Financing of peacekeeping missions – Fifth Cttee meeting – Press release (excerpts)

FIFTH COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS MORE INFORMATION BE PROVIDED

ON PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR NON-STAFF OFFICIALS

/…

Another item discussed this afternoon was the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, the representative of Libya insisted that Israel had should pay all the costs resulting from its act of aggression against the headquarters of UNIFIL in Qana, as requested by General Assembly resolution 54/267.  Israel had defied the resolution, and its failure to pay the damages negatively affected the financial situation of the Mission, he said.  

The representative of Lebanon said that the terrorist policy of Israel, which was the reason behind the destabilization of the Middle East region, had impeded UNIFIL from fulfilling its mission.  Failure to pay the damages would create a precedent, which could further endanger the lives of UNIFIL personnel and would add to the financial burdens on Member States.

That position was supported by the representatives of Nigeria (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), Syria and Iraq.  

The representative of Israel expressed regret that the Fifth Committee was undertaking a purely political discussion.  Following his country’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon, a Security Council resolution called upon Lebanon to ensure the return of its effective authority in the South, and to proceed with the deployment of Lebanese armed forces as soon as possible.  Lebanon had refused to take steps to achieve calm.  He called upon the Government of Lebanon to fulfil its remaining obligations, so that peace and security could be achieved at long last.

The representative of the United States also made a statement on the issue.

The representative of Mexico asked a technical question on the proposed budget of UNIFIL, which was answered by Director of Peacekeeping Division Bock Cheng Yeo.

/…

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this afternoon to act on a draft resolution on human resources management; to conclude its general discussion of United Nations common and pension systems; and continue its general discussion of the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

By the terms of the draft resolution submitted by the Rapporteur of the Committee (document A/C.5/55/L.8), the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to undertake consultations on the proposed regulations governing the status of officials other than Secretariat officials and experts on mission, in particular those elected by the General Assembly and its subsidiary organs, and to report thereon to the resumed fifth-fifth session.  The report should contain information on the compatibility of the proposed regulations with the statutes governing the officials in question; the possible impact of the proposed regulations on the independence of expert bodies; and the accountability mechanisms envisaged to enforce the proposed regulations.

Also by the terms of that text, the Secretary-General would be requested to submit additional information on whether the proposed regulations ensure the impartiality, neutrality, objectivity and accountability of the personnel referred to.

[For background information on the United Nations common and pension systems, see Press Release GA/AB 3408 of 10 November; for information on the financing of UNIFIL, see Press Release GA/AB 3409 of 13 November.]

/…

Statements

/…

The Committee then turned to the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, KHALIFA O. ALATRASH (Libya) said that in paragraph 14 of resolution 54/267 the General Assembly had requested Israel to pay all the costs resulting from its act of aggression against the headquarters of UNIFIL in Qana.  Necessary measures should be taken to guarantee the full implementation of that resolution.  In his report on the financing of UNIFIL, the Secretary-General had made it clear that Israel had yet to implement it.  Israel should pay restitution for its criminal act of aggression, which had resulted in considerable damage and in numerous deaths.  Israel defied the resolution, and its failure to pay the damages negatively affected the financial situation of the Force.  

The shelling of UNIFIL headquarters had been a premeditated and deliberate act, he continued, which led to damages in the amount of over $1.28 million.  A precedent of non-payment would increase the danger for United Nations and associated staff, and the Arab Group urged the international community to once again adopt a resolution holding Israel accountable for the deliberate damage to UNIFIL headquarters, and force Israel to shoulder its responsibility.  It was important to include information about the Qana incident in relevant reports, and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) should explain the status of the amount of damages in the account of the Mission.

The United Nations Interim Force was playing a positive role under difficult conditions in Lebanon, he said.  It would be unfair for other Member States to bear the financial burden for Israel’s act of aggression.  The leaders of Tel Aviv were still committing massacres against civilians, destroying their homes and forcing them to flee from their country.  There were many examples of that.  The Qana massacre in South Lebanon was one of those examples.  The United Nations was not spared because of its international status, despite the United Nations Charter to which all Member States had committed.  Refugees and citizens in South Lebanon had taken refuge at UNIFIL, seeking safe haven there.  However, that did not deter Israeli aggressors.  Tel Aviv leaders did not respect the international community and failed to implement relevant United Nations resolutions.  Those were war crimes, for which international tribunals were established these days.    

Israeli leaders also enjoyed protection from a powerful State, he said.  As a result, they enjoyed immunity at the United Nations, even if that meant arbitrary use of the right of veto.  How could resolutions be enforced in that context, he asked.  How could Israel demand reparations for war crimes committed by the Nazis if they themselves did not implement resolutions requesting them to pay retribution?

HASSAN MOHAMMED HASSAN (Nigeria) speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, supported the position of the Arab Group.  He said that relevant resolutions should be implemented as soon as possible.

YAACOV AVRAHAMY (Israel) said he was amazed at the uncivilized words of the Libyan delegate.  He regretted that Fifth Committee deliberations were being used for a purely political discussion.  Israel had withdrawn its forces from southern Lebanon.  Lebanon had taken no steps to prevent or discourage dozens of attacks against Israel.  It had refused to disarm the military groups that had perpetrated those violations.  Recent incidents included the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers.  Those soldiers were being held hostage.  Such acts were in direct violation of Security Council resolution 425, which called for restoration of international peace and security.  Security Council resolution 1310 called upon Lebanon to ensure the return of its effective authority in the south and to proceed with the deployment of Lebanese armed forces as soon as possible.  Lebanon refused to take steps to achieve calm.  Now that Israel had withdrawn, he called upon the Government of Lebanon to fulfil its remaining obligations so that peace and security could be achieved at long last.  Israel held Lebanon and Syria responsible for acts of aggression.  It would do its utmost to achieve peace in the Middle East, including with Lebanon and Syria.  He hoped the call for peace would soon be answered.

ERNESTO HERRERA (Mexico) asked why the budget for UNIFIL excluded provisions for the support account and Brindisi.  He asked if it was a custom not to include those amounts in a peacekeeping budget.

HOUSSAM DIAB (Lebanon) said that Israel’s refusal to withdraw from Lebanon had impeded the peacekeeping force from carrying out its mission.  The terrorist policy of Israel was the reason behind the destabilization of the Middle East region and had impeded UNIFIL from fulfilling its mission in accordance with resolution 425.  Israel had to comply with legitimate resolutions.  It was ironic and rude that the representative of the aggressor would offer instructions on the implementation of those resolutions while the Israeli courts themselves allowed hostages to be taken and deprived people of a fair trial.  The Israeli Government took even children hostage.  Its rulers had ordered the bombing of the Lebanese infrastructure.  The United Nations was not the supreme court of Israel and it was not applying the teachings of the Israeli Knesset.  The United Nations Charter called for respect of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people.  The aggression had no justification whatsoever.  The Assembly’s position was based on an attack by Israel and the killing of women and children.  That was why Israel should pay reparations.  Failing to do so would endanger the lives of UNIFIL personnel and add to unwarranted financial burdens on Member States.  Such crimes against peacekeeping troops should not be repeated.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) supported the position of the Arab Group and the Group of 77 and China.  The item under consideration was well-known to the Committee.  It was a request for Israel to pay for the damages to the Headquarters of UNIFIL at Qana.  The failure to pay would constitute a grave precedent.  The damage was the result of a deliberate act of aggression against peacekeepers working for the United Nations, which -– if not addressed properly — could lead to acts of violence against international peacekeepers in the future.  The aggressor should be held responsible for this heinous crime.

He said that he also wanted to place on record his astonishment at the statement by the representative of Israel.  The international community could not be blind to the fact that Israel was promoting itself as an advocate of peace.  It was enough to watch television to know that such a claim could not be swallowed by anyone.  Killings, oppression and bombardments were reflections of the barbaric character of occupation forces as far as people in the occupied territories were concerned.  The representative of Israel was forgetting that his country was still threatening Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.  

Peace could not come through ignoring the legitimate international resolutions and demands to withdraw to the line of June 1967, he continued.  That demand was indispensable for any progress in the peace process.  The developments in Palestine demonstrated what kind of peace Israel was seeking.  The claims to peace advanced by Israel were unfounded.  It was time for Israel to implement relevant resolutions and to pay for the damages resulting from the attack on Qana.

MOHAMMED MOHAMMED (Iraq) said that it was only fair that a perpetrator of an illicit act should assume responsibility for the damage.  The party which had committed aggression was Israel.  The victims were Lebanon and the United Nations.  For that reason, it would not be fair for the Organization to assume responsibility for the damages resulting from the incident at Qana.  It was important to implement international law, and he called on all countries to ensure that relevant resolutions were implemented.  The aggression could not be concealed — it was clear to all.

Mr. AVRAHAMY (Israel) sad he was not going to answer the cynical accusations of representatives of “dark totalitarian regimes”.  As for the incident at Qana, he wanted to clarify that the Hezbollah had deliberately set their camp close to the UNIFIL headquarters at Qana, and Israel had warned the United Nations about that proximity.  The Hezbollah fired dozens of Katyusha rockets from that position.  Israel could not allow that situation to continue, and after three days of bombing and after numerous warnings, Israel acted in response to the provocation.  He deeply regretted the incidental loss of life that followed, but it was Hezbollah that started the incident, for which it should bear full responsibility.  The decision to place the cost on his country alone was a one-sided and unprecedented initiative.

CHRISTOPHER WITTMANN (United States) said that the Fifth Committee was a budgetary and administrative committee.  The issues being discussed were not directly related to its agenda items and would be more properly discussed in other forums.

Mr. DIAB (Lebanon) said that the discussion did fall within the purview of the Committee.  It could not finance aggression against the United Nations or the women and children who had sought refuge under the United Nations flag.  Aggression against the Qana headquarters was not a mere allegation.  UNIFIL was sent to protect civilians against Israeli occupation, and not the opposite.   Were attacks on a family of 12 — the youngest a four-year-old — not intentional?  Was firing by Israeli gunboats on civilian cars and ambulances carrying victims not intentional?

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that the Committee was faced with an arrogant distortion.  It was wrong to pretend that Israel was an island of democracy in the region.  Old and young alike were being killed by Israeli war criminals.  That “democracy” had only created war and State criminals.  Israeli forces had withdrawn from southern Lebanon.  But it was the so-called Hezbollah that had forced Israel to leave the Lebanese territory.  They had been forced to leave.

Mr. ALATRASH (Libya) said that the statement by the representative of the Zionist entity included distortions of the truth and attempts to deceive the international community.  Everybody knew what the Zionist entity was and who supported it.  Civilians had taken refuge with the United Nations force, but obviously the Zionist entity did not respect the international organization.  Crimes by the Israeli entity resulted in massacres of civilians, including children.  The world saw that on television screens.  Israel also defined children as terrorists deserving death.  That was the policy of Israel.  

It was really strange that the representative of the Zionist entity spoke of peace, while it killed the faithful in mosques, he said.  The question was, since when was Israel inclined to peace?  It had always built its might on the bodies of its victims.  Israel was guilty of State terror.  Unfortunately, the Security Council did not move to address the problem because of the veto power.

Responding to a previous question, BOCK CHENG YEO, Director of the Peacekeeping Financing Division, said that the budget figure for UNIFIL in paragraph 7 of the Secretary-General’s report excluded provisions for the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi.  That paragraph should be read in connection with the preceding paragraphs.  Paragraph 7 was an attempt to compare the actual costs of the Force during 1999 and 2000 with the proposed budget, and therefore excluded the support account amount.

/…

* *** *