Mideast situation/Palestine question – General Assembly debate – Press release

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ASSERTS LAND-FOR-PEACE PRINCIPLE

IS STILL KEY TO SETTLEMENT OF QUESTION OF PALESTINE

Israeli Redeployment, Start of Final Talks Urged; Other Texts Deal

with Jerusalem, Syrian Golan, Information Programme

In a resolution on the question of Palestine, the General Assembly this morning stressed the need for commitment to the principle of land for peace, the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and the need for the immediate and scrupulous implementation of the agreements reached between the parties, including the redeployment of the Israeli forces from the West Bank and the commencement of the negotiations on the final settlement.

The Assembly took that action, concluding its deliberations on the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East, as it adopted a resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine by a vote of 154 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States) with 3 abstentions (Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Uzbekistan). (See Annex VI.)

[Resolution 242 defined principles for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Resolution 338 reaffirmed the principles of resolution 242 and called for negotiations aimed at a just and durable peace.]

The Assembly also called upon the concerned parties, the co-sponsors of the peace process, other interested parties, and the international community to exert all the necessary efforts and initiatives to bring the peace process back on track and to ensure its continuity and success. It also stressed the need for: the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian peoples — primarily the right to self-determination; and the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. In addition, it stressed the need to resolve the problem of the Palestine refugees.

The Assembly also adopted five other resolutions.

In a resolution on Jerusalem, adopted by a vote of 149 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 7 abstentions (Costa Rica, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Swaziland, United States, Uzbekistan, Zambia), the Assembly deplored the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Council resolution 478 (1980). It called once more on those States to abide by the provisions of relevant United Nations resolutions (see Annex I).

[By resolution 478, the Council decided not to recognize the basic law and such other actions that sought to alter the character and status of Jerusalem. It called upon Member States to accept its decision, and upon those States that had established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City.]

The Assembly adopted by a vote of 97 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 58 abstentions, a resolution on the situation in the Middle East and the Syrian Golan. (See Annex II.) The Assembly demanded once more that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, in implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. It called on Israel to resume the talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and to respect the commitments and undertakings reached during previous talks. The Assembly declared that Israel had failed to comply with Council's resolution 497 (1981), and that — in the terms of resolution 497 — the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was illegal, null and void and without any validity. It called on Israel to rescind that decision.

By a vote of 110 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 48 abstentions, the Assembly adopted a resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (see Annex III). The Assembly authorized that body to give special emphasis to the need to mobilize support and assistance for the Palestinian people, and international solidarity for the achievement by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights.

Also this morning, the Assembly adopted by a vote of 111 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 48 abstentions, a text on the Division for Palestinian Rights (see Annex IV). It requested the Secretary-General to provide the Division with necessary resources so that it could continue to do its work in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and under its guidance. The Secretary-General was also asked to ensure the continued cooperation of the Department of Public Information (DPI) and other units of the Secretariat in enabling the Division to perform its tasks and in adequately covering the question of Palestine.

By a vote of 156 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States) with 2 abstentions (Marshall Islands, Uzbekistan), the Assembly adopted a draft on the special information programme on the question of Palestine of the DPI of the Secretariat (see Annex V). The resolution further requested the DPI, in cooperation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to continue, with the necessary flexibility, its special information programme for the biennium 1998 to 1999, and, in particular, to disseminate information on all the activities of the United Nations system relating to the question of Palestine.

Statements on the situation in the Middle East were made by the representatives of Qatar, Egypt, Ukraine, Syria, Cyprus, Republic of Korea, Norway, Australia, Chile, Cuba, Israel, Austria (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Turkey, Argentina, Peru, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the Permanent Observer for Palestine, United States, Mexico, and China.

The Assembly meets again at 3 p.m. today to take up the fiftieth anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Assembly Work Programme

The Assembly met this morning to conclude discussion on the situation in the Middle East. It was also expected to take action on a number of draft resolutions relating to the Middle East and the question of Palestine.

Situation in Middle East

For its discussion of the Middle East, the Assembly had before it the Secretary-General's report on the topic (document A/53/550) and his report on the question of Palestine. (For details on those documents, see Press Releases GA/9521 of 1 December, and GA/9518 of 30 November.)

By the terms of the draft on Jerusalem (document A/53/L.52), the Assembly would deplore the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980) and their refusal to comply with the provisions of that resolution. It would call, once more, on those States to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. The Assembly would also determine that the decision of Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem is illegal and, therefore, null and void and has no validity whatsoever.

The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine.

By the terms of the draft on the situation in the Middle East: the Syrian Golan (documents A/53/L.53 and Corr.1), the Assembly would demand, once more, that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967 in implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. It would call on Israel to resume the talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and to respect the commitments and undertakings reached during the previous talks. It would also call on all parties concerned, the co-sponsors of the peace process and the entire international community to exert all the necessary efforts to ensure the resumption of the peace process and its success.

Further, the Assembly would declare that Israel has failed so far to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981). It would also declare that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and has no validity whatsoever, as confirmed by the Security Council in its resolution 497 (1981), and calls on Israel to rescind it. The Assembly would determine once more that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan and its de facto annexation constitute a stumbling block in the way of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region.

The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine.

Question of Palestine

By the terms of the draft resolution of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/53/L.48), the Assembly would request the Committee to continue to keep under review the situation relating to the question of Palestine and to report and make suggestions to the Assembly or the Security Council, as appropriate. The Assembly would also authorize the Committee to continue all efforts to promote the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, to make such adjustments in its approved programme of work as it may consider appropriate and necessary, and to give special emphasis to the need to mobilize support and assistance for the Palestinian people.

The Assembly would request the Committee to continue to extend its cooperation and support to the Palestinian and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in order to mobilize international solidarity with, and support for, the achievement by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights and for a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, and to involve additional NGOs in its work. The Assembly would request the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, and other of the Organization's bodies associated with the question of Palestine, to continue to cooperate fully with the Committee and to make available to it the relevant information and documentation which they have at their disposal.

The Assembly would also request the Secretary-General to circulate the report of the Committee to all the competent bodies of the United Nations, and urges them to take the necessary action as appropriate.

The co-sponsors of the draft are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen and Palestine.

By the terms of the draft on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/53/L.49), the Assembly would note with appreciation the action by the Secretary-General in compliance with its resolution 52/50 on the Division activities and consider that the Division continued to make a useful and constructive contribution. It would also request the Secretary- General to provide the Division with necessary resources and to ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and under its guidance.

Also by the terms of the draft, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to ensure the continued cooperation of the Department of Public Information (DPI) and other units of the Secretariat in enabling the Division to perform its tasks and in covering adequately the question of Palestine. It would also invite all governments and organizations to lend their cooperation to the Committee and the Division, and note with appreciation the action taken by Member States to observe annually the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, and request the Committee and the Division to continue to organize an annual exhibit on Palestinian rights, in cooperation with the Permanent Mission of Palestine.

The co-sponsors of the draft are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen and Palestine.

By the terms of the draft on the special information programme on the question of Palestine of the DPI (document A/53/L.50), the Assembly would note with appreciation the action taken by the DPI in compliance with resolution 52/51 on the programme and consider that the special information programme on the question of Palestine was very useful in raising the awareness of the international community.

It would further request the DPI, in cooperation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to continue, with the necessary flexibility, its special information programme for the biennium 1998 to 1999, and, in particular, to disseminate information on all the activities of the United Nations system relating to the question of Palestine; to issue updated publications on the question; to expand its collection of audio-visual materials and continue production of such materials; to organize seminars or encounters for journalists; and to provide assistance to the Palestinian people in the field of media development, in particular, to strengthen the training programme for Palestinian broadcasters and journalists.

The co-sponsors of the draft are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen and Palestine.

By the terms of the draft on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/53/L.51), the Assembly would stress the necessity for commitment to the principle of land for peace and the implementation of Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and the need for the immediate and scrupulous implementation of the agreements reached between the parties, including the redeployment of the Israeli forces from the West Bank and the commencement of the negotiations on the final settlement. The Assembly would call upon the concerned parties, the co-sponsors of the peace process and other interested parties, as well as the international community, to exert all the necessary efforts and initiatives to bring the peace process back on track and to ensure its continuity and success.

The Assembly would stress the need for: the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian peoples — primarily the right to self- determination; and the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. In addition, it would stress the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948. It would urge Member States to expedite the provision of economic and technical assistance to the Palestinian people during this critical period. The Assembly would emphasize, as well, the importance for the United Nations to play a more active and expanded role in the current peace process and in the implementation of the Declaration of Principles.

The co-sponsors of the draft are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen and Palestine. (For details on reports on the question of Palestine, see Press Release GA/9518, issued 30 November.)

Statements on Middle East

NASSER ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER (Qatar), in introducing draft resolution on Jerusalem, said that Bahrain and Indonesia had joined as co-sponsors. He said the draft confirmed the illegality of Israeli actions in Jerusalem and hoped that it would gain the support of all States.

NABIL A. ELARABY (Egypt), in introducing draft resolution on the Syrian Golan, said that Bahrain and Indonesia had joined as co-sponsors. He appealed to all States to vote in favour of the draft, which embodied the principles of the United Nations, and called for an end to the occupation of the Syrian Golan.

VOLODYMYR YEL'CHENKO (Ukraine) said that after all these years, all parties to the peace process should overcome their hostility and mistrust of one other, stop mutual accusations and, finally, complete the implementation of the Madrid formula based on Security Council resolutions and the principle of "land for peace". The international community should not relax its attention nor weaken its attempts to move forward all tracks of the peace process.

He said he hoped that no unreasonable steps would prevent the two parties from implementing the provisions of the Wye agreement promptly and in full. The aspirations of the Palestinians, including the inalienable right to self-determination and the long-awaited dream of statehood, should be fulfilled as a matter of historic justice. Furthermore, a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East situation required a positive outcome in the Israeli-Syrian situation; the parties should resume their talks without delay. As for the Israeli-Lebanese track, he said his country maintained that Council resolution 425 (1978) constituted the only basis for resolving the problem of southern Lebanon and Western Bekaa.

He went on to say the current state of Israeli-Jordanian relations gave grounds for optimism. The agreement signed by the two countries in 1994 could serve as a good example of what peace could bring to the region and to individual nations.

MIKHAIL WEHBE (Syria) said his country had always wanted peace in the Middle East to be just, equitable and lasting. That was why it wanted to make the international community aware of dangers arising from the current Israeli position. Israel was gradually departing from all the agreements concluded between the parties during the peace talks, to the point of invalidating the peace process which had begun in Madrid.

The Israeli Government did not recognize the agreed-upon formula of "land for peace", which was one of the pillars of the peace process reinforced by relevant Security Council resolutions. That Government endeavoured to present a different formula of "security for peace", or "peace for peace". Such a policy could result in a violent tragedy.

Israel was engaged in the policy of settlement construction in the Syrian Golan and other occupied territories, including Jerusalem, he continued. The Israeli Government was also inciting its settlers to adopt systematic measures to alter the geographic and demographic nature of Jerusalem. Those steps were in contradiction with the fourth Geneva Convention and the United Nations Charter. Israel continued to detain thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese in its jails and camps, in violation of the principles of international law.

In contrast with the Israeli position, he said, Syria had said "yes" to Madrid process and the principle "land for peace". It was also in favour of resuming the peace talks at the point where they had been interrupted. A lengthy peace process had been initiated, and Syria called for implementation of all relevant resolutions. Israel should withdraw unconditionally from Syrian Golan to the pre-1967 line and from Lebanon. The legitimate rights of the Palestinian people should also be fulfilled.

Syria, he said, was in favour of a global just peace, while Israel endeavoured to void a peace that would allow everyone to live in dignity.

SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus) said the only way to a peaceful solution was through negotiations, reconciliation, trust and cooperation. It was essential to avoid measures, including the closures of Palestinian territories and the building of settlements, which made it more difficult to move the peace process forward. The economic advancement of the Palestinian people was a determining factor for stability and ultimate rapprochement in the Middle East. His Government was implementing a $2.2 million programme which involved training for 100 Palestinian officials in Cyprus and follow-up visits by Cypriot experts and the building of two medical centres.

He said that while Cyprus considered the Palestinian problem as the core issue of the Middle East peace process, it supported the resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria and the opening of talks between Israel and Lebanon. The withdrawal of foreign forces from the occupied territories was a fundamental element of his Government's position on the Middle East.

Cyprus had offered to host any meeting which might be convened within the context of bilateral negotiations, he said. Cyprus had been chosen as seat of the Israel-Lebanon monitoring group. The Special Envoy for the Middle East Peace Process of the European Union had chosen Cyprus as his seat in the area.

SUH DAE-WON (Republic of Korea) said the agreement signed between Israel and Palestine at the Wye River Plantation talks was indeed a breakthrough in the peace process, which had been moribund for more than two years. His country commended the efforts, wisdom and courage of the leaders involved in the negotiations, and welcomed the redeployment of Israeli troops from Jenin and the release of Palestinian prisoners. In addition, it offered congratulations on the recent inauguration of the first international airport in Gaza, enabling Palestinians establish direct air links with the outside world.

However, he went on, the Republic of Korea was disappointed that the Israeli Government had decided to continue a project for further settlement construction in East Jerusalem. The project had been considered as a serious stumbling block in the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. He said his country was concerned that the project might threaten the full implementation of the Wye agreement. The Israeli Government should refrain from settlement construction.

He said, dialogue and negotiations should be pursued on the principle of land for peace, agreed at the Madrid Conference, and through Security Council resolutions. His Government remained committed to helping to promote peace, stability and security, as well as to economic prosperity.

OLE PETER KOLBY (Norway) said the Wye River Memorandum confirmed the principles of the Oslo Accords, and implementation was now up to the parties. Serious obstacles had still to be overcome, and difficult and courageous decisions were needed on both sides. He said the United Nations should encourage the constructive approach shown by the parties in the past weeks.

Noting that Norway had again worked on the draft resolution on the Middle East peace process, he said it had not been possible to gather the needed support for it at this time. His delegation hoped it would be possible to resubmit it when both the co-sponsors and the parties themselves believed it was appropriate again to seek the support of the international community.

The Wye agreement also paved the way for substantial progress on the interim economic issues, he added. Developments such as the opening of the international airport in Gaza would greatly contribute to the development of the Palestinian economy. There would be no lasting peace without economic progress in the Palestinian areas. The determination of the parties to reach an agreement by 4 May 1999 was encouraging. The United Nations should actively help them move forward.

JOHN CRIGHTON (Australia) said even after the forward momentum in the Middle East peace process, culminating in the recent signing of the Wye River Memorandum, Australia was under no illusions about the difficulties that must be overcome to achieve a lasting peace in the region. The most sensitive and complex issues remained. Any real negotiations to address unresolved issues between Israel and both Syria and Lebanon had yet to start. Compromises and hard decisions still lay ahead. Leaders on all sides must show the way and take risks if their achievements would be meaningful.

The parties must refrain from actions which would threaten the peace process, he said. Any action which would pre-empt the outcome of the current process was a serious threat to lasting peace. Australia had expressed its concern over the Emergency Special Session of the Assembly; blaming one party or the other for particular actions would not encourage an atmosphere conducive to productive discussion. A move to resume the session would be a disappointing development, and could erode support for the peace process.

Turning to the situation in Iraq, he said the ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people was directly attributable to the unwillingness of the Iraqi leadership to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on the disposal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The UNSCOM must be allowed to carry out its mandate to ensure that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction that would threaten regional and global security.

He said Australia appealed to Israel, as the only regional State yet to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to give serious consideration to the security benefits of doing so, for itself and for the region. He said all Middle East States which had not yet negotiated full-scope safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should do so without delay.

The Acting President of the Assembly, HAJI JEMAT AMPAL (Brunei Darussalam), then announced that as of today, 102 Member States and four Observers were inscribed to speak at the December 10 commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He noted that the President of the Assembly, Didier Opertti (Uruguay), had recommended in a letter dated 25 November to all permanent representatives that statements be limited to five minutes to ensure that all statements would be heard on that day.

The Assembly decided that the length of statements at the commemorative meeting be limited to five minutes. It also decided to hear the Observers of Switzerland and the Holy See at that meeting.

On the situation in the Middle East, JUAN LARRAIN (Chile) said his country recognized the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and Israel's right to exist within secure and internationally recognized borders under the terms of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. Chile was delighted that after months of deadlock, Israel and the Palestinian National Authority had been able to achieve a major step forward in the recent Wye discussions. He hoped leaders on both sides would not allow themselves to be intimidated by threats and would not encourage actions that compromised the road to peace.

He said the negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians should give the necessary impetus for talks between Israel and Syria to reach an understanding regarding the Golan Heights. Chile hoped that Council resolution 425 would be fully implemented in southern Lebanon. He hoped that sooner rather than later, there could be successful coexistence in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Israel and all the neighbouring Arab States.

RAFAEL DAUSA CESPEDES (Cuba) said solidarity with the Palestinians was a question of principle and was reflected in Cuba's unrestricted support of their legitimate rights. The people of the occupied territories were experiencing a crucial moment in their history. There was a need to put an end to the provocations of the occupying power in those territories, as well as the human rights violations.

He said the question of Palestine was at the heart of the Middle East conflict, and required real political will to find a just and lasting solution. Cuba reaffirmed the Palestinian right to self-determination in creating an independent State, with Jerusalem as its capital. It rejected any attempt to change the demographic character of that city. Cuba called for the application of the principles of humanitarian law, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The people of the region needed the Assembly to play an effective role in the peace process.

Action on Middle East Drafts

DORE GOLD (Israel) said the expression "land-for-peace" did not appear anywhere in resolutions 242 (1967) or 338 (1973). It did not appear anywhere in the Madrid invitation, and was not used by President Bush at the Madrid Conference. President Bush had used the term "territorial compromise". The draft on the Golan referred to the specific boundary of 4 June. The clear thrust of Madrid and past agreements was that boundaries had to be negotiated and should reflect the quality of security and political arrangements. The problem faced was that the Assembly was being called on to pre-determine the boundaries. If Israel was called on today to agree to specific boundaries as opposed to negotiations for secure borders, that would set a precedent for the entire world body.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT announced that since introduction of the draft on Jerusalem, Algeria and Malaysia had joined as co-sponsors.

The Assembly adopted the resolution on Jerusalem by a vote of 149 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 7 abstentions (United States, Uzbekistan, Costa Rica, Marshall Islands, Zambia, Swaziland and Samoa). (For voting details, see Annex I.)

The ACTING PRESIDENT announced that since introduction of the draft on the Syrian Golan, Algeria and Malaysia had joined as co-sponsors.

The Assembly adopted that resolution by a vote of 97 in favour to 2 against (Israel and United States), with 58 abstentions. (See Annex II.)

ERNST SUCHARIPA (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, reiterated the European Union's commitment to a just and comprehensive settlement in the Middle East based on the Madrid and Oslo accords. It warmly welcomed the promising progress on the Palestinian track and encouraged the parties to engage, as soon as possible, in final status negotiations. It also fully supported early resumption of negotiations on the Lebanese and Syrian tracks. As in previous years, the draft resolution regarding the Syrian Golan contained geographical references which prejudged the outcome of bilateral negotiations. That was why the European Union had again abstained in the vote. The European Union regretted that this year again it had not been possible to reach agreement on the resolution on the Middle East peace process under this agenda item. It commended the initiators of that text — Norway, Russian Federation, and the United States — for their efforts to reach agreement with the interested parties.

GURCAN TURKOGLU (Turkey) said that his country supported and voted in favour of the resolution on the Syrian Golan. However, he wanted to clarify the position of his delegation on one aspect of the situation in the Middle East. He wanted to emphasize, once again, that one of the most important obstacles to the peace process was terrorism. The countries which regrettably lent support and encouragement to terrorism must immediately cease using that inhumane and destructive policy as a means of leverage to advance their foreign policy interests.

OSVALDO NARCISO MARSICO (Argentina) said that his delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution on the Syrian Golan because the essential portion of the draft on the acquisition of territory by force constituted an imperative norm of international law. Regarding operative paragraph 6 of the draft, he said that Argentina's vote did not prejudge the meaning of the contents of that paragraph, especially the reference to the line of 4 June 1967.

JULIO OCAMPO (Peru) said that his delegation had abstained from voting on the Syrian Golan. It viewed with optimism the progress made at Wye. In that context, it was necessary to make timely efforts to re-initiate the negotiations on the Syrian Golan, which would be effective only if obligations were fully implemented and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council were applied. The United Nations played a primary role in the promotion of peace and in strengthening the environment conducive to the promotion of peace. Important political aspects should be taken into account to remove all current obstacles to the peace process within the framework of the peace accords.

MEHDI DANESH-YAZDI (Iran) said that in the course of the deliberation on the Middle East, the Assembly was presented with distortions on the region's reality. The representative of Israel feigned habitual innocence and tried to blame others for the volatility and instability in the Middle East. It should be clear that the harsh, bitter reality of the Israeli central role and ultimate responsibility for the perpetuation of such a fragile and dangerous situation could hardly be papered over by making fictitious allegations against others, including Iran.

After more than two decades of forced occupation in southern Lebanon, Israel did not even bother to heed the call by the international community, in particular the Security Council, to withdraw unconditionally from the occupied territory of Lebanon. The resistance of the Lebanese people and their resolute determination to liberate their homeland from Israeli occupation was their legitimate right, recognized by international law. Thus, it could by no means be labelled as terrorism.

Iran, in line with its principal position, felt bound to render humanitarian assistance, as well as political and moral support, to the Lebanese people in their legitimate struggle. Moreover, contrary to the attempt of Israel to sow the seeds of suspicion among Islamic countries, Iran enjoyed very good and ever-expanding relations with other States in the region. It did not harbour hegemonic aspiration in the Persian Gulf or in the greater Middle East. Lastly, the countries in the region did not need to be given a sermon on the merits of democracy, accountability and good governance, particularly by the representative of an occupying Power.

DORE GOLD (Israel) said that it voted against the draft resolutions on the Middle East. Regarding draft on Jerusalem, he said, the position of Israel, with regards to its capital Jerusalem, was well known and had been detailed on many occasions before the Assembly. Concerning the draft resolution regarding the Golan, Israel had stated on many occasions, and at the highest levels, its willingness and interest to resume its negotiations with Syria, without any preconditions. However, the language of the draft resolution attempted to predetermine the outcome of those talks, which stood in contradiction to any genuine notion of fair negotiations.

In addition, he said, the draft resolution before the Assembly referred to the principle of land for peace. It should be noted that the terms of reference of the Middle East peace negotiations were defined in the letter of invitation to the Madrid conference sent to the parties by its two co-sponsors in October 1991. While those letters referred specifically to Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) as the basis for the negotiation, there was no reference whatsoever to the above-mentioned principle of land for peace.

Israel regretted that it would not be possible to adopt this year the resolution on the Middle East peace process, which had come to be known as the "positive resolution". Israel had supported the adoption of that resolution and had indeed played an important role in its promotion, since its first introduction in 1993. He believed that United Nations resolutions should reflect the achievements of the peace process and the new realities created in the area. The "positive resolution", as adopted by the Assembly in the years from 1993 to 1996, was drafted after thorough and careful consultations among the parties concerned. That was why Israel believed that the language agreed upon in the past should serve as the basis for the draft resolution to be adopted this year as well.

KHALED S.H. AL-HITTI (Iraq) said that his delegation wished to respond to the statement of the representative of Australia who had plunged the subject of Iraq into this agenda item and disregarded the illegal Israeli occupied practices against the Palestinian and Arab people, which were flagrant violations of international law. He alleged that the continuation of the sanctions and the suffering of Iraqi people was caused by a lack of cooperation between Iraq and UNSCOM, regarding an issue of documents. That sick logic could not conceal the truth. Comprehensive sanctions were continuous because one certain State had a hidden agenda to extract vengeance on the Iraqi people.

He asked if it was logical that more than 6,000 Iraqi children would die every month. Did the representative of Australia read the documents to know what UNSCOM was looking for, or to know which documents UNSCOM was looking for? It was no secret that, after eight years of UNSCOM and IAEA activities in Iraq, the nation no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction and, therefore, was not a threat to regional and international security. He urged the Australian representative to recall that Israel possed more than 200 nuclear bombs, as well as chemical and biological weapons, and it refused to accede to international conventions in that regard.

Mr. ELARABY (Egypt) said he was intrigued by the rationale of the representative of Israel regarding the land-for-peace principle. Resolution 242 (1967) contained two basic obligations, namely, withdrawal and the end of belligerency. The two together represented the land-for-peace principle. It was true that the term "land for peace" was not in the resolution. Egypt could not understand why the land-for-peace principle could not be accepted by the representative of Israel.

The Assembly did not adopt the so-called "positive resolution" last year because there had not been anything positive to note, he continued. However, although it was desired this year, unfortunately, it did not come about because Israel had refused it. The land-for-peace principle was an integral part of the obligations in resolution 242 (1967).

Mr. WEHBE (Syria) said Israel had denied the existence of the principle of land for peace. Syria reaffirmed that the principle was clear and consecrated in various works and texts. The principle also stemmed from the text of resolution 242 (1967), which referred to the inadmissibility of acquisition of land by force and called for Israeli withdrawal. Also, the resolutions adopted at the recent Arab Summit and the Summit of the Non- Aligned Movement all refer to that principle. It was difficult to understand why Israel had made allegations which Syria could not accept. That Israel had promised to withdraw from the Golan to the line of 4 June 1967 corroborated that principle. However, the current Israeli Government was turning its back on that.

With regard to boundaries, he asked whether Israel had inherited the British mandate. He also asked whether Israel was more weary of Palestine and Palestinians than the Syrians. It was a manoeuvre to mislead the Assembly. He asked whether Israel sought boundaries and, if so, what they were. Israel did not wish to have boundaries because it wanted to have an open door for further expansion.

HICHAM HAMDAN (Lebanon) said he wanted to respond to a number of allegations made yesterday and today by Israel. The Syrian presence in Lebanon was in accordance with the will of the Lebanese Government and people. It had helped Lebanon to consolidate reconciliation in the region, after the destructive civil war. The progress by Lebanon in past years to emerge from that war took place with the assistance of its Syrian brothers. Lebanon was thankful for their efforts. When Syria was willing to return electricity and water to Lebanese villages, Israel came to destroy those infrastructures. It was trying to repeat that again. Cooperation between Syria and Lebanon should be followed by others in the context of post-conflict peace-building.

As for resolution 425 (1978), Lebanon reiterated that conditional acceptance by Israel was not valid, he said. That resolution had to be implemented unconditionally. Regarding Israel blaming the resistance on terrorism, international law did not describe freedom fighters as terrorists.

Israel's continued occupation would lead to the continuance of the cycle of destruction and violence. Therefore, they had to withdraw. The security belt had failed. The international community had had to dispatch soldiers to keep the peace there. When the occupiers withdrew, then there would be peace. Genuine peace could not be established unless it was based on justice, and there could be no justice without respect for international legality.

NASSER AL-KIDWA, Observer for Palestine, thanked all Member States who voted in favour of the resolution on Jerusalem. The adoption by such an overwhelming majority was just another indication of the international community's rejection of all illegal Israeli actions regarding Jerusalem and the unique importance of Jerusalem for the entire international community. Today, only Israel had voted against that resolution. Palestine hoped that the Israeli Government would reconsider such a negative and dangerous position and would be in a position in the future to join the international consensus on such an important matter.

He also referred to the fact that the Assembly, this year, was unable to adopt the resolution, entitled "Middle East Peace Process", which in the past was co-sponsored by Norway, United States and the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, it had not been possible because of the Israeli delegation's refusal of the term land for peace. Palestine could not understand how they, who were committed to peace in the Middle East, could refuse the land-for- peace principle. Unfortunately, Israel did not want to return the occupied land to its rightful owner. He hoped Israel would reconsider its position, which undermined the peace process. He also hoped that next year the Assembly would adopt the resolution on the Middle East peace process. For its part, Palestine would try to enhance such a possibility, along with other interested parties, to present a draft regardless of the position of other parties.

Action on Texts on Question of Palestine

A. PETER BURLEIGH (United States), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that his Government opposed all four resolutions on the question of Palestine. They had been overtaken by events in the Middle East. Three of them promoted institutions whose activities and approach to Middle East peace were unbalanced and outdated. They did nothing to support the process of negotiation, agreement and implementation of agreements now under way directly between the parties concerned. They scarcely took note of the considerable achievements of the negotiating partners to date. If the Assembly wanted to criticize negative developments, it should also recognize positive ones.

Just days after the international community had gathered in Washington, D.C., at the conference to support Middle East peace and development, and received pledges for over $3 billion to improve the lot of the average Palestinian, he said, it was particularly inappropriate to consider resolutions that drained away millions of dollars each year in precious financial and human resources that could better serve the cause of economic development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine injected the General Assembly into issues that were the subject of direct negotiations between the parties. That was inappropriate and unhelpful. At this sensitive moment, the United States wanted to support the process of negotiations, rather than focus on issues or statements that divided and polarized. It wanted to produce results, not words. And his country was producing results. The United States strongly supported the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. To his regret, the unbalanced drafts before the Assembly complicated the achievement of that objective. The United States would vote against those four resolutions and invited others to do the same.

Mr. GOLD (Israel) said that his country would vote against the drafts on the question of Palestine. Referring to the drafts on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat, he said those bodies had, since their inception, obstructed dialogue and understanding through their one-sided and distorted portrayal of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in general, and its Palestinian component, in particular. They were engaged in activities which hindered, rather than promoted, progress towards achieving a peaceful, negotiated and mutually acceptable resolution of the problems. Those bodies also expended valuable resources which could be better invested in responding to the real needs of the Palestinian population. In an era of budgetary cutbacks in the United Nations, their lavish seminars and meetings involved a wasteful drain of funds.

The special information programme of DPI, through its various seminars, missions and exhibits, also engaged in the promotion of a distorted and one- sided perspective of the conflict. Regarding draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, it, in effect, promoted just the opposite. Any settlement must be based upon mutual agreement reached in direct, face-to-face negotiations between the interested parties. However, that draft sought to impose a particular solution, which was in keeping with the interests of one party and against the interests of the other. Not only did it undermine the progress in negotiation of a settlement, it also stood in stark violation of the agreements already reached between the sides. It attempted to predetermine the outcome of negotiations on the permanent status, which were now beginning.

Israel continued to believe that the only way to advance towards peace was to proceed on the course of direct negotiations, in accordance wit the agreements already achieved between the parties and through their subsequent implementation in a full, reciprocal manner, he said. The recent Wye River Memorandum and the implementation which had followed in its wake proved that it was indeed the only way to make progress towards the goal of peace, which was dear to all sides.

DIDIER OPERTTI (Uruguay), President of the General Assembly, announced that since introduction of draft on the Committee on Palestine, Brunei Darussalam had joined as a co-sponsor.

The Assembly adopted the resolution by a vote of 110 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 48 abstentions. (See Annex III.)

The PRESIDENT announced that Brunei Darussalam and Qatar had joined as co-sponsors to draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights.

The Assembly adopted the text by a vote of 111 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 48 abstentions. (See Annex IV.)

The PRESIDENT announced that Brunei Darussalam and Qatar had joined as co-sponsors to draft resolution on the DPI information programme.

The Assembly adopted the resolution by a vote of 156 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (Marshall Islands, Uzbekistan). (Annex V)

The PRESIDENT announced that Brunei Darussalam and Qatar had joined as co-sponsors to draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine.

The Assembly adopted the text by a vote of 154 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 3 abstentions (Marshall Islands, Uzbekistan, Nicaragua). (Annex VI)

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said he voted in favour of the draft resolution on the settlement of the question of Palestine because he felt that the solution to the question was an indispensable element in the settlement of the Middle East conflict. However, he wanted to comment on the content of operative paragraph 3. Mexico took note that one of the basic understandings in the peace process in the Middle East had been the exchange of land for peace. That formula had proven its usefulness in the search for a solution to that particular conflict. However, it would seem risky to make it a universal legal principle, to be applied as a norm in all conflicts.

Above that basic understanding lay the general principle of international law holding that conquest did not grant territorial rights, he said. The acquisition of land through the use of force was inadmissible. It had to be concluded that all territory occupied during an armed conflict must be returned to its legitimate owner without conditions. For those reasons, while recognizing the political value of the basic understanding, Mexico felt it would be unsound to raise it to the level of a general principle of international law. Mexico would like to call once again for greater precision in the language used to describe a political understanding that was not, and could not be, a universal legal principle. It was a question of legal purity in the use of terms.

HANS PETER MANZ (Austria), on behalf of the European Union, wanted to explain the vote of European Union member States on the drafts on the Committee and Division on Palestine. In spite of difficulties in the Middle East peace process, important progress had been made over the years with a view to establishing a just, comprehensive and durable peace in the area. The European Union regretted that the mandate of the two United Nations entities in charge of the "question of Palestine" did not better take into account the spirit of the peace process. That was why the Union had, as in previous years, abstained in the vote on the two draft resolutions. The European Union, however, welcomed the ongoing dialogue with the Bureau of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. It was prepared to continue that exchange of views, with the particular aim of adjusting the mandate and the activities of the Committee to the spirit of the Madrid and Oslo accords, to allow full support of and a constructive contribution to the peace process.

KHALIL ABOU-HADID (Syria) said that his delegation had voted in favour of draft resolution on settling the Palestinian question. However, its agreement did not mean support or agreement with the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Governing Arrangements referred to in preambular paragraphs 10 and 11, and operative paragraph 2 of the text. As for preambular paragraph 9, he wished to reiterate that the full Israeli withdrawal from all Arab occupied territories and implementation of just and lasting peace and the guidelines of Madrid conference and principle of land for peace were the right course for reaching peace with safe, sure and internationally recognized borders. He also thanked the co-sponsors of the draft on Syrian Golan and all those who had voted in favour of that draft.

WANG WENZHAO (China), speaking about resolution L.50 on the DPI programme, said that due to technical reasons, although China had voted in favour, it was not correctly recorded. She hoped that it would be corrected.

Mr. AL-KIDWA, Observer for Palestine, said that he wanted to express appreciation to all the Member States who had supported the four resolutions adopted on the question of Palestine. He believed that they were all very important to the question of Palestine and to the United Nations. They included the machinery of the United Nations on the question of Palestine, in addition to the principles for the peaceful settlement of the question. He expressed appreciation to the members of the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and said that his delegation regretted to hear the statement of the United States on those resolutions. Palestine had expressed its position repeatedly in the past, and there was no need to repeat it. The position of Israel had become provocative, not only to Palestine, but to entire membership of the General Assembly. There was no value in additional reply to the position of Israel.

RAFAEL DAUSA CESPEDES (Cuba) said that, unfortunately during the vote on the four resolutions on Palestine, there was not a representative from Cuba seated, for reasons beyond their control. However, his delegation wanted it placed on record that Cuba's vote was in favour of the above-mentioned resolutions.

ANNEX I

Vote on Jerusalem

The resolution on Jerusalem (Document A/53/L.52) was adopted by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to 1 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Costa Rica, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Swaziland, United States, Uzbekistan, Zambia.

Absent: Burundi, Central African Republic, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Haiti, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mozambique, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Uganda.

ANNEX II

Vote on Syrian Golan

The vote on the resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/53/L.53/corr.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 2 against, with 58 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Zambia.

Absent: Burundi, Central African Republic, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Haiti, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mozambique, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Uganda.

ANNEX III

Vote on Committee on Rights of Palestinians

The draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/53/L.48) was adopted by a recorded vote of 110 in favour to 2 against, with 48 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Burundi, Central African Republic, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Lesotho, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Uganda.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Division for Palestinian Rights

The draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights (document A/53/L.49) was adopted by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 2 against, with 48 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Burundi, Central African Republic, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Lesotho, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Uganda.

ANNEX V

Vote on Information Programme on Palestine

The draft resolution on the special information programme on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information (DPI) of the Secretariat (document A/53/L.50) was adopted by a recorded vote of 156 in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstain: Marshall Islands, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Burundi, Central African Republic, China, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Lesotho, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Uganda.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Peaceful Settlement of Question of Palestine

The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/53/L.51) was adopted by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstain: Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Burundi, Central African Republic, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Iran, Lesotho, Madagascar, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Uganda.

* *** *