuwait annexing PLO's communication of 24 May, the letter from Lebanon of 11 June and the Secretary-General's report of 8 June concerning the UNIFIL operation.

In addition to Israel, Lebanon and PLO, the Council invited the representatives of Egypt, Iran, Ireland, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Netherlands and the Syrian Arab Republic, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

The Secretary-General said that since his report there had been renewed exchanges of fire between Palestinian armed elements near Beaufort Castle and the de facto forces in the Marjayoun area, and air raids by Israel against targets north of the UNIFIL area of operation.

While recommending extension of the mandate, the Secretary- General re-emphasized the conditions essential to UNIFIL's functioning: an adequate security zone around its headquarters; cessation of harassment; a change in Israel's position; and continued PLO co-operation. Unless those conditions were met, there was no real possibility for the Force to complete its mandate,  and it might even become necessary to envisage withdrawal of the Force, despite all the dangers that would entail.

With regard to the financial aspect of the UNIFIL operation, the Secretary-General found it regrettable that the troop- contributing countries could not expect anything near the reimbursement to which they were entitled. He appealed to all United Nations Member Governments to consider urgently what measures they could take to alleviate that burden.

Most speakers, including those from Bangladesh, China, Czechoslovakia, France, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the USSR, the United Kingdom and Zambia, believed that the deteriorating situation and the erosion of UNIFIL's authority and credibility were due to Israel's policy and its unwillingness to co-operate with the United Nations, and that the completion of UNIFIL's mandate was contingent on a basic change in Israel's attitude. Ireland noted that UNIFIL was chiefly obstructed in the exercise of its mandate by the de facto forces supported by Israel. The United States also felt that Israel had not co-operated fully with UNIFIL, and could not accept a situation in which UNIFIL was constantly harassed by forces supplied and assisted by Israel. However, it felt that the Arab world must assist Lebanon in requiring Palestinian extremist elements in Lebanon to cease their activities against Israel. France expressed the hope that Israel would adopt an attitude more in accord with Council decisions and the interests of peace.

Kuwait believed that the only way to make Israel change its attitude was through the intervention of the United States. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya expressed regret that Israel's aggressive policy was encouraged by the support it received from the United States. The Syrian Arab Republic believed that Israel, encouraged by its separate peace treaty with Egypt, would continue to defy the Council's authority. Iran said that the basic issue was whether the community of nations was going to allow the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a Member State, Lebanon, to be flagrantly and repeatedly violated.

Arab States, supported by Bangladesh, Nigeria and the USSR, believed that the escalation of Israel's attacks demanded prompt Council action, including Charter measures, and supported a six-month extension of UNIFIL's mandate.

China strongly condemned Israel, believing that the Middle East question could only be solved by forcing Israel to withdraw from all occupied Arab territories and by restoring the national rights of the Palestinian people. Bangladesh, Bolivia, Egypt, Iran, Nigeria and the Syrian Arab Republic agreed with the view that the solution for Lebanon was linked to the entire problem of the Middle East and involved a settlement of the Palestinian question.

The Syrian Arab Republic believed that the Council should redefine UNIFIL's mandate to enable the Force to carry it out.  It believed that UNIFIL should be empowered to defend itself when attacked by Israeli or de facto forces.  It also agreed with the Lebanese proposal to reactivate ILMAC, in order to find out who was in fact violating the cease-fire agreement and crossing international borders.

Bangladesh, France, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom welcomed PLO's decision to withdraw its armed forces from towns and villages in Lebanon and the reaffirmation of its commitment not to attack first.  Jamaica said that action represented a positive development which took into account the welfare of the Lebanese people and could significantly help to restore peace in Lebanon if matched by a corresponding commitment from the other parties.  Jamaica and the United Kingdom believed that it was in Israel's best interests to co-operate with UNIFIL and expressed concern that Israel planned to continue its policy of pre-emptive strikes against PLO bases. Kuwait said that Israel's response to PLO's gesture had been to intensify its campaign against the Palestinians.

The United States said it was not aware that PLO's commitment to reduce violence in southern Lebanon had actually been carried out and hoped that the promised withdrawal would, in fact, take place.

The PLO representative said that the position of his organization on UNIFIL was one of full co-operation in order to allow it to implement its mandate.  The previous week, on 5 June, PLO and the Lebanese national movement had adopted a declaration that would facilitate UNIFIL's work and accommodate the Lebanese Government. Among essential points of that declaration, the PLO had declared that it would withdraw all resistance offices from Tyre and all armed forces from villages and towns in southern Lebanon. Israel, he said, had responded to that gesture by air raids on Lebanese and Palestinians.

Certain conditions had to be established for peace to be achieved, the PLO representative said:  total Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories; recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination and national independence; and a just solution of the Palestine refugee problem. He said PLO considered that the Camp David accords concluded between Israel and Egypt in 1978 14/ and the peace treaty which followed in March 1979 denied self-determination to Palestinians by legitimizing Israeli occupation of territories it had seized in 1967.

In Israel's opinion, the sole purpose of the joint communiqué issued by PLO and its Lebanese allies was to serve as a smoke-screen for continued PLO violence  both within UNIFIL's area of operation and across the border with Israel. The so-called PLO commitment  not to attack first, Israel charged, was carefully phrased so as not to apply to civilians, its usual target. Israel believed that Lebanon's problems had begun with the presence of PLO. Subsequently, the  Syrian Arab Republic had invaded Lebanon under the pretext of aiding its Government against PLO and  restoring peace. In Israel's view, there could be no peace in Lebanon while a Syrian occupation army  threatened Beirut, and armed PLO terrorists were allowed on Lebanese territory. Israel appealed to the Council to face the problem of Lebanon with  realism; there should be a forthright condemnation of PLO'S flagrant violation of UNIFIL'S mandate.

Israel said it was exercising its inherent right of self- defence. If States were unwilling or unable to prevent terrorists from operating out of  their countries, they should be prepared for reprisals.

The 1949 Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement had been renounced by Lebanon in 1967,  the Israeli representative charged, and Israel felt it  was time to move towards a negotiated peace. It  awaited Lebanon's answer to the peace proposal the  Israeli Prime Minister had made on 7 May. He  reiterated that Israel was prepared to co-operate with UNIFIL, and its position vis-à-vis Lebanon remained unchanged: Israel supported the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries.

Lebanon observed that the Israeli Prime Minister's offer to Lebanon to negotiate a peace treaty, under which Iraq, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Saudi Arabia and the Syrian Arab Republic would absorb and resettle stateless  Palestinian refugees, was unacceptable to Lebanon and could only be viewed as a  diversionary tactic.

Egypt said that the self-defence pretexts advanced by Israel to justify its attacks against Lebanon had no validity. Egypt had condemned such actions as undermining efforts aimed at achieving a just peace in the Middle East, which depended on the resolution of the Palestinian problem. Sincere efforts in that direction were necessary, particularly on the part of Israel. Egypt  and France held that Israel had no legitimate reason to cross an international border.

Jordan said that the occupation of parts of Lebanese territory by the de facto forces was a cover for Israel's presence there; one of their aims was to control the headwaters of the Jordan River and parts of the Litani River to ensure that Israel had an ample water supply. Kuwait also charged that the water supply of the Palestinians in Lebanon was being diverted to illegal Jewish settlements.

On 14 June, the Council voted on a draft resolution, prepared in the course of consultations among Council members, which it  adopted as resolution 450 (1979) by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and the USSR). China did not participate in the voting.

By the resolution, the Council renewed the mandate of UNIFIL for six months, until 19 December. The Council reaffirmed in the preamble its call for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries. Convinced that the situation had serious implications for peace in the Middle East, it expressed anxiety about the obstacles to the full deployment of UNIFIL  and the threats to the Force's safety and freedom of movement.

By the operative paragraphs, the Council: strongly deplored acts of violence against Lebanon; called on Israel to cease forthwith its acts against the territorial integrity, unity,  sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon, in particular its assistance to irresponsible armed groups; called on all parties concerned to co-operate for the fulfilment of the objectives of UNIFIL; reaffirmed the validity of the 1949 General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon and called on the parties to take the necessary steps to reactivate ILMAC and ensure full respect for the safety and freedom of action of UNTSO; urged all Member States in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear so that UNIFIL could discharge its responsibilities fully and unhampered; and reaffirmed its determination, in the event of continuing obstruction of UNIFIL's mandate, to  examine practical ways, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, to secure the full implementations of resolution 425 (1978).

Speaking after the vote, Israel welcomed the renewal of the mandate but categorically rejected  the political elements of the resolution. It felt that the text ignored the loss of innocent Israeli lives, and it rejected the implication that Israel had endangered the territorial integrity of  Lebanon, which had been undermined by PLO and Syrian forces. It also rejected the reference to the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

The USSR said it had abstained in the voting because of its position regarding UNIFIL,  including questions concerning the direction of UNIFIL by the Council, the principles governing the recruitment of national contingents and the method of financing the Force. The USSR said it wished to reaffirm that all expenditure incurred as a result of Israel's aggression against Lebanon should be borne by the aggressor.

Taking into account Lebanon's position, Czechoslovakia said it would not object to UNIFIL's extension. However, for the record, its position and reservations with regard to the Force had to be reaffirmed.

The United States said it considered that the Armistice Agreement remained in force and supported it as one way for the two Governments to remain in contact. However, the United States considered that the paragraph by which the Council deplored acts of violence against Lebanon lacked balance, since it did not deplore such acts against Israeli citizens. Norway said it also would have liked a more balanced formulation, to include all forms of violence.

Kuwait and the USSR expressed regret that the resolution did not contain a stronger condemnation of Israel.

Communications (17 June – 28 August)

In letters of 17 and 25 June to the Secretary-General, Israel charged that an officer of the Nigerian contingent of UNIFIL had been arrested in Israel on 15 June on charges of smuggling arms into Israel for PLO, and  charged PLO with shelling the civilian population of northern Galilee in Israel on 8, 9, 10 and 19 June, adding that PLO's so-called renewed commitment not to attack first and the joint communiqué promising withdrawals were an exercise in deception.

By letters of 27 and 28 June and 3 July, Kuwait transmitted letters of 25 and 27 June from the Permanent Observer of PLO to the Council President and a letter of 29 June to the Secretary-General, charging that Israel had carried out 76 consecutive days of air and naval attacks and heavy artillery bombardment against civilian targets and refugee camps in southern Lebanon, which had resulted in the loss of lives, material damage and a mass exodus of the population from the region.

In a letter of 28 June to the Secretary-General, France cited a declaration on the situation in the Middle East issued by the nine members of the European Community  on 18 June in Paris, in which they expressed support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon and concern over the difficulties encountered by UNIFIL in the execution of its mandate. (See also p. 363.)

In letters of 11 July and 6 August to the Council  President and of 23 July to the Secretary-General, Lebanon charged that, since the adoption of resolution 450 (1979) on 14 June, Israel had  consistently flouted all United Nations decisions and had engaged in almost daily harassment in the UNIFIL area of operation and other parts of southern Lebanon, causing many casualties and deaths and extensive property damage. A number of incidents that had occurred since 22 July were enumerated, and Lebanon protested very strongly against these acts of aggression.

On 20 August, Kuwait transmitted a letter of 15 August to the Council President from the Permanent Observer of PLO, who charged that Israel had intensified its attacks in southern Lebanon, with the moral and material encouragement of the United States.

In a letter of 20 August to the Secretary-General, Israel listed several incidents in August involving interception of sea- borne invaders and detonations of explosive devices which it attributed to PLO's campaign of  violence waged from Lebanon, aimed at subverting the ongoing peace process in the Middle East.

In two letters of 22 August to the Secretary-General, Lebanon complained that Israel had committed acts of aggression against Lebanon, shelling and raiding villages on 19, 21 and 22 August. Many Lebanese children had been wounded and five killed, as a result of indiscriminate  bombardment.

On 24 August, Lebanon requested the President to convene an urgent meeting of the Security Council, in view of the continued escalation of violence and the loss of civilian lives resulting from Israeli attacks and shelling of Lebanese territory, in progress along a wide front. The Lebanese Government felt it was imperative to ask the Council to take appropriate measures,  including the imposition of sanctions on Israel, in order to end its aggression against Lebanon.

In a letter dated 28 August, Lebanon said that events of the preceding week had reached the danger point. It  requested that measures be taken urgently to ensure the safety, integrity and freedom of movement of UNIFIL by providing the Force with weapons and equipment of a defensive character, to reconsider the definition of the area of operation of UNIFIL, to increase the number of UNTSO posts and personnel on the border with Israel, and to reactivate ILMAC.

On the same day, Lebanon again requested a meeting of the Security Council at the earliest possible date in order to help consolidate a de facto cease-fire reached locally through United Nations efforts.

In a note verbale of 13 August, the Secretary-General informed the Council President that Ghana had offered a battalion of 600 men to replace the Iranian battalion withdrawn from UNIFIL in January. He noted that it was his intention, subject to the usual consultations, to accept that  offer. Replying on 15 August, the President informed the Secretary-General that the Council members had agreed to his proposal. China had dissociated itself from the matter.

Consideration by the

Security Council (29 and 30 August)

On 29 August, the Council met again, at the request of  Lebanon, to discuss the prevailing situation. Ireland, Israel, Lebanon, the Netherlands and the Syrian Arab Republic were invited, at their request, to participate without the right to vote. At the request of Kuwait, PLO was also invited to take part in accordance with the procedure established at previous meetings, following a statement by the United States, which again objected to the manner in which the invitation was formulated in terms of the rules of procedure and asked that the matter be put to a vote. The vote was 12 to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom).

The Council President recalled that, at a Council meeting on 24 August (see p. 364), after having received reports of intense military activity in recent days in southern Lebanon, he had appealed for restraint by all concerned so that the hostilities might be stopped.

He conveyed information received from the Secretariat on the most recent events in the area. Acts of violence since 14 August, including ambushing, shooting and shelling, had taken the lives of three UNIFIL soldiers from the Fijian contingent and severely wounded several others. A cessation of hostilities – a de facto cease-fire in which opposing forces, while not all agreed to a cease-fire, stopped shooting – had finally been arrived at on 26 August except for minor outbreaks of firing. He appealed to all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to give the current cease-fire a chance to become permanently effective.

In a statement to the Council, the Secretary-General said that, while he fully understood the preoccupation of the Israeli Government with security, he did not believe that the policy of pre-emptive strikes on targets in Lebanon was acceptable or indeed justified by the prevailing circumstances. The recent bombardments had been on a scale that had caused much loss of innocent lives, a new wave of refugees and the destruction of property and normal living conditions.

Lebanon stated that it was not asking the Council for yet another resolution. What it wanted was a reconsideration of the United Nations peace-keeping operation – that UNIFIL be provided with the necessary instruments to enable it to fulfil its mandate, and that its area of operation and methods of deployment be redefined in the light of developments on the ground. Lebanon also wanted an increase in the number of UNTSO observers and the reactivation of ILMAC. These actions would give Lebanon added leverage and credibility in implementing such security measures as had been blocked by the continued deterioration of the situation in the south.  Lebanon emphasized that peace in Lebanon could not wait for a comprehensive settlement of the entire Middle East problem.

In Israel's view, the Council had been convened merely to find a scapegoat for Lebanon's problems and a way to avoid facing up to them directly. According to Israel, the problem of Lebanon lay in its occupation by two foreign elements: the Syrian Arab Republic, which  had deployed 30,000 men there, and PLO, with between 10,000 and 15,000. Until that occupation ended, the  Council could do nothing. Israel asserted that PLO was an instrument in the hands of certain Arab States, particularly Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic. In those circumstances, Israel had no choice but to move into Lebanon to prevent the launching of acts of terror by PLO. Israel reminded Lebanon of the peace proposals made by its Prime Minister on 7 May, and reaffirmed its desire to co-operate with UNIFIL in the implementation of its mandate in all its parts.

The PLO representative said that Palestinian support for Lebanon's sovereignty was a matter of record, as was PLO's co-operation with UNIFIL. It had, in fact, implemented its declaration of 5 June. However, soon after the withdrawal of its military personnel from towns  and villages in the south, the area had been subjected to heavy bombardment. Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon were therefore not in response to Palestinian violence, as had been claimed.

The need to make UNIFIL more effective was discussed by Council representatives. Bangladesh, Bolivia, France, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom felt that the Lebanese proposals for strengthening UNIFIL merited careful consideration. France said it was necessary to tighten the security of UNIFIL and its headquarters and was in favour of a study of means of improving the Force's defensive equipment. Nigeria believed that consultations should begin as soon as possible on the matter. Norway was prepared to consider the idea of raising the ceiling set for the strength of the Force.

Bolivia, Ireland and Norway stressed that it was not the basic structure of UNIFIL that prevented it from fulfilling its mandate but the refusal of many parties to co-operate with it in the maintenance of peace.

China, Kuwait, the Syrian Arab Republic, the USSR and Zambia said that Israel and its policies were to blame for the current situation. Kuwait and the USSR expressed the view that United States support for Israel was also responsible.

The representative of the United States said that Israel's military policies in Lebanon, as manifested in the preceding few months, were wrong and unacceptable to his Government. He condemned both terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and pre-emptive attacks on Lebanese towns, villages and refugee camps carried out by Israel and the Lebanese groups it supported. In order to break the prevailing deadlock of terror and  counter-terror, both sides should co-operate with UNIFIL, Israel should end pre-emptive strikes, and the Palestinian leadership should renounce the use of Lebanese territory to carry out attacks against Israel.

The Netherlands, Portugal, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Kingdom and Zambia deprecated Israel's policy of pre-emptive strikes. The Syrian Arab Republic said that the strategy against the civilian population had been confirmed as Government policy by Israel. The time had come for the Council to act decisively to end Israel's policy of aggression. Bangladesh and Kuwait said the Council should apply pressure on Israel, including sanctions under the Charter.

The USSR charged that Israel had shown no intention of implementing the many Council decisions calling for strict observance of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and commented that Israel's attacks against Lebanon had become increasingly provocative following the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty on 26 March. It was the view of the USSR that the policy of separate deals would never lead to a durable peace in the Middle East. Such peace could only result from the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territory occupied in 1967 the implementation of the rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to establish an  independent State, and the right of all States in the area to live within secure boundaries.

The Netherlands said that as a troop-contributor to UNIFIL it was deeply concerned at the worsening situation.  It appealed to the de facto forces to desist from trying to expand their area of control, to PLO to carry out its pledge to remove all its armed groups from villages and towns in southern Lebanon, and to Israel to end its policy of  pre-emptive strikes. Ireland, also a contributor, found it totally unacceptable that there should be interference with a United Nations peace-keeping force from any quarter.

Nigeria supported the view that, although the Lebanese crisis was inextricably linked to the over-all politicization question, peace in Lebanon could not be deferred pending resolution of the larger Middle East problem.

Further communications and reports

To a letter of 24 September to the Secretary-General, Lebanon annexed extracts from a speech by its President concerning United Nations action in Lebanon. Noting that the many Council resolutions on southern Lebanon had had only a limited effect, the President expressed the  hope that it would soon be possible for the international forces to be deployed, together with the Lebanese army, throughout the area. He hoped that thereby the crisis of southern Lebanon could be dissociated from the Middle East crisis, allowing Lebanon to turn its attention to other  internal problems.

In a letter of 20 November, Israel drew the attention of the Secretary-General to recent terrorist actions – sea-borne infiltration and bomb explosions – which it said had been undertaken by PLO  from Lebanese territory. Israel reiterated its  determination to take all necessary measures to protect the lives and safety of its citizens.

Lebanon, in a letter of 13 December to the President  of the Council referring to the need to renew UNIFIL's mandate before 19 December, conveyed the views of  heads of Arab States and Governments expressed at the Tenth Arab Summit Conference (Tunis, Tunisia, 20-22 November) concerning the situation in southern Lebanon.  Among other things, the Conference supported the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south.

The Secretary-General included a brief summary of  UNIFIL's activities in his comprehensive report on the situation in the Middle East, submitted on 24 October in pursuance of a General Assembly request of 7 December 1978 15/ (see p. 357).

As the mandate of UNIFIL was due to expire on 19  December, the Secretary-General on 14 December submitted a report on the activities of the Force for the period from 9 June to 10 December in which he noted that, despite intensive efforts, it had proved very difficult to make significant progress in fulfilling the mandate of the Force. The composition of UNIFIL as at 10 December was 6,126, with contingents from Fiji, France, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Nepal, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway and Senegal, assisted by 38 military observers from UNTSO.

During the earlier part of the period under review,  there had been heavy exchanges of fire across and over the UNIFIL area, involving the armed elements (mainly PLO and the Lebanese national movement) on one side, and the de facto forces (Christian and associated militias) or the Israeli forces, or both combined, on the other. Concurrently, the level of conflict between Israeli forces and PLO outside the UNIFIL area had escalated dangerously. During the reporting period, five UNIFIL members were killed and 15 wounded as a result of hostile action, and two others were killed and 16 injured in accidents. A de facto cease-fire brought about through UNIFIL on 26 August had eased the highly dangerous situation, but, as the Secretary-General noted, the basic problems remained unresolved. The essential problem, he pointed out, was the inability of UNIFIL to assume complete control over its area of operation, as a preliminary to the restoration of the Lebanese Government's authority in the entire area. One main element of that problem was the intransigence of the de facto forces, which had intensified their encroachments into the UNIFIL area and had established four positions which were a source of constant tension and increased harassment of the local population. Another problem resulted from the continuing attempts by armed elements to infiltrate the UNIFIL area.

A plan of action had been formulated in consultation with the Lebanese Government, with priority given to maintenance of the cease-fire and consolidation of UNIFIL's area of operation. The long-term objectives were the restoration of the sovereignty and effective authority of the Lebanese Government up to the internationally recognized boundary and reactivation of ILMAC. Lebanon indicated its intention of sending more troops and civilian personnel to the south.

The Secretary-General also observed that an essential factor in the success of UNIFIL was the position of the Israeli Government, since it supported de facto forces. Israel's attitude towards the situation in southern Lebanon was interrelated with its perception of the situation in the Middle East as a whole.

Since any move to withdraw or reduce UNIFIL at the current juncture would in his view be extremely dangerous, the Secretary- General recommended that the mandate of the Force be extended for another six months. Lebanon had informed him of its agreement with this recommendation.

By a letter of 10 January 1980 to the Secretary-General, Israel charged that attacks, not mentioned in the Secretary-General's report, had been made by PLO for some months, without provocation, against Lebanese villages along the border with Israel from positions in the Beaufort Castle area north of UNIFIL's area of operation. On 24 December 1979, two persons had been injured. Two photographs from a Lebanese newspaper article of 24 August were attached to the letter, showing artillery; picture captions stated that guns were aimed from the castle at Israeli targets in the region of Galilee.

Consideration by the

Security Council (19 December)

The Security Council met on 19 December to consider the Secretary-General's report of 14 December. The Council had before it a draft resolution which had been drawn up in the course of consultations among its members.

The representatives of Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. At the request of Kuwait, and following a vote of 10 to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom), the Council also invited the PLO representative to take part in the meeting under the same conditions as at previous meetings. The vote was taken at the request of the United States, which considered it inappropriate to invite PLO to participate in the discussion with the same rights of participation as a Member State.

Before hearing statements, the Council renewed the mandate of UNIFIL for six months, until 19 June 1980, by adopting resolution 459 (1979) by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and the USSR), with one member (China) not participating.

The Council, noting with concern the continued violations of the cease-fire and expressing anxiety about the obstacles to the full deployment of UNIFIL and the threats to its security and freedom of movement, welcomed Lebanon's efforts to reassert its sovereignty and restore its authority in southern Lebanon.

By the operative paragraphs of the resolution, the Council, expressing support for the Secretary-General's efforts to consolidate the cease-fire, called on all parties to co-operate for the fulfilment of UNIFIL's aims. The Council took note of the determination of the Government of Lebanon to draw up a programme of action, in consultation with the Secretary-General, to promote restoration of its authority, and of the efforts of that Government to obtain international recognition for the protection of the archaeological treasures of Tyre.

It reaffirmed the validity of the 1949 General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon, and called on the parties to reactivate ILMAC and respect the safety and freedom of action of UNTSO. It urged all Member States in a position to do so to continue to bring their influence to bear on all concerned so that UNIFIL could discharge its mandate fully and unhampered. In the event of continuing obstruction of that mandate, the Council reaffirmed its determination to examine ways to secure full implementation of resolution 425 (1978), in accordance with relevant Charter provisions.

Most Council members agreed that little progress had been made in carrying out UNIFIL's deployment in southern Lebanon up to the internationally recognized borders, and that this unsatisfactory state of affairs was due to Israel's negative attitude. All Council members who spoke asked for Israel's co-operation. Concerned that the role of the de facto forces was the chief obstacle to UNIFIL's effectiveness, France, Jamaica and the United Kingdom appealed to Israel to cease its support.

The United Kingdom and the United States were gratified that Israel had halted its pre-emptive strikes against Palestinians on Lebanese territory and that a tenuous cease-fire was holding. The United States said that the implementation of UNIFIL's mandate required the withdrawal of all armed groups from UNIFIL's area of operation, restraint on all sides and reliance on UNIFIL as the instrument for dealing with cease-fire violations.

Kuwait and Norway expressed concern at the four positions established by the de facto forces inside the UNIFIL area; Norway stressed that there should be no armed presence inside that area except for the forces of the Lebanese State and the United Nations.

Bangladesh, Norway, Portugal and the United States said that the plan of action detailed by the Secretary-General in his report had their approval. Bangladesh said that the Council must concert actively to implement that plan.

Bolivia said that the Latin American countries were devoting considerable effort to finding an over-all solution to the Middle East problem and that the situation in Lebanon was dependent on

that solution.

Although it approved the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate, Kuwait pointed out that automatic renewal was not in the interests of UNIFIL. Kuwait expressed the hope that Lebanon would take advantage of the six-month renewal to assert its authority in southern Lebanon. Gabon stated that the mandate could not be indefinitely prolonged because of the heavy financial sacrifices it entailed for Member States.

The USSR said it would again like to stress that all expenses involved in eliminating the consequences of Israel's aggression should be borne by the aggressor. It was becoming increasingly

clear that the separate Egypt-Israel treaty concluded in March 1979 had freed Israel's hands in the Sinai and enabled it to intensify its expansionist and military adventurism against other Arab States, particularly Lebanon. The USSR was opposed to any attempts to broaden the mandate in a way that would involve UNIFIL in the internal affairs of Lebanon.

Kuwait, the Syrian Arab Republic and the USSR expressed regret that there had been no clear condemnation in the resolution of Israel for its continuing acts of aggression against Lebanon. Czechoslovakia and the USSR deplored that there were increasing attempts by Council members to lessen the pressure on Israel and transfer it to the Palestinians. Guided by their positions of principle regarding UNIFIL and its financing, both States had abstained in the vote on the resolution. Bangladesh accused Israel of manipulating UNIFIL's mandate so that southern Lebanon was reduced to a buffer zone supporting Israel's expansionist policies.

Lebanon, while expressing its gratitude for the presence of UNIFIL and its commitment to the objectives of the Council, reiterated its Government's view that peace in Lebanon should not wait for a final settlement of the Middle East problem. Lebanon refused to be trapped into becoming part of a broader scheme within which some might be tempted to view it as a negotiable piece of real estate. That was also the position of the Arab League members. With regard to the resolution just adopted, Lebanon had insisted that the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate be linked to a plan of implementation. Should no progress be possible within a reasonable period, Lebanon would again ask the Council to take action to restore Lebanese sovereignty over all its territory.

Israel considered that the report of the Secretary-General was slanted in favour of PLO terrorists, whose attempts at infiltration into UNIFIL's area of operation had greatly intensified in the period under review. Israel reiterated its support for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon; it was awaiting that country's response to the formal invitation to negotiate peace which the Israeli Prime Minister had made on 7 May. Its position concerning the General Armistice Agreement remained consistent; by Lebanon's declarations and actions, that Government had made it clear that the Agreement had come to an end. It was Israel's view that the question of southern Lebanon could not be detached from the situation in Lebanon as a whole. Peace could not be restored to that country while Syrian and PLO armed groups were there.

The PLO representative recalled that the Palestinians were in Lebanon not by choice, but as a result of being driven out of their country, Palestine, by what he said was a criminally conceived campaign of terror. The Council could be assured that they had no intention of making Lebanon their final home. All they wished was to be allowed to return to their own country to establish their own State and live in peace.

The Syrian Arab Republic denied the Israeli contention that it was occupying Lebanon. The presence of Syrian forces in that country had been decided by the Arab League, and those forces were under the direct command of the President of Lebanon.

Documentary references and texts of resolutions

Communications and report (1-19 January)

S/13026 and Corr.1. Report of Secretary-General on UNIFIL (for period 14 September 1978-12 January 1979).

S/13028. Letter of 14 January from Israel.

S/13036. Letter of 16 January from Kuwait (transmitting letter of same date from PLO).

S/13038. Letter of 12 January from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

S/13039. Letter of 17 January from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.

S/13044. Letter of 19 January from Yemen.

S/13045. Letter of 19 January from Kuwait (transmitting letter of same date from PLO).

Consideration by the

Security Council (19 January)

Security Council, meeting 2113.

S/13026 and Corr.1. Report of Secretary-General.

S/13042. Draft resolution.

S/13048. Letter of 19 January from Kuwait (request to extend invitation to participate in Council discussion).

Resolution 444 (1979), as proposed in S/13042, adopted by Council on 19 January 1979, meeting 2113, by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia, USSR) (China did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March, 427 (1978) of 3 May and 434 (1978) of 18 September 1978,

Recalling also the statement made by the President of the Security Council on 8 December 1978 (S/12958),

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon of 12 January 1979, contained in document S/13026 and Corr.1,

Expressing concern at the grave situation in southern Lebanon resulting from obstacles placed in the way of the full implementation of resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978),

Reiterating its conviction that the continuation of the situation constitutes a challenge to its authority and a defiance of its resolutions,

Noting with regret that the Force has reached the end of its second mandate without being enabled to complete all the tasks assigned to it,

Stressing that free and unhampered movement for the Force is essential for the fulfilment of its mandate within its entire area of operation,

Reaffirming the necessity for the strict respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries,

Re-emphasizing the temporary nature of the Force as set out in its teams of reference,

Acting in response to the request of the Government of Lebanon, taking into account the report of the Secretary-General,

1. Deplores the lack of co-operation, particularly on the part of Israel, with the efforts of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon fully to implement its mandate, including assistance lent by Israel to irregular armed groups in southern Lebanon;

2. Notes with great appreciation the efforts being made by the Secretary-General, the commanders and soldiers of the Force and the staff of the United Nations, as well as by Governments which have lent their assistance and co-operation;

3. Expresses its satisfaction with the declared policy of the Government of Lebanon and the steps already taken for the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south and encourages it to increase its efforts, in co-ordination with the Force, to re-establish its authority in that area;

4. Decides to renew the mandate of the Force for a period of five months, that is, until 19 June 1979;

5. Calls upon the Secretary-General and the Force to continue to take all effective measures deemed necessary in accordance with the approved guidelines and terms of reference of the Force as adopted by the Security Council and invites the Government of Lebanon to draw up, in consultation with the Secretary-General, a phased programme of activities to be carried out over the next three months to promote the restoration of its authority;

6. Urges all Member States which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear on those concerned, so that the Force can discharge its responsibilities fully and unhampered;

7. Reaffirms its determination, in the event of continuing obstruction of the mandate of the Force, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of resolution 425 (1978);

8. Decides to remain seized of the question and to meet again within three months to assess the situation.

S/13043. Note by President of Security Council.

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decisions, pp. 2 and 3.

Communications and reports

(23 January-26 April)

S/13051 (A/34/68). Letter of 23 January from Lebanon.

S/13052. Letter of 23 January from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 22 January 1979 from PLO).

S/13053. Letter of 24 January from Israel.

S/13068 (A/34/76). Letter of 2 February from Syrian Arab Republic (transmitting 2 letters of 31 January 1979 from PLO).

S/13155 (A/34/114). Letter of 8 March from Lebanon.

S/13241. Letter of 11 April from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 10 April 1979 from PLO).

S/13242 (A/34/177). Letter of 11 April from Lebanon.

S/13249 (A/34/184). Letter of 16 April from Israel.

S/13264. Special report of Secretary-General concerning UNIFIL.

S/13258. Interim report of Secretary-General concerning UNIFIL under Security Council resolution 444 (1879) of 19 January 1979.

S/13261 (A/34/204), S/13264 (A/34/207). Letters of 19 and 22 April from Israel.

S/13266. Letter of 24 April from Kuwait (transmitting 2 letters of 23 April 1979 from PLO).

S/13269. Letter of 25 April from Kuwait (transmitting 2 letters of 24 April 1979 from PLO).

S/13270. Letter of 25 April from Lebanon.

Consideration by the

Security Council (26 April)

Security Council, meeting 2141.

S/13258. Interim report of Secretary-General concerning UNIFIL.

S/13270. Letter of 25 April from Lebanon (request to convene Council).

S/13272. Statement by President of Security Council on 26 April 1979, meeting 2141.

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decisions, pp. 4 and 5.

Communications and report (30 April-15 May)

S/13284. Letter of 30 April from Syrian Arab Republic (transmitting telegram of 25 April 1979 from Chairman of PLO).

S/13285. Letter of 30 April from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 27 April 1979 from PLO).

S/13289. Letter of 1 May from Israel.

S/13298. Letter of 4 May from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/13301. Letter of 7 May from Lebanon.

S/13305. Letter of 8 May from Kuwait (transmitting 2 letters of 7 May 1979 from PLO)

S/13307 (A/34/227). Letter of 9 May from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued on same date by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries).

S/13308. Special report of Secretary-General concerning UNIFIL.

S/13312 and Corr.1, S/13320. Letters of 9 and 14 May from Israel.

Consideration by the

Security Council (15 May)

Security Council, meeting 2144.

S/13301. Letter of 7 May from Lebanon.

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decision, p.5.

Communications (15-30 May)

S/13331. Letter of 16 May from Israel.

S/13335 (A/34/259). Letter of 17 May from Lebanon (transmitting resolution on Lebanon adopted at 10th Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Islamic States, Fez, Morocco, 8-12 May 1979.

S/13348 (A/34/278). Letter of 24 May from Lebanon.

S/13351. Letter of 25 May from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 24 May 1979 from PLO).

S/13355 (A/34/285), S/13356. Letters of 29 and 30 May from Lebanon.

S/13361. Letter of 30 May from Lebanon (transmitting memorandum to Security Council).

Consideration by the

Security Council (31 May)

Security Council, meeting 2146.

S/13356. Letter of 30 May from Lebanon (request to convene Council).

S/13368. Letter of 31 May from Kuwait (request to extend invitation to participate in Council discussion.

Communications and report (31 May–1 June)

S/13376 (A/34/298). Letter of 5 June from Israel.

S/13379 (A/34/300). Letter of 6 June from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 25 May 1979 from Chairman of PLO Executive Committee).

S/13381. Letter of 31 May from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

S/13382 and Corr.1. Letter of 7 June from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.

S/13384. Report of Secretary-General on UNIFIL (for period 13 January -8 June 1979).

S/13387 (A/34/306). Letter of 11 June from Lebanon.

Consideration by the

Security Council (12 and 14 June)

Security Council, meetings 2147-2149.

S/13272. Statement by President of Security Council on 26 April 1979, meeting 2141.

S/13301. Letter of 7 May from Lebanon.

S/13356. Letter of 30 May from Lebanon (request to convene Council).

S/13361. Letter of 30 May from Lebanon (transmitting memorandum to Security Council).

S/13384. Report of Secretary-General on UNIFIL.

S/13387 (A/34/306) Letter of 11 June from Lebanon.

S/13392. Draft resolution prepared during consultations among Security Council members.

Resolution 450 (1979) as proposed in S/13392, adopted by Council on 14 June 1979, meeting 2149, by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia, USSR) (China did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978)  of 19 March, 427 (1978) of 3 May and 434 (1978) of 18 September 1978, and the statement made by the President of the Security Council on 8 December 1978 (S/12958),

Recalling also, and particularly, its resolution 444 (1979) of 19 January 1979 and the statements made by the President at the Security Council on 26 April (S/13272) and on 15 May 1979,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Acting in response to the request of the Government of Lebanon and noting with concern the questions raised in its letters addressed to the Security Council on 7 May, 30 May and 11 June 1979,

Reaffirming its call for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its international recognized boundaries,

Expressing its anxiety about the continued existence of obstacles to the full deployment of the Force and the threats to its very security, it freedom of movement and the safety of its headquarters, which prevented the completion of the phased programme of activities,

Convinced that the present situation has serious consequences for peace and security in the Middle East and impedes the achievement of a just, comprehensive and durable peace in the area,

1. Strongly deplores acts of violence against Lebanon that have led to the displacement of civilians, including Palestinians, and brought about destruction and loss of innocent lives;

2. Calls upon Israel to cease forthwith its acts against the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon, in particular its incursions into Lebanon and the assistance it continues to lend to irresponsible armed groups;

3. Calls also upon all parties concerned to refrain from activities inconsistent with the objectives of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and to co-operate for the fulfilment of these objectives;

4. Reiterates that the objectives of the Force as set out in resolution 425 (1978), 426 (1978) and 444 (1979) must be attained;

5. Highly commends the performance of the Force and reiterates its terms of reference as set out in the report of the Secretary-General of 19 March 1978 and approved by resolution 426 (1978), in particular that the Force must be enabled to function as an effective military unit, that it must enjoy freedom of movement and communication and other facilities necessary for the performance of its tasks and that it must continue to be able to discharge its duties according to the above-mentioned terms of reference, including the right of self-defence;

6. Reaffirms the validity of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon in accordance with its relevant decisions and resolutions and calls upon the parties to take the necessary steps to reactivate the Mixed Armistice Commission and to ensure full respect for the safety and freedom of action of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization;

7. Urges all Member States which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear on those concerned so that the Force can discharge its responsibilities fully and unhampered;

8. Decides to renew the mandate of the Force for a period of six months, that is, until 19 December 1979;

  9. Reaffirms its determination, in the event of continuing obstruction of the mandate of the Force to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of resolution 425 (1978);

10. Decides to remain seized of the question.

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decisions, pp. 6-7.

Communications (7 June-28 August)

S/13398 (A/34/323), S/13413 (A/34/334). Letters of 17 and 25 June from Israel.

S/13417, S/13421. Letters of 27 and 28 June from Kuwait (transmitting letters of 25 and 27 June 1979 from PLO).

S/13423 (A/34/344). Letter of 28 June from France.

S/13433 (A/34/350). Letter of 3 July from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 29 June 1979 from PLO).

S/13452, S/13464 (A/34/378), S/13486. Letters of 11 and 23 July and 6 August from Lebanon.

S/13488 (A/34/401). Letter of 8 August from Lebanon to Secretary-General (transmitting letter of same date to President of Security Council).

S/13496. Note verbale of 13 August from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

S/13497. Letter of 15 August from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.

S/13507. Letter of 20 August from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 15 August 1979 from PLO).

S/13508 (A/34/429). Letter of 20 August from Israel.

S/13509 (A/34/433), S/13510 (A/34/434). Letters of 22 August from Lebanon.

S/13516, S/13519 (A/43/444), S/13520. Letters of 24 and 28 August from Lebanon.

Consideration by the

Security Council (29 and 30 August)

Security Council, meetings 2164, 2165.

S/13516, S/13520. Letters of 24 and 28 August from Lebanon (requests to convene Council).

S/1352. Letter of 29 August from Kuwait (request to extend invitation to participate in Council discussion).

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decisions, p. 10.

Further communications and reports

S/13553 (A/34/511). Letter of 24 September from Lebanon (transmitting excerpts from speech by President concerning United Nations action in Lebanon).

S/13578 (A/34/584). Report of Secretary-General, Chapter II C.

S/13635 (A/34/705). Letter of 20 November from Israel.

S/13589. Letter of 13 December from Lebanon.

S/13691. Report of Secretary-General on UNIFIL (for period 9 June-10 December 1979).

S/13736 (A/35/63). Letter of 10 January 1980 from Israel.

Consideration by the

Security Council (19 December)

Security Council, meeting 2180.

S/13691. Report of Secretary-General on UNIFIL.

S/13695. Draft resolution.

S/13696. Letter of 19 December from Kuwait (request to extend invitation to participate in Council discussion).

Resolution 459 (1979), as proposed in S/13695, adopted by Council on 19 December 1979, meeting 2180, by 12 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia, USSR) (China did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March, 427(1978) of 3 May and 434 (1978) of 18 September 1978, 444 (1979) of 19 January and 450 (1979) of 14 June 1979 as well as the statements made by the President of the Security Council on 8 December 1978 (S/12958), on 26 April (S/13272) and on 15 May 1979,

Recalling its debate on 29 and 30 August 1979 and the statements of the Secretary-General concerning the cease-fire,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Acting in response to the request of the Government of Lebanon and noting with concern the continued violations of the cease-fire the attacks on the Force and the difficulties in implementing Security Council resolutions,

Expressing its anxiety about the continued existence of obstacles to the full deployment of the Force and the threats to its very security, its freedom of movement and the safety of its headquarters,

Convinced that the present situation has serious consequences for peace and security in the Middle East and impedes the achievement of a just, comprehensive and durable peace in the area,

Reaffirming its call for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries, and welcoming the efforts of the Government of Lebanon to reassert its sovereignty and restore its civilian and military authority in southern Lebanon,

1. Reaffirms the objectives of resolutions 425 (1978) and 450 (1979);

2. Expresses its support for the efforts of the Secretary-General to consolidate the cease-fire and calls upon all parties concerned to refrain from activities inconsistent with the objectives of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and to co-operate for the fulfilment of these objectives;

3. Calls upon the Secretary-General and the Force to continue to take all effective measures deemed necessary, in accordance with the approved guidelines and terms of reference of the Force as adopted in resolution 428 (1978);

4. Takes note of the determination of the Government of Lebanon to draw up a programme of action, in consultation with the Secretary-General to promote the restoration of its authority in pursuance of resolution 426 (1978);

5. Takes note also of the efforts of the Government of Lebanon to obtain international recognition for the protection of the archaeological and cultural sites and monuments in the city of Tyre in accordance with international law and the Convention of The Hague of 1964, under which such cities, sites and monuments are considered to be a heritage of interest to all mankind;

6. Reaffirms the validity of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon in accordance with its relevant decisions and resolutions and calls upon the parties, with the assistance of the Secretary-General, to take the necessary steps to reactivate the Mixed Armistice Commission and to ensure full respect for the safety and freedom of action of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization;

7. Highly commends the performance of the Force and its Commander and reiterates its terms of reference as set out in the report of the Secretary-General of 19 March 1978 and approved by resolution 426 (1978) in particular that the Force must be enabled to function as an efficient military unit that it must enjoy freedom of movement and communication and other facilities necessary for the performance of its tasks and that it must continue to be able to discharge its duties according to the above-mentioned terms of reference, including the right of self-defence;

8. Urges all Member States which are in a position to do so to continue to bring their influence to bear on those concerned so that the Force can discharge its responsibilities fully and unhampered;

9. Decides to renew the mandate of the Force for a period of six months, that is, until 19 June 1980;

10. Reaffirms its determination, in the event of continuing obstruction of the mandate of the Force, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of resolution 425 (1978);

11. Decides to remain seized of the question.

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decisions, p. 11 .

Other documents

A/34/2. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1978-15 June 1979, Chapter 1 A.

A/35/2. Report of Security Council, 10 June 1979-15 June 1980, Chapter 1 C (paras. 184-223).

Financing of United Nations peace-keeping forces

in the Middle East

The General Assembly in 1979 appropriated a total of $153,814,997 for the three United Nations peace-keeping forces in the Middle East, including a sum for liquidating the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) following the expiration of its mandate on 24 July. This total consisted of $22,674,997 for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Israel-Syria sector for the period 1 June 1979 to 31 May 1980, $112,938,000 for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for the period 19 January to 18 December 1979 and $18,202,000 for the liquidation of UNEF. The dates corresponded to the varying mandates of the Forces as established by the Security Council (see preceding subchapters). The Assembly also provided for financial authority to meet the expenses of UNDOF and UNIFIL for specified periods beyond these dates in the event the Council decided to continue them beyond the expiry of the six-month mandates in effect when the Assembly acted.

In each case, the Assembly apportioned the expenses for the Forces among all Member States in accordance with the special scale used for this purpose since the establishment of UNEF in 1973. 16/ According to this arrangement, the permanent members of the Security Council were assessed more than they would have been under the scale of assessments for the United Nations regular budget, while most developing countries were assessed 80 per cent less and the least developed countries 90 per cent less than under the regular scale. In authorizing this arrangement, the Assembly said in the preambles of its appropriation resolutions that it was taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries were in a position to make relatively larger contributions and that the economically less developed countries had a relatively limited capacity to contribute towards peace-keeping operations involving heavy expenditures.

In respect of all three Forces, the Assembly decided that Dominica and Solomon Islands, admitted to the United Nations in 1978, would be placed in the category of least developed States for assessment purposes.

The Assembly invited voluntary contributions for UNDOF and UNIFIL, both in cash and in services and supplies, and requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the Forces were conducted with a maximum of efficiency and economy.

The Assembly acted on the basis of appropriation requests submitted in reports of the Secretary-General and of recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). It adopted several other resolutions on various aspects of the Forces' financing.

Financing of the United Nations

Disengagement Observer Force

The General Assembly made appropriations for UNDOF spanning the two six-month extensions of the Force's mandate approved by the Security Council in 1979 (1 June to 30 November 1979 and 1 December 1979 to 31 May 1980). For the year ending 30 November 1979, appropriations were at the monthly rate of $1,682,833 gross ($1,666,000 net of staff assessment). This rate rose to $2,096,333 gross ($2,077,000 net) in the financial year beginning 1 December 1979, due in part to the increase of 200 troops, to a total estimated strength of 1,360. The 200-man increase had been agreed to by the Security Council on 1 August (see p.319).

Appropriations for the first of these extensions covered two separate periods, reflecting the fact that the Assembly in 1978 had authorized financial commitments only through 24 October 1979, 17/ renewing this authority on 25 October for the balance of the extension. The actual appropriations for these two parts of the six-month mandate period were made by resolution 34/7 C of 3 December 1979, in the amounts of $8,034,170 gross ($7,953,805 net) for the period 1 June to 24 October and $2,062,827 gross ($2,042,193 net) for the period 25 October to 30 November. By the same resolution, $12,578,000 was appropriated for the six months from 1 December 1979 to 31 May 1980, covering the new mandate of the Force.

Also by resolution 34/7 C, the Assembly authorized the Secretary-General to enter into financial commitments for UNDOF for the period 1 June to 30 November 1980 should the Council continue the Force beyond the existing mandate.  It limited such commitments to the monthly rate of expenditure approved for the six months beginning 1 December 1979, namely $2,096,333 gross ($2,077,000 net).

The resolution also contained provisions relating to the apportionment of expenses among Member States and other matters (summarized in the introduction to this subchapter).

The Assembly adopted resolution 34/7 C by a recorded vote of 97 to 3, with 17 abstentions, following its approval in the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee on 30 November – together with a resolution on appropriations for liquidating UNEF (see section below) – by a recorded vote, requested by Iraq, of 78 to 2, with 13 abstentions. By a separate recorded vote, requested by the USSR, the text relating only to UNDOF was approved by 78 to 2, with 14 abstentions. The sponsors were Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Ireland, Norway and Sweden.

Before adopting this appropriation resolution, and in order to give itself time to consider the Secretary-General's report on the financing of the Force, the Assembly, on 25 October, authorized financial commitments for UNDOF for the balance of its then current mandate – 25 October to 30 November – at the monthly expenditure rate of $1,682,833 gross ($1,666,000 net) in effect throughout the financial year which began on 25 October 1978. It took this action in adopting resolution 34/7 A by a recorded vote of 101 to 3, with 23 abstentions, following approval by the Fifth Committee on 23 October, by 84 votes to 5, with 17 abstentions, of the text as submitted by the Chairman.

The appropriations for UNDOF were in the amounts requested by the Secretary-General in a report dated 22 October. He also reported that an increasingly serious financial management problem had been posed by the $52.9 million shortfall of contributions for UNEF and UNDOF for the six-year period from 25 October 1973 to 24 October 1979. This sum, out of total assessments of $531.7 million for the period, was the amount apportioned among Member States that had said they did not intend to pay. The Secretary-General had continually faced difficulties in meeting the obligations of the Forces on a current basis. Payments to troop-contributing States in particular had never been made on time and were falling further behind. Moreover, the troop contributors had not been reimbursed fully in accordance with agreed rates.

In view of the termination of UNEF, whose 12-month mandate periods beginning on 25 October of each year were the basis for the financial administration of both UNEF and UNDOF, the Secretary- General proposed that the next financial period of UNDOF be from 25 October 1979 to 30 November 1980, and that any future periods run from 1 December for a full 12 months.

In its report, dated 15 November, ACABQ recommended acceptance of the Secretary-General's estimates of expenses of the Force and his proposal for changing the financial period of UNDOF.

Introducing the text of what became resolution 34/7 C on behalf of the sponsors, Canada expressed concern at the continued withholding of assessed contributions for the Forces by a number of States, and remarked that the expenses of the peace-keeping operations were insignificant compared to the incalculable cost of another Middle East war.

Iraq, which voted against the resolution, stated that for the international community to finance UNDOF was tantamount to recognizing the legitimacy of Israeli aggression and the occupation of territories by force. Albania and the Syrian Arab Republic also opposed the resolution, saying they would not participate in the financing of the Force; the Syrian Arab Republic added that the costs should be borne by the aggressor.

Benin, China and Viet Nam announced that they would not participate in the vote or assume financial obligations in respect of UNDOF. Benin added that the Forces existed because of a policy of expansionism, domination and racism, while Viet Nam stated its view that Article 19 of the Charter of the United Nations, 18/ concerning arrears in contribution payments, did not apply to peace-keeping operations. Democratic Yemen, which abstained, and Morocco, which voted in favour, were disquieted at the continuation of what was supposed to be a temporary measure, and rejected Israel's policy of occupying Arab territories.  Yemen abstained in the Assembly's vote, stating that the aggressor should bear the burden of its aggression. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya also said it was not participating in the vote.

The Congo said that, while it did not question the reasons for the Force, it had reservations on the Congo's assessment, which did not reflect its capacity to pay; it would therefore not participate in the vote. The USSR, explaining its abstention, said the sums requested were excessive and had not been properly substantiated. Although voting in favour, Sierra Leone also expressed concern about the amount of the appropriation.

Israel, which voted in favour, said it had supported the operations of UNDOF since their inception and thought that United Nations Member States could not avoid financing the peace-keeping forces without violating the Charter.

The Assembly took another action aimed at making additional funds available to UNDOF by adopting resolution 34/7 D on 17 December by a recorded vote of 111 to 9, with 7 abstentions. The Fifth Committee had approved the text on 4 December by a recorded vote, requested by Canada, of 69 to 9, with 6 abstentions. It was sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Ireland, Norway, Panama and Sweden.

By this resolution, the Assembly decided to suspend certain provisions of the United Nations Financial Regulations so as to enable the United Nations to retain the unspent portion of 1978 appropriations for UNDOF, amounting to $5,260,420 as of 24 October 1978, instead of having to return this book surplus to Member States as a credit against their subsequent assessments. In the preamble to its resolution, the Assembly recognized that, because of the withholding of contributions by certain States, the surplus balance in the UNDOF account had been fully drawn upon to supplement the income received from contributions for meeting the expenses of UNEF and UNDOF. Applying the rules in this case, it added, would aggravate their already difficult financial situation.

The Assembly also decided to retain in force the provisions of a 1978 resolution by which it had taken a similar action for the first time and had created a separate account for the purpose. 19/ The new amount was to be added to that account and held in suspense pending a further decision.

The Advisory Committee, noting in its report on UNDOF financing that this surplus balance had been fully drawn upon to meet the expenses of the Forces, said the $5,260,420 balance should be regarded as no more than a theoretical surplus.

Canada, in introducing the 12-nation text, said the sum in question was only a book surplus, since UNDOF continued to incur a deficit owing to the refusal of some States to pay their assessed contributions. Supporting the resolution, the United Kingdom regretted its necessity but noted that it ensured that those who withheld their contributions would not benefit from doing so. The Federal Republic of Germany also supported the text so as not to add to the burden of the troop-contributing countries, but regarded the procedures prescribed by the resolution as anomalous.

The USSR, which voted against the resolution, said the deficit must be eliminated not by violating the Financial Regulations but by attacking the substance of the problem, which was that some States were not paying their assessments because of the special circumstances involved.

China, the Congo and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said they would not participate in the vote in light of their previously stated positions on the financing of the United Nations peace-keeping forces in the Middle East.

Financing the liquidation of

the United Nations Emergency Force

On 3 December 1979, the General Assembly appropriated $18,202,000 to pay for the liquidation of UNEF as from 25 July. It did so by adopting resolution 34/7 B by a recorded vote of 98 to 12, with 7 abstentions. The expenses were to be apportioned among Member States according to the special formula used for peace-keeping operations, with Dominica and Solomon Islands added to the list of least developed States for apportionment purposes (see the introduction to this subchapter).

The text of this resolution had been proposed in the Fifth Committee by the 12 States that sponsored resolution 34/7 C on appropriations for UNDOF (see section immediately preceding) and was submitted along with that resolution. The Committee approved the text on 30 November by a recorded vote, requested by the USSR, of 73 to 10, with 4 abstentions. It then approved both these resolutions together by a recorded vote, requested by Iraq, of 78 to 2, with 13 abstentions.

In his report on the financing of UNEF and UNDOF, the Secretary-General noted that the Security Council had not renewed UNEF's mandate beyond 24 July. No appropriations being available for the purpose, he had sought and received the concurrence of ACABQ to commit up to $8 million, under the procedure for meeting unforeseen and extraordinary expenses, for the repatriation of troops and the liquidation of the Force.

The Secretary-General estimated the repatriation and liquidation costs at $18,202,000, less income of $4,534,000, mainly from disposal of surplus property such as equipment, stores and other supplies. Some of this would be transferred to other peace-keeping operations and the rest would be sold.

The Advisory Committee, in its report on the subject, noted that the other operations were to be charged an average of 50 per cent of the book value of the property, depending on its condition. The Committee noted that it was proposed to stockpile UNEF surplus property in excess of current needs for the future use of other peace-keeping operations, with credit, tentatively estimated at $2 million, accruing to UNEF at the time of transfer. The Committee had no objections to the estimates proposed for UNEF by the Secretary-General.

In the Fifth Committee, Iraq voted against the resolution, stating that UNEF had failed to attain its objectives of restoring peace or halting the fighting, and it wondered, therefore, why the international community should be asked to vote millions for its upkeep while reducing appropriations for important humanitarian sections of the budget. The USSR, which also voted against, objected that the process of liquidating UNEF was unwarrantedly protracted and the costs were unreasonable; it added that it would not pay the part of its assessment required to meet UNEF expenses arising from the 1975 Egyptian-Israeli Agreement, 20/ as the USSR had nothing to do with that Agreement, which circumvented the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East.

Albania and the Syrian Arab Republic, voting against, said they would not take part in the financing. China and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said they would not participate in the vote on the resolution, China adding that it would not assume any financial obligation that might result.

Among those voting in favour, Israel regretted that the UNEF mandate had not been renewed, while Poland expressed regret at the deficit in the Force's accounts, which had delayed reimbursement to troop contributors such as Poland.

Financing of the United

Nations Interim Force in Lebanon

The General Assembly, by resolution 34/9 B of 17 December 1979, appropriated funds covering the two extensions of the UNIFIL mandate approved by the Security Council in 1979 – the five months from 19 January to 18 June and the six months from 19 June to 18 December. For the five-month mandate, appropriations totalled $51,906,000 gross ($51,468,000 net of staff assessment). For the following six months, there were two appropriations, corresponding to an expenditure rate of $10,172,000 gross per month ($10,084,500 net) – that is, $44,756,800 gross ($44,371,800 net) for the period 19 June to 31 October and $16,275,200 gross ($16,135,200 net) for the period 1 November to 18 December.

Also by this resolution, the Assembly, as  it  had  done  in 1978, 21/ authorized the Secretary-General to enter into financial commitments for UNIFIL should the Council continue the Force beyond the existing mandate. This authorization covered the period from 19 December 1979 to 18 December 1980, at a monthly expenditure rate not to exceed $10,767,166 gross $10,676,666 net). The Council, on 19 December 1979, by resolution 459 (1979), extended the Force's mandate until 19 June 1980 (see preceding subchapter).

The Assembly's resolution also contained provisions relating to the apportionment of expenses among all Member States according to the special scale for peace-keeping operations, and the inclusion of Dominica and Solomon Islands among the States assessed at the lowest rate (see the introduction to this subchapter).

The text of resolution 34/9 B had been sponsored in the Fifth Committee by Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, the Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Nepal, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Senegal and Sweden, as the first section of a three-part draft resolution. The other two sections concerned claims by troop-contributing States and an appeal for voluntary contributions (see below).

The Fifth Committee approved all three parts together on 7 December by a recorded vote of 85 to 13, with 2 abstentions. The Assembly adopted resolution 34/9 B by a recorded vote of 111 to 13, with 2 abstentions.

The appropriations through 18 December followed earlier action by the Assembly to authorize financial commitments in advance of actual appropriations. Such authorization had been granted by the Assembly in 1978 for the period 19 January to 31 October 1979. 22/ By resolution 34/9 A of 1 November 1979, the Assembly authorized monthly commitments not to exceed $10,172,000 gross ($10,084,500 net) for the period from 1 November to 18 December, in order to allow time to consider the Secretary-General's report on the financing of the Force. This resolution was adopted by 82 votes to 16, with 5 abstentions. The text had been submitted to the Fifth Committee by its Chairman and approved on 29 October by 93 votes to 14, with 1 abstention.

These appropriations were at levels requested by the Secretary-General in a report dated 25 October and endorsed by ACABQ a report of 15 November. They were within the authorization of $11,142,000 per month provided by the Assembly in 1978. 23/ However, the authorization for the year beginning 19 December 1979 amounted to $1 million less than the $65,603,000 which the Secretary-General had estimated for the six months to 18 June 1980, based on an average Force strength of 6,000 troops. The $1 million reduction had been recommended by ACABQ, which did not apply it to any particular item of expenditure but considered that strict attention to economy and efficiency should result in savings.

As to the status of contributions, the Secretary-General reported that the shortfall attributed to States that had stated that they did not intend to pay for UNIFIL had risen from $14 million in 1978 to $52.4 million as at 30 September 1979, out of the $201.2 million in assessments of Member States from the inception of the Force on 19 March 1978 to 31 October 1979. The shortfall posed a serious financial management problem. Payments due to the troop-contributing countries had never been made on time and were falling further behind. Troop contributors, which had not been currently and fully reimbursed in accordance with agreed rates, had conveyed their serious concern over the heavy burden this placed on their Governments.

The Secretary-General reported that no voluntary contributions had been received in response to an Assembly invitation of 3 November 1978. 24/

By resolution 34/9 C, the Assembly approved special arrangements giving States contributing troops to UNIFIL more time to submit claims for reimbursement by the United Nations. Under these arrangements, the normal period in which appropriations remained available for payment of unliquidated obligations – 12 months beyond the period of the appropriation – was to be extended in respect of obligations owed to Governments providing contingents and/or logistic support to the Force. Governments would have four years beyond the normal 12-month period to submit claims for goods supplied and services rendered, after which any unliquidated obligations would be cancelled. and the remaining balance of any appropriations retained for possible payment would be surrendered. Once a claim had been received, it would remain payable until payment was effected.

Resolution 34/9 C was adopted on 17 December by a recorded vote of 111 to 13, with 3 abstentions, following its approval by the Fifth Committee as part of a three-part draft on UNIFIL financing (see above).

By resolution 34/9 D, the Assembly renewed its invitation to Member States to make voluntary contributions to UNIFIL, both in cash and in services and supplies, and decided to establish a Suspense Account for voluntary contributions, to be used solely to supplement the regular UNIFIL account in reimbursing Governments for the costs they incurred in contributing troops, equipment and supplies. Provisions to govern the Suspense Account – its purpose, guiding principles, resources, financial administration and arrangements for review – were annexed to the resolution.

Resolution 34/9 D was adopted on 17 December by a recorded vote of 108 to 13, with 6 abstentions, following its approval by the Fifth Committee as part of a three-part draft on UNIFIL financing (see above).

Ireland, which introduced the three texts, stated that voluntary contributions to the Suspense Account would be considered as cash advances to troop contributors, to be returned to the donor States when sufficient assessed contributions had been received. It would allow a number of Member States to make voluntary contributions without violating their positions of principle; while not concealing the policy of withholding practiced by certain States, it might help mitigate the serious effects of that policy and permit the financial burden to be shared more equitably.

By resolution 34/9 E, adopted on 17 December by a recorded vote of 111 to 11, with 5 abstentions, the Assembly suspended temporarily the provisions of Financial Regulations under which $122,492 recorded as a surplus in UNIFIL accounts would have had to be surrendered and credited to all Member States. It decided to enter this amount in a separately identified account, to be held in suspense pending a further decision. The action was similar to that which the Assembly took on 17 December in respect of UNDOF (see p.343).

The Advisory Committee had reported that this surplus was no more than theoretical, as it had been fully drawn upon because of the withholding of contributions by some States.

The text of resolution 34/9 E had been approved by the Fifth Committee on 7 December by 85 votes to 13, with 3 abstentions. It was sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, the Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Nepal, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Senegal and Sweden.

By decision 34/439, adopted without vote on 17 December – the text of which had been approved without objection by the Fifth Committee at the Chairman's suggestion on 7 December – the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to continue to maintain the UNIFIL Special Account for the periods of its mandates subsequent to 18 January 1979. The Secretary-General had recommended this action in his report on UNIFIL financing, and ACABQ had endorsed the recommendation. The Special Account consisted of the regular contributions for the Force assessed against Member States.

In the discussion of the UNIFIL financing resolutions, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Morocco, Portugal and the United States spoke in support of the Force and the resolutions. Canada added that its support did not alter its basic position that the financing of peace-keeping operations should be based on universal assessments, and that withholding was contrary to the United Nations Charter. The Federal Republic of Germany said it did not agree that the voluntary funds in the Suspense Account should be used to finance the deficit created by withholding. Portugal stated that the maintenance of peace in the Middle East was the collective responsibility of all States, while the United States called on nations in arrears to reassess their positions and clear their debts.

Afghanistan, Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, the Syrian Arab Republic, the USSR and Viet Nam, explaining their votes against the resolutions, as well as Benin and China, which did not participate in the votes, reiterated their refusal to take part in the financing of UNIFIL. These countries, as well as Cuba and Iraq, which also voted against, stated that the aggressor should bear the cost of the Force. Poland voted against because of its position of principle with regard to the financing of UNIFIL. The Congo did not participate in the votes on the ground that its capacity to pay did not permit it to assume such expenses. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya also declined to take part in the voting.

Review of reimbursement

rates to troop contributors

By resolution 34/166, adopted on 17 December 1979 by a recorded vote of 110 to 10, with 9 abstentions, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to study, in consultation with the States contributing troops to UNDOF and UNIFIL, the existing standard rates of reimbursement by the United Nations for pay and allowances as well as for clothing, gear and equipment, with a view to ensuring an equitable reimbursement rate to troop-contributing States. In so doing, it recognized that inflation and escalating troop costs had adversely affected the existing rates. The Secretary-General was to report on the matter in 1980.

The Fifth Committee had, on 7 December, by 86 votes to 12, with 3 abstentions, approved the text of this resolution, which was sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Nepal, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal and Sweden.

Explaining its affirmative vote, Japan recorded its understanding that the resolution did not preclude consultation with Member States other than troop contributors. The USSR opposed the resolution because it believed that the reimbursement rates were already excessive. China and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated that they would not participate in the vote.

Documentary references, voting details and texts of resolutions

General Assembly – 34th session

Fifth Committee, meetings 25, 26, 64-67, 69.

Plenary meetings 46, 85, 106.

Financing of the United Nations

Disengagement Observer Force

A/34/582 and Corr. 1. Report of Secretary-General.

A/34/688. Report of ACABQ.

A/C.5/34/L. 11. Draft resolution submitted by Fifth Committee Chairman in consultation with Secretariat, approved by Fifth Committee on 23 October 1979, meeting 25, by 84 votes to 5, with 17 abstentions.

A/34/613. Report of Fifth committee (part I).

Resolution 34/7 A, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/34/613, adopted by Assembly on 25 October 1979, meeting 46, by recorded vote of 101 to 3, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

The General Assembly,

Recalling that the present authority of the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, as provided by section III of General Assembly resolution 33/13 D of 8 December 1978, expires on 24 October 1979,

Noting that the present mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, which was renewed by the Security Council in resolution 449 (1979) of 30 May 1979, continues until 30 November 1979 inclusive,

1. Decides to authorize the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $1,682,833 gross ($1,666,000 net) per month for the period from 25 October to 30 November 1979 inclusive, in order to allow adequate time for consideration by the General Assembly of the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the Force;

2. Also decides to apportion the above-mentioned expenses among Member States in accordance with the scheme set forth in General Assembly resolution 33/13 D.

A/C.5/34/L.27 and Corr.1. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Ireland, Norway, Sweden: draft resolution, approved by Fifth Committee on 30 November 1979, meeting 66, as follows:

Against: Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic

A/34/613/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), draft resolution B.

Resolution 34/7 C, as recommended by Fifth Committee,  A/34/613/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 3 December 1979, meeting 85, by recorded vote of 97 to 3, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Albania, Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Emergency Force and 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 (1973) 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 and 456 (1979) of 30 November 1979,

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 and 34/7 A of 25 October 1979,

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 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

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section II, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution 3211 R (XXIX) the amount of $8,034,170 gross ($7,953,805 net) authorized and apportioned by section III of Assembly resolution 33/13 D for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 June to 24 October 1979 inclusive;

2. Decides further to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section II, paragraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 3211 B (XXIX) the amount of $2,062,827 gross ($2,042,193 net) authorized and apportioned by Assembly resolution 34/7 A of 25 October 1979 for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 25 October to 30 November 1978 inclusive;

II

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $12,578,000 for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 December 1979 to 31 May 1980 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 $2,130,699, pertaining on a pro rata basis to the period from 1 to 31 December 1979 inclusive, among Member States in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979 and the amount of $10,447,301, pertaining on a pro rata basis to the period from 1 January to 31 May 1980 inclusive, among Member States in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1980,1981 and 1982, and:

(a) To apportion an amount of $7,398,874 for the above-mentioned six-month  period  among  the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) of which $1,305,053 shall be apportioned in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979 and $8,091,821 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1980,1981 and 1982;

(b) To apportion an amount of $4,883,538 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and section II, paragraph 2 (b), of resolution 3374 C (XXX), of which $779,836 shall be apportioned in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979 and $4,103,700 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1980,1981 and 1982;

(c) To apportion an amount of $291,514 for the above-mentioned six-month period  among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), section II, paragraph 2 (c), of resolution 3374 C (XXX) and section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 33/13 D, of which $44,958 shall be apportioned in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979 and $248,556 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1980,1881 and 1882;

(d) To apportion an amount of $6,078 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (d) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 3374 C (XXX) section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 31/5 D, section V, paragraph 1 of resolution 32/4 C and section V, paragraph 1 of resolution 33/13 D, of which $852 shall be apportioned in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979 and $5,224 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1980,1881 and 1982;

3. Decides that, in accordance with the provisions of its resolution 973 (X) of 15 December 1955, there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraph 2 of the present section, their respective share in the Tax Equalization Fund of the estimated staff assessment income of $116,000 approved for the period from 1 December 1979 to 31 May 1980 inclusive;

III

Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $2,086,333 gross ($2,077,000 net) per month for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1980 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 456 (1978) of 30 November 1979, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out In the present resolution;

IV

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

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

V

1. Decides that Dominica and Solomon Islands shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in paragraph 2 (d) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and that their contributions to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6 of Assembly resolution 34/6 A of 25 October 1879;

2. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 November 1879 of the Member States listed in paragraph 1 of the present section shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the appropriations apportioned in section II above.

A/C.5/34/L.30. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Ireland, Norway, Panama, Sweden: draft resolution, approved by Fifth Committee on 4 December 1979, meeting 69, by recorded vote of 69 to 9, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

A/34/613/Add.2. Report of Fifth Committee (part III).

Resolution 34/7 D, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/34/613/Add.2, adopted by Assembly on 17 December 1979, meeting 106, by recorded vote of 111 to 9, with 7 abstentions as follows:

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

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 4 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 Security Council resolutions,

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 troop-contributing Governments,

Recalling its resolution 33/13 E of 14 December 1978,

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,

1. Decides that the provisions of its resolution 33/13 E shall remain in force until a further decision of the General Assembly;

2. Decides further 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 $5,260,420, 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 33/13 E and held in suspense until a further decision of the Assembly.

Financing of the liquidation of

the United Nations Emergency Force

A/34/582 and Corr.1. Report of Secretary-General, Chapters IV and VII (para. 17 (d)) and Annex II.

A/34/688. Report of ACABQ, paras. 3 (b) and 7-10.

A/C.5/34/L.27 and Corr.1. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Ireland, Norway, Sweden: draft resolution, approved by Fifth Committee on 30 November 1979, meeting 66, as follows:

[For recorded vote, see p. 347.]

A/34/613/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), draft resolution A.

Resolution 34/7 B, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/34/613/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 3 December 1979, meeting 85, by recorded vote of 98 to 12, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra, Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

The General Assembly,

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

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 340 (1973) of 25 October 1973, 346 (1974) of 8 April 1974, 362 (1974) of 23 October 1974, 368 (1975) of 17 April 1975, 371 (1975) of 24 July 1975, 378 (1975) of 23 October 1975, 396 (1976) of 22 October 1976, 416 (1977) of 21 October 1977 and 438 (1978) of 23 October 1978,

Recalling its resolutions 3101 (XXVIII) of 11 December 1973, 3211 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, 3374 B (XXX) of 28 November 1975, 31/5 C of 22 December 1976, 32/4 B of 2 December 1977 and 33/13 C of 8 December 1978,

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

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

Bearing in mind the special responsibilities of the States permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of such operations, as indicated in General Assembly resolution 1874 (S-IV) of 27 June 1963 and other resolutions of the Assembly.

I

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section II, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution 3211 B (XXIX) the amount of $18,202,000 for the operation

of liquidating the United Nations Emergency Force as from 25 July 1979;

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 $10,590,255 among Member States In the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979 and the amount of 47,611,745 among Member States in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1980, 1981 and 1982, and:

(a) To apportion an amount of $10,924,941 among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII), of which $6,486,532 shall be apportioned in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979 and $4,438,409 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1980, 1981 and 1982;

(b) To apportion an amount of $6,865,920 among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and section II, paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 3374 B (XXX), of which $3,876,033 shall be apportioned in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979 and $2,989,893 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1980, 1981 and 1982;

(c) To apportion an amount of $403,091 among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), section II, paragraph 2 (c), of resolution 3374 B (XXX) and section IV, paragraph 1, of resolution 33/13 C of which $223,454 shall be apportioned in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979 and $179,637 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1980, 1981 and 1982;

(d) To apportion an amount of $8,042 among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (d) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), section IV, paragraph 1, of resolution 3374 B (XXX), section III, paragraph 1, of resolution 31/5 C, section III, paragraph 1, of resolution 32/4 B and section IV paragraph 1, of resolution 33/13 C, of which $4,236 shall be apportioned in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1978 and 1979 and $3,806 in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1980, 1981 and 1982;

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 $4 million other than staff assessment income;

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 $534,000;

II

1. Decides that Dominica and Solomon Islands shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned In paragraph 2 (d) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and that their contributions to the United Nations Emergency Force shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6 of Assembly resolution 34/6 A of 25 October 1979;

2. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions to the United Nations Emergency Force until 24 July 1979 of the Member States listed in paragraph 1 of the present section shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the appropriations apportioned in section I above.

Financing of the United

Nations Interim Force in Lebanon

General Assembly – 34th session

Fifth Committee, meetings 30,74.

Plenary meetings 51, 106.

A/34/1. Report of Secretary-General on work of Organization, Chapter XII.

A/34/570 and Corr.1. Report of Secretary-General.

A/34/689. Report of ACABQ.

A/C.5/34/L.12. Draft resolution submitted by Fifth Committee Chairman in consultation with Secretariat, approved by Fifth Committee on 29 October 1979, meeting 30, by 93 votes to 14, with 1 abstention.

A/34/630. Report of Fifth Committee (part I).

Resolution 34/9 A, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/34/630, adopted by Assembly on 1 November 1979, meeting 51, by 82 votes to 16, with 5 abstentions.

The General Assembly,

Recalling that the present authority of the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon, as provided by section III of General Assembly resolution 33/14 of 3 November 1978, expires on 31 October 1979,

Noting that the present mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, which was renewed by the Security Council in resolution 450 (1979) of 14 June 1979, continues until 18 December 1979 inclusive,

1. Decides to authorize the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon at a rate not to exceed $10,172,000 gross ($10,084,500 net) per month for the period from 1 November to 18 December 1979 inclusive, in order to allow adequate time for consideration by the General Assembly of the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the Force;

2. Also decides to apportion the above-mentioned expenses among Member States in accordance with the scheme set forth in General Assembly resolution 33/14.

A/C.5/34/L.33. Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Sweden: draft resolution (parts A, B, and C and annex, as a whole) approved by Fifth Committee on 7 December 1979, meeting 74, by recorded vote of 85 to 13, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

A/34/630/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), draft resolution I A.

Resolution 34/9 B, as recommended by Fifth Committee,  A/34/630/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 17 December 1979, meeting 106, by recorded vote of 111 to 13, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

Abstaining: Democratic Yemen, Mauritania.

The General Assembly,

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

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, 427 (1978) of 3 May 1978, 434 (1978) of 18 September 1978, 444 (1979) of 19 January 1979 and 450 (1979) of 14 June 1979,

Recalling its resolutions S-8/2 of 21 April 1978, 33/14 of 3 November 1978 and 34/9 A of 1 November 1979,

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 1, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 an amount of $51,906,000 gross ($51,468,000 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 III of Assembly resolution 33/14 for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 January to 18 June 1979 inclusive;

II

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section I, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 an amount of $44,756,800 gross ($44,371,800 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 III of Assembly resolution 33/14 for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 June to 31 October 1979 inclusive;

2. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section I, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 an amount of $16,275,200 gross ($16,135,200 net) authorized and apportioned under Assembly resolution 34/9 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 1 November to 18 December 1979 inclusive;

III

Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon at a rate not to exceed $10,767,166 gross ($10,676,666 net) per month for the period from 19 December 1979 to 18 December 1980 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 450 (1979) of 14 June 1979, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in Assembly resolution 33/14; the scale of assessments for the years 1978 and 1979 shall be applied against a portion thereof, that is, $4,515,263 gross ($4,477,312 net), being the amount pertaining on a pro rata basis to the period from 19 to 31 December 1979 inclusive, and the scale of assessments for the years 1980,1981 and 1982 shall be applied against the balance for the period thereafter;

IV

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;

V

1. Decides that Solomon Islands and Dominica shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in section I, paragraph 2 (d), of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 and that their contributions to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6 of Assembly resolution 34/6 A of 25 October 1979;

2. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon until 18 December 1979 of the Member States listed in paragraph 1 of the present section shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the apportionments authorized in section III above.

A/34/630/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), draft resolution 1 B.

Resolution 34/9 C, as recommended by Fifth Committee,  A/34/630/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 17 December 1979, meeting 106, by recorded vote of 111 to 13, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

Abstaining: Democratic Yemen, Romania, Yemen.

The General Assembly,

Aware of the special nature of the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the difficulties inherent in its financing,

Considering with concern the mounting deficit in the Special Account for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon due to the withholding by certain Member States of their contributions to the Force, and the resulting difficulties in paying the troop- contributing Governments the amounts due to them on a current basis, mainly because of the lack of funds in the Special Account,

Convinced of the need to make special provisions for the liquidation of the outstanding obligations of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon to Governments providing contingents and/or logistic support to the Force,

Recalling its resolution 33/13 F of 14 December 1978, in which it approved special arrangements for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force in regard to the application of article IV of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations,

1. Approves the following special arrangements for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon in regard to the application of article IV of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, whereby appropriations required in respect of obligations owed to Governments providing contingents and/or logistic support to the Force shall be retained beyond the period stipulated under financial regulations 4.3 and 4.4:

(a) At the end of the twelve-month period provided in regulation 4.3, any unliquidated obligations of the financial period in question relating to goods supplied and services rendered by Governments for which claims have been received, or which are covered by established reimbursement rates, shall be transferred to accounts payable; such accounts payable shall remain recorded in the Special Account until payment is effected;

(b)(i) Any other unliquidated obligations of the financial period in question owed to Governments for goods supplied and services rendered, as well as other obligations owed to Governments, for which required claims have not yet been received, shall remain valid for an additional period of four years following the end of the twelve-month period provided in regulation 4.3;

(ii) Claims received during this four-year period shall be treated as provided under subparagraph (a) above, if appropriate;

(iii) At the end of the additional four-year period any unliquidated obligations shall be cancelled and the then remaining balance of any appropriations retained therefor shall be surrendered.

A/34/630/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), draft resolution I C and Annex.

Resolution 34/9 D and Annex, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/34/630/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 17 December 1979, meeting 106, by recorded vote of 108 to 13, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions S-8/2 of 21 April 1978 and 33/14 of 3 November 1978 on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Concerned that a number of Member States have indicated their unwillingness to pay their assessed share of the budget of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Taking note of paragraph 7 of the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, in which it is stated that more than one fourth of the total amounts apportioned among Member States to finance the costs of the Force must, in the present circumstances, be considered uncollectable,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization, submitted to the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session, particularly section XII thereof, in which, inter alia, is outlined the burden which the policy of certain Member States of withholding their assessed contributions places on the troop-contributing States, particularly those States with relatively smaller resources,

Noting that the continuation of the present situation may militate against the important principle of equitable geographical distribution in the composition of peace-keeping forces,

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. Decides to establish a Suspense Account for the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon to be operated according to the annex to the present resolution.

ANNEX

Provisions governing the Suspense Account for

the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon

A. Purpose

1. The Suspense Account for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (hereafter referred to as the Account) shall be used solely to supplement the regular Special Account for the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon in reimbursing Governments for the costs which they incur, under the terms of the existing United Nations practices and rates of reimbursement, in contributing troops, equipment and supplies to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.

B. Guiding principles

2. The Account shall be administered in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

C. Resources

3. The resources of the Account shall consist of voluntary contributions in cash made by Governments, by International organizations (both governmental and non-governmental) and by other private sources.

4. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall issue a biannual appeal to all States Members of the United Nations or members of specialized agencies.

5. Cash contributions to the Account shall be made in convertible currencies or in currency readily usable by the Secretary-General for the purpose outlined above.

6. Contributions shall be made without limitation to a specific recipient country.

7. Contributions to the Account will be considered as cash advances to the Secretary-General and, when a sufficient number of assessed contributions to the regular Special Account for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon have been received, will be credited or paid back to the donor States or parties.

D. Financial administration

8. The Secretary-General shall administer the Account in accordance with the existing Financial Rules and Regulations of the United Nations.

E. Future arrangements

9. The General Assembly shall review, in the light of experience, the effectiveness and further evolution of the arrangement, with a view to deciding upon such changes and improvements as may be necessary to meet fully the purpose of the Account.

A/C.5/34/L.34. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Fiji Finland, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Senegal, Sweden: draft resolution approved by Fifth Committee on 7 December 1979, meeting 74, by 85 votes to 13, with 3 abstentions.

A/34/630/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), draft resolution I D.

Resolution 34/9 E, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/34/630/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 17 December 1979, meeting 106, by recorded vote of 111 to 11, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

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 paragraphs 6 and 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 facing growing difficulties in meeting the obligations of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon on a current basis, particularly those due to the troop contributors,

Concerned that the financial situation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon will soon be reaching a critical stage,

Decides that the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations shall be suspended temporarily in respect of the amount of $122,492 which otherwise would have to be surrendered pursuant to those provisions, this amount to be entered in a separately identified account of the United Nations and held in suspense pending a further decision by the General Assembly.

A/34/689, para. 15. Recommendation of ACABQ, approved without objection by Fifth Committee on 7 December 1979, meeting 74.

A/34/630/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), para. 11: recommendation.

Decision 34/439, by which the General Assembly decided to request the Secretary-General to continue to maintain the Special Account for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for the periods of its mandates subsequent to 18 January 1979, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/34/630/Add.1, adopted without vote by Assembly on 17 December 1979, meeting 106.

Review of reimbursement

rates to troop contributors

A/C.5/34/L.35 Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Sweden: draft resolution, as orally corrected by sponsors, approved by Fifth Committee on 7 December 1979, meeting 74, by 86 votes to 12, with 3 abstentions.

A/34/630/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), draft resolution II.

Resolution 34/166, as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/34/630/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 17 December 1979, meeting 106, by recorded vote of 110 to 10, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

The General Assembly,

Recalling its decision of 29 November 1974, taken at its twenty-ninth session, by which it established, as from 25 October 1973, standard rates of reimbursement to troop-contributing countries for pay and allowances of their troops serving in the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, and its decision 32/416 of 2 December 1977, by which it revised those rates of reimbursement as from 25 October 1977,

Recalling also its decision of 15 December 1975, taken at its thirtieth session, by which it approved the principle of reimbursing the troop-contributing States for the usage factor for personal clothing, gear and equipment, and the related report of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly at its thirty-first session establishing the rates therefor as from 25 October 1973,

Recalling further its resolution S-8/2 of 21 April 1978, by which it applied the same standard rates of reimbursement payable to those Governments contributing troops to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Recognizing that inflation and escalating troop costs have adversely affected in real terms the existing standard rates of reimbursement,

Requests the Secretary-General to study, in consultation with the States contributing troops to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, the existing standard rates of reimbursement, with a view to ensuring an equitable rate of reimbursement to the Governments of troop-contributing States, and to report on this matter to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session.

Other documents

A/INF/34/2 and Corr.1. Collection of contributions during period 1 January to 17 September 1979, Annexes IV-VII.

ST/ADM/SER.B/244. Assessment of Member States' contributions for financing of UNEF (for purpose of liquidating UNEF as from 25 July 1979), and of UNDOF from 25 October 1979 to 31 May 1980 inclusive.

ST/ADM/SER.B/246 and Corr.1. Assessment of Member States' contributions for financing of UNIFIL for period 19 June to 31 October 1979 inclusive and contributions for financing of UNIFIL for period 1 November 1979 to 18 June 1980  inclusive.

Search for a peaceful settlement

Situation in the Middle East

Communications (January-November)

Throughout 1979, the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General received communications concerning the situation in the Middle East.

In letters of 17, 18 and 29 January, 28 February, and 25 and 28 March, the representative of Israel submitted complaints of what he described as terrorist crimes for which he said the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had claimed responsibility. Bombs, grenades and other explosive devices had been detonated in Jerusalem, Lod and Netanya, killing and wounding a number of civilians, including children. The Israeli Government reiterated that it was duty-bound to take all measures necessary to protect the lives and safety of its citizens.

By a letter of 5 March, the representative of Kuwait transmitted to the Council President a letter of 28 February from the Permanent Observer of PLO to the United Nations, forwarding a memorandum and an appeal of 26 February addressed to the Secretary-General on behalf of a United States Jewish organization, Jerusalem Neturei Karta (Guardians of the City). It appealed to the Secretary-General to call on the Israeli authorities to halt construction of a new highway linking Jerusalem with Ramot, and charged that the Israeli Government was attempting to defile and secularize the unique character of the Holy City.

By a letter of 7 March, Sri Lanka transmitted the text of a communiqué issued that day by the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, in New York, reiterating the position that the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East required Israel's withdrawal from all territories it occupied and recognition of the national and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people as affirmed by the General Assembly on 22 November 1974. 25/

By a letter of 7 March, Jordan transmitted several documents and maps on Israeli settlements on the West Bank, a letter concerning the Mosque of Hebron and an appeal to the President of the United States for intervention in a property confiscation protest (see also p. 382).

By a letter of 19 March, the representative of Egypt transmitted a letter of 16 March, addressed to the Secretary-General by the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, stating that negotiations between Egypt and Israel had resulted in a peace treaty between the two countries. This treaty stipulated the following: Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory occupied since 1967 and its return to Egyptian sovereignty; termination of the state of war between the two countries; and reciprocal guarantees for the territorial integrity of both.  He added that the achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian problem had always been Egypt's primary goal.  Egypt had worked diligently to establish a firm link – both political and legal – between the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and progress on the Palestinian problem.  This link was contained in a supplementary agreement providing for a timetable for the implementation of the stages of establishing Palestinian authority in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Reaction to the Egyptian-Israeli treaty, signed in Washington, D.C. on 26 March, was the subject of a number of communications to the Secretary-General.

By a letter of 15 March, Yemen transmitted the text of a statement issued that day by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expressing Yemen's commitment to the unanimous Arab position adopted at Arab summit conferences in Algeria, Iraq, Morocco opposing any separate solution as harmful to the cause of a just peace in the Middle East.  Yemen confirmed its position that PLO was the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

On 22 March, Iraq transmitted a message of that date from its Minister for Foreign Affairs, expressing grave concern over the impending signing by the President of Egypt of a peace treaty with Israel, contrary to the wishes of the Palestinian people and the interests of the Arab States whose territories Israel occupied. He appealed to the Secretary-General to exert every effort to prevent implementation of the treaty.

By a letter of 26 March, the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted a message from its Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, stating that the determination of Egypt's President to conclude a separate peace treaty with Israel jeopardized chances for establishing a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.  The treaty did not establish any basis for peace in the Middle East; in fact it would impede the peace process initiated by the United Nations.  Nor did the treaty safeguard the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, which means that instability and conflict still existed.  In addition, a part of Syrian territory remained occupied by Israel, which continued to reject United Nations resolutions calling for complete withdrawal from that territory.

By a letter of 28 March, Jordan transmitted the text of a Government communiqué issued on 26 March, declaring that all work in Jordan would cease between 1100 hours and noon that day as an expression of Arab rejection of the separate peace agreement.

By a letter of 30 March, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People transmitted the views and concern of the Committee members in connexion with the Egyptian-Israeli negotiations on the Middle East, which they felt had not dealt with the question of Palestine – the heart of the Middle East conflict – or other principles supported by the General Assembly (see also p. 362).

By a letter of 2 April, Iraq transmitted the texts of resolutions adopted by the Council of the League of Arab States at the level of Arab Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Economy and Finance, meeting at Baghdad from 27 to 31 March, which included recommendations to the Arab countries on severance of political and diplomatic relations with the Government of Egypt and possible suspension of Egypt from the Arab League and other intergovernmental organizations, and transference of the Leagues headquarters from Cairo to Tunis.  It also detailed economic measures to be taken against Egypt as a consequence of its concluding a separate treaty with Israel, and asked the United Nations to transfer its regional offices that covered the Arab region from Egypt.

Egypt, in a letter dated 22 November, informed the President of the General Assembly that the Egyptian Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs had, in a letter of 10 April to the Secretary-General of the League, stated that Egypt considered that any decisions and recommendations taken to violate the charter of the League of Arab States were without legal validity. The letter also stated that the seat of the League would continue to be located in Cairo, as stipulated in that charter.

By a letter of 3 April, Sri Lanka transmitted the text of a communiqué issued that day by the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, reiterating its position that a just and peaceful solution in the Middle East could not be attained without Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories and the restoration of national rights to the Palestinian people. It appealed to the Security Council to take measures to compel Israel to abide by its decisions.

On 12 April, Iraq transmitted a letter from its Minister for Foreign Affairs, stating that the bilateral treaty was contrary to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and all United Nations decisions relating to the question of Palestine, the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, the withdrawal of occupation forces from Arab territories and recognition of PLO. Iraq and other Arab countries rejected all attempts to associate the United Nations in any way with implementation of that treaty.

In a letter of 29 May, the United Arab Emirates, current Chairman of the Arab group of Member States at the United Nations, pursuant to the resolutions adopted on 31 March at Baghdad by the Council of the League of Arab States, notified its opposition to action by any organ of the United Nations that might be interpreted as conferring recognition on the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.

In a letter of 27 April, he representative of Egypt informed the Secretary-General that the peace treaty with Israel had been approved on 10 April by the Egyptian People's Assembly. He pointed out that the treaty had been concluded within the provisions of the United Nations Charter and international law, Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) 26/ and 338 (1973), 27/ and the terms and obligations contained in the framework achieved at Camp David (United States) in September 1978. 28/ He added that the additional agreement attached to the treaty stipulated the establishment of Palestinian self-government with full autonomy at a later interim stage, in the course of the process of restoring the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Egypt firmly believed that the United Nations had a major role to play in affirming the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and the restoration of Arab Jerusalem to Arab sovereignty.

In a letter of 9 May, Israel said that the treaty had been ratified unanimously by its Government on 1 April and that Egypt and Israel had exchanged instruments of ratification on 25 April, thereby bringing the treaty into force. The treaty was carried out in implementation of one of two Camp David agreements signed by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat on 17 September 1978, and witnessed by United States President Jimmy Carter. The other pertained to a framework for peace in the Middle East, establishing the principles of a self-governing authority to be set up in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, referred to by Israel as Judaea, Samaria and Gaza, and negotiations on this subject to be commenced between Egypt, Israel and, if it so accepted, Jordan, one month after the exchange of instruments of ratification of the peace treaty. In no circumstances, the letter stated, would Israel contemplate or permit the establishment of a Palestinian State in Judaea, Samaria and Gaza; moreover, Jerusalem would remain one indivisible city – the capital of Israel.

In letters of 10 April, 23 May and 25 June to the Secretary-General, Israel complained of what it termed terrorist outrages, for which PLO had claimed responsibility, in which bombs and other explosive devices had been detonated in Tel Aviv, Petah Tikvah, Hebron and Jerusalem, killing and wounding civilians, including children.

On 19 April, Israel charged that on 15 April a group of what it described as PLO terrorists had tried for the second time in recent weeks to penetrate Israeli territory by crossing the Jordan River. The four armed men had been killed in an exchange of fire with the Israel Defence Force.

In a letter of 28 June, France communicated the text of a declaration issued on 18 June in Paris by the nine member countries of the European Community, in which they deplored any action or declaration that might constitute an obstacle to the quest for peace in the Middle East, in particular certain positions and declarations of the Israeli Government. In that respect, they found Israel's claim of ultimate sovereignty over the occupied territories and its policy of establishing settlements in those territories to be inadmissible. (See also p. 363.)

In letters of 27 July, 7 and 22 August, 19 September, 30 October and 13 November, Israel submitted further complaints of terrorist incidents for which it said PLO had claimed responsibility. Bombs and other explosive devices had been detonated in Dimona, Jerusalem, Netanya, Tel Aviv and towns adjacent to it, indiscriminately and senselessly killing and wounding civilians. On 20 November, Israel charged that on 18 November a group of four PLO terrorists in a rubber dinghy had been intercepted three miles south of the border with Lebanon; two of the men had been killed. The following day, explosive devices had been detonated in Jerusalem, causing injuries and property damage. Israel said PLO had claimed responsibility for these acts.

In a letter of 10 October, Lebanon expressed the appreciation of its Government's Council of Ministers in connexion with the address delivered by Pope John Paul II to the General Assembly on 2 October, in which the Pope expressed concern for the future of Lebanon (see p. 442).

Report of the Secretary-General (24 October)

On 24 October, the Secretary-General submitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council a report on the situation in the Middle East, as called for by the Assembly in 1978. 29/ The Assembly had requested him to report to the Council periodically on the development of that situation and to submit to the Assembly at its regular 1979 session a comprehensive report covering the developments in the region in all their aspects.

The Secretary-General's report dealt with the status of the cease-fire and the activities of the United Nations peace-keeping forces, efforts undertaken by the United Nations concerning the situation in the occupied territories and the question of Jerusalem, the Palestine refugee problem and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East the Question of the rights of the Palestinian people, and developments in connexion with the search for a peaceful settlement.

The Secretary-General said the general situation was unstable and would remain so without a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem, in particular the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; evidently all parties concerned must be involved.

He said he had been informed by Egypt and Israel that the peace treaty between the two countries signed on 26 March 1979 had been approved by the respective legislatures and had come into force on 25 April. He stated that he had received a number of communications conveying concern about these developments or rejection of the treaty.

Consideration by the General Assembly

The Assembly considered the Secretary-General's report when it discussed the situation in the Middle East at six plenary meetings held between 30 November and 6 December.

Among the many documents submitted to the Secretary-General in connexion with the discussion of this item were:

– the Final Declaration of the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Havana from 3 to 9 September, transmitted by Cuba on 1 October;

– the final communiqué and resolutions of the Tenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, held at Fez from 8 to 12 May, transmitted by Morocco on 27 July;

– a letter of 15 October from Israel in answer to an address by the President of Cuba, in his capacity also as Chairman of the movement of non-aligned countries, during the Assembly's general debate on 12 October; the Israeli statement expressed what the Israeli representative might have said had he at that time exercised his right of reply;

– a letter of 21 November from the Syrian Arab Republic denying the presence of Cuban troops in the Republic, as Israel had charged in its written statement in right of reply on 15 October;

– an Austrian proposal, transmitted by a note verbale of 30 November, for a resolution by which the Assembly would call on Israel and the Palestinian people to begin exploratory talks, without pre-conditions, covering all aspects and all possible solutions for a peaceful settlement of the situation without prejudice to the final solution, the aim of the talks being to reach an adequate basis and produce guidelines for negotiations among all parties concerned, under United Nations auspices, and

– the Final Declaration of the Tenth Arab Summit Conference, held at Tunis from 20 to 22 November, transmitted by Tunisia on 3 December.

On 6 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 34/70, on the situation in the Middle East, by a recorded vote of 102 to 17, with 20 abstentions. The text was sponsored by Cuba, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Sao Tome and Principe, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia.

By the preamble of the resolution, the Assembly expressed concern that the Arab territories occupied since 1967 continued to be under illegal Israeli occupation and that the Palestinian people after 30 years was still deprived of the exercise of its inalienable rights. It reaffirmed that the acquisition of territory by force was inadmissible under the United Nations Charter and that all territories thus occupied must be returned. It reaffirmed also the urgent necessity to establish a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region, based on full respect for Charter principles and United Nations resolutions.

By the operative paragraphs, the Assembly condemned Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, in violation of the Charter, the principles of international law and United Nations resolutions. It declared again that peace was indivisible and that a just and lasting settlement of the Middle East question must be based on a comprehensive solution, under United Nations auspices, which took into account all aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular attainment by the Palestinian people of all its inalienable rights and Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem.

The Assembly condemned all partial agreements and separate treaties which violated the recognized rights of the Palestinian people and contradicted the principles of just and comprehensive solutions to the Middle East problem. It reaffirmed that until Israel, in accordance with United Nations resolutions, withdrew from all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, and until the Palestinian people attained and exercised its inalienable national rights, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in which all countries and peoples in the region lived in peace and security within recognized and secure boundaries, would not be achieved. The Assembly called anew for the early convening of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East, under United Nations auspices and USSR/United States co-chairmanship, with participation on an equal footing of all parties concerned, including PLO.

The Assembly urged all parties to work towards the achievement of a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the problem, and requested the Security Council to take all necessary measures to ensure the implementation of Council and Assembly resolutions and to facilitate the achievement of such a settlement aiming at the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region. It requested the Secretary-General: to follow the implementation of this resolution; to forward the relevant records of the current Assembly session to the Council; to inform all concerned, including the Peace Conference Co-Chairmen; to report to the Council periodically; and to report to the Assembly in 1980 on developments in the Middle East in all their aspects.

Speaking in explanation of vote, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, Togo, Venezuela and Zaire expressed reservations about a preambular paragraph by which the Assembly recalled resolution 34/65 of 29 November on the question of Palestine (see following section). By that resolution, the Assembly had declared that the Camp David accords and other agreements had no validity in so far as they purported to determine the future of the Palestinian people and of the occupied Palestinian territories.

Austria, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, New Zealand Singapore, Spain, Sweden and Venezuela had reservations on the wording of the paragraph of resolution 34/70 by which the Assembly condemned partial agreements and separate treaties. Ireland, speaking on behalf of the nine member States of the European Community, said they had been unable to support the resolution largely because of that paragraph. Norway said it had voted against the text because of the implication that the Camp David accords violated the recognized rights of the Palestinian people and contradicted the principles of just and comprehensive solutions to the Middle East problem. Norway had consistently supported those accords, viewing them as a step towards the implementation of Council resolutions 242 (1967) 30/ and 338 (1973). 31/ Bhutan and Liberia observed that their positive votes should not be construed as a condemnation of the accords or the treaty. Costa Rica found the reference to Jerusalem as an occupied Arab territory unacceptable; it held that it must be an international city. New Zealand considered that the resolution as adopted lacked balance.

China, which voted in favour, supported that part of the resolution condemning Israel for its occupation of Arab territories and calling for its withdrawn, but had reservations on the provision calling for convening the Peace Conference on the Middle East under USSR/United States co-chairmanship.

Albania, which did not participate in the vote, expressed similar views, considering that undertakings under the aegis of the super-powers were harmful.

Democratic Yemen and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya also observed that they had not participated in the vote – in accordance with their stand on the Middle East issue – despite certain positive provisions referring to the rights of the Palestinians.

Iraq abstained, considering that the text did not fully express the views of the majority of the international community nor truly and clearly define the rights of the Palestinian people and nation. Israel voted against the resolution, which it considered a crude and transparent attempt by the Arab "rejectionist" States and their supporters to hamper progress of the only constructive, practical and ongoing peace process launched in three decades with the aim of achieving a comprehensive settlement. Since the Assembly had determined by such resolutions that peace was not important, Israel would treat this resolution accordingly.

Participants in the general debate indicated that the situation in the Middle East continued to pose a severe threat to international peace and security and that it required a just and comprehensive solution, to be achieved on the basis of United Nations resolutions and under United Nations auspices.

The majority of speakers – including Arab States, Austria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Ecuador, El Salvador, Indonesia, Ireland (on behalf of the members of the European Community), Nepal, Nigeria, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Yugoslavia and Zambia – said that the question of Palestine was the core of the Middle East conflict.

Egypt said that a comprehensive peace based on justice must prevail so that all peoples, in particular the Palestinian people, might exercise their legitimate rights. The basis that had been accepted by Egypt at Camp David was full implementation of Council resolution 242 (1967) and principles of the Charter and of international law. The treaty of March 1979 concluded by Israel and Egypt should be seen as only a first step towards widespread peace in the area and towards the settlement of all aspects of the conflict in accordance with Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Egypt was well aware of the fact that the framework agreed upon at Camp David did not represent a final settlement. The agreement was the first constructive step towards a settlement of the Palestinian question and the dispute between the Arab countries and Israel in accordance with Charter provisions. At the same time, Egypt vigorously condemned the measures taken by Israel in the occupied Palestinian lands – specifically the creation of settlements and the expropriation of Arab lands – and considered these to be illegal measures clearly hindering progress. Peace in the area required the withdrawal of Israel from all lands occupied in 1967, including the City of Jerusalem, and recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people, in particular their right to self-determination.

Israel said that the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict were embedded in the refusal of the Arab world to come to terms with the restoration of the independence and sovereignty of the Jewish people in its homeland. The conclusion of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was the first major step towards bringing an over-all settlement to the Middle East. The most ominous threat to peace in the Middle East was the rejectionists' Eastern Front combining the armed forces of Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Syrian Arab Republic. In Israel's view, the massive build-up of arms on the Eastern Front had been accompanied by a diplomatic offensive at the United Nations to secure Judaea and Samaria (the West Bank) as a forward base from which the rejectionist States and PLO might be able to carry out a war of annihilation against Israel. Israel could not be expected to adopt an approach which might involve its very existence. The Egyptian-Israeli treaty was steadily being translated into fact: Israel had just completed the fifth successive redeployment of its troops in Sinai, and Mount Sinai and valuable oil fields in the Gulf of Suez had been turned over to Egypt well ahead of the agreed schedule. The Camp David framework for peace in the Middle East was based on Security Council resolution 242 (1967). It must be understood that any tampering with that resolution could only jeopardize the ongoing peace process, Israel concluded.

The PLO representative said that zionism was the negation of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, and that the Zionists were responsible for introducing terrorism into the region.

Brazil, Egypt, El Salvador, Nigeria, Qatar, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Turkey and the USSR, among others, condemned Israel's policy in the occupied territories. They mentioned in particular Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people annexation of Jerusalem, acquisition of Arab lands and establishment of settlements in the occupied territories. They considered that Israel's policy was illegal, a permanent source of tension and a major obstacle to finding a peaceful solution.

Many Members, including Arab States, Brazil, Cyprus, Pakistan, Romania and Turkey, expressed concern over the situation in Lebanon. They called for the cessation of military action by Israel against that country and considered the continuation of hostilities to be another obstacle to a peaceful solution to the problem.

By a letter of 20 November to the Assembly President, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya transmitted a joint Libyan/League of Arab States request dated 14 November that the Secretary-General of the League be given the opportunity to address the Assembly.

On 26 November, the Assembly acceded to that request, and the Secretary-General of the League addressed the Assembly on 30 November. In his statement, he referred to resolutions adopted at the Tenth Arab Summit Conference at Tunis and said that they constituted the directives that imparted energy to Arab actions and determined their policies. He said the Egyptian régime's signature of a treaty with Israel was in violation of the charter of the League of Arab States. The treaty undermined the efforts of the United Nations and enabled Israel to persist in its violation of rights and its illicit occupation of land. He continued by stating that at Tunis it had been suggested that Arab countries should mobilize every effort, including their resources, in order to effect the emancipation and liberation of all Arab territories, including Jerusalem.

The position of the Arab States was that peace in the Middle East must be based on justice taking into account the following considerations the Palestinian question was the core of the Middle East crisis and the main reason for the Arab-Israeli conflict; there was no place for a partial solution since the Palestinian and Middle East questions were indivisible, and the establishment of a just peace must be based on the total and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from all Palestinian and occupied territories and the restoration to the Palestinian people of all their inalienable national rights, including the right to return to their homeland, to self-determination and to establish an independent Palestinian State.

The United States said that the Assembly agreed, with a few exceptions, that the basis for peace was to be found in Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). However, there was wide disagreement on how to reach that goal. The objective must be to promote the cause of justice and to bring about negotiations between adversaries of long standing. Although the impression had  been given by many statements that no progress  had been made in the search for a comprehensive peace, a peace treaty had been signed between Egypt and Israel, calling for complete Israeli withdrawal from all Egyptian territory occupied by Israel in 1967. One month later, negotiations had begun with the objective of establishing full autonomy for the Palestinians in the occupied territories as a first step in the process of securing the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and addressing the Palestinian question in all its aspects. The target date for the completion of the talks was 25 May 1980. The United States said it remained committed to the just resolution of the Palestinian question in all its aspects and to the achievement of legitimate Palestinian rights. It was obvious that much remained to be done, but the process must continue.

Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Community, said that the Community saw the signing of those agreements as a correct application of the principles of resolution 242 (1967) as far as Egyptian-Israeli relations were concerned. Ireland recalled that one of the basic requirements of a comprehensive settlement was an end to the territorial occupation that Israel had maintained since 1967. The European Community was opposed to Israel's policy of establishing settlements in occupied territories in contravention of international law, and it could not accept claims by Israel to sovereignty over those territories. The security of Israel, which the Community considered essential, could be guaranteed and the legitimate rights of the Palestinians given effect within the framework of a comprehensive settlement.

Austria noted that since the conclusion of the treaty no further steps had been forthcoming. It stressed the danger of the stalemate and recalled that at the current session it had submitted suggestions as to how the United Nations could again resume its rightful role in the peace efforts. In submitting them, Austria was guided by the following considerations: Israel was a reality and, like every other State, had the right to recognition and secure boundaries; the Palestinian people were also a reality and had their national rights, which had to be exercised; PLO had been generally accepted by the Palestinian people as their representative; and Israel's obligation to withdraw from the occupied territories had not been fulfilled.

New Zealand, Singapore and Thailand expressed interest in the Austrian proposal, which they felt encouraged a flexible approach.

El Salvador, Nepal, Portugal, Senegal and Spain saw the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty as a possible first step towards a peaceful solution of the conflict. Portugal said that peace could only be achieved through a gradual process. The treaty, however, and the ongoing negotiations fell short of being the over-all settlement which was needed to bring peace to the area.

Spain slid that a change of approach was evident; some progress had been made in recognizing that any over-all agreement was contingent on acknowledgement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to a homeland of their own. In the opinion of Spain, that recognition showed a significant change in world public opinion and in the policies of many States; without such a change, no solution was possible.

Spokesmen representing most Arab States, socialist countries of Eastern Europe and countries belonging to the non-aligned movement evaluated the Camp David accords critically and the ensuing Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. They regarded these agreements as a flagrant violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, the Arab States, the United Nations Charter, the charter of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and international resolutions.

Arguments advanced against the separate peace treaty included the following.

The USSR said that failure to resolve the conflict had caused concern among all those who cared about improving international détente and bringing about general peace and security. It was clear that the overwhelming majority of Member States were convinced that in order to achieve a comprehensive settlement the very roots of the conflict had to be eradicated. This required: the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied in 1967; implementation of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian Arab people, including the right to self-determination and to create their own independent State; and implementation of the right to an independent existence and security of all those directly concerned in the conflict. The USSR reiterated that the separate Egyptian-Israeli treaty, concluded against the will of the Arab peoples and countries, was an overt attempt not to allow the implementation of the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including their right to create their own State. For that reason, the USSR was against any attempt, by whatever means, to involve the United Nations in the implementation of that transaction, which it said could never lead to peace. As events had shown, tension in the Middle East continued, and Israel was actively pursuing its policy of expansion and aggression.

The Byelorussian SSR said that those agreements were designed to help Israel strengthen its position in the occupied Arab territories. Bulgaria stated that they were not limited to refusing to recognize the true representative of the Palestinian people, PLO; they denied the very existence of the Palestinian people.

The German Democratic Republic said the Camp David accords had become, wittingly or unwittingly, an obstacle to an over-all, just solution to the problem of the Middle East. The basic problem – the Palestinian question – was of secondary importance in those agreements. They did not provide binding formulas for recognizing the right of the Arab people of Palestine to self-determination and to an independent State. The Palestinians living under Israeli occupation were allowed to determine only such matters as food, subsistence and certain minor questions.

Jordan said that remedies based on misrepresentation could only compound an already potentially explosive situation. The Camp David accords were not only in violation of Palestinian and Arab rights but also of United Nations resolutions, conventions and all other instruments concerning the peaceful settlement of disputes. Council resolution 242 (1967) did not permit the perpetuation of Israeli military occupation under the pretext of the relocation of forces. It did not permit the transfer of Israelis into the occupied territories and did not condone the colonization policies of Israel which had already taken over almost one third of the occupied lands. Jordan said it was willing to request a considered ruling on the subject from the International Court of Justice.

Algeria said a State was free to conclude any treaty, unless that treaty was incompatible with imperative norms of law which could not be derogated or transgressed, such as the right of peoples to self-determination. The Camp David accords violated the national rights of the Palestinian people, and Egypt had concluded treaties that were therefore contrary to international law. The United Nations, which had always energetically affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people, was faced with treaties and agreements which directly clashed with those rights. Developments following the conclusion of those agreements had engendered greater tension owing to Israel's constant expansionist thrusts.

Yugoslavia said that separate solutions or agreements outside the United Nations framework would not lead to lasting peace but, on the contrary, further aggravated the crisis since they did not take into consideration the core of the crisis: the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to freedom and independence, a right that could not be the subject of negotiations.

Many Members emphasized the role of the United Nations in solving the Middle East conflict. Romania said that it would be particularly important to organize an international meeting, under the auspices and with the active participation of the United Nations, either by reconvening the Geneva Peace Conference or by holding a different type of conference with all countries and parties concerned participating, including PLO, the two Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference and other countries if necessary.

Senegal said that in the search for a settlement the Assembly had been for some time the victim of a mistaken approach, by leaving aside the question of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. It had corrected that error by defining the inalienable rights of that people and by reaffirming the central nature of the question of Palestine. Unfortunately, the Security Council remained the victim of that incomplete approach. Resolution 242 (1967) dealt with the Palestinian problem only from the humanitarian angle and was inadequate. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People had been working to correct this, but had always met with obstruction in the Council from one of its permanent members. The Council was being prevented from playing its main role, which was to define the basic principles underlying peace in the Middle East. If the situation continued, the Assembly should plan to hold a special session, in accordance with the wish expressed by the overwhelming majority of United Nations Member States and by the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries at Havana in September.

Question of Palestine

Communications and report

During 1979, the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General received a series of communications concerning the question of Palestine from the Chairman and the Acting Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

In a letter of 9 February to the Secretary-General, the Committee Chairman conveyed his concern about the recurrence of systematic repressive measures by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. Examples of these measures were: arrests at Bir Zeit University and in Ramallah; statements by the Foreign Minister of Israel About deporting Palestinians who supported PLO: and demolition of homes of PLO supporters. He also expressed concern that Israel was continuing illegally to establish new settlements in the occupied territories and enlarge existing ones.

To a letter of 2 March to the Council President, the Acting Chairman of the Committee annexed a list of documents and press reports which he said detailed a wide-ranging campaign of repression against the Palestinian people by Israel. Maps indicating Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were accompanied by an explanatory note, purporting to show Israeli designs to control the West Bank of Jordan.

In a letter of 13 March to the President, the Committee Chairman drew attention to principles which guided Committee members in formulating recommendations for United Nations action on the problem of Palestine. 32/ The Committee considered it important that the Security Council should take measures to implement the Committee's recommendations, which the Committee felt the Council would want to re-examine.

In a reply of 24 May, the Council President in formed the Chairman of consultations he had undertaken with Council members, as a result of which they were following the matter with great attention with a view to holding a meeting at an early date.

On 30 March, the Chairman again reminded the Secretary-General of the Committee's recommendations for the implementation of  the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, which had been supported by the General Assembly as a possible basis for the settlement of the question of Palestine. The Committee noted with regret that these principles had not been taken into consideration in recent negotiations on the question of Palestine, which had not been conducted within the framework of the United Nations.

In a letter of 2 May, the Chairman expressed serious concern about Israel's decision to authorize the establishment of two new settlements in the occupied Arab territories, in violation of Committee recommendations, United Nations resolutions and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (the fourth Geneva Convention) of 12 August 1949.

On 11 May, the Acting Chairman again conveyed the concern of the Committee about the systematic and increasingly repressive measures taken against Palestinians by Israel in the illegally occupied territories, including incidents in which a student supporter of PLO was expelled to Lebanon, another student was shot and wounded, and 70 students were detained indefinitely.

Referring in a letter of 17 May to a letter of 9 May from Israel to the Secretary-General, in which Israel had affirmed that Egypt and Israel had exchanged on 25 April instruments of ratification, thereby bringing into force a peace treaty between the two States (see p. 356), the Acting Chairman said that Israel's declared refusal to withdraw from the territories it had occupied since 1967 and its stated intention concerning those territories ignored the Assembly-endorsed recommendations of the Committee. He considered Israel's statement that in no circumstances would it permit the establishment of a Palestinian State in Judaea, Samaria and Gaza to be a denial of the exercise of the right of self-determination, and its declaration that Jerusalem would always remain one indivisible city, the eternal capital of Israel, to be a defiance of Council resolution 252 (1963). 33/

In a letter of 27 June, the Committee Chairman informed the Council President that the Committee had concluded that the Council should resume consideration of the Committee's recommendations as soon as possible. The Assembly in 1978 34/ had authorized and asked the Committee to make suggestions it deemed appropriate should the Council not have considered its recommendations by 1 June 1979.

On 19 September, the Chairman expressed to the Secretary-General the Committee's serious concern at an Israeli Government decision to abrogate provisions prohibiting Israeli companies and nationals from purchasing land in the illegally occupied Arab territories. He protested that this action was in flagrant violation of international law, world public opinion, the United Nations Charter, United Nations resolutions and the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

A number of communications from States pertaining to the question of Palestine were also received during the year.

Following a letter to the Secretary-General of 16 March, in which the Egyptian Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs set out the provisions of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, the Secretary-General received a number of letters from Arab States expressing a negative reaction to that treaty in so far as it affected Palestinian rights. Communications were received in March and April from Iraq, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen. On 27 April, Egypt gave the Secretary-General further details concerning the treaty, including an additional agreement stipulating establishment of Palestinian self-government at a later interim stage. (See p.356.)

On 9 May, Israel, in a letter to the Secretary-General, summarized the background to the treaty, outlining the principles contained in the Camp David accords and Israel's commitments which included: full autonomy for the Palestinian Arab inhabitants of Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district; the refusal of a "Palestinian State" in that region; and the status of Jerusalem as one indivisible city with free access for all to the Holy Places.

On 1 August, the Chairman of the Palestinian Rights Committee addressed a letter to the Secretary-General expressing the Committee's concern at the statement made by the United States in explanation of its abstention following the voting on Security Council resolution 452 (1979) (see p. 391). It was the Committee's view that the Council Commission Established under Resolution 446 (1979) (see p. 385) had acted within its mandate in taking up the question of illegal Israeli settlements at Jerusalem.

Several intergovernmental groups reaffirmed to the Secretary- General their positions on the question of Palestine.

On 7 March and 3 April, Sri Lanka transmitted the texts of communiqués issued in New York by the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, reaffirming that the establishment of peace in the Middle East required Israel's withdrawal from all the occupied territories and the recognition of the national and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and reaffirming a position of the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in July 1978. Sri Lanka transmitted on 6 July the final communiqué, resolutions and other documents of the Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau held at Colombo from 4 to 9 June 1979.

In a communiqué issued on 9 May, the Coordinating Bureau expressed grave concern at the recent escalation of Israeli armed attacks on Lebanon and on the Palestinian refugee camps there.

By a letter of 24 August, Zambia transmitted the text of the final communiqué issued by the heads of Government of Commonwealth countries at their meeting at Lusaka from 1 to 7 August. This communiqué emphasized, among other things, that a just and permanent peace in the Middle East could only be achieved on the basis of a fully comprehensive solution that upheld the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to a homeland.

By a letter of 28 June, France transmitted to the Secretary-General a declaration on the situation in the Middle East issued in Paris on 18 June by the nine member countries of the European Community.

The nine States considered that a just and lasting peace could be established only on the basis of an over-all settlement, which should be founded on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) 35/ and 338 (1973) 36/ and on: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by force; the need for Israel to end the occupation of territory held since the 1967 conflict; respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries; and recognition of the fact that, in the establishment of a just and lasting peace, the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, including their right to a homeland, would have to be taken into consideration.

The nine States deplored any action that might constitute an obstacle to the quest for peace, considering that certain Israeli Government positions represented an obstacle to the search for such an over-all settlement, particularly Israel's claim of ultimate sovereignty over the occupied territories and its policy of establishing settlements there.

A number of other communications also transmitted documents that addressed the question of Palestine.

To a letter of 2 April, Iraq annexed the texts of resolutions of the Council of the League of Arab States at the level of Arab Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Economy and Finance, issued at Baghdad following their meeting from 27 to 31 March (see p.355).

To a letter dated 27 July, Morocco annexed the texts of the resolutions and final communiqué of the Tenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, held at Fez from 8 to 12 May.

Cuba transmitted on 1 October the Final Declaration of the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Havana from 3 to 9 September, and, on 16 October, a communiqué of 6 October issued following an Extraordinary Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of Non-Aligned Countries, held in New York from 4 to 6 October, which decided on priority issues of concern to those countries among the agenda items currently before the Assembly, including the question of Palestine.

Venezuela on 16 October transmitted the texts of resolutions adopted by the Sixty-sixth Inter-Parliamentary Conference, held at Caracas from 13 to 21 September.

To a letter of 27 November, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya annexed the text of the Lisbon Declaration adopted by the World Conference in Solidarity with the Arab People and Their Central Issue: Palestine, held at Lisbon, Portugal, from 2 to 6 November.

Romania on 1 December transmitted an extract from the report of the Romanian Communist Party's Central Committee to the Twelfth Congress of the Party, held at Bucharest from 19 to 23 November.

Tunisia annexed to a letter of 3 December the Final Declaration of the Tenth Arab Summit Conference, held at Tunis from 20 to 22 November.

On 24 October, the Secretary-General submitted to the Assembly and the Council a comprehensive report on the situation in the Middle East, as called for by the Assembly in 1978. 37/ The report dealt with, among other things, the question of the rights of the Palestinian people, outlining United Nations decisions on the subject during the previous year and indicating communications received in this connexion.

Consideration by the

Security Council (June-August)

The Security Council held five meetings on 29 June, 27 July and 23 and 24 August to consider the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, in response to the letters of 13 March and 27 June from the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (see preceding subsection). The Council had before it a draft resolution on the subject prepared by the Committee.

The representatives of Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Morocco, Sri Lanka, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey and Yugoslavia were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

The President, with the consent of the Council, extended an invitation, under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, 38/ to the Chairman of the Palestinian Rights Committee, the representative of Senegal.

At Kuwait's request, PLO was invited to participate in the discussion. The invitation, as extended, conferred on PLO the same rights as were conferred when a Member State was invited to participate under rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. 39/ The United States requested that the proposed invitation be put to a vote. It was adopted by 10 votes to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom).

Reporting to the Council, the Committee Chairman summed up the Committee's position on the most recent developments in the Middle East. First, the question of Palestine was at the heart of the Middle East problem and therefore any solution must take into account the rights of its people. Second, the full exercise of those rights, including self-determination, independence and national sovereignty, would contribute to a solution of the problem. Third, the participation of PLO, on an equal footing with other parties, was indispensable to all negotiations undertaken under United Nations auspices. Fourth, the acquisition of territory by force was inadmissible and Israel must withdraw completely from any territory so occupied.

The Chairman said that certain Council members believed that the Committee's recommendations were partial and lacked balance. The Committee had held discussions with those members to explain the underlying principles and to invite suggestions to improve the recommendations. The Chairman drew the Council's attention to the declaration issued by the European Community on 18 June, which affirmed those principles (see preceding subsection).

The majority of speakers supported the Committee's recommendations, expressing their conviction that until the Palestinian people could exercise their inalienable rights, it would be impossible to arrive at a settlement of the Middle East crisis, and that it was therefore the Council's responsibility to provide guidelines for such a settlement, working from the basis of Council resolution 242 (1967).

Israel said that, ever since PLO had been granted observer status at the United Nations, the Assembly had supported PLO's objectives and had adopted many resolutions that lacked balance. The Assembly had established the Palestinian Rights Committee by a resolution 40/ designed to bypass resolution 242 (1967). Israel claimed that the Committee's recommendations ignored that resolution, failed to mention the concept of negotiations and were a thinly disguised formula for dismemberment of the State of Israel, in keeping with PLO's aims. The Council should not help those whose purpose was to perpetuate hostilities in the Middle East, Israel said.

Egypt said that resolution 242 (1967) should be developed and its provisions translated into fact. Such action would reaffirm that resolution and resolution 338 (1973), and contribute to the ongoing peace process based on the Camp David accords. In Egypt's view, the principles of the accords and of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty paved the way for a positive movement towards a comprehensive peace. By those agreements, Israel had recognized the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Egypt would support a Council resolution that called for the recognition of those rights and for the right of all nations in the region, including Israel, to exist. Egypt welcomed the position taken by the European Community as a constructive approach. Egypt's position was that a comprehensive settlement required complete withdrawal by Israel from all Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

The PLO representative said the Camp David accords dealt with the future of the Palestinian people, but neither a Palestinian individual nor PLO had authorized the parties to those accords to speak for the Palestinians. He said that in PLO's view the Camp David formula was a violation of the international consensus on the Palestinian question, and noted that it had been rejected by the Arab States, the developing countries and the socialist States of Eastern Europe.  As for the problem of Jerusalem – a city in Palestine – Israel had declared it to be indivisible and outside the scope of the proposed self-governing authority.

The PLO representative said the return of Palestinians to their homes and property was a prerequisite for peace that was denied them by Israel. The Council was empowered to redress that injustice and its duty was to adopt a programme of implementation to do so. Article 25 and Chapter VII 41/ of the United Nations Charter granted the Council powers to discharge its duties. He added that the international community, including the United Nations, had never approved the Zionist concept and was under no obligation to protect the Zionist character of Israel.

The United Kingdom said it remained committed to the principles of resolution 242 (1967), which called for the withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces and reaffirmed that Israel, like other States, was entitled to live in peace with its neighbours within secure borders. The Council should refine those principles, since that resolution did not address itself to the Palestinians, but dealt with how the Arab States and Israel could live in peace together. Palestinians must be fully involved in any settlement and able to take part in negotiations. In the United Kingdom's opinion, resolution 242 (1967) should be supplemented, not amended or replaced. The Palestinians should also accept it as a working basis for peace. The United Kingdom urged PLO to accept without qualification Israel's right to exist, and to commit itself to a negotiated settlement on that basis. The United Kingdom also urged Israel to recognize that the legitimate rights of the Palestinians must be satisfied to achieve a lasting settlement. The Council should direct its efforts to getting the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate.

France said the Council's duty was to seek to reconcile the various elements of the problem: the right of the Arab States to recover their territorial integrity, which required evacuation by Israel of occupied territories; the right of each State in the region, including Israel, to live in peace within secure boundaries; and the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland.

The USSR expressed a lack of belief in the references to Palestinian autonomy contained in the Egyptian-Israeli treaty. It condemned Israel's occupation of Arab territories and its separate peace treaty. Supporting this view, Czechoslovakia said it was not for Israel to propose autonomy measures to the inhabitants of the Arab territories since those areas were not part of Israeli territory.

The representative of the United States said that the United States attitude in the Council and towards the discussions that had led to its convening reflected its conviction that the Palestinian people must be brought into the peace process. Peace with justice must apply to all peoples in the area. It was important, therefore, that the Council understand his country's basic approach to securing a comprehensive peace, for that approach would guide it in actions with respect to the countries and peoples of the region and in response to proposals for Council action. First, the current stage of the peace process, now centred on negotiations between Egypt, Israel and the United States, needed a chance to succeed. Second, the bases for making peace were resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) in their entirety. Third, the right of Israel and its neighbours to live in peace, within secure and recognized borders, was fundamental. Fourth, the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to participate in determining their future, must be realized. Negotiations to create full autonomy for the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza were proceeding between Egypt, Israel and the United States, and that represented the first time in more than 30 years that negotiations were directly addressing the Palestinian question and Palestinians were invited to take part.

China supported the Palestinian Rights Committee's recommendations, which rectified an earlier approach to the question of Palestine as a refugee question, and said the Council should adopt a resolution confirming the correct principles. In China's view, a real solution to the problem of the Middle East depended on the Arab people's strength and unity in the common struggle against the enemy, and the super-powers' ceasing to meddle in the situation.

The Syrian Arab Republic said it regarded the Camp David accords and the subsequent treaty between Egypt and Israel as null and void and a danger to peace in the Middle East. Cuba, Iraq, Jordan and the Lao People's Democratic Republic criticized Israel for its annexation of Arab territories and for its separate peace treaty with Egypt, which they felt sidestepped the real issue. They believed it was the Council's duty to impose sanctions if Israel continued to defy United Nations resolutions.

Jordan found it difficult to understand why certain States refused to recognize the Palestinian Rights Committee. The Committee's recommendations were action-oriented and meticulously worked out. The Council could enter into a dialogue with the Committee on the modalities in its recommendations as a prelude to positive action, such as the resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East, in which all parties would participate, including PLO.

Kuwait said that it was essential to realize that peace could not be achieved in the Middle East without negotiating with the Palestinians, represented by PLO. The United States was not a bystander in the matter; it was an involved party, according to the Camp David accords, which stated that the United States was a full partner with Egypt and Israel in the pursuit of peace. In Kuwait's view, the major protagonists in the Middle East were the Israelis and the Palestinians, and United States policy was to support Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. Kuwait did not question the right of the United States to support the survival of Israel, but it questioned total indifference to the rights of the Palestinians. Kuwait called on the Council to recognize the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

Tunisia, in its capacity as current Chairman of the Arab group of Member States at the United Nations, said that the Committee's main recommendations had been endorsed by the Assembly and needed the strong support of the Council. The Council's silence encouraged Israel in its denial of the Palestinian people's right to exist. Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka in its capacity as Chairman of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, said that the recommendations represented a balanced prescription for peace and should find reflection in a unanimous Council pronouncement. The solution could not remain confined within the parameters of resolution 242 (1967).

Morocco, President of the Islamic Conference, expressed similar views and affirmed that any solution that failed to take into account the Palestinian cause and that did not entail the restitution of occupied Arab territories was unacceptable to the Moslem world. The Islamic Conference called for the creation of an independent Palestine on its own land, led by PLO. Morocco believed that to implement resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) a third element was required: the granting of self-determination to the Palestinian people.

Afghanistan, the German Democratic Republic, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and Yugoslavia called on the Council to accept its responsibility towards the Palestinian people in their struggle, led by PLO, to establish a Palestinian national State. Turkey said that after many years during which the issue of Palestine had been considered as a refugee problem, its political dimension had finally been accepted and defined in various Assembly resolutions.

The draft resolution prepared by the Committee, and submitted by its Chairman on 24 August, would have  had  the Council affirm that the Palestinian people should be enabled to exercise  their inalienable rights of self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, and affirm the right of Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with  their neighbours to do so and the right of those choosing not to return to receive compensation for their  property. These affirmations should be taken into account in all international efforts and conferences organized within the framework of the United Nations for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The Committee Chairman said the text was prudent and in accord with previously adopted resolutions. In order to avoid dissension, the formulation of national independence and sovereignty had been used, rather than that of a Palestinian State.  

No vote was taken on the draft resolution. At the end of the meeting on 24 August, the President announced that further consideration of the item would be fixed following consultations.

Report of the Committee on Palestinian Rights

In its 1979 report, submitted on 17 October, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People reviewed its activities during the year. The General Assembly, in a 1978 resolution, 42/  had again urged the Security Council to take a decision as soon as possible on the Committee's 1976  recommendations designed to enable the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable rights. 43/ Since the Council had not taken action on those recommendations by 1 June 1979, the deadline mentioned by the Assembly in its 1978 resolution, the Committee's Acting Chairman had initiated consultations with the Council President to urge early action by the Council, which had considered the question of Palestine at meetings in June, July and August (see subsection above).

The report reviewed action taken by other organizations on the questions covered by the Committee's mandate, noted attendance by representatives of the Committee at international conferences, seminars and other meetings, and reflected the Committee's reactions to events in the Middle East, including the signing of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in March 1979, and to developments in the occupied territories.

By resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979 (see p. 385), the Security Council had established a Commission to examine the situation relating to settlements in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem. The Committee had co-operated with the Commission and, noting that the Commission's recommendations bore out those of the Committee, hoped that they would be endorsed  by the Council, as a first step towards endorsement of the Committee's own recommendations.

The  Committee also endorsed a decision by the group of Arab States at the United Nations to oppose Israeli moves to have Jerusalem recognized as its capital.

Acting on an Assembly resolution of 2 December 1977, 44/ the Committee had suggested to the Secretariat's  Special Unit on Palestinian Rights several themes on which the Unit had prepared  pamphlets during 1979. The Committee also reviewed the bulletins issued periodically by the Unit, noting that they were receiving the widest possible dissemination. In its 1979 recommendations, the Committee unanimously decided to reiterate the validity of its 1976 recommendations, which the Assembly had repeatedly endorsed, and annexed them to its report. In addition,  the report also reiterated the four basic principles relating to the problem of Palestine within the Middle East situation. 45/

The report also drew the Assembly's attention to the Committee's considered opinion that the  Camp David accords, to the extent that they did not take into consideration the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and had been negotiated with out the participation of PLO, contravened the Assembly's resolution of 7 December 1978. 46/

International Day of Solidarity

with the Palestinian People

 In compliance with a General Assembly resolution of 2 December 1977, 47/ the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights, in consultation with the Palestinian Rights Committee, organized on 29 November the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. A special meeting of the Committee was held at United Nations Headquarters, New York, with an exhibition emphasizing  the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Publications prepared by the Special Unit on various aspects of Palestinian rights were distributed at the meeting.  Similar arrangements were made at the United Nations Office at Geneva. A film prepared by the Department of Public Information (DPI) was  also shown.

 At this meeting, statements were made by the Assembly and Security Council Presidents, the Committee Chairman and the Secretary-General.

 Messages were received, expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle to secure their inalienable rights, from the heads of State of Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Guyana, Hungary, India, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Oman, Pakistan the Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia.

Messages were also read out from the heads of Government or Deputy Premiers of Malta, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and from the Foreign Ministers of Barbados, Greece, Indonesia, Japan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, the Philippines and Turkey.

In addition, statements were made by representatives of the Special Committee against Apartheid, the United Nations Council for Namibia, various regional groups of Member States at the United Nations, OAU, PLO, the Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States, and by invited speakers.

The messages were subsequently circulated in a special bulletin issued by the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights. In a note verbale of 22 June addressed to the Secretariat, Israel protested the fact that PLO was represented as a Government in that publication.

Consideration by the General Assembly

The General Assembly considered the question of Palestine at seven meetings held between 26 November and 12 December. In addition to the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Assembly had before it several communications having a bearing on the question (see subsection above on COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORT).

The President called on PLO to address the Assembly on the basis of an Assembly resolution of 22 November 1974. 48/

The Palestinian Rights Committee Chairman said the recommendations of the Committee endorsed by the Assembly continued to be valid and important. The implementation of United Nations resolutions was incumbent on every Member State. Unfortunately, a major obstacle to Security Council approval of the recommendations had been the policy of one permanent Council member. He regretted that the principles on which the Committee's recommendations were based had been ignored in recent negotiations on the Middle East.

The Chairman recalled that the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Havana in September, had reaffirmed its support for the Committee's decisions and proposals. The Conference had also advocated the convening of a special session of the Assembly, should the Security Council not succeed in coming to a decision through a lack of unanimity among its permanent members. The Palestinian cause, he said had also welcomed the declaration published on 18 June by the European Community.

Introducing his Committee's report, the Rapporteur of the Palestinian Rights Committee said that, despite the annual endorsement of the Committee's recommendations by the Assembly, the Security Council had not adopted them. Thus, nothing tangible had been done to alleviate the plight of the Palestinian people; on the contrary, action taken by the occupying power was increasing tension in the area and retarding prospects for a peaceful solution.

The Rapporteur said the Committee's role in the past three years had been limited to the three functions of retaining its openness and objectivity, exercising vigilance over events, and spreading new information on the various aspects of the question of Palestine. With the assistance of the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights, the Committee had produced and disseminated 10 major studies.

The PLO representative said that the events in occupied Palestine and the region in general demonstrated the suffering of the people and their determination to resist occupation in order to attain liberation and the establishment of a just peace in the region. The situation had worsened since the Camp David accords were signed, he said, mainly because those agreements, for which the United States bore full responsibility, made no mention of the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to return to their homeland and ignored the question of Jerusalem. Those agreements had been decided in the absence of the Palestinian people and PLO, its lawful representative, which alone had the right to decide the fate of those people.

The PLO representative said the Assembly had repeatedly requested the Council to adopt the Committee's recommendations but, because of the use of the veto by the United States, the Council had been unable to take action.

Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Hungary, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar and Mauritania also expressed the view that the negative attitude of the United States was a primary reason for lack of progress towards a solution. 48/

Burundi, China, the Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Japan, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Sierra Leone, the Sudan, Turkey, the USSR, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia were among those emphasizing the essential role that PLO, as the representative of the Palestinian people and the guardian of their inalienable rights, had to play in efforts to reach a solution to the Palestinian question – the heart of the Middle East conflict.

Qatar appealed to Western States to recognize PLO as the Palestinian people's only legitimate representative and to recognize that people's right to self-determination. The Sudan expressed the hope that the European Community would allow the positive trend in their position to culminate in recognition of PLO.

The representative of Israel outlined Israel's view of the historical evolution of the Palestinian problem and said that the Arab States took advantage of the numerical majority at their disposal at the United Nations by setting up a so-called Committee and a Special Unit on Palestinian Rights. According to Israel, the Special Unit under the Committee's guidance had in the past 12 months produced a series of pseudo-scientific studies bearing the emblem of the United Nations that distorted well-known historical facts.

In Israel's opinion, the only practical solution to date had been outlined in the Camp David framework for peace in the Middle East, based on Council resolution 242 (1967). By those agreements, the Palestinian Arab residents of Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district were granted full autonomy for a transitional period of five years before the final status of the areas would be agreed. Israel claimed that the solution provided for in the Camp David framework offered the Palestinian Arabs greater opportunities than they had ever before experienced in their history. In Israel's view, PLO had escalated its anti-peace and intimidation campaigns and remained a willing tool in the hands of those Arab States opposed to peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Israel restated its position that an indivisible Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel and of the Jewish people.

Albania, Algeria, Bahrain, the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Ghana, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Morocco, Qatar, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Ukrainian SSR and the United Arab Emirates said they rejected the Camp David accords, which in their opinion created further obstacles to a peaceful settlement. They blamed Israel's intransigence and its ignoring of United Nations resolutions for the deadlock.

Mongolia, Poland, the USSR and Viet Nam also expressed disapproval of the accords and the separate treaty. Poland said that, as most of the Arab countries and the socialist States of Eastern Europe had anticipated, the treaty had not only failed as a first step towards a comprehensive settlement, but had played straight into the hands of Israel, which had intensified its expansionist policies.

Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, India, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Sweden, Uruguay and Zaire approved some aspects of the accords as a positive step towards breaking the deadlock.

Sweden welcomed the bilateral treaty as a first step towards the application of Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). In Sweden's view, those resolutions must be supplemented by recognition of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people; a final peace settlement could be comprehensive and lasting only if all parties concerned, including PLO, took part in it. Sweden had repeatedly expressed its firm rejection of the Israeli settlement policy in the occupied territories.

Romania and the USSR said that the question of Palestine was a matter of a people's fundamental right to self-determination, including the right to set up its own State. They believed that negotiation between the parties directly concerned was the only way to resolve the problem and that the participation of PLO was a prerequisite for reaching a viable solution. Romania considered that it was particularly important to organize under the aegis of the United Nations an international conference with the participation of all the parties concerned, including PLO and the two Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Peace Conference. It was Romania's opinion that positive action by the Council on Assembly recommendations concerning the Palestinian question could create the necessary conditions for a just and lasting peace in the region.

Jordan said Israel's occupation of Arab land had been the longest that the contemporary world had witnessed. Systematic despoliation and colonization of the occupied land were taking place. In Jordan's view, by means of organized violence Israeli occupation was unilaterally delimiting areas that Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) had envisaged being determined by multilateral negotiations and agreements under United Nations auspices and with the participation of all parties concerned. In this connexion, Jordan restated that Israeli military withdrawal from Arab Jerusalem was a prerequisite to any just and lasting peace.

Lebanon pointed out that there could be no peace in the Middle East without peace for Palestinians, and that although peace in Lebanon was linked to the question of Palestine it could not wait until attainment of peace in the entire Middle East.

Egypt stated that it had embarked upon the battle for peace to restore both the rights of the Palestinian people and Arab and Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem. Israel could not claim sovereignty over those territories. Egypt recalled to the Assembly the commitment within the context of the Camp David accords to implement Council resolution 242 (1967) in all its parts, the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law, as well as commitment to the participation of all the parties concerned with the solution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Egypt supported the Committee's recommendations, which it said were designed to enable the Palestinians to recover those right Egypt recognized that the Camp David framework did not constitute the final settlement of the Palestinian problem. It asserted, however, that the accords had shattered the stalemate, had wrenched from Israel concrete commitments for the benefit of the Palestinian people, and thus had been the first constructive step towards a sound resolution of the problem.

A number of States endorsed the Committee's recommendations. These included Algeria, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Democratic Kampuchea, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Qatar, the Syrian Arab Republic and the USSR. The Syrian Arab Republic said the Council should support those recommendations as the Assembly had done.

Ireland, on behalf of the European Community, expressed the Community's reservations concerning those recommendations, considering that they suffered from a fundamental lack of balance. Israel and the United States opposed the recommendations.

Ireland reaffirmed the following principles of the Community's London declaration of 29 June 1977 for a Middle East settlement: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force; the need for Israel to end the territorial occupation which it had maintained since 1967, respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all States in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, and recognition that, in the establishment of a just and lasting peace, account must be taken of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

Ireland said that those principles, together with resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), taken as a whole, set the essential framework for a comprehensive peace settlement.

China said that the question of Palestine was at the heart of the Middle East problem, and the struggle of the Palestinian people to regain their national rights was inseparable from the struggle of Arab countries to regain their lost territories. It stated that Israel, in its hostile acts against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples, had the support of the super-powers, locked in rivalry for oil resources and strategic areas in the Middle East: one continued to shield the Israeli aggressors, while the other seized every opportunity to infiltrate, expand and disrupt the unity of Arab countries. China expressed the hope that effective measures would be adopted for the implementation of constructive United Nations resolutions affirming the national rights of the Palestinian people.

Burundi, China, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Mauritania, Mongolia, Qatar, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Zaire were among States that expressed gratification concerning the work of the Committee.

The Assembly then adopted four resolutions on the question of Palestine: resolutions 34/65 A and B on 29 November, and resolutions 34/65 C and D on 12 December.

Resolution 34/65 A, sponsored by Algeria, Benin, Cuba, the German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Qatar, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, the Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia, was adopted by a recorded vote of 117 to 14, with 16 abstentions.

The Assembly thereby expressed grave concern that no just solution to the problem of Palestine had been achieved – without which a just and lasting peace in the Middle East could not be established – on the basis of the attainment at the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It called again for PLO, the representative of the Palestinian people, to be invited to participate in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East held under United Nations auspices, on an equal footing with other parties. The Assembly endorsed the recommendations of the Committee, expressed regret the they had not been implemented and that the Council had not taken the action the Assembly had urged it to take in 1977, 49/ and again urged the Council to do so.  It authorized and requested the Committee, if the Council failed to consider or to take a decision on those recommendations by 31 March 1980, to make appropriate suggestions.

The second resolution, 34/65 B, sponsored by Algeria, Benin, Cuba, the German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Madagascar, Mozambique, Pakistan, Qatar, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Tunisia, the Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia, was adopted by a recorded vote, requested by Algeria, of 75 to 33, with 37 abstentions.

The Assembly reaffirmed that valid agreements purporting to solve the problem of Palestine must be within the framework of the United Nations, its Charter and its resolutions and with the participation of PLO. Noting with concern that the Camp David accords had been concluded outside that framework and without PLO participation, the Assembly rejected those provisions which ignored, infringed, violated or denied the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return, the right of self-determination and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, in accordance with the Charter, and which envisaged and condoned continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories it had occupied since 1967. The Assembly strongly condemned all partial agreements and separate treaties which constituted a flagrant violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, Charter principles and resolutions adopted in various international forums on the Palestinian issue, declaring that the Camp David accords and other agreements had no validity in so far as they purported to determine the future of the Palestinian people and of the occupied Palestinian territories.

Speaking in explanation of vote, Egypt expressed strong reservations with regard to the paragraphs that referred to the Camp David accords. It proposed that the paragraph by which the Assembly declared that the accords and other agreements had no validity in so far as they purported to determine the future of the Palestinian people and occupied territories be deleted. Gabon and Zaire supported the amendment. The amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 51 in favour to 56 against, with 30 abstentions.

Israel and the United States said they opposed the resolutions on the question of Palestine in their entirety as totally negative and seeking to undermine the only existing viable framework for negotiations. Norway felt they did not reflect in a balanced manner the principles which must constitute the basis for a comprehensive settlement.

The United States requested the Assembly President to rule, according to Charter Article 18, paragraph 2, 50/ that resolution 35/64 B required a two-thirds majority for adoption. Put to a recorded vote, this motion was rejected by 53 votes in favour to 65 against, with 19 abstentions.

Because they considered that the accords were a positive first step towards solving the problems of the Middle East, the Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Finland and Togo had voted against the resolution, and Papua New Guinea had abstained. Bhutan, Lesotho and Mali, which voted for the text, nevertheless noted that they had difficulties with the provisions negating the validity of the accords. Albania, Botswana, Brazil and Sierra Leone, which also voted in favour, observed that they had reservations on some of the wording or ideas in the resolution.

Chile, Costa Rica, Israel, the United States and Uruguay held that the Assembly was not empowered to pronounce on the validity of an agreement between two or more sovereign States, and voted against the resolution. Peru said it abstained for similar reasons.

The third resolution, 34/65 C, sponsored by Algeria, Benin, Colombia, Cuba, the German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Pakistan, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, Tunisia, the Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia, was adopted by a recorded vote of 118 to 10, with 12 abstentions.

By this resolution, the Assembly expressed its appreciation to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People for its efforts and asked it to keep the question of Palestine under review and to report and make suggestions to the Assembly or the Council, as appropriate. It authorized the Committee to continue promoting the implementation of its recommendations and to send representatives to international conferences it considered appropriate. The Assembly requested the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, and other United Nations bodies associated with the question, to co-operate fully with the Committee. It also decided to circulate the Committee's report to United Nations bodies, urging them to take necessary action in accordance with the Committee's programme of implementation.

The fourth resolution, 34/65 D, sponsored by Algeria, Benin, Cuba, the German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, Tunisia, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia, was adopted by a recorded vote of 117 to 15, with 9 abstentions.

By this resolution, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General – in the light of consultations held in accordance with an Assembly request of 7 December 1978 51/ to consider reorganizing and strengthening the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights – to redesignate the Special Unit as the Division for Palestinian Rights and to provide it with the resources necessary to discharge the increased responsibilities assigned to it. It also asked him to ensure that the Division, under the guidance of the Committee on Palestinian Rights: (a) continued to discharge the tasks mandated to the Special Unit when it was established in 1977; 52/ and (b) expanded its programme of work to include the establishment of closer co-operation with non-governmental organizations, the organization of four seminars during 1980 and 1981, sponsoring annual internship programmes, arranging for lecture tours, monitoring developments affecting the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, assisting in the preparation of visual material, such as posters, and expanding the scope of the Division's bulletin to include all items relevant to the question of Palestinian rights. The Assembly further requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the Division had the full co-operation of DPI and other Secretariat units and invited all Governments and organizations to co-operate.

The Assembly requested Member States to observe annually on 29 November the international Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People and to issue special postage stamps for the occasion. It requested the Secretary-General to direct the United Nations Postal Administration to issue commemorative stamps to publicize the grave situation and the rights of the Palestinians and to direct DPI to set up, in consultation with the Committee, a photographic display for the same purpose in the public areas of United Nations Headquarters.

Israel reiterated its opposition to both resolutions adopted on 12 December as calculated to impede the peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and reiterated its opposition to both the Committee and the Division for Palestinian Rights. Norway said its negative votes reflected its reservations on those organs.

Assistance to the Palestinian people

Pursuant to a 1977 Economic and Social Council resolution 53/ endorsed by the Assembly in 1978, 54/ the Secretary-General submitted to the Council a report on assistance to the Palestinian people by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in consultation with other organizations of the United Nations system. The report contained information received from those organizations on action they had taken, in co-ordination with the Economic Commission for Western Asia, to identify the social and economic needs of the Palestinian people and establish projects to that end. The organizations had also been asked by the Council to consult with PLO on projects to improve socio-economic conditions.

The submission by UNDP contained in the Secretary-General's report indicated that its Administrator had convened in Geneva on 15 and 16 February an interagency meeting at which was established an interagency task force to identify the needs of the Palestinian people, work out a list of national projects for meeting those needs and report to an interagency meeting on 30 April and 1 May. On the basis of that report, the Administrator recommended to the UNDP Governing Council, at its June/July session in New York, 18 project proposals. On 26 June the Governing Council authorized him to draw upon the Programme Reserve up to $3.5 million to finance those projects, and to accept funds from Governments and intergovernmental organizations to implement them.

The Economic and Social Council considered the Secretary- General's report in its Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee. On 18 July, after informal consultations, and on a suggestion by its Chairman, the Committee, without vote, recommended that the Council take note of the report and transmit it to the Assembly at its regular 1979 session. The Council adopted the recommendation, also without vote, on 2 August as decision 1979/53.

On 14 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 34/133 by which it noted UNDP's action with satisfaction, endorsed the Governing Council's decision of 26 June, and urged United Nations – related organizations to take steps to implement the Economic and Social Council's resolutions of 1976 55/ and 1977 56/ on assistance to the Palestinian people. It asked the Secretary-General to report on progress to the Council and to the Assembly in 1980.

The Assembly adopted this resolution, on the recommendation of its Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, by a recorded vote of 112 to 3, with 21 abstentions. The text sponsored by 36 powers (see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below) had been approved by the Second Committee on 23 November by a recorded vote of 96 to 3, with 20 abstentions. In the Second Committee, the sponsors revised the request for a report to include submission to the Economic and Social Council as well as to the Assembly.

In introducing the resolution, Pakistan said that, although the assistance provided for was inadequate, it was nevertheless an expression of the interest of international public opinion and a form of protest against the injustices borne by the Palestinians.

Speaking in explanation of vote, Ireland (on behalf of the nine member States of the European Economic Community), Sweden and the United States, while supporting the programme of assistance to the Palestinian people, disapproved of references in the resolution to earlier resolutions which they could not support. Israel also objected to those references and opposed the resolution. The USSR welcomed the measures taken by UNDP to improve the living conditions of the Palestinian people.

Related General Assembly decisions

The Assembly at its regular 1979 session adopted a number of additional resolutions related to the search for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

On 15 November, by resolution 34/28 on the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Assembly expressed grave concern that some States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 57/ for reasons beyond their control, were being prevented from fulfilling their obligations under the Convention in parts of their respective territories, referring in this respect to the situation in the Golan Heights of the Syrian Arab Republic. (For details, see p.802.)

On 23 November, the Assembly, by resolution 34/44 on self-determination, strongly condemned all partial agreements and separate treaties which constituted a flagrant violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, Charter principles and resolutions adopted in various international forums on the Palestinian issue. It also condemned all Governments which did not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples such as the Palestinian people, condemned the expansionist activities of Israel, the continuous bombing of civilian Arab and Palestinian populations, and the destruction of their villages and encampments, and urged international support to the Palestinian people through PLO in its struggle for self-determination and independence. (For details, see p.833.)

On 11 December, the Assembly, by resolution 34/77, urged concerned parties seriously to consider taking steps to implement a proposal to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Meanwhile, it invited them to declare solemnly that they would refrain from producing or acquiring nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices and to agree to place their nuclear activities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The Assembly reaffirmed its recommendation that nuclear-weapon States refrain from actions contrary to this resolution and co-operate with the States of the region in their efforts to promote these objectives. (For details, see p.48.)

Convinced of the dangers of the development of nuclear capability by Israel, the Assembly, on 11 December by resolution 34/89, appealed to all States to end co-operation with Israel which might assist it in acquiring and developing nuclear weapons and to dissuade corporations, institutions and individuals within their jurisdiction from any such co-operation. The Assembly called on Israel to submit its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection. Strongly condemning any attempt by Israel to acquire nuclear capability or to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, the Assembly requested the Security Council to adopt measures to ensure implementation of resolutions concerning Israeli nuclear armament. (For details, see p.43.)

(For page references to texts of above-mentioned resolutions, refer to INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS.)

Documentary references, voting details and texts of resolutions

Situation in the Middle East

COMMUNICATIONS (JANUARY-NOVEMBER)

S/13037, S/13041, S/13058, S/13127 (A/34/102). Letters of 17,18 and 29 January and 28 February from Israel.

S/13139. Letter of 5 March from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 28 February 1979 from PLO with enclosures).

S/13149 (A/34/110). Letter of 7 March from Jordan (transmitting map of Israeli settlements on West Bank as at 31 December 1978; list of settlements established between 1967 and 1979; letter of 12 December 1978 from Chairman of Islamic Commission in Jerusalem to Prime Minister of Jordan concerning Mosque of Hebron; and letter from United States citizen of Palestinian origin to President of United States).

S/13151 (A/34/111). Letter of 7 March from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued on same date by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries).

S/13169. Letter of 15 March from Yemen (transmitting statement issued on same date by Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

S/13189 (A/34/129). Letter of 22 March from Iraq (transmitting message of same date from Minister for Foreign Affairs).

S/13192 (A/34/ 131). Letter of 25 March from Israel.

S/13194 (A/34/133). Letter of 26 March from Syrian Arab Republic (transmitting message of same date from Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs).

S/13201 (A/34/138). Letter of 28 March from Jordan (transmitting communiqué issued on 26 March 1979 by Government).

S/13206 (A/34/151). Letter of 28 March from Israel.

S/13216 (A/34/160) and Corr.1. Letter of 2 April from Iraq (transmitting resolutions of Council of League of Arab States at level of Arab Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Economy and Finance, issued at Baghdad on 31 March 1979).

S/13217 (A/34/161). Letter of 3 April from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued on same date by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries).

S/13239 (A/34/ 175). Letter of 10 April from Israel.

S/13248 (A/34/182). Letter of 12 April from Iraq (transmitting letter from Minister for Foreign Affairs).

S/13260 (A/34/203). Letter of 19 April from Israel.

S/13346 (A/34/277). Letter of 23 May from Israel.

S/13354 (A/34/284). Letter of 29 May from United Arab Emirates.

S/13412 (A/34/333). Letter of 25 June from Israel.

S/13419 (A/34/338). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1 A and B (XXXV) of 21 February 1979).

S/13423 (A/34/344). Letter of 28 June from France.

S/13437 (A/34/353). Letter of 5 July from Israel.

S/13474 (A/34/387), S/13490 (A/34/403), S/13511 (A/34/435). Letters of 27 July and 7 and 22 August from Israel.

S/13515 (A/34/439). Letter of 24 August from Zambia (transmitting final communiqué issued by heads of Government of Commonwealth countries at meeting held at Lusaka, 1-7 August 1979).

S/13545 (A/34/498). Letter of 19 September from Israel.

S/13571 (A/34/565). Letter of 10 October from Lebanon.

S/13593 (A/34/632), S/13625 (A/34/681), S/13635 (A/34/705). Letters of 30 October and 13 and 20 November from Israel

A/34/124. Letter of 19 March from Egypt (transmitting letter of 16 March 1979 from Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs).

A/34/214. Letter of 27 April from Egypt.

A/34/231. Letter of 9 May from Israel.

A/34/329. Note verbale of 22 June from Israel.

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (24 OCTOBER)

S/13578 (A/34/584). Report of Secretary-General, Chapter VI.

CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

General Assembly  – 34th session

Plenary meetings 77, 84-88, 90, 92.

A/34/102 (S/13127). Letter of 28 February from Israel.

A/34/110 (S/13149). Letter of 7 March from Jordan (transmitting map showing Israeli settlements on West Bank as at 31 December 1978; list of settlements established between 1967 and 1979; letter of 12 December 1978 from Chairman of Islamic Commission in Jerusalem to Prime Minister of Jordan concerning Mosque of Hebron; and letter from United States citizen of Palestinian origin to President of United States).

A/34/111 (S/13151). Letter of 7 March from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued on same date by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries).

A/34/129 (S/13189). Letter of 22 March from Iraq (transmitting message of same date from Minister for Foreign Affairs).

A/34/131 (S/ 13192). Letter of 25 March from Israel.

A/34/133 (S/13194). Letter of 28 March from Syrian Arab Republic (transmitting message of same date from Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs).

A/34/138 (S/13201). Letter of 28 March from Jordan (transmitting communiqué issued on 26 March 1979 by Government).

A/34/180 (S/13216) and Corr.1. Letter of 2 April from Iraq (transmitting resolutions of Council of League of Arab States at level of Arab Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Economy and Finance, issued at Baghdad on 31 March 1979).

A/34/161 (S/13217). Letter of 3 April from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued on same date by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries).

A/34/175 (S/13239). Letter of 10 April from Israel.

A/34/182 (S/13248). Letter of 12 April from Iraq (transmitting letter from Minister for Foreign Affairs).

A/34/203 (S/13260), A/34/277 (S/13346). Letters of 19 April and 23 May from Israel.

A/34/284 (S/13354). Letter of 29 May from United Arab Emirates.

A/34/333 (S/13412). Letter of 25 June from Israel.

A/34/338 (S/13419). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1 A and B (XXXV) of 21 February 1979).

A/34/344 (S/13423). Letter of 28 June from France.

A/34/353 (S/13437). Letter of 5 July from Israel.

A/34/357. Letter of 6 July from Sri Lanka (transmitting documents of Ministerial Meeting of Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, Colombo, 4-9 June 1979).

A/34/387 (S/13474). Letter of 27 July from Israel.

A/34/389 and Corr.1. Letter of 27 July from Morocco (transmitting final communiqué and resolutions of 10th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Fez, 8-12 May 1979).

A/34/403 (S/13490), A/34/435 (S/13511). Letters of 7 and 22 August from Israel.

A/34/439 (S/13515). Letter of 24 August from Zambia (transmitting final communiqué issued by heads of Government of Commonwealth countries at meeting held at Lusaka, 1 -7 August 1979).

A/34/498 (S/13545). Letter of 19 September from Israel.

A/34/542. Letter of 1 October from Cuba (transmitting Final Declaration of 6th Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, Havana, 3-9 September 1979).

A/34/552. Letter of 8 October from Lesotho (circulating resolutions of 33rd ordinary session of Council of Ministers, 6-20 July; and declarations, resolutions and decisions of 16th ordinary session of Assembly of Heads of State and Government of OAU, 17-20 July 1979, Monrovia, Liberia).

A/34/565 (S/13571). Letter of 10 October from Lebanon.

A/34/566. Letter of 10 October from Colombia, Fiji, Lebanon, Lesotho, Poland and Portugal (transmitting text of address delivered by Pope John Paul II to 34th session of General Assembly on 2 October 1979, meeting 17).

A/34/576. Letter of 15 October from Israel to President of General Assembly.

A/34/584 (S/13578). Report of Secretary-General, Chapter VI.

A/34/599. Letter of 16 October from Cuba (transmitting final communiqué adopted on 6 October 1979 by Extraordinary Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of Non-Aligned Countries, New York, 4-6 October 1979).

A/34/619. Letter of 16 October from Venezuela (transmitting resolutions adopted by Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 125th session and by 66th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Caracas, 13-21 September 1979).

A/34/703. Letter of 20 November from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (transmitting joint letter of 14 November 1979 from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and League of Arab States).

A/34/707. Letter of 21 November from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/34/714. Letter of 22 November from Egypt.

A/34/760. Note verbale of 30 November from Austria (transmitting proposal relating to agenda item on situation in Middle East).

A/34/761. Letter of 1 December from Romania (transmitting excerpt from report of Central Committee presented by President to 12th Congress of Romanian Communist Party, Bucharest, 19-23 November 1979).

A/34/763. Letter of 3 December from Tunisia (transmitting Final Declaration of 10th Arab Summit Conference, Tunis, 20-22 November 1979).

A/34/11.53 and Add.1. Cuba, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Sao Tome and Principe, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

Resolution 34/70, as proposed by 13 powers, A/34/11.53 and Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 6 December 1979, meeting 92, by recorded vote of 102 to 17, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

The General Assembly,

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

Recalling its previous resolutions on the subject, in particular resolutions 3414 (XXX) of 5 December 1975, 31/61 of 9 December 1976, 32/20 of 25 November 1977 and 33/28 and 33/29 of 7 December 1978,

Recalling also its resolution 34/65 of 29 November 1979,

Taking into account the support extended to the just cause of the Palestinian people and the other Arab countries in their struggle against Israeli aggression and for a genuine, comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and the full exercise of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, both by the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Havana from 3 to 9 September 1979, and by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its sixteenth ordinary session, held at Monrovia from 17 to 20 July 1979,

Deeply concerned that the Arab territories occupied since 1967 have continued, for more than twelve years, to be under illegal Israeli occupation and that the Palestinian people, after three decades, is still deprived of the exercise of its Inalienable national rights,

Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and that all territories thus occupied must be returned,

Reaffirming also the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region, based on full respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations as well as for its resolutions concerning the situation in the Middle East and the question of Palestine,

Convinced that the early convening of the Peace Conference on the Middle East with the participation of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, particularly resolution 3375 (XXX) of 10 November 1975, is essential for the realization of a just and lasting settlement in the region,

1. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant resolutions of the United Nations;

2. Declares once more that peace is indivisible and that a just and lasting settlement of the Middle East question must be based on a comprehensive solution, under the auspices of the United Nations, which takes into account all aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular the attainment by the Palestinian people of all its inalienable rights and the Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem;

3. Condemns all partial agreements and separate treaties 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;

4. Reaffirms that until Israel, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, withdraws from all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, and until the Palestinian people attains and exercises its inalienable national rights, as affirmed by the General Assembly in resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in which all countries and peoples in the region live in peace and security within recognized and secure boundaries, will not be achieved;

5. Calls anew for the early convening of the Peace Conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations and the co-chairmanship of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, with the participation on an equal footing of all parties concerned, Including the Palestine Liberation Organization in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3375 (XXX);

6. Urges the parties to the conflict and all other interested parties to work towards the achievement of a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the problem and worked out with the participation of all parties concerned within the framework of the United Nations

7. Requests the Security Council, in the exercise of its responsibilities under the Charter, to take all necessary measures to ensure the implementation of relevant resolutions of both the Security Council and the General Assembly, including Assembly resolution 34/65 A and the present resolution, and to facilitate the achievement of such a comprehensive settlement aiming at the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the implementation of the present resolution, to transmit the records of the thirty-fourth session of the General Assembly relating to the question of Palestine and the situation In the Middle East to the Security Council and to inform all concerned, including the Co-Chairmen of the Peace Conference on the Middle East;

9. Also requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council periodically on the development of the situation and to submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session a report covering, in all their aspects, the developments in the Middle East.

SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATIONS

A/34/850. Letter of 19 December from Morocco (transmitting letter of 15 December from PLO).

S/13716. Note by Secretary-General.

S/13720. Letter of 31 December from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 26 December from PLO)

S/13723 (A/35/59), S/13738 (A/35/64). Letters of 31 December 1979 and 11 January 1980 from Israel.

OTHER DOCUMENTS

A/34/2. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1978-15 June 1979, Chapter 1 F (paras. 199-209).

A/35/2. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1979-15 June 1980, Chapter 1 F (paras. 296-306).

Question of Palestine

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORT

S/13132. Letter of 2 March from Acting Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13151 (A/34/111). Letter of 7 March from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued on same date by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries).

S/13164, S/13210 (A/34/155). Letters of 13 and 30 March from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13216 (A/34/160) and Corr.1. Letter of 2 April from Iraq (transmitting resolutions of Council of League of Arab States at level of Arab Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Economy and Finance, issued at Baghdad on 31 March 1979).

S/1321 7 (A/34/161). Letter of 3 April from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued on same date by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries).

S/13291, S/13322 (A/34/238), S/13334 (A/34/258), Letters of 2 May from Chairman and of 11 and 17 May from Acting Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13349. Letter of 24 May from President of Security Council to Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13418. Letter of 27 June from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13423 (A/34/344). Letter of 28 June from France.

S/13515 (A/34/439). Letter of 24 August from Zambia (transmitting final communiqué issued by heads of Government of Commonwealth countries at meeting held at Lusaka, 1-7 August 1979).

S/13544 (A/34/492). Letter of 19 September from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13578 (A/34/584). Report of Secretary-General, Chapter V.

S/13656 (A/34/734). Letter of 27 November from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (transmitting Lisbon Declaration adopted at World Conference in Solidarity with Arab People and Their Central Issue: Palestine, held at Lisbon, Portugal, 2-6 November 1979).

A/34/83. Letter of 9 February from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/231. Letter of 9 May from Israel.

A/34/357. Letter of 6 July from Sri Lanka (transmitting documents of Ministerial Meeting of Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, Colombo, 4-9 June 1979).

A/34/389 and Corr.1. Letter of 27 July from Morocco (transmitting final communiqué and resolutions of 10th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Fez, 8-12 May 1979).

A/34/542. Letter of 1 October from Cuba (transmitting Final Declaration of 6th Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, Havana, 3-9 September 1979).

A/34/599. Letter of 16 October from Cuba (transmitting final communiqué adopted on 6 October 1979 by Extraordinary Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of Non-Aligned Countries, New York, 4-6 October 1979).

A/34/619. Letter of 16 October from Venezuela (transmitting resolutions adopted by Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 125th session and by 66th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Caracas, 13-21 September 1979).

A/34/761. Letter of 1 December from Romania (transmitting excerpt from report of Central Committee presented by President to 12th Congress of Romanian Communist Party, Bucharest, 19-23 November 1979).

A/34/763. Letter of 3 December from Tunisia (transmitting Final Declaration of 10th Arab Summit Conference, Tunis, 20-22 November 1979).

CONSIDERATION BY THE

SECURITY COUNCIL (JUNE-AUGUST)

Security Council, meetings 2155, 2160-2163.

S/13164, S/13416. Letters of 13 March and 27 June from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People to President of Security Council.

S/13422. Letter of 29 June from Kuwait (request to extend invitation to participate in Council discussion).

S/13514. Senegal: draft resolution.

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decisions, pp. 7-10.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PALESTINIAN RIGHTS

A/34/35 and Corr.1. Report of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF SOLIDARITY

WITH THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

A/34/35 and Corr.1. Report of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People, paras. 49-51.

A/34/329. Note verbale of 22 June from Israel to Secretariat.

CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

General Assembly- 34th session

Fifth Committee, meeting 74.

Plenary meetings 77-81, 83, 100.

A/34/2. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1978-15 June 1979, Chapters ___ and F.

A/34/35 and Corr.1. Report of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/111 (S/13151). Letter of 7 March from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued on same date by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries).

A/34/124. Letter of 19 March from Egypt (transmitting letter of 16 March 1979 from Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs).

A/34/129 (S/13189). Letter of 22 March from Iraq (transmitting message of same date from Minister for Foreign Affairs).

A/34/133 (S/13194). Letter of 26 March from Syrian Arab Republic (transmitting message of same date from Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs).

A/34/138 (S/13201). Letter of 28 March from Jordan (transmitting communiqué issued on 26 March 1979 by Government).

A/34/155 (S/13210). Letter of 30 March from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/160 (S/13216) and Corr.1. Letter of 2 April from Iraq (transmitting resolutions of Council of League of Arab States at level of Arab Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Economy and Finance, issued at Baghdad on 31 March 1979).

A/34/161 (S/13217). Letter of 3 April from Sri Lanka (transmitting communiqué issued on same date by Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries).

A/34/182 (S/13248). Letter of 12 April from Iraq (transmitting letter from Minister for Foreign Affairs).

A/34/214. Letter of 27 April from Egypt.

A/34/238 (S/13322), A/34/258 (S/13334). Letters of 11 and 17 May from Acting Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/284 (S/13354). Letter of 29 May from United Arab Emirates.

A/34/344 (S/13423). Letter of 28 June from France.

A/34/395 (S/13482). Letter of 1 August from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/439 (S/13515). Letter of 24 August from Zambia (transmitting final communiqué issued by heads of Government of Commonwealth countries at meeting held at Lusaka, 1-7 August 1979).

A/34/492 (S/13544). Letter of 19 September from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/584 (S/13578). Report of Secretary-General, Chapter V.

A/34/703. Letter of 20 November from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (transmitting joint letter of 14 November from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and League of Arab States).

A/34/714. Letter of 22 November from Egypt.

A/34/734 (S/13656). Letter of 27 November from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (transmitting Lisbon Declaration adopted at World Conference in Solidarity with Arab People and Their Central Issue: Palestine, held at Lisbon, Portugal, 2-6 November 1979).

A/34/L.43 and Add.1 and Add.1/Rev.1. Algeria, Benin, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Qatar, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

Resolution 34/65 A, as proposed by 23 powers, A/34/L.43 and Add.1/Rev. 1, adopted by Assembly on 29 November 1979, meeting 83, by recorded vote of 117 to 14, with 16 abstentions, as follows:

The General Assembly,

Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, 3375 (XXX) and 3376 (XXX) of 10 November 1975, 31/20 of 24 November 1976, 32/40 A and B of 2 December 1977 and 33/28 A to C of 7 December 1978,

Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,

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

1. Expresses its grave concern that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has been achieved and that this problem therefore continues to aggravate the Middle East conflict, of which it is the core, and to endanger international peace and security;

2. Reaffirms that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established without the achievement, inter alia, of a just solution of the problem of Palestine on the basis of the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

3. Calls once more for the invitation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate, on the basis of General Assembly resolution 3237 (XXIX), in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East which are held under the auspices of the United Nations, on an equal footing with other parties;

4. Endorses the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People contained in paragraphs 52 to 55 of its report;

5. Expresses its regret and concern that the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 31/20, 32/40 A and 33/28 A have not been implemented;

6. Notes with regret that the Security Council has not taken the action it was urged to take by the General Assembly in paragraph 4 of its resolution 32/40 A;

7. Once again urges the Security Council to consider and take as soon as possible a decision on the recommendations endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 31/20, 32/40 A and 33/28 A and in the present resolution;

8. Authorizes and requests the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in the event of the Security Council falling to consider or to take a decision on those recommendations by 31 March 1980, to consider that situation and to make the suggestions it deems appropriate;

9. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty-fifth session the item entitled Question of Palestine.

A/34/L.44 and Add.1. Algeria, Benin, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Madagascar, Mozambique, Pakistan, Qatar, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

Resolution 34/65 B, as proposed by 19 powers, A/34/L.44 and Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 29 November 1979, meeting 83, by recorded vote of 75 to 33, with 37 abstentions, as follows:

The General Assembly,

Recalling and reaffirming the declaration, contained in paragraph 4 of its resolution 33/28 A of 7 December 1978, that the validity of agreements purporting to solve the problem of Palestine requires that they be within the framework of the United Nations and its Charter and its resolutions on the basis of the full attainment and exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, and with the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization,

Taking note of paragraphs 33 to 35 of the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,

1. Notes with concern that the Camp David accords have been concluded outside the framework of the United Nations and without the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people;

2. Rejects those provisions of the accords which ignore, infringe, violate or deny the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return the right of self-determination and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and which envisage and condone continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

3. Strongly condemns all partial agreements and separate treaties which constitute a flagrant violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, the principles of the Charter and the resolutions adopted in the various international forums on the Palestinian issue;

4. Declares that the Camp David accords and other agreements have no validity in so tar as they purport to determine the future of the Palestinian people and of the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

A/34/L.41. Algeria, Benin, Colombia, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Madagascar, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

A/34/L.41/Rev.1 and Rev.1/Add.1. Revised draft resolution, sponsored by above 20 powers and by Guyana, Malaysia, Mauritius and Romania.

Resolution 34/65 C, as proposed by 24 powers, A/34/L.41/Rev.1 and Rev.1/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 12 December 1979, meeting 100, by recorded vote of 118 to 10, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 3376 (XXX) of 10 November 1975, 31/20 of 24 November 1976, 32/40 A and B of 2 December 1977 and 33/28 A to C of 7 December 1978,

Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,

1. Expresses its appreciation to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People for its efforts in performing the tasks assigned to it by the General Assembly;

2. Requests the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to keep the situation relating to the question of Palestine under review and to report and make suggestions to the General Assembly or the Security Council, as appropriate;

3. Authorizes the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to continue to exert all efforts to promote the implementation of its recommendations, to send delegations or representatives to international conferences where such representation would be considered by it to be appropriate, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session and thereafter;

4. Requests the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, established under General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as other United Nations bodies associated with the question of Palestine, to co-operate fully with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and to make available to the Committee, at its request, the relevant information and documentation which they have at their disposal;

5. Decides to circulate the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to all the competent bodies of the United Nations and urges them to take necessary action, as appropriate, in accordance with the Committee's programme of implementation;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People with all the necessary facilities for the performance of its tasks.

A/34/L.42 and Add.1. Algeria, Benin, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

A/C.5/34/71, A/34/794. Administrative and financial implications of 22-power draft resolution, A/34/L.42 and Add. 1, Statement by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.

Resolution 34/85 D, as proposed by 22 powers, A/34/L.42 and Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 12 December 1979, meeting 100, by recorded vote of 117 to 15, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

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 45 to 51 of that report,

Recalling its resolutions 32/40 B of 2 December 1977 and 33/28 C of 7 December 1978,

1. Requests the Secretary-General, in the light of the consultations held in accordance with paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 33/28 C, to redesignate the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights as the Division for Palestinian Rights and to provide it with the resources necessary to discharge the increased responsibilities assigned to it by the Assembly;

2. Also requests the Secretary-General to ensure that the Division for Palestinian Rights, In consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and under its guidance:

(a) Shall continue to discharge the tasks detailed in paragraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 32/40 B;

(b) Shall undertake an expanded programme of work, including, inter alia, the following:

3. Further requests the Secretary-General to ensure the full 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;

4. 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;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to direct the United Nations Postal Administration to issue a series of United Nations commemorative postage stamps to publicize as widely as possible the grave situation and the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people;

6. Requests Member States to observe annually on 29 November the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People and to issue special postage stamps for the occasion;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to direct the Department of Public Information to set up, in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, a photographic display in the public areas of United Nations Headquarters with a view to keeping visitors informed of the grave situation and the Inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Other documents

S/13715. Note by Secretary-General.

A/35/2. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1979 -15 June 1980, Chapter 1 A (paras. 5-23).

ASSISTANCE TO THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

Economic and Social Council – 2nd regular session, 1979

Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee, meetings 1-3,8,8,9.

Plenary meeting 39.

E/1979/40 and Corr.1. Report of Governing Council of UNDP on its 26th session, Headquarters, New York, 8 June-16 July 1979, Chapters V D and XXI D (resolution 79/18).

E/1979/81 and Add.1,2. Report of Secretary-General.

E/1979/113. Report of Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee (on implementation of Declaration on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by specialized agencies and international institutions associated with United Nations), draft decision, as orally proposed by Third Committee Chairman, approved without vote by Committee on 18 July 1979, meeting 9.

Decision 1979/53, by which the Council took note of the report of the Secretary-General on assistance to the Palestinian people and decided to transmit it to the General Assembly at its 34th session, as recommended by Third Committee, E/1979/113, adopted without vote on 2 August 1979, meeting 39.

General Assembly – 34th session

Second Committee, meetings 42, 48.

Plenary meeting 104.

A/34/3/Rev.1. Report of Economic and Social Council for year 1978, Chapter XXVIII (paras. 6, 7 and 8 (b)).

A/C.2/34/L.52. Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, as orally amended by sponsors, approved by Second Committee on 23 November 1979, meeting 48, by recorded vote of 96 to 3, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Canada, Israel, United States.

A/34/635/Add.2. Report of Second Committee (part III) (on report of Economic and Social Council), draft resolution I.

Resolution 34/133, as recommended by Second Committee, A/34/635/Add.2, adopted by Assembly on 14 December 1979, meeting 104, by recorded vote of 112 to 3, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Canada, Israel, United States.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 3236 (XXIX) and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974 and 33/147 of 20 December 1978,

Recalling also Economic and Social Council resolutions 1978 (LIX) of 31 July 1975, 2026 (LXI) of 4 August 1976 and 2100 (LXIII) of 3 August 1977,

Taking into consideration the report of the Secretary-General on assistance to the Palestinian people,

Taking note of the report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme on its twenty-sixth session and the response of the Administrator of the Programme,

1. Notes with satisfaction the action taken by the Administrator and the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme in response to General Assembly resolution 33/147;

2. Endorses decision 79/18 of 26 June 1879 of the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme on the implementation of General Assembly resolution 33/147;

3. Urges the relevant agencies, organizations, organs and programmed of the United Nations system to take the necessary steps for the full implementation of Economic and Social Council resolutions 2026 (LXI) and 2100 (LXIII);

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

Situation in the occupied territories

During 1979, the question of the violation of human rights in the territories occupied by Israel as a result of hostilities in the Middle East was again considered by the Commission on Human Rights, the Economic and Social Council, and the General Assembly and its Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.

The occupied territories consisted of the Golan Heights, the West Bank of Jordan (including East Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip and the Sinai peninsula. The areas of Egyptian territory under Israeli military occupation were to be modified in accordance with an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty which came into force on 25 April 1979.

Also during the year, the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council received a number of communications concerning the treatment of the civilian population in the occupied territories.

Decisions of the Commission on Human

Rights and the Economic and Social Council

At its session in February/March 1979, the Commission on Human Rights adopted several resolutions on the question of the violation of human rights in the territories occupied as a result of hostilities in the East.

By the first resolution, the Commission expressed concern over the deteriorating situation in those territories, and called on Israel to take immediate steps for the return of the Palestinians. Reaffirming that Israel's settlement policies in the territories were a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (the fourth Geneva Convention) of 12 August 1949 and United Nations resolutions, and declaring that Israel's breaches of that Convention were war crimes, the Commission condemned, and demanded that Israel cease, a number of specific practices and policies regarding those territories and their inhabitants. It reaffirmed that all measures taken to change the physical character, demographic composition and institutional structure or status of those territories, including Jerusalem, were null and void, and asked the international community not to recognize them and avoid actions which might be used by Israel in pursuit of its policies. It called on Israel to accord prisoner-of-war status to Arabs detained as a result of their struggle for self-determination. The Commission also again condemned the destruction of the Syrian city of Quneitra.

By the second resolution, the Commission expressed concern at the consequences of Israel's refusal to apply the fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, reaffirmed the applicability of that Convention, deplored Israel's failure to acknowledge its applicability, and called on Israel to abide by it and other obligations under international law. It urged States parties to exert all efforts to ensure compliance with the Convention's provisions in the occupied territories.

In a separate decision, the Commission decided to send a telegram to the Government of Israel to again express deep concern about reported systematic torture practiced by Israel against Palestinian detainees and about the destruction of houses in the occupied territories, calling on Israel to cease those practices forthwith.

By a resolution on the right to self-determination, the Commission affirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination without external interference and the establishment of a fully independent and sovereign State in Palestine, and their right to return to their homes and to regain their rights by all means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It also urged support for the Palestinian people through the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

All these decisions were taken on 21 February. (For further details, see p. 818).

By a resolution of 5 September, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, of the Human Rights Commission, called on United Nations Member States to assist peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation to exercise the right to self-determination. It also urged all States and United Nations and other international organizations to enable negotiations to begin immediately between Israel and the Palestinian people, through PLO.

On the same date, the Sub-Commission adopted a resolution deeply deploring Israel's violation of the fundamental rights of the Arab population in Palestine and the occupied territories, and demanding that Israel cease such violations. (For further details, see p. 819.)

On 10 May, the Economic and Social Council adopted resolution 1979/40 commending the Commission on Human Rights for its vigilance and decisions for the protection of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, and requested it to pursue its efforts. (For details, see p. 819; for page reference to text of resolution, refer to INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS.)

Communications (January-March)

A number of communications were received from January to March by the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General concerning Israeli measures in the occupied territories and related subjects.

In a note verbale of 10 January, Morocco charged that the Israeli occupation authorities in Jerusalem, apparently in order to construct a suspension bridge leading to the Western (Wailing) Wall, had been engaged since 29 December 1978 in destroying certain parts of the wall adjoining Bab El Maghariba (the Moor's Gate), which was part of the Moroccan Waqf (property used for charitable and religious purposes). Morocco requested the Secretary-General to approach the Israeli authorities as soon as possible with a view to halting that destruction.

Replying on 1 February, Israel said that nothing in the vicinity of Bab El Maghariba had been or was being destroyed and there were no plans to construct a suspension bridge there. Only maintenance work had been carried out to protect the Gate.

By a letter of 31 January, Jordan transmitted the text of a statement issued on 1 December 1978 by Bir Zeit University in the occupied West Bank of Jordan, north of Jerusalem, in which the Israeli military authorities were charged with subjecting the university community to continual harassment. The statement indicated that  during  the  previous few weeks 18 students had been arrested or ordered to appear for questioning before Israeli military authorities. No charges had been levelled against them, although six were still under arrest and a substantial number had been subjected to beating and torture.

Replying on 28 February, Israel said its Government did not impose any academic or administrative restriction on Bir Zeit University, granted university status under the Israeli administration in 1973. It did not interfere in its programme of studies or its day-to-day affairs. However, in recent years, the University had been the scene of student unrest and agitation; terrorist organizations had tried to plant their agents among the students and recruit accomplices. The security authorities were duty-bound to take appropriate steps. In Israel's view, the letter from Jordan was an act of political warfare against Israel and an effort to manipulate the United Nations for propaganda purposes.

By another letter of 31 January, Jordan requested the circulation of an article which appeared in The New York Times on 21 January. The subject was the plight of the villagers of Berem and Ikrit in Upper Galilee who had been ordered in 1948 by Israeli troops to evacuate their villages until the fighting ended, and had not been permitted to return since then.

On 12 February, Jordan transmitted, on behalf of the Arab group of Member States at the United Nations, an article that had appeared in The Washington Post on 7 February headlined Allegations of Israeli torture contain grisly descriptions.

By a letter of 2 February, the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted two letters of 31 January to the Secretary-General from the Deputy Permanent Observer of PLO to the United Nations, by one of which he charged Israeli forces with demolishing on 30 January the homes of eight Palestinian families in Nablus and in a Jerusalem suburb, and with deporting a Palestinian student. (See also p. 325.)

In a letter of 9 February, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People conveyed his concern about the recurrence of systematic repressive measures by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. A similar letter of 2 March from the Acting Chairman of the Committee annexed a list of press reports of violations of Palestinian rights and of Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories. (See also p. 362.)

By a letter of 13 February, Egypt transmitted the text of a message of the previous day from  its Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, expressing his Government's concern over reports of deteriorating conditions in the occupied territories, over Israel's policy of settlement and colonization there, and in particular over reports of torture of Arab detainees in Israeli prisons.

On 23 February, Jordan requested the convening of a Security Council meeting to consider what it called the ominous and accelerating erosion of the status of Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Arab territories in consequence of the Israeli occupation authorities' systematic, relentless and deliberate policy and practice of settlement and colonization.

By a letter of 5 March, Senegal, in its capacity as Chairman of the Islamic Conference, transmitted the text of a Declaration issued on 2 March by the 42 Islamic Member States of the United Nations, strongly supporting the request for an urgent meeting of the Council. In the Declaration, the Islamic States expressed their profound concern at the current process of despoliation and colonization of the Holy City of Jerusalem. Calling for Israel's withdrawal, they considered all such measures taken by Israel to be illegal and in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 as well as of international law and United Nations resolutions.

By a letter of 7 March, Jordan transmitted: (a) a map showing Israeli settlements on the West Bank as at 31 December 1978; (b) a list of 79 settlements constructed by Israel in the occupied Arab territories between 1967 and 1979; (c) a letter of 12 December 1978 from the Chairman of the Islamic Commission in Jerusalem to the Prime Minister of Jordan complaining of acts of desecration by the Jewish settlers of Qiryat Arba in Hebron, transforming the mosque of Al-Haram Al-Ibrahimi Ash Sharif (the Mosque of Hebron) into a synagogue, and subjecting Arab worshippers to acts of aggression; and (d) a letter of 21 February to the President of the United States from a United States citizen complaining about the confiscation of a piece of land owned by his family in Beit Safafa, Jerusalem.

Consideration by the Security Council (March)

The Security Council considered the situation in territories occupied by Israel at eight meetings on 9, 12 to 16, 19 and 22 March in response to Jordan's request.

The representatives of Democratic Kampuchea, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, the Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yemen and Yugoslavia were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

Kuwait, in a letter of 8 March, had requested the participation of the representative of PLO in the meetings. If the proposal was approved, the Council President stated, the invitation would confer on PLO the same rights as were conferred when a Member State was invited to participate under rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedures. 58/

The United States said that it could not agree that PLO should participate with the same rights as Member States. At its request, the Council voted on Kuwait's proposal, which was adopted by 10 votes to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom).

The President, with the consent of the Council, also extended an invitation under rule 39 59/ to a Vice-Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, at his request.

Opening the debate, Jordan said that by the end of 1978 Israel had established 80 settlements and some 69 residential areas on private land. The strategic objectives of Israel's policy of colonization consisted of three substantial belts of settlements: almost the whole of the Jordan Valley on the West Bank; nine agricultural and industrial complexes, with the objective of containing the Palestinian population by encircling them; and the establishment of a chain of colonies along the entire length of the western highlands of the northern, central and southern parts of the West Bank, to move the former Israeli armistice line inside the Palestinian-populated areas. To supplement the plan, several highways had been constructed or were under construction to connect 1948 Israel with the three belts.

The main objective of the high-rise residential fortresses ringing Jerusalem was to create a psychological feeling of living in a ghetto, in the hope of causing the Palestinians of Jerusalem to emigrate.

By digging below the foundations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Israel threatened it with eventual collapse. The holy sanctuary of Al-Haram Al-Ibrahimi in Hebron had been converted in part to a Jewish synagogue.

Jordan urged the Council to resolve that an immediate moratorium be imposed on further Israeli colonization and expropriation of Palestinian and other occupied Arab lands, to send a commission to investigate the situation and report back by 1 May on the authenticity of Jordan's complaint, and, if the commission's findings confirmed the substance of the complaint, to exercise its power under the Charter, including Chapter VII, 60/ to ensure Israel's compliance.

Support for Jordan's proposals was expressed by Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, the USSR and Viet Nam.

During the debate, the Arab countries generally voiced concern and anger over Israel's colonization policies and its violation of the human rights of the Arab and Palestinian peoples. The German Democratic Republic, Iraq, Qatar, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR and Yemen also expressed their readiness to support the application of sanctions against Israel if it continued to defy the Council.

Kuwait said that Israel was not only violating international law; it was trying to replace Charter principles in the occupied territories by a concept based on mystical affinity. The new Israeli language referred to the West Bank as Judaea and Samaria; Jerusalem was said to be unified, not annexed; and Arab lands were no longer confiscated, but closed off. This was Israel's way of describing the situation in the occupied territories; the Council must act in a manner that accorded with the Charter and its provisions.

Israel said that since the 1978 Camp David accords, remarkable progress had been made in the direction of peace, showing that the principles contained in that frame cork were constructive, sound and more fruitful than any peace efforts which the region had known in the past 30 years. Jordan had been invited to join the peace negotiations. It had rejected that invitation and continued to do so. The sudden urgency which Jordan had claimed for the current debate had been occasioned only by the momentous talks which it knew were soon to be held in the Middle East. It was no coincidence that the Council was pressed into meeting on the eve of the arrival in Jerusalem of the President of the United States. The Jordanian initiative was an obstructive step to the cause of international peace. It should be within the power of the Council to resist manipulation and to allow the current peace process, where all the issues would find their rightful place and appropriate solution, to succeed.

According to Israel, the real issue of the Middle East conflict was not Israeli presence in Judaea and Samaria but the refusal of many of Israel's neighbours to recognize its basic natural rights to statehood and independence in its homeland.

Israel asserted that it had carried out in Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district an immense and constructive development programme marked by human concern and respect far the Arab identity of the inhabitants. It also maintained that the fourth Geneva Convention did not apply to those areas; the Convention referred to the seizure by one State of territory under the sovereignty of another, which was not the status of Judaea, Samaria and Gaza, and to forcible transfers of the population of an occupied territory. Israel maintained that no Arab inhabitants had been displaced by the establishment of the villages in question.

The PLO representative noted that, by an article of that Convention, the occupying power was explicitly forbidden to deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory occupied. He said that Israel's policy of establishing settlements must be evaluated in the light of a number of reports by international and national organizations, and in the light of repeated assertions by Israeli leaders that the settlements were intended to establish new borders for Israel. Those settlements were not only in violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention; they represented a serious obstacle to peace.

In accordance with an Israeli plan which became part of the Camp David accords, he continued, the fate of the Palestinians would be separated from that of the land: the population would have some "self-rule," but the land would continue to be effectively controlled by Israel. False hopes had been entertained to the effect that through bilateral negotiations peace would be achieved.

The validity of the application of the fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Arab territories was reaffirmed by a number of States in addition to the Arab countries, among them France, Indonesia, Iran, Norway, Pakistan, Romania, Somalia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Yugoslavia.

Egypt recalled that, by various resolutions adopted by overwhelming majorities, the Assembly had determined that Israeli measures and actions in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories had no validity and had called on Israel to comply strictly with its international obligations. Moreover, universally accepted international instruments prohibited the expropriation of properties, the demolition of homes and the transfer of population.

Egypt noted that conditions in the occupied territories were worsening, tension was rapidly mounting and the whole area was fraught with far-reaching and ominous implications for world peace and security. The Council was called on to face its responsibilities and act decisively to bring an end to Israeli occupation. The attainment of a comprehensive, just peace in the Middle East would be achieved through the termination of Israeli occupation of all the Arab territories, including Arab Jerusalem.

A majority of States indicated that Israel's settlement policy in occupied Arab territories was incompatible with a sincere desire for a just and lasting Middle East peace. In that respect, Somalia held that the policy violated international law and the human rights of the population against which it was directed, and deliberately placed serious obstacles in the way of a comprehensive solution to the Middle East problem. It added that the concentration of new Israeli settlements in and around the Old City of Jerusalem was aimed at destroying its Arab and Islamic character and isolating its Arab citizens from other Arab communities.

The Syrian Arab Republic said that 27 settlements had been established in the Golan Heights. Sixteen of these had been installed in Syrian villages, after Israeli authorities had expelled their inhabitants, bulldozed their homes and usurped their land. The growth of settlements was part of a preconceived plan systematically pursued. Israel, with a crisis of over-production, a lack of vital natural resources and a need for more workers, had been driven to acquire more territory in search of captive markets, natural resources such as water, and sources of cheap labour. By providing the Israelis with economic and military aid, the United States continued to isolate itself as an exception to the almost unanimous condemnation of Israel. The United Nations could not allow Israeli intransigence to continue.

The German Democratic Republic, Jordan and Viet Nam as well as the Vice-Chairman of the Palestinian Rights Committee and PLO also deprecated the role of the United States.

France said that it considered illegal and contrary to international law not only the creation of settlements in the occupied territories but also any unilateral measures that might change their physical and demographic status or the character of their people's beliefs. It was regrettable that such practices could have been continued and even developed, because they seemed to some to run counter to the desire for peace and created new obstacles in the difficult peace-making process. The Council had indicated clearly that peace would not be possible unless Israel withdrew from the territories. France called for respect for international law and asked that an end be put to actions which could only perpetuate tension and violence and jeopardize the chances for a settlement.

The United Kingdom said it had always been opposed to Israel's settlement activity because it could make a negotiated solution to the over-all problem in the area more difficult. Any over-all settlement must be based, among other things, on the need for Israel to end the territorial occupation. The United Kingdom considered that the imminent signing of a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt was a first step in the struggle to achieve a genuine comprehensive settlement.

The peace agreement also received the support of Norway, Portugal and the United States but was opposed by the majority of States that spoke.

The USSR said that the Egyptian-Israeli agreement pursued the goal of preserving the current situation in the occupied territories. A great fuss had been made, it said, about the question of how close a link there should be between the separate agreement and the process of granting so-called autonomy to the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Thus an attempt was made to divert attention from the essence of that notorious autonomy. Such attempts, it held, could not mislead anyone, especially in the light of statements made by the Israeli leaders that the West Bank and Gaza were historically Israeli lands. It was the opinion of the USSR that there was a direct link between the separate treaty and Israel's policy of annexation.

Any attempt to bring about a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in defiance and in spite of the legitimate interests of me people of Palestine was doomed to failure. The USSR supported the just proposals put forward by Arab and other States to the effect that the Council should condemn Israel's policy in the occupied Arab territories and demand a cessation and rescinding of the illegal actions carried out in those territories. To verify compliance with that decision, it would be useful to create a special organ of the Council.

China said that the question of the occupied Arab territories was inseparable from the whole Middle East question. The miseries of the Arab and Palestinian people in those territories were caused by Israel's policy of aggression and expansion and the super-powers' rivalry in the region. Therefore, to achieve a fundamental solution, it was imperative to do away firmly with those powers' interference and sabotage, restore the national rights of the Palestinian people and secure the complete withdrawal of the Israeli aggressors from all the occupied Arab territories. The Council should strongly condemn the crimes committed by Israel, voice firm support for the just struggle of the Arab and Palestinian people, and adopt effective measures to put an end to Israeli atrocities in those territories.

Concern at the serious encroachment by the occupying authorities on the inviolability of the status of Jerusalem was also expressed by Bangladesh, Bolivia, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yugoslavia.

On 22 March, the Council adopted, by 12 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions (Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States), a twice-revised resolution sponsored by Bangladesh, Kuwait, Nigeria and Zambia. By resolution 446 (1979), the Council determined that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. It strongly deplored Israel's failure to abide by previous United Nations decisions on this matter, and called on it to abide scrupulously by the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, rescind previous measures and desist from action that would result in changing the legal status or geographical nature or in materially affecting the demographic composition of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

The Council established a three-member commission to examine the situation relating to settlements in the territories, including Jerusalem, to be appointed by the Council President after consulting Council members. The Commission was to report by 1 July 1979, in which month the Council would reconvene to review the situation in the light of the Commission's findings.

Following the vote, the United States said that the content of the resolution generally accorded with its frequently stated position on settlements in the occupied territories: it was opposed to those settlements because they could be perceived as prejudging the outcome of negotiations and were inconsistent with the fourth Geneva Convention and with international law. However, the United States had grave doubts about the utility of a Council commission to examine the settlement situation; Egypt and Israel had made a first important move towards a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, and it was incumbent on the Council not to inject irritants into that process.

The United Kingdom said that, although it supported the concept of fact-finding missions in principle, on this occasion such a mission might serve only to complicate the peace efforts.

By a note of 3 April, the President of the Security Council said that agreement had been reached on the composition of the Commission: Bolivia, Portugal and Zambia.

In a note of 29 June, the President stated that the Commission had requested an extension of the time-limit for the submission of its report to 15 July; no Council members had objected to the request.

Communications (March-July)

Further communications were sent to the Council President and the Secretary-General concerning Israeli activities in the occupied Arab territories before the Council next met.

To a letter of 26 March Jordan annexed the text of a message of 21 December 1978 from an Arab Palestinian woman sentenced to life imprisonment in an Israeli prison. Jordan stated that the message gave an authentic sample of inhumane treatment of Palestinian detainees.

A Jordanian letter of 2 April enclosed a statement issued by the University of Bir Zeit on 12 March – a day of strike to protest what were termed Israeli acts of violence the day before, at a time when United States President Jimmy Carter was visiting Jerusalem. Jordan annexed a chronological list of events at the University, whose authorities charged Israeli forces with storming the campus, firing at unarmed students and imposing a curfew on the town.

Action taken against schools and universities on the West Bank was the subject of two other communications. By letters of 9 and 11 May, Kuwait transmitted complaints of 8 and 11 May from the Permanent Observer of PLO. He indicated that on 2 May Jewish settlers in the West Bank, while holding so-called "independence day" celebrations, committed acts of provocation against Palestinians. Palestinian students had responded by holding peaceful marches. As a result, the Israeli authorities closed the secondary school and university in Bethlehem and Bir Zeit University. One student was shot and wounded, and 70 were arrested.

Replying on 8 June, Israel said that terrorist organizations based in Arab countries had endeavoured to plant agents in the student body and to recruit accomplices. Since the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli treaty on 26 March, student disturbances had increased, reaching a climax on 2 May. In the face of such violence the Israeli authorities had closed Bir Zeit University until further notice.

By a letter of 3 July, Jordan charged Israel with attempting to destroy Arab educational and cultural institutions in the West Bank. Jordan listed the most recent incidents – the closure of Bir Zeit University, the closure of secondary schools in the cities of Ramallah, Halhoul and Nablus since 7 May, and the closure of Bethlehem University for four days – and called attention to other restrictions on Arab universities instituted by Israel.

Replying on 6 July, Israel rejected Jordan's accusations and charged that, during 19 years of occupation of Judaea and Samaria, Jordan had curtailed educational development, refusing to grant university status to any institution. Israel said that Bir Zeit University had been reopened on 4 July. It charged that Jordan was attempting to manipulate the United Nations to serve its political warfare against Israel.

By a letter of 5 April, Jordan drew attention to what it termed the plight of the inhabitants of Halhoul, in the Hebron region of the West Bank of Jordan. For three weeks, Jordan said, they had been placed under total curfew and confinement in their town and subjected to collective punitive action, following a demonstration to protest attacks perpetrated against them by the Israeli colonizers of Qiryat Arba. That clash had resulted in the death of two citizens of Halhoul. The prolonged siege imposed on the town had resulted in the depletion of water reserves, medicines and foodstuffs, and Israeli prohibition of such supplies to the town had posed a serious threat to the lives of the inhabitants.

On 11 April, Jordan transmitted the text of a communiqué issued on 11 March by the Executive Office of the General Commission of the Islamic Conference for Jerusalem, which had met at Amman following an attack by Israeli elements on the headquarters of the Islamic Commission and the Department of Islamic Waqf in Jerusalem. The Office called on the Arab and Islamic States and peoples to unite in order to defend their sacred places and heritage in the Holy Land.

On 26 April, Kuwait transmitted to the Council President a letter of the previous day from the PLO Permanent Observer referring to reports in The New York Times of 19, 24 and 25 April that Israel had recommenced the establishment of settlements in the West Bank, adding that such action was in total disregard of Council resolution 446 (1979) and was another manifestation of Israel's determination to pursue its aggressive policy against the Palestinian people.

In a letter of 2 May, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People expressed serious concern at a recent decision of the Government of Israel to authorize the establishment of two new settlements in the occupied Arab territories in defiance of Council resolution 446 (1979) and clearly demonstrating Israel's intransigence and cynical attitude towards international opinion and the concept of fundamental human rights. He added that statements ascribed to Israeli officials confirmed Israel's intention of establishing further settlements, in complete disregard of world and international law. One such statement, attributed to the Minister of Agriculture, indicated that 27,000 settler families would be moved into the West Bank over the next three years.

On 21 May, Kuwait transmitted two letters of 17 May from the Permanent Observer of PLO, drawing attention to articles published in The Jerusalem Post (international edition) of 13-16 May and The New York Times of 17 May. The first article reported the movement of Israeli settlers to a new settlement, Kfar-Daron in the Gaza Strip. The second reported that the Israeli President, visiting settlements around Bethlehem on 16 May had told the settlers he was certain they could remain in their new homes permanently. In the same article, it was reported that a Co-Chairman of the Jewish Agency's Settlements Department had urged the building or new towns of at least 5,000 families each. These statements, the PLO Observer said, confirmed that Israel intended to pursue its illegal occupation and colonization of Palestine in contempt of United Nations resolutions and international opinion and at the expense of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people.

By letters of 6 and 28 June, Kuwait transmitted letters of the same dates from PLO, drawing attention to articles in The New York Times of 4 and 28 June and to another published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on 5 June, reporting that Israel had decided to permit the establishment of a new settlement adjacent to Nablus, by confiscating privately owned Arab land, and six paramilitary settlements in occupied Arab territories: three in the West Bank, two in the Gaza Strip, and one in the Golan Heights. It was further reported that the Israeli Prime Minister had stated that settlement was a right and a duty that would continue to be fulfilled.

By a letter of 9 July, Jordan charged that Israel had on 4 June demolished one house and sealed off a number of others in the town of Al-Jariah, near Ramallah, and that their owners had been arrested on the pretext that they had resisted Israeli occupation. Residents of Silwan near Jerusalem had the day before protested the expropriation of their cultivated land near Jericho and in the Dead Sea area, and Israel's Cabinet had approved the establishment of a Jewish settlement, Elon Moreh (Qaddum), on privately owned Arab land 7 kilometres south of Nablus. Meanwhile, Jordan added, the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv had reported on 7 June on efforts to expand 14 settlements in the West Bank.

By a letter of 16 July, Kuwait transmitted two letters of the same date from the Permanent Observer of PLO to the Council President, protesting in the first what he termed fictitious accusations by Israeli authorities against two West Bank mayors who opposed Israel's so-called plan for "self-rule," and referring in the second to articles in the United States press published on 5 June about the murder of four Palestinian civilians by an Israeli officer in southern Lebanon in 1978.

Report of the Security

Council Commission (12 July)

The Security Council Commission established under Resolution 446 (1979), having held a number of meetings at United Nations Headquarters, New York, since 10 April and after visiting Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Lebanon and Egypt from 20 May to 1 June, on 12 July submitted its report in which it included its conclusions and recommendations.

The Commission noted that before its departure it had received assurances of full co-operation from Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, as well as from the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories and PLO. Israel had informed the Commission that its Government had nothing to hide concerning its action in the territories under its control, that the situation there had been freely examined by numerous impartial observers who had always confirmed its Government's statements, and that Israel was not prepared to have any contact with the Commission. The Commission considered such a lack of co-operation on the part of a United Nations Member State as an act of disregard for a decision of the Security Council. The Commission had in each country met with Government authorities, had received testimony from 42 witnesses, had met spokesmen from local associations and had received some written communications.

According to the Commission's sources, the settlements in the occupied territories numbered 133, including 17 in and around Jerusalem, 62 in the West Bank, 29 in the Golan Heights and 25 in the Gaza Strip and the Sinai. The number of people in those settlements varied. In the area of Jerusalem and the heavily settled West Bank there were approximately 90,000 settlers; in the Sinai the number was under 5,000. The land seized by Israeli authorities covered 27 per cent of the occupied West Bank and nearly all the Golan Heights, and it was the Commission's conviction that a number of settlements had been established on privately owned land. Many settlers were said to have military weapons in the midst of an unarmed Arab population, and the Commission had found evidence that the Israeli Government was engaged in a wilful, systematic and large-scale process of establishing settlements in the occupied territories, for which it should bear full responsibility.

The report listed several consequences to the local population resulting from Israel's settlement policy. It stated that since 1967 the Arab population had been reduced by 32 per cent in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Syrian authorities had stated that 134,000 inhabitants had been expelled from the Golan Heights, leaving only 8,000 people, or 6 per cent of the local population.

In implementation of its settlement policy, Israel had resorted to methods – often coercive and sometimes more subtle – which included control of water resources, seizure of private property, destruction of houses and banishment of persons; it had shown disregard for basic human rights, in particular the right of the refugees to return to their homeland.

Arab inhabitants living in the occupied territories were pressured to emigrate, and the economic and social pattern of their daily life had undergone drastic and adverse changes. The policy was causing profound and irreversible geographical and demographic changes.

The report cited a genuine desire for peace in the capitals visited and among PLO leaders and also a deep sense of despair and helplessness, primarily among Palestinian refugees. The settlement policy was widely regarded as a highly negative factor in the achievement of peace in the area.

The Commission recommended that the Council launch a pressing appeal to the Government and people of Israel, re-emphasizing the disastrous consequences which the settlement policy was bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East.

As a first step, Israel should be called on to cease establishing and planning settlements in the occupied territories. The question of the existing settlements would then have to be resolved. The Council might further wish to consider measures to safeguard the impartial protection of property arbitrarily seized.

With respect to Jerusalem, the Commission recommended that the Council call on the Government of Israel to implement faithfully Council resolutions adopted on that question as from 1967. The Council might wish to consider steps to protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the City's Holy Places, taking into account the views of high-ranking representatives of the three monotheistic religions to which Jerusalem was sacred.

Consideration by the

Security Council (18-20 July)

The Security Council resumed its consideration of the situation in the occupied Arab territories at four meetings beginning on 18 July to consider the report of its Commission.

The representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic were invited, at their request, to participate in the debate without the right to vote.

Kuwait, in a letter of 18 July, requested the participation of the PLO representative in the debate. By 10 votes to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom), the Council approved Kuwait's proposal, conferring on PLO the rights of participation conferred on Member States when invited to participate under rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. 61/ The United States, which requested the vote, did not agree with the procedure for hearing PLO.

The President, with the consent of the Council, also extended an invitation under rule 39 62/ to the Acting Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, at his request.

Introducing the report of the Commission, its Chairman, the representative of Portugal, said that in the Commission's view the settlements were being used above all as a political weapon designed to impose Israeli presence on the occupied territories. The Commission was firmly convinced that such a policy violated the fourth Geneva Convention and international law relating to military occupation, and was a major obstacle to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Although the Commission's mandate included Jerusalem, the report could not reflect the emotion which the Commission felt that question aroused in so many of those interviewed. The Commission had referred to possible protective measures for the Holy Places in Jerusalem that the international community might take, and hoped that it might be possible to make the Holy City a unique meeting place and a place of peace – a point of departure for all to unite in a determination to give it a status that would guarantee and encourage fruitful and fraternal dialogue between men, peoples and religions.

Bolivia, a member of the Commission, said that the measures the Council might adopt concerning the status of Jerusalem, incorporating the opinions of highly qualified representatives of the three major monotheistic religions of the world, were fully in consonance with the statements of Pope John Paul II. In that sensitive matter, Bolivia drew attention to the opinions expressed to the Commission by Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan, who had suggested the establishment of an international body to examine that issue.

Zambia, the third member of the Commission, said that Israel's policy of establishing settlements in occupied Arab territories was a twentieth-century version of colonialism. By establishing colonies for Jews and expelling the indigenous peoples, Israel was seeking to legitimize its occupation of lands seized by force. More ominous, the resulting process had triggered a massive displacement of people. Zambia expressed its conviction that Israel had occupied Arab territories for purposes of exploitation rather than so-called security reasons.

With the exception of Israel, which found it tendentious, and the United States, which did not agree with all the points it contained, speakers generally praised the Commission's report and endorsed its recommendations.

Israel said that, like the Palestinian Rights Committee's reports, the Commission's report accepted the views of Israel's avowed enemies as though they constituted hard and objective evidence. As Israel saw it, despite the Commission's stated intention to evaluate all information freely and critically, the report consisted largely of an uncritical regurgitation of extreme and unrestrained attacks on Israel's sovereign rights. The Jewish people and the State of Israel had the right in principle, as well as in law and in terms of national security, to permanent presence in Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district. As for Jerusalem, it had known many foreign rulers in the course of its long history, but none of the regarded the City as his capital.  The Jewish people alone had always maintained it as the centre and sole focus of its national and spiritual life.  Israel's policy with regard to Jerusalem's Holy Places was governed by the Law on the Protection of Holy Places of June 1967, under which unrestricted access to them was guaranteed to all members of all faiths.

Jordan noted the Commission's view that a correlation existed between the establishment of settlements and the displacement of the Palestinian and Arab populations. The economy of the occupied territories had been made hostage to Israel's purposes – expansion and further aggression. Jordan expressed indignation that the equivalent of $200 million was being poured into Israel, mostly from outside sources. It appealed to the Council to request all those who were contributing vast sums to stop doing so if they were in earnest about safeguarding and promoting the peace and survival of the Palestinian people in their homeland. Jordan felt it was useless to utter brave statements about a determination to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace, and then to act in a manner whose only consequence was to subvert prospects for that peace. Jordan added that Jerusalem had been founded 4,500 years ago by the Jebusite Semitic Arabs, who had called it Uru Salem, a fact verified by excavations at Ebla in the northern Syrian Arab Republic a few years ago; the founders of Jerusalem were the Palestinians, descendants of those Arabs, and not the Hebrew intruders. Jerusalem did not belong to any race; it was not a monopoly for political Zionism. Even if the whole of the country was returned, without Jerusalem, Jordan would object, not only on its own behalf but on behalf of the entire Arab and Islamic world and peace-loving people all over the world.

The representative of PLO noted that the Commission's mandate dealt only with one manifestation of illegal occupation and its impact, namely, the establishment of colonial settlements in the Arab territories. The Commission, with its recommendation to cease establishing and planning such settlements, was merely reiterating past resolutions; PLO had hoped and expected its members to recommend something more action-oriented. The United Nations Charter contained provisions on how to deal with the contemptuous and the arrogant by imposing sanctions – economic, military and others. As PLO saw it, the establishment of settlements was nothing but military aggression, expansion and annexation.

It appealed to the United States and the other Western powers that financed Israel and its plans to withhold their support. It also expressed surprise that the Commission had failed to make any recommendation concerning the seizure of water resources by the forces of illegal occupation.

In regard to Jerusalem and the other Holy Places, PLO pointed out that the quality of holiness was not in buildings or structures, but in the worshippers and what they worshipped. It was sure that the Commission was concerned not exclusively with the protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places, but also with the fate and rights of the people in the Holy Land.

France said that the situation in the occupied Arab territories was a constant source of concern to the French Government. It was regrettable that the Commission's efforts to solicit the assistance and co-operation of all Governments concerned should have met with Israel's rejection. However, the information the Commission had been able to assemble from other sources justified the growing concern felt by many countries. The facts reported ran directly counter to the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention. In France's view, cause for concern derived not only from the illegality of the settlement policy but also from the fact that it constituted a serious obstacle to the search for a comprehensive settlement to the Middle East question.

Egypt expressed similar views, also regretting that Israel had chosen not to allow the Commission to visit the occupied territories. Reiterating its condemnation of the settlement policy, Egypt voiced particular concern that a number of settlements had been established on privately owned land, despite assurances to the contrary by Israel. The locations of the settlements gave Egypt further cause for concern, based as they were not only on so-called security purposes but also on agricultural designs.

The Acting Chairman of the Palestinian Rights Committee also expressed regret that because of Israeli intransigence the Commission had been unable to visit the occupied territories. He felt that its findings fully justified his Committee's concern and its own recommendations on the various violations of human rights in those territories. It was his Committee's view that the Council should take immediate and decisive action to prevent the disastrous consequences which the settlement policy, if continued, was bound to exert on the situation in the Middle East.

China said that it had always held that the question of Israeli-occupied territories was an inseparable part of the whole Middle East question. To resolve that question required both firm opposition to Israel's policies of expansion and to super-power intervention, and recovery of the occupied Arab territories with realization of the national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to return to their homeland and establish their own State. China expressed the hope that the Arab world would strengthen its unity against the common enemy. In its opinion, the Council should adopt a resolution strongly condemning the Israeli authorities for their crimes of aggression and expansion, supporting the just struggle of the Arab and Palestinian peoples, and containing more practical measures than those embodied in resolution 446 (1979) to stop Israel's atrocities in the occupied territories.

The Syrian Arab Republic said the report supported the contention that Israel's desire for more Arab territory was intrinsically linked to its economic needs as a colonial settler regime. Many of the charges that Arab representatives had brought before the Council had thus been borne out. The Commission's findings would be relegated to the archives as just another United Nations document unless the Council took appropriate measures that could deliver real justice. Such measures, the Syrian Arab Republic believed, should include sanctions as envisaged in Chapter VII of the Charter, although it said it was improbable that Israel's patron would allow the Council to impose such sanctions against its protégé.

The USSR also found that the Commission's report and conclusions substantiated charges by representatives of Arab and other countries and denied by Israel: that Israel did not intend to withdraw from the Arab lands and was instead doing everything possible to keep them. According to the USSR, Israel's colonization of the territories had become particularly provocative since the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. The treaty was, in the USSR's view, nothing more than a deal designed to prevent implementation of the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including the right to establish weir own State, and had led to a further exacerbation of tension in the region. The USSR remained a consistent supporter of a comprehensive and just settlement in the Middle East. It stressed that the Council must deal very seriously with the content of the Commission's report.

On 20 July, by 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention (the United States), the Council adopted as resolution 452 (1979) a draft which had evolved in the course of informal consultations.

By the preamble, the Council: strongly deplored Israel's lack of co-operation; considered that Israel's settlement policy was illegal and a violation of the fourth Geneva Convention; expressed concern about the practices of the Israeli authorities in carrying out that policy in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem; emphasized the need to confront the issue of the existing settlements and to safeguard the impartial protection of property seized; and drew attention to the grave consequences of the settlements policy on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East.

By the operative paragraphs, the Council: commended the work done by the Commission in preparing its report and accepted its recommendations; called on the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; and requested the Commission, in view of the magnitude of the problem of settlements, to keep the implementation of this resolution under close survey and report back to the Council before 1 November.

Czechoslovakia and the USSR felt that the resolution was weak and unduly marked by compromise, and that the Council should have adopted measures to ensure the dismantling of existing settlements.

The United Kingdom said that, once the decision to send the Commission had been taken, all United Nations Members should have sought to co-operate with it. The United Kingdom was disappointed that Israel had declared itself unable to do so. An important source of information had thus been denied to the Commission. Inevitably, there were areas where there was room for doubt, but the United Kingdom was in broad agreement with the statistics, conclusions and recommendations in the report.

Following the vote, the United States reiterated its opposition to Israel's policy of settlements in the occupied territories and repeated its request to Israel to cease establishing such settlements. However, since the resolution, like the Commission's recommendations accepted therein, went beyond the question of settlements to deal with such matters as Jerusalem, the United States had abstained. Those questions, as well as such issues as the future of the occupied territories, could be dealt with effectively during negotiations between the parties. Those negotiations were now under way, and the United States hoped they would be extended to incorporate all parties with an interest in them.

On 1 August, the Palestinian Rights Committee Chairman expressed to the Secretary-General deep concern at the fact that the United States, in explaining its abstention in the vote on Council resolution 452 (1979), had stated that the resolution, like the recommendations of the Commission which the resolution accepted and incorporated, went beyond the question of settlements to deal with such matters as Jerusalem. Noting that the mandate of the Commission did in fact extend to Jerusalem, the Chairman expressed the Committee's concern that the statement could carry implications of Jerusalem and its environs' being treated as distinct from Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, which would appear to constitute a divergence from the long-standing position of the United States. The Chairman stated that such a development would have far-reaching repercussions and would be a matter of serious concern to the Committee.

By a note of 24 October, the President of the Security Council drew attention to a request from the Chairman of the Commission that the time-limit for its report be extended to 10 December. Following informal consultations among Council members, the President reported no objections to the request.

Communications and report (July-December)

From July to December, the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council received a number of additional communications from various sources dealing with measures affecting the Palestinian people, particularly with regard to Israel's policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories and the expropriation of Arab lands.

Kuwait, on 23 July, transmitted a letter of 18 July from the Permanent Observer of PLO, concerning efforts made by 13 Palestinian inhabitants of the village of Salfit in the West Bank to seek an injunction in the Israeli Supreme Court against the expropriation of their land by Israeli authorities.

The Jordanian representative, in letters of 5 July and 19 September, gave accounts of recent Israeli practices of expropriating Arab agricultural areas in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, on the pretext of security, airport construction or setting up new settlements. He said that the Supreme Court of Israel on 12 July had ordered the Israeli military authorities to stop fencing-in operations and other measurer in the Salfit area. He noted other cases before the Supreme Court which involved the expropriation of land in Ramallah and Bethlehem. He cited Israeli press reports that land might also be confiscated in several districts for the construction of dwellings for Israeli army officers. On 19 September, he called on the Secretary-General to use his good offices to put an end to the inhumane practices of the Israeli authorities in the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

By a letter of 9 August, Kuwait transmitted a letter of 6 August from the PLO Permanent Observer, denouncing the seizure and confiscation of Bedouin lands by Israel, reported in press articles. On the same subject, the representative of Jordan transmitted on 5 September an article published in a Haifa newspaper on 24 August in which the author charged that, because of Israeli legislation permitting seizure of Arab lands, the Bedouin of the Negev had become refugees in their own homeland.

By a letter of 19 September, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People expressed the Committee's concern over an Israeli Cabinet decision of 16 September to abrogate provisions prohibiting Israeli nationals from purchasing land in the occupied territories. Similar concern was expressed by Egypt and Jordan in letters of 19 and 20 September.

To a letter of 18 October the Chairman of the Palestinian Rights Committee annexed the text of a master plan for the development of settlements in Judaea and Samaria for 1979 to 1983, attributed to the World Zionist Organization, and charged that a reported recent Israeli Government decision to expand seven of its settlements in the occupied Arab territories appeared to have been taken within that framework.

By a letter of 8 November, Jordan complained that the Israeli authorities had recently expropriated agricultural land belonging to villagers in the Jenin area of the West Bank, and had begun preparations and earmarked funds for the establishment during 1980 in Galilee of 10 new Israeli settlements.

On 30 July, Jordan charged that Israel had refused to permit a Palestinian surgeon to enter  Hebron in the West Bank to visit his dying mother.

To a letter of 13 November Kuwait annexed a letter of the previous day from the Permanent Observer of PLO, protesting the arrest and threat to expel the Mayor of Nablus, Bassam Al-Shaka, by Israeli authorities. Concern over his arrest and threatened deportation was the subject of several other communications: a letter and statement of 12 November from Egypt; a letter of 13 November from the Chairman of the Palestinian Rights Committee, a letter of 14 November, in which the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, current Chairman of the Arab group of Member States at the United Nations, requested immediate measures to ensure that the Mayor was not deported; and a letter of 28 November from Jordan enclosing an Israeli newspaper article of 12 November, which contained the text of a recorded conversation between the Mayor of Nablus and the Israeli Military Governor on 6 November covering West Bank issues.

On 14 November, the President of the Security Council issued the following statement:

To a letter of 31 December Kuwait annexed the text of a letter of 26 December from PLO to the Council President, charging that the night before Israeli troops had stormed Bir Zeit University in the occupied West Bank and had raided the Jerusalem home of the mother of the PLO Permanent Observer. Replying on 11 January 1980, Israel said that Israeli authorities had entered Bir Zeit University to restore order following student clashes with police on 22 December 1979. In the second case, entry into the private house had been for the purpose of enforcing a civil judgement and impounding items in lieu of municipal debts. An account of the case was annexed to the letter.

On 24 October 1979, the Secretary-General submitted a comprehensive report on all aspects of the situation in the Middle East, as requested by the General Assembly on 7 December 1978. 63/ With regard to the situation in the occupied territories, he outlined efforts and decisions of the United Nations since the submission of his previous report on 17 October 1978. 64/

Report of the Security

Council Commission (4 December)

On 4 December, the Security Council Commission established on 22 March unanimously adopted its second report to the Council.

The Commission had requested its Chairman to establish informal contacts with the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations to ascertain its reaction to the Commission's new mandate. The Chairman had been informed that there had been no change in Israel's policy with regard to the Commission, and therefore the Commission could not count on Israel's co-operation.

The Commission had also sought the views of high-ranking representatives of the three monotheistic faiths with regard to Jerusalem. It appended to its report replies received from the World Council of Churches and from the Holy See.

The Commission stated that since its first report in July it had held five meetings in New York, between 5 September and 4 December. It had detected no evidence of any basic positive change in Israel's policy with regard to the construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories under occupation, particularly in the West Bank. The Commission viewed that policy as having contributed to a deterioration of the situation and as being incompatible with the pursuit of peace in the region.

Israel was still pursuing its systematic process of colonization of the territories, constructing and expanding settlements in the West Bank and planning others. The Commission viewed with particular concern Israel's recent decision to allow its citizens and organizations to buy land in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Commission reiterated its recommendation that the Council should again draw the attention of the Government and people of Israel to the disastrous consequences which the settlement policy was bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East. It recommended that the Council adopt effective measures to prevail on Israel to cease the establishment of settlements in occupied territories and to dismantle existing ones.

In view of the reported serious depletion of water resources in the territories resulting from Israeli exploitation, mainly for the settlements, the Commission felt the Council might wish to investigate the matter further, with a view to ensuring their protection.

The Commission again strongly recommended that the Council urge Israel to implement fully Council resolutions on Jerusalem adopted sine 1967 and desist from taking any measures that would change the City's status, including its pluralistic and religious dimensions.

Consideration by the General Assembly

Report of the Special Committee

The three-member Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories presented its eleventh report to the Secretary-General on 9 November 1979 covering the period from 11 November 1978 to that date.

The report contained a representative cross-section of the information received by the Committee since the adoption of its previous report on 10 November 1978. 65/ The Committee stated that this information had been obtained without the co-operation of the Government of Israel, a continuing obstacle in its work. It had been possible to follow closely the situation of the civilians in the occupied territories by relying on a number of sources, including oral and written testimony, press reports of statements by responsible persons in the Government of Israel, information submitted by Governments and non-governmental bodies, and unedited films.

The Committee analysed the information in its report into two main categories – the first concerned the Israeli Government's policy of annexation and settlement, and the second concerned the situation of civilians as a consequence of the occupation. As in previous reports, it paid considerable attention to the situation of detainees in the occupied territories, classifying it as a third source of evidence. A special chapter on judicial remedies for the protection of the human rights of the local population was included. The Committee wished to determine whether the judicial system in Israel afforded any protection to the civilian population of the occupied territories.

The report gave samples of the pattern of incidents occurring in the occupied territories and their consequences in the form of arrests, trials and releases.

The Committee held meetings in February June, September and November. In June it heard the testimony of a number of former detainees released in March. It also decided to extend invitations to municipal leaders from the occupied territories to testify, in an effort to obtain first-hand information on the situation of the population in those territories. In September it heard the testimony of Fahd Qawasma, the Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron). In an assessment of all available information, the Committee reiterated its view that the situation of civilians in the occupied territories in general, and of those who were held in detention in particular, continued to give cause for serious concern.

The report noted that Israel continued to carry out a deliberate policy of annexation by expropriation of property and establishment of settlements of Israeli Jewish civilians. Unequivocal statements by Israeli governmental officials concerning this policy supported the Committee's basic assumption that that policy was being implemented in the context of the so-called homeland doctrine, that is, that part of the territories occupied in June 1967 formed part of the Jewish homeland.

The Committee noted that the High Court of Justice of Israel had endorsed arguments according to which reasons of security might be invoked to justify the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and the transfer of Israeli citizens to those settlements.

The Committee, after an examination of the effectiveness of the available judicial remedies, felt that such decisions warranted the conclusion that the civilians in the occupied territories did not benefit in any degree by recourse to the Israeli judicial authorities.

The Committee considered that the policy pursued by the Israeli Government denied the local population any opportunity to express its desire for self-determination. It observed that resistance to the occupation was met with individual and collective punishment, contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

The Committee concluded that Israel was in fact consciously following a policy which was in violation of that Convention; in that connexion, it referred to articles of the Convention prohibiting annexation of territories under military occupation by the occupying power and prohibiting the transfer of its citizens into those territories. The Committee observed that this policy was implemented largely through the financial support of parastatal or quasi-governmental societies. A new aspect of Israeli policy, the creation of regional councils in the territories to co-ordinate services and organizations of Israeli settlement in various regions, was looked upon by the Committee as further evidence of Israel's intention to consolidate annexation.

The Committee recalled that the very fact of occupation constituted a fundamental violation of human rights, a conclusion it had reached from its first report. Daily life in the occupied territories was marked with violence and a large number of arrests. The report quoted figures of the number of arrests, incidents, trials and releases.

The report stated that the followed by the Israeli Government with regard to the civilian population complemented those followed with regard to the establishment of settlements in the territories. Measures taken by the Israeli authorities with regard to civilians, purportedly to maintain order, fitted more logically into the general context of the Israeli homeland policy, their main purpose being to demoralize the civilian population by facing it with the constant reality of being a people under military subjugation.

Moreover, the behaviour of Jewish settlers towards the local population contributed to its demoralization and strengthened the Israeli Government in the ultimate realization of its aim.

Referring to several instances where property was expropriated and civilian settlements were then established, the Committee observed that Israel's policy provoked a pattern of resistance by the civilian population. It referred to the frequency and type of incidents as an illustration of this pattern of behaviour.

The Committee noted that prison conditions in general continued to deteriorate and that there was no evidence of efforts to improve them. Although Israeli officials had occasionally made statements acknowledging adverse prison conditions, no remedial measures were taken; the Committee continued to receive reports of serious overcrowding, physical abuse and lack of adequate medical attention in prisons.

The Committee reiterated the proposal that it had made in previous years for the adoption of an arrangement 66/ based on the protecting power formula envisaged under the fourth Geneva Convention in an effort to ensure protection of the civilian persons in the occupied territories.

The report of the Special Committee was considered by the General Assembly's Special Political Committee, which also had before it a number of communications (see sections above). One of these annexed, to a letter of 29 November from Iraq to the Secretary-General, three summaries of cables filed by the United States Consulate General in Jerusalem in 1978 and early 1979, based on interviews with visa applicants who had charged that Israeli torture of Palestinian political prisoners was a systematic practice. The Secretary-General also reported to the Assembly, describing measures he had taken to carry out an Assembly request of 18 December 1978 that he provide the Special Committee with the necessary resources and ensure the widest possible dissemination of information on its activities. 67/ He outlined measures taken by the Department of Public Information to ensure the widest circulation of the Committee's reports and findings.

The Special Political Committee discussed the Special Committee's report at six meetings between 26 November and 7 December, following which it recommended three resolutions for adoption by the Assembly.

On 12 December, the Assembly adopted all three: the first resolution – 34/90 A – concerned the work of the Special Committee. By its operative provisions, the Assembly commended the Committee for its efforts, thoroughness and impartiality, deplored Israel's continued refusal to allow the Committee access to the occupied territories and called on it to do so.

The Assembly deplored Israel's continued and persistent violation of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and condemned in particular those violations termed grave breaches in the Convention. Condemning a number of specific Israeli policies and practices, the Assembly demanded that Israel desist forthwith from: annexing parts of the occupied territories; establishing and expanding Israeli settlements on Arab lands, and transferring an alien population there: evacuating, deporting, expelling, displacing or transferring Arab inhabitants and denying their right to return; confiscating and expropriating Arab property and other transactions for acquiring land in the territories; destroying Arab houses; mass arrests, administrative detention, mistreatment of the Arab population and detainees, pillaging of archaeological and cultural property, or interfering with religious freedom, family rights or customs; and exploiting the resources and population of the occupied territories.

The Assembly reaffirmed that all Israeli measures to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the occupied territories or any part of them, including Jerusalem, were null and void. Israel's policy of settling its population and new immigrants in the territories constituted a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention and United Nations resolutions, and the Assembly demanded that Israel desist immediately.

The Assembly reiterated its call on all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid actions, including aid, that might be used by Israel to pursue its policies.

The Committee was requested to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including the treatment of civilians in detention, to consult with the International Committee of the Red Cross as appropriate to safeguard human rights, and to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arose. The Secretary-General was requested to render all necessary facilities to the Committee, including additional staff, to ensure the widest circulation of its reports, activities and findings, and to report to the Assembly in 1980.

The Assembly adopted this resolution by a recorded vote of 111 to 2, with 31 abstentions. The Special Political Committee had approved the text on 7 December by a recorded vote of 87 to 3, with 25 abstentions, as sponsored by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria and Pakistan.

By the second resolution – 34/90 B – the Assembly reaffirmed that the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 was applicable to Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Deploring Israel's failure to acknowledge that, it called on Israel to comply with that Convention's provisions in those territories. The Assembly urged the States parties to that Convention to exert all efforts to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions.

This resolution was adopted by the Assembly by a recorded vote of 140 to 1, with 4 abstentions. The Special Political Committee had approved the text on 7 December by a recorded vote of 113 to 1, with 2 abstentions. The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan and Yugoslavia.

By the third resolution – 34/90 C – the Assembly expressed grave anxiety and concern over the serious situation resulting in the occupied territories from Israel's continued occupation and the measures taken by its Government, as the occupying power, to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of these territories. The Assembly called on Israel to comply strictly with its international obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention and to desist forthwith from taking any such measures in the territories, including Jerusalem. It determined that all such measures and actions had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to efforts aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace. The Assembly strongly deplored Israel's persistence in carrying out such measures, in particular the establishment of settlements. It urged all States parties to the fourth Geneva Convention to exert all efforts to ensure compliance with its provisions in all the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 140 to 1, with 4 abstentions. The Special Political Committee had approved the text on 7 December by a recorded vote of 113 votes to 1, with 3 abstentions. The sponsors were Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mali, Pakistan and Turkey.

Speaking in explanation of vote, Austria and Ireland (on behalf of the member States of the European Economic Community (EEC)) said they had voted in favour of resolution 34/90 B and fully shared the view that the fourth Geneva Convention was applicable. Ireland said that EEC had supported resolutions 34/90 B and C. Their position on Israel's settlement policy was unchanged. They had abstained on resolution 34/90 A, objecting to the references to torture since there was no conclusive proof. Finland also said it had abstained on resolution 34/90 A because of reservations in that regard, but had voted in favour of 34/90 B on the understanding that nothing in the text contradicted Security Council resolution 242 (1967). 68/

Australia said that it understood, in voting in favour of resolution 34/90 C, that the term "Palestinian and other Arab territories referred only to the territories occupied in 1967. Austria, Norway and Sweden said their votes in favour were based on the understanding that that term meant the territories referred to in resolution 242 (1967).

Guatemala said that, although it recognized that violations of human rights must be condemned in every case end agreed with the principles set forth in the three resolutions, it could not accept some of their provisions.

The United States said resolution 34/90 A contained accusations with little or no basis and would be prejudicial to the peace process. The United States was in favour of resolutions 34/90 B and C, however, and hoped that they would prompt Israel to reconsider the policies it was applying in the occupied territories.

Israel objected to the terminology of all three resolutions and rejected them as obstructing the ongoing peace process and aggravating the existing situation.

Introducing the Special Committee's report in the Special Political Committee, the Committee Chairman said that, given Israel's refusal to co-operate, his Committee had been obliged to collect its information from other sources. However, the fact that Israel had continued its policy of annexation and settlement was often demonstrated by admissions from Israeli sources.

Challenging the accuracy of the Committee's factual reporting, Israel said the Committee had studiously ignored any information from authoritative Israeli sources that shed a different light on the subject. The Committee's conclusions, it said, were formulated for the purpose of discrediting Israel. Israel claimed that earlier annexations, such as Jordan's in 1950, had been illegal, and consequently the fourth Geneva Convention did not apply to the Israel-administered areas. The article on which the Committee based its claim that Israeli settlements were not allowed in those areas banned forcible transfers, not voluntary acts of individuals taking up residence. Israel wished once again to record its emphatic rejection of the Special Committee's report.

Nigeria and Pakistan said that the international community could not accept Israel's contention that the fourth Geneva Convention could not be applied to the situation in the occupied territories. Israel had ratified that Convention without reservation; it must be applied by all parties and in all circumstances.

The representative of PLO said the Special Committee's report reflected increasing Israeli repression of the population of the occupied territories. The so-called legal process in the territories was a travesty of justice, he said. The autonomy talks proposed in the Camp David agreements had been rejected by Palestinians everywhere as a violation of their inalienable human rights and their right to self-determination. Concerning Israel's refutation of allegations of torture, those practices had been verified by recognized international human rights organizations.

Arab countries, together with Afghanistan, the Byelorussian SSR, China, the German Democratic Republic, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Tunisia, expressed appreciation to the Special Committee for its report. They considered it to be factual and objective, in spite of the many obstacles created by the Israeli authorities.

Ireland, speaking for the EEC members, said the Special Committee had not had access to sufficient first-hand material to give its report adequate authority. Ireland felt that in spite of this the report cast light on disquieting aspects, especially concerning conditions of detention and treatment of prisoners.

Kuwait identified the major trends of Israel's policy as shown in the Committee's report: intensification of the settlements policy and, linked to that, extension of the area of public and private lands being claimed by the Israeli Government for that purpose; increasing control by Israel of the territories' water resources; removal of the ban on acquisition of land in the occupied territories by Israeli individuals or companies; establishment of regional and local councils to administer Israeli settlements; a rise of organized Israeli terrorism in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and a concerted attempt to wipe out feelings of Palestinian identity in the young people of the territories.

Arab countries generally considered that the intensification of expropriation and expulsion measures and the increase in the number of settlements had an obvious purpose – to enable Israel to establish itself more firmly in the territories in order to effect a permanent annexation. They also considered that: the situation continued to deteriorate as Israel continued to display total disregard for the decisions of the international community; Israel was altering the geographical and demographic character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention; Israel's attitude in refusing admission to the Special Committee confirmed suspicions that it was seeking to cover up serious human rights violations committed against the inhabitants of the occupied Arab territories; and the United Nations must face up to its responsibility and redouble its efforts to protect the human rights of the Palestinian people, bring about compliance by Israel with its decisions concerning those territories, and in particular end Israel's occupation.

General concern was expressed for the civilian population. Its reaction to occupation produced a pattern of incidents: army intervention to stop hostile demonstrations, ensuing mass arrests and unsatisfactory legal remedies to protect persons arrested by the Israeli authorities on the pretext of security offences. It was the opinion of most States that the basic human rights of civilians were constantly and violently set aside in the occupied territories.

Deportation of the Mayor of Nablus

On 13 November, the Secretary-General received a letter from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; it forwarded, under cover of a letter from the Permanent Observer of PLO, a letter of the same date from the Chairman of PLO's Executive Committee. The Secretary-General was urged to intervene with the Israeli occupation authorities to prevent the deportation of Bassam Al-Shaka, Mayor of Nablus. The Chairman also warned that the authorities planned to deport the Mayors of Ramallah and Al Bireh, who were to be brought to trial on 22 November on what he called a trumped-up charge of preventing a policeman from performing his duties, and were threatening to prosecute the Mayor of Halhoul on charges of committing administrative contraventions. The Secretary-General also reported that he had received complaints on the matter from Egypt on 12 November, from Jordan and from several non-governmental organizations.

The President of the Security Council was informed of the decision of the Israeli authorities by Kuwait, which on 13 November transmitted a message from PLO's Permanent Observer, and on 14 November by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, current Chairman of the Arab group. On that day, the Council President made a statement expressing the Council's concern. (See p. 392.)

The Secretary-General brought the matter to the attention of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices and also informed the Palestinian Rights Committee.

On 15 November, prior to the Special Political Committee's discussion of the Special Committee's report, the United Arab Emirates requested the Special Political Committee to consider as a matter of urgency the situation in the occupied territories arising from Israel's decision to expel the Mayor of Nablus and at the same time introduced a draft resolution on the subject sponsored by 26 States (see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below). The Committee decided that it was competent to deal with the matter, by a recorded vote, requested by Israel, of 89 to 2, with 13 abstentions. After further discussion, in which France and Israel contended that in accordance with the rules of procedure the draft resolution should not be voted on the day it was introduced, the Committee decided, by a recorded vote, also requested by Israel, of 77 to 17, with 8 abstentions, to proceed to an immediate vote on the text.

At the request of the United Arab Emirates, a recorded vote was taken on the resolution, which was approved by 85 votes to 1, with 21 abstentions.

On 16 November, the Assembly, by a recorded vote of 132 to 1, with 1 abstention, adopted the text as resolution 34/29. Noting with concern the decision of the Israeli authorities to deport the Mayor of Nablus and gravely concerned at the resignation of other mayors in the occupied Palestinian territory as result of that decision, the Assembly called on Israel to rescind the deportation order and asked the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly as soon as possible on the implementation of this resolution.

The United Arab Emirates said that Israel had decided to deport the Mayor on the pretext that he had been supporting certain activities of freedom fighters. The Mayor had then asked other mayors in the occupied areas to explain on Israeli television the reasons for his conduct. The Israeli authorities had refused to permit the telecast, and 25 mayors had then resigned. Strikes and demonstrations had followed, and casualties had resulted.

Israel said that the decision to deport the Mayor had been taken in conformity with the laws of Judaea and Samaria, otherwise known as the West Bank. The Supreme Court of Israel would shortly issue a ruling in response to an appeal. In Israel's view, it was pointless to pursue the matter. Moreover, Israel said the resolution's sponsors had been hypocritical in expressing concern at the resignation of 25 West Bank mayors, since they were aware that those mayors had been forced to resign as a result of threats from PLO.

In explanation of vote, Austria, Ireland (on behalf of the EEC), Sweden (on behalf of the five Nordic countries) and the United States affirmed their positions on the phrase "occupied Palestinian territories" to mean the territory occupied by Israeli armed forces in the 1967 war and within the meaning of that referred to in Security Council resolution 242 (1967). 69/ The United States reserved its position on that point.

On 24 November, the Secretary-General submitted a report to the Assembly in pursuance of resolution 34/29. He outlined the developments that had led up to adoption of that resolution, including communications and meetings with representatives of interested States. He noted that the Permanent Mission of Israel had been informed at the same time as the Special Committee and the Palestinian Rights Committee of the Secretary-General's concern regarding the arrest and impending deportation of the Mayor of Nablus.

Immediately following adoption of resolution 34/29, the Secretary-General had requested the Prime Minister of Israel to provide all relevant information concerning its implementation. On 20 November, he had received a reply from the Prime Minister, stating that the decision to expel the Mayor of Nablus would shortly be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Israel, and drawing attention to the phrase "occupied Palestinian territory" in the Assembly's resolution, which Israel considered to be false and misleading.

Living conditions of the Palestinian people

The Secretary-General submitted a report to the General Assembly's regular 1979 session on the social and economic impact of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Arab territories, as the Assembly had requested on 18 December 1978. 70/ In preparing the report, the Secretary-General had been asked to consult with PLO and to collaborate particularly with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the Economic Commission for Western Asia (ECWA) and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices.

The Secretary-General reported that, in response to his requests that three consultant experts be given free access to the occupied territories, the position of the Government of Israel was that a mission was unnecessary because a number of visitors' reports were available recording an improvement in the living conditions of Palestinians in those territories. Similar attempts by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) to dispatch the mission had met with the same response. The Secretary-General would continue his efforts as soon as circumstances permitted.

A report of PLO, made by a member of the Jordanian Parliament for the occupied West Bank, was appended to the Secretary-General's report.

Also in implementation of the Assembly's 1978 resolution, the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), by a decision of 3 May, requested the UNEP Executive Director to ensure an adequate assessment of the environmental conditions of the Palestinian people. After consulting with the Secretary-General, the Executive Director requested Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as PLO, to provide him with information on the subject. His report, covering major aspects of the impact of the Israeli occupation and based on the information provided by Egypt, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic and PLO, as well as information available to ECWA, UNRWA and offices of the United Nations Development Programme in Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, was annexed to the Secretary-General's report. The subjects assessed in the report were population and shelter, health, natural resources, the working environment, and the conditions of school buildings.

On 14 December, the Assembly adopted, by a recorded vote of 120 to 2, with 21 abstentions, resolution 34/113 on living conditions of the Palestinian people. The text, sponsored by 38 States (see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below) had been approved in the Second (Economic and Financial) Committee on 23 November by a recorded vote, requested by Democratic Yemen, of 102 to 2, with 21 abstentions.

By the resolution, the Assembly noted that the report of the Secretary-General was insufficiently analytical and accordingly requested him to prepare for its regular 1980 session, after consulting PLO and in collaboration with United Nations organs and specialized agencies, particularly UNRWA, ECWA and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices, a comprehensive and analytical report on the social and economic impact of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Arab territories. All States were urged to co-operate in the preparation of the report.

Israel objected to the one-sidedness of the resolution, which it said could not improve living conditions or be conducive to peace; it could not be expected to co-operate on a resolution which sought to impose the will of one party on the other.

The United States said it had voted against the resolution because it injected extraneous political questions into a body concerned with economic and social matters.

Permanent sovereignty over national

resources in the occupied Arab territories

On 14 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 34/136, on permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories, by a recorded vote of 118 to 2, with 21 abstentions. The text, sponsored by 35 powers (see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below), had been approved in the Second Committee on 28 November by a recorded vote, requested by Israel, of 104 to 2, with 23 abstentions.

By the resolution, the Assembly called on all States to support and assist the Arab States and peoples whose territories were under Israeli occupation in the exercise of their rights to full and effective permanent sovereignty and control over their natural and all other resources, wealth and economic activities and to the restitution of and full compensation for the exploitation, depletion and loss of and damages to their natural, human and other resources, wealth and economic activities. It reaffirmed that all Israeli measures taken in this connexion were illegal, and called on it to desist forthwith from all such measures and to meet the just claims of the Arab States and peoples. It also asked all States, international organizations, investment corporations and other institutions not to recognize or co-operate with any measures taken by Israel to exploit the resources of the occupied territories or to effect changes in their demographic composition, geographic character or institutional structure.

The Secretary-General was requested to prepare a report in 1980 taking into account specific areas of loss noted by the Assembly in 1977, 71/ such as adverse economic effects since 1975, human and military losses, loss of and damage to items of national, religious and cultural heritage, losses in the retail trading, small industry and farming sectors, and the full impact of occupation on Arab development.

In explanation of its negative vote, Israel said international law and specific United Nations resolutions had entrusted it with responsibility for the security of the territories and the safety of their population; the military administration had been in accordance with those requirements and had even surpassed them in promoting the socio-economic development of the population.

Ireland (on behalf of the nine EEC members) and the United States said that the subject was not within the competence of the Second Committee. The United States added that its negative vote was in accordance with its long-standing position on the issue of permanent sovereignty.

Portugal expressed some doubts on the wording of the Assembly's reaffirmation of the Arab States' and peoples' rights to the restitution of and full compensation for the loss of and damage to their resources.

Related General Assembly decisions

On 17 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 34/160, by which it decided to include in the provisional agenda for the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace an item on the effects of Israeli occupation on Palestinian women inside and outside the occupied territories. (For details see p. 881; for page reference to text of resolution, refer to INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS.)

Documentary references, voting details and texts of resolutions

Communications (January-March)

S/13034 (A/34/63). Note verbale of 10 January from Morocco.

S/13065 (A/34/75). Note verbale of 1 February from Israel

S/13068 (A/34/76). Letter of 2 February from Syrian Arab Republic (transmitting 2 letters of 31 January 1979 from PLO).

S/13080 (A/34/82). Letter of 12 February from Jordan (transmitting article entitled Allegations of Israeli torture contain grisly descriptions," published in The Washington Post of 7 February 1979).

S/13115. Letter of 23 February from Jordan.

S/13126 (A/34/101). Letter of 28 February from Israel.

S/13132. Letter of 2 March from Acting Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13145 (A/34/108). Letter of 5 March from Senegal (transmitting Declaration issued by Islamic Member States following meeting at Headquarters, New York, on 2 March 1979).

S/13149 (A/34/110). Letter of 7 March from Jordan (transmitting map of Israeli settlements on West Bank as at 31 December 1978; list of settlements established between 1967 and 1979; letter of 12 December 1978 from Chairman of Islamic Commission in Jerusalem to Prime Minister of Jordan concerning Mosque of Hebron, and letter from United States citizen of Palestinian origin to President of United States).

A/34/72. Letter of 31 January from Jordan (enclosing statement of 1 December 1978 by Bit Zeit University).

A/34/73. Letter of 31 January from Jordan (enclosing article entitled "Israel Bars Return to Two Arab Villages of Residents Evacuated 'Temporarily' in 1948 War; Security Cited in Rebuff of Many Pleas," published in The New York Times of 21 January 1979).

A/34/83. Letter of 9 February from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/95. Letter of 13 February from Egypt (transmitting letter of 12 February 1979 from Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs to Chairman of Commission on Human Rights).

Consideration by the Security Council (March)

Security Council, meetings 2123-2128, 2131, 2134.

S/13115. Letter of 23 February from Jordan (request to convene Council).

S/13150. Letter of 8 March from Kuwait (request to extend invitation to participate in Council discussion).

S/13171 and Rev.1,2. Bangladesh, Kuwait, Nigeria, Zambia: draft resolution and revisions.

Resolution 446 (1979), as proposed by 4 powers, S/13171/Rev.2, adopted by Council on 22 March 1979, meeting 2134, by 12 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions (Norway, United Kingdom, United States).

The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other statements made before the Council,

Stressing the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Affirming once more 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,

1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, by the consensus statement made by the President of the Council on 11 November 1976 and by General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

4. Establishes a commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be appointed by the President of the Council after consultation with the members of the Council, to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

5. Requests the Commission to submit its report to the Security Council by 1 July 1979;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Commission with the necessary facilities to enable it to carry out its mission;

7. Decides to keep the situation in the occupied territories under constant and close scrutiny and to reconvene in July 1979 to review the situation in the light of the findings of the Commission.

S/13218. Note by president of Security Council.

S/13426. Note by President of Security Council.

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decisions, pp. 3 and 4.

Communications (March-July)

S/13207 (A/34/152). Letter of 26 March from Jordan (transmitting message of 21 December 1978 from Palestinian woman detainee).

S/13215 (A/34/159). Letter of 2 April from Jordan (transmitting statement issued on 12 March 1979 by Bir Zeit University and chronological account of events at University on same date).

S/13229 (A/34/ 166). Letter of 5 April from Jordan.

S/13243 (A/34/178). Letter of 11 April from Jordan (transmitting communiqué issued on 11 March 1979 at Amman by General Commission of Islamic Conference for Jerusalem).

S/13273. Letter of 26 April from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 25 April 1979 from PLO).

S/13291. Letter of 2 May from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13313, S/13316, S/13341, S/13378. Letters of 9, 11 and 21 May and 6 June from Kuwait (transmitting letters of 8, 11 and 17 May and 6 June 1979 from PLO).

S/13385 (A/34/304). Letter of 8 June from Israel.

S/13419 (A/34/338). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1 A and B (XXXV) of 21 February 1979).

S/13425. Letter of 28 June from Kuwait (transmitting letter of same date from PLO).

S/13432 (A/34/349). Letter of 3 July from Jordan.

S/13441 (A/34/356). Letter of 6 July from Israel.

S/13445 (A/34/360). Letter of 9 July from Jordan.

S/13455. Letter of 16 July from Kuwait (transmitting 2 letters of same date from PLO).

Report of the Security

Council Commission (12 July)

S/13450 and Corr.1 and Add.1. Report of Security Council Commission Established under Resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979.

Consideration by the

Security Council (18–20 July)

Security Council, meetings 2156-2159.

S/13456. Letter of 18 July from Kuwait (request to extend invitation to participate in Council discussion).

S/13461. Draft resolution prepared as result of informal consultations among Council members.

Resolution 452 (1979), as proposed in S/13481, adopted by Council on 20 July 1979, meeting 2159, by 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention (United States).

The Security Council,

Taking note of the report and recommendations of the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979 to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in document S/13450 and Corr.1 and Add.1,

Strongly deploring the lack of co-operation of Israel with the Commission,

Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

Deeply concerned by the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlements policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,

Emphasizing the need for confronting the issue of the existing settlements and the need to consider measures to safeguard the impartial protection of property seized,

Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and reconfirming pertinent Security Council resolutions concerning Jerusalem, and in particular the need to protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in that city,

Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East,

1. Commends the work done by the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979) in preparing the report on the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Accepts the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission;

3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

4. Requests the Commission, in view of the magnitude of the problem of settlements, to keep under close survey the implementation of the present resolution and to report back to the Security Council before 1 November 1979.

S/INF/35. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1979. Decisions, p. 8.

S/13482 (A/34/395). Letter of 1 August from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13586. Note by President of Security Council.

Communications and report (July-December)

S/13465. Letter of 23 July from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 18 July 1979 from PLO).

S/13471 (A/34/384). Letter of 25 July from Jordan (transmitting recent account of Israeli practices in establishing settlements in West Bank, including Jerusalem).

S/13476 (A/34/388). Letter of 30 July from Jordan.

S/13491. Letter of 9 August from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 6 August 1979 from PLO).

S/13528 (A/34/453). Letter of 5 September from Jordan (transmitting article entitled The Full Story of the Tragedy of the Bedouin of the Negev: How They Became Refugees in Their Own Homeland," published in newspaper Al-Ittehad of 24 August 1979).

S/13544 (A/34/492). Letter of 19 September from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13546 (A/34/505), S/13547 (A/34/506). Letters of 19 and 20 September from Jordan.

S/13578 (A/34/584). Report of Secretary-General, Chapter III.

S/13582 (A/34/605). Letter of 18 October from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13622. Letter of 13 November from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 12 November 1979 from PLO).

S/13613 (A/34/666). Letter of 8 November from Jordan.

S/13624 (A/34/680). Letter of 13 November from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

S/13629. Statement issued on 14 November by President of Security Council.

S/13630. Letter of 14 November from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

S/13674 (A/34/764) and Corr.1. Letter of 28 November from Jordan (transmitting text of conversation between Mayor of Nablus and Israeli Military Governor, as published in Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz of 12 November 1979).

S/13720. Letter of 31 December from Kuwait (transmitting letter of 26 December 1979 from PLO).

S/13738 (A/34/64). Letter of 11 January 1980 from Israel.

A/34/501, A/34/677. Letters of 19 September and 12 November from Egypt (transmitting statement by Prime Minister and statement issued on 12 November 1979 by Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

Report of the Security

Council Commission (4 December)

S/13679. Report of Security Council Commission Established under Resolution 446 (1979).

Consideration by the General Assembly

General Assembly – 34th session

Special Political Committee, meetings 33, 36, 42-46.

Fifth Committee, meeting 77.

Plenary meetings 71,99.

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE

A/34/2. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1978 -15 June 1979, Chapter 1 D.

A/34/63 (S/13034). Note verbale of 10 January from Morocco.

A/34/75 (S/13065). Note verbale of 1 February from Israel.

A/34/76 (S/13068). Letter of 2 February from Syrian Arab Republic (transmitting 2 letters of 31 January 1979 from PLO).

A/34/82 (S/13080). Letter of 12 February from Jordan (transmitting article entitled "Allegations of Israeli torture contain grisly descriptions," published in The Washington Post of 7 February 1979).

A/34/101 (S/13126). Letter of 28 February from Israel.

A/34/108 (S/13145). Letter of 5 March from Senegal (transmitting Declaration issued by Islamic Member States following meeting at Headquarters, New York, on 2 March 1979).

A/34/110 (S/13149). Letter of 7 March from Jordan (transmitting map of Israeli settlements on West Bank as at 31 December 1978 list of settlements established between 1967 and 1979, letter of 12 December 1978 from Chairman of Islamic Commission in Jerusalem to Prime Minister of Jordan concerning Mosque of Hebron; and letter from United States citizen of Palestinian origin to President of United States).

A/34/152 (S/13207). Letter of 26 March from Jordan (transmitting message of 21 December 1978 from Palestinian woman detainee).

A/34/159 (S/13215). Letter of 2 April from Jordan (transmitting statement issued on 12 March 1979 by Bir Zeit University and chronological account of events at University on same date).

A/34/166 (S/13229). Letter of 5 April from Jordan.

A/34/178 (S/13243). Letter of 11 April from Jordan (transmitting communiqué issued on 11 March 1979 at Amman by General Commission of Islamic Conference for Jerusalem).

A/34/304 (S/13385). Letter of 8 June from Israel.

A/34/338 (S/13419). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1 A and B (XXXV) of 21 February 1979).

A/34/349 (S/13432). Letter of 3 July from Jordan.

A/34/356 (S/13441). Letter of 6 July from Israel.

A/34/357. Letter of 6 July from Sri Lanka (transmitting documents of Ministerial Meeting of Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, Colombo, 4-9 June 1979).

A/34/360 (S/13445). Letter of 9 July from Jordan.

A/34/384 (S/13471). Letter of 25 July from Jordan (transmitting recent account of Israeli practices in establishing settlements in West Bank, including Jerusalem).

A/34/388 (S/13476). Letter of 30 July from Jordan.

A/34/389 and Corr.1. Letter of 27 July from Morocco (transmitting final communiqué and resolutions of 10th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Fez, 8-12 May 1979).

A/34/395 (S/13482). Letter of 1 August from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/453 (S/13528). Letter of 5 September from Jordan (transmitting article entitled The Full Story of the Tragedy of the Bedouin of the Negev: How They Became Refugees in Their Own Homeland, published in newspaper Al-Ittehad of -24 August 1979).

A/34/492 (S/13544). Letter of 19 September from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/505 (S/13546), A/34/506 (S/13547). Letters of 19 and 20 September from Jordan.

A/34/542. Letter of 1 October from Cuba (transmitting Final Declaration of 6th Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, Havana, 3-9 September 1979).

A/34/584 (S/13578). Report of Secretary-General, Chapter III.

A/34/605 (S/13582). Letter of 18 October from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/631. Report of Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of Population of Occupied Territories. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report).

A/34/668 (S/13613). Letter of 8 November from Jordan.

A/34/680 (S/13624). Letter of 13 November from Chairman of Committee on Exercise of Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People.

A/34/694. Report of Secretary-General.

A/34/764 (S/13674) and Corr.1. Letter of 28 November from Jordan (transmitting text of conversation between Mayor of Nablus and Israeli Military Governor, as published in Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz of 12 November 1979).

A/SPC/34/7. Letter of 29 November from Iraq (transmitting document entitled Israeli Torture of Palestinian Political Prisoners in Jerusalem and West Bank: Three State Department Reports").

A/SPC/34/L.19. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 7 December 1979, meeting 46, by recorded vote of 87 to 3, with 25 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Guatemala, Israel, United States

A/SPC/34/L.20, A/C.5/34/85, A/34/795. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution A recommended by Special Political Committee in A/34/691/Add.1. Statements by Secretary- General and report of Fifth Committee.

A/34/691/Add.1. Report of Special Political Committee (part II), draft resolution A.

Resolution 34/90 A, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/34/691/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 12 December 1979, meeting 99, by recorded vote of 111 to 2, with 31 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel, United States

The General Assembly,

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

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

Recalling all its resolutions on the subject, in particular resolutions 32/91 B and C of 13 December 1977 and 33/113 C of 18 December 1978, as well as those adopted by the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights and other United Nations organs concerned and by the specialized agencies,

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

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

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

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

4. Deplores the continued and persistent violation by Israel of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and other applicable international instruments, and condemns in particular those violations which that Convention designates as grave breaches thereof;

5. Condemns the following Israeli policies and practices:

(a) Annexation of parts of the occupied territories;

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

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

(d) Confiscation and expropriation of private and public Arab property in the occupied territories and all other transactions for the acquisition of land Involving the Israeli authorities, institutions or nationals on the one hand, and the inhabitants or institutions of the occupied territories on the other;

(e) Destruction and demolition of Arab houses;

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

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

(h) Pillaging of archaeological and cultural property;

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

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

6. Reaffirms that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional 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 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations;

7. Demands that Israel desist forthwith from the policies and practices referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 above;

8. Reiterates its call upon all States, in particular those States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and upon international organizations and the specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid actions, including those in the field of aid, which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any of the other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

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

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

11. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To 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-fifth session on the tasks entrusted to him in the present paragraph;

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

A/SPC/34/L.23. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 7 December 1979, meeting 46, by recorded vote of 113 to 1, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel

A/34/691/Add.1. Report of Special Political Committee (part II), draft resolution B.

Resolution 34/90 B, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/34/691/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 12 December 1979, meeting 99, by recorded vote of 140 to 1, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel

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 and 33/113 A of 18 December 1978,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A/SPC/34/L.24. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mali, Pakistan, Turkey: draft resolution, as orally corrected by sponsors, approved by Special Political Committee on 7 December 1979, meeting 46, by recorded vote of 113 to 1, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Malawi.

A/34/681/Add.1. Report of Special Political Committee (part II), draft resolution C.

Resolution 34/90 C, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/34/691 /Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 12 December 1979, meeting 99, by recorded vote of 140 to 1, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Central African Republic, Dominican Republic, a/ Guatemala, Malawi.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 B of 18 December 1978,

Expressing grave anxiety and concern at the present serious situation in the occupied Arab territories as a result of the continued Israeli occupation and the measures and actions taken by the Government of Israel, as the occupying Power, and designed to change the legal statue, geographical nature and demographic composition of those territories,

Considering that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to all the Arab territories occupied since 5 June 1967,

1. Determines that all such measures and actions taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction of efforts aimed at achieving a Just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Strongly deplores the persistence of Israel in carrying out such measures, in particular the establishment of settlements in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories;

3. Calls again upon Israel to comply strictly with its international obligations in accordance with the principles of international law and the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;

4. Calls once more upon the Government of Israel, as the occupying Power, to desist forthwith from taking any action which would result in changing the legal statue, geographical nature or demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

5. Urges all States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War to respect and to exert all efforts in order to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in all the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

DEPORTATION OF THE MAYOR OF NABLUS

A/34/677. Letter of 12 November from Egypt (transmitting statement issued on same date by Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

A/SPC/34/5. Letter of 13 November from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (transmitting letter of same date from PLO enclosing letter, also of same date, from Chairman of PLO Executive Committee).

A/SPC/34/L.17. Afghanistan, Bahrain, Benin, Comoros, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 15 November 1979, meeting 33, by recorded vote of 85 to 1, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel.

A/34/691. Report of Special Political Committee (part I).

Resolution 34/29, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/34/691, adopted by Assembly on 16 November 1979, meeting 71, by recorded vote of 132 to 1, with 1 abstention, as follows:

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Papua New Guinea.

The General Assembly,

Noting with concern the decision of the Israeli authorities to deport the Mayor of Nablus outside the occupied Palestinian territory,

Gravely concerned at the resignation of the mayors of cities and towns in the occupied Palestinian territory as a result of the deportation decision,

Expressing grave anxiety and concern about the present serious situation in the occupied Palestinian territory as a result of the deportation decision,

1. Calls upon the Israeli authorities to rescind the deportation order;

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

A/34/720. Report of Secretary-General.

General Assembly – 34th session

Second Committee, meetings 20, 23, 24, 29, 30, 42, 48, 53.

Fifth Committee, meetings 71, 74.

Plenary meeting 104.

LIVING CONDITIONS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

A/34/25. Report of Governing Council of UNEP on work of its 7th session, Nairobi, Kenya, 18 April-4 May 1979, Chapter II (paras. 128-139) and Annex I (decision 7/2).

A/34/536 and Corr.1. Report of Secretary-General. (Annex I: Report of Executive Director of UNEP; Annex II: Report by member of Jordanian Parliament and senior official of PLO Political Department).

A/C.2/34/L.53. Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Second Committee on 23 November 1979, meeting 48, by recorded vote of 102 to 2, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

A/C.2/34/L.56, A/C.5/34/68, A/34/803. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution I recommended by Second Committee in A/34/793. Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.

A/34/793. Report of Second Committee (on human settlements), draft resolution I.

Resolution 34/113, as recommended by Second Committee, A/34/793, adopted by Assembly on 14 December 1979 meeting 104, by recorded vote of 120 to 2, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Fiji Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Samoa, Sweden, United Kingdom.

The General Assembly,

Recalling the Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements, 1976, and the relevant recommendations for national action adopted by Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements,

Recalling also resolution 3, entitled "Living conditions of the Palestinians in occupied territories," contained in the recommendations for international co-operation adopted by the Conference, and Economic and Social Council resolutions 2026 (LXI) of 4 August 1976 and 2100 (LXII) of 3 August 1977,

Recalling its resolutions 31/110 of 16 December 1976, 32/171 of 19 December 1977 and 33/110 of 18 December 1978,

1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Arab territories and notes that, although it contains many relevant facts, it has not been sufficiently analytical;

2. Requests, therefore, the Secretary-General, in collaboration with the relevant United Nations organs and specialized agencies, particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the Economic Commission for Western Asia and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories to prepare and submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session a comprehensive and analytical report on the social and economic impact of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Arab territories;

3. Also requests the Secretary-General, in preparing the above-mentioned report, to consult and co-operate with the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people;

4. Urges all States to co-operate with the Secretary-General in the preparation of the report.

PERMANENT SOVEREIGNTY OVER NATIONAL

RESOURCES IN THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES

A/C.2/34/L.51. Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Second Committee on 28 November 1979, meeting 53, by recorded vote of 104 to 2 with 23 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

A/C.2/34/L.78, A/C.5/34/55, A/34/788. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution IV recommended by Second Committee in A/34/635/Add.2. Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.

A/34/635/Add.2. Report of Second Committee (part III) (on report of Economic and Social Council), draft resolution IV.

Resolution 34/136, as recommended by Second Committee, A/34/635/Add.2, adopted by Assembly on 14 December 1879, meeting 104, by recorded vote of 118 to 2, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

The General Assembly,

Bearing in mind the relevant principles of international law and the provisions of the international conventions and regulations, in particular Convention IV of The Hague of 1907 and the fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, concerning the obligations and responsibilities of the occupying Power,

Recalling its previous resolutions on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, particularly the provisions supporting resolutely the efforts of the developing countries and the peoples of territories under colonial and racial domination and foreign occupation in their struggle to regain effective control over their natural and all other resources, wealth and economic activities,

Bearing in mind the pertinent provisions of its resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI) of 1 May 1974, containing the Declaration and the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New international Economic Order, and 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974, containing the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States,

Recalling further its resolutions 3175 (XXVIII) of 17 December 1973, 3336 (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3516 (XXX) of 15 December 1975, 31/186 of 21 December 1976 and 32/161 of 19 December 1977 on permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories,

1. Emphasizes the right of the Arab States and peoples whose territories are under Israeli occupation to full and effective permanent sovereignty and control over their natural and all other resources, wealth and economic activities;

2. Reaffirms that all measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the human, natural and other resources, wealth and economic activities in the occupied Arab territories are illegal and calls upon Israel immediately to desist forthwith from all such measures;

3. Further reaffirms the right of the Arab States and peoples subjected to Israeli aggression and occupation to the restitution of, and full compensation for the exploitation, depletion and loss of and damages to, their natural, human and all other resources, wealth and economic activities, and calls upon Israel to meet their just claims;

4. Calls upon all States to support and assist the Arab States and peoples in the exercise of their above-mentioned rights;

5. Calls upon all States, international organizations, specialized agencies, investment corporations and all other institutions not to recognize, or co-operate with or assist in any manner in, any measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the resources of the occupied territories or to effect any changes in the demographic composition, geographic character or institutional structure of those territories;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to prepare and submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session a report which takes into consideration the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 32/161.

Other documents

E/1979/69/Rev.1. Report of Committee on Natural Resources on its 6th session, Istanbul, Turkey, 5-15 June 1979, Chapter V.

Questions pertaining to refugees in the Near East

In 1979, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) maintained its education, health and relief programmes for Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through its own schools, clinics and health centres and its system to procure and distribute rations.

In spite of the continuing insecure situation in Lebanon, programmes were almost fully maintained. In May, UNRWA launched an emergency assistance programme in southern Lebanon to provide some 50,000 displaced refugees with food. From May to July there was a one-time issue of rations to 48,452 persons, and from August to December there were six issues of rations to an average of 25,185 persons per issue. The refugees who were displaced as a result of military action also continued to receive essential health services.

The Agency did not receive enough voluntary contributions during the year to meet all budgeted expenditures. Income for 1979 was slightly more than $152 million against budget expenditures of nearly $159 million. To overcome this deficit, the basic food ration was kept at the reduced 1978 level, a number of badly needed capital improvements were deferred, and improvements in staff remuneration to keep pace with inflation were not implemented.

On 20 June, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of Olof Rydbeck (Sweden) as Commissioner-General of UNRWA, following the retirement in April of Thomas W. McElhiney.

In November, the General Assembly, by resolutions 34/52 A-F, called on all Governments urgently to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of UNRWA, particularly in the light of a projected budgetary deficit. It also requested that UNRWA headquarters be relocated within the area of operations as soon as practicable, and endorsed the efforts of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to continue humanitarian assistance.

Activities in 1979

During the year, the number of refugees registered with UNRWA rose through natural increase from 1,778,815 (at 31 December 1978) to 1,821,933 at 31 December 1979, of whom about 832,000 were eligible to receive monthly rations and approximately 1.6 million were eligible for health and educational programmes.

The Agency also distributed monthly rations to about 230,000 displaced persons and displaced refugee children (registered with UNRWA for services only) in Jordan at the expense of the Jordanian Government. However, more than 570,000 eligible children did not receive any rations because of ceilings put on the number of ration recipients.

Only about 35 per cent of the registered population lived in camps. At 31 December, there was a total of 645,783 refugees in 61 camps, including 119,535 refugees living in 10 emergency camps established after the 1967 hostilities – six in Jordan and four in the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Agency continued its efforts, in co-operation with the World Health Organization (WHO), to improve the health of refugees through health education and integrated family health care, with emphasis on preventive medicine, including supplementary feeding for nutritionally vulnerable groups. Despite money shortages, specialized medicine programmes and laboratory facilities were improved, and the Agency extended its hot meal programme to all children under the age of eight, instead of six as before. Expenditure on health services totalled $26 million in 1979.

Spending on education increased during the year to $83.4 million, about 52.5 per cent of the Agency's total actual expenditure. The programme, operated with the technical assistance of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), included the first nine years of general education (10 years in Lebanon), some assistance for refugee pupils in government and private secondary schools, vocational and teacher training in eight centres, and 351 university scholarships (for the 1978/79 academic year). Of UNRWA's 16,500 employees, almost all Palestine refugees themselves, nearly 11,200 were working in the educational field, and most of them were teachers (9,227).

In the 1978/79 school year, 311,000 refugee children were enrolled in the 623 UNRWA elementary and preparatory schools, an increase of approximately 4,000 over 1977/78. There were also 84,579 pupils enrolled in government and private schools. Double shifts were necessary in 73.4 per cent of UNRWA schools despite the fact that 33 prefabricated class and administration rooms and 14 standard classrooms were completed during the year.

The eight UNRWA/UNESCO training centres had places for 4,641 young persons. By the end of 1979, more than 30,000 trainees had been graduated from these centres. With most of the Agency's teachers professionally qualified, the UNRWA/UNESCO Institute of Education continued to emphasize refresher courses for qualified teachers and courses in educational techniques to meet special needs and new developments in curricula.

Consideration by the General Assembly

As in previous years, the Assembly considered the question of refugees in the Near East both in its Special Political Committee and in plenary meetings.

The Committee, which discussed the matter between 17 and 26 October, had before it several reports, including the annual report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, three reports by the Secretary-General, a report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine and a report by the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA.

Report of the Commissioner-General

In his report covering the period from 1 July 1978 to 30 June 1979, the Commissioner-General, after detailing the various activities of UNRWA, indicated that the year under review had been a very difficult one for the Agency, primarily because of the insufficiency of income in the face of ever-rising costs. The precariousness of UNRWA's finances was likely to affect not only the future level of its services but also its very existence.

The Commissioner-General said that he intended to follow the previous policy of reducing the Agency's rate of expenditure from 1 January 1980 to a level that could be supported by foreseeable income until the end of 1980, even though that would probably mean further reduction of essential refugee services. Increased income would obviate the necessity of reducing services, and he appealed to all Member States to contribute generously to UNRWA.

Referring to the political factors affecting UNRWA's work, the Commissioner-General indicated that Israeli military operations against Palestinian targets in southern Lebanon had caused massive and repeated displacement of refugees which had led to serious interruptions of Agency operations and necessitated emergency assistance to some 50,000 displaced refugees. In the occupied West Bank, measures of collective punishment imposed by the Israeli authorities, particularly on students in UNRWA educational establishments, had gravely affected the Agency's services.

In a letter of 29 August included in the Commissioner-General's report, the Chairman of the Advisory Commission of UNRWA, having examined the report, recommended that the Assembly call on the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA to study the deficit and make specific recommendations for measures to increase contributions to the Agency.

Reports of the Secretary-General

In October 1979, the Secretary-General submitted three reports to the General Assembly pursuant to three Assembly resolutions of 18 December 1978. 72/

The first report concerned offers of scholarships and grants for higher education for Palestine refugees and included the substance of responses by Member States and United Nations agencies to appeals by the Assembly for allocations, scholarships and grants to refugee students. Responding to a 1977 appeal, 73/ Cuba had indicated that it was providing Palestinians with numerous fellowships for higher studies through the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and Israel stated that opportunities were provided for refugees to attend higher educational institutions in Israel in addition to the direct assistance it provided to them for educational services. Further responses had come from Malta (two scholarships in electrical engineering) and Egypt (currently 13,209 scholarship holders at Egyptian universities).

Several United Nations specialized agencies had also informed the UNRWA Commissioner-General of the assistance they were providing through PLO to Palestinians, including training facilities and fellowships for higher studies.

The Secretary-General's second report concerned Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip and the provision of shelters for them. The Assembly, by a 1978 resolution, 74/ had called on Israel to take steps for the immediate return of those refugees to the camps from which they had been removed, and to stop removing them and destroying their shelters. The Secretary-General reported that he had requested Israel to forward to him information on the implementation of the resolution. Israel replied that, thanks to measures it had taken in Gaza, refugees in that district for the first time since 1948 had been given the possibility of moving out of the squalid conditions of the camps into decent, modern housing. Israel would not evict refugees living in new homes, would not adopt the course advocated by the Assembly resolution and rejected the suggestions reflected in that resolution.

The report stated that in general the Israeli occupying authorities required refugees who purchased new housing to demolish their camp shelters.

At the same time, the Secretary-General reported that information received from the Commissioner-General indicated that, while there had been no new cases of punitive demolition of refugee shelters, UNRWA had not secured any settlement in respect of its claims for compensation for refugee shelters demolished on punitive grounds in former years. With regard to continuing references by Israel to "squalid conditions" in the refugee camps, the Commissioner-General had again noted that such references were more generalized than was warranted by the facts.

The Secretary-General submitted his third report, concerning the return of displaced inhabitants of the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, in response to an Assembly request for a report on Israel's compliance with its directive that Israel take immediate steps for their return and desist from measures obstructing that return. 75/

The Secretary-General reported that, replying to his request for information, the Israeli Government maintained that its policy vis-à-vis those who had left the area as a result of the 1967 hostilities remained unchanged; it allowed freedom of movement of people and goods in both directions across the cease-fire line. In 1978, Israel claimed, about 1 million incoming and outgoing residents of the areas, as well as visitors from Arab countries, had taken advantage of that policy. Special arrangements made for the reunification of families had remained in force. However, in implementing that policy, the Israeli Government emphasized that it had to be guided by certain security considerations.

The Secretary-General reported that information obtained from the Commissioner-General of UNRWA indicated that the number of displaced registered refugees who were known by the Agency to have returned to the occupied territories since June 1967 was about 9,400. The Agency was unable to estimate the total number of displaced inhabitants who had returned, since its records accounted only for UNRWA-registered refugees.

Report of the United Nations

Conciliation Commission for Palestine

In accordance  with  an  Assembly  resolution of 18 December 1978, 76/ the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine submitted to the Assembly a report covering the period from 1 October 1978 to 30 September 1979. Under the terms of the resolution, the Commission had been requested to exert continued efforts towards the implementation of paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 194877 and to report to the Assembly by 1 October 1979.

The Commission noted that circumstances limiting its possibilities of action had remained essentially unchanged. It expressed the hope, however, that the situation in the region would improve, enabling it to carry forward its work.

Report of the Working Group

on the Financing of UNRWA

In its report, submitted to the Assembly on 12 October, the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA reiterated its conviction that, as long as a just and lasting settlement of the problem of the Palestine refugees had not been achieved, the Agency's humanitarian services remained indispensable.

It emphasized the gravity of the continuing critical financial situation facing UNRWA in spite of the improvement in the financial management of the Agency's activities as a result of administrative measures introduced by the Commissioner-General in the past few years. Only the continued generous support of a relatively few donors had made it possible to avoid further reductions in UNRWA services during 1979, and the outlook for 1980 gave rise to serious concern.

The Working Group continued to believe that there should be a firm basis for financing UNRWA, as the Agency's services were an obligation of the entire international community acting through the United Nations.

Communications

In a letter to the Secretary-General of 23 May, Jordan, on behalf of the League of Arab States, after referring to UNRWA's financial crisis and particularly to a proposed elimination of educational services which would involve 80,000 young refugee children, warned that the cutbacks would lead to very serious repercussions among the refugee population and would impinge on public security and political stability, as well as accentuate the human tragedy of the refugees.

In a letter of 31 May, the United Arab Emirates, current Chairman of the Arab group of Member States at the United Nations, stated that the group endorsed Jordan's letter of 23 May and warned against attempts being made to reduce the responsibility of the world community towards the refugees and to transfer it to the Arab States, especially the oil-producing States. Those attempts were part of a calculated scheme to liquidate the refugee problem in complete disregard of all relevant United Nations resolutions. The United Nations must refuse to be a party to any such scheme.

In another letter to the Secretary-General, of 4 June, Jordan expressed regret that its earlier communication might have given rise to confusion as to where responsibility lay in the failure of the United Nations to shoulder its full responsibility towards the refugees and the over-burdened host Governments. That failure was attributable to United Nations Member States.

On 28 June, the Secretary-General addressed to the Permanent Representatives of Jordan and the United Arab Emirates identic letters in which he stated that UNRWA depended almost entirely on voluntary contributions, mostly from Governments. He said he would continue his efforts to collect additional contributions and expressed the hope that more contributions would be pledged, so that the Agency could meet its budgeted expenditure in 1979. In this connexion, the Secretary-General mentioned that UNRWA had been able to postpone the decision to close its preparatory schools, but for four months only.

In a comprehensive report to the Assembly of 24 October covering all aspects of the situation in the Middle East, the Secretary- General reiterated, in connexion with the Palestine refugee problem, that UNRWA was continuing to experience difficulty in securing the financial support needed for its services, in spite of successful efforts by its Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions.

In a letter of 27 June, Israel maintained that the cause of UNRWA could not be helped by misrepresenting the origins of the refugee problem and by the continued manipulation of the refugees for purposes of political propaganda. Responsibility for the refugee problem in the Middle East lay entirely with the Arabs, according to Israel.

General Assembly discussion

The Commissioner-General of UNRWA, in presenting his report to the Special Political Committee on 17 October, noted that the Agency's financial situation for 1979 had improved since the submission of his annual report on 3 September. Estimated income for 1979 stood at $143.1 million for projected expenditures of $166.8 million, leaving a deficit of $23.7 million. Improvements in staff salaries and the cost of restoring basic rations to former levels would have to be dropped. Prospects for 1980 were even grimmer than they were at the beginning of 1979.

Three factors contributing to UNRWA's financial crisis here the increase in the school population by about 10,000 children a year inflation and the depreciation of the United States dollar. The proposed budget deficit was so considerable that it might become impossible for the Agency to fulfil its mandate, under which it had to continue its operations until June 1981. He could not risk the Agency's total collapse by continuing services at their current level. He had already cut rations for refugees. If the deficit were not met, it would become necessary to effect substantial reductions in the education programme. That meant closing schools, dismissing thousands of teachers and putting tens of thousands of children out of the classroom. Such curtailment of services would have very serious political consequences.

The representative of Norway, speaking as Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, presented the Group's report to the Committee. He pointed out that with a budgetary deficit of $23.7 million, unless further substantial contributions were received by the end of 1979, the Commissioner-General would be unable to approve certain committed items of expenditure, including the financing of a new $ 11 million camp in Lebanon, for which $4.75 million had already been pledged. Expenditure in 1980 was, moreover, expected to increase to $185.3 million, and it was feared that the Agency would consequently have to reduce expenditure on education.

In the course of the discussion of this question in the Special Political Committee, general concern was expressed at the Agency's continued financial crisis and the possibility that it might have to curtail essential services because of insufficient funds. Jordan, among others, expressed deep apprehension that UNRWA's continuing cutback of services might result in host countries' bearing the entire burden of the plight of the refugees.

While recognizing the importance and urgency of providing immediate assistance to the Palestine refugees, many States emphasized other aspects of the problem. A number of speakers, including those from Arab countries, expressed the view that the refugee problem should be dealt with in all its dimensions.

Romania, the USSR and Yugoslavia, among others, pointed out that the Palestine refugee problem was not merely a humanitarian issue, but rather a major political problem whose solution resided in a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East. Speaking on behalf of the nine member States of the European Community, Ireland expressed their belief that the humanitarian aspects of the Palestinian problem were inseparable from its political aspects and should be considered within the framework of a comprehensive settlement.

The United States concurred that there was wide recognition that the plight of the Palestinians called for a political solution which could enable them to live in dignity and self-reliance. Peace in the Middle East was the best means of improving their lot, and the Camp David agreements provided a viable framework for peace.

India and Senegal, in addition to several Arab States and socialist countries of Eastern Europe, expressed the view that a lasting solution of the Palestine refugee problem could only be found on the basis of the realization of the national rights of the Palestinian people and the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Arab territories. In the mean time, the international community had a morally binding obligation to assist UNRWA. Egypt appealed to the world community to stand firm behind all sincere efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. As the USSR saw it, there was convincing evidence that the problem of the refugees could not be considered in isolation from the larger Palestinian problem. The only way of achieving a stable peace in the Middle East was through the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, not by granting the so-called "autonomy" proposed by the participants in the Camp David agreements.

The PLO representative reiterated the view that the Palestinian problem could only be solved when the Palestinians were able to exercise their right to self-determination. In the mean time, the Arab countries should not be asked to underwrite the costs of the international decision which had led to the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland.

The United Arab Emirates said it was a matter of grave concern that the Conciliation Commission had been unable to discharge its duty. Reorganization of the Commission or a wider membership should be considered.

With regard to the financial situation of UNRWA, European Community countries in particular felt that too small a group of nations supported UNRWA. They expressed the hope that all States, including those most active in supporting the Palestinian cause, would respond to appeals for contributions.

Certain Arab States suggested ways of putting UNRWA's finances on a firmer basis. The United Arab Emirates proposed that the Agency's budget become part of the regular budget of the United Nations. In Kuwait's view, there should be a role for the private sector and non-governmental organizations as potential donors to UNRWA. The USSR, however, reiterated its position favouring retention of the voluntary system of financing the work of the Agency.

Some States pointed to difficulties other than financial that UNRWA faced. Lebanon stated that the repeated acts of Israeli aggression against it were increasing the burden of UNRWA because of the resulting displacement of refugees. Egypt expressed a similar view.

A number of Members referred to complaints in the Commissioner-General's report that certain policies of Israel vis-à-vis UNRWA's staff seriously interfered with the Agency's work. In this connexion, Austria expressed concern that UNRWA officials continued to be arrested without charges or trial and that there were restrictions on their movements.

Israel maintained that plans for resettling the refugees had been prepared, but were rejected by the Arab States as part of their propaganda war against Israel. Israel said it was regrettable that UNRWA should be supporting a refugee population of some 500,000 Arabs at the expense of the world community.

Decisions of the General Assembly

On 26 October, the Special Political Committee approved six draft resolutions and forwarded them to the Assembly, together with a report detailing its consideration of the item. On 23 November, the Assembly approved all six resolutions without modification.

By the first (resolution 34/52 A), on assistance to Palestine refugees, the Assembly noted with regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees had not been effected in accordance with its resolution 194 (III), that the Conciliation Commission had been unable to find a means to implement that resolution and that no substantial progress had been made by either repatriation or resettlement. The Assembly reiterated its request that UNRWA relocate its headquarters – currently in Vienna, Austria, and Amman, Jordan – within the area of operations as soon as practicable. Directing attention to UNRWA's financial position, it called on all Governments urgently to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the Agency, particularly in the light of its budgetary deficit.

Resolution 34/52 A, sponsored by the United States, was approved by the Special Political Committee by a recorded vote, requested by Israel, of 116 to 0, with 1 abstention; the Assembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 140 to 0, with 1 abstention.

Israel, explaining its abstention, said it did not agree with the Assembly's interpretation of resolution 194 (III). Many developments had taken place since the adoption of that resolution in 1948, and subsequent  Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) 78/ and 338 (1973) 79/ provided for a negotiated solution to the problem without reference to resolution 194 (III).

The Syrian Arab Republic said it voted in favour of resolution 34/52 A, but understood its terms to mean that steps should be taken to repatriate rather than reintegrate the refugees and to implement Assembly resolutions upholding the right to self-determination.

Mexico said it voted in favour, even though it considered that the question of relocating UNRWA headquarters fell within the competence of the Secretary-General, not the Assembly.

By the second resolution (34/52 B), on assistance to persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 hostilities, the Assembly endorsed the Commissioner-General's efforts to provide humanitarian assistance on an emergency and temporary basis to other displaced persons in the area in need of it, adding an appeal for generous contributions to UNRWA and other organizations involved in that work.

Resolution 34/52 B, sponsored by Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines and Sweden, was approved by the Special Political Committee by consensus; the Assembly adopted it without vote.

The third resolution (34/52 C) concerned education for Palestinian refugees. The Assembly, noting that fewer than one per thousand could continue higher education, including vocational training, appealed to all States, specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations to augment the special allocations for scholarships and grants to Palestinian refugees, in addition to their contributions to UNRWA's regular budget. It appealed to States, agencies and the United Nations University to contribute to the Palestinian universities in the occupied territories and to those States, agencies and other international bodies to contribute towards the establishment of vocational training centres. It also requested UNRWA to act as recipient and trustee for such allocations and scholarships and to award them to qualified candidates.

Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar and Yugoslavia sponsored resolution 34/52 C in the Special Political Committee, which approved it by a recorded vote, requested by Israel, of 117 to 0, with 2 abstentions; the Assembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 138 to 0, with 2 abstentions.

In explanation of vote, the United States said it had abstained because of the way the resolution was worded, although it would continue to support, through UNRWA and voluntary agencies, its objective.

Israel said that the Arab attitude was directly responsible for the Palestinians education problem. Israel charged that, during the 19 years of Jordanian rule, West Bank Palestinians had been refused higher education, which Israel permitted. That position was reflected in its abstention.

By the fourth resolution (34/52 D), the Assembly noted with approval the report of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, commended its work and requested it to continue its efforts for the financing of UNRWA for a further one-year period.

Canada, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Yugoslavia and Zaire sponsored the resolution, which was approved without vote by the Special Political Committee and similarly adopted by the Assembly.

By the fifth resolution (34/52 E), on displaced population and refugees, the Assembly reaffirmed the right of all displaced inhabitants to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied since 1967, declared that any restriction on the free exercise of that right was inadmissible, and considered any agreement embodying any restriction on their return as null and void. Deploring Israel's refusal to take steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants, the Assembly called on Israel to do so immediately and to desist from measures obstructing their return, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories. It asked the Secretary-General, in consultation with UNRWA, to report in 1980 on Israel's compliance.

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Comoros, Cuba, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Pakistan and Yugoslavia sponsored the text, which the Special Political Committee approved by a recorded vote, requested by the United States, of 101 to 4, with 18 abstentions. At the request of Mexico, a separate vote was first taken on the operative paragraph by which the Assembly considered any agreement restricting or placing conditions on the return of displaced inhabitants to be null and void. That paragraph was approved by 91 votes to 6, with 23 abstentions. The Assembly adopted resolution 34/52 E by a recorded vote of 121 to 3, with 16 abstentions.

Explaining its negative vote, the United States said the resolution was needlessly polemical and its terms distracted from the task of improving UNRWA aid to the refugees. Israel said the text was unrealistic and constituted Arab propaganda, as evidenced by the paragraph referring to agreements restricting the return of displaced inhabitants.

Portugal and Spain felt the wording of that paragraph, as well as the one declaring inadmissible attempts to restrict or attach conditions to the right of return, could prejudge the outcome of or hamper current negotiations. Ireland (speaking on behalf of the nine member States of the European Community), Norway and Sweden expressed similar views.

Mexico said it had abstained and had asked for a separate vote on the paragraph concerning agreements because, although it supported the principle on which the resolution was based, it thought it was dangerous to extend the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions to other situations.

By the sixth resolution (34/52 F), the Assembly, recalling the provisions of resolution 194 (III) and considering that measures taken to resettle Palestinian refugees resident in the Gaza Strip were a violation of their inalienable right of return, called again on Israel to desist from removing and resettling those refugees and from destroying their shelters.

The resolution, sponsored by Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Yugoslavia, was approved by the Special Political Committee by a recorded vote, requested by the United States, of 117 to 1, with 5 abstentions; the Assembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 136 to 1, with 5 abstentions.

Ireland, on behalf of the nine European Community States, said that, although they had voted in favour, they felt that the preambular reference to resettlement measures as a violation of the Palestinian refugees' right of return should in no way imply an objection to their freedom to choose new housing, nor should it conflict with their right of return within the framework of a comprehensive negotiated settlement. The nine States, as well as Sweden, also noted that references to the removal of refugees and destruction of their shelters were not entirely consistent with observations in the Secretary-General's report.

The United States, explaining its abstention, also pointed out that the Secretary-General's report had clearly stated that there had been no punitive demolition of shelters in the past year. In addition, it expressed objections to an unclear attempt to link resolution 194 (III) to the efforts to resettle refugees in the Gaza Strip. Israel, explaining its negative vote, said that the reference to resolution 194 (III) was irrelevant and designed to distort the facts. According to Israel, the Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip were eager to move to decent, less-crowded housing, and nobody should demand that Israel stop providing such housing.

Norway and Sweden, voting in favour, commented on the ambiguity of the text. Norway said the draft should not be construed as opposing the right to choose a place of residence. Sweden also felt that voluntary settlement outside the camps should not prejudice right of return.

The Ivory Coast said that resolution 34/52 F, in particular, had been drafted in such a tendentious manner as to impede its implementation and delay positive results, and the Ivory Coast had therefore abstained.

Health needs of Palestinian refugee children

In accordance with a 1978 Assembly resolution, 80/ the Secretary-General reported to the Assembly in September 1979 on the health needs of Palestinian refugee children.

He reported on a nutrition survey carried out in 1978 as in previous years by UNRWA with technical support from WHO. The survey showed a very low prevalence of acute malnutrition, corresponding closely to that in the United States, the comparator country. A comparison with the results of previous surveys (1974 and 1975) showed a definite improvement since 1974. A breakdown of heights by age groups revealed a normal height development up to 9 months of age, thereafter, heights lagged behind those of the reference population.

Two reasons for growth retardation were suggested: infections and weaning. The incidence of diarrhoeal disease in the population remained high. Information on breast feeding and growth indicated a correlation between the two.

A considerable proportion of children also showed low haemoglobin levels and a certain degree of anaemia, as in previous surveys. The large differences between operational fields had cast some doubt on the reliability of current haemoglobinometric methods.

In response to the survey results, a number of modifications were introduced in UNRWA services to improve the health of refugee children.

The Assembly, in adopting decision 34/429 without a vote on 14 December, took note of the Secretary-General's report. The text had been approved without vote on 1 December by the Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, on an oral proposal of its Chairman.

Pledges and contributions

For the calendar year 1979, governmental and intergovernmental contributors provided the equivalent of $121,251,985 towards the budget of UNRWA. In addition, contributions were received from the United Nations and its organizations, non-governmental organizations, private individuals and business corporations. Total income from all sources in 1979 was $133,477,272.

On 4 December, the Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly for the Announcement of Voluntary Contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East met at United Nations Headquarters, New York, where 47 States pledged contributions for 1980 in cash or kind. Pledges announced, plus those projected, were estimated at $132 million.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNRWA FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1979

(in US dollar equivalents)

        1979 Contributor    Payment

Argentina      5,200

Australia   473,825

Austria 131,862 Bahrain  15,000 Barbados     500 Belgium  1,773,919

Canada  4,306,724

Chile        3,000

Denmark  2,094 460 Ethiopia      3,000 European Economic

Community 13,371,905

Finland    313,330

France  1,727,985

Gaza authorities      100,834

Germany, Federal Republic of     5,623,822

Ghana   5,200

Greece  19,000

Holy See   2,500

Iceland  17,500

Indonesia   6,000 Iraq 121,600

Ireland 226,550 Israel 776,372

Jamaica   3,000

Japan     4,000,000

Jordan 268,473

Kuwait     2,100,000

Lebanon  65,239

Liberia   5,000

Luxembourg 173,508

Madagascar   4,742

Malaysia   1,500

Malta   1,100

Mauritius   3,000

Monaco     699

Netherlands     2,460,000

New Zealand  83,598

Nigeria  20,000

Norway     3,349,992

Oman  25,000

Pakistan  20,909

Panama   1,000

Philippines   2,250

Qatar 100,000

Republic of Korea   5,000

San Marino     500

Saudi Arabia     3,500,000

Singapore   1,500

Sri Lanka   1,000

Sweden     9,932,130

Switzerland     4,930,367

Syrian Arab Republic 139,910

Thailand  17,828

Trinidad and Tobago   2,488

Tunisia  15,984

United Kingdom     9,350,000

United States    49,521,600

Yugoslavia  25,000

United Nations and

specialized agencies

United Nations     4,500,001

UNESCO     1,354,601

WHO 288,464

Non-governmental sources     1,769,365

Miscellaneous income     4,312,856

Total   133,477,272

Documentary references, voting details and texts of resolutions

Consideration by the General Assembly

General Assembly – 34th session

Ad Hoc Committee of General Assembly for Announcement of Voluntary Contributions to UNRWA, meeting 1 (A/AC.201/SR.1) of 4 December 1979.

Special Political Committee, meetings 6-14.

Plenary meeting 76.

A/34/13 and Corr.1. Report of Commissioner-General of UNRWA, 1 July 1978-30 June 1979.

A/34/281. Letter of 25 May from Jordan (transmitting letter of 23 May 1979).

A/34/293. Letter of 31 May from United Arab Emirates.

A/34/295. Letter of 4 June from Jordan.

A/34/337. Letter of 27 June from Israel.

A/34/339. Letter of 28 June from Secretary-General to Jordan.

A/34/340. Letter of 28 June from Secretary-General to United Arab Emirates.

A/34/389 and Corr.1. Letter of 27 July from Morocco (transmitting final communiqué and resolutions of 10th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Fez, 8-12 May 1979).

A/34/480. Offers of scholarships and grants for higher education for Palestine refugees.

A/34/5_7. Palestine refugees in Gaza Strip. Report of Secretary-General.

A/34/518. Population and refugees displaced since 1967. Report of Secretary-General.

A/34/549. Report of United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report for period 1 October 1978-30 September 1979).

A/34/567. Report of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA.

A/34/584. Report of Secretary-General, Chapter IV.

A/SPC/34/L.3. United States: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 26 October 1979, meeting 14, by recorded vote of 116 to 0, with 1 abstention, as follows:

Against: None

Abstaining: Israel.

A/34/656. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution A.

Resolution 34/52 A, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/34/656, adopted by Assembly on 23 November 1979, meeting 76, by recorded vote of 140 to 0, with 1 abstention, as follows:

Against: None

Abstaining: Israel.

Assistance to Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 33/112 A of 18 December 1978 and all previous resolutions on the question, including resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1978 to 30 June 1979,

1. Notes with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) has not been effected, that no substantial progress has been made in the programme endorsed by the Assembly in paragraph 2 of its resolution 513 (VI) of 26 January 1952 for the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continues to be a matter of serious concern;

2. Expresses its thanks to the Commissioner-General and to all the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, recognizing that the Agency is doing all it can within the limits of available resources, and also expresses its thanks to the specialized agencies and private organizations for their valuable work in assisting the refugees;

3. Expresses its deep appreciation to the former Commissioner-General, Mr. Thomas W. McElhiney, for his many years of effective service to the Agency and his dedication to the welfare of the refugees;

4. Reiterates its request that the headquarters of the Agency should be relocated within the area of its operations as soon as practicable;

5. Notes with regret that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine has been unable to find a means of achieving progress in the implementation of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) and requests the Commission to exert continued efforts towards the implementation of that paragraph and to report to the Assembly as appropriate, but no later than 1 October 1980;

6. Directs attention to the continuing seriousness of the financial position of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as outlined in the report of the Commissioner-General;

7. Notes with profound concern that, despite the commendable and successful efforts of the Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions, this increased level of income to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East is still insufficient to cover essential budget requirements in the present year and that, at currently foreseen levels of giving, deficits will recur each year;

8. Calls upon all Governments as a matter of urgency to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, particularly in the light of the budgetary deficit projected in the report of the Commissioner-General, and therefore urges non-contributing Governments to contribute regularly and contributing Governments to consider increasing their regular contribution.

A/SPC/34/L.4. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Sweden: draft resolution, approved by consensus by Special Political Committee on 26 October 1979, meeting 14.

A/34/656. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution B.

Resolution 34/52 B, as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/34/656, adopted without vote by Assembly on 23 November 1979, meeting 76.

Assistance to persons displaced as a result of

the June 1967 hostilities

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 33/112 B of 18 December 1978 and all previous resolutions on the question,

Taking note of the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1978 to 30 June 1979,

Concerned about the continued human suffering resulting from the June 1967 hostilities in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 33/112 B and all previous resolutions on the question;

2. Endorses, bearing in mind the objectives of those resolutions, the efforts of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to continue to provide humanitarian assistance as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who are at present displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 hostilities;

3. Strongly appeals to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously for the above purposes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and to the other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

A/SPC/34/L.5. Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 26 October 1979, meeting 14, by recorded vote of 117 to 0, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

Against: None

Abstaining: Israel, United States.