Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information
31 December 1973
YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED
NATIONS

1973



Office of Public Information
United Nations, New York

...
Chapter XI

The situation in the Middle East

Prior to 6 October 1973, when hostilities broke out between Egypt and Israel and between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, the situation in the Middle East had continued - as in previous years - to demand the attention of several United Nations bodies, in particular the Security Council.

Although the situation prior to October had remained relatively calm, the Council met in April and August to consider and adopt decisions on complaints by Lebanon.

At the request of Egypt, the Council decided on 20 April to examine the situation in the Middle East, on the basis of a comprehensive report to be prepared by the Secretary-General on efforts undertaken by the United Nations since June 1967. Following meetings in June and July, during which it considered the Secretary-General's report, the Council voted on a draft resolution put forward by eight of the non-permanent members of the Council, but failed to adopt it because of the negative vote of the United States - a permanent member of the Council.

Following the outbreak of war on 6 October, the Council met from 8 to 12 October to consider the situation but took no decision. The Secretary-General issued an appeal for a redoubling of efforts to seek an end to the fighting and an immediate resumption of the quest for a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East.

Early on 22 October, the Council adopted a resolution (338 (1973)), sponsored by the USSR and the United States, by which it called on the parties to cease all firing and begin implementing the Council's resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. 1/ It also decided that, concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations should start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East. On 23 October, a second resolution (339 (1973)) was adopted, also sponsored by the USSR and the United States, by which the Council confirmed its decision on the cease-fire and asked the Secretary General to arrange for the immediate dispatch of United Nations observers to supervise its observance.

On 25 October the Council adopted another resolution (340 (1973)), put forward by eight non-permanent members, by which it decided to ask the Secretary-General to set up immediately a United Nations Emergency Force under its authority. On 27 October, by resolution 341 (1973), it approved the Secretary-General's proposals for the establishment of the Force, and, during November held several meetings to consider progress report by the Secretary-General on the setting up and operation of the Force.

On 15 December, in connexion with a proposed peace conference on the Middle East to be held in Geneva Switzerland, the Council adopted resolution 344 (1973), proposed by the 10 non-permanent members of the Council, by which it expressed confidence that the Secretary-General would play a full and effective role at the conference and asked him to keep the Council suitably informed so that it could review the problems on a continuing basis. The Secretary-General subsequently reported that he had convened the conference on 21 December, with Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the USSR and the United States participating.

In other developments during 1973, the question of the treatment of the civilian population of the Arab territories occupied by Israel was again considered by the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly, both of which took decisions based on the findings of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. By another decision, the Assembly affirmed the right of Arab States and peoples to permanent sovereignty over their natural resources and called on Israel to halt all measures to exploit the human and natural resources of the occupied Arab territories.

Also during the year, several communications were received concerning the status of the City of Jerusalem and the Holy Places.

As in previous years, the Assembly took several decisions with regard to the question of the Palestine refugees. Among other things, it extended the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and, in the light of the serious plight of the Agency, appealed for generous contributions so that its services would not have to be curtailed.

Details of these developments and related matters are described in the sections that follow.


Status of the cease-fire; search for a
peaceful settlement prior to 6 October 1973

Egypt-Israel sector

The situation in the Egypt-Israel sector remained generally calm until the outbreak of hostilities in October 1973. No complaints were submitted to the Security Council, but the parties filed various complaints with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO) which, in turn, issued supplemental information reports containing the complaints; some cease-fire violations were reported, consisting mainly of flights by aircraft of one party over the positions of the other. The complaints registered by the parties were not always confirmed by United Nations military observers.

During the Security Council's discussion in April 1973 of a complaint by Lebanon against Israel, the representative of Egypt asked for a full review by the Council of the entire Middle East situation. The Council acted on the request on 20 April by unanimously adopting resolution 331 (1973). For details, see pp. 181-90 below.

Israel-Syria sector

On 9 January, the Syrian Arab Republic complained that Israeli jet aircraft had attacked a number of villages, in addition to military positions, killing many children, women and other civilians, and charged that the Council's failure to act had encouraged Israel to pursue its aggression against a Member State of the United Nations.

On 16 January, Israel replied that its air actions had been directed against bases of terrorist organisations and Syrian military installations. It added that the situation along the Israel-Syria cease-fire line depended on Syria's willingness to abide by its international obligations.

On 14 September, the Syrian Arab Republic charged that on the previous day 64 Israeli aircraft had violated Syrian coastal air space, forcing Syrian aircraft to take counter-measures which resulted in five Israeli planes being shot down and eight Syrian planes being hit. On the same day, Israel rejected the Syrian charge and the figures cited and said that the incident had been originally provoked by Syrian fighter planes which had attacked a routine patrol of the Israeli air force over the Mediterranean.

During the period from January to October, the reports of the Secretary-General issued on the basis of supplemental information received from the Chief of Staff of UNTSO registered a variety of incidents in that sector, involving firing incidents and overflights by Israeli aircraft.

Israel-Jordan sector

During 1973, the situation along the Israel-Jordan cease-fire line remained unchanged. No complaints were submitted by either country regarding any cease-fire violation, nor did the Security Council meet to consider any complaint in that connexion.

Israel-Lebanon sector

Communications and reports to
Security Council (January-April 1973)

From 1 January to early April 1973, the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO) continued to report regularly on various incidents in the Israel-Lebanon sector, involving crossing and recrossing of the border by Israeli forces, and the temporary occupation of positions inside Lebanese territory by those forces. Flights by Israeli aircraft over Lebanese territory were reported, as well as complaints by Lebanon about those flights and about other incidents.

In a letter to the Security Council dated 21 February, Lebanon complained that armed Israeli bands had landed that day north of Tripoli (northern Lebanon) and had attacked two Palestinian refugee camps in the area, at Al Baddawi and Nahr-al-Bared, killing 30 persons and injuring 20.

The Chief of Staff of UNTSO reported on the same day that the Lebanese complaint could not be confirmed by United Nations observers, as the location of the incident was outside their observation range.

Also on 21 February, Israel stated in a letter that its action terrorist organizations, and said that it was Israel's duty to protect its people from attacks by terror organizations that were permitted to remain in Lebanon and to enjoy Lebanese support.

In a letter dated 11 April, Lebanon charged that, in the early hours of 10 April, Israeli naval units had landed south of Beirut and had debarked a squad of Israeli terrorists who had driven in civilian cars to attack predetermined objectives in the city, killing 12 persons - including three prominent Palestinian leaders - and wounding 29. The letter added that in pursuance of a policy of attacking the Palestinian people without provocation, Israel had engaged in acts of warfare, aggression and terrorism against Lebanon in violation of the Armistice Agreement of 1949, international law and all norms of international morality. Lebanon hoped that the Security Council would take the necessary measures to put an end to Israel's aggression.

Israel replied in a letter on the same day that its action of 9/10 April had been against terrorist bases, headquarters and hideouts in the Beirut area. Official statements issued in Beirut had confirmed that those killed had been leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The letter stated that Lebanon was a centre for the planning and execution of terrorist attacks against civilians in Israel and elsewhere; by allowing its territory to be exploited and abused by terrorists, Lebanon had forfeited the right to claim respect for its territory. The only way for Lebanon to extricate itself from that situation, Israel said, was by fully observing its international obligations and eliminating the presence of the terrorist groups and their activities on and from Lebanese soil.

On 10 April, the UNTSO Chief of Staff stated that a complaint had been received from Lebanon alleging that, during the night of 9/10 April, Israeli forces had attacked and destroyed civilian buildings in Beirut and Saida, and that several persons had been killed and wounded. He added that Lebanon's complaint had been confirmed by United Nations military observers for that part of the complaint pertaining to damages in Beirut and Saida.

On 12 April, the representative of Algeria transmitted to the President of the Security Council a message from the Algerian Foreign Minister to the effect that Israel's policy was designed to stir up conflict in the Middle East so that it could impose its will on the Arab countries and the Palestinian people. He urged the Council to act to ensure respect for its decisions.

By a letter dated 12 April, Lebanon requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council, in view of the gravity of Israel's act of aggression against Lebanon and the threat it posed to peace and security in the area.

Consideration by Security
Council (April 1973)

The Security Council considered the Lebanese complaint at meetings held between 12 and 21 April. The representatives of Lebanon and Israel and, subsequently, those of Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic and Tunisia were invited to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

The representative of Lebanon informed the Council that on 10 April a squad of 35 Israeli terrorists in civilian clothes had landed in the southern outskirts of Beirut and driven in civilian Lebanese cars to the city, where they attacked and blew up several buildings, killing three members of the Palestine Liberation Organization. A total of 12 people had been killed and 29 wounded.

Lebanon, he said, depended on the United Nations Charter and the Security Council for its protection, and it considered that the Council had an obligation not only to find solutions to problems but also to offer protection to States that were victims of aggression.

To Israel’s allegations that it was conducting warfare against terrorism in order to prevent future terrorist acts, and that terrorist organizations were harboured in Lebanon with the connivance of the Government, the Lebanese representative replied that Israel was the least qualified country in the world to invoke arguments regarding terrorism. It had maintained itself and was maintaining itself by means of terrorism planned and organized by the State.

He went on to say that the United Nations must come to grips with the problem of the Palestinians in a bold, imaginative and decisive manner, and find a just and permanent solution to it. Of the 1.5 million Palestinians driven from their homeland by Zionist terrorism, 300,000 lived in Lebanon, which could not be held responsible for their plight, their despair and frustrations, their desire to return to their homes or their spirit of resistance against the aggressor.

Lebanon, he said, had deployed every effort to promote peaceful conditions in Lebanon and in the area as a whole; it could not bear the responsibility that should be borne by the international community - that is, finding a solution to the problem of the Palestinian people. Israel's repeated acts of aggression could not go unpunished, he declared, and the Council should take more meaningful action to put an end to Israeli aggression against Lebanon: condemnation was not enough.

The United States spokesman said that the events in Lebanon had been followed by an attempt to spread "a big lie," namely, a charge that the United States Government had connived or colluded in those events and that the United States Embassy in Beirut was harbouring persons who had been involved. That accusation was totally without foundation. His Government deplored violence wherever it occurred and from whatever source it came, and regretted the mounting toll in innocent lives. The United States, he declared, had had no part in or knowledge of the Israeli raid on Lebanon on 10 April.

The Israeli representative said that while the world had been reacting with indignation to the actions of Arab terror groups, the Arab States had continued to give them support and still harboured terrorist bases within their borders. His Government, he insisted, was duty-bound to protect the lives of its citizens and to put an end to the assaults directed against innocent men, women and children. Israel's objective on the night of 9/10 April was terrorist bases, headquarters and hideouts in the Beirut area - in particular, the Al-Fatah headquarters there. Casualties had occurred among the terrorists - including some leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization, under whose leadership terrorist actions in the past two years had totalled 105 attacks resulting in 228 casualties, including 116 deaths.

It was common knowledge, the Israeli representative went on to say, that Lebanon was a centre for the planning and execution of terrorist attacks against civilians in Israel and elsewhere. Terrorists maintained their headquarters, workshops for the manufacture of weapons, and recruitment and information offices in Lebanon's capital with the consent of its Government, which must be considered an accomplice in the terrorists' campaign as long as they maintained terror centres and bases on its territory.

The USSR representative recalled that the Security Council had warned Israel repeatedly that if it continued its aggressive acts against Lebanon, the Council would consider further actions under the United Nations Charter. Israel had, however, continued to ignore and violate the decisions of the Council and the resolutions of the General Assembly.

Israel's recent action in Lebanon, he continued, was the latest link in the chain of crimes perpetrated by Israeli extremists in their use of terror, now elevated to the status of a State policy. The USSR, he said, was categorically opposed to acts of international terrorism that upset the diplomatic activity of States and their representatives. It was also opposed to attempts to influence the policy of States by acts of terrorism, as well as terrorist acts by individuals.

The USSR, he said, felt there was an urgent need to reach a just settlement in the Near East on the basis of compliance with all the provisions of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. 2/ That meant withdrawal of Israeli troops from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967, and recognition of the need to ensure the exercise of the lawful rights of the Arab people of Palestine. The USSR was prepared to make every effort to bring about a political settlement and was prepared immediately to resume consultations among the five permanent members of the Security Council. It considered that the Council should not only decisively condemn Israel's latest piratical acts, but should also take effective steps aimed at halting Israel's acts of aggression.

China's spokesman supported the right of the Palestinian people to fight for their rights for national existence and against the Israeli aggressors. He blamed the two super-powers for Israel's refusal to withdraw from large tracts of Arab territories. Those powers were deliberately maintaining a situation of "no war, no peace" in the Middle East and making deals at the expense of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples' national rights, territory and sovereignty, so as to facilitate their contention for important strategic points and oil resources in the area. China, he said, would, as always, firmly support the Palestinian, Lebanese and other Arab peoples in their struggle against the Israeli aggressors; the Council must act to condemn and halt Israel's aggression and atrocities.

The United Kingdom representative said that, far from moving forward, the search for peace in the Middle East went backwards; far from counsels of moderation prevailing, there existed a vicious circle of reprisal and counter-reprisal. His Government, he said, had consistently deplored all acts of violence and terrorism in the Middle East and sympathized with the cause and the fate of the Palestine refugees, who had been the subject of endless United Nations debates and resolutions and some of whom had in despair turned to violence and extremism, which could not be tolerated by the international community.

But to deplore the acts of violence of the terrorist organizations, he continued, was not to condone Israel's attacks on Lebanon; those too must be condemned. While the United Kingdom could not agree that terrorism could ever be justified, it was not blind to the need to eradicate its root causes. The United Nations must show the refugees that the world had not forgotten them; their legitimate aspirations must not be overlooked in any final settlement. The United Kingdom, he said, would be glad to see the Council call on the Secretary-General and his Special Representative to the Middle East to renew their efforts to promote agreement on the basis of Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.

According to the United States representative, violence by conventional forces and violence by terrorists were to be condemned equally. No Member State should attack another; neither should any State allow its territory to be used for launching terrorist attacks outside its territory, or harbour elements which attacked other States, or their nationals, wherever they might be.

The time had come, he said, when there must be a halt to all acts of terror by all sides. The Council should facilitate the turn from violence to peace, using the framework for an overall settlement which already existed under Council resolution 242 (1967). That resolution had called for a just settlement of the refugee problem; the United States recognized that peace in the Middle East could be achieved only by taking into full account the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians.

The real problem in the Middle East, he emphasized, was how to break the vicious circle of violence. Unless the Council could move from recrimination to even-handed condemnation of all forms of violence, there would be no progress towards peace.

The French representative said that France had always attached particular importance to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. France, he said, deplored and condemned all acts of violence, but it was necessary to draw a distinction between Palestinian terrorism - which was the result of more or less uncontrollable elements - and Israeli counter-terrorism, organized and controlled by a Member State of the United Nations.

In his view, it was asking the impossible to expect that Lebanon should be able to control the legitimate aspirations of some 300,000 refugees living on its territory. The Beirut incident, he added, could only jeopardize the efforts of those seeking a just and lasting peace in the area. France continued to believe that the principles contained in Council resolution 242 (1967) must be applied and that the Secretary-General and his Special Representative should continue their efforts. A resumption of the meetings of the permanent members of the Council could be useful; in the meantime, the Israeli attack must be condemned.

Other Council members, including Australia, India, Panama and Peru, deplored and condemned terrorism wherever it occurred and by whomever it was perpetrated. Indonesia's spokesman considered that the problem of terrorism and counter-terrorism could not be considered apart from its root cause, namely, the injustice inflicted upon the Palestinians and the continued occupation by Israel of Arab territories. He could not condone senseless acts of violence, but he did not view violence committed by desperate and frustrated people in the same light as acts of terrorism committed by a Government.

According to Algeria, Israel was practicing the same terrorism for which it had condemned the Palestinians. In the view of the Syrian Arab Republic, the real question before the Council was the terrorism practiced by Israel as a doctrine, a faith and a cult. Yugoslavia said Israel s latest attack constituted a blatant example of the most threatening kind of international terrorism - namely, terrorism by States.

Several speakers maintained that the rights of the Palestinians were at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East. Tunisia felt that the international community should take action to ensure the application of international law with respect to the Palestinian people; Sudan said that the Palestinians should no longer be called refugees and forced to live on charity, as it was the duty of the United Nations to uphold their rights. In the opinion of Algeria and the Syrian Arab Republic, peace in the area depended upon recognition of the right of the people of Palestine to their land and to the free exercise of their right to self-determination. Saudi Arabia said that as long as there were Palestinian refugees dispersed all over the Arab lands, there could be no peace in the area or anywhere in the world.

On 19 April, France and the United Kingdom submitted a draft resolution whereby the Council would, by the preambular paragraphs, among other things, express its grave concern about the deteriorating situation resulting from the violation of Security Council resolutions and deeply deplore all acts of violence resulting in the loss of life of innocent individuals and the endangering of international civil aviation. The Council would then, by the operative parts of the two-power text:

(1) express deep concern over and deplore all acts of violence which endangered or took innocent human lives;

(2) condemn the repeated military attacks conducted by Israel against Lebanon and Israel's violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty, in contravention of the United Nations Charter, of the Israel-Lebanon Armistice Agreement and of the Security Council's cease-fire resolutions;

(3) call upon Israel to desist forthwith from all military attacks on Lebanon; and

(4) warn Israel that, if such attacks were repeated, the Council would meet to consider what further and more effective steps or measures could be taken to ensure against their repetition.

An amendment to the two-power text was put forward by Guinea, India, Indonesia and Yugoslavia, providing for the addition of a new paragraph at the end of the text by which the Council would call upon all States to refrain from providing any assistance which encouraged such military attacks or impeded the search for a peaceful settlement.

The representative of France introduced a revision of the two-power text which, he said, seemed to meet the essential points of concern expressed in the Council in connexion with Lebanon's complaint. The first operative paragraph was amended so that the Council would condemn instead of deplore all acts of violence which endangered international civil aviation or took innocent human lives. The fourth operative paragraph - by which the Council would warn Israel that it would consider further measures if Israel repeated such attacks - was deleted.

Guinea then withdrew the four power amendment on behalf of its sponsors, explaining that the amendment had referred to the original text and not to the revised text.

On 21 April, the Council adopted the two-power revised draft by 11 votes to 0, with 4 abstentions (China, Guinea, USSR, United States), as resolution 332 (1973). (For text, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

During the Council's discussion of the Lebanese complaint, the representative of Egypt announced that he intended to ask for a full review of the entire Middle East situation by the Council, including specific steps for a thorough examination of United Nations efforts to implement all its resolutions and to apply the basic principles of the United Nations Charter. The Council and the world, he said, had the right and the duty to know whether peace efforts in the Middle East had reached a dead end. He said that the debate taking place on Lebanon's complaint underscored a wider, deeper situation in the Middle East which defied any solution because of the military and financial assistance lent by the United States to Israel - thus underwriting and indeed encouraging Israel's military occupation.

The Egyptian representative then recalled that the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970, 3/ had, among other things, affirmed the inviolability of international boundaries, the prohibition of military occupation, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, as well as the prohibition of armed reprisals. It also fully supported the right of all peoples to self-determination.

The Egyptian representative expressed the hope that the Council would respond favourably to his request to reconvene in the near future in order to review and examine in depth the situation in the Middle East. It should be assisted by a comprehensive report by the Secretary-General on the efforts undertaken by the United Nations pertaining to the situation in the Middle East since June 1967.

He then submitted a draft resolution by which the Security Council would, among other things:

(1) request the Secretary-General to submit to the Security Council a comprehensive report giving full account of the efforts undertaken by the United Nations pertaining to the situation in the Middle East since June 1967;

(2) decide to meet following the submission of that report to examine the situation in the Middle East; and

(3) request the Secretary-General to invite his Special Representative to be available during the Council's meetings to assist it in its deliberations.

The Secretary-General said it should be possible to prepare the proposed report in three to four weeks.

The representative of Jordan said that his country - which had had more than one third of its population under occupation since 1967 - had a direct interest in a serious review of the situation and in early action to roll back Israel's occupation, liberate the people from bondage, restore the rights of the masses of people in exile and establish a just and lasting peace in the area.

Sudan proposed, under rule 58 of the rules of procedure, 4/ that the Council vote on the Egyptian draft resolution, which Sudan hoped would be adopted unanimously. The Council agreed to approve the draft resolution without a vote, and the draft resolution was adopted unanimously on 20 April 1973 as resolution 331 (1973). (For text, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)


Report of Secretary-General of 18 May 1973

On 18 May, the Secretary-General - in response to the Security Council's request of 20 April - submitted a comprehensive report covering the different aspects of the Middle East conflict since 1967, including the status of the cease-fire, the situation in the occupied territories, the question of Jerusalem and the Palestine refugee problem.

In connexion with the search for a settlement, the Secretary-General reviewed the activities of the Special Representative to the Middle East since December 1967, following the adoption of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) on 22 November of that year. He also reviewed the discussions of the General Assembly during the period and its decisions - the latest of which had been its resolution of 8 December 1972 (2949 (XXVII)), by which he had again been requested to report to the Security Council and the Assembly on the progress made by him and his Special Representative.5/

The Secretary-General stated that the basic deadlock remained, the parties having continued to maintain their respective positions, and there had appeared to be no opportunity for useful action by him or his Special Representative. However, the Secretary-General added, he had engaged in continuous discussions with the parties concerned, as well as with numerous other Governments, and had remained alert to any changes of attitude or of procedures that might have led to progress in achieving a peaceful settlement.

For more than 25 years, the Secretary-General noted, the United Nations - in particular the Security Council - had had a major and universally recognized responsibility in relation to the Middle East question and, although the United Nations had not proved able to bring about a just and lasting settlement, various instrumentalities of the United Nations set up by the Council and the Assembly had played an important role in limiting conflict and preserving the tenuous truce that had prevailed in the area for most of that time.

The problem before the Council, he went on to say, was an extremely complex and difficult one which no Government had been able to solve outside the framework of the United Nations. The procedures of the Council still offered valuable possibilities for limiting conflict and assisting the countries of the region to find the way to a solution of their problems if they so wished. The Council, he pointed out, was the only forum where all the parties to the conflict had been able to meet together in the same room.

Noting that the Council was currently resuming the search for peace in the Middle East, he said that he, his Special Representative, the Secretariat and the various instrumentalities of the United nations were at the disposal of the Governments concerned and of the Council itself to assist its efforts in any way possible.

Those efforts could only be useful if the parties concerned wished to avail themselves of them, the Secretary-General said. A new effort to find a way to a settlement should include a new appraisal of the possibilities and procedures of the Council itself for conciliation and an exploration of all the means that could be used to assist the parties in reaching a just and lasting settlement - a settlement long overdue. The tensions and conflicts of the Middle East were a heavy burden not only on the countries of the area but also on the international community itself. He hoped that all concerned would look to the future and take advantage of the international instrumentalities at their disposal to open a new chapter in the history of the Middle East.

Consideration by Security
Council (June 1973)

Following the submission of the Secretary-General's report, the Security Council met from 6 to 14 June, to consider the situation in the Middle East. The representatives of Egypt, Israel and Jordan, as well as those of Algeria, Bahrain, Chad (whose Foreign Minister addressed the Council on 15 June), Guyana, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates and the United Republic of Tanzania were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

Introducing his report, the Secretary-General said that it described great efforts but little progress. The fact remained that a settlement of the Middle East conflict must primarily depend on the Governments concerned. Neither they nor any other group of Governments had so far been able to devise an effective means of reaching such a settlement, and consequently the Middle East problem in its various aspects had been brought again and again to the United Nations.

The Secretary-General said there were certain basic realities which made the problem so difficult. In the Middle East, he observed, there existed in an acute form the interaction of historical developments and situations giving rise to emotion and resentment, to fear and conflict, to a vicious circle of action and reaction, violence and reprisal, and to a series of seemingly insurmountable obstacles to the process of conciliation and settlement.

Further, he went on to say, there were representatives and groupings who represented fundamentally different attitudes to such problems as the Middle East, making it difficult for the Council to act with unanimity. The Council's resumed search for a peaceful settlement had raised hopes of the possibility of progress, but it could not succeed if the parties concerned did not wish to avail themselves of the Council's efforts and its advantages as a forum for discussion and as an instrument for peace.

The representative of Egypt said he had asked the Council to reexamine the Middle East situation after six years of effort and endurance had failed to end the Israeli military occupation of Egyptian territories. The Egyptian people, he added, questioned what the Council could do while Israel changed the physical character of the occupied Arab territories.

In the 25 years since the General Assembly had recommended the partition of Palestine, he said, the world had witnessed the Palestinian people being turned into a nation of refugees. In June 1967, Israel had invaded and occupied the rest of what had been left to the people of Palestine, including Arab Jerusalem and parts of Egypt and Syria.

Egypt's representative went on to say that Israel, contrary to its 1967 declaration that it had no territorial designs against the Arab States, was now insisting that it would never return all the occupied territories and would never go back to the lines of 5 June 1967. All the United Nations resolutions adopted on various aspects of the conflict had remained mere documents; six years after the Israeli military attack of 5 June 1967, the heavy hand of military occupation was still stifling the national life of the afflicted countries. By its policies Israel showed that it was looking not for a peaceful settlement but for any pretext to justify further expansion. It was the Council's responsibility to declare that all changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories were null and void, and Member States should refrain from giving Israel aid that might help it in its continued occupation.

Egypt, he said, had come to the Council to secure immediate Israeli withdrawal from the Arab territories invaded and occupied in 1967. The aspirations of the Palestinian nation would then have to be satisfied and its rights guaranteed. He asked whether Israel accepted the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force. Would it reply in the negative, or not at all? Any so-called partial or interim settlement which would leave Israel in occupation of a part of Egyptian territory was unacceptable, he declared.

Israel's representative said that for 25 years his country had sought peace with Egypt and had attempted repeatedly in the past six years to reach peaceful agreement with Egypt and with the other Arab States. It had repeatedly declared that it sought not to freeze the existing situation or to perpetuate the cease-fire lines but to replace them in peace with secure and agreed boundaries, established through negotiation with each of its Arab neighbours.

After reviewing developments during the period since 1967, and Israel's position during the peace-making efforts, the Israeli representative said that the record had been one of rejected peace proposals, of opportunities brushed aside, of efforts to bring the parties into meaningful exchanges undermined. Had Egypt reacted favourably to these opportunities, peace might already have been achieved, he asserted.

Nevertheless, he continued, Israel did not give up hope for peace and understanding with its neighbours. It would strive for peace with determination to safeguard its rights, but also with understanding and respect for the rights of other States. It was determined to resist all forms of coercion, including various attempts by the Arab States to impose their will. In no circumstances would it relinquish its right under international law to have the boundary of peace established for the first time in the Middle East through negotiation and agreement; nor would it acquiesce in any other change in the substance, balance or interpretation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.

The one method that had not been applied throughout the years was that of dialogue between the parties, the Israeli representative went on to say. The Council should now call on the parties to enter into direct negotiations without any pre-conditions and, in Israel's view, the most practical way would be to begin with talks for the reopening of the Suez Canal. If Egypt recognized Israel's right to independence and sovereignty and sought genuine peace, there could be no reason to hesitate about entering into a serious dialogue with Israel, for the good of all nations in the area.

The spokesman for Jordan said that his country, a major aggrieved party in the conflict, was torn by occupation and suffered daily in economic, human and emotional terms. Over one third of its citizens had been under occupation since June 1967; nearly one third of its total population consisted of displaced persons. Therefore, it had a direct and urgent interest in serious action by the Security Council to end the occupation, liberate the people currently in bondage and establish a just and lasting peace in the area. It was united in that goal with its Arab partners.

For the past six years, he continued, Israel had been actively doing and saying the very opposite of what the United Nations had decided. It was consolidating its occupation and absorbing and transforming the areas under its occupation. Over half a million Arabs from the occupied territories had had to flee the area of hostilities in 1967. East Jordan had received some 400,000 displaced persons, who had not been allowed to return to their homes despite several Security Council and General Assembly resolutions to that purpose. The sum total of what was happening in the occupied territories was a sad and shocking spectacle of national dissolution and displacement. The Council had watched but refrained from taking action because the cease-fire system had not collapsed and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General was still technically engaged in his peace-making operation. Those appearances were deceptive, however, the Jordanian representative declared; it was imperative for the Council to work against freezing the present situation, which was contrary to the very basis of the Charter.

He went on to say that every time the Arab parties had responded positively to the initiatives of the Special Representative, the Security Council or the General Assembly, Israel had met those initiatives negatively. Jordan and its Arab partners had made clear commitments to accept and implement Council resolution 242 (1967), but Israel had neither accepted the principle of withdrawal nor even given the Special Representative Israel's definition of the extent of its so-called secure boundaries. Israel had also rejected any peaceful redress for the Palestinians, including the appeals and demands of the United Nations that they be allowed repatriation to their homes and compensation for their losses. Instead, it was inviting Jews all over the world to emigrate and settle in the homes of Palestinian Arabs.

The representative of Jordan went on to declare that force and militarism governed Israel's approach to the problems it had created with its neighbours. That was why the Council could not accept the role of an observer it was a party, not a third party; it could not remain silent. The conditions of peace and justice were achievable, and the position of his country was simple and reasonable, he said. Jordan wanted the occupation of its national soil to end, and it continued to believe that the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian Arabs must be respected. That was the foundation of a just and lasting peace in the area.

The spokesman for the Syrian Arab Republic wondered whether the Security Council was ready to exercise its power to put an end to the situation in the Middle East or if it would, through inertia, continue to tolerate faits accomplis. In his Government's view, the conflict could not be solved until the problem of Palestine had been settled on the basis of the restoration of the national rights of the Palestinian people.

He went on to say that under the pretext of security, and encouraged by the military, economic political and diplomatic support of the United States, Israel had been guilty of armed aggression against the neighbouring Arab States. It had defied all the resolutions of the United Nations and had consolidated its occupation in the Golan Heights by building colonies, one after the other, as it had done in all other occupied Arab territories. If the acquisition of territories by force was admissible, the United Nations had lost its raison d'etre. If not, the Council must adopt the necessary measures to redress the situation.

The consequences of Israeli aggression, he stated, must be liquidated by the unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all the occupied territories and by the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to their land and to the free exercise of their right to self-determination. Only thus could a climate be created conducive to progress towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Nigeria's representative said that he and his African colleagues had come to the Council as spokesmen of Africa to demonstrate their solidarity with the United Nations and their faith in its resolutions, and to plead that every effort be made to implement resolution 242 (1967) of the Security Council.

The Tanzanian representative warned Israel that unless it heeded the calls of the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries to withdraw from occupied Arab territories, OAU would be compelled to take all political and economic measures against it. He added that the African people - already concerned at the erosion of the authority of the United Nations in dealing with the problem of apartheid - had every reason to be apprehensive at the spectacle of another régime playing havoc with the security and independence of a North African State. Africa expected from the Council firm and positive action to bring an end to the situation in the Middle East.

The spokesmen for Algeria, Bahrain, Guyana, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United Arab Emirates shared the view that the conflict could not be solved until the problem of Palestine had been settled on the basis of the restoration of the national rights of the Palestinian people. No settlement was possible, they believed, as long as the occupation of Arab territories continued.

The United Kingdom's representative said his Government could not regard with equanimity the current fragile situation of "no war, no peace." However, some advances had been made since June 1967 towards the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the area, and it was essential that the Security Council should ensure that that hard-earned ground was retained. He expressed the belief that any just and lasting settlement must take into account the views of all the peoples of the area, including the Palestinians, and that the old international boundary between Egypt and the former Mandated Territory of Palestine should be confirmed in a settlement as the international frontier between Egypt and Israel, subject to whatever arrangement was agreed upon regarding the special problem of Gaza.

The United Kingdom, he said, believed it to be the Council's duty to preserve intact its resolution 242 (1967). It also believed that the mission of the Secretary-General's Special Representative should be retained and provided with new impetus, as it remained the best hope for progress.

The USSR representative said his Government favoured the implementation of all provisions of Council resolution 242 (1967), and firmly opposed attempts to bypass the Security Council and the United Nations in settling the problem. The Council, he insisted, must vigorously demand from Israel respect for and compliance with its decisions, and the USSR was ready to give all possible support to United Nations efforts designed to bring about a settlement on the basis of the implementation of the 1967 resolution and other United Nations decisions.

According to the French representative, Israel's continued occupation of sizable areas of territory belonging to three neighbouring countries obviously constituted a standing violation of principles recognized by the community of nations - in particular, the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. France, he said, understood Israel's concern to safeguard its security, but occupation of territories belonging to neighbouring countries was not likely to ensure that security. That occupation increased resentment, blocked all initiatives and undermined any chance of peace.

The Council, he stated, should clearly reaffirm the validity of resolution 242 (1967) in its totality, bearing in mind that any change would threaten its balance. The Council should speak out in favour of a resumption of the efforts of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative.

Lebanon's spokesman noted that, although his country had not been involved in the 1967 hostilities, it nevertheless had been the victim of several attacks for which Israel had been condemned by the Council. On the wider problem of peace in the Middle East, he said, Lebanon adhered to the principle that peace, to be lasting, must be based on justice for the Palestinian people and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories occupied as a result of the 1967 hostilities. Lebanon had assumed a leading role in defence of the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and - as a country of Christians, Moslems and Jews - had a paramount interest in the problem of Jerusalem.

Australia's spokesman said the Council should seize the opportunity to help the Arab States and Israel in the direction of the kind of settlement they must ultimately reach between themselves. Egypt and Israel had expressed readiness to enter into talks without pre-conditions. Talks between the two countries should aim at bringing about a territorial settlement or series of settlements to replace, on a permanent basis, the temporary arrangements arrived at in 1949 under the Armistice Agreement.

Others, including Austria, India, Indonesia, Panama, Peru and Yugoslavia, emphasized the importance of reaching a settlement on the basis of resolution 242 (1967). They stressed the importance of the principles represented by the resolution, including the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, the emphasis on the political independence of every State in the area, and the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. Peru's spokesman added that the key to true security lay in observance of the principles of coexistence, which implied recognition by the neighbouring Arab countries of the State of Israel, as well as the withdrawal of forces by Israel from the occupied territories and a solution to the problem of the Palestinian people. He said the task now devolving on the Council - having laid down the guidelines for a just and lasting peace - was to ensure compliance with the decision it adopted six years ago, which was still the best instrument available.

The United States representative said that Council resolution 242 (1967) did not define the terms of a settlement: it defined a set of "provisions and principles" constituting a framework for the terms of a final settlement. If the terms to be negotiated were not consistent with all - not merely some - of those provisions and principles they could not form part of a just and lasting peace.

The resolution, he went on, called for agreement, which clearly meant agreement between the parties concerned. The United States believed that no such agreement would be possible without an ongoing, serious negotiating process - direct or indirect - that would engage the parties themselves. Members of the Council should do everything possible to encourage the parties to engage in such a dialogue.

The overriding interest of the United States, he said, was in a peace that would end fear and uncertainty and allow Arab and Israeli alike to reside within secure and recognized boundaries.

The parties must find a way, he continued, to reconcile the two issues of sovereignty and security. The 1967 resolution was silent on the specific question of where the final border between Israel and its neighbours should be located. That question must be viewed in the context of the total thrust and intent of the resolution, and must be resolved as part of the process of reaching agreement on all the complex factors governing a new relationship between the parties to replace that defined in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

The United States, he said, was prepared to support a fresh attempt by the Special Representative, and agreed that the Council had a responsibility to help bring about implementation of the resolution.

The spokesman for China said that as long as the lost territories of the Arab countries were not recovered, and the Palestinian people's national right was not restored, there could be no true settlement of the so-called Middle East question. In recent years, he charged, the two super-powers had been taking advantage of the temporary difficulties facing the Palestinian and other Arab peoples to make dirty political deals at the expense of those peoples' right to national existence and to their territories and sovereignty. The two super-powers were deliberately creating and maintaining a situation of "no war, no peace" in the area, to facilitate their contention for important strategic points and oil resources and the division of spheres of influence.

He went on to say that although China opposed and condemned Israeli Zionist aggression and expansion against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples, it was not opposed to the Jewish people or the people of Israel. His Government held that the Israeli Zionists must be strongly condemned for their prolonged aggression, that the Israeli authorities must be asked to withdraw immediately from Egyptian, Syrian and all other Arab territories they occupied, and that the right of the Palestinians to national existence must be restored.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Council President said that following an exchange of views there was a general understanding that the Security Council would resume its examination of the situation in the Middle East in the middle of July, on a date to be determined following consultations among Council members.

Consideration by Security
Council (July 1973)

The Security Council held three meetings between 20 and 26 July 1973 to continue its examination of the situation in the Middle East. The representatives of the 19 States which had participated in the discussion in June were invited to do so again, without the right to vote. The representative of Tunisia was, at his request, also invited to participate without the right to vote.

The Egyptian representative observed that the United Nations Charter empowered the Security Council to take the measures necessary for implementing its decisions - including, among others, expulsion from membership, diplomatic and economic sanctions and coercive military action against an aggressor. In the six years since the Council discussed the Israeli attack against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, Israel - without an effective deterrent - was still occupying territories of those three Member States and applying a policy of colonization with the aim of creating "new facts" in the area. It was now up to the Council to act. If it failed to act or was indeed prevented from acting, the responsible members of the Council would in fact be abetting Israel in its policy of territorial expansion through the use of force.

The Council's debate in June, the Egyptian rep-resentative said, showed that there was no support whatever for Israel's expansionist policy, but Israel still insisted that no principle and no rule could prejudice the right to self-preservation and defence. According to the Egyptian representative, Israel, by insisting on negotiations while Arab territories were under occupation, was seeking to coerce the Arab countries into conceding to it parts of their homelands.

In these circumstances, he maintained, the only option before the Council was to pronounce itself on the substance of the problem and support the application of Charter principles. The Council should make it clear that Israel's occupation of the territories of three Member States constituted a flagrant violation of the Charter, putting Israel outside the law. It should also invite States to refrain from giving Israel any aid or assistance enabling it to maintain its policy of occupation and coercion.

The Israeli representative said that efforts to attain a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Arab States could not succeed if they were based on the one-sided contention that the main problem was Israeli withdrawal.

The only resolution, he said, that had played any significant role in the Middle East conflict since 1967 was Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. That was because the resolution had been adopted unanimously, following consultation and understanding with the parties. Resolutions not based on the parties' consent could not contribute to the attainment of agreement between them. Although the entire resolution was a series of principles, Egypt, in its demands, had singled out one of its concepts - that of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war - and neglected the others.

In Israel's view, Egypt's demands were contrary not only to resolution 242 (1967) but also to the provisions of the United Nations Charter. Nothing in the Charter deprived a Member State of the right to defend itself, the Israeli representative declared. Furthermore, no Charter principle precluded border changes, especially following the use of force in self-defence, and especially where no secure and recognized international boundaries had existed between the victim of aggression and the States that had waged war against it for two and a half decades.

The Israeli spokesman said that another step to undermine resolution 242 (1967) had been Egypt's demand regarding the alleged issue of the rights of the Palestinians. Egypt would replace the resolution's call for a just settlement of the refugee problem by a provision on Palestinian rights, concealing Egypt's true objectives by invoking the general principle of self-determination. To satisfy the Egyptian demand regarding that principle would mean introducing a new element into the framework of the resolution, thus completely upsetting it and perhaps dismembering the Palestinian Arab State of Jordan.

The Council's discussion in June, he said, had clarified that all participants understood that resolution 242 (1967) envisaged changes in the 1967 lines between Israel and Egypt and other Arab States to ensure secure and recognized boundaries.

It had become increasingly apparent, he observed, that the one method that could bring about agreement between the parties was that of negotiation. No pretext, argument or allegation could justify Egypt's refusal to enter into a genuine dialogue with Israel. If there was now general recognition that negotiations between the parties were essential and inevitable, there could be no reason whatever for delaying them, the Israeli representative declared.

Jordan's representative said that Security Council resolution 242 (1967) had been aimed at ending the occupation and establishing the conditions for a just and stable peace. As a resolution based on balance between withdrawal and territorial integrity on the one hand, and guarantees for peace on the other, it could have meant nothing less than total withdrawal. To Jordan, Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied meant withdrawal based on the lines existing prior to the outbreak of hostilities on 5 June 1967.

He went on to say that the Arab peoples now under occupation - regardless of their technical nationalities - must be granted their full moral rights. They could then readjust and restructure their relationships as they saw fit. For its part, Jordan intended to review the structure of the relationships between the two flanks of its country once the physical obstacle of occupation was ended.

The primary and basic task, Jordan's representative declared, was termination of the occupation, and he hoped the Council would take into account the facts of the situation and the basic principles involved. Jordan, he said, would welcome the effective resumption of the efforts of the Special Representative to help put into effect the terms of resolution 242 (1967). It could not acquiesce in a settlement imposed by military and political forces, but believed peace to be a free undertaking based on the realization of the objective conditions of justice.

The USSR representative said the will of the overwhelming majority of Council members and non-members in the current discussion was endorsement of certain principles, on which the Council could and must establish a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Among these were: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by means of war; the non-use of force in international relations: respect for the territorial integrity and political independence of States in the Middle East and the total and unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli troops from all occupied Arab territories; respect for the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine; and the need for compliance with Council resolution 242 (1967) in all its parts and provisions.

However, he said, the key question had always been and continued to be the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all occupied Arab territories, resolution of that important question on the basis of respect for territorial integrity, and a guarantee of the legitimate rights of all States and peoples of the area, including the Arab people of Palestine.

On 25 July, a draft resolution was submitted to the Council by Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan and Yugoslavia.

By the preambular part of the text the Security Council would, among other things, emphasize its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It would also emphasize that all United Nations Members were committed to respect the Council's resolutions in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and it would reaffirm its resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.

By the operative paragraphs of the draft, the Council would:

(1) deeply regret that the Secretary-General had been unable to report any significant progress by him or by his Special Representative in carrying out the terms of resolution 242 (1967), and that nearly six years after its adoption a just and lasting peace in the Middle East had still not been achieved;

(2) strongly deplore Israel's continuing occupation of the territories occupied as a result of the 1967 conflict, contrary to the principles of the Charter;

(3) express serious concern at Israel's lack of co-operation with the Special Representative;

(4) support the initiatives of the Special Representative taken in conformity with his mandate and contained in his aide-memoire of 8 February 1971; 6/

(5) express its conviction that a just and peaceful solution to the problem of the Middle East could be achieved only on the basis of respect for national sovereignty, territorial integrity, the rights of all States in the area and for the rights and legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians;

(6) declare that in the occupied territories no changes which might obstruct a peaceful and final settlement or adversely affect the political and other fundamental rights of all the inhabitants in those territories should be introduced or recognized;

(7) request the Secretary-General and his Special Representative to resume and to pursue their efforts to promote a just and peaceful solution of the Middle East problem:

(8) decide to afford them all support and assistance for the discharge of their responsibilities;

(9) call upon all parties concerned to extend to them full co-operation; and

(10) decide to remain seized of the problem and meet again urgently whenever it became necessary.

Statements supporting the draft were made by several of the sponsors. Indonesia said it would have preferred a stronger text clearly demanding the withdrawal of Israel from occupied Arab territories. However, it had been prepared to go a long way to accommodate the views of others in the hope that the draft could obtain the necessary votes for adoption by the Council.

In Israel's view, the draft text distorted Council resolution 242 (1967) by selectively taking out of context some of its principles, such as territorial integrity. It dealt in a similar manner with the numerous ideas put to the parties since 1967 by the Special Representative. It referred to Israel's occupation of territories, although it was clear from resolution 242 (1967) that the cease-fire lines were to be replaced by secure and recognized boundaries to be determined in peace agreements by Israel and its neighbours.

The Israeli representative pointed out that the draft also contained an unwarranted assertion concerning the force of the Council's resolutions. In fact, only resolutions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter 7/ could be said to be mandatory. The implication of the draft resolution would be destructive and would mean the end of resolution 242 (1967) as an agreed basis for a settlement. It would cripple the ability of the United Nations to play a role in the Middle East situation, he maintained, and would constitute a serious set-back for the prospects of initiating negotiation and agreement.

The spokesman for France said he would vote in favour of the draft resolution because it met the basic needs which should be the primary concern of the Council. Confronted by the dangers of a situation that was a standing threat to international peace and security, it was for the Council to reaffirm its specific responsibility, to find a solution acceptable to the parties and to support the efforts of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative. The only new element in the draft in relation to Council resolution 242 (1967)) was the reference to the rights of the Palestinians, but that reference, which was already contained in the General Assembly's resolution (2949 (XXVII)) of 8 December 1972, 8/ only reflected the growing concern of the international community as expressed in a whole series of official declarations.

The USSR representative supported the fundamental idea of the draft resolution, which was the need to preserve and use the existing machinery of the United Nations to ensure a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. The USSR agreed with the provision to the effect that a just peace could be achieved only on the basis of respect for the national sovereignty, territorial integrity and rights of all States in the area and also for the lawful rights and aspirations of the Arab people of Palestine. The USSR, he said, would have preferred the draft to include a paragraph on the need for the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of all Israeli troops from all occupied territories.

The representative of Panama said the draft resolution contained a certain number of constructive elements on which the majority of Council members had already agreed. If those elements were supported and approved by the Council, constructive steps would have been taken towards the achievement of peace in the Middle East.

On 26 July 1973, the Council voted on the eight-power draft resolution. It received 13 votes in favour to 1 against (United States), with 0 abstentions; China did not participate in the voting. It was not adopted, owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of the Council.

Following the vote, the Chinese representative said that a Security Council resolution on the Middle East question must strongly condemn the Israeli Zionists for their prolonged aggression and must ask for their immediate withdrawal from Arab territories they had occupied. It must call on all Governments and peoples to support the Palestinians and other Arab peoples in their just struggle to resist aggression, to recover their territories and to restore their national rights. According to China, the Middle East question was one of aggression versus anti-aggression, a question of the Palestinians and other Arab peoples striving for national independence and their national rights, and a question of opposing interference by the super-powers, which were contending for spheres of influence in the Middle East.

The representative of China said that because the draft resolution had failed to reflect fully the principles of the Charter and China's position, his Government had decided not to participate in the voting.

Guinea's spokesman said the draft resolution had represented a strict minimum of progress towards a solution of the Middle East problem. Guinea, he said, noted with regret and disappointment the negative vote of the United States, a vote which not only rendered even more remote the chance of peace in the Middle East, but reinforced the determination of the peoples of the occupied territories to continue their liberation struggle.

The representative of Australia considered the text lacking in balance, and had hesitated before voting for it because it made no specific mention of the ultimate necessity for negotiations between the parties directly concerned.

In the view of the United States representative, the draft resolution was highly partisan and unbalanced. Its adoption could only have added another obstacle to getting serious negotiations started between the parties. It would have fundamentally changed Council resolution 242 (1967), the one agreed basis on which a settlement could be constructed. The United States, he said, had done its utmost to avoid that result, having presented to the sponsors a series of reasonable amendments to correct the shortcomings of the draft. The text had also failed to take notice of several other fundamental elements of resolution 242 (1967), which remained the only hope if ultimately there was to be both a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. The representative of Kenya believed that the solution to the Middle East situation lay in honest vindication, affirmation and implementation of the formulas and principles contained in Council resolution 242 (1967). Kenya had supported the draft resolution in order, he said, to register Kenya's complete rejection of occupation of the territories of other States by force, to register its support for the rights of the Palestinians, and to exemplify commitment to the Charter and the principles of international law.

The United Kingdom representative said his vote in favour of the draft resolution marked no change in the position which successive British Governments had taken on the middle East question since the adoption of Council resolution 242 (1967). The draft resolution, he believed, reaffirmed the 1967 resolution, which reconciled the Arab requirement for Israeli withdrawal with the Israeli requirement for secure and recognized boundaries and continued to provide the only firm foundation on which a settlement could be built. Any peace in the Middle East must take account of the legitimate interests and aspirations of the Palestinians.

He went on to say that non-adoption of the draft should not be allowed to obscure the unanimity among Council members on a number of elements contained in it. There was full agreement on the request to the Secretary-General and his Special Representative to resume and pursue their efforts to promote a just and peaceful solution of the problem. It was the Council's task to do what it could to provide renewed impetus to the diplomatic process.

According to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Council had found itself unable to impose upon Israel the application of the principles of the Charter because of the negative attitude of the United States, which had paralysed all efforts to that end and which continued to do so every time the roots or ramifications of the Palestinian question were under discussion. Unless the Arab people of Palestine had their inalienable rights restored to them and unless Israel withdrew from all the occupied Arab territories, Zionist aggression would persist interminably and the security of the region would thus remain vulnerable. Any resolution which failed to embody these two conditions without the least ambiguity could not contribute to peace in the Middle East. Israel had been able to pursue its expansionist policy only because of the material, military and moral support provided by the United States. Thus, he declared, the United States rallied to the side of the aggressor against its victims, once again confirming its policy by vetoing a draft resolution which, in any case, lacked clarity on the two above-mentioned conditions - the rights of the Palestinians and Israel's total withdrawal from occupied territories.

In August 1973, in the introduction to his report on the work of the Organization, the Secretary-General noted that the Security Council had made a new effort - the first since 1967 - to tackle the problem of the Middle East as a whole. He recalled the efforts made during the previous six years, both within and outside the United Nations, to assist the parties in finding a just and lasting settlement to the problem, and that he and his predecessor had worked to that end with the Special Representative - constantly on the alert for new approaches which might offer some promise of success. However, in spite of all these efforts and the recent deliberations of the Security Council, a peace settlement in the Middle East remained elusive.

The intractable nature of the complex problem, he said, lay not only in the deep emotions it aroused in all the protagonists concerned, but also in the fundamental principles involved - the sanctity of the territorial integrity of States, the right of every State to be secure within its territorial boundaries, and the inalienable right of self-determination of peoples.

The Secretary-General warned that "time is not on our side in this highly explosive situation." While much could be done through the United Nations to reduce tension and prevent escalation, the search for a settlement was crucial and must continue. In that search, he said, the co-operation of the parties concerned was of decisive importance.

From 12 April to 5 October 1973, the Secretary-General continued to circulate reports received almost daily from the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization concerning incidents in the Israel-Lebanon sector. The reports indicated that personnel of the Israeli armed forces had continued to cross the Lebanese border and occupy some border points. The reports also contained complaints by Lebanon about flights of Israeli aircraft over Lebanese territory, and the entering of Lebanese territorial waters by Israeli boats.

From 13 to 15 August, the Security Council considered a Lebanese complaint concerning a Lebanese civilian aircraft, leased to Iraq, which was alleged to have been intercepted by Israeli aircraft over Lebanese territory and diverted to Israel. The Council, at the conclusion of its discussion, adopted resolution 337 (1973) on the question. (For details, see pp. 249-52.)

Documentary references

Egypt-Israel sector
S/7930/Add.1951, 2028, 2037, 2038, 2073, 2092. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General dated 5 April, 20, 28 and 29 June, and 2 and 20 August 1973.

Israel-Syria sector
S/7930/Add.1853-1856, 1858, 1860-1862, 1864-1867, 1870, 1872-1874, 1876, 1877, 1882, 1883. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, January 1973.
S/7930/Add.1887, 1890-1893, 1895-1897, 1899, 1901-1903 1905, 1909-1915. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, February 1973.
S/7930/Add.1916, 1917, 1919-1921, 1923, 1924 and Corr.1, 1926, 1928, 1929, 1931, 1934, 1935, 1937, 1940-1945, 1947. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, March 1973.
S/7930/Add.1949, 1950, 1953-1956, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1964-1978. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, April 1973.
S/7930/Add.1979-1990, 1992, 1993, 1996-2001, 2009. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, May 1973.
S/7930/Add.2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018-2022, 2024, 2026-2033, 2035, 2038-2040. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, June 1973.
S/7930/Add.2041-2043, 2048, 2050-2053, 2055-2063, 2065, 2067-2069, 2071, 2072. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, July 1973.
S/7930/Add.2073, 2074, 2078, 2079, 2081, 2084, 2086-2090, 2092-2102, 2104. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, August 1973.
S/7930/Add.2106 and Corr.1, 2108, 2109, 2111-2113, 2115-2118, 2120, 2123, 2125-2131, 2135. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, September 1973.
S/7930/Add.2136, 2137, 2139. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, 1-5 October 1973.
S/10860 (A/8999). Letter of 9 January 1973 trom Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10861 (A/9034). Letter of 16 January 1973 from Israel.
S/10996 (A/9151). Letter of 14 September 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10998 and Corr.1 (A/9152 and Corr.1). Letter of 14 September 1973 from Israel.

Israel-Lebanon sector

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS TO
SECURITY COUNCIL (JANUARY-12 APRIL 1973)
S/7930/Add.1853-1860, 1862, 1863, 1865-1884. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, January 1973.
S/7930/Add.1885-1898, 1900-1911, 1913-1915. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, February 1973.
S/7930/Add.1916-1923, 1924 and Corr.1, 1925-1947. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, March 1973.
S/7930/Add.1948-1959. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, 1-11 April 1973.
S/10824/Add.1,2. Addenda dated 22 February and 2 April 1973 to report of Secretary-General concerning increase in number of United Nations observation posts and military observers in Israel-Lebanon sector.
S/10885. Letter of 21 February 1973 from Lebanon.
S/10887. Letter of 21 February 1973 from Israel.
S/10907. Letter of 30 March 1973 from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.
S/10911. Letter of 11 April 1973 from Lebanon.
S/10912. Letter of 11 April 1973 from Israel.
S/10915. Letter of 12 April 1973 from Algeria.

CONSIDERATION BY SECURITY COUNCIL (APRIL 1973)

Security Council, meetings 1705-1711.

S/10916 and Rev.1. France and United Kingdom: draft resolution and revision.
S/10917. Guinea, India, Indonesia, Yugoslavia: amendment to 2-power draft resolution, S/10916.

Resolution 332 (1973), as proposed by 2 powers, S/10916/Rev.1, adopted by Council on 21 April 1973, meeting 1711, by 11 votes to 0, with 4 abstentions (China, Guinea, USSR, United States).

The Security Council,

Having considered the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/1705,

Having noted the contents of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations (S/10913),

Having heard the statements of the representatives of Lebanon and Israel,

Grieved at the tragic loss of civilian life,

Gravely concerned at the deteriorating situation resulting from the violation of Security Council resolutions,

Deeply deploring all recent acts of violence resulting in the loss of life of innocent individuals and the endangering of international civil aviation,

Recalling the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon of 23 March 1949 and the cease-fire established pursuant to resolutions 233 (1967) of 6 June 1967 and 234 (1967) of 7 June 1967,

Recalling its resolutions 262 (1968) of 31 December 1968, 270 (1969) of 26 August 1969, 280 (1970) of 19 May 1970 and 316 (1972) of 26 June 1972,

1. Expresses deep concern over and condemns all acts of violence which endanger or take innocent human lives;

2. Condemns the repeated military attacks conducted by Israel against Lebanon and Israel's violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations, of the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon and of the Council's cease-fire resolutions;

3. Calls upon Israel to desist forthwith from all military attacks on Lebanon.

S/10913. Letter of 12 April 1973 from Lebanon (request to convene Council).
S/10918. Egypt: draft resolution.

Resolution 331 (1973), as proposed by Egypt, S/10918, adopted without vote by Council on 20 April 1973, meeting 1710.

The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Arab Republic of Egypt,

1. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the Security Council as early as possible a comprehensive report giving full account of the efforts undertaken by the United Nations pertaining to the situation In the Middle East since June 1967;

2. Decides to meet, following the submission of the Secretary-General's report, to examine the situation in the Middle East;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to invite Mr. Gunnar Jarring, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, to be available during the Council's meetings in order to render assistance to the Council in the course of its deliberations.

REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL OF 18 MAY 1973
S/10929. Report of Secretary-General; dated 18 May 1973, under Security Council resolution 331 (1973) of 20 April 1973.

CONSIDERATION BY SECURITY
COUNCIL (JUNE 1973)

Security Council, meetings 1717-1726, 1728.

S/10929. Report of Secretary-General, dated 18 May-1973, under Security Council resolution 331 (1973) of 20 April 1973.
S/10942. Letter of 6 June 1973 from Morocco.
S/10943. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting text of resolution adopted by Assembly of Heads of State and Government of OAU at its 10th ordinary session, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 27-29 May 1973).
S/10944. Letter of 7 June 1973 trom Guyana (transmitting text of resolution adopted by Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non-Aligned Countries, Georgetown, Guyana, 8-12 August 1972).
S/10948. Documentation submitted by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt in course of his statement at 1723rd meeting of Security Council on 12 June 1973. Security Council representatives who explained their vote before or after vote on resolution 242 (1967) on 20 and 22 November 1967 on territorial integrity of States in Middle East.

CONSIDERATION BY SECURITY
COUNCIL (JULY 1973)

Security Council, meetings 1733-1735.

S/10929. Report of Secretary-General, dated 18 May 1973, under Security Council resolution 331 (1973) of 20 April 1973.
S/10974. Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, rejected, owing to negative vote of permanent member, by Council on 26 July 1973, meeting 1735, by 13 votes In favour to 1 against (United States) (China did not participate in voting).

INTRODUCTION TO SECRETARY-GENERAL'S REPORT

A/9001/Add.1. Introduction to report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, August 1973, Section V.

REPORTS (12 APRIL-5 OCTOBER 1973)

S/7930/Add.1960-1967, 1969-1978. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, 12-30 April 1973.
S/7930/Add.1979-2009. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, May 1973.
S/7930/Add.2010-2036, 2038-2040. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, June 1973.
S/7930/Add.2041-2051, 2053-2072. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, July 1973.
S/7930/Add.2073-2105. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, August 1973.
S/7930/Add.2106 and Corr.1, 2107-2135. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, September 1973.
S/7930/Add.2136-2140. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, 1-5 October 1973.


The situation after 6 October 1973

Reports on outbreak of hostilities;
communications by the parties

On 6 October 1973, heavy general air and ground activity in the Israel-Syria and Suez Canal sectors was reported by the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO).

United Nations observation posts situated on the east bank of the Suez Canal reported intense exchanges of artillery, tank and mortar fire, as well as intense aerial activity involving jet rocket attacks and anti-aircraft fire. Egyptian forces had crossed the Canal at five points, it was reported.

In the Israel-Syria sector, United Nations observation posts reported intense artillery and tank fire. Syrian forces had crossed the Syrian forward defended localities near Quneitra. Also reported were bomb and rocket attacks by Syrian and Israeli jet aircraft.

Reports from the Israel-Lebanon sector were of many overflights by Israeli and unidentified aircraft in southern Lebanon.

In transmitting the reports, the Secretary-General said that, since the first news of the outbreak of fighting reached him, he had been in constant consultations with the parties concerned and with the President and members of the Security Council. In the field, he said, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO had addressed an appeal to the parties to cease all military activity and adhere strictly to the cease-fire. Also on 6 October, in a letter to the President of the Security Council, the Syrian Arab Republic said that during that day Israeli armed forces had launched a military attack against Syrian forward positions all along the cease-fire line. Syrian forces had had to return the fire, the letter added. Formations of Israeli aircraft had penetrated Syrian air space in the northern sector of the front, leading to confrontation with the Syrian air force. The battle was still raging on land and in the air, the letter said, revealing Israel's intention of waging a total war.

Also on 6 October, Egypt, in a letter to the President of the General Assembly, said that Israeli air formations had that morning attacked Egyptian forces in the area of the Gulf of Suez, while Israeli naval units were simultaneously approaching the western coast of the Gulf. These units had been engaged by Egyptian forces, the letter said.

In a letter to the Secretary-General on 7 October, Israel stated that Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic had, on 6 October, launched a sudden, unprovoked attack against Israel across the cease-fire lines. The fact of the aggression had been confirmed by United Nations military observers in the two sectors concerned. The letter said that when Israel became aware that such an attack was imminent, it was made clear that Israel would not itself initiate military action. Israel's Foreign Minister had at the same time apprised the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council of the situation, the letter added.

On 8 October, the General Assembly decided to hear statements on the Middle East situation by the representatives of Egypt, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, at their request. (For details, see pp. 210-11 below.)

In a letter to the Secretary-General dated 9 October, Lebanon complained that Israel's air force had that day invaded Lebanon's air space and destroyed radar installations in central Lebanon, 18 miles east of Beirut. In the south, heavy formations of Israeli aircraft had daily overflown the region, on their way to or from the combat area in the Syrian Arab Republic. The letter also said that gunboats had penetrated Lebanon's territorial waters and Israeli mortar-guns had shelled different points in the border region of southern Lebanon.

Lebanon, the letter said, trusted that the Security Council - particularly at a time when Israel was launching widespread acts of aggression against the Arab States - would act to prevent the repetition of Israeli attacks on Lebanon and the widening of the area of conflict.

In subsequent reports, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO said that in the Suez Canal sector there was less intense but continued exchange of fire between the two sides, in addition to continued aerial activity with rocket-firing and bombing by both sides. In the Israel-Syria sector, Syrian tanks, armoured personnel carriers, infantry and vehicles continued to cross the Syrian forward defended localities. In the Israel-Lebanon sector, United Nations military observers reported that Israeli personnel had reoccupied certain positions.

On several occasions, the Chief of Staff reported that there had been firing on or close to United Nations personnel and installations; observation posts in the Suez Canal and Israel-Syria sectors had sustained damage. On 7 October, he reported that the personnel of two posts in the Israel-Syria sector had had to be evacuated to Damascus.

On 8 October, the Secretary-General informed the President of the Security Council that Egypt had requested the evacuation to Cairo of United Nations military observers in the Suez Canal sector. Egypt considered that because the observers were behind Egyptian lines, they were in physical danger and their presence was unnecessary. It was subsequently agreed during consultations between the President and members of the Council that the Secretary-General should accede to Egypt's request.

On 9 October, the Chief of Staff reported that the Egyptian authorities had requested the immediate evacuation of the observers to Cairo and that he had replied that the request should be made to the Security Council which, in July 1967, had established the United Nations observation operation in the Suez Canal sector. However, in view of the request made by Egypt's military authorities in the field that all observers should be evacuated without delay, he had had no alternative but to allow the evacuation.

Consequently, the Chief of Staff went on to report, seven observation posts on the west bank of the Canal had been closed. On the east bank, five posts had been closed, three had remained operational, and contact has been lost with one since 6 October. [Subsequently it was learned that the two United Nations military observers who had been on duty there - Captain G. Banse of France and Captain C. Olivieri of Italy - had been killed.]

The Chief of Staff also reported that in the Israel-Syria sector all observation posts except three had continued to function. Two posts had been closed and their observers evacuated to Damascus by Syrian forces. The observers at the third had been transferred to another post.

No change was reported with regard to the observation operation along the Israel-Lebanon sector.

In a further report dated 9 October, the Chief of Staff reported that, following the evacuation of the remaining two observation posts in the Suez Canal sector, there were no observation operations there. Consequently, and until the redeployment of United Nations military observers in that sector, the reports of the Chief of Staff covered only the Israel-Syria and Israel-Lebanon sectors.

On 9 October, the Chief of Staff reported the death of a United Nations military observer, Captain Didrik B. Tjorswaag of Norway, together with his wife and daughter, during an air attack on Damascus.


Consideration by Security
Council (8-12 October 1973)

On 7 October, the United States representative requested a meeting of the Security Council to consider the situation in the Middle East, bearing in mind that, in accordance with Article 24 of the United Nations Charter, 9/ the Members of the United Nations had conferred primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security on the Security Council.

The Council held four meetings on the question between 8 and 12 October. At their request, the representatives of Egypt, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic were invited to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. Subsequently, the representatives of Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Zambia were extended similar invitations.

The United States representative pointed out that, for the first time in more than three years, armed hostilities had broken out on a massive scale in the Middle East, breaking the cease-fire. Reports based on United Nations sources appeared to indicate that the air attacks in the Golan Heights had been initiated by Syrian MIC aircraft and that the first firing on the Suez front had been from west to east.

Very shortly before the initial attacks had taken place, he went on, the United States had immediately undertaken intensive diplomatic efforts, including direct discussions with Israel and Egypt. Others had pursued parallel efforts. Unfortunately, those efforts had not prevented the outbreak of hostilities, and intense fighting was continuing.

In his view, the Council's purpose was to help promote a solution for the tense and dangerous situation. The United States considered that in a situation where fighting was raging unchecked the most appropriate means must be found for halting the military operations. Then conditions must be restored in the area that would be conducive to a settlement of the long-standing differences there. There must also be respect for the rights and positions of all the States in the region. The parties concerned must return to the positions held before hostilities broke out. In all its efforts, the Council must be mindful of the need for universal respect for the integrity of those instruments and principles of settlement for the Middle Eastern dispute which had received the adherence of the interested parties and the support of the Council's authority.

The representative of Egypt recalled that on 6 June he had come to the Council to review efforts to secure the implementation of the peaceful settlement as endorsed by the principal political organs of the United Nations, and to seek the Council's support to put an end to Israel's occupation of part of Egypt and of two other Arab States. However, the collective will of the Council had been rendered inoperative by the veto of the United States.

He went on to charge that Israel advocated a policy of conquest, occupation and territorial expansion, claiming that its occupation of Arab territories was an act of defence. That policy, together with the annexation of Arab Jerusalem and the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories, illustrated the policy of territorial expansion declared by both the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister of Israel. He rejected the suggestion that the parties be asked to return to the positions occupied before hostilities had broken out on 6 October, as that would mean that one party was called upon to give up part of its country for another to occupy.

China's representative said that the Israeli Zionists - with the connivance of the super-powers - had been pursuing a policy of aggression and expansion over a long period. They had not only maintained their illegal occupation of Arab territories but, on 6 October, had flagrantly launched large-scale attacks against Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Palestinian guerrillas. The Chinese Government and people, he said, strongly condemned these new acts of aggression, and at the same time admired those who were heroically resisting Israel's aggression.

The suggestion that Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic should withdraw to their positions prior to their counter-attack against the aggressor was, he asserted, an open encouragement to aggression and permission for the Israeli aggressors to perpetuate their occupation of Arab territories. The two super-powers had connived at and supported Israel's policies of expansion and aggression and, by advertising their fallacious argument about the so-called detente, their purpose had been to lull the will of the Arab and Palestinian peoples to fight against aggression. The people of the area had taken courageous and bold action and broken through the situation of "no war, no peace" to resist and expel the aggressors, China's representative declared.

The Israeli representative said he had that morning made a statement in another United Nations organ concerning the massive armed attack launched against Israel, on the Day of Atonement, from the west and the north, and the cruel loss and suffering it had caused. He said that the door of negotiation was open to Middle Eastern Governments - negotiation that would replace war by peace, hostility by co-operation, cease-fire lines by agreed and recognized boundaries. After all, he said, everything else had been tried. Surely the time had come to embark on the adventure of a negotiated peace.

The spokesman for the United Kingdom said that the first objective for the Council was to secure the earliest possible end to the fighting, which carried with it grave risks that the conflagration would spread. The Council should not engage at that time in attempts to apportion blame and should resist the temptation to look backwards. The United Kingdom, he said, still regarded the prescription set out in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 10/ as the corner-stone of any settlement. The Council's two immediate responsibilities were to issue an urgent call for a cessation of the fighting and to treat the tragic events as a catalyst for starting a genuine diplomatic process to achieve the peaceful settlement that had for too long eluded the Council.

According to the USSR representative, the solution to the problem should be sought by resolving the question of Israel's withdrawal from occupied Arab territories. In his opinion, what was required was not a new decision but, rather, to ensure that previous United Nations decisions were put into effect. That meant that both parties to the conflict should state clearly their readiness to comply with those decisions. Egypt had given its consent, but Israel had so far failed to do so. What was needed first and foremost was for Israel to state its readiness to proceed immediately to a withdrawal of its troops from the occupied Arab territories.

The USSR representative insisted that any discussion of the situation in the Middle East could not be isolated from previous decisions of the Council and the General Assembly requiring the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Arab territories occupied since 1967. Without a clear-cut statement by Israel of its readiness to withdraw, any new resolution would once again be exploited by the aggressor to divert attention from the key issue and to continue its occupation, appropriation and annexation of the lands of others.

The French representative said that France remained in favour of a negotiated solution in accordance with the United Nations resolutions and, in particular, Council resolution 242 (1967). It would be futile, he said, to attempt to impose on the adversaries provisional measures which would settle nothing, or to impose on them commitments which were not coupled with sufficient guarantees. The time had come for the Council to attack the roots of the evil rather than confine itself to examining present events.

He went on to say that there was more or less general agreement on the principles contained in Council resolution 242 (1967) but no agreement on their implementation: the fact of occupation - because it created relationships of inequality - constituted the major obstacle. In France's view it was up to the Council above all to promote the rapprochement of the parties in a common quest for a negotiated settlement to which the international community would provide the indispensable guarantees.

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said that once again his country had been the victim of a war of aggression launched by Israel. Because of the improper use of the right of veto by the United States, Israel had increased its attacks against the Arab countries, and, having sabotaged the activity of the Security Council, was conducting a policy of obstruction designed to prevent any peaceful and just solution to the problem. Commenting on the call for a return to the positions held before 6 October and for negotiations for an agreement on secure borders, he said that no country could agree to negotiate while its territory was occupied by a foreign power and while the occupier declared that it would never agree to withdraw from the major part of the occupied territory.

Austria's spokesman said that one objective must take precedence over all others: to put an end to the sacrifice of human life, to stop hostilities without delay. A call for an immediate cease-fire should be the primary task of the Security Council. In Indonesia's view, too, the Council should act speedily to achieve a cease-fire. The parties should return to their original positions, following the line established before the outbreak of the June 1967 war. Real peace could only be expected to return to the Middle East if the rights of the Palestinians were recognized and respected.

India's representative said it would be unfair and unjust for the Council to ask for a cease-fire that would leave vast territories of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic illegally occupied by Israel. Unless withdrawal took place, Egypt had made it clear that there could be no negotiations. India, he said, supported that view. Sudan's representative said that to call for a cease-fire on humanitarian grounds was transparently hypocritical. Other grounds were needed. This was not a war of revenge, he asserted, but a move to liberate the occupied territories. Any political solution must come to grips with two basic facts: the totally unacceptable occupation of Arab territory and the emergence of the national consciousness of the Palestinian people.

At the Council's meeting on 11 October, the Secretary-General referred to a statement he had issued that day in which he expressed his deep concern that after five days of heavy fighting, causing appalling losses, none of the parties was prepared to concede its objectives, either military or political. If the war continued, it would pose an increasing threat to international peace and security. It was his duty as Secretary-General to urge the members of the Security Council to consider once again how the primary role of the Council could be reasserted in the interests of peace.

The Secretary-General went on to say that he had no illusions about how difficult it was for countries to turn from war to peace, nor did he wish to deflect any Government from what it believed to be its legitimate sovereign aims. He did, however, question whether continuation of the war could possibly achieve those aims, and he expressed deep concern at the wider threat to international peace and security.

The Secretary-General appealed to the conflicting Governments to consider alternative courses, before it was too late, so that fighting and bloodshed might cease. He hoped that the members of the Council, and other Member States, would redouble their efforts to seek an end to the fighting and an immediate resumption of the quest for a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East.

The USSR representative, referring to press reports concerning casualties among USSR citizens in Damascus as a result of Israeli air raids, said that having been enraged by their defeats on the military fronts, the Israeli aggressors had decided to bomb peaceful areas of cities as a matter of vengeance. Israel must bear responsibility for the loss of human life and property damage caused by its barbaric actions.

A number of Council members expressed their condolences to the Secretary-General on the death of United Nations personnel, and to Governments whose nationals had reportedly fallen victim to the conflict in the Middle East.

The Council did not consider any draft resolutions during the meetings, and on 12 October decided to reconvene at a date to be determined after consultations.

Reports and communications (8-23 October)

In the period following the outbreak of hostilities, the representative of Israel presented a series of complaints to the Council concerning terrorist attacks on civilian targets in Israel which, it maintained, had been perpetrated by infiltrators who had entered Israel from Lebanese territory. Israel declared that Lebanon must be held responsible for that situation and all the consequences arising therefrom. These charges were made in letters received during October 1978 and subsequently.

Between 8 and 23 October, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO continued to report on the situation in the Israel-Syria and Israel-Lebanon sectors.

In the Israel-Syria sector, he reported intense firing from both sides by artillery, mortar-guns, small arms, machine-guns and tanks, as well as aerial activity and anti-aircraft fire. One observation post, which had been under continuous fire from both sides, had had to be evacuated on 19 October. The nine posts which remained open continued to function despite damage.

In the Israel-Lebanon sector, the Chief of Staff reported aerial activity involving overflights of southern Lebanon by Israeli aircraft and firing by Israeli and unidentified forces.

On 22 October, the Chief of Staff reported further on the status of the United Nations observation posts and observers. All posts in the Suez Canal sector had been evacuated; their observers were based at Cairo (42), and Jerusalem (39). Eight posts in the Israel-Syria sector had been closed with eight continuing to function; observers were based at Damascus (47) and Tiberias (41). In the Israel-Lebanon sector the five posts there remained fully operational; 32 observers were based in Beirut. In the Israel-Jordan sector, two observers were posted at the UNTSO Liaison Office at Amman.

Consideration by Security Council
(21/22 and 23 October 1973)

When the Security Council met on 21 October, the President said the meeting had been convened at the urgent request of the USSR and the United States. The representatives of Egypt, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, at their request, were invited to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. Nigeria and Saudi Arabia were subsequently extended similar invitations.

Before the Council was a draft resolution submitted jointly by the USSR and the United States, by which the Council would:

(1) call upon all parties to the current fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they occupied;

(2) call upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) 11/ in all its parts; and

(3) decide that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

The United States representative said the aim of the joint draft resolution was to bring an immediate cease-fire in place and to begin negotiations promptly between the parties, under appropriate auspices, looking towards a just and durable peace based on Council resolution 242 (1967). He added that both the United States and the USSR were ready to make their joint good offices available to the parties as a means to facilitate the negotiating process. They also believed that there should be an immediate exchange of prisoners of war.

The USSR representative said that the absence of a political settlement in the Middle East had caused the war to continue, creating a situation in the area which seriously menaced the maintenance of international peace. The dangerous situation required that the Security Council take the most urgent and immediate measures to call a halt to the bloodshed and move towards a practical and peaceful settlement on the basis of its resolution 242 (1967). He urged Council members to take immediate action on the draft resolution.

The spokesman for the United Kingdom said that in the 17 days since the war began, the Council had been unable to discharge what he had considered to be its two immediate responsibilities, namely, to seek the earliest possible cease-fire, and to treat the renewal of hostilities as a catalyst for starting a genuine diplomatic process which would lead to a settlement.

It was clear, he said, that a solution was not to be found by military means. The only prescription for a settlement which commanded unanimous agreement was resolution 242 (1967) and all energies could now be devoted to the implementation of that resolution in all its parts. The United Kingdom, he said, would vote in favour of the draft resolution sponsored by the USSR and the United States, believing it to offer a unique opportunity to stop the fighting and start real progress towards a settlement. His Government interpreted the reference in the text to "appropriate auspices" to mean that efforts would be pursued under the aegis of the United Nations. He urged the United States and the USSR to stop supplying arms to the area once the cease-fire became effective; the United Kingdom, he said, had suspended all arms shipments to the battlefield as soon as hostilities had broken out.

The French representative supported the draft resolution because, in his view, it met the necessity of putting an immediate end to a struggle that had claimed far too many victims. It also provided for the implementation of resolution 242 (1967) in all its parts. France, he said, stood by its interpretation of that resolution, in particular with regard to withdrawal; it also stood by its conception of the role of the Security Council and its permanent members in the peace settlement and its implementation. Therefore, negotiations "under appropriate auspices," as indicated in the draft resolution, could only mean that they would be conducted under the aegis of the Security Council.

China's representative said the draft text failed to reflect China's position that any resolution adopted by the Council ought to condemn all acts of aggression by Israeli Zionists, support the Egyptian, Syrian and Palestinian peoples in resisting aggression, demand the immediate withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Arab territories, and explicitly provide for the national rights of the Palestinians. The two super-powers, he asserted, had hurriedly introduced the draft and demanded its immediate adoption, allowing no full consultation among Council members. He could not agree to such tactics, and China had decided not to participate in the vote.

The Indian representative expressed dissatisfaction with the draft resolution because, he said, India had always maintained that the Arab lands occupied by Israel must be evacuated before serious and fruitful negotiations could start. Furthermore, his country had always been cautious about any solution arrived at by the great powers without full consultation with the general membership of the United Nations. However, since the parties to the fighting seemed to have accepted the joint draft resolution, India would support it, making clear in the meantime that implementation of Council resolution 242 (1967) meant: first, that the Arab territories must be vacated subject to minor adjustments agreed to by the parties; second, that Israel had a right to exist as a sovereign State; and, third, that a proper settlement of the rights of the Palestinian people must be accepted.

Austria, Guinea, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama and Peru expressed their support for the draft resolution and were in agreement that resolution 242 (1967) had to be the basis of any solution to the Middle East conflict. The spokesman for Kenya stated that an international system would be required to guarantee the implementation of the 1967 resolution.

Saudi Arabia's representative said that the two super-powers were again engaged in the game of power politics and spheres of influence. The Middle East became the chessboard on which these two super-powers were playing their political game with the destiny of the peoples of the area. As long as the major powers did not formulate their policies on the basis of justice, he said, there would be conflicts in the Middle East. A possible solution, which would not involve the major powers, could be found if the Jews were to live among the Arabs as Jews, not as Zionists.

The Israeli spokesman said his Government's compliance with the proposed cease-fire was conditional on acceptance and observance of that cease-fire by all the States taking part in the fighting. The cessation of military activity must also include the elimination of the blockade imposed by Yemen at the Bab al Mandab Straits.

He went on to say that Israel attached great importance to the provision of the draft resolution whereby the Council would decide that negotiations should start immediately between the parties under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East. Israel, he said, had constantly emphasized that the absence of free, direct, normal peace negotiations between Israel and its neighbours lay at the heart of the deadlock. Israel, he added, also regarded the release of all prisoners of war held in the countries involved in the conflict as an indispensable condition of any cease-fire agreement.

The Sudanese representative said that although the cease-fire was an important step, it could be only a prelude to peace, which could be achieved only through the full implementation of United Nations resolutions. To achieve peace, the occupation must be ended and the root causes of the Palestinian problem dealt with. The draft resolution referred to negotiations "under appropriate auspices," and for Sudan, he said, no auspices were more appropriate than those of the United Nations. Any other interpretation would be a transgression of resolution 242 (1967).

The Egyptian representative observed that the two co-sponsors of the draft resolution had not said anything about the conditions mentioned by Israel in its statement. Unless they were adopted by the sponsors of the draft resolution and the sponsors said so, they should be considered as null and void and having no meaning.

The two-power draft resolution was adopted early on 22 October by 14 votes to 0, as resolution 338 (1973). China did not participate in the vote.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The Security Council met again on 23 October at the request of Egypt, whose representative asked the Council to consider what he termed the non-implementation of its resolution 338 (1973) and the breakdown of the cease-fire ordered by the Council.

The spokesman for Israel said that, on 21 October, Israel had expressed its readiness to comply with the proposed cease-fire on the understanding that it would be accepted and observed by all States taking part in the fighting. Immediately after the adoption of resolution 338 (1973), Israel had announced that it agreed to the cease-fire in accordance with that resolution. Of the Arab States attacking Israel, only Egypt had been willing to announce that it would order its forces to cease fire. However, even that announcement had thus far proved to be spurious. Egyptian aggression was the cause of Israel's continued military actions. Israel also regarded the release of the prisoners held in the countries involved as an indispensable condition of any cease-fire agreement.

The United States representative introduced a draft resolution, co-sponsored by his country and the USSR, by which the Council would, after referring to its resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October:

(1) confirm its decision on an immediate cessation of all kinds of firing and of all military action, and urge that the forces of the two sides be returned to the positions they occupied at the moment the cease-fire became effective; and

(2) request the Secretary-General to take measures for immediate dispatch of United Nations observers to supervise the observance of the cease-fire between the forces of Israel and Egypt, using for this purpose the personnel of the United Nations currently in the Middle East and, first of all, the personnel in Cairo.

The aim of the draft resolution, the USSR representative said, was to confirm the Council's decision of 22 October for a cease-fire and a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, based on resolution 242 (1967), and for the immediate withdrawal of troops to positions occupied at the time of the cease-fire. The draft also provided that the Secretary General be requested immediately to send observers from the United Nations to the cease-fire area. Both sponsors, he emphasized, considered that the troops of the parties should be returned to the positions they occupied at the time the cease-fire came into force. He proposed that, in view of the urgency of the situation on the spot, the draft resolution be put to a vote immediately.

The Chinese representative said he was firmly opposed to the practice of using the Security Council as a tool to be manipulated by the two super-powers. The sacred fight against aggression and for the recovery of occupied territories - waged by the peoples of Egypt, Syria and Palestine - had broken through the situation of "no war, no peace" deliberately created by the two super-powers in the Middle East for their respective interests, and had exploded the myth about the "invincibility" of Israel. The dangerous developments in the Middle East, he said, had been caused by the Israeli Zionist aggressors with the support and connivance of the two super-powers.

What the USSR called detente was, he said, based on the submissive prostration of all oppressed nations and peoples before the two super-powers, but the Arab peoples would never allow themselves to be controlled by the two super-powers perpetually. In order to divide up further the spheres of influence in the Middle East and to reimpose the situation of "no war, no peace" on the Arab peoples, the two super-powers, after hectic bargaining behind the scenes for their respective interests, had produced a draft resolution on 22 October which was even more ambiguous than resolution 242 (1967) and could solve no problems. As China had foreseen, as soon as the draft resolution had been adopted, the Israeli Zionists had immediately and flagrantly continued to expand their aggression against Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic. The United States and the USSR had then introduced a new draft resolution on what they called supervising the cease-fire.

This draft resolution, the Chinese representative declared, had failed to condemn Israel's expanded aggression or to make the slightest mention of the demand for immediate withdrawal of the Israeli aggressors. China was opposed to the draft resolution but - taking into consideration the desire of certain countries concerned - would refrain from voting on it.

The two power draft resolution was adopted by 14 votes to 0, as resolution 339 (1973). China did not participate in the voting.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The United States representative said that the resolution just adopted confirmed the Council's earlier decision on a cease fire and provided for the stationing of observers between the Israeli and Egyptian forces. It was important that the United Nations resume at once the function of observation. With the adoption of the resolution, he said, the Secretary-General, through the Chief of Staff of UNTSO, could put observers in place at once and receive reports from them immediately for transmission to the Council.

Yugoslavia's representative said the Council and all responsible international parties had an obligation and a duty under the Charter to make Israel stop violating the cease-fire and start implementing the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 (242 (1967)) immediately. The withdrawal of Israel's occupation forces from all Arab territories seized in the 1967 war back to the lines of 5 June 1967 was a basic provision of the 1967 resolution, he said, and its implementation meant that Israel must start its withdrawal immediately.

According to the Sudanese representative, the Council's earlier resolution (338 (1967)) had not achieved much. The powers which had worked out the resolution might also, he felt, have worked out the instruments to enforce its aims. It was the Council's duty to supplement immediately its latest resolution with a decision to reinforce the United Nations observers who were already in the area and entrust them with the job of observing and controlling the cease-fire. The powers which had conceived the resolution should, he said, now call upon the Secretary General to help translate the Council's decision into action.

The United Kingdom representative said the cease-fire was clearly not yet fully effective and he agreed that there must be proper arrangements on the ground to supervise it, of the sort which had been tested and had on the whole proved effective over the years. The number of the existing observers might be inadequate for the task they were being called upon to perform; that number might well have to be increased.

The USSR representative said the Security Council had again been confronted with a challenge by Israel, which, in violation of the Council's cease-fire decision, had renewed military action against Egypt. At that very moment, Israel's armed forces were continuing in their attempts to extend their incursions farther into Egyptian territory. The USSR, he said, was gratified that the Council had been able to request the immediate dispatch of observers to the cease-fire line for the purpose of forcing Israel to respect the Council's decision on the cease fire and to withdraw its troops from the territories it had seized after the cease-fire came into effect.

In the opinion of the French representative, the military operations which were apparently continuing on the Israeli-Egyptian front were likely seriously to jeopardize the start of over-all negotiations on the Middle East conflict. France, he said, attached the greatest importance to having those negotiations start as soon as possible; it was up to the Council to pronounce itself clearly in favour of an immediate cessation of all hostilities, in accordance with its resolution 338 (1973). The latest text should put an end to the fighting and make it possible to begin genuine negotiations.

The Secretary-General said that, pending a further Council directive, he had instructed the Chief of Staff of UNTSO to hold the United Nations observers in readiness in their current locations. Now that the Council had decided that the mili tary observers should be stationed to observe the cease-fire called for in resolution 338 (1973), he would immediately take steps to put them in place in the shortest possible time. In all probability, it would be necessary to increase the number of observers available in the area to carry out effecively the intentions of the Council. The Chief of Staff would be in immediate contact with the military authorities concerned, with a view to working out the details of the observation operation, the Secretary-General said.

The Egyptian representative said that when Egypt accepted resolution 338 (1973), it had understood that the two powers proposing it would guarantee its effectiveness. Since resolution 339 (1973) urged that forces be returned to positions they were occupying at the moment the cease-fire became effective, Egypt refused to consider such a decision to be only lip service to a principle.

The question of the principle of withdrawal which had been asserted by the representative of the United States should have been explained as withdrawal to the lines from which the attack had begun, as referred to in resolution 242 (1967) — that is, the lines as they were prior to 5 June 1967. Egypt's main objective, he said, was the withdrawal of all occupation forces from its lands.

The spokesman for Saudi Arabia said the two resolutions were traps and were more ambiguous than resolution 242 (1967). The Arab people, he said, refused to be manipulated by outside forces.

The representative of Kenya said he could not fail to notice the way in which the super-powers had presented the two resolutions. Eleven days earlier, he had urged the Council to enforce a cease-fire and enter into negotiations to solve other outstanding problems, including implementation of the principles contained in Council resolution 242 (1967). Instead, the super-powers had stepped up arms supplies to the Middle East, which were being used to inflict large-scale death and destruction. It appeared as if the super-powers took action only when their detente was threatened. Kenya, he said, joined with those asking for an increase in the strength of the observer corps so that the Secretary-General could effectively carry out the Council’s decision.

The Secretary-General informed the Council that he had received a communication from the Syrian Arab Republic stating it had accepted resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October, on the understanding that it was based on: (1) the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the Arab territories occupied in June 1967 and subsequently; and (2) the safeguarding of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people in accordance with United Nations resolutions. Further, acceptance of the resolution was conditional upon the other party’s undertaking to implement the resolution.

The Secretary-General also informed the Council that, in co-operation with the Egyptian authorities, three observation teams were being deployed in the Suez Canal area - in the northern, central and southern sectors. The Israeli military authorities had been informed of this and the Chief of Staff of UNTSO was discussing with them a similar observation operation on the eastern side of the Canal.

Consideration by Security
Council (24-26 October 1973)

When the Security Council met on the evening of 24 October, its President said the meeting had been called at Egypt's request to consider what it charged were Israel's continuing violations of the cease-fire decided on by the Council in its resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973) of 22 and 23 October 1973.

The Council held meetings on the question between 24 and 26 October. The representatives of Egypt, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, and Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Zambia were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

Egypt's representative said that a new war had broken out in the Middle East and at that moment was still going on. Israel had attacked Egyptian forces on both banks of the Suez Canal, he charged, and United Nations observers were being prevented by Israeli forces from reaching their destination. He asked Council members to do their best to make sure that the observers were in their places and urged the two powers that had brought the resolutions to the Council to see to it that they were strictly implemented.

He then stated that the President of Egypt had asked the United States and the USSR to send forces to help the United Nations observers bring the opposing forces back to where they had been when the cease-fire went into effect on 22 October.

The Secretary-General informed the Council of the action that he and the Chief of Staff of UNTSO had taken in implementation of Council resolution 339 (1973) adopted on 23 October 1973. Seven patrols had been dispatched towards the forward localities on the Egyptian side. None had so far been deployed on the Israeli side, but the Chief of Staff, having been assured of full co-operation by Israel, was taking urgent measures to do so. The Secretary-General emphasized that the complete acceptance of the cease-fire by the parties and their full co-operation with the United Nations observer operation were essential if the observers were to carry out their task effectively.

The Secretary-General later informed the Council that as for the cease-fire operation in the Syrian sector, he had requested the Chief of Staff to contact the military authorities on both sides concerning the possibility of adjusting the existing observation arrangements to the current situation. The Chief of Staff had formulated a plan for this purpose. The Secretary-General understood that the reaction of the Syrian authorities to this plan was favourable and that the Israeli authorities had undertaken to give their reaction by the following morning.

The Israeli representative rejected Egypt's charges as unfounded. Egypt, he said, had never sought a peaceful solution at all, and even less so in the Security Council. When the Council was convened on 24 October, on Egypt's initiative, the fighting had been going on because Egypt's military forces had failed to comply with resolution 338 (1973) and Israel had reacted to the Egyptian attacks. The fighting had died down, however, and an effort could now be made to ensure that the cease-fire was effective and to put into execution all the arrangements necessary for its supervision. He said he had been authorized to reiterate that Israel would extend its full co-operation to the Chief of Staff.

The representative of Yugoslavia said the Council was now faced with what was in reality a new aggressive war against Egypt. The United States and the USSR had a special responsibility to assure implementation of the two resolutions they had co-sponsored, but the matter remained the concern of the Council as a whole. Council members, he suggested, might decide to increase the number of United Nations observers or consider sending United Nations emergency forces to the area.

According to the USSR's spokesman, Israel's violations of the cease-fire resolutions were planned for the purpose of taking over new strategic positions advantageous to Israeli imperialism in the Middle East. In his view, the measures proposed by Egypt were justified and entirely in accordance with the Charter. Further, the time had come for the Council to consider adopting strict sanctions against Israel under Chapter VII of the Charter.

The USSR representative went on to point out that the United Nations military observers were drawn only from Western States and the USSR could not agree with such a unilateral selection by the United Nations Secretariat. The time had come to increase the number of United Nations observers in the Middle East; he believed the socialist and non-aligned countries would be able to find among their citizens officers capable of carrying out the task. He urged that his proposal be taken into account so that the Charter principle concerning equitable geographical distribution could in fact and in practice be carried out.

The United States representative observed that the Council was meeting for the third time in four days on a note of increasing urgency. In spite of two Council resolutions adopted without a dissenting vote - calling on the parties to cease all fighting and terminate all military activity - military operations had recurred in the combat zones.

The United States representative said that the Council's urgent tasks were to urge the parties to comply immediately and fully with the cease-fire resolutions, and to encourage the Secretary-General and the Chief of Staff to move as promptly as possible to place additional observers on the spot.

With regard to the Egyptian invitation to the USSR and the United States to send forces to supervise implementation of the cease-fire, he felt it was not a time when such involvement by the great powers could be helpful in creating conditions of peace. The objective of the United States in the Middle East, he said, had not been to produce a military confrontation but rather to encourage restraint and caution on both sides.

The representative of Guinea requested a suspension of the meeting on the evening of 24 October so that consultations could take place between what she termed the eight non-aligned members of the Council. When the Council reconvened, after midnight, the representative of Kenya said that in view of the complete breakdown of the cease-fire, and Egypt's appeal for urgent action by the Council, he was introducing a draft resolution on behalf of Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan and Yugoslavia.

By the preambular part of this text, the Security Council would recall its resolutions of 22 and 23 October (338 (1973) and 339 (1973)) and note with regret the repeated violations of the cease-fire which had been reported. It would also note with concern that the United Nations military observers had not yet been enabled to place themselves on both sides of the cease-fire line.

By the operative part of the draft text, the Council would:

(1) demand that immediate and complete cease-fire be observed and that the parties withdraw to the positions occupied by them at 1650 hours GMT on 22 October 1973;

(2) request the Secretary-General, as an immediate step, to increase the number of United Nations military observers on both sides;

(3) decide to set up immediately a United Nations Emergency Force under its authority, and to ask the Secretary-General to report within 24 hours on the steps taken to this effect;

(4) request the Secretary-General to report to the Council on an urgent and continuing basis on the state of implementation of this resolution, as well as resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973);

(5) request all Member States to extend their full co-operation in the implementation of this resolution, as well as the two October 1973 resolutions.

When the Security Council met the next day, 25 October, the representative of Kenya submitted a revised version of the eight-power draft resolution - the result, he said, of extensive consultations among Council members. According to the first of the amendments accepted by the sponsors, the Council would, in the first operative paragraph, demand that immediate and complete cease-fire be observed and that the parties return - rather than withdraw - to the positions occupied by them at 1650 hours GMT on 22 October 1973.

The second amendment added a phrase to the third operative paragraph, so that the Council would decide to set up immediately under its authority a United Nations Emergency Force to be composed of personnel drawn from States Members of the United Nations except the permanent members of the Security Council, and request the Secretary-General to report within 24 hours on the steps taken to this effect.

By the third amendment, the Council would, in the fifth operative paragraph, request all Member States to extend their full co-operation to the United Nations in the implementation of this resolution, as well as resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973).

The Chinese representative said that China had always been opposed to the dispatch of so-called peace-keeping forces. Such a practice could only pave the way for further international intervention and control, with the super-powers as the "behind-the-scenes boss." Out of consideration for the requests made by the victims of aggression, he said, China would not veto the eight-power draft, but had decided not to participate in the vote.

The representative of Israel said his Government would favour all constructive efforts to strengthen the cease-fire and would determine its position on the draft resolution in that light.

The United States supported the draft resolution as amended; it agreed on the need to increase the number of observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization and approved of the establishment of a new United Nations Emergency Force to be composed of personnel from Member States except those of the permanent members of the Security Council. The United States stood ready to help in transporting the Force to the area.

The USSR supported the draft resolution because it contained the elements of condemnation of the aggressor which had violated the two previous Council resolutions and because it envisaged effective measures to ensure compliance with the Council's decision concerning the cease-fire. The USSR had some reservations about the exclusion of permanent members of the Council from participating in the United Nations Emergency Force, and it reiterated its view that there should be strict observance of the principle of equitable geographical representation in the composition of the observer force.

The representative of the United Kingdom agreed that an emergency force should be set up and that the Secretary-General should immediately take steps to that end. However, the United Kingdom believed that the specific exclusion of forces of the permanent members of the Council from the proposed emergency force should be without prejudice to the composition of the peace-keeping force needed to guarantee a final peace agreement in accordance with the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 (242 (1967)). There was a distinction between the two forces, he said, adding that the United Kingdom would be willing to participate in a future peace-keeping force in the Middle East.

The French representative also supported the setting up of an emergency force to ensure compliance with the cease-fire until other arrangements were made within the framework of a general settlement. He pointed out, however, that France had, in other circumstances, undertaken to participate in a real peace-keeping force. That commitment was still valid, and he asked for a separate vote on the words in the revised draft resolution which excluded the permanent members of the Security Council from participating in the proposed emergency force.

The Council voted separately, as requested by France, on the words "except the permanent members of the Security Council" in the third operative paragraph of the revised draft resolution. The words were retained by 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention (France). China did not participate in the vote.

The revised draft resolution was then adopted by 14 votes to 0, as resolution 340 (1973). Again, China did not participate in the voting.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Following the vote, the Secretary-General said he would do his utmost to respond to the requests set forth in the resolution just adopted and hoped that his report could form the basis for agreement on the establishment, tasks and conduct of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). He informed the Council that both Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic had agreed to the adjustment of the observation machinery in the Syrian sector.

He later read out a letter he had sent that after noon to the President of the Security Council, proposing to arrange for the contingents of Austria, Finland and Sweden - then serving with the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) - to proceed immediately to Egypt. He also proposed to appoint Major-General Ensio P. H. Siilasvuo, Chief of Staff of UNTSO, interim Commander of the Emergency Force.

The Council agreed to those proposals.

The representative of Egypt said his Government accepted the resolution just adopted and had decided to grant UNEF all necessary assistance and co-operation.

The Council met the next day, 26 October, at the request of Egypt, whose representative again charged Israel with attacking Egyptian forces on the Suez and Sinai fronts. He also said that Israeli forces had prevented vehicles of the International Red Cross, carrying plasma, water, food and medicine, from reaching Egyptian soldiers in Sinai.

The representative of Israel, rejecting Egypt's allegations, said that Egypt claimed that fighting had broken out when, in fact, no fighting was going on at all.

The USSR representative said that Israel had violated Council decisions calling for an immediate cessation of military activities by launching attacks against Egyptian troops.

The United States representative said that the most constructive contribution the Council could make was to proceed systematically, as quickly as possible, on its mission of ending the fighting and beginning peace negotiations.

The Secretary-General informed the Council that Major-General Siilasvuo had set up a provisional headquarters in Cairo, and that the contingents of Austria, Finland and Sweden were being transferred from Cyprus, an operation which would be completed the following morning. Advance elements of the Force would be moved forward with all possible speed. Nine patrols of UNTSO observers were deployed on the Egyptian side and six on Israeli-held territory, the Secretary-General said, in the vicinity of the forward positions of the respective forces.

Acting on a proposal by India, supported by Yugoslavia, the Council agreed to authorize the Secretary-General to send additional men from Cyprus, as an interim measure, should he consider it necessary. The Secretary-General and the Council President were asked to appeal to the parties to co-operate fully and effectively with the International Red Cross in its humanitarian endeavours.

The Secretary-General said he would actively consider the first proposal, having in mind the task of UNFICYP and the number of troops available there. With regard to the second proposal, he said he would consult with the Council President about the necessary steps.

Report of Secretary-General (27 October)

On 27 October, the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on the establishment of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) called for in the Council's resolution of 25 October (340 (1973)). Among other things, he outlined the terms of reference of the Force, as well as general considerations related to its effective functioning, a proposed plan of action and the estimated cost and method of financing.

With regard to the terms of reference, he said that, first, UNEF would supervise the implementation of the first operative paragraph of the Council's resolution of 25 October, by which the Council demanded that an immediate and complete cease-fire be observed and that the parties return to the positions occupied by them at 1650 hours GMT on 22 October 1973. Second, it would use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of the fighting and would co-operate with the International Committee of the Red Cross in its humanitarian endeavours in the area. Third, it would have the co-operation of the military observers of UNTSO in the fulfilment of its tasks.

The Secretary-General said there were three essential conditions to be met for the Force to be effective: it must have the full confidence and backing of the Security Council; it must operate with the full co-operation of the parties concerned; and it must be able to function as an integrated and efficient military unit.

The Secretary-General then suggested certain guidelines for the functioning of UNEF, namely, that it be under the command of the United Nations, vested in the Secretary-General, under the authority of the Security Council. The com-mand in the field would be exercised by a Force Commander, appointed by the Secretary-General - with the Council's consent - and responsible to him. The Secretary-General would keep the Council fully informed of developments relating to the functioning of the Force and refer to the Council for its decision all matters that might affect the nature or continued effective functioning of the Force.

Other guidelines for UNEF, as proposed by the Secretary-General, were that it must enjoy the freedom of movement and communication required for the performance of its tasks, as well as all relevant privileges and immunities provided for by the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. It should operate separately from the armed forces of the parties concerned; consequently, separate quarters and, whenever feasible, buffer zones would have to be arranged with the co-operation of the parties.

As to the composition of the Force, the Secretary-General proposed that it be formed of contingents provided upon the request of the Secretary-General by selected countries, chosen in consultation with the Security Council and the parties concerned, bearing in mind the accepted principle of equitable geographical representation.

According to the proposed guidelines, UNEF would be provided with defensive weapons only and force would not be used except in self-defence. Self-defence would include resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties. The Force would proceed on the assumption that the parties to the conflict would comply with the decisions of the Council. The Force would act with complete impartiality and would avoid any action that could prejudice the rights, claims or positions of the parties, without affecting those provisions of Council resolutions 339 (1973) and 340 (1973) by which the Council demanded immediate and complete observance of the cease-fire and the return to the positions occupied on 22 October.

The Secretary-General proposed that UNEF have a total strength of 7,000 men, to be stationed in the area initially for a period of six months. The estimated cost of a Force of 7,000 for that period would be $30 million, the costs to be considered as expenses of the Organization to be borne by the Members in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter. 12/

See also pp. 217-23.


Consideration by Security
Council (27 October 1973)

On 27 October, the Security Council met to consider the report of the Secretary-General. It also had before it a draft resolution sponsored by Australia, by which the Council would: (1) approve the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Council resolution 340 (1973) of 25 October; and (2) decide that UNEF would be established in accordance with that report for an initial period of six months, and that it would continue in operation thereafter, if required, provided the Security Council so decided.

The Council adopted the Australian draft resolution by 14 votes to 0, as resolution 341 (1973). (For text, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

China did not participate in the voting, explaining that it opposed the dispatch to the Middle East of the so-called United Nations Emergency Force and thus could not pay any of its expenses.

The spokesman for France said that the Council should have control over all operations of the Force, particularly the defining of its terms of reference, its duration, its size and its composition. As for the Force's mandate, he said it should have as its terms of reference the supervision of the implementation of the cease-fire. France, he said, would be prepared to accept the principle of complete exemption of the least advanced developing countries from contributions to the financing of UNEF.

Guinea, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama and Yugoslavia expressed the hope that the resolution just adopted would help pave the way for the implementation of urgent and necessary steps to bring peace to the Middle East.

The United Kingdom representative commended the Secretary-General for his report, which dealt comprehensively and effectively with the immediate issues and reflected accurately the letter and spirit of the Council's resolutions.

The representatives of India and Sudan said that the Council, in sending forces mainly to Egyptian territory, should not overlook the question of Egyptian sovereignty.

The USSR representative said that although the USSR had not opposed Council approval of the Secretary-General's report, it had reservations about some points that did not coincide with the USSR's approach to the question of establishing United Nations emergency forces and the conduct of United Nations peace-keeping operations.

The United States representative said his Government welcomed the Council's action and was prepared to consider requests for assistance in implementing the resolution as swiftly as possible. He also expressed satisfaction that the United States had helped to arrange for a meeting, on the ground, of Egyptian and Israeli military representatives under United Nations auspices to discuss the practical application of the cease-fire.

The representative of Egypt announced that his Government had accepted Security Council resolution 340 (1973) of 25 October as a first step in the implementation of the Council's decisions, and was ready to co-operate in the implementation of the two previous resolutions as well. Egypt considered that the presence of UNEF on its territory was of a temporary nature. In giving its consent to the entry and presence of the Force, Egypt was exercising its sovereign rights to enable the United Nations to proceed with this first step towards putting an end to the aggression committed against Egypt since 1967.

The Israeli representative said that Israel's policy had been continued to be guided by three principles: cease-fire, negotiation and peace. The cease-fire had become effective and United Nations observers had taken up their positions. The time had come to work for peace, understanding and friendship.

Progress reports of Secretary-General on
establishment and functioning of UNEF

On 28 October, and subsequently, the Secretary-General issued progress reports on the establishment and functioning of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). He stated that, with the arrival in Cairo on 26 October of personnel of the contingents of Austria, Finland and Sweden serving in Cyprus, UNEF had become established. Those contingents had been deployed on 27 October and a United Nations presence had been established in the Israeli-controlled area west of Suez city. It was planned also to transfer to the UNEF area the Irish contingent serving in Cyprus, and consultations for further additions to the Force were in progress.

The Force's initial activities, the Secretary-General also reported, had taken place in areas of actual confrontation and had involved supervision of the cease-fire in co-operation with UNTSO observers. On 27/28 October, at Kilometre Marker 109 on the Cairo-Suez road, the first meeting of high-level military representatives of Egypt and Israel was held, in the presence of UNEF officers, to discuss the observance of the cease-fire and humanitarian questions. An agreement was reached to allow the transfer of non-military supplies through Israeli-held territory to Egyptian troops on the east bank of the Suez Canal.

Consideration by Security
Council (2 November 1973)

On 2 November 1973, the Security Council met to consider the progress reports of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Emergency Force.

In a statement read out by the Council President, and subsequently agreed to by the Council, the President said that during informal consultations on 1 November, Council members had heard a progress report from the Secretary-General and, after a lengthy and detailed exchange of views, it was agreed that the Secretary-General would immediately consult with Canada, Ghana, Indonesia, Nepal, Panama, Peru and Poland with a view to dispatching contingents to the Middle East, pursuant to the Council's resolution of 25 October (340 (1973)). The Secretary-General would dispatch troops to the area from those countries as soon as the necessary consultations had been completed. Council members had also agreed that at least three African countries were expected to send contingents to the Middle East. The Council's decision was intended to bring about a better geographical distribution in the composition of UNEF. The Secretary-General would report regularly to the Council on the results of his efforts, so that the question of balanced geographical distribution in the Force could be reviewed.

The statement read out by the President also said that the above agreement had been reached by Council members with the exception of China, which had dissociated itself from it.

During the ensuing discussion, the Chinese representative reiterated that the dispatch of the so-called United Nations Emergency Force would turn sovereign Arab States in the Middle East into an area under international control with infinite evil consequences and would pave the way for further intervention by the super-powers. Accordingly, China could not be a party to the agreement on the composition of the Force.

The representatives of Indonesia, Panama and Peru expressed the readiness of their Governments to provide contingents for UNEF.

The French representative expressed gratification that the Council had reached an agreement that would facilitate the task of the Secretary-General. He hoped the Council would consider participation in the Force by other members of the European Community, particularly Belgium and Italy, which had offered to do so. The United Kingdom representative made the same point.

According to the USSR representative, the Council had taken a decision in the right direction with regard to the selection of contingents to be included in UNEF on the basis of equitable geographical distribution. The Council, he said, had thus officially endorsed the principle that the countries would he selected from each geographical region without exception and without discrimination. He also said that UNEF should ensure the withdrawal of the troops of the parties to the positions occupied at 1650 hours GMT on 22 October 1973.

The United States representative also expressed gratification at the agreement, and said it was critically important - in the tense and dangerous situation that prevailed - for the Council to have an integrated, harmonious and impartial force capable of carrying out its duties efficiently.

The Secretary-General said he would immediately take the steps necessary to implement the agreement reached in the Council.

Further progress reports of Secretary-General

On 4 November, the Secretary-General reported that UNEF’s total strength had reached 1,004 men, and he described the movement and deployment of the contingents.

Consultations on the dispatch of additional troops were continuing, he said, with a view to implementing the Council's agreement read out on 2 November. In addition, the Force Commander had met with the Israeli Minister of Defence on 29 and 30 October to request that Israeli armed forces return to positions occupied by them at 1650 hours GMT on 22 October, in accordance with Council resolution 340 (1973) of 25 October; no reply had so far been received. The Force Commander had met also with the Egyptian Minister of War, and four further meetings of Egyptian and Israeli representatives had been held at Kilometre Marker 109, in the presence of UNEF representatives, to discuss possible withdrawals, mutual disengagement and the exchange of war prisoners.

On 11 November, the Secretary-General reported that the strength of the Force had reached 1,600 men. Advance logistic evaluation teams had been dispatched from Canada and Poland, and consultations had continued with a view to implementing the Council's agreement. Requests for contingents had been submitted to Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal, Panama, Peru and Senegal. The Force Commander had again requested the return by Israeli troops to positions occupied on 22 October.

The Secretary-General then reported that an agreement had been signed on 11 November 1973 by military representatives of Egypt and Israel, at a meeting held at Kilometre Marker 101 on the Cairo-Suez road under the auspices of the Force Commander.

According to the terms of the agreement, Egypt and Israel agreed to observe scrupulously the cease-fire called for by the Security Council and agreed that discussions between them would begin immediately to settle the question of the return to the 22 October positions, in the framework of agreement on the disengagement and separation of forces under the auspices of the United Nations.

Also by the agreement, the town of Suez was to receive daily supplies of food, water and medicine, and all wounded civilians there were to be evacuated. There was to be no impediment to the movement of non-military supplies to the east bank of the Canal.

Further points in the agreement stipulated that: the Israeli check-points on the Cairo-Suez road would be replaced by United Nations check-points; at the Suez end of the road, Israeli officers could participate with the United Nations to supervise the non-military nature of the cargo at the bank of the Canal; and, as soon as the United Nations check-points were established on the Cairo-Suez road, there would be an exchange of all prisoners of war, including wounded.

After signing the agreement, the parties immediately started discussions on its implementation, under the auspices of the Force Commander.

Consideration by Security
Council (12 November 1973)

On 12 November, the Security Council met to consider the appointment of the Commander of UNEF. The President stated that the Secretary-General had informed him of his intention, if the Council consented, to appoint as UNEF Commander Major-General Ensio P. H. Siilasvuo, who had been serving as interim Commander of the Force. As there was no objection, the President was authorized to inform the Secretary-General that the Council gave its consent to that appointment, with the exception of China, which dissociated itself from it.

Further reports and communications

In progress reports dated 14 and 15 November, the Secretary-General informed the Security Council that on 14 November the parties had reached an accord on the implementation of parts of the Egyptian-Israeli agreement of 11 November and that the Force Commander had made a summing up of that accord which had been accepted by the two parties. It provided, in particular, for UNEF convoys of non-military supplies to Suez city and to the Egyptian Third Army on the east bank of the Suez Canal, the exchange of all prisoners of war and the evacuation of the wounded civilians in Suez city.

With regard to the organization and composition of the logistic support elements for UNEF, the Secretary-General reported on 24 November that, as a result of discussions between the Secretariat and the delegations of Canada and Poland, an agreement had been reached on the detailed requirements and division of tasks for the logistic support of the Force, providing a clear and practical division of responsibilities between the two countries.

On 23 November, the President of the Security Council informed the Secretary-General that the members of the Council, except China, agreed to a proposal by the Secretary-General that contingents supplied by Kenya and Senegal be added to the United Nations Emergency Force.

On 29 October, the Secretary-General reported on the status of the cease-fire operations being carried out by UNTSO and the deployment of United Nations observers in their areas of operation since the establishment of UNEF.

Following the adoption on 23 October of Security Council resolution 339 (1973), arrangements had been made for the deployment of observers in the forward defended localities of the Egyptian and Israeli forces to supervise the cease-fire. There were nine United Nations patrols from the Egyptian side, controlled from the Ismailia Control Centre, and six from the Israeli side, controlled from the Kantara Control Centre at Rabah. Those observers had continued to carry out their observation duties after the establishment of UNEF, and would continue to co-operate with the Force in the fulfilment of its tasks.

In the Israel-Syria sector, as a result of the readjustment of the cease-fire arrangements following the adoption of Council resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973), UNTSO observation operations consisted of three observation posts and the Quneitra outstation on the Israeli side, and two observation posts on the Syrian side. The remaining observation posts had been closed and eight patrols had been established: five on the Syrian side and three on the Israeli side.

In the Israel-Lebanon sector, the October 1973 hostilities had not affected the armistice demarcation line, and the five observation posts had continued to function as before.

From 29 October until the end of December, the reports of the Secretary-General showed that military activities had lessened in all sectors following the establishment of UNEF. However, there had been many cases of firing incidents and overflights by aircraft.

In the Egypt-Israeli sector, frequent firing incidents involving artillery, mortar and automatic weapons were reported, as well as aerial activity accompanied by anti-aircraft fire. There had also been incidents of firing on or close to United Nations personnel and installations, resulting in some injuries and material damage. In the Israel-Syria sector, similar types of incidents were reported by United Nations observers. In the Israel-Lebanon sector, the reports indicated that Israeli forces had repeatedly reoccupied areas around border pillars, and that there had been some firing incidents and frequent overflights of Lebanese territory by Israeli aircraft. Many of those incidents were the subject of complaints lodged with UNTSO by Lebanon.

During this period, many communications were received by the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General by which Egypt, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic exchanged charges and counter-charges of cease-fire violations in their respective sectors.

In its letters, Israel charged Egypt with initiating many cases of artillery, small-arms and tank fire, firing of ground-to-air missiles, forward movements of forces, and air attacks. Furthermore, according to the Israeli complaints, Egypt had tried to construct a bridge across the Suez Canal, from west to east, in order to improve its lines and try to open the ring encircling its Third Army. Israel also said there had been many instances of crossing cease-fire lines in flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973).

Egypt for its part complained of cease-fire violations by Israel, including many cases of small-arms fire, bombing and artillery shelling by Israeli forces. Israel was also charged with airlifting soldiers and large crates by helicopter to Jabal 'Ataqah in an attempt to reinforce and consolidate positions occupied by its forces after the cease-fire. Egypt rejected Israel's allegations of cease-fire violations as pretexts for violating the cease-fire in order to launch extensive military operations.

In connexion with the deployment of UNEF in the Egypt-Israel sector, Egypt, in a letter dated 7 November, charged that Israel had prevented the Irish contingent of UNEF from deploying its troops across the Suez Canal to the east bank, in defiance of Security Council decisions. On 10 November, Israel rejected Egypt's charges as allegations relating to matters which were not within the competence of the Egyptian Government and said that the Irish contingent had reached its des-tination on 9 November, a fact which had been attested to by a spokesman for UNEF.

In the Israel-Syria sector, Israel charged the Syrian Arab Republic with continuous use of artillery, small-arms and tank fire, and with attempting to advance its positions in order to effect changes in the cease-fire line. Israel also rejected Syrian assertions that Israel had occupied new positions after the cease-fire, maintaining that the positions had been held by Israeli forces before the cease-fire went into effect.

Consideration by Security
Council (15 December 1973)

At a meeting held in private on 15 December, the Security Council discussed the arrangements for a proposed peace conference on the Middle East, to be held in Geneva (Switzerland). The Council decided without objection to circulate the verbatim record of the meeting, and to issue a communiqué through the Secretary-General at the close of the meeting.

At the meeting, the representative of Guinea introduced a draft resolution on behalf of the 10 non-permanent members of the Council (Australia, Austria, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan and Yugoslavia).

By the draft text, the Council would, after noting that a peace conference on the Middle East situation was to begin shortly at Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations:

(1) express the hope that the peace conference would make speedy progress towards the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Middle East;

(2) express its confidence that the Secretary-General would play a full and effective role at the conference, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and that he would preside over its proceedings, if the parties so desired;

(3) request the Secretary-General to keep the Council suitably informed of the developments in negotiations at the conference, in order to enable it to review the problems on a continuing basis;

(4) ask him to provide all necessary assistance and facilities for the work of the conference.

The Security Council adopted the 10-power draft resolution by 10 votes in favour to 0 against, with 4 abstentions (France, USSR, United Kingdom, United States), as resolution 344 (1973). China did not participate in the vote. (For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Following the vote, the French representative, explaining his Government's abstention, said that before the inauguration of the Geneva conference a link must be established between the negotiations and the Security Council. Similarly, the terms of the participation of the Secretary-General in the conference should be clear and precise. In those respects, the draft resolution just adopted was not, in his view, sufficiently clear.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that he fully supported the provisions of the resolution just adopted. However, he had preferred to withhold his vote until the two co-sponsors of Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October were in a position to endorse the resolution.

The United States representative said that although negotiations regarding invitations to the Geneva conference were proceeding, there were several problems still remaining. As he had not been authorized to support the resolution at that time, he had abstained.

The President, speaking as the representative of China, said that his Government had always opposed any attempt of the two super-powers to make behind-the-scenes deals at the expense of the interests of the Arab and Palestinian peoples. China could not accept the resolution and consequently had decided to dissociate itself from it.

On 18 December, the Secretary-General transmitted to the Council identical letters from the USSR and the United States stating that the parties concerned had expressed their readiness to participate in the peace conference, which would begin at Geneva on 21 December 1973, to be convened by the Secretary-General under the auspices of the United Nations and under the joint chairmanship of the USSR and the United States. They hoped the Secretary-General would serve as convener and preside in the opening phase and that he would make available a representative to keep him informed as the conference proceeded. They believed that it would be appropriate for the President of the Security Council to consult informally with the membership to secure a favourable consensus of the Council. In his letter of transmittal, the Secretary-General said he intended to proceed on the basis of the two letters.

On 19 December, the President of the Security Council informed the Secretary-General that the Council had taken note of his letter and the documents attached to it, which they considered to be in accordance with Council resolution 344 (1973) of 15 December 1973. He said he had been informed that France reaffirmed the reservations expressed at the Council's meeting on 15 December, and that China dissociated itself from the matter.

Report of Secretary-General (24 December)

On 24 December, the Secretary-General reported that on 21 December he had convened the Peace Conference on the Middle East in Geneva, at which Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the USSR and the United States had been represented. Following two public sessions and one closed session, the Secretary-General summed up the conclusions of the Conference by stating that it had reached a consensus to continue its work through the setting up of a military working group, as well as other working groups which the Conference might wish to establish. The military working group would discuss the question of disengagement of forces. The working groups would report their findings and recommendations to the Conference, which was continuing on an ambassadorial level. It would reconvene at the foreign minister level as needed in the light of developments.

The Secretary-General's report included the text of the statement he had made at the opening of the Peace Conference, in which he expressed his gratification that that unique event was taking place under United Nations auspices.

He pointed out that the United Nations had been seized of the various aspects of the Middle East conflict for more than a quarter of a century, and had devoted an immense amount of time and effort both to keeping the peace and to the search for a just and lasting settlement. While no one underestimated the difficulties of the task ahead, the very fact of the Conference — and the willingness of the Governments concerned to respond to the new effort to find a settlement - was a source of encouragement and hope.

The Secretary-General said he was confident that the participants would not fail to seize the opportunity to build a lasting structure of peace in the area. It was an opportunity which might not recur for a very long time.

Communications relating to prisoners of war

During the period following the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East in October 1973, a number of communications were received by the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council relating to the treatment of prisoners of war. Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic, on the other, charged each other with mistreatment of prisoners of war, and with other violations of the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of 12 August 1949.

On 24 and 29 October, Israel stated that, in accordance with the provisions of the 1949 Convention, it had been transmitting to representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) all the required data concerning prisoners of war who had fallen into its power, as well as information concerning members of its own armed forces who were missing in action and presumed to have been taken prisoner of war. On the other hand, Israel charged, no information whatsoever had been received from the Syrian Arab Republic and only incomplete, garbled and unsatisfactory information had been received from Egypt. Israel cited a communiqué issued in Geneva by ICRC to support its contentions.

In a letter dated 31 October, the Syrian Arab Republic supplied a list of alleged Israeli violations of the third and fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 (the third relating to treatment of prisoners of war, the fourth relating to protection of civilian persons in time of war), including the shelling of hospitals, schools and other civilian installations, terrorizing of civilians, and maltreatment of prisoners of war.

Israel replied on 7 November that the Syrian Arab Republic was spreading atrocity stories in an effort to cover up its violation of its elementary and unconditional obligation concerning the transmission of the names of Israeli prisoners of war in its power.

Egypt, for its part, charged on 8 November that Israel had hindered ICRC in its humanitarian mission of moving wounded military personnel encircled on the east bank of the Suez Canal, and was making that return conditional on receiving a full list of Israeli prisoners of war, in spite of the fact that Egypt had delivered, and continued to deliver, such lists. Egypt further asserted that Israel hindered food and medical supplies from reaching wounded soldiers of the Egyptian Third Army; prevented ICRC from visiting Egyptian prisoners of war held in Israel; and tried to deport wounded soldiers of the Third Army to its own hospitals, considering them as prisoners of war.

Israel, on 14 November, denied these assertions, saying they were simply another attempt to cover up Egypt's violations of the Geneva Conventions.

On 22 November and 8 December, Israel transmitted the texts of two complaints submitted to ICRC by the Israeli Government. The first of these gave details of alleged grave violations of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War perpetrated by the Syrian army in the course of battles on the Golan Heights in October 1973. The second listed alleged crimes of murder, brutality and other breaches of the Convention, which Israel said had been perpetrated by Syrian authorities and by Syrian, Moroccan and Iraqi soldiers upon Israeli soldiers taken prisoner of war in the course of battles in October.

In reply to the first complaint, the Syrian Arab Republic on 5 December transmitted the text of its own complaint, which denied the Israeli allegations and drew attention to what it termed serious violations of the third and fourth Geneva Conventions committed by the Israeli army during the Israeli aggression in October. A reply to Israel's second complaint was forwarded by the Syrian Arab Republic on 14 December, in which it was claimed that Israel's allegations were unfounded and were intended to divert attention from the many crimes committed by Israel against Syrian civilians and prisoners of war.

In letters dated 9 and 26 December, Israel said that the Syrian Government was trying to lay a smoke-screen around its contempt for the pro-visions of the third Geneva Convention, concerning treatment of prisoners of war. This inhuman attitude had been manifested by the murder of at least 42 Israeli prisoners and was further demon-strated by the persistent Syrian refusal to supply lists of the prisoners and to enable ICRC representatives to visit them.

In a letter dated 9 December, Israel transmitted the text of a complaint it had submitted to ICRC charging Egypt with crimes of murder, torture and other breaches of the third Geneva Convention perpetrated upon Israeli soldiers taken captive by Egyptian forces during the hostilities in October and November.

Egypt denied these charges in a letter dated 28 December, stating that the Israeli allegations could not succeed in distracting the attention of the whole world from Israel's arrogant and ruthless policy, in pursuance of its aims of occupation and annexation.

On 24 December, Egypt charged that Israel had continuously refused to allow the evacuation of more than 150 emergency cases of wounded and sick in the Suez hospital. Israel had rejected all ICRC requests to evacuate them, resulting in a number of deaths. On 26 December, Egypt submitted a list of 43 prisoners of war who, it alleged, had been subjected by Israeli military authorities to brutality and inhuman torture.

In reply, Israel stated on 3 January 1974 that it rejected Egypt's allegations as baseless. Since the outset of hostilities, Israel said, it had scrupulously observed its obligations regarding prisoners of war and wounded members of the enemy forces. Egyptian authorities had only themselves to blame if, as a result of their obstinate refusal to discuss agreed arrangements in accordance with the Convention relating to prisoners of war, unnecessary suffering was caused to their own people.

Consideration by General Assembly

On 21 September 1973, the General Assembly included in the agenda of its twenty-eighth session an item on the situation in the Middle East. However, with the outbreak of hostilities in the area on 6 October and in the light of subsequent developments, the Assembly decided not to take up the item at that time. On 8 October, it heard statements regarding the outbreak of hostilities by the representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic, Israel and Egypt, at their request.

The Deputy Foreign Minister of the Syrian Arab Republic said that on 6 October an attack by Israel, involving land and air Forces, had started all along the front line. Syrian Forces had had to react, and a battle was raging on land and in the air. A simultaneous attack launched against Egypt showed unquestionably, he said, the deliberate, planned nature of the Israeli aggression, which was designed to bring about further territorial expansion.

He went on to say that Israel's plan of aggression actually began on 13 September, when Israeli bombers penetrated Syrian air space to a depth of more than 100 kilometres, with the intention of bombing strategic and economic targets. They were prevented from doing so by Syrian fighter aircraft. Since then, Israel had embarked upon a massive concentration of troops on Syria's borders and the imminent attack had been expected at any moment, which was why Israel had this time been unable to take advantage of a surprise attack.

The Syrian Arab Republic, he said, was fighting to repel the aggressor, and asking that an end be put to the occupation of Arab territories usurped by force; that Syria's territorial integrity be safeguarded; and that the principle of self-determination - recognized for all peoples, including the Palestinians - be applied as an inalienable right flowing From the United Nations Charter.

The Foreign Minister of Israel said the pre-meditated and unprovoked assault launched by Egypt and Syria across the cease-fire lines on 6 October would surely rank in history as one of the basest acts for which Governments had ever been responsible. The attempt to smash the cease-fire was, he asserted, a massive violation of international law. The cease-fire was an international agreement which had been accepted by Egypt, Syria and Israel in response to the Security Council's decision of 6 June 1967 13/ in which all three Governments had concurred. Later, on the basis of the Council's resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 14/ Israel undertook that, on the establishment of peace with secure and agreed boundaries, forces would be withdrawn to the secure boundaries to be determined in negotiation in the peace agreement. To that policy of maintaining the cease-fire and offering negotiations on a final settlement, Israel had again pledged its adherence to the General Assembly at the current session.

The Israeli Foreign Minister went on to say that six hours before the outbreak of war on 6 October, he had been informed of an imminent joint attack by Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic. Two hours later, diplomatic representatives in Israel were informed of that expectation. A United Nations observer's report had specifically mentioned Egyptian and Syrian encroachments across the cease-fire line. The sacrilegious exploitation of the Day of Atonement and Israel's renunciation of preventive action during those critical hours had cost Israel dear, he said, but the Egyptian and Syrian advantage had been and would be brief. Israeli forces were repelling the enemy on both fronts.

He said that three things were vital, not only to Israel's existence and security but to the peace of the Middle East: first, peace itself; second, negotiation as the pathway to peace; and, third, within the framework of a negotiated peace, the establishment of secure boundaries which would give assurance against the kind of sudden assault that took place on 6 October. The immediate task was to restore the entire structure of the cease-fire, consisting of two elements: abstention from fighting, and the lines and positions agreed by the parties as the lines and positions of the cease-fire.

The Foreign Minister of Egypt declared that on 6 October Israeli air formations and naval units had attacked Egyptian forces on the Gulf of Suez. Egypt had repelled that aggression; its forces had now crossed to the eastern bank of the Suez Canal and Syrian forces were liberating their territory, with the aim of safeguarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Arab nations.

The Egyptian Foreign minister went on to say that Israel had frustrated all efforts aiming at a peaceful settlement of the problem of the Middle East. The previous day, he recalled, Egypt had requested the Security Council to meet and consider the situation in the Middle East. Fourteen members of the Council out of 15 stood firmly behind the principle of non-acquisition of territory by war, of territorial integrity and of self-determination. Later, as a result of the Council's failure to take a decision owing to the veto of the United States, Israel had escalated its arrogant policy of violence and aggression. Egypt was trying to set its feet back on its land and that could not be called aggression. It was an act of liberation for which Egypt expected the Assembly's full support.

On 18 December, the President of the Assembly said that the twenty-eighth session would not be considered closed from a procedural point of view. Extensive consultations had indicated that, because of the recent developments in the Middle East, there was a general sentiment not to take up the agenda item entitled "The situation in the Middle East" at the present time. As a result of the consultations, it was felt that the session should be resumed if the circumstances warranted it, and if the President, after consulting with Member States and with the Secretary-General, believed conditions were favourable. The date of resumption could be decided according to the same procedure. The Assembly agreed without objection to this course of action.

Other communications

During October and November 1973, the Secretary-General received a number of communications - some containing statements by Governments - on the situation in the Middle East following the outbreak of hostilities on 6 October.

On 7 October, the USSR transmitted a statement of the USSR Government to the effect that the absence of a political settlement in the area had caused a new outbreak of hostilities after Israel had inflamed the situation and launched military operations. Without the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied in 1967, it would be impossible to establish a guaranteed peace for all the States and peoples of the area. The USSR fully supported the legitimate demands of the Arab States and held that responsibility for the present turn of events rested wholly with Israel.

The Secretary-General, on 8 October, transmitted to the President of the Security Council a message from the Prime minister of Pakistan, who said that the state of "no war, no peace" which had been allowed to prevail in the Middle East had plunged the region into yet another armed conflict. He urged the Security Council to take immediate measures to have the occupied Arab territories vacated without delay and to implement its resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.

A message from the President of Algeria, transmitted by the Secretary-General to the Council President on 9 October, put the responsibility for the grave events in the Middle East on Israel because of its policy of force, annexation and expansion.

The representative of Algeria, on 10 October, transmitted a declaration adopted that day by the non-aligned countries at a meeting at United Nations Headquarters, condemning Israel for its aggression against Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic.

On 13 October, Denmark's representative informed the Secretary-General that the nine members of the European Economic Community had that day issued a statement appealing to the parties to agree to halt hostilities, thus paving the way for true negotiation in an appropriate forum, permitting a settlement of the conflict in accordance with all the provisions of Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.

The representative of Mauritania on 16 October transmitted the text of a message addressed by his country's President to the President of the United States, expressing concern over reports of United States intervention on the side of Israeli forces against Arab peoples engaged in the struggle for recovery of their territories.

Also on 16 October, the USSR transmitted a statement of the World Peace Council, urging the United Nations to compel Israel to implement United Nations resolutions and to impose sanctions on it if it refused to do so.

The Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, on 22 October, transmitted a statement by his President, appealing to all parties concerned to avail themselves of the United Nations in realizing the goal of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Full implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) was a concrete and necessary step, the Philippines believed.

A statement by the Acting President of Sierra Leone was transmitted by that country's representative on 23 October, calling on all parties to observe the Security Council's cease-fire appeal, and on Israel to comply with the provisions of Council resolution 242 (1967) and immediately withdraw from all Arab territories occupied as a result of the June 1967 war.

On 24 October, the Romanian representative transmitted the text of a declaration by his Government, urging that all efforts be directed towards observance of the cease-fire, followed by agreement providing for withdrawal of Israeli troops from Arab territories, establishment of an enduring and just peace, and settlement of the problem of the Palestinian population in accordance with its legitimate aspirations to a free and independent life.

A letter from the Foreign Minister of Turkey was transmitted on 24 October, in which it was stated that Turkey continued to believe that resolution 242 (1967) contained the necessary elements for the attainment of a just peace in the Middle East which should safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of all concerned.

On 29 October, Ghana and Sierra Leone informed the Secretary-General that they had broken off diplomatic relations with Israel. Also on 29 October, the representative of Mauritius, as Chairman of the African group of States, enclosed a list of the 25 African countries which had broken off diplomatic relations with Israel since June 1967.

The representative of Mongolia on 29 October transmitted a statement by his Government demanding among other things the immediate cessation of Israeli aggression against the Arab countries and the complete withdrawal of Israel's forces from all the Arab territories it had occupied.

On 31 October, the Creek representative transmitted a message from the Foreign Minister of Greece, expressing the view that resolution 242 (1967) still provided the best basis for a just, viable and equitable settlement of the Middle East problem.

The representative of Denmark informed the Secretary-General on 6 November that the nine members of the European Economic Community had issued a statement expressing the hope that following the adoption of the Security Council's resolution of 22 October (338 (1973)), negotiations would at last begin for the restoration in the Middle East of a just and lasting peace through the application of Council resolution 242 (1967) in all its parts. They also felt that the Council and the Secretary-General had a special role to play in the making and keeping of peace through the application of the two resolutions.

On 30 November, the representatives of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand transmitted the text of a statement by the member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), calling for a just and lasting solution of the problem in conformity with the United Nations Charter, Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and other related United Nations resolutions. The ASEAN member countries deplored Israel's acts of territorial expansion by force and urged that the lawful rights of the Palestinian people be fully respected and restored.

Documentary references

Reports on outbreak of hostilities;
communications by the parties
S/7930/Add.2141-2145, 2148-2154, 2156-2160, 2162, 2163. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General concerning situation in Israel-Egypt sector.
S/7930/Add.2141-2145, 2147 and Corr.1, 2148-2154, 2156, 2160, 2162, 2163. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General concerning situation in Israel-Syrian Arab Republic sector.
S/7930/Add.2141, 2143, 2145, 2146, 2149, 2155, 2157, 2159, 2162, 2163. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General concerning situation in Israel-Lebanon sector.
S/7930/Add.2161. Supplemental information dated 9 October 1973 (report of Chief of Staff of UNTSO in connexion with Secretary-General's letter, S/11013).
S/11009 and Corr.1. Letter of 6 October 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11011 (A/9204). Letter of 7 October 1973 from Israel.
S/11013. Letter of 8 October 1973 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.
S/11015 (A/9212). Letter of 9 October 1973 from Lebanon.

A/9190. Letter of 6 October 1973 from Egypt.

Consideration by Security Council
(8-12 October 1973)

Security Council, meetings 1743-1746.

S/11010. Letter of 7 October 1973 from United States (request to convene Council).
S/11014. Letter of 8 October 1973 from Secretary-General (transmitting message from Prime Minister of Pakistan).

Reports and communications (8-23 October)

S/7930/Add.2151 2160; 2163-2165, 2170, 2183, 2187. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General concerning Israel-Egypt sector.
S/7930/Add.2157-2160, 2163-2209. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General concerning Israel-Syrian Arab Republic sector.
S/7930/Add.2157-2159, 2162-2198, 2200, 2201, 2203-2208. Supplemental Information received by Secretary-General concerning Israel-Lebanon sector.
S/7930/Add.2161. Supplemental information dated 9 Oc-tober 1973 (report of Chief of Staff of UNTSO in connexion with Secretary-General's letter, S/11013).
S/11013. Letter of 8 October 1973 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.
S/11016. Letter of 9 October 1973 from Secretary-General (transmitting message from President of Algeria).
S/11017. Letter of 9 October 1973 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.
S/11020. Note, dated 11 October 1973, by President of Security Council.
S/11021. Letter of 11 October 1973 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.
S/11027 (A/9222), S/11032 (A/9229). Letters of 12 and 17 October 1973 from Israel.

SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATIONS
S/11041 (A/9251), S/11143 (A/9387), S/11163 (A/9469). Letters of 24 October and 4 and 19 December 1973 from Israel.

Consideration by Security Council
(21/22 and 23 October 1973)

Security Council, meetings 1747, 1748.

S/11010. Letter of 7 October 1973 from United States (request to convene Council).
S/11036. USSR and United States: draft resolution.

Resolution 338 (1973), as proposed by 2 powers, S/11036, adopted by Council on 22 October 1973, meeting 1747, by 14 votes to 0 (China did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

1. Calls upon all parties to the prevent fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;

2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;

3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

S/11039. USSR and United States: draft resolution.

Resolution 339 (1973), as proposed by 2 powers, S/11039, adopted by Council on 23 October 1973, meeting 1748, by 14 votes to 0 (China did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Referring to its resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973,

1. Confirms its decision on an immediate cessation of all kinds of firing and of all military action, and urges that the forces of the two sides be returned to the positions they occupied at the moment the cease-fire became effective;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to take measures for immediate dispatch of United Nations observers to supervise the observance of the cease-fire between the forces of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt, using for this purpose the personnel of the United Nations now in the Middle East and first of all the personnel now in Cairo.

Consideration by Security
Council (24-26 October 1973)

Security Council, meetings 1749-1751.

S/11010. Letter of 7 October 1973 from United States (request to convene Council).
S/11046 and Rev.1. Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Yugoslavia: draft resolution and revision.
S/11049. Letter of 25 October 1973 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

Resolution 340 (1973), as proposed by 8 powers, S/11046/Rev.1, adopted by Council on 25 October 1973, meeting 1750, by 14 votes to 0 (China did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 338 (1973) of 22 October and 339(1973) of 23 October 1973,

Noting with regret the reported repeated violations of the cease-fire in non-compliance with resolutions 338 (1973) and 339(1973),

Noting with concern from the Secretary-General's report that the United Nations military observers have not yet been enabled to place themselves on both sides of the cease-fire line,

1. Demands that immediate and complete cease-fire be observed and that the parties return to the positions occupied by them at 1650 hours GMT on 22 October 1973;

2. Requests the Secretary-General, as an immediate step, to increase the number of United Nations military observers on both sides;

3. Decides to set up immediately, under its authority, a United Nations Emergency Force to be composed of personnel drawn from States Members of the United Nations except the permanent members of the Security Council, and requests the Secretary-General to report within 24 hours on the steps taken to this effect;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on an urgent and continuing basis on the state of implementation of the present resolution, as well as resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973);

5. Requests all Member States to extend their full co-operation to the United Nations in the implementation of the present resolution, as well as resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973).

S/INF/29. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1973. Decisions, p. 11.

Report of Secretary-General (27 October)

S/11052 and Rev.1. Report, dated 27 October 1973, by Secretary-General on implementation of Security Council resolution 340 (1973).

Consideration by Security
Council (27 October 1973)

Security Council, meeting 1752.

S/11010. Letter of 7 October 1973 from United States (request to convene Council).
S/11052 and Rev.1. Report, dated 26 October 1973, by Secretary-General on implementation of Security Council resolution 340 (1973).
S/11054. Australia: draft resolution.

Resolution 341 (1973), as proposed by Australia, S/11054, adopted by Council on 27 October 1973, meeting 1752, by 14 votes to 0 (China did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

1. Approves the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolution 340 (1973) contained in document S/11052/Rev.1 dated 27 October 1973;

2. Decides that the Force shall be established in accordance with the above-mentioned report for an initial period of six months, and that it shall continue in operation thereafter, if required, provided the Security Council so decides.

Progress reports of Secretary-General on
establishment and functioning of UNEF

S/11056. Progress report, dated 28 October 1973, of Secretary-General on United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF).
S/11056/Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1 and Add.2-8. Further progress reports of Secretary-General on UNEF, dated 30 October, and 4, 11, 14, 15 and 24 November 1973.

Consideration by Security
Council (2 November 1973)

Security Council, meeting 1754.

S/11010. Letter of 7 October 1973 from United States (request to convene Council).
S/11056/Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1. Further progress report, dated 30 October 1973, of Secretary-General on UNEF.
S/11072. Note by President of Security Council.
S/INF/29. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1973. Decisions, p. 12.

Further progress reports of Secretary-General
S/11056/Add.1,2. Further progress reports, dated 4 and 11 November 1973, of Secretary-General on UNEF.

Consideration by Security
Council (12 November 1973)

Security Council, meeting 1755.
S/11103. Letter of 8 November 1973 trom Secretary-General.
S/11104. Note by President of Security Council.
S/INF/29. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1973. Decisions, p. 12.

FURTHER REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
S/11025. Letter of 14 October 1973 from Egypt.
S/11030, S/11043 (A/9253). Letters of 16 and 24 Octo-ber 1973 from Israel.
S/11044, S/11048. Letters of 24 and 25 October 1973 from Egypt.
S/11051 (A/9258), S/11053 (A/9259). Letters of 26 October 1973 from Israel.
S/11056/Add.4-6. Further progress reports, dated 14, 15 and 24 November 1973, of Secretary-General on UNEF.
S/11057. Report of Secretary-General, dated 29 Octo-ber 1973, on status of cease-fire observation operations in Middle East.
S/11057/Add.1, 4, 7, 10. Further reports of Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Israel-Egypt sector from 28 to 31 October 1973.
S/11057/Add.2, 5, 8, 11. Further reports of Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Israel-Syrian Arab Republic sector from 28 to 31 October 1973.
S/11057/Add.3, 6, 9, 12. Further reports of Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Israel-Lebanon sector from 28 to 31 October 1973.
S/11057/Add.13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 32, 33 and Corr.1, 36, 39, 42, 47, 48, 51, 56, 59, 62, 65, 66, 69, 72, 75, 80, 82, 85, 87, 90, 93, 96. Further reports of Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Israel-Egypt sector in November 1973.
S/11057/Add.14, 22, 24, 28, 30, 35, 37, 40, 44, 45, 50, 52, 55, 58, 61, 63, 67, 70, 73, 76, 78, 83, 88, 91, 94, 99. Further reports of Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Israel-Syrian Arab Republic sector in November 1973.
S/11057/Add.15, 17, 20, 23, 25, 29, 31, 34, 38, 41, 43, 46, 49, 53, 54, 57, 60, 64, 68, 71, 74, 77, 79, 81, 84, 86, 89, 92, 95, 98. Further reports of Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Israel-Lebanon sector in November 1973.
S/11057/Add.97, 102, 106, 109, 112, 115, 118, 119, 122, 127, 130, 133, 136, 139, 142, 145, 148, 151, 154, 157, 160, 163, 166, 169, 172, 175, 178, 181, 184, 186, 189 and Corr.1, 192. Further reports of Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Israel-Egypt sector in December 1973.
S/11057/Add.100, 103, 105, 108, 110, 114, 117, 121, 123, 125, 128, 131, 135, 138, 140, 143, 146, 149, 152, 155, 158, 161, 164, 167, 170, 173, 176, 180, 182, 187, 190. Further reports of Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Israel-Syrian Arab Republic sector in December 1973.
S/11057/Add.101, 104, 107, 111, 113, 116, 120, 124, 126, 129, 132, 134, 137, 141, 144, 147, 150, 153, 156, 159, 162, 165, 168, 171, 174, 177, 179, 183, 185, 188, 191. Further reports of Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Israel-Lebanon sector in December 1973.
S/11058 (A/9261), S/11063 (A/9267). Letters of 29 and 31 October 1973 from Israel.
S/11067 (A/9272). Letter of 1 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11069 (A/9275). Letter of 1 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11070. Letter of 1 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11073 (A/9279), S/11075 (A/9281), S/11076 (A/9282). Letters of 3 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11077 (A/9283). Letter of 3 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11078 (A/9284), S/11079 and Corr.1 (A/9286 and Corr.1), S/11082 (A/9289), S/11086-S/11090 (A/9295-A/9299). Letters of 4, 5, 6 and 8 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11084. Letter of 7 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11091. Letter of 9 November 1973 from United States.
S/11094 (A/9301). Letter of 9 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11095. Letter of 9 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11097. Letter of 9 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11098-S/11101 (A/9302-A/9305). Letters of 10 and 11 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11102 (A/9306). Letter of 11 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11105, S/11106-S/11108 (A/9308-A/9310). Letters of 12 and 13 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11109 (A/9311). Letter of 13 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11110 (A/9312), S/11111 (A/9313), S/11113 (A/9317), S/11114 (A/9318), S/11116 (A/9320), S/11117 (A/9321). Letters of 13, 14 and 15 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11118 (A/9323). Letter of 16 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11119 (A/9327). Letter of 19 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11124. Letter of 21 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11127. Note by President of Security Council (transmitting letter of 20 November 1973 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council and reply of 23 November 1973).
S/11128 (A/9336). Letter of 23 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11132 (A/9343). Letter of 26 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11134. Letter of 27 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11135 (A/9352), S/11136 (A/9357), S/11141 (A/9375), S/11142 (A/9381), S/11147 (A/9406), S/11155 (A/9453), S/11158 (A/9457), S/11164 (A/9470). Letters of 28 and 29 November and 2, 4, 6, 13, 14 and 19 December 1973 from Israel.
S/11167 (A/9472). Letter of 21 December 1973 from Egypt.
S/11170 and Corr.1 (A/9473 and Corr.1). Letter of 26 December 1973 from Israel.
S/11171 (A/9474), S/11176, S/11179. Letters of 24 and 29 December 1973 and 2 January 1974 from Egypt.
S/11182 (A/9480). Letter of 6 January 1974 from Israel.
S/INF/29. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1973. Decisions, p. 12.

Consideration by Security
Council (15 December 1973)

Security Council, meeting 1760.

S/11156. Australia, Austria, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

Resolution 344 (1973), as proposed by 10 powers, S/11156, adopted by Council on 15 December 1973, meeting 1760, by 10 votes to 0, with 4 abstentions (France, USSR, United Kingdom, United States) (China did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Considering that it has decided by its resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973 that talks among the parties to the Middle East conflict for the implementation of resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 should be held under "appropriate auspices,"

Noting that a peace conference on the Middle East situation is to begin shortly at Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations,

1. Expresses the hope that the Peace Conference will make speedy progress towards the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Middle East;

2. Expresses its confidence that the Secretary-General will play a full and effective role at the Conference, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and that he will preside over its proceedings, if the parties so desire;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Council suitably informed of the developments in negotiations at the Conference, in order to enable it to review the problems on a continuing basis;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to provide all necessary assistance and facilities for the work of the Conference.

S/INF/29. Resolutions and decisions of Security Council, 1973. Decision, pp. 11-12.

S/11159. Official communiqué of 1760th meeting of Security Council, 15 December 1973.
S/11161. Letter of 18 December 1973 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council (transmitting letters of 18 December 1973 from USSR and from United States).
S/11162. Letter of 19 December 1973 from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.

Report of Secretary-General (24 December)
S/11169. Report of 24 December 1973 of Secretary-General submitted in pursuance of Security Council resolution 344 (1973) of 15 December 1973.

Communications relating to prisoners of war

S/11042 (A/9252), S/11060 (A/9263). Letters of 24 and 29 October 1973 from Israel.
S/11066 (A/9271). Letter of 31 October 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11085 (A/9291). Letter of 7 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11093(A/9300). Letter of 8 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11112 (A/9316), S/11126 (A/9333), S/11130 (A/9342). Letters of 14, 22 and 26 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11144 (A/9388). Letter of 5 December 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11148 (A/9429), S/11149 (A/9430), S/11151 (A/9432). Letters of 8 and 9 December 1973 from Israel.
S/11157 (A/9456). Letter of 14 December 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11172 (A/9475), S/11173. Letters of 24 and 26 December 1973 from Egypt.
S/11174 (A/9476). Letter of 26 December 1973 from Israel.
S/11175. Letter of 28 December 1973 from Egypt.
S/11180 and Rev.1 (A/9478 and Rev.1). Letter of 3 January 1974 from Israel.

Consideration by General Assembly

General Assembly - 28th session
Plenary meetings 2143, 2145, 2148, 2154, 2206.

A/8998 (S/10857). Letter of 4 January 1973 from Egypt.
A/8999 (S/10860). Letter of 9 January 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9001. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1972-15 June 1973, Part One Chapter I A and B.
A/9001/Add.1. Introduction to report of Secretary-General, August 1973, Section V.
A/9002. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1972-15 June 1973, Chapter 1 A.
A/9034 (S/10861), A/9035 (S/10862). Letters of 16 and 17 January 1973 from Israel.
A/9042. Letter of 25 January 1973 from Under-Secretary-General for Political and General Assembly Affairs to Permanent Representative of Tunisia.
A/9045 (S/10882). Letter of 14 February 1973 from Jordan.
A/9046 (S/10883). Letter of 16 February 1973 from Israel.
A/9049 (S/10889). Letter of 22 February 1973 from Guyana (transmitting statement by non-aligned countries at United Nations on 21 February 1973).
A/9050 (S/10891). Letter of 26 February 1973 from Egypt (transmitting resolution adopted by Council of Ministers of OAU at its 20th ordinary session, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 5-12 February 1973).
A/9054 (S/10908). Letter of 3 April 1973 from Egypt.
A/9055 (S/10909). Letter of 7 April 1973 from Egypt, Jordan and Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9056 (S/10910), A/9058 (S/10914). Letters of 9 and 12 April 1973 from Israel.
A/9059 (S/10919), A/9064 (S/10924). Letters of 23 April and 8 May 1973 from Jordan.
A/9087 (S/10965). Letter of 5 July 1973 from Morocco.
A/9096 (S/10969). Letter of 17 July 1973 from Israel.
A/9098 (S/10972). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting text of Commission on Human Rights resolution 4 (XXIX) of 14 March 1973).
A/9114 (S/10981). Letter of 2 August 1973 from Egypt.
A/9151 (S/10996). Letter of 14 September 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9152 and Corr.1 (S/10998 and Corr.1). Letter of 14 September 1973 from Israel.
A/9161 (S/11002). Letter of 18 September 1973 from Lebanon.
A/9190. Letter of 6 October 1973 from Egypt.
A/9203. Letter of 6 October 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9204 (S/11011). Letter of 7 October 1973 from Israel.
A/9205 (S/11012). Letter of 7 October 1973 from USSR.
A/9212 (S/11015). Letter of 9 October 1973 from Lebanon.
A/9217 (S/11018). Letter of 10 October 1973 trom Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9218 (S/11019). Letter of 10 October 1973 from Algeria (transmitting text of declaration adopted by non-aligned countries at United Nations on 10 October 1973).
A/9220 (S/11023). Letter of 13 October 1973 from Denmark (transmitting text of statement by 9 member countries of European community).
A/9222 (S/11027). Letter of 12 October 1973 from Israel.
A/9224 (S/11029). Letter of 16 October 1973 from Mauritania.
A/9226 (S/11031). Letter of 16 October 1973 from USSR (transmitting documents of World Peace Council).
A/9229 (S/11032), A/9245 (S/11035). Letters of 17 and 19 October 1973 from Israel.
A/9246 (S/11037). Letter of 22 October 1973 from Philippines.
A/9248 (S/11038). Note verbale of 23 October 1973 from Sierra Leone.
A/9250 and Corr.1 (S/11040 and Corr.1). Letter of 23 October 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9251-A/9253 (S/11041-S/11043). Letters of 24 October 1973 from Israel.
A/9255 (S/11045). Letter of 24 October 1973 from Romania.
A/9257 (S/11050). Letter of 24 October 1973 from Turkey.
A/9258 (S/11051), A/9259 (S/11053), A/9261 (S, 11058). Letters of 26 and 29 October 1973 from Israel.
A/9262 (S/11059). Letter of 29 October 1973 from Sierra Leone.
A/9263 (S/11060). Letter of 29 October 1973 from Israel.
A/9265 (S/11061). Letter of 29 October 1973 from Mongolia.
A/9266 (S/11062). Letter of 29 October 1973 from Ghana.
A/9267 (S/11063). Letter of 31 October 1973 from Israel.
A/9268 (S/11064). Letter of 31 October 1973 from Greece.
A/9269 (S/11065). Letter of 29 October 1973 from Mauritius (transmitting list of member countries of OAU which had broken off diplomatic relations with Israel).
A/9271 (S/11066), A/9272 (S/11067). Letters of 31 October and 1 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9273 (S/11068). Letter of 1 November 1973 from Egypt.
A/9275 (S/11069), A/9279-A/9282 (S/11073-S/11076). Letters of 1 and 3 November 1973 from Israel.
A/9283 (S/11077). Letter of 3 November 1973 from Egypt.
A/9284 (S/11078), A/9286 and Corr.1 (S/11079 and Corr.1). Letters of 4 and 5 November 1973 from Israel.
A/9288 (S/11081). Letter of 6 November 1973 from Denmark (transmitting statement of 9 member countries of European community).
A/9289 (S/11082), A/9291 (S/11085), A/9295-A/9299 (S/11086-S/11090). Letters of 6, 7 and 8 November 1973 from Israel.
A/9300 (S/11093). Letter of 8 November 1973 from Egypt.
A/9301 (S/11094). Letter of 9 November 1973 trom Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9302-A/9305 (S/11098-S/11101). Letters of 10 and 11 November 1973 from Israel.
A/9306 (S/11102). Letter of 11 November 1973 from Egypt.
A/9308-A/9310 (S/11106-S/11108). Letters of 13 November 1973 from Israel.
A/9311 (S/11109). Letter of 13 November 1973 from Egypt.
A/9312 (S/11110), A/9313 (S/11111), A/9316-A/9318 (S/11112-S/11114), A/9320 (S/11116), A/9321 (S/11117). Letters of 13, 14 and 15 November 1973 from Israel.
A/9323 (S/11118). Letter of 16 November 1973 from Egypt.
A/9327 (S/11119), A/9328 (S/11120). Letters of 19 and 20 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9329 (S/11122). Letter of 20 November 1973 from Egypt.
A/9330 and Corr.1. Letter of 22 November 1973 from Algeria (transmitting documents of 4th Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, Algiers, Algeria, 5-9 September 1973).
A/9331 (S/11123). Letter of 21 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9333 (S/11126), A/9336 (S/11128), A/9342 (S/11130). Letters of 22, 23 and 26 November 1973 from Israel.
A/9343 (S/11132). Letter of 26 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9352 (S/11135), A/9357 (S/11136). Letters of 28 and 29 November 1973 from Israel.
A/9367 (S/11138). Letter of 29 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9369 (S/11139). Letter of 30 November 1973 from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand (transmitting statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN member countries, Jakarta, Indonesia, 27 November 1973).
A/9375 (S/11141), A/9381 (S/11142), A/9387 (S/11143). Letters of 2 and 4 December 1973 from Israel.
A/9388 (S/11144). Letter of 5 December 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9405 (S/11146), A/9408 (S/11147) A/9429 (S/11148), A/9430 (S/11149), A/9432 (S/11151;, A/9453 (S/11155). Letters of 6, 8, 9 and 13 December 1973 from Israel.
A/9458 (S/11157). Letter of 14 December 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9457 (S/11158). Letter of 14 December 1973 from Israel.
A/9468 (S/11160). Letter of 18 December 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/9489 (S/11163), A/9470 (S/11164). Letters of 19 December 1973 from Israel.
A/9472 (S/11167). Letter of 21 December 1973 from Egypt.
A/9473 and Corr.1 (S/11170 and Corr.1). Letter of 26 December 1973 from Israel.
A/9474 (S/11171), A/9475 (S/11172). Letters of 24 December 1973 from Egypt.
A/9476 (S/11174), A/9478 and Rev.1 (S/11180 and Rev.1), A/9479 (S/11181), A/9480 (S/11182). Letters of 26 December 1973 and 3, 4 and 6 January 1974 from Israel.
A/9031. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly during its 28th session, Vol. I, 18 September-18 December 1973. Other decisions, p. 11.

Other communications

S/7930/Add.2210. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General concerning Israel-Egypt sector, 21-27 October 1973.
S/7930/Add.2207-2211, 2213, 2215-2217, 2221, 2222, 2227, 2230, 2233, 2235. Supplemental Information received by Secretary-General concerning Israel-Syrian Arab Republic sector, 21-27 October 1973.
S/7930/Add.2207, 2208, 2210-2212, 2214, 2218, 2220, 2223, 2226, 2229, 2232, 2236. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General concerning Israel-Lebanon sector, 21-27 October 1973.
S/7930/Add.2219. Supplemental information dated 24 October 1973 (report of Secretary-General on implementation of Security Council resolution 339 (1973) of 23 October 1973).
S/11012 (A/9205). Letter of 7 October 1973 from USSR.
S/11014. Letter of 8 October 1973 from Secretary-General (transmitting message from Prime Minister of Pakistan).
S/11016. Letter of 9 October 1973 from Secretary-General (transmitting message from President of Algeria).
S/11019 (A/9218). Letter of 10 October 1973 from Algeria (transmitting text of declaration adopted by non-aligned countries at United Nations on 10 October 1973).
S/11023 (A/9220). Letter of 13 October 1973 from Denmark (transmitting text of statement by 9 member countries of European community).
S/11029 (A/9224). Letter of 16 October 1973 from Mauritania.
S/11031 (A/9226). Letter of 16 October 1973 from USSR (transmitting documents of World Peace Council).
S/11037 (A/9246). Letter of 22 October 1973 from Philippines.
S/11038 (A/9248). Note verbale of 23 October 1973 from Sierra Leone.
S/11040 and Corr.1 (A/9250 and Corr.1.). Letter of 23 October 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11045 (A/9255). Letter of 24 October 1973 from Romania.
S/11047. Letter of 25 October 1973 from Secretary-General (transmitting letter of 24 October 1973 to Israel and reply of 25 October 1973).
S/11049. Letter of 25 October 1973 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.
S/11050 (A/9257). Letter of 24 October 1973 from Turkey.
S/11055. Letter of 27 October 1973 from Egypt (containing letter of 26 October 1973 in reply to Secretary-General's cable of 25 October 1973).
S/11059 (A/9262). Letter of 29 October 1973 from Sierra Leone.
S/11061 (A/9265). Letter of 29 October 1973 from Mongolia.
S/11062 (A/9266). Letter of 29 October 1973 from Ghana.
S/11064 (A/9268). Letter of 31 October 1973 from Greece.
S/11065 (A/9269). Letter of 29 October 1973 from Mauritius (transmitting list of member countries of Organization of African Unity which had broken off diplomatic relations with Israel).
S/11081 (A/9288). Letter of 6 November 1973 from Denmark (transmitting statement of 9 member countries of European community).
S/11139 (A/9369). Letter of 30 November 1973 from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand (transmitting statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN member countries, Jakarta, Indonesia, 27 November 1973).


Financing of the United Nations Emergency Force

On 11 December 1973, the General Assembly adopted resolution 3101 (XXVIII), dealing with the financing of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) established pursuant to Security Council resolution 340 (1973) of 25 October (see section above). The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 108 to 3, with 1 abstention, on the recommendation of the Assembly's Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee.

For its consideration of this question, the Fifth Committee had before it a report of the Secretary-General in which he submitted for approval budget estimates totalling $30 million for the organization, operation and maintenance of a Force of 7,000 officers and men for a period of six months, beginning on 25 October 1973. The Secretary-General also requested General Assembly authority to enter into commitments for the Force at a rate not to exceed $5 million per month for the period from 25 April to 31 October 1974, should it be necessary to continue the Force beyond the initial six-month period.

In its related report, the Assembly's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions among other things recommended acceptance of the Secretary-General's estimate, subject to such decision as the Assembly might take regarding the question of reimbursement of extra and extraordinary costs to Governments providing contingents to the Force. The Advisory Committee also recommended that the Assembly authorize the Secretary-General to enter into the commitments he requested should the Force continue beyond the initial six-month period.

The Advisory Committee also concluded that providing for the expenses of the Force in a special account had several advantages over providing for them in the United Nations regular budget. It suggested that an effort be made to invite voluntary contributions, in cash or in kind, to help defray the costs of the Force, and considered early payment of contributions essential.

At the outset of the discussion in the Fifth Committee, a draft resolution was introduced on behalf of Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, the Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Liberia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Togo, Turkey, the United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia and Zaire.

The Fifth Committee approved this resolution on 23 November 1973 by a recorded vote of 105 to 2, with 4 abstentions; it was subsequently adopted by the General Assembly.

By the preambular paragraphs, the Assembly among other things took into account the fact that the economically more developed countries were in a position to make relatively larger contributions towards peace-keeping operations and that the permanent members of the Security Council had a special responsibility in the financing of such operations.

Thus, the General Assembly decided to appropriate $30 million for the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force from 25 October 1973 to 24 April 1974 inclusive and asked the Secretary-General to establish a special account for the Force.

It also decided, as an ad hoc arrangement, without prejudice to the positions of principle that might he taken by Member States regarding the financing of peace-keeping operations, to apportion for the stated six-month period, in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1974-1976 (see pp. 850-55):

(a) $18,945,000 among the permanent members of the Security Council;

(b) $10,434,000 among the economically developed Member States which were not permanent members of the Security Council;

(c) $606,000 among economically less developed Member States (defined as all Member States except Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, the Ukrainian SSR, the permanent members of the Security Council and the States referred to in paragraph (d) below); and

(d) $15,000 to the following among the economically less developed Member States: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Chad, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Laos, Lesotho, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta and Yemen.

The Assembly authorized the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for UNEF at a rate not to exceed $5 million per month for the period 95 April 1974 to 31 October 1974 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the initial period of six months; this amount was to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in this resolution.

The Assembly also invited voluntary contributions to UNEF both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General.

(For text of resolution 3101 (XXVIII), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

When he introduced the 37-power text in the Fifth Committee, the representative of Brazil said that it was based on the principle of collective responsibility of Member States in sharing the costs of the Force - as recognized by the General Assembly in its resolution of 27 June 1963 15/ and complied fully with the decision (341 (1973) of 27 October 1973 - see section above) of the Security Council, when it decided to establish the Force, that the costs of UNEF should be considered as expenses of the United Nations to be borne by the Member States in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter. 16/ The proposal was inspired also by past decisions of the Assembly to the effect that any peace-keeping operations involving heavy expenditures should be financed through a procedure different from that applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget of the United Nations, and it followed the guidelines embodied in stands previously taken by the Assembly on the question of financing peace-keeping operations, the Brazilian spokesman said.

In setting up the four categories of countries and in calculating the amounts to be shared by them, the Brazilian representative said, the sponsors had borne in mind, among other things, past experience of the Assembly in dealing with similar issues and elements of judgement derived from political and economic considerations. The scale of assessments for 1974-1976 was chosen to determine the amounts to be contributed because, he said, to a very large extent it was lower than the current scale and a vast majority of Member States would receive more favourable treatment with regard to their share in the financing of the Force.

In addition to the sponsors, a number of Members expressed support for the 37-power proposal, including France, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. They supported the proposal, they said, because it was based on the principle of collective responsibility. However, they considered the arrangement outlined to be an ad hoc one which would not constitute a precedent for the financing of any future peace-keeping operations, and would in no way prejudice any position they might adopt with regard to similar operations in the future. Several of these Member, including Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, stated they would have preferred that the required funds be apportioned more closely in accordance with the scale of assessments established for the regular budget, but were accepting the ad hoc arrangement as a compromise solution to the varying points of view held by the total membership.

While it did not object to reference to the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the Security Council in financing such peace-keeping operations, France pointed out that they should be able to exercise those responsibilities at all other levels without discrimination.

Several other proposals were considered and acted upon by the Fifth Committee in the course of its discussion of this question.

The representative of the USSR, also on behalf of Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland, introduced an amendment to the 37-power text by which the Assembly would apportion the $30 million assessment on the basis of the following principles:

(a) each of the permanent members of the Security Council would contribute an amount equal to approximately 15 per cent more than its contribution according to the United Nations scale of assessments for 1974-1976, i.e., a total of 63.15 per cent;

(b) the most developed countries with an annual per capita income of $2,501 or more (Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway and Sweden) would contribute an amount equal to 10 per cent more than their contribution according to the 1974-1976 scale of assessments, i.e., a total of 15.49 per cent;

(c) the developed countries with an annual per capita income of $1,501 to $2,500 (Austria, Belgium, Finland, the German Democratic Republic, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and New Zealand) and also Portugal and South Africa would contribute an amount equal to their contribution according to the 1974-1976 scale of assessments, i.e., a total of 16.44 per cent;

(d) countries with an annual per capita income of $1,001 to $1,500 (Argentina, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Ireland, Poland, and the Ukrainian SSR) would contribute an amount equal to approximately 40 per cent less than their contribution according to the 1974-1976 scale of assessments, i.e., a total of 3.37 per cent;

(e) Brazil, Mexico and Spain would contribute an amount equal to 70 per cent less than their contribution according to the 1974-1976 scale of assessments, i.e., a total of 0.79 per cent:

(f) Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Republic, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia would contribute an amount equal to 87 per cent less than their contribution according to the 1974-1976 scale of assessments, i.e., a total of 0.48 per cent; and

(g) all developing countries making the minimum contribution to the United Nations budget, and countries with an annual per capita income of less than $100 (Burma, India and Indonesia) would contribute an amount equal to 90 per cent less than their contribution according to the United Nations scale of assessments for 1974-1976, i.e., a total of 0.28 per cent.

Speaking for the sponsors of the amendment, the representative of the USSR stated that, although they fully concurred in the principle of collective responsibility, they could not accept certain anomalies in the apportionment of the expenses among Member States appearing in the 37-power draft proposal which they considered to be unjustified and contrary to the accepted principle of capacity to pay.

At the same time, the USSR expressed the view that the estimate of $30 million requested by the Secretary-General was highly hypothetical and excessive. Referring to observations of the Advisory Committee that there was no uniform criterion for determining what constituted extra and extraordinary costs and to the possible consequential uneven reimbursement of such costs to Governments, the USSR representative proposed that the following recommendation be included in the Fifth Committee's report to the Assembly:

Those expressing support for the four-power amendment - among others the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Romania and the Ukrainian SSR - said they were supporting the financing of UNEF because, contrary to some past peace-keeping operations which, in their opinion, had been carried out in contravention of the United Nations Charter, this operation was a result of decisions taken by the Security Council in accordance with Charter provisions. However, although in full agreement with the principle of collective responsibility upon which the proposal was based, they could not agree with the grouping of Member States for apportionment of the costs as set out in the 37-power proposal; they maintained it lacked to take fully into account the relative capacity to pay of Member States and had departed from the principle of the low per capita allowance formula applied in arriving at the scale of assessments for the regular budget.

Portugal proposed an amendment to delete its name from the 37-power draft resolution; it also submitted a sub-amendment to the amendment introduced by the USSR, proposing the deletion of its name among those in the paragraph, listing the developed countries with an annual per capita income of $1,501 to $2,500, placing it instead among those countries which would contribute an amount equal to 87 per cent less than their contribution according to the 1974-1976 scale of assessments and consequentially changing the percentages indicated.

In so doing, Portugal maintained that, with an annual per capita income below $1,500, it had arbitrarily and erroneously been grouped among the economically developed countries.

Cuba and Yemen introduced an amendment to add two new paragraphs to the 37-power text by which the Assembly would decide that, for the purpose of that resolution, the Member States whose economy suffered certain strains because of the military aggression and occupation of their territories should be exempted from contributing to the financing of UNEF; and that the agreed apportionments should be adjusted proportionately to absorb the balance resulting from the implementation of this provision.

Yemen stated that the purpose of the amendment was to apply the principle, affirmed in the Assembly's resolution of 27 June 1963, 17/ by virtue of which, where circumstances warranted, the Assembly should give special consideration to the situation of any Member which were victims of events or actions leading to a peace-keeping operation.

The German Democratic Republic, Pakistan and Spain, among those expressing support for the amendment submitted by Cuba and Yemen, maintained that it would serve to restore the proper balance in the ad hoc arrangements appearing in the 37-power proposal and was in accordance with the principle of giving special consideration to Members which were victims of events and actions leading to the peace-keeping operations.

Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic and others also objected to the apportionment outlined in the 37-power proposal wherein the patties directly involved in the issue under discussion were placed in the same category of assessment, irrespective of the political and economic factors involved. They supported the Cuban-Yemeni amendment, as did Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and, in general, those States which expressed support for the four-power amendments. In Egypt's view, Israel should have been classified as a developed rather than a developing country, and Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic should be exempted from contributing to the costs of UNEF.

Israel objected to attempts to attach a special financial responsibility to it because certain States regarded Israel as the aggressor; facts showed that the aggression of 6 October had been committed by the Arab States, Israel said.

The United States maintained that the amendment raised political questions and that it was not for the Fifth Committee to make political judgements which the Security Council itself had not made in this instance.

Ghana, Kenya, Indonesia, Nepal and Senegal introduced a draft paragraph which the Fifth Committee, on 26 November 1973, included without a vote in its report to the Assembly - and which the Assembly endorsed on 11 December 1973 - as follows:

Introducing the proposal, Ghana stated that there existed no broadly acceptable definition for extra and extraordinary expenses and that the wide discrepancies which existed in reimbursing such costs to Governments was unacceptable inasmuch as troops from different countries served in the same area under similar conditions. The sponsors of the draft paragraph believed that the limit of $250 per man-month proposed by the USSR was not enough. Since, following consultations, it had not been possible to arrive at a suitable figure, it was proposed to leave that sensitive matter to the Secretary-General for study. Brazil considered that the imposition of limitations on levels of reimbursement might result in limiting the choice of countries providing contingents which, from a political point of view, would not be in the interests of the United Nations.

In this connexion, some Members, among them Finland and Sweden, objected strongly to a suggestion of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions that Governments providing contingents might voluntarily waive, in whole or in part, reimbursement of the extra and extraordinary expenses the Assembly might allow. Sweden considered that this suggestion, as well as the USSR proposal suggesting a maximum reimbursement of $250 monthly per capita, were in complete contradiction to the understanding on which its Government's participation in the Force was founded and would place a heavy burden on those Governments which had responded quickly to the Security Council's request for assistance.

Subsequently, the USSR withdrew its proposed paragraph on standardizing reimbursement of extra and extraordinary expenses in favour of the five-power text introduced by Ghana.

Subsequently, both the four-power and two-power amendments to the draft resolution were withdrawn in response to the wishes expressed by a large group of Member States - in particular, in response to an appeal by Iran speaking on behalf of and as Chairman of the "Group of 77" Member States, and in order to enable the Committee to take a decision which would enjoy the widest possible support.

The Portuguese amendment to the 37-power text was rejected by a recorded vote of 97 against to 2 in favour, with 10 abstentions. Portugal stated that it did not consider itself bound by the decision and reserved its right not to contribute to the financing of the Force.

Poland reiterated its regret that its contribution to the costs of UNEF had not been assessed on the basis of economically justified criteria. Poland would accept the ad hoc arrangement strictly on the understanding that in future peace-keeping operations this anomaly would be adjusted and also on the understanding that Poland's participation in these arrangements did not constitute a precedent for future undertakings. Poland also reserved its right to submit claims for reimbursement of extra and extraordinary expenses incurred by it in connexion with the sending of its troops to UNEF in the Middle East.

China reiterated its position of principle against the establishment of the Force and its refusal to bear any of the related expenses. Based on these considerations, China did not participate in the voting on the proposals before the Fifth Committee. Democratic Yemen, Iraq and Saudi Arabia also purposely did not participate in the voting.

Albania and the Libyan Arab Republic declared their strong objections to the creation of UNEF, stated that they would not participate in its financing, and voted against the 37-power resolution.

Jordan stated that its affirmative vote in no way jeopardized its position of principle that an aggressor could not be treated on equal terms with the victims of aggression; nevertheless, it believed in the principle of collective responsibility viewed in the context and spirit of the Charter and, for the particular purpose of the resolution, had voted for it with a genuine sense of responsibility.

Documentary references

General Assembly - 28th session.
General Committee, meeting 215.
Fifth Committee, meetings 1603-1610, 1622.
Plenary meetings 2161, 2196.

A/9198. Note by Secretary-General (request for inclusion in agenda of item entitled: "Financing of the United Nations Emergency Force established pursuant to Security Council resolution 340 (1973): report of the Secretary-General").
A/9200/Add.7. Eighth report of General Committee.
A/9202/Add.3. Allocation of agenda items for 28th regular session of General Assembly.
A/9285. Report of Secretary-General.
A/9314. Report of Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.
A/C.5/1525/Add.2. Letter of 31 October 1973 trom President of General Assembly to Chairman of Fifth Committee.
A/C.5/L.1130. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Norway, Sri Lanka, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.
A/C.5/L.1130/Rev.1. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Liberia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Togo, Turkey, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire: revised draft resolution, approved by Fifth Committee on 23 November 1973, meeting 1609, by recorded vote of 105 to 2, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Albania, Libyan Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Algeria, Portugal, South Africa, Syrian Arab Republic.

A/C.5/L.1134. Portugal: amendment to 37-power revised draft resolution, A/C.5/L.1130/Rev.1.
A/C.5/L.1135. Cuba and Yemen: amendments to 37-power revised draft resolution, A/C.5/L.1130/Rev.1.
A/C.5/L.1136. USSR: draft paragraph for inclusion in report of Fifth Committee.
A/C.5/L.1137. Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, USSR: amendment to 37-power revised draft resolution, A/C.5/L.1130/Rev.1.
A/C.5/L.1138. Note of Secretary-General.
A/C.5/L.1139. Portugal: sub-amendments to 4-power amendment, A/C.5/L.1137.
A/C.5/L.1140. Note by Secretary-General.
A/C.5/L.1141. Ghana, Kenya, Indonesia, Nepal, Senegal: draft paragraph for inclusion in report of Fifth Committee.
A/C.5/L.1147. Draft report of Fifth Committee.
A/9428. Report of Fifth Committee.

Resolution 3101 (XXVIII), as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/9428, adopted by Assembly on 11 December 1973 meeting 2196, by recorded vote of 108 to 3, with; abstention, as follows:

Against: Albania, Libyan Arab Republic, Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Portugal.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the cost estimates of the United Nations Emergency Force established pursuant to Security Council resolution 340 (1973) of 25 October 1973 for the period from 25 October 1973 to 24 April 1974 and the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions thereon,

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,

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

1. Decides to appropriate an amount of $30 million for the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force from 25 October 1973 to 24 April 1974 inclusive and requests the Secretary-General to establish a special account for the Force;

2. Decides, as an ad hoc arrangement, without prejudice to the positions of principle that may be taken by Member States in any consideration by the General Assembly of arrangements for the financing of peace-keeping operations:

(a) To apportion an amount of $18,945,000 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the States permanent members of the Security Council in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1974-1976;

(b) To apportion an amount of $10,434,000 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the economically developed Member States which are not permanent members of the Security Council in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1974-1976;

(c) To apportion an amount of $606,000 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the economically less developed Member States in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1974-1976;

(d) To apportion an amount of $15,000 for the above-mentioned six-month period to the following countries among the economically less developed Member States in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1974-1976: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Chad, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Laos, Lesotho, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta and Yemen;

3. Decides that, for the purpose of the present resolution, the term "economically less developed Member States" in paragraph 2 (c) above shall mean all Member States except Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, the German Democratic Republic, Germany (Federal Republic of), Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Member States referred to in paragraphs 2 (a) and (d) above;

4. Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Emergency Force at a rate not to exceed $5 million per month for the period trom 25 April to 31 October 1974 inclusive should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the initial period of six months, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;

5. Invites voluntary contributions to the United Nations Emergency Force both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General.

A/9030. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly during its 28th session, Vol. I, 18 September-18 December 1973. Other decisions, p. 138.

Other documents
ST/ADM/SER.B/216. Assessment of Member States contributions for financing of UNEF (1973) for period 25 October 1973-24 April 1974 Inclusive.
S/11248. Report of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 26 October 1973-1 April 1974).



The question of Jerusalem

During 1973, the situation with regard to Jerusalem and the Holy Places was the subject of several communications to the Secretary-General, mainly from Jordan and Israel. Also, on 18 May, in his comprehensive report to the Security Council on the situation in the Middle East, the Secretary-General outlined developments regarding the question of Jerusalem since 1967. These are briefly outlined below.

On 14 February, Jordan complained that work undertaken by Israel - under the pretext of "archaeological excavations" - below the southern and western walls of the Al Aqsa Mosque might, if continued, cause the destruction of one of the holiest places in Islam. Israeli authorities must halt all their destructive activities in and around the Holy Places in occupied Jerusalem. The international community, Jordan insisted, could not stand by and watch while Israel violated the holiness of Jerusalem and mutilated its physical structure, thereby defying successive and repeated resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly and destroying the basis and possibilities for peace in the area.

Israel replied on 16 February that the work in the area of the Al Aqsa Mosque was being executed under the direction of the Moslem Council in charge of the Mosque and that it was in no way connected with any archaeological activities, all of which were being conducted outside the area of the Mosque.

On 23 April, Jordan called attention to the fact that Israel planned to hold a large military parade in Jerusalem on 7 May 1973, to celebrate Israel's twenty-fifth anniversary, and that the parade would extend to the Arab sector of Jerusalem. Jordan recalled that on a similar occasion in 1968, the Security Council had, by its resolution of 27 April 1968, 18/ called upon Israel to refrain from holding a military parade in Jerusalem. After Israel had, on 2 May of that year, held the parade, the Council adopted on the same day a resolution 19/ by which it deeply deplored the holding of the parade in disregard of its resolution of 27 April.

Jordan also recalled the many other resolutions pertaining to the status of Jerusalem and the rights of its inhabitants and calling upon Israel to take no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem that might purport to change the status of the City or prejudice the rights of the inhabitants, the interests of the international community or a just and lasting peace. Israel, however, had persistently taken measures and implemented policies designed to change drastically the physical, demographic and religious character of Arab Jerusalem and incorporate it into Israel. Israel's contemplated parade on 7 May, Jordan said, would not only defy the United Nations but would affront the universal spiritual values embodied in Jerusalem.

In a note dated 30 April, the President of the Security Council said that, as a result of consultations with all Council members, he had pointed out to the Permanent Representative of Israel, on 27 April, that he had been informed by Jordan of Israel's intention to hold a military parade in Jerusalem on 7 May that would extend to Arab Jerusalem. He had then drawn the attention of Israel to the Council's resolution 27 April 1968, by which the Council had called upon Israel to refrain from holding a similar parade, as well as to its resolution of 2 May 1968, in which the Council had deeply deplored the holding by Israel of the military parade, in disregard of the Council's unanimous decision.

On 8 May, Jordan complained that, despite the President's statement to Israel on 27 April, Israel had held a large military parade in Jerusalem on 7 May, partly in the occupied sector, in violation of successive resolutions on Jerusalem and on other aspects of the Middle East conflict. Israel's ugly exhibition of militarism in the Holy City should be a sharp reminder to the international community of the plight and agony of Jerusalem in Israeli captivity. Nothing, Jordan stated, could save the City and its inhabitants but the effective implementation of United Nations resolutions and a speedy termination of Israeli occupation.

In the comprehensive report on the situation in the Middle East since 1967 which he submitted to the Security Council on 18 May, the Secretary-General outlined the developments regarding the question of Jerusalem, making particular reference to the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council on the question.

Those resolutions, he pointed out, related to the legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which tended to change the legal status of the City; they dealt also with the question of holding military parades by Israel in the City, contrary to United Nations resolutions, as well as to the incident of the Al Aqsa Mosque fire in August 1969, which was the subject of Security Council meetings and resolutions, in addition to communications from several countries and a report by the Secretary-General. 20/

Other aspects dealt with in the Secretary-General's report related to the master plan for the construction of housing developments in an area within and outside the Old City walls, and to the question of Government House, which served as headquarters in Jerusalem of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine. The controversy on that question between the United Nations and Israel since 1967 was the subject of exchanges of correspondence in which the Secretary-General had made clear his position that the United Nations had the right to exclusive and undisturbed occupancy and possession of the full Government House compound as it was constituted on 5 June 1967.

On 5 July, Morocco complained that during January and February 1973, Israel had notified 51 Moroccan families, comprising 187 persons, that they would have to evacuate their dwellings in the City of Jerusalem. Morocco added that the action constituted a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and was contrary to the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

On 17 July, Israel replied that the families in question had been relocated for the purpose of the clearing and reconstruction of slums and the relocation of inhabitants from substandard dwellings to adequate housing. Furthermore, Israel said, those families had been offered alternative accommodations in greatly improved conditions.

Documentary references

S/10882 (A/9045). Letter of 14 February 1973 from Jordan.
S/10883 (A/9046). Letter of 16 February 1973 from Israel.
S/10919 (A/9059). Letter of 23 April 1973 from Jordan.
S/10922. Note, dated 30 April 1973, by President of Security Council.
S/10924 (A/9064). Letter of 8 May 1973 from Jordan.
S/10929. Report of Secretary-General, dated 18 May 1973, under Security Council resolution 331 (1973) of 20 April 1973.
S/10965 (A/9087). Letter of 5 July 1973 from Morocco.
S/10969 (A/9096). Letter of 17 July 1973 from Israel.
A/9001. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1972-15 June 1973, Part One, Chapter I D.
A/9002. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1972-15 June 1973, Chapter 1 C.



The situation in the occupied territories

During 1973, various United Nations bodies concerned themselves with questions relating to the civilian population of territories occupied by Israel as a result of hostilities in the Middle East. A number of communications from Arab States, and replies from Israel, concerning the treatment of the civilian population in those territories were received by the Security Council and the Secretary-General.

The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories reported to the General Assembly in October. Earlier in the year, the Commission on Human Rights - after considering the Special Committee's 1972 report - adopted a resolution by which, among other things, it deplored Israel's continued breaches of the (fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and called on Israel to stop immediately the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories and rescind all measures affecting their physical character and demographic composition.

In its report, the Special Committee concluded that the measures taken by Israel were not only a grave infringement of the rights of the civilian population but presented a formidable obstacle to peaceful negotiation and to a just settlement of the Middle East problem. The provisions of international law were being contravened by the occupying power without check and with impunity. The Special Committee deplored the lack of action to provide a machinery for supervising the implementation of international law protecting the human rights of the population of the occupied territories; such action was imperative if a further deterioration of the situation was to be averted.

At its twenty-eighth session, the General Assembly on 7 December 1973 adopted two resolutions on the question. By the first, (3092 A (XVIII)), it affirmed that the fourth Geneva Convention applied to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, called on Israel to comply with the provisions of that Convention, and urged States parties to the Convention to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in the occupied Arab territories.

By the second resolution (3092 B (XXVIII)), the Assembly among other things reaffirmed that all measures taken by Israel to change the status of the occupied territories were null and void, and declared that Israel's policy contravened the principles of the United Nations Charter and applicable international law and the basic human rights of the people of the territories. It asked the Special Committee to continue its work and to consult with the International Committee of the Red Cross as appropriate.

In another action at its twenty-eighth session, the General Assembly adopted a resolution (3175 (XXVIII)) on 17 December, thereby affirming the right of Arab States and peoples whose territories were under foreign occupation to permanent sovereignty over all their natural resources. All measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the human and natural resources of the occupied Arab territories were illegal, the Assembly reaffirmed, and it called on Israel to halt such measures forthwith.

Details of these developments are to be found in the sections that follow.

Treatment of the civilian population in Israeli-occupied
territories and related matters

Communications

During 1973, a number of communications from Arab States, and replies from Israel, concerning the treatment of the civilian population in Israeli-occupied territories were received by the President of the Security Council and the Secretary General.

On 4 January 1973, Egypt complained about the displacement of inhabitants and the destruction of towns, villages and homes, including refugee camps, undertaken by Israel in the Gaza Strip and the Rafah area, in order to consolidate its illegal military occupation in defiance of numerous United Nations resolutions.

On 17 January, Israel replied that Egypt's letter was an expression of unhappiness with the fact that Israel had not kept the Gaza region in the state of misery and stagnation in which it had been found after 19 years of Egyptian occupation. Since 1967, Israel said, there had been a rise in the standard of living and there was currently full employment. Egypt and other Arab States had tried to prevent that development by fomenting terror and violence, but had failed because of the measures adopted by Israeli authorities there.

Egypt complained on 3 April that Israel was pursuing its systematic policy of coercing and intimidating the civilian population of the occupied Arab territories to compel them to leave. Invoking security measures, Israeli authorities had killed three persons and arrested 20 in the Gaza Strip during March, in violation of the (fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. Egypt asserted that measures should be taken to end Israel's breaches of law and morality and to protect the human rights of the inhabitants of the occupied territories.

Israel replied on 9 April that the three persons killed had been notorious terrorists responsible for a series of murderous attacks in the Gaza area.

On 7 April, Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic said that, according to confirmed reports, Israel was considering a proposal to authorize Israeli individuals to purchase land and property in the occupied territories. Israel, it was pointed out, had already taken other prejudicial measures in those territories, such as large-scale expropriation of land and property, establishment of Israeli settlements throughout the occupied territories, annexation of Arab Jerusalem, transfer of refugees and integration of the economy of the occupied areas with that of Israel.

This general policy, these States contended, was being carried out in the West Bank of Jordan, Gaza, the Golan Heights and Sinai, while the Arab City of Jerusalem provided the clearest example of Israel's direct annexationist policy. Such measures were in violation of the United Nations Charter, the 1949 Geneva Convention concerning the protection of civilian persons in time of war, and United Nations resolutions. Action should be taken to oblige Israel to desist from any further such actions in the occupied territories.

Israel replied on 12 April that allegations were belied by the known realities of the situation, witnessed and reported not only by neutral observers but also by hundreds of thousands of Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian and other Arab nationals who had visited the areas in recent years. The three Arab States wished to divert attention from the Arab refusal to enter into any meaningful dialogue with Israel that could lead to understanding and agreement.

Following the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East on 6 October 1973, a number of communications were received from the parties containing charges and counter-charges regarding the treatment of civilian populations in areas affected by the hostilities. Also exchanged were charges and counter-charges regarding the treatment of prisoners of war (see above, pp. 2 9-10).

On 14 October, Egypt noted that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had on 9 October appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East to abide by the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Egypt said it had informed ICRC of its readiness to do so. On 18 October, it charged Israel with refusing to reply to the appeal.

Israel replied on 19 October that Egypt was attempting to conceal its responsibility for the aggression that began on 6 October and to falsify Israel's position on the four Geneva Conventions.

In a series of complaints, Egypt charged that Israel was persistently committing aggressive and inhuman acts against civilians in the Israeli-occupied areas, which constituted violations of the fourth Geneva Convention.

On 14 and 15 October, Egypt said that Israeli planes had used high-explosive bombs in highly populated towns of the Nile delta. Egypt also stated - in letters dated 1, 5 and 7 November - that, on 30 October, Israeli forces had expelled the civilian population from certain towns and villages, arrested 600 civilians, fired at livestock and destroyed shopping centres. On 3 November, they had rounded up 298 inhabitants of the villages of Al Ganayin and Amir, forcing them to evacuate their homes and fields and move to the nearest Egyptian military position. In the few days preceding 7 November, Israeli forces had been rounding up civilians and compelling them to seek refuge in areas near Suez, where Egyptian advanced positions were located.

By letters dated 31 October and 20, 21 and 29 November, the Syrian Arab Republic charged that Israeli forces had bombed and shelled civilian quarters, hospitals and schools, and had pillaged crops and properties. A large number of civilians had been killed.

Israel replied, on 3, 9 and 26 November and 6 December, that the charges made by Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic were entirely baseless and full of distortion of the facts, and were intended to divert attention from their own violations of the Geneva Conventions. On 19 October, Israel charged the Syrian Arab Republic with subjecting civilian localities to missile, artillery and air attacks, causing heavy civilian casualties.

By letters dated 17 and 24 October and 4 and 19 December, Israel complained that systematic armed attacks had been launched from Lebanese territory against civilian targets in Israel, including a passenger bus and a border-police patrol.

Decisions by Human Rights Commission

At its twenty-ninth session in February-April 1973, the Commission on Human Rights had before it, among other documents, the 1972 report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. 21/ On 14 March 1973, it adopted a resolution on the question of the violation of human rights in the territories occupied as a result of hostilities in the Middle East.

By the preambular part of this text, the Commission among other things recalled the relevant United Nations decisions on the protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the inhabitants of the occupied Arab territories. It also recalled that the General Assembly in 1972 had declared that changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories in contravention of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 were null and void and that States should not recognize them.

The Commission also expressed its alarm at the continued violations by Israel of human rights and fundamental freedoms - in particular the destruction of houses, expropriation of Arab properties, ill-treatment of prisoners, the pillaging of the archaeological and cultural heritage and the exploitation of natural resources. It was concerned also that Israel continued to establish settlements in the occupied territories, encouraged massive immigration to that end, continued to deport and transfer the indigenous Arab population and refused the return of the refugees and displaced persons to their homes.

By the operative part of its resolution, the Commission deplored Israel's continued grave breaches of the fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 (having to do with the protection of civilian persons in time of war), which the Commission looked upon as war crimes and an affront to humanity. It reaffirmed that all measures taken by Israel to change the demographic structure and status of the occupied territories - including occupied Jerusalem - were null and void. Israel was called upon to comply with its obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principles of international humanitarian law, the fourth Geneva Convention, and United Nations resolutions.

The Commission further called on Israel to stop immediately the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories and to rescind all policies and measures affecting the physical character and demographic composition of those territories.

The Commission then called on all States to do their utmost to ensure that Israel respected the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms and desisted from all acts and policies aimed at changing the physical character and demographic composition of occupied Arab territories. It considered that Israel's policy of settling in the occupied territories part of its own population - including immigrants - was a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention and it called upon all States and organizations not to assist Israel in any way to enable it to pursue that policy of colonization.

The Secretary-General was asked to bring the resolution to the attention of all Governments, competent United Nations organs, specialized agencies and regional inter-governmental organizations, to give it the widest possible publicity, and to report to the Commission at its 1974 session when, it was decided, the item would be considered as a matter of high priority.

Report of the Special Committee in 1973

The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories presented its report to the Secretary-General on 10 October 1973 and a supplement thereto on 20 November, containing a map showing the settlements established by Israel in the occupied territories.

In its report, the Special Committee said it had continued to follow developments in the occupied territories through Israeli press and other sections of the foreign press, as well as through press reports of statements by members of the Israeli Government and other Israeli leaders. It took note of information contained in United Nations documents, some of which contained the texts of letters from Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as information communicated to it by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and contained in ICRC publications.

During 1973, the Special Committee held four series of meetings - in February, June, August/September and October - at which it reviewed information on the situation in the occupied territories and, finally, adopted its report to the Secretary-General.

In his letter of transmittal, the Chairman of the Special Committee stated that the Government of Israel had persisted in its refusal to co-operate with the Special Committee. Despite that difficulty, the Special Committee had followed closely the policies and practices of Israel and had found that Israel still followed a policy contrary to the provisions of international law concerning occupation and was thereby violating the human rights of the population of the occupied territories. International law, he noted, considered occupation to be a temporary, provisional situation. However, in the territories occupied as a result of the June 1967 hostilities, Israel was taking measures of a permanent nature, following a policy completely incompatible with its obligations as an occupying power.

In its report, the Special Committee concluded that the measures taken by Israel were not only a grave infringement of the rights of the civilian population but presented a most formidable obstacle to peaceful negotiation and to a just settlement of the Middle East problem.

It went on to state that the United Nations was guilty of a grave dereliction of its responsibility; what it had failed to prevent it should - "even at this late stage" - attempt to cure. It was incumbent on the General Assembly, the Special Committee said, to take effective action to deter Israel from adopting any further measures having the effect of consolidating the occupation and annexing occupied territories to Israel.

The Special Committee pointed out that, as of 19 August 1973, 44 settlements had been established in the occupied territories, with approximately 5,000 inhabitants. An additional 35 were planned for the next five years, and regional centres were to be built in the Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley, the southern Gaza Strip (Rafah) area and at Sharm el-Sheikh.

According to the Special Committee, any transactions for the acquisition of land between the State of Israel and Israeli nationals on the one hand, and the inhabitants of the occupied territories on the other, had no validity in law and could not be recognized as legal changes in ownership. Even the payment of compensation did not render such transactions valid or confer legal title.

In the Special Committee's view the inhabitants of the occupied territories - in the absence of the protection and guidance of the régime under which they had lived before the occupation - were not acting as free agents. The United Nations had the obligation to state unequivocally that the transactions were not recognizable; it could not permit conditions to be created which would leave - in the heart of the occupied territories, after the cessation of hostilities - large areas and settlements which were claimed to have been acquired by the State of Israel or its nationals.

In Jerusalem, the report continued, Israel's policy of annexation of the occupied part of the City and bordering areas continued. Thus, large-scale projects had been undertaken and others projected to remove the local population and substitute Israeli nationals for them. Plans had been announced for the creation of new suburbs north and east of the City to be populated by Israeli nationals, the Special Committee said.

The report went on to state that Israel, as the occupying power, had continued to use security grounds as justification indiscriminately, and had arbitrarily converted an exception into a rule of conduct or definite policy, a negation of the very letter and spirit of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 respecting the laws and customs of war on land and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The measures taken by the occupying power seemed no longer to be even remotely relevant to security considerations. It was clear to the Special Committee that Israel regarded its presence in the occupied territories as a "return" to the "Land of Israel" rather than as a presence in territory occupied as a result of hostilities.

The occupied territories were also being exploited economically, the report added. The oil reserves of the Sinai were being exploited by Israel and met two thirds of its needs. The agricultural potential of the occupied territories was also being developed for the exclusive use of the Israeli settlements in those territories.

In its report, the Special Committee went on to state that Israel continued to refuse to allow the return to their homeland of persons driven out by the 1967 hostilities or expelled thereafter, and was using new Jewish immigrants to populate the new settlements. This, the Special Committee said, was a serious misuse of the fulfilment of one right (the right to leave one's own country) to the detriment and prejudice of other rights (the right to return to one's own country and the right to self-determination).

As the only United Nations organ entrusted with the human rights aspect of the Middle East question, the Special Committee said its major cause for concern was that the provisions of international law were being contravened by the occupying power without check and with impunity. The international community had not attempted to take the proper initiatives to see that United Nations resolutions were respected and implemented; neither had it sought ways to contain the complete disregard for international law which the occupying power had shown and was continuing to show through its pursuit of a policy based on the denial of the basic rights of the population of the occupied territories.

The Special Committee again expressed regret - as in its previous report - that despite specific recommendations made repeatedly in earlier reports, its mandate had been renewed with no attempt or any action to provide a machinery for supervising the implementation of international law protecting the human rights of the population of the occupied territories. The arrangement it had proposed 22/ was intended to ensure, by the appointment of a protecting power, adherence to the Hague and Geneva Conventions having to do with the protection of civilian persons living in occupied territory.

Because of the absence of such machinery during the past six years, the Special Committee said, the population of the occupied territories had not been able to benefit in any way from the protection afforded by international law. On the other hand, measures had been taken during those years in violation of applicable international law. The human rights violations that had occurred since 1967 must, the Special Committee insisted, receive the special attention of the General Assembly if a further deterioration of the situation was to be averted.

Consideration by General Assembly

When the General Assembly at its twenty-eighth (1973) session considered the 1973 report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, it also had before it a report by the Secretary-General prepared in response to a 1972 Assembly resolution, 23/ asking him to render all necessary facilities to the Special Committee and to ensure the widest circulation of the Special Committee's reports through the Secretariat's Office of Public Information.

In his report, the Secretary-General said among other things that he had continued, as in previous years, to render all the necessary facilities to the Special Committee. On 29 August, at the request of the Special Committee, he had sent a note verbale to the States parties to the (fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, drawing their attention to a request by the Assembly in 1972 24/ that they do their utmost to ensure that Israel respected and fulfilled its obligations under that Convention. At the request of the Special Committee, he had asked them what action they had taken or were contemplating in that regard. The Secretary-General said he had transmitted to the Special Committee the information received from Governments in response.

With regard to publicizing the Special Committee's activities, he said, United Nations information centres had been instructed to devote special attention to making public the Special Committee's reports, as well as press releases and other material prepared by the Office of Public Information on the Committee's activities and aims. Information material had been made available to non-governmental organizations at Headquarters and to national and regional non-governmental organizations around the world. Radio and other coverage had also been given to the Special Committee's work.

On 7 December 1973, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions on the 1973 report of the Special Committee.

By the first of these (3092 A (XXVIII)), the Assembly among other things recalled that Israel and the Arab States, some of whose territories had been occupied by Israel since 1967, were parties to the fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and that States parties to that Convention undertook not only to respect it but also to ensure respect for it in all circumstances.

The Assembly then (1) affirmed that that Convention applied to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967; (2) called upon the Israeli occupation authorities to respect and comply with the provisions of the Convention in the occupied Arab territories; and (3) urged all States parties to the Convention to endeavour to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in the occupied Arab territories.

The Assembly adopted this text by a recorded vote of 120 to 0, with 5 abstentions, on the recommendation of its Special Political Committee, which had approved the text on 26 November by a recorded vote of 109 to 0, with 4 abstentions, on a proposal by Afghanistan, Argentina, Greece, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Spain, Turkey, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania.

(For text, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By the preambular part of the second resolution (3092 B (XXVIII)), the General Assembly among other things expressed the opinion that the implementation of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 could not and should not be left open in a situation involving foreign military occupation and the rights of the civilian population of the occupied territories under the provisions of the Convention and in accordance with the principles of international law.

The Assembly then commended the Special Committee for its efforts and deplored Israel's continued refusal to allow it access to the occupied territories.

It expressed grave concern at Israel's violations of the Geneva Convention and other applicable international instruments, in particular violations relating to: (a) the annexation of certain parts of the occupied territories; (b) the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and the transfer there of an alien population; (c) the destruction and demolition of Arab houses, quarters, villages and towns; (d) the confiscation and expropriation of Arab property in the occupied territories and all other land transactions between the Government of Israel, Israeli institutions and Israeli nationals on the one hand, and the inhabitants or institutions of the occupied territories on the other; (e) the evacuation, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of the Arab inhabitants of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and the denial of their right to return to their homes and property; (f) administrative detention and ill-treatment inflicted on Arab inhabitants; (g) the pillaging of archaeological and cultural properties in the occupied territories; (h) interference with religious freedom, religious practices and family rights and customs; and (i) the illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories.

The Assembly also called on Israel to desist immediately from the annexation and colonization of the territories occupied by it since 1967, the establishment of settlements and the transfer of population to, from or within those territories, and from all the other practices referred to above.

The Assembly declared that Israel's policy contravened the principles of the Charter, the applicable international law concerning occupation, the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people and was, as well, an impediment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace.

By this resolution, the Assembly also reaffirmed that Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories was a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention and relevant United Nations resolutions and it urged all States to refrain from any action which Israel could exploit in carrying out its policy of colonizing the occupied territories.

The Assembly then reaffirmed that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of occupied territories were null and void. It called on all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any such changes and to avoid actions - including those in the field of aid - which might be used by Israel in the pursuit of its policies.

The Special Committee was asked by the Assembly - pending the early termination of Israeli occupation - to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the Arab territories occupied by Israel; to consult, as appropriate, with ICRC 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 arose.

Finally, by this text, the Assembly asked the Secretary-General: (a) to render all necessary facilities to the Special Committee, including those required for its visits to the occupied territories with a view to investigating Israeli policies and practices affecting the human rights of the population of those territories; (b) to ensure the widest circulation of the Special Committee's reports, and of information on its activities and findings, by all means available through the Office of Public Information; and (c) to report to the Assembly at its twenty-ninth session in 1974. The Assembly decided to include the question in the agenda for that session.

The Assembly adopted this text by a recorded vote of 90 votes to 7, with 27 abstentions, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, which had approved the text on 26 November by a recorded vote of 82 to 7, with 24 abstentions, on a proposal by Afghanistan, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania, which was revised by them and orally amended by Madagascar.

(For text of resolution see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

During the debate in the Special Political Committee, the Chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories observed that recent events had brought the situation in the occupied territories into sharp focus and would, he hoped, galvanize the United Nations into urgent and positive action.

The report of the Special Committee, he said, was the result of information emanating from Israel; the Special Committee had monitored the situation to the best of its ability and to the limit of its resources. The overriding concern of the Special Committee, he emphasized, had been not so much with the range or number of violations but rather with the effect of the sum total, which was the result of a basic policy whose most serious effect was to deny the right of self-determination to the population of the occupied territories.

He went on to say that the Special Committee had provided the General Assembly with all the necessary information and saw no further purpose in providing more evidence unless major changes took place. He urged the Special Political Committee to try to find an alternative arrangement for exercising surveillance over the situation until the parties concerned agreed to adhere scrupulously to the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (concerning the protection of civilians in time of war) and the other international instruments applicable to the occupied territories.

The United Nations, he said, was guilty of a grave dereliction of responsibility in failing to provide machinery for supervising the implementation of the principles of international law protecting the human rights of the population of the occupied territories.

The representative of Israel maintained that the Special Committee lacked impartiality and was not able to conduct a proper inquiry. He criticized its report as unfounded in fact. With regard to the fourth Geneva Convention, he said that Israel, for a number of legal reasons, reserved its position on the applicability of that Convention in the administered areas, while observing it in fact.

As to the allegations of an Israeli policy of annexation and settlement, Israel's representative pointed out that since 1948 Israel had been the object of continuous Arab aggression and had been compelled to take measures to protect its population and its sovereignty. The settlements had been set up as part of the Israeli defence network; they were paramilitary and civilian, and essential for Israel's defences.

The report, he went on to say, attempted to give the impression that the administered areas were being used to absorb Jewish immigration. That was a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts: since 1968, more than 200,000 immigrants had settled in Israel but only 3,150 Israeli citizens had gone to live in the administered areas.

Israel, he said, was hoping for peace and in that expectation it had refrained from changing the political and juridical status of the administered areas and had not closed any options for a negotiated peace.

A number of Members commended the Special Committee for the manner in which it had carried out its task. Israel was condemned for the practices and policies it carried out in violation of the human rights of the population of the occupied territories. Several speakers, including Hungary, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and others, refuted Israel's statement that the fourth Geneva Convention did not, in Israel's view, apply to the occupied territories. The representative of Bahrain said it was the moral duty of all United Nations Member States and parties to the fourth Geneva Convention not to recognize Israeli attempts to change the status of the occupied territories. Kuwait said that if all countries were free to state that they did not recognize international conventions, those conventions would be of no value. Kuwait also said that without the help of the United States, Israel would be unable to build and maintain its settlements in the occupied territories.

The Chinese representative said that the report of the Special Committee had exposed the atrocities committed by the Israeli Zionists in forcing the Arabs to move out of the occupied territories, plundering the resources of those territories and infringing the human rights of their inhabitants. They could dare to be so truculent because they had the support and connivance of the two super-powers, one of whom had provided Israel with massive military and economic aid, while the other, in permitting Zionist emigration, had supplied Israel with the manpower it needed.

The USSR representative urged that effective measures be taken to make Israel halt its aggression against neighboring countries and withdraw its troops from all occupied Arab territories. Until that happened, the crimes of the Israeli occupation authorities must continue to be exposed. The USSR, he recalled, had frequently called on the Security Council to apply sanctions against Israel under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter 25/ and had stated that it would be prepared to take part in carrying out such sanctions.

The spokesman for France said that Israel's policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories was clearly contrary to the obligations imposed upon an occupying power by international law. France, however, continued to have serious reservations about the Special Committee, which itself had acknowledged that it faced obstacles outside its control in carrying out its work. The same credence could not be attached to its conclusions as to those of ICRC or of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

The United Kingdom representative said his Government had always believed that as soon as the difficulties confronting the Special Committee had become apparent, the General Assembly should have sought a better way of conducting the inquiry. He suggested as a possible alternative the establishment of a new committee whose members would be acceptable both to the occupying power and to the Arab States concerned.

The United States representative said his Government considered that the fourth Geneva Convention applied to the situation in the territories occupied by Israel, and he regretted that Israel could not share that opinion.

During the debate, at the request of Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and in accordance with the practice established at previous sessions, the Special Political Committee heard a statement by a representative of the "Palestine Arab delegation."

Documentary references

Communications
S/10857 (A/8998). Letter of 4 January 1973 from Egypt.
S/10862 (A/9035). Letter of 17 January 1973 from Israel.
S/10908 (A/9054). Letter of 3 April 1973 from Egypt.
S/10909 (A/9055). Letter of 7 April 1973 from Egypt, Jordan and Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10910 (A/9056), S/10914 (A/9058). Letters of 9 and 12 April 1973 from Israel.
S/10941. Letter of 1 June 1973 from Egypt.
S/10972 (A/9098). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting text of Commission on Human Rights resolution 4 (XXIX) of 14 March 1973).
S/11018 (A/9217). Letter of 10 October 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11024, S/11025, S/11028. Letters of 14 and 15 October 1973 from Egypt.
S/11032 (A/9229). Letter of 17 October 1973 from Israel.
S/11033. Letter of 18 October 1973 from Egypt.
S/11034, S/11035 (A/9245), S/11041 (A/9251). Letters of 19 and 24 October 1973 from Israel.
S/11066 (A/9271). Letter of 31 October 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11068 (A/9273). Letter of 1 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11074 (A/9280). Letter of 3 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11080, S/11083. Letters of 5 and 7 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11096. Letter of 9 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11120 (A/9328). Letter of 20 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11122 (A/9329). Letter of 20 November 1973 from Egypt.
S/11123 (A/9331). Letter of 21 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11130 (A/9342). Letter of 26 November 1973 from Israel.
S/11138 (A/9367). Letter of 29 November 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11143 (A/9387), S/11146 (A/9405). Letters of 4 and 6 December 1973 from Israel.
S/11160 (A/9468). Letter of 18 December 1973 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/11163 (A/9469). Letter of 19 December 1973 from Israel.
S/11168. Letter of 20 December 1973 from Egypt.
S/11174 (A/9476), S/11177. Letters of 26 December 1973 and 2 January 1974 from Israel.

OTHER DOCUMENTS
A/9001. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1972-15 June 1973, Part One, Chapter I C.
A/9002. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1972-1 June 1973, Chapter 1 B.

Decisions by Human Rights Commission
E/5265. Report of Commission on Human Rights on its 29th session, Geneva, Switzerland, 26 February-6 April 1973, Chapters VI and XX A (resolution 4 (XXIX)).

A/9148 and Add.1. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report of Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of Population of Occupied Territories.

Consideration by General Assembly

General Assembly - 28th session
Special Political Committee, meetings 890, 892-897.
Fifth Committee, meeting 1619.
Plenary meeting 2193.

A/9001. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1972-15 June 1973, Part Three, Chapter I F 1.
A/9148 and Add.1. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report of Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of Population of Occupied Territories).
A/9237. Report of Secretary-General.
A/SPC/166. Letter of 25 October 1973 from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (request for hearing for "Palestine Arab delegation").
A/SPC/L.290. Afghanistan, Argentina, Greece, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 26 November 1973, meeting 897, by recorded vote of 109 to 0, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

Against: None.

Abstaining: Costa Rica, Israel, Malawi, Nicaragua.

A/9374. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution A.

Resolution 3092 A (XXVIII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9374, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1973, meeting 2193, by recorded vote of 120 to 0, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

Against: None.

Abstaining: Bolivia, Costa Rica, Israel, Malawi, Nicaragua.

The General Assembly,

Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

Recalling that Israel and the Arab States, some of whose territories have been occupied by Israel since 1967, are parties to that Convention,

Bearing in mind that the promotion of respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law is one of the basic objectives of the United Nations,

Bearing in mind, furthermore, that the 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. Affirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, applies to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

2. Calls upon the Israeli occupation authorities to respect and comply with the provisions of that Convention in the occupied Arab territories;

3. Urges all States parties to that Convention to endeavour to ensure respect for and compliance with the provisions thereof in the occupied Arab territories.

A/SPC/L.291. Afghanistan, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Uganda: draft resolution.
A/SPC/L.291/Rev.1. Afghanistan, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania: revised draft resolution, as further orally revised by Madagascar and by sponsors, approved by Special Political Committee on 26 November 1973, meeting 897, by recorded vote of 82 to 7, with 24 abstentions, as follows:

A/SPC/L.292, A/C.5/1567, A/9392. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution B recommended by Special Political Committee in A/9374. Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.
A/9374. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution B.

Resolution 3092 B (XXVIII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9374, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1973, meeting 2193, by recorded vote of 90 to 7, with 27 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Barbados, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Israel, Nicaragua, 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 those of other relevant conventions and regulations,

Recalling its resolutions as well as those resolutions adopted by the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights and other United Nations bodies and by specialized agencies on the question of Israeli policies and practices affecting the human rights of the population of the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Considering that implementation of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 cannot and should not be left open in a situation involving foreign military occupation and the rights of the civilian population of these territories under the provisions of that Convention and In accordance with the principles of international law,

Having considered the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories,

1. Commends the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories for its effort in performing the tasks assigned to it by the General Assembly;

2. Deplores the continued refusal of the Government of Israel to allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories;

3. Expresses its grave concern at the violation by Israel of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, as well as the other applicable international conventions and regulations, in particular the following violations:

(a) The annexation of certain parts of the occupied territories;

(b) The establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and the transfer of an alien population thereto;

(c) The destruction and demolition of Arab houses, quarters, villages and towns;

(d) The confiscation and expropriation of Arab property in the occupied territories and all other transactions for the acquisition of land between the Government of Israel, Israeli institutions and Israeli nationals on the one hand, and the inhabitants or institutions of the occupied territories on the other;

(e) The evacuation, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of the Arab inhabitants of the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and the denial of their right to return to their homes and property;

(f) Administrative detention and ill-treatment inflicted on the Arab inhabitants;

(g) The pillaging of archaeological and cultural property in the occupied territories;

(h) The interference with religious freedom, religious practices and family rights and customs;

(i) The illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories;

4. Calls upon Israel to desist immediately from the annexation and colonization of the Arab territories occupied by it since 1967, the establishment of settlements and the transfer of population to, from or within those territories, and from all the other practices referred to in paragraph 3 above;

5. Declares that Israel's policy of annexation, establishment of settlements and transfer of an alien population to the occupied territories is in contravention of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles and provisions of the applicable international law concerning occupation, the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people, and is as well an impediment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace;

6. Reaffirms that Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories is a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and of the relevant United Nations resolutions, and urges all States to refrain trom any action which Israel will exploit in carrying out its policy of colonizing the occupied territories;

7. Reaffirms that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or the status of the occupied territories, or any part thereof, are null and void;

8. Calls upon 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 actions in the field of aid, which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

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

10. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To render all necessary facilities to the Special Committee, including those required for its visits to the occupied territories with a view to investigating Israeli policies and practices affecting the human rights of the population of those territories;

(b) 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 Office of Public Information of the Secretariat;

(c) To report to the General Assembly at its twenty-ninth session on the tasks entrusted to him;

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


Permanent sovereignty over natural resources
in the occupied Arab territories

By a resolution adopted on 17 December 1973, the General Assembly affirmed the right of the Arab States and peoples whose territories were under foreign occupation to permanent sovereignty over all their natural resources. All measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the human and natural resources of the occupied Arab territories were illegal, the Assembly reaffirmed, and it called on Israel to halt such measures forthwith.

The Assembly then affirmed the right of the Arab States and peoples whose territories were under Israeli occupation to the restitution of and full compensation for the exploitation and looting of, and damages to, the natural resources - as well as the exploitation and manipulation of the human resources - of the occupied territories. It declared that those principles applied to all States, territories and peoples under foreign occupation, colonial rule or apartheid.

The Assembly took these decisions when it adopted resolution 3175 (XXVIII) by a roll-call vote of 90 to 5, with 26 abstentions. The Assembly acted on the recommendation of its Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, which had approved the text on 6 December by a roll-call vote of 91 to 5, with 27 abstentions, on a proposal by Afghanistan, Burundi, Cameroon, the Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, Pakistan, Somalia, Uganda, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia and Zaire.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Introducing the draft resolution in the Second Committee, the representative of Pakistan said its object was to affirm the rights of the Arab States and peoples to permanent sovereignty over all their natural resources. He drew attention to the economic consequences resulting from Israeli exploitation of the natural resources - renewable and non-renewable - of the occupied Arab territories, noting in particular that the non-renewable petroleum resources in the Sinai area were being exploited by Israel to provide two thirds of its requirements. Arab workers, he said, were being treated as an exploitable and dispensable human commodity, to be drawn on when no Israeli workers were available.

Israel's representative regretted the attempts to involve the Second Committee in highly sensitive political subjects dealt with by other United Nations bodies. The motives behind the draft resolution were, he said, essentially political in character, aimed at attributing to Israel exclusive responsibility for all the consequences of the continuous aggression committed by Arab States against Israel since 1948.

He went on to say that, after the six-day war in 1967, a great measure of prosperity had been achieved in the occupied territories. By the end of 1972, more than 50,000 Arab workers had been going to work in Israel, enjoying the same salaries and social benefits as Israeli workers in similar jobs, all guaranteed by Israeli trade unions. It appeared that Egypt, and the sponsors of the draft resolution acting on its behalf, would rather see stagnation and misery prevail in the administered territories and would do all in their power to prevent the process of co-existence and co-operation between Israelis and Arabs from taking even deeper root in those areas. Israel rejected the draft resolution and its allegations as being aimed at creating confusion and exploiting faked issues for political purposes.

Many Second Committee Members supported the text, among them Czechoslovakia, Egypt, India, Japan, Kuwait, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Turkey.

The USSR representative charged that Israeli occupation forces were engaged in mass terror, persecution and other criminal acts against the Arab population and were taking measures that would change the physical and demographic character of the captured lands, whose natural resources they were pillaging.

The spokesman for China said that Israel, with the support and connivance of the two super-powers, used the vast profits from its wanton plunder of the human and natural resources of the occupied territories to wage a war of aggression against the Arab States. Israel, he declared, must be forced to withdraw completely from the territories it had seized and restore to the Palestinians their natural rights.

The representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the nine Member States of the European Economic Community, said those States recognized the importance of the basic problem but felt that the substance of the draft resolution should be dealt with in an organ other than the Second Committee. Canada, Finland, Greece and Sweden shared that view.

The representative of Upper Volta asked for a separate vote on the paragraph of the draft text by which the Assembly would declare that principles enunciated in the text applied to all States, territories and peoples under foreign occupation, colonial rule or apartheid - in order, he said, that the unshakable supporters of the Lisbon (Portugal) and Pretoria (South Africa) régimes might be identified. The paragraph was approved by a roll-call vote of 94 to 4, with 23 abstentions. (For voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Documentary references

General Assembly - 28th session.
Second Committee, meetings 1578-1581.
Plenary meeting 2203.

A/C.2/L.1333. Afghanistan, Burundi, Cameroon, Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, Pakistan, Somalia, Uganda, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia, Zaire: draft resolution, approved by Second Committee on 6 December 1973, meeting 1579, as follows: operative paragraph 4, ap-proved by roll-call vote of 94 to 4, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel, Nicaragua, Portugal, United States.

draft resolution as a whole approved by roll-call vote of 91 to 5, with 27 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Barbados, Bolivia, Israel, Nicaragua, United States.

A/9400. Report of Second Committee (on report of Economic and Social Council), draft resolution IX.

Resolution 3175 (XXVIII), as recommended by Second Committee, A/9400, adopted by Assembly on 17 December 1973, meeting 2203, by roll-call vote of 90 to 5, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Israel, Nicaragua, United States.

The General Assembly,

Bearing in mind the relevant principles of international law and the provisions of the international conventions and regulations, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention, concerning the obligations and responsibilities of the occupying Power,

Recalling its previous resolutions on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, including resolution 1803 (XVII) of 18 December 1962 in which it declared the right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources,

Recalling the pertinent provisions of the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade,

Recalling also its resolution 3005 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972, in which it affirmed the principle of the sovereignty of the population of the occupied territories over their national wealth and resources and called upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize or co-operate with, or assist in any manner in, any measures undertaken by the occupying Power to exploit the resources of the occupied territories or to effect any changes in the demographic composition or geographic character or institutional structure of those territories,

1. Affirms the right of the Arab States and peoples whose territories are under foreign occupation to permanent sovereignty over all their natural resources;

2. Reaffirms that all measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the human and natural resources of the occupied Arab territories are illegal and calls upon Israel to halt such measures forthwith;

3. Affirms the right of the Arab States and peoples whose territories are under Israeli occupation to the restitution of and full compensation for the exploitation and looting of, and damages to, the natural resources, as well as the exploitation and manipulation of the human resources, of the occupied territories;

4. Declares that the above principles apply to all States, territories and peoples under foreign occupation, colonial rule or apartheid.



Assistance to Palestine refugees in the Near East

In 1973, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) maintained in full its relief, health and educational programmes of assistance for Palestine refugees in Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, Jordan, the occupied West Bank of Jordan and the Gaza Strip. This was achieved despite the Agency's continually worsening financial circumstances.

The devaluation of the United States dollar in February, along with accelerating inflation and a growing school population, resulted in a rise in expenditure from $52.1 million in 1972 to $62.5 million and a budget deficit of over $3.9 million in 1973. The Agency was left with less than one month's working capital at the end of the year and an estimated deficit of $10.5 to $11 million for 1974. The financial situation was also aggravated by extraordinary costs arising in part from damage to facilities and from problems in transportation of relief supplies caused by political disturbances in the area, including the outbreak of hostilities in October 1973.

On 21 June, the Chairman of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA issued an appeal to States for urgent voluntary contributions. The Commissioner-General of UNRWA again called attention to the Agency's serious financial situation in statements on 5 and 14 November 1973 during the General Assembly's twenty-eighth session.

In December, the Assembly extended the mandate of the Working Group for one year. The Assembly also, among other decisions: appealed for generous contributions to UNRWA, reaffirmed that full respect for and realization of the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine were indispensable for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East; called once more upon Israel to take steps for the return of inhabitants who had fled the occupied territories since 1967; and called upon Israel to desist from further destruction of refugee shelters in the Gaza Strip and the removal of refugees, to return the refugees concerned to their camps and to provide adequate shelters for them. (For details of these Assembly decisions, see below.)

Activities in 1973

During the year, the number of refugees registered with UNRWA rose to 1,554,979, of whom an average of 828,000 received basic rations and 1,346,931 were eligible for health and education programmes. The Agency also distributed monthly rations to more than 205,000 displaced persons and 39,000 displaced refugee children in east Jordan, at the expense of the Jordanian Government.

At the end of 1973, there were 561,591 registered refugees (about 36 per cent of the total) and 43,710 displaced persons living in 53 camps established before the June 1967 hostilities, and in 10 emergency camps established after the 1967 hostilities.

The Agency continued to provide preventive and curative medical services for eligible refugees, in co-operation with the World Health Organization (WHO). Expenditure on health services totalled $7.8 million in 1973. In addition, UNRWA continued its emergency and regular supplementary feeding programmes for nutritionally vulnerable groups, particularly young children. The Agency built three health centres, two clinical laboratories, three diabetes clinics and two dental clinics.

In the 1973/74 school year, 278,779 children were enrolled in the schools run by UNRWA with the technical assistance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), an increase of 11,631 over 1972/73. There were also about 70,000 refugee pupils enrolled in government and private schools. The number of students enrolled in the Agency's eight training centres in 1973/74 rose to 2,950 in vocational and 1,213 in teacher-training courses.

In 1973, the Agency's operations were again affected by political tensions. On 21 February, in an Israeli incursion at Nahr-al-Bared and Al Baddawi in northern Lebanon, a number of refugee shelters and Agency buildings were damaged. Fighting which broke out on 2 May in and around Beirut, involving Lebanese security forces and Palestinian organizations, interrupted the operation of Agency schools in Lebanon for three weeks and other Agency services to varying degrees. Closure of the border between the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon for several months, beginning on 5 May, interfered with the transportation of Agency supplies to the Syrian Arab Republic and east Jordan. As a result of the May fighting, the Agency recorded 50 dead and 130 wounded among registered refugees and estimated damage to Agency installations and Agency-built shelters at about $20,000; damage to shelters constructed by the refugees themselves was estimated at about $55,000. A total of 21 UNRWA/UNESCO schools in Beirut sustained some damage, but by 28 May attendance had returned to normal at all but three of them.

During the October 1973 war, the Agency maintained its services with some exceptions. A number of casualties were sustained among the refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic, where one camp had to be evacuated temporarily by its 7,000 residents; some 700 others were also displaced. Both the Agency's facilities near Damascus sustained damage. Health services were maintained in all but two camps, but schools were closed.

Consideration by General Assembly

The question of the situation of the refugees in the Near East was referred by the General Assembly at its 1973 session to its Special Political Committee, which discussed the question at meetings held between 5 and 20 November.

Reports before General Assembly

The Special Political Committee had before it the following reports: (1) the annual report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA; (2) two reports of the Secretary-General; (3) a report of the Working Croup on the Financing of UNRWA; and (4) a report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER-GENERAL

In his annual report to the General Assembly, covering the period from 1 July 1972 to 30 June 1973, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA stated that devaluation of the United States dollar and accelerating inflation had made the Agency desperately short of funds. The size of UNRWA'S budget deficit, estimated at more than $10 million in 1974, threatened a drastic reduction in services, he said.

The Commissioner-General explained that because ration items were donated, because health services were at a bare minimum, and because education absorbed 48 per cent of the Agency's budget and was almost entirely cash expenditure, any substantial reduction would have to be in the education programme. He noted that a cutback of services of that nature and on that scale would cause more hardship, frustration and bitterness among the Palestine refugees, would wreck the hopes for future self-support of many thousands of young refugees, and would have ominous implications for peace and security in the region.

There had still been no progress towards a settlement of the basic Palestine refugee problem in accordance with United Nations resolutions, the Commissioner-General noted. Frustrations and uncertainties, continued military occupation of areas where more than a third of the refugees still resided, violent action and reaction, and the absence of any reasonable foundation for an ordered future on which people could build their hopes and aspirations, continued to plague the Palestine refugees as they had done for the past quarter of a century.

He also noted that, despite repeated calls on Israel by the General Assembly, the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of refugees and other persons displaced in 1967 had still not been allowed to return to the occupied territories and, of the 44,176 reported to have returned since 1967, less than 7,000 were believed to be registered refugees.

The report called attention to the urgent need for more classrooms to accommodate a refugee school population growing by approximately 12,000 annually through natural increase. During the year under review, enrolments in UNRWA/UNESCO schools rose to 255,984.

The Commissioner-General reported that with the professional guidance of WHO, the Agency maintained an integrated and comprehensive health programme. Curative and preventive medical-care services were provided, as were nursing care, environmental sanitation, extra nutritional support for eligible refugees such as school children and expectant mothers, and school health programmes for more than a quarter of a million school children.

Also described in the report were the operating problems caused by Israeli attacks on Lebanese camps in February 1973, and the May 1973 fighting, which resulted in damage to Agency buildings and delays in the transportation to the Syrian Arab Republic and Jordan of food needed for the basic ration programme.

The report noted that in east Jordan and the West Bank of Jordan a notable development had been the growing participation by refugees in self-help projects for the improvement of camp conditions. The Agency continued to co-operate with the Jordanian Government in caring for persons displaced by the hostilities in 1967 who were not registered refugees.

In the West Bank of Jordan, the Commissioner-General reported, co-ordination of the economy with that of Israel by the occupying power continued. There were immediate material benefits for many refugees through employment, but much of this employment was with Israeli employers engaged in Israeli development, and the longer-term economic, social and cultural effects of occupation were causing concern.

In the occupied Gaza Strip, 706 refugee families (including 266 hardship cases) - displaced after demolition of their shelters in July and August 1971 by the Israeli military authorities - were still living in unsatisfactory conditions.

In conclusion, the Commissioner-General said that, in view of the serious political consequences involved, any decision on reductions in services ought to be taken at a governmental level. In the absence of an UNRWA governing body with executive responsibilities, the Commissioner-General had to seek guidance and directions from the General Assembly.

REPORTS OF SECRETARY-GENERAL

On 18 September 1973, the Secretary-General submitted two reports prepared in response to requests by the General Assembly for information as to Israel's compliance with two resolutions adopted on 13 December 1972 at the twenty-seventh session. 26/

The Secretary-General, in one of these reports, said he had asked Israel to inform him of steps it had taken concerning the immediate return of displaced inhabitants who had fled the Israeli-occupied territories since the outbreak of hostilities in June 1967.

Israel, he said, had replied on 30 August that, in spite of difficulties, it had - as in previous years - continued to facilitate the return of persons who had been displaced in 1967, that special arrangements for family reunion and hardship cases had been maintained and co-operation in that respect with the local Arab authorities had continued. Israel had also stated that the total figure of displaced persons who had returned to their homes since 1967 stood at nearly 50,000.

The Secretary-General also reported that he had obtained from the Commissioner-General of UNRWA such information as was available to him regarding the return of registered refugees. Such information was based in the main on Agency records relating to requests by returning refugees for retransfer of rations to the areas to which they had returned. Up to June 1973, about 6,200 displaced refugees had returned from east Jordan to the West Bank, and 220 from east Jordan to the Gaza Strip. In addition, about 1,000 displaced refugees had returned to the Gaza Strip from Egypt.

The second report of the Secretary-General concerned Israel's implementation of the Assembly's request to desist from all measures affecting the physical structure and demographic composition of the Gaza Strip and to take immediate and effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation. The report was prepared by the Secretary-General after consultation with the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, and included Israel's reply to a request for information on the implementation of the Assembly's decision.

In that reply, dated 30 August, Israel said that measures taken by the Israeli authorities in refugee camps in the Gaza area in 1971 had been designed to put a stop to the campaign of terror, murder and sabotage unleashed there by criminal terrorist organizations based in Arab States and actively sustained and supported by those States.

Israel also stated that in view of the conditions obtaining in the refugee camps, it had been necessary to lay out access roads there, which unavoidably had involved the demolition of a number of shelters. It had subsequently appeared that some of the arrangements made at the time by a number of refugees had not proved satisfactory to them.

The Israeli authorities had declared their readiness to look into these cases, and a joint survey by the competent Israeli authorities and UNRWA representatives had recently been completed. The necessary action was being taken to provide suitable housing for the people concerned, in accordance with their needs.

The Secretary-General reported that, according to information provided by UNRWA, the Military Governor of Gaza and North Sinai had informed UNRWA on 19 March that he had been authorized to reopen a joint survey of 942 families inadequately housed as a consequence of the 1971 demolitions. On 30 July, after completion of the survey, 706 families were found to be still inadequately housed, of which 266 were considered to be serious hardship cases. New demolitions for road construction in 1973 had affected 216 families in the Rafah and 167 families in the Khan Yunis camps; these families had either moved into new government housing or had been provided with alternative vacant shelters in their respective camps.

REPORT OF WORKING GROUP ON FINANCING OF UNRWA

The Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA - established by the General Assembly in 1970 to assist in reaching solutions to the Agency's financial problems - met several times during 1973 to discuss the Agency's deteriorating financial situation. As a result, the Chairman of the Working Group issued an appeal on 21 June to all Member States of the United Nations and members of the specialized agencies, stressing the urgent need for additional financial contributions.

In its report to the Assembly, issued on 19 October, the Working Group said that the results of the appeal, though not completely known, were not encouraging. The Working Group said it continued to assume that, as long as a just and lasting settlement of the problem of the Palestine refugees had not been achieved, UNRWA'S services in the form of relief assistance, health care and education had to be maintained, at least at their present minimal level.

The financial crisis of UNRWA, particularly the prospect of a deficit of more than $10 million for 1974, was more alarming than ever before, the Working Group emphasized, noting that the Commissioner-General had informed it that reductions in services in 1974 would have to be considered — and eventually implemented - unless substantial increases in voluntary contributions were forthcoming in the near future.

The Working Group believed that continuation of the services currently being rendered by UNRWA was dependent on voluntary contributions from Governments, and it was convinced that Member Governments - and particularly those which had not contributed in the past and those which had so far contributed inadequately - must be willing to reconsider their position and contribute generously.


Report of Palestine Conciliation Commission

The twenty-seventh report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine - covering the period from 30 September 1972 to 29 September 1973 - was prepared in response to a General Assembly request of 13 December 197227 that it exert continued efforts towards implementation of operative paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation or compensation of Palestine refugees. 28/

The Commission recalled that in previous reports it had concluded that the situation with regard to the implementation of that paragraph had not changed and that the events of 1967 had further complicated an already complex problem Although various other developments had taken place during 1973, the circumstances governing the possibilities open to the Commission remained essentially unchanged. The Commission regretted having been unable to carry forward its work, but remained determined to continue its endeavours as soon as that was possible.


General Assembly discussion

Presenting his annual report to the Special Political Committee, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA noted that the Agency had three main programmes: relief, health and education. Of these, the educational programme was the largest and had absorbed about 48 per cent of the total budget of $63 million in 1973. He drew attention to the seriousness of the Agency's financial situation as a result of inflation, aggravated by the devaluation of the dollar against three of the local currencies in which expenditures were incurred, and an annual rise of about 12,000 in the school population. Unless the projected deficit for 1974 could be eliminated by increases in contributions there would be no real alternative to reductions in programmes. In view of the size of the deficit, the reductions would have to be substantial ones and the consequences would be very serious.

Although the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA had recommended that the financing of the Agency should remain on a voluntary basis, the Commissioner-General felt that that was most unsatisfactory, and he regretted that the Working Group had not found it possible to reconsider the possibility of transferring the cost of UNRWA'S international staff to the United Nations regular budget. That, he said, could have demonstrated the interest of the United Nations in the Agency's work and could have contributed $2 million towards the elimination of the deficit for 1974. He concluded that the Agency's budgetary position could not be stabilized without a major decision by the General Assembly on the method of future financing and/or on the score of the services the
Agency was to provide for the refugees.

The rapporteur of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, introducing the Group's report, expressed concern for the Agency's financial prospects for 1974. He added that the Working Group continued to believe that the continuation of UNRWA's services depended on voluntary contributions from Governments and that if the Assembly wished the Agency to continue, it must provide it with the necessary means.

On 25 October 1973, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia requested that the "Palestine Arab delegation" be heard by the Special Political Committee.

On 9 November, 70 Members requested that the Committee hear a delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The Committee decided to authorize the persons constituting the said delegations to speak in the Committee without such authorization implying recognition of the organization or the delegation in question.

During the Special Political Committee's discussion, many Members praised the Commissioner-General and staff of UNRWA for their devotion to the Agency's increasingly difficult tasks. Also emphasized was the importance of UNRWA'S services to the Palestine refugees, the need to guard against reductions in its programmes and the serious implications in human and political terms if such reductions were allowed. The severe financial difficulties of the Agency were mentioned by many speakers, who appealed for an increase in contributions and broader support.

The representative of Egypt said that the main cause of the Middle East conflict and of its extension was the injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people, whose rights were denied by Israel, and also the lack of any effective and forceful action on the part of the United Nations. The members of the Committee were aware, he said, of the shameful living conditions which Zionism had imposed on the refugees, after usurping their territory, their homes and their property. The funds which UNRWA had at its disposal were meagre and depended on international charity. The refugees' means of subsistence were precarious and unstable. Their situation was further aggravated by the repressive acts of the Israelis. The fact had to be faced, he said, that it was abnormal and intolerable that a people should be forced to subsist on international charity or to live under colonial domination. The Palestinian people must be assured of the legal existence to which they were entitled. It was not enough to recognize that the Palestinians had inalienable rights; they should be guaranteed the full enjoyment of those rights.

The United Kingdom representative said that a lasting settlement could not be achieved in the Middle East unless the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people were taken into account. Nevertheless, pending an equitable settlement of the refugee problem, the work of UNRWA in assuring security, health and education for the refugees remained one of the central factors of such settlement. Any reduction in UNRWA'S services would have serious political consequences and ominous implications for peace and security, particularly at a time when prospects for a settlement seemed to be improving. However, he stressed, the maintenance of UNRWA was the direct responsibility of all Member States.

The spokesman for the United States said that his country was second to none in its desire to find just and lasting answers to the Middle East problems. It realized that UNRWA'S efforts were only palliative, designed to satisfy the basic needs of the Palestinians. The tragic plight of the Palestinians was the result of United Nations action, and the Organization had undertaken to care for them until long-range answers were found. That was not charity but a debt owed by the family of nations to the Palestinians. It was sad to have to record, he added, that certain great powers, for all their compassionate words, gave nothing to UNRWA and that affluent countries made only token contributions.

The Israeli representative said that, when UNRWA was created, the relief provided was meant to be temporary: the main task had been that of reintegrating the refugees into the economic life of the Near East. Owing to Arab political resistance and obstruction, all integration and rehabilitation projects had been abandoned, and UNRWA had become a permanent relief agency.

He went on to say that the time had come to take a fresh look at the problem and to prepare the way for a constructive settlement, in the framework of peace and regional and international co-operation. Since 1967, Israel's approach towards the local Arab population - as well as the refugees - in the administered areas had been to promote their well-being and development. Conditions in the refugee camps had improved considerably and there was no unemployment. Israel had shown its goodwill, he added, by permitting the return of 50,000 refugees of the 1948-1949 hostilities, to resettle in Israel and, since 1967, a total of 49,605 refugees in Gaza and the West Bank. The solution of the question of the Palestine refugees should find its proper place within the effort to be made by all concerned to achieve peace in the Middle East, as laid down in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. 29/

With regard to UNRWA'S financial problem, a number of States indicated that as long as there was a need for UNRWA'S humanitarian relief programmes, their continuation was the joint responsibility of all United Nations Members. Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, among others, appealed especially to countries which had contributed inadequately or not at all to reconsider their position and contribute generously. Recognizing the disparity between countries in terms of resources, Norway proposed that the appeal should be directed especially to countries with an annual per capita income in excess of 51,500.

Spokesmen for the German Democratic Republic, Hungary and Poland said that help from the world community to the Palestine refugees could come through a multichannel voluntary system of assistance which would not impose any rigid limitations upon States. They, with the representatives of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania, said they would continue to provide bilateral aid to the Palestinian people.

India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia believed that the world community had a collective responsibility to provide essential aid to the Palestine refugees. However, they added, the greatest responsibility lay with those who had been directly involved in the creation of the problem, and therefore they should increase their contributions and accept their responsibility realistically. Saudi Arabia added that countries like the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, which had shown a great interest in the affairs of the Middle East, should double their contributions to the refugees.

In Lebanon's view, exclusive reliance on voluntary contributions would not ensure the long-term financing of the Agency, and therefore it believed that UNRWA'S administrative budget should be incorporated entirely into the United Nations regular budget.

According to Finland and Iran, the solution of the immediate financial problem lay in a considerable increase in voluntary contributions. As for the long-term problem, comprehensive study of the finances should be continued in order to put the operations of the Agency on a more solid footing and to avoid any recurrence of a financial crisis. Iran added that the voluntary financing of UNRWA was incapable of coping with inflationary trends and it was time to find means of providing the Agency with a sound source of income. A study on partial or total integration of UNRWA'S budget into the United Nations regular budget would be timely.

The representative of Japan said that the war of 6 October, the fourth in 25 years, should remind everyone of the urgent need for concerted efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. In addition, the General Assembly should help to lay the groundwork for peace negotiations by renewing its insistence on equitable treatment of the Palestine refugees.

The Chinese representative said that as long as the rights of the Palestinian people were not restored and their territories recovered, there could be no genuine solution of the Middle East quest ion. The two super-powers' contention for hegemony in that region was the essence of the Middle East question and the reason why it had remained unsolved. The Chinese Government and people, he said, deeply sympathized with the sufferings of the Palestinian people and would unswervingly support their struggle and that of other Arab peoples subjected to aggression.

According to the USSR representative, the fundamental cause of the military conflicts in the region and of the plight of the Palestine refugees was the aggressive seizure of Arab lands by Israel and that State's stubborn refusal to recognize the legitimate rights of over a million and a half Palestinian Arabs who had been driven from their own lands. Israel's policy was still hindering the settlement of the Middle East problem as a whole and of the Palestine refugee problem in particular. The situation had been further aggravated by Israel's aggression in 1967 and during the current year. The essential prerequisite for a settlement, he said, was the cessation of Israel's aggression against the Arab States, the withdrawal of its armed forces from the occupied territories and its compliance with the decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, which would open the door to the solution of the problems of the Palestinian people.

The spokesman for the "Palestine Arab delegation" said that the creation of UNRWA had been not an act of charity but an admission of guilt and of moral obligation. As long as the Palestinians were unable to exercise their right of self-determination in their own country and remained dispossessed of their property, it was the duty of the United Nations to maintain the services of UNRWA. Many people, he added, wished to see the Palestinian problem as merely a refugee problem, but for the Palestinians it was a problem of their homeland, of their right to self-determination, a problem involving their freedom and dignity as people. The Palestinian people had every right to free their country from Zionist military occupation, and it was the moral duty of the United Nations to assist them in that task.

The spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) said that if peace and prosperity were to be ensured in the Middle East, the international community must hear the voice of the Palestinian people, who had been struggling against colonialism and Zionism since the beginning of the century. The Palestine Liberation Organization, he said, had made clear since 1967 its opposition to Security Council resolution 242 (1967). It had emphasized at that time that as long as the Palestinians' right to self-determination was not clearly spelt out, the fundamental issue would not be resolved. While it was aware of the limits to what the international Organization could do in the face of the support and protection provided to Israel by the United States, PLO felt that the United Nations could play an important role in attacking the cause of the problem, instead of simply dealing with its effects. The only solution to the problem lay in the creation of a democratic State, covering the whole territory of Palestine, in which various religions and races could coexist.

General Assembly decisions

Six draft resolutions and several amendments thereto were introduced in the Special Political Committee. All the amendments were eventually withdrawn. The Committee approved all six drafts on 16 and 20 November and, on 7 December, the General Assembly adopted the texts, amending one of them on a proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany.

By the first of these resolutions, the Assembly reaffirmed previous decisions on the question and endorsed the efforts of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to continue to provide humanitarian assistance - on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure - to persons in the area who were displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 hostilities. It strongly appealed to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously to UNRWA and to the other inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

These decisions were set forth in resolution 3089 A (XXVIII), adopted by the Assembly by a vote of 122 to 0, with 2 abstentions. The text had been approved by the Special Political Committee by a vote of 117 to 0, as proposed by Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, and Yugoslavia. (For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By a second resolution, the Assembly noted with deep regret that the repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for by its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 so had not been effected and that no substantial progress had been made towards the reintegration of refugees, either by repatriation or resettlement. The Assembly asked the Conciliation Commission for Palestine to exert continued efforts towards the implementation of the 1948 resolution and to report thereon no later than 1 October 1974.

The Assembly also directed attention to the continuing critical financial position of UNRWA. It noted with concern that, despite the efforts of the Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions to help relieve the serious budget deficit of the past year, contributions to the Agency continued to fall short of the funds needed to cover essential budget requirements. It called on all Governments as a matter of urgency to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the Agency, particularly in the light of the deficit projected in the Commissioner-General's report, and therefore urged non-contributing Governments to contribute and contributing Governments to consider increasing their contributions.

These decisions were set forth in resolution 3089 B (XVIII), adopted by the Assembly by a vote of 121 to 0, with 3 abstentions. The text was approved by the Special Political Committee - on a proposal by the United States - by a vote of 112 to 0, with 1 abstention.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By a third resolution, the Assembly concerned itself with persons displaced as a result of hostilities in June 1967 and October 1973. By the preamble to the text, the Assembly among other things noted that the Israeli occupation authorities had persisted in adopting measures that obstructed the return of the displaced population to their homes and camps in the occupied territories, including changes in the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories, by displacement of inhabitants, transfer of the population, destruction of towns, villages and homes and establishment of Israeli settlements.

The Assembly then reaffirmed the right of the displaced inhabitants - including those displaced as a result of recent hostilities - to return to their homes and camps, and considered that their plight continued because they had been prevented from returning; it deplored the refusal of Israeli authorities to take steps for their return in accordance with earlier Assembly resolutions.

The Assembly then called once more upon Israel: to take immediate steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants; to desist from all measures that obstructed their return, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories; and to take effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps in the Gaza Strip from which they were removed, and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation. Finally, the Assembly asked the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, to report to it on Israel's compliance with, and implementation of, the above provisions.

The Assembly took this action in adopting resolution 3089 C (XXVIII), by a recorded vote of 110 to 4, with 12 abstentions. The draft resolution containing this proposal was sponsored in the Special Political Committee by Afghanistan, Chad, Dahomey, Guinea, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia and Yugoslavia, and approved - as revised by the sponsors - by the Committee by a recorded vote of 101 to 4, with 14 abstentions.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By a fourth resolution, the Assembly reaffirmed that the people of Palestine were entitled to equal rights and self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It expressed once more its grave concern that the people of Palestine had been prevented by Israel from enjoying their inalienable rights and from exercising their right of self-determination. It declared that full respect for and realization of the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine, particularly their right to self-determination, were indispensable for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, and that the enjoyment by the Palestine Arab refugees of their right to return to their homes and property, recognized by the Assembly in its resolution (194 (III)) of 11 December 1948 - and repeatedly reaffirmed - was indispensable for the achievement of a just settlement of the refugee problem and for the exercise by the people of Palestine of their right to self-determination.

These decisions were taken by the Assembly when it adopted resolution 3089 D (XXVIII), by a recorded vote of 87 to 6, with 33 abstentions. The text had been approved by the Special Political Committee by a recorded vote of 78 to 6, with 35 abstentions, on a proposal by Afghanistan, Chad, Dahomey, Guinea, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia and Yugoslavia.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The Special Political Committee approved, by a recorded vote of 67 to 3, with 43 abstentions, a draft resolution, sponsored and revised by Saudi Arabia, by which among other things the General Assembly - considering the deep interest which certain Western European and other States, and in particular the Federal Republic of Germany, had manifested in the Middle East for many years - would appeal to Member States, especially those with $1,500 or more per capita income, to consider increasing their contribution to UNRWA.

At a plenary meeting on 7 December, the Assembly approved - by a roll-call vote of 64 to 28, with 28 abstentions - an amendment by the Federal Republic of Germany to delete the reference to that country; the draft resolution, as amended, was adopted by the Assembly by a vote of 81 to 3, with 41 abstentions, as resolution 3089 E (XXVIII).

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By another decision, the General Assembly commended the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA and noted its report with appreciation. The Working Group was asked to continue its efforts, in co-operation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, for the financing of UNRWA for a further period of one year.

The Assembly took this action when it adopted resolution 3090 (XXVIII) by a vote of 125 to 0. The text was sponsored in the Special Political Committee by Afghanistan, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, India, Iran, Jamaica, Sweden and Yugoslavia, and was approved by the Committee by a vote of 115 to 0.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)


Pledges and payments for 1973

For the calendar year 1973, 62 countries and an inter-governmental organization pledged the equivalent of $55,269,051 towards UNRWA'S budget. As at 31 December 1973, the equivalent of $44,859,986 had been received in payment of these pledges. In addition, contributions were received from non-governmental organizations, private individuals and business corporations.

PLEDGES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNRWA
FOR YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1973
(Showing equivalent in U.S. dollars or pledges and
contributions in cash, kind and services)


Contribution
Pledged by Pledge received

Australia 240,213 240,213
Austria 35,000 35,000
Bahrain 10,000 10,000
Belgium a/ 261,766 135,766
Canada 2,050,000 1,550,000
Cyprus 713 713
Denmark a/ 889,792 780,994
Finland 210,000 210,000
France a/ 1,269,365 1,096,670
Gaza Authorities 77,925 77,925
Germany, Federal Republic of a/ 4,967,589 4,729,238
Ghana 4,000 4,000
Greece 184,100 184,100
Haiti 1,000 -
Holy See 2,500 2,500
Iceland 12,000 12,000
India 14,903 b/ -
Indonesia 5,500 -
Iran 18,000 18,000
Ireland a/ 80,000 80,000
Israel 403,422 403,422
Italy a/ 160,321 -
Jamaica 3,000 -
Japan 350,000 c/ 350,000 c/
Jordan 289,083 289,083
Kuwait 220,000 220,000
Lebanon 64,797 64,797
Liberia 5,000 5,000
Libyan Arab Republic 600,000 600,000
Luxembourg a/ 4,560 4,000
Madagascar 586 -
Malaysia 1,500 1,500
Mexico 7,500 7,500
Monaco 215 215
Morocco 57,000 57,000
Netherlands a/ 135,135 135,135
New Zealand 81,844 81,844
Nigeria 6,080 -
Norway 845,488 845,488
Oman 25,000 25,000
Pakistan 20,805 20,805
Philippines 1,250 1,250
Republic of Korea 7,000 7,000
Republic of Viet-Nam 3,000 3,000
Saudi Arabia 397,000 50,000
Sierra Leone 10,400 -
Singapore 1,500 1,500
Spain 827,586 826,146
Sri Lanka 1,000 1,000
Sudan 5,761 5,761
Swaziland 660 -
Sweden 3,718,600 3,718,600
Switzerland 1,232,726 835,825
Syrian Arab Republic 102,192 78,228
Thailand 10,619 -
Trinidad and Tobago 1,810 1,810
Tunisia 6,000 6,000
Turkey 20,000 20,000
United Arab Emirates 220,000 -
United Kingdom a/ 4,960,000 4,960,000
United States 23,200,000 16,033,825
Yugoslavia 35,000 -
European Economic
Community (inter-governmental) 6,891,245 6,032,133

Total 55,269,051 44,859,986 d/


a/ In addition to their direct contributions to UNRWA, the members of the European Economic Community (EEC) also pledged through EEC as shown at the end of the table.

b/ Includes a contribution in response to an appeal by the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

c/ In addition, in 1973, Japan pledged 2,636 tons of rice valued at $750,000, undelivered as at 31 December 1973. This pledge was allocated by the Agency to its operations in 1974.

d/ A total of 58,752,281 was also received (in cash and in kind) in 1973 against prior years pledges.

Documentary references

General Assembly - 28th session
Ad Hoc Committee of General Assembly for Announcement of Voluntary Contributions to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in Near East (UNRWA), meeting 1 (A/AC.163/SR.1) Special Political Committee, meetings 877-886, 889, 891. Fifth Committee, meeting 1619.
Plenary meeting 2193.

A/9001. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1972-15 June 1973, Part One, Chapter IV L.
A/9013. Report of Commissioner-General of UNRWA, 1 July 1972-30 July
A/9155. Report of Secretary-General under General Assembly resolution 2963 C (XXVII).
A/9156. Report of Secretary-General under General Assembly resolution 2963 D (XXVII).
A/9187. Report of United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. Note by Secretary-General.
A/9231. Report of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA.
A/SPC/163. Letter of 25 October 1973 from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to Chairman of Special Political Committee (requesting hearing for "Palestine Arab delegation").
A/SPC/164. Letter of 9 November 1973 from Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Barbados, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire and Zambia to Chairman of Special Political Committee (requesting hearing for delegation of Palestine Liberation Organization).
A/SPC/L.273. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 16 November 1973, meeting 889, by 117 votes to 0.
A/9372 and Corr.1. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution I A.

Resolution 3089 A (XXVIII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9372, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1973, meeting 2193, by 122 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2341 B (XXII) of 19 December 1967, 2452 C (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 C (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, 2672 B (XXV) of 8 December 1970, 2792 B (XXVI) of 6 December 1971 and 2963 B (XXVII) of 13 December 1972,

Taking note of the annual 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 1972 to 30 June 1973,

Concerned about the continued human suffering resulting from the June 1967 hostilities in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its resolutions 2252 (ES-V), 2341 B (XXII), 2452 C (XXIII), 2535 C (XXIV), 2672 B (XXV), 2792 B (XXVI) and 2963 B (XXVII);

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/L.274. United States: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 20 November 1973, meeting 891, by 112 votes to 0, with 1 abstention.
A/SPC/L.275. Colombia: amendment to United States draft resolution, A/SPC/L.274.
A/SPC/L.278 and Rev.1, 2. Saudi Arabia: amendment and revised amendment to United States draft resolution, A/SPC/L.274.
A/SPC/L.279 and Rev.1, 2. Saudi Arabia: amendment and revised amendment to United States draft resolution, A/SPC/L.274.
A/SPC/L.280. Administrative and financial implications of Colombian amendment, A/SPC/L.275, to United States draft resolution, A/SPC/L.274. Statement by Secretary-General.
A/SPC/L.289. India: amendment to United States draft resolution, A/SPC/L.274.
A/9372 and Corr.1. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution I B.

Resolution 3089 B (XXVIII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9372, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1973, meeting 2193, by 121 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 2963 A (XXVII) of 13 December 1972 and all previous resolutions referred to therein, including resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the annual 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 1972 to 30 June 1973,

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 General Assembly in paragraph 2 of resolution 513 (VI) of 26 January 1952 for the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continues to be a matter of serious concern;

2. Expresses its thanks to the Commissioner-General and to the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for their continued faithful efforts to provide essential services for the Palestine refugees, and to the specialized agencies and private organizations for their valuable work in assisting the refugees;

3. 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 thereof and to report thereon as appropriate, but no later than 1 October 1974;

4. Directs attention to the continuing critical financial position of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as outlined in the Commissioner-General's report;

5. Notes with concern that, despite the commendable and successful efforts of the Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions to help relieve the serious budget deficit of the past year, contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East continue to fall short of the funds needed to cover essential budget requirements;

6. 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 Commissioner-General's report, and therefore urges non-contributing Governments to contribute and contributing Governments to consider increasing their contributions.

A/SPC/L.276. Afghanistan, Chad, Dahomey, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mall, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.
A/SPC/L.276/Rev.1. Revised draft resolution, sponsored by above 14 powers and Guyana, approved by Special Political Committee on 16 November 1973 meeting 889, by recorded vote of 101 to 4, with 11 abstentions, as follows:*

Against: Barbados, Costa Rica, Israel, Nicaragua.

Abstaining: Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Khmer Republic, Malawi, Paraguay, Portugal, United States, Venezuela.

*Approved by second recorded vote, taken for technical reasons, by 100 votes to 3, with 13 abstentions Equatorial Guinea, Haiti and Nicaragua, absent during the second vote, subsequently confirmed their votes to the Secretariat.

A/9372 and Corr.1. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution I C.

Resolution 3089 C (XXVIII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9372, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1973, meeting 2193, by recorded vote of 110 to 4, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Barbados, Costa Rica, Israel, Nicaragua.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2452 A (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, 2672 D (XXV) of 8 December 1970, 2792 E (XXVI) of 6 December 1971 and 2963 D (XVII) of 13 December 1972, calling upon the Government of Israel to take effective and immediate steps for the return without delay of those Inhabitants who had been displaced since the outbreak of hostilities In June 1967, and its resolutions 2792 C (XXVI) of 6 December 1971 and 2963 C (XVII) of 13 December 1972, calling upon the Government of Israel to take immediate and effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps trom which they were removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation,

Emphasizing the need for full implementation of the above-mentioned resolutions,

Having considered the reports of the Secretary-General of 18 September 1973,

Noting that the Israeli occupation authorities have persisted in adopting measures that obstruct the return of the displaced population to their homes and camps in the occupied territories - including changes in the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories, by the displacement of inhabitants, the transfer of population, the destruction of towns, villages and homes, and the establishment of Israeli settlements - in violation of the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, as well as the pertinent United Nations resolutions, and reaffirming that it considers those measures null and void,

1. Reaffirms the right of the displaced inhabitants, including those displaced as a result of recent hostilities, to return to their homes and camps;

2. Considers that the plight of the displaced inhabitants continues because they have been prevented from returning to their homes and camps;

3. Deplores the refusal of the Israeli authorities to take steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants in accordance with the above-mentioned resolutions;

4. Calls once more upon Israel immediately:

(a) To take steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants;

(b) To desist from all measures that obstruct the return of the displaced inhabitants, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories;

(c) To take effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation;

5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report as soon as possible, and whenever appropriate thereafter, but in any case not later than the opening date of the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly, on Israel's compliance with and implementation of paragraph 4 of the present resolution.

A/SPC/L.277. Afghanistan, Chad, Dahomey, Guinea, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 16 November 1973, meeting 889, by recorded vote of 78 to 6, with 35 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Barbados, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Israel, Nicaragua, United States.

A/9372 and Corr.1. Report of Special Political Commit-tee, draft resolution I D.

Resolution 3089 D (XXVIII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9372, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1973, meeting 2193, by recorded vote of 87 to 6, with 33 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Barbados, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Israel, Nicaragua, United States.

*Subsequently Guatemala advised the Secretariat that had intended to abstain.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that the problem of the Palestine Arab refugees has arisen from the denial of their inalienable rights under the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Recalling its resolution 2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, in which it reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine, and its resolutions 2649 (XXV) of 30 November 1970, 2672 C (XXV) of 8 December 1970, 2787 (XXVI) and 2792 D (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2955 (XVII) of 12 December 1972 and 2963 E (XVII) of 13 December 1972, in which it recognized, inter alia, that the people of Palestine is entitled to the right of self-determination,

Bearing in mind the principle of equal rights and self-determination enshrined in Articles 1 and 55 of the Charter and more recently reaffirmed in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and in the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security,

1. Reaffirms that the people of Palestine is entitled to equal rights and self-determination, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

2. Expresses once more its grave concern that the people of Palestine has been prevented by Israel from enjoying its inalienable rights and from exercising its right to self-determination;

3. Declares that full respect for and realization of the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine, particularly its right to self-determination, are indispensable for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, and that the enjoyment by the Palestine Arab refugees of their right to return to their homes and property, recognized by the General Assembly in resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, which has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Assembly since that date, is indispensable for the achievement of a just settlement of the refugee problem and for the exercise by the people of Palestine of its right to self-determination.

A/SPC/L.287 and Rev.1. Saudi Arabia: draft resolution and revision, approved by Special Political Committee on 20 November 1973, meeting 891, by recorded vote of 67 to 3, with 43 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Israel, Nicaragua, United States.

A/L.716. Federal Republic of Germany: amendment to draft resolution I E recommended by Special Political Committee in A/9372.
A/9372 and Corr.1. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution I E.

Resolution 3089 E (XXVIII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9372, and as amended by Federal Republic of Germany, A/L.716, by roll-call vote of 64 to 28, with 28 abstentions, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1973. meeting 2193, by 81 votes to 3, with 41 abstentions.

The General Assembly,

Considering that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East is in dire need of additional funds to meet its minimal annual expenses,

Noting that many Member States are not in a position to make any contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

Noting also that many States, instead of contributing to the budget of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, prefer to extend direct aid to the Palestine refugees,

Taking into account that the contribution of the United States of America to the regular budget of the United Nations has been reduced to 25 per cent by General Assembly resolution 2961 B (XVII) of 13 December 1972 on the understanding that the United States will endeavour to maintain and possibly increase its voluntary contributions to the various agencies and other organs of the United Nations,

Considering further the deep interest which certain Western European and other States have manifested in the Middle East for many years,

1. Expresses its gratitude to all States which have in the past generously contributed to the budget of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

2. Appeals to Member States, especially those with $1,500 or more per capita income, to consider increasing their contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

A/SPC/L.286. Afghanistan, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, India, Iran, Jamaica, Sweden, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 20 November 1973, meeting B91, by 115 votes to 0.
A/SPC/L.288, A/C.5/1576, A/9391. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution II recommended by Special Political Committee in A/9372. Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.

A/9372 and Corr.1. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution II.

Resolution 3090 (XXVIII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9372, adopted by Assembly on 7 December 1973, meeting 2193, by 125 votes to 0.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2656 (XXV) of 7 December 1970, 2728 (XXV) of 15 December 1970, 2791 (XXVI) of 6 December 1971 and 2963 (XVII) and 2964 (XVII) of 13 December 1972,

Having considered the report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

Taking into account the annual 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 1972 to 30 June 1973,

Deeply concerned at the financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which continues to be serious, thereby endangering the essential services being provided to Palestine refugees,

Convinced of the continuing need for extraordinary efforts in order to maintain, at least at their present minimum level, the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

1. Commends the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for its work;

2. Notes with appreciation the report of the Working Group;

3. Requests the Working Group to continue its efforts, in co-operation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, for the financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for a further period of one year;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary services and assistance to the Working Group for the conduct of its work.


Other matters relevant to the Middle East situation

Communications concerning
civil aviation incidents

On 2 March 1973, in a letter to the President of the Security Council, Egypt said that on 21 February a Libyan airliner proceeding on a sched uled flight from Benghazi (Libyan Arab Republic) to Cairo (Egypt) had deviated from its original course - owing to navigational difficulties and bad weather conditions - and had accidentally overflown the occupied Egyptian territory of Sinai. It had been intercepted by four Israeli fighter aircraft which, without warning, had attacked the airliner with cannon fire and missiles while it was heading west. The airliner crashed, causing 106 deaths.

Israel's action in shooting down a civilian aircraft, Egypt's letter continued, was not only a flagrant and, serious threat to the safety of international civil aviation but also a violation of its fundamental legal norms and standards. Egypt transmitted the text of a resolution adopted on 28 February 1973 by the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), condemning the Israeli action and directing that an investigation be made.

On 22 February, the representative of Guyana had transmitted the text of a statement issued on 21 February by the representatives of non-aligned countries at the United Nations, expressing shock at the shooting down of the Libyan civilian aircraft by Israeli forces, and sympathy for the loss of innocent civilian lives and property.

By a letter dated 5 March, Israel transmitted excerpts of a statement made on 28 February at the ICAO Assembly, in which the Israeli representative informed the Assembly that the Prime Minister of Israel, Mrs. Golda Meir, had expressed her deep sorrow at the loss of human life resulting from the Libyan airliner incident and her regrets that the pilot had not heeded the warnings given to him in accordance with international procedure. The Israeli Government had declared its readiness to make ex-gratia payments to the families of the victims and to the survivors.

In his statement, the Israeli representative had informed the ICAO Assembly that the incident had arisen from a series of errors and omissions on the part of the Libyan aircraft and the Egyptian control system, leading the Israeli air defence system to assume that the aeroplane had been engaged on a hostile mission. It had penetrated a closed military zone in Sinai and had not responded to the signals of Israeli forces and instructions to land. On the basis of the above assumption, which had later proved to be erroneous, the operational decision had been taken to compel the aircraft to land. The airliner had been hit and had attempted to land but, at the moment it touched the ground, it had crashed. The Israeli Minister of Defence had expressed the hope that the neighbouring Arab countries would respond to Israel's appeal and that channels of swift communication for cases of emergency would be jointly set up so that it would be possible to overcome errors without ignoring security requirements.

In a letter dated 12 March, Egypt quoted the pilot of the Israeli aircraft, who had stated at a press conference that he had shot at the airliner's wings to force it to land before it could reach the coast. In Egypt's view, that statement showed that the shooting had been carried out with the intention of blowing up the aircraft in mid air, for a fighter pilot could not be unaware that the fuel tanks of a Boeing aeroplane were situated in the wings, Therefore, the burden of responsibility for the incident lay with Israel.

Israel said in a reply dated 14 March that Egypt's only interest in the matter was to distort and exploit the incident for purposes of continued propaganda warfare against Israel. Egypt had no intention of co-operating in arrangements and procedures that would avert such disasters in the future, and had thus summarily rejected Israel's proposal to establish means of communication for emergency situations.

In a report dated 11 August 1973, the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine said he had received a complaint from Lebanon alleging that a Lebanese civilian aircraft leased to Iraq had been intercepted by Israeli aircraft over Lebanese territory and diverted to Israel.

On 11 August, the representative of Iraq alleged that on Friday, 10 August, a Middle East Airlines Caravelle chartered by Iraqi Airways had been intercepted by two Israeli military aircraft after its take-off from Beirut International Airport on a scheduled flight to Baghdad (Iraq). The aeroplane had been forced to land at an Israeli military base where the 83 passengers and seven crew members were forced at gunpoint to leave the aircraft; they were manhandled and subjected to hours of interrogation and detention.

On 11 August, Lebanon stated that on the night of 10 August the Israeli air force had invaded Lebanon's air space and forced a civilian aeroplane to fly into Israel, where it landed at an Israeli military base. Lebanon requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council to deal with what it termed a most serious act of Israeli aggression.

Consideration by Security
Council (August 1973)

On 13 August, the Security Council met to consider Lebanon's complaint and invited the representatives of Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon - and subsequently the representative of Democratic Yemen - at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. The Council further agreed on 14 August to a request made by the Sudanese representative that an invitation be extended to Talib El-Shibib, Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Na-tions, to address the Council.

The representative of Lebanon said that on 10 August units of Israel's air force had penetrated Lebanese air space and flown over different areas of central and southern Lebanon. Some of them had circled over Beirut International Airport. At 2100 hours, a civilian Caravelle airliner belonging to Middle East Airlines and on lease to Iraqi Airways had prepared to take off from Beirut for Baghdad. At 2135 hours, soon after the aeroplane had taken off, two Israeli Mirage jet fighters had dived towards it and, after having intercepted it several miles north of Beirut, ordered it to follow them to Israeli territory, where it had been forced to land at an Israeli military air base under the threat of being shot down. After the airliner had been forcibly detained for over two hours, during which time the passengers had been subjected to military interrogation, it was permitted to take off, and had landed at Beirut airport at 0115 hours on 11 August.

Lebanon's representative charged that Israel had engaged as a State in an act of air piracy, hijacking and State terrorism, and he called upon the Council to adopt a resolution condemning Israel's action in the strongest terms. The Council, he added, should bring any resolution it might adopt to the attention of ICAO for its consideration.

The spokesman for Iraq said that the complaint before the Council concerned a Government planned hijacking of a civilian airliner and constituted a declaration by Israel of piracy as an instrument of national policy. Over the years, the Council had warned Israel that grave violations of the United Nations Charter would not be tolerated and had notified Israel that it would consider further steps, as envisaged in the Charter, to assure against repetition of such acts. However, the Council so far had failed to put its words into action, he said, and the Zionists continued their aggression with impunity, supported by the United States.

The Egyptian representative said that Israel's aggression on 10 August was an act of State terrorism, in flagrant violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter. To condemn Israel was not an effective remedy. In Egypt's view, punishment in the form of sanctions under the Charter was the only way to prevent the aggressor from continuing its crimes.

The representative of Israel said that on the evening of 10 August, Israeli air force jets had diverted a Lebanese aircraft - chartered by Iraq for a flight between Beirut and Baghdad - because there had been reason to believe that several terrorist leaders were on the flight. However, the aircraft had been allowed to proceed to its destination after the identities of the passengers had been checked.

He went on to say that Arab terrorists, operating with the permission and support of Arab Governments, stood accused of waging a persistent campaign of world wide bloodshed directed against helpless civilians. In pursuit of such terrorists, Israeli aircraft had entered Lebanese air space and diverted the aeroplane.

Such measures by individual States against terrorism, he said, had become even more urgent and indispensable as a result of the sabotage by Arab States of all international action. Israel could not forgo its right to self-defence and the duty to protect its citizens merely because Arab Governments had thwarted international measures against terrorism. Lebanon had shown no regard for Israel's rights under the cease-fire, and therefore could not complain that Israel did not respect Lebanese rights. He noted that the failure of United Nations organs to take effective steps against the plague of terrorism should not be compounded by Security Council action that would give further satisfaction to terrorists.

The USSR representative held the view that Israel's action constituted an act of aggression against a sovereign State and was an act of air piracy and banditry. Under the Hague Convention of 1970, acts of lawless seizure or control of airliners in flight constituted a threat to the safety of persons and property, impeclecl air transport and undermined the confidence of the people of the world in the safety of civil aviation. The Convention condemned and declared as a crime an attempt to hijack an airliner or to take control of it by force. Similarly, the Montreal Convention of 1971 stressed that lawless acts aimed against the security of civil aviation were in fact criminal acts. The USSR, he said, fully supported the protest of Lebanon and Iraq and condemned Israel's policy of aggressive terrorist acts against Lebanon and other Arab States. It was prepared to support the Council in the preparation of effective measures - including sanctions against Israel.

At the Council's meeting on 14 August, the representative of the United Kingdom deplored all acts of violence committed by individuals or groups of individuals. No Government, he said, was entitled to take the law into its own hands and commit acts of violence totally inconsistent with international law, which only complicated efforts to find a solution to the problem of international terrorism. That Lebanese air space had been deliberately violated by Israeli military aircraft was an undeniable fact, and the United Kingdom deplored it. He added that the act must be seen against the background of the Middle East problem as a whole: it was essential that all concerned exert their efforts to make progress towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

According to the French representative, Israel's military intervention against civil aviation should be condemned by the international community, which could not tolerate acts taken in violation of human rights and the principles of the Charter. He called for the States in the area to keep calm and not act in a manner that might compromise attempts at a settlement on the basis of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. 31/ The Council should condemn the action of the Israeli air force and firmly invite Israel to refrain from such actions in the future and respect its obligations under international conventions.

The representative of China asserted that the piratical act of the Israeli Zionists had not been accidental but was a continuation of the series of aggressive atrocities perpetrated by them over a long period against the Palestinian people and other Arab countries and peoples. The Council, he said, in order to fulfil its responsibilities, must condemn most severely the Israeli authorities' piratical act and consider the adoption of effective measures to stop their atrocities.

Several speakers deplored Israel's action and considered it a threat to international civil aviation and to the safety of passengers. Austria, Kenya and Sudan, among others, held the view that Israel had violated the existing international conventions governing international civil aviation.

The representative of Yugoslavia said the Council should condemn Israel's act of air piracy and reject Israel's claim to place itself outside and above international law and the United Nations Charter. He shared the view that, beyond condemnation, the Council might consider that effective measures could be taken under the Charter.

Several speakers felt that the Lebanese complaint should be considered within the framework of the Middle East conflict. Australia, for example, thought that the most intractable problem facing the Council was the search for a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East, which could only be achieved in accordance with Council resolution 242 (1967). Sudan said that Israel's act was a violation of the Lebanese-Israeli Armistice Agreement of 1919 and should be discussed in the context of the Middle East question as a whole. The root cause of the problem was the occupation of Arab territories by Israel and the denial of the right of the Palestinian people to their national home.

The representative of Indonesia deeply regretted that the Security Council, by rejecting the draft resolution submitted by the eight non-aligned members of the Council the previous month (see pp. 186-90), had missed the opportunity to make a concrete contribution to the solution of the Middle East problem.

The spokesman for the League of Arab States said that if the purpose had been to apprehend some Palestinian leaders, as the representative of Israel had stated, it would mean that any aircraft that carried a Palestinian leader could be subjected to hijacking by Israel. Guinea added that history had taught that liquidating the leaders of a popular liberation movement did not liquidate a struggling people.

The United States representative said his country deplored the violations of Lebanese sovereignty, of the United Nations Charter and of the rule of law in international civil aviation. National and international efforts to control terrorism must go forward within and not outside the law. The United States, he said, believed that actions such as Israel's diversion of a civil airliner were unjustified and likely to bring about counteraction on an increasing scale. His Government had made and continued to make efforts to improve the security of international civil aviation. However, the Council was meeting to deal with a specific complaint about a specific incident and should therefore deal promptly with that complaint and determine that international society required rejection of unlawful interference with international civil aviation.

On 15 August, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 337 (1973), proposed jointly by France and the United Kingdom.

By the preambular paragraphs of the Council among other things expressed concern at Israel's act as constituting a serious interference with international civil aviation and a violation of the United Nations Charter. It recognized that such an act could jeopardize the lives and safety of passengers and crew and violated the provisions of international conventions safeguarding civil aviation.

By the operative parts of the text, the Council:

(1) condemned Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon's air space;

(2) considered that Israel's actions constituted a violation of the Lebanese-Israeli Armistice Agreement of 1919, the cease-fire resolutions of the Security Council of 1967, the provisions of the Charter, the international conventions on civil aviation and the principles of international law and morality;

(3) called on ICAO to take due account of this resolution when considering adequate measures to safeguard international civil aviation against these actions; and

(4) called on Israel to desist from any and all acts that violated Lebanon's sovereignty and endangered the safety of international civil aviation, and solemnly warned Israel that, if such acts were repeated, the Council would consider taking adequate steps or measures to enforce its resolutions.

(For text of resolution 337 (1973), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below).

Related communications

On 4 September, the Secretary-General transmitted to Council members a letter from the Secretary-General of ICAO containing a resolution adopted on 20 August 1973 by the ICAO Council, by which Israel's violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and its diversion and seizure of the Lebanese aircraft were condemned.

On 18 September, Lebanon transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of the ICAO Council's resolution, as well as one adopted by the ICAO Assembly on 30 August 1973, also condemning Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty and for the diversion and seizure of the Lebanese civil aircraft. (See also pp. 946-48).

On 10 September, Israel transmitted to the Secretary-General a note it had addressed to the President of the ICAO Assembly in which Israel charged that, on 5 September, Italian security forces had apprehended five Arab terrorists in the vicinity of the Fiumicino International Airport in Rome (Italy). In the flat occupied by the terrorists, two model S.A. 7 ground-to-air missiles were found, equipped with launchers, and all in perfect working order. The weapons were to be used to shoot down an Israeli airline when it landed at, or took off from, the airport. Israel added that in the Middle East, such missiles were used by the regular armies of the Syrian Arab Republic, Iraq and Egypt and had been delivered to them by the USSR. By supplying Arab terrorists with those missiles, Israel charged, the Arab countries were committing unlawful interference with international civil aviation and were in violation of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and the Montreal Convention of 1971.

In a reply dated 25 September, Egypt, Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic rejected Israel's charges and said that Israel's note contained a distortion of the facts and false accusations against the Arab Governments. The representatives of the three countries appended the text of a letter which they had addressed to the President of the ICAO Assembly on 11 September, rejecting Israel’s allegations.


Other activities

By a letter dated 26 February 1973 to the Secretary-General, Egypt transmitted the text of a resolution on the Middle East adopted by the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) at its twentieth regular session - held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 5 to 12 February - condemning Israel for its refusal to withdraw from all occupied Arab territory and calling for its immediate and unconditional withdrawal from those territories it had occupied since 5 June 1967. The resolution also declared, among other things, that Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 remained a valid basis for a fair and just solution to the Middle East situation.

On 30 May, in a letter to the President of the Security Council, the representative of the Libyan Arab Republic said that a grave situation had resulted from acts of aggression perpetrated against the United States Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, he said, constituted a direct threat to the security and safety of the Mediterranean coastal States. He cited two incidents in particular: on 21 March, an American military aircraft had entered Libyan air space on a reconnaissance mission; and, on 30 April, a United States aircraft carrier had been based near the Libyan coast, transmitting radar beams to detect movements of the Libyan air force and launching a wave of military aero planes to interfere with Libyan training flights in the area. The Libyan Arab Republic condemned these acts as an immediate threat to the peace and security of the area.

On 20 June, the representative of the United States replied, with regard to the incident of 21 March, that the aircraft in question was in flight far outside the 12-mile territorial waters claimed by the Libyan Arab Republic and therefore in international air space. The unarmed aircraft had nevertheless been intercepted and fired upon by aircraft of the Libyan air force. With regard to the second so-called incident, on 30 April, he said there could be no basis for the conclusion that the operations of an aircraft carrier and its aircraft well beyond the territorial sea or sovereign air space of the Libyan Arab Republic constituted a "threat to the peace and security of the area." At no time had aircraft or vessels of the United States entered or overflown the claimed 12-mile territorial sea of Libya, nor was there any interference with the operation of Libyan military forces.

Denying that the presence of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean constituted aggression, the letter expressed concern at the nature of the Libyan Government's apparent intention to carry out actions in the so-called "restricted area," established by the Libyan Government within a radius of 100 nautical miles from Tripoli, which was inconsistent with international law.

Documentary references

Communications concerning
civil aviation incidents
S/7930/Add.2082. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General on 10 August 1973.
S/10889 (A/9049). Letter of 22 February 1973 from Guyana (transmitting text of statement issued by representatives of non-aligned countries at United Nations on 21 February 1973).
S/10893 and Corr.1. Letter of 2 March 1973 from Egypt.
S/10895 and Corr.1. Letter of 5 March 1973 from Israel.
S/10902. Letter of 12 March 1973 from Egypt.
S/10904. Letter of 14 March 1973 from Israel.
S/10984. Letter of 11 August 1973 from Iraq.

Consideration by Security
Council (August 1973)

Security Council, meetings 1736-1740.

S/10983. Letter of 11 August 1973 from Lebanon (request to convene Council).
S/10984. Letter of 11 August 1973 from Iraq.
S/10986. Letter of 13 August 1973 from Sudan (request for Permanent Observer of League of Arab States to address Council).
S/10987. France and United Kingdom: draft resolution.

Resolution 337 (1973), as proposed by 2 powers, S/10987, unanimously adopted by Council on 15 August 1973, meeting 1740.

The Security Council,

Having considered the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/1736,

Having noted the contents of the letter from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10983),

Having heard the statement of the representative of Lebanon concerning the violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and the hijacking, by the Israeli air force, of a Lebanese civilian airliner on lease to Iraqi Airways,

Gravely concerned that such an act carried out by Israel, a Member of the United Nations, constitutes a serious interference with international civil aviation and a violation of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recognizing that such an act could jeopardize the lives and safety of passengers and crew and violates the provisions of international conventions safeguarding civil aviation,

Recalling its resolutions 262 (1968) of 31 December 1968 and 286 (1970) of 9 September 1970,

1. Condemns the Government of Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure by the Israeli air force of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon's air space;

2. Considers that these actions by Israel constitute a violation of the Lebanese-Israeli Armistice Agreement of 1949, the cease-fire resolutions of the Security Council of 1967, the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the international conventions on civil aviation and the principles of international law and morality;

3. Calls on the International Civil Aviation Organization to take due account of this resolution when considering adequate measures to safeguard international civil aviation against these actions;

4. Calls on Israel to desist from any and all acts that violate Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and endanger the safety of international civil aviation and solemnly warns Israel that, If such acts are repeated, the Council will consider taking adequate steps or measures to enforce its resolutions.

RELATED COMMUNICATIONS
S/10990. Note, dated 4 September 1973, by Secretary-General (transmitting letter of 21 August 1973 from Secretary-General of ICAO to Secretary-General of United Nations, attaching ICAO Council resolution of 20 August 1973).
S/10994 (A/9150). Letter of 10 September 1973 from Israel.
S/11002 (A/9161). Letter of 18 September 1973 from Lebanon.
S/11003 (A/9173). Letter of 25 September 1973 from Egypt, Iraq, and Syrian Arab Republic (inter alia transmitting letter of 11 September 1973 to President of 20th (extraordinary) session of ICAO Assembly and to Secretary-General of ICAO).

Other activities
S/10891 (A/9050). Letter of 26 February 1973 from Egypt (transmitting resolution adopted by Council of Ministers of OAU at its 20th ordinary session, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 5-12 February 1973).
S/10939. Letter of 30 May 1973 from Libyan Arab Republic.
S/10956. Letter of 18 June 1973 from United States.
S/10972 (A/9098). Note of 20 July 1973 by Secretary-General (transmitting text of Human Rights Commission resolution 4 (XXIX) of 14 March 1973).
S/10981 (A/9114). Letter of 2 August 1973 from Egypt (transmitting declaration by General Secretariat of Arab Socialist Union of Egypt on position of United States in Security Council (20-26 July 1973)).

Other documents
A/9001. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1972-15 June 1973, Part One Chapter I E.
A/9002. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1972-15 June 1973, Chapter 1 D and E.

Notes

1/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967).

2/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967).

3/ See Y.U.N., 1970, pp. 788-92, resolution 2625 (XXV), containing text of Declaration.

4/ Rule 38 of the Security Council's provisional rules of procedure reads as follows:

(For text of Article 32 of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.)

5/ See Y.U.N., 1972, pp. 180-82, text of resolution 2949 (XXVII).

6/ See Y.U.N., 1971, p. 168.

7/ For text of Chapter VII of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.

8/ See footnote 5.

9/ For text of Article 24 of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.

10/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967).

11/ Ibid.

12/ For text of Article 17 of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.

13/ See Y.U.N., 1967, p. 189, text of resolution 233 (1967).

14/ See footnote 10.

15/ See Y.U.N., 1963, pp. 572-73, text of resolution 1874 (S-IV).

16/ For text of Article 17 of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.

17/ See footnote 15.

18/ See Y.U.N., 1968, p. 264, text of resolution 250 (1968).

19/ Ibid., text of resolution 251 (1968).

20/ See Y.U.N., 1969, pp. 214-20.

21/ See Y.U.N., 1972, pp. 432-33.

22/ Ibid.

23/ Ibid., pp. 434-35, text of resolution 3005 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972.

24/ Ibid.

25/ For text of Charter VII of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.

26/ See Y.U.N., 1972, p. 206, text of resolution 2963 D (XXVII) and pp. 205-6, text of resolution 2963 C (XXVII).

27/ Ibid., p. 204, text of resolution 2963 A (XXVII).

28/ Operative paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) states, in part, that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property..." For full text of resolution 194 (III), see Y.U.N., 1948-49, pp. 174-76.

29/ See Y.U.N., 1967, text of resolution 242 (1967).

30/ See footnote 28.

31/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967).









status.plo
status.pad


Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter