Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROVISIONAL VERBATIM RECORD OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING
Held at Headquarters, New York, on Friday, 5 February 1982, at 10.30 a.m.
President: Mr. KITTANI (Iraq)
The situation in the occupied Arab territories /5/ (continued)
This record contains the original text of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches in the other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the General Assembly.
Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only. They should be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned, within one week, to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, Department of Conference Services, room A-355O, 866 United Nations Plaza, and incorporated in a copy of the record.
AGENDA ITEM 5 (continued)
THE SITUATION IN THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES
The PRESIDENT: Before calling on the first speaker I wish to inform the Assembly that the following countries have become sponsors of draft resolution A/ES-9/L.1: Congo, Ethiopia, Mali, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.
Mr. ALBORNOZ (Ecuador) (interpretation from Spanish): To Ecuador the defence of its territorial integrity is a right and a primary duty of every sovereign State. That right is exercised consistently by our Government and is reflected in our individual and collective conduct as a people and as a country that is a member of the legally constituted world community. That is why Ecuador rejects all violations of that right anywhere in the world, any occupation of the territories of others and any use of force for the acquisition of territory and maintains that armed force does not create rights. From the dawn of cur existence as an independent country Ecuador has maintained the Sucre doctrine according to which armed victory confers no rights.
For all of these reasons., we cannot accept a so-called normalization of a territorial occupation through a unilateral declaration which, as in the case of the Syrian Golan Heights, is intended to cloak with legality the annexation of territory by force.
Ecuador's international position is based on strict observance of the essential principles of international coexistence - that is, non-use of force in relations between countries, non-intervention, the self-determination of peoples and the peaceful settlement of disputes.
No parliamentary decision to annex a territory can have effect or be accepted by the international community, which would be contrary to the United Nations Charter and would disregard the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. It would be contrary to the law of treaties and it therefore conflicts with the principle of jus cogens. Apart from being null and void, such action does nothing to promote detente or a peace settlement in the area, whose explosive potential affects the peace of the entire world.
Only through peaceful negotiations in a climate of goodwill, with the participation of all interested, parties may lasting solutions be attained.
Furthermore, Ecuador, a founding Member of the United Nations, trusts the world Organization and considers that its universality is its essential characteristic reflecting the bonds among peoples in the maintenance of peace. In all United Nations forums Ecuador defends that universality which is basic to the democratic exercise in which all countries of the world take part. It has done that by promoting the decolonization process since its outset, a process which means progress towards universality. It maintains that position on important issues such as human rights and the operational programmes of the Organization. That is why it has supported the admission of all new Members and will not agree with any step aimed at the disintegration of the Organization.
At the same time we are staunch defenders of the Charter and committed to strengthening the Organization. Any General Assembly resolution within the present legal context must respect the principles of the Charter and the terms of reference and. spheres of action of each of the main organs of the United Nations. We believe in freedom of expression and therefore in the presence and participation of all countries in dealing with all items in the quest for peace. Such forum for understanding, such an open opportunity for debate and criticism may lead to solutions to the crisis which beset relations between countries today. To that end any action by the General Assembly must aim at uniting and not at dividing the international community.
That is why Ecuador, which maintains cordial relations with the countries of the Middle East and wishes to expand and not reduce its range of international contacts with all nations of the world according to a. philosophy of peaceful coexistence, ideological pluralism and respect for the national and international conduct of every State, hopes that the Security Council will find appropriate measures for dealing with the serious situations in the Middle East, stressing the actions already set forth in Security Council resolution 491 (1981), adopted on IT December last. It hopes that Israel and the other countries in the region will come to the negotiating table fully recognizing the interested States, with the participation on an equal footing, of the State of Israel and the Palestinian people, whose inalienable rights must be recognized by all, including the right to self-determination and to establish a nationality, the return of the Palestinians to their homeland and the establishment of an independent State so that all the countries in the Middle East may live in peace within defined boundaries. To that end detente must be promoted and hatred and intemperance overcome, in seeking comprehensive and equitable solution as should be the case among peace-loving countries which have committed themselves to behave in keeping with the norms of the United Nations Charter and the resolutions and recommendations of the world Organization.
Mr. IIARTINI URDANETA (Venezuela) (interpretation from Spanish): Mr. President. I wish to begin by expressing the gratitude of the delegation of Venezuela to you for the very skilful and competent manner in which you have conducted our deliberations at the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly. We also wish to express our satisfaction at seeing you lead the work of this ninth emergency special session which has been convened in order to consider the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights by Israel.
I wish to take this opportunity, since this is the first time for me to address the General Assembly this year, to express, on behalf of the Government of Venezuela. the warmest congratulations to Ambassador Javier Perez de Cuellar on his well-deserved appointment as Secretary-General of the Organization, which is recognition of his excellent diplomatic and personal qualities. We place our trust in the Secretary-General and in his capacity to contribute to the quest for new paths towards universal peace and understanding.
The President of the Republic of Venezuela, Mr. Luis Herrera Campins, stated before the thirty-sixth General Assembly:
"Thirty-six years of United Nations life have led to the identification of its pathway, the consolidation of its perspectives, and the evaluation of its achievements and failures." (A/36/PV.5, p. 21)
In the face of such historical reminiscences, the international situation continues to show us that the Organization's capacity to perform its fundamental role rests both on the political will of States to find formulas for understanding and on the readiness of our nations to overcome individual interests for the benefit of the common good and in strict observance of the United Nations Charter, having in mind the lofty objective of international peace and social justice.
Unfortunately we are gathered here at this ninth emergency special session in order to consider once again the serious situation in the Middle East resulting from the implementation of the decision of the Government and Parliament of Israel to extend its laws, jurisdiction and administration to the Syrian Golan Heights in violation of the norms and basic principles of international law, which have been established and are accepted by all States. This new initiative by Israel aimed, at changing the legal status of the Golan Heights is of special concern to us as part of the complex situation in the Middle East.
Faced with that deplorable act, Venezuela, as a democratic peace-loving country, reaffirms its clear conviction that a just and lasting solution to the problem of the Middle East must be based on the acceptance by all of the following, principles and elements: first, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories through war and the cessation of the policy of occupation secondly; withdraw:by Israel from the territories occupied in 1967 and a return to its borders prior to that date,as an essential step towards progress to peace; thirdly the right of all States in the region to exist and to live in peace within Secure and recognized boundaries fourthly, respect for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people including self determination and its existence as a nation, together with its other national rights fifthly, respect for the special status of Jerusalem, based on the General Assembly decision which fully recognized the enormous and special significance and the profound spiritual value of the Holy City for Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
In accordance with this position, Venezuela supported Security Council resolutions 242 (1967, 338 (1973) and, more recently, its resolution 497 (198l) as well as General Assembly resolutions 35/122 E and 36/226 B, which declared Israel's decision to annex the Golan Heights was null and void and without legal effect and demanded that the decision be rescinded forthwith. Consequently, we feel that the illegal decision adopted by the Government and Parliament of Israel introduces a new element of instability which directly and seriously threatens the precarious path to peace and understanding in that strife-torn region, which continues to be one of the greatest concerns of the international community.
There is no doubt that the latent and potential problems which threaten international peace and security cannot be eliminated unless States comply in good faith with their international obligations and commitments and with the agreements they have entered into. Attitudes opposed to this which depart from solemn obligations . undermine the legal basis of relations between States and obviously threaten international peace and security.
Since the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 497 (l98l), Venezuela calls upon the entire international community to reflect and particularly calls upon the parties concerned to find appropriate formulas that will effectively contribute to the implementation of that resolution, without going beyond the purposes that the international community had in mind.
Finally, I should like once again to appeal to the Assembly to bear in mind the need, to maintain a spirit of conciliation. That is why we believe that Israel should without delay comply with the decision of the Security Council that it rescind its decision to extend its laws, jurisdiction and administration to the Golan Heights.
We wish once again to express the hope that with perseverance and flexibility it will be possible to overcome the obstacles to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Mr. SHELDOV (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) (interpretation from Russian); The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR would like to join in the many wishes for your further success, Sir, in this lofty and responsible post that have been addressed to you.
Our delegation would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar. We should like to say that the Byelorussian SSR, as in the past, will persistently and consistently support the efforts of the United Nations in the interests of fulfilling the noble purposes and principles of its Charter and in the interests of peace, international security and the co-operation of peoples.
The General Assembly is holding an emergency special session dictated by the extraordinary situation created in the occupied Arab territories as a result of Israel's annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights and by the fact that the Security Council was unable to adopt appropriate measures against the aggressor because of the United States veto.
Tel Aviv's decision to extend Israeli legislation to the Syrian Golan Heights occupied by it is a new expansionist step towards achieving the old aspirations of the Zionists, namely, the creation of a so-called Greater Israel extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. And as this discussion, which is now drawing to an end, has shown, it has been decisively and universally condemned, Israelis act of annexation - the annexation of a part of Syria's territory -is a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and of international law and runs counter to the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and it completely disregards the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations on questions relating to a Middle East settlement. It is an open act of defiance of the world community. This hostile, anti-Arab action by Tel Aviv has led to an even sharper deterioration in an already explosive situation in the Middle East and has increased the danger of another war there, as well as exacerbating the international situation as a whole.
Occupied Jerusalem is a gaping wound in the heart of every Arab, As representatives are aware, last year the Israeli Knesset declared Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel. Now,, the aggressor is lopping off an ancestral territory from an Arab country - the Syrian Golan Heights.
On 17 December 1981 the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 497 (1981). which declared that Israel's decision to extend its laws, jurisdiction and administration to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights was null and void and without international legal effect and demanded that Israel rescind its decision forthwith.
But Tel Aviv as before with its usual cynicism - a cynicism typical of its representatives here - turned a deaf ear to the just demands of the world community and brazenly disregarded the relevant decisions of the United Nations -in particular, that Security Council resolution I mentioned,
Israel's annexation of Syria's ancestral territory is another act of aggression which proves that Tel Aviv, relying on the all-round assistance and support given it by Washington, is continuing on its path of international banditry. The aggression against Lebanon, which is now of a permanent nature the increased and accelerated "development" of the occupied Arab territories by ousting Arabs from their lands and creating militarized Israeli settlements on them, the change in the status of Jerusalem, the absolutely unprovoked bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq, aggressive acts against other Arab countries and, finally- the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights - all these are links in a single chain of crimes, a direct consequence of the anti-Arab Camp David conspiracy and the policy of separate deals.
In carrying out its policy of creeping annexation, Tel Aviv consistently relies on the practice of fait accompli and, if that practice works once, why not try it again? In this case, it has been tried with regard to the Golan Heights.
Israel has lone been the virtual partner and ally of the United States in its pursuit of its militaristic course in the Middle East, which is now a part of the general strategy of the United States to increase international tension, to intensify the arms race and to try to gain military supremacy in order to attempt to Impose its will on other peoples. The imperialist interests of the United States and the expansionist ambitions of Israel complement each other perfectly in their anti-Arab activities. The United States-Israel anti-Arab conspiracy is becoming ever more sinister; no one can be misled by all the various staged actions such as the "suspension" of the strategic co-operation agreements between the United States and Israel. Similar political charades are acted out each time Israel openly perpetrates another act of aggression against the Arab States, But the present political farce - the bogus condemnation by the United States of Israel's annexationist acts - has not gone on for very long. Before the beginning of the Security Council's meetings on Israel's annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, Washington officially reassured Tel Aviv that the United States would exercise its veto against any measures the Council might impose against Israel. As from a cornucopia, pledges have been lavished on Israel from the very highest levels of the United States administration regarding the unshakeable nature of the United States-Israel alliance and of the all-embracing support by the United States for the Zionist ally and aggressor.
That is not surprising. The all-embracing ties between United States Imperialism and Zionist Israel remain firm and are, indeed, always expanding. The military alliance between Israel and the United States of America was formed long ago. Israel continues to receive from beyond the ocean an Inexhaustible flow of weapons. The United States helped Israel to create its own military-industrial complex, which is organically linked to United States military monopolies. Washington arms the Israeli aggressors with the most sophisticated types of weapons. The Pentagon is planning during the coming fiscal year to provide military assistance to Israel to the tune of $1.7 billions an increase of $300 million over what Tel Aviv received in the two previous years. The annual assistance given by the United States to Israel amounts to over $3 billion. Without that massive aid, Israel - called by certain persons the only genuine democracy in the Middle East - would simply go bankrupt. Israel is experiencing three-digit inflation, and unemployment there is at catastrophic levels while military expenditures rise astronomically.
What Israel is trying to do to the Golan Heights constitutes another act of annexation, but it is certainly not the last that will be attempted with regard to the Arab territories it has occupied. The whole course of events in the Middle East, the actions of Israel and the United States show quite clearly that Israel, with United States support, is relying primarily on a policy of force in its attempt to resolve the Middle East crisis. Today Tel Aviv is annexing the Syrian Golan Heights; tomorrow it could be the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Indeed. Israel has been moving in that direction for a long time. In an open letter to United States Secretary of State Haig published in the Washington Post of 26 January this year the editor of Al-Fajr says that in 1981 alone the Israeli authorities confiscated more than 15,000 acres of Palestinian soil in various parts of the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Since 1967 about 1,300 houses have been demolished.
Israel and its overseas ally, protector and the mentor of its expansionist ambitions, are rushing to consolidate and further to develop the annexationist attack on the occupied Arab lands. Washington has now hastily despatched highly placed emissaries to speed, up the settlement of the question of so-called Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza - autonomy, that is, a la Camp David, whose main goal is to deprive the Palestinian people of their inalienable right to self-determination and to the creation of their own national State. It would seem that Washington and Tel Aviv think that Israel's annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights is a stage that has been passed, but however Israel may try to consolidate its position in the occupied Arab territories, there is no possibility of that happening. No one can deprive the Arab peoples of their inalienable sovereign rights. There is no doubt that history will eventually have the last word to say in this matter.
It is high time to stop the overweening Zionist aggressor, to put an end to the annexationist policies of Israel. Israel must be compelled forthwith to rescind its decision in respect of the Syrian Golan Heights. It is necessary that the Security Council be called upon again to convene immediately in order to adopt against Israel comprehensive mandatory sanctions in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
The Israeli expansionists, who juggle with the fate of the world in the Middle East, must be curbed. They must he forced to respect the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
Mr. FARAH DIRIR (Djibouti): it is gratifying to see you, Sir, presiding over the deliberations of the General Assembly during this emergency special session, which has been convened to preserve the credibility of this Organization. It is also a great pleasure for me to pay a special tribute to the Secretary-General on his well-deserved election to that post. We are indeed fortunate to have him as head of our Organization, as we are confident that his eminent qualities as a jurist .and diplomat, his wide experience in the affairs of this Organization and his dedication to the ideals on which it was founded will assist him in undertaking the difficult but noble task of furthering the cause of this Organization.
Those who question the propriety of convening this emergency special session should remember that, when a country, no matter how sure it may be of its own might, tries to establish the rule of brute force In international relations, the world community must take appropriate action to restore the rule of law. What prompted the convening of this emergency special session is the failure of the Security Council to take appropriate action on the non-compliance of Israel with Security Council resolution 497 (l98l) of 17 December 1981, in which the Council demanded that Israel rescind its decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. That Israeli action by itself constitutes an act of aggression against another State: as defined by General Assembly resolution 33l4 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974. which could have very serious implications for international peace and security. It is also a flagrant violation of international law and the established norms of international behaviour.
The Government of the Republic of Djibouti has condemned and totally rejected the unilateral decision of the Israeli Knesset to change the status of the Golan Heights.
In these circumstances it is the opinion of my delegation that, in addition to the convening of this emergency special session of the General Assembly appropriate emergency action ought to have been taken by the whole Organization, including the Security Council.
Ever since its creation by the United Nations, Israel appears to have accepted only one decision of the General Assembly - that which provides for the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. All the resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council that are not consonant with the goals and objectives of Zionism seem to be considered by Israel as null and void.
No Member State in this Assembly is more indebted to the United Nations than the State of Israel which owes its very existence to the Organization. It was a United Nations decision that took the land cf Palestine away from its rightful inhabitants and gave it to Zionist immigrants from every corner of the globe. Ironically, no Member State has been so blatant as Israel in violating the fundamental principles of the Charter on which the Organization is founded and international conventions and norms of behaviour, in utter contempt of world public opinion. Israel, more than any other State, should respect the decisions of the United Nations.
Form the moment it was created, Israel established a new modus vivendi in the Middle East, inasmuch as it was an alien culture grafted on to the region. It introduced terror and violence as a means of implementing its policies based on expansion, colonization, pillage a usurpation of land and property and alienation of the original inhabitants by systematic terrorism and collective punishment.
Israel's expansionist policy made it inevitable that it would clash with its neighbours. Its illegal and provocative armed, encroachments led to the escalation of tension, first with the Arab farmers, and very often with the Syrian defence forces on the Golan Heights which tried to help the Palestinian farmers who faced certain massacre at the hands of the first Israeli colonizers. That Israeli encroachment continued eastward through the demilitarized zone to the Syrian border; the Israelis chased out the Arabs by every conceivable means and perpetrated armed incursions into Syrian territory itself until the tension reached the point of explosion which sparked the June 1967 war, with the consequences that we all know.
Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel during the war are subject to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relating to the protection of civilian persons in time of .war. Any action Israel may undertake to change the institutional structure, demographic nature or geographic character of the occupied Arab territories is regarded by the international community as completely illegal and rejected as null and void.
It has been the fervent hope of the international community that a just end lasting peace would be restored in the Middle East ever sine- the United Nations was first seized of the matter more than three decades ago. Of late there has been a growing hope of achieving a just and equitable solution to the explosive situation in that area, but just when peace efforts and initiatives were gaining momentum, Israel, within a relatively short period of time, embarked on a number of spectacular measures in utter defiance of the United Nations, of the principles enshrined in the Charter and of international law.
The first measure was the enactment by Israel of a law aimed at altering the political and legal status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and declaring it the unified and eternal capital of Israel. The international community was unanimous in condemning that violation of the status of the Holy City. Instead of complying with Security Council resolution 480 (1980) of 20 August 1980, Israel was planning a fresh outbreak of defiance which came about later in the form of the unwarranted act of aggression against the Iraqi nuclear research facilities at Tammouz. Israel did not care what the international community might say about that. The following month there was the bombing of Beirut and the refugee camps with the slaughter of innocent Palestinians and the known record of civilian casualties. Then, just over a month ago, Israel announced that it had extended its laws, jurisdiction and administration to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.
There is no need to elaborate on the political and legal implications of those actions. The situation that we are facing is crystal-clear. The question now is whether the international community will shoulder its responsibility and take appropriate action to safeguard the principles of the Charter and restore legality to international relations.
It goes without saying that unless in its collective wisdom the international community represented in the General Assembly and the Security Council reassesses the situation and the appropriate measures to be taken with regard to this phase of Israeli aggression against Arab rights, not only the Middle East, but the whole world, will enter an era of calamitous confrontation.
Mr. OYONO (United Republic of Cameroon) (interpretation from French): Mr. President, I should like first of all to express the satisfaction of my delegation at seeing you presiding over our work. We are sure that thanks to your competence and authority, our work will be successful.
I take this opportunity also to reiterate my warmest and most cordial congratulations to our new Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, on his election as head of our Organization. We are extremely pleased since we know him and appreciate his competence, his qualifications and his commitment to the third world and to the most pressing problems of our time. We are happy to be able to assure him of the full co-operation of our delegation.
I also wish to take this opportunity to renew our deep gratitude to Mr. Kurt Valdheim, his predecessor in that important office and whose competence, dedication and commitment have won him the respect and admiration of the international community.
For several days now the General Assembly in an emergency special session has been considering the situation in the occupied Arab territories after Israel's decision to extend its laws, jurisdiction and administration to the Syrian Golan Heights, as it has occupied other Arab territories since the 1967 war. That decision to annex, as is known; has aroused emotions and the debates which have taken place in the Security Council and at the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly have clearly shown that. That unilateral measure suddenly brought back to the collective memory of the international community the sad memory of those blows inflicted by those power-crazy people of other times who tried to prove that might is right in international relations.
We know that the international community created the United Nations with a commitment to act in accordance with the principles and objectives contained in the Charter in order to forestall a repetition of such acts which had led to the well-known conflagration.
Israel's decision to annex the Golan Heights is a dangerous breach of the very principles of the Charter on which the fragile balance of contemporary international society rests. Actually, that decision undermines the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, a State Member of the United Nations, a member of the Non-Aligned Movement and of the Islamic Conference. It is a flagrant violation of the Charter, which prohibits the acquisition of territory by force, of the norms of international law,, and of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. the provisions of which fully apply and should be complied with in the occupied Arab territories.
With the aim of finding a just and lasting solution to the Middle East question, the international community, which recognizes Israel's right to live within secure and internationally recognized boundaries and the Palestinians' right to a homeland in Arab Palestine has continually, but not very successfully, called upon Israel to withdraw first from all the Arab territories occupied since 1967. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) are particularly illuminating in this regard.
While the agreement reached on Israel's forthcoming withdrawal from Sinai may have been gratifying the annexation of the Golan Heights suddenly highlights Israel's persistent will to consolidate by all means its hold on the occupied Arab territories.
It is to be feared that the second step, which is the annexation of the Golan Heights following that of East Jerusalem in 1980 the intensification of its settlements policy is nothing but the continuation of a process of progressive annexation of other territories. No reason of security can justify action by a State to expand its territory by dismembering its neighbour. That would be an extremely dangerous precedent and would set a trend unless the international community went "beyond a strong condemnation of principle and showed resolve in using means to enforce and apply the law.
Cameroon, which condemns the annexation of the Golan Heights, welcomes the firmness shown by the Security Council towards Israel in its resolution 497 (1981), which declares null and void and without international legal effect the decision adopted by Israel to annex the Golan Heights. However we deplore the fact that the same Security Council, in the absence of unanimity among its permanent members was unable to follow that by adopting sanctions against Israel in order to prevail upon it to rescind that decision forthwith; as it had decided and had to refer the issue to the General Assembly..
That was a major failure of an organ, the principal responsibility of which is the maintenance of international peace and security. No one doubts that international peace and security are seriously threatened, in that region which is especially vulnerable and unstable and where a state of war has existed for more than 30 years,
The fact that the Security Council is showing a trend to consider questions brought before it, with regard not to their substance but to other aspects can only increase frustration and the tensions which today encourage intransigence, violence and conflict. We have deplored this in the case of some pressing matters and tense situations, such as the question of the Middle East, which continue to be a major source of constant concern for the international community.
The serious upheavals in the Middle East and the policy of force and of faits accoriplis of the Jewish State can only increase our scepticism about Israel's constantly professed desire to live in peace with its neighbours.
That is why our Assembly must fully shoulder its responsibilities under the Charter and recommend the application of sanctions against Israel to force it to rescind forthwith its decision of l4 December 198l and to comply with the decisions taken by the United Nations to secure a just.,, lasting and comprehensive settlement of the Middle East question.
Mr. SUJA (Czechoslovakia) (interpretation from Russian) It is becoming ever more obvious that the more Israel disregards the opinion of the international community and violates the principles of the United Nations Charter and the fundamental norms of international law and transforms the resolutions of this world Organization, including the decisions of the Security Council into scraps of paper, the more remote a final and just settlement of the Middle bast problem will become. At the same time, there is the growing danger of a new explosion in the region of the Middle East which, in the present circumstances could seriously undermine the foundations of international peace and security. We are deeply convinced that those are not mere theoretical considerations, but are very real threats which we cannot confront unless the Israeli policy of territorial expansion is stopped. We therefore listened very attentively to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic Mr. Khaddam. and we fully share his concern and alarm at Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights.
Czechoslovakia has always supported the just struggle of the Arab peoples against Israeli aggression. Today from this rostrum we should like to express our solidarity with Syria, a country which has consistently pursued a policy of principle in defending the legitimate rights of the Arab peoples and a country with which we enjoy close ties of fraternal friendship, mutual respect., and fruitful co-operation which was highlighted at the meeting of the Heads of our respective Governments in May 1979.
My delegation has already stated its position on this item in the Security Council of the United Nations, where it decisively condemned the Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights. We fully supported General Assembly resolution 36/226 E and Security Council resolution 497 (l98l), in which Israel's annexation was declared to be illegal. We support together with the majority of the Members of the United Nations, the immediate rescinding of the Israeli decision regarding the Golan Heights. The Israeli act of annexation must be described as a hostile act aimed against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and as a violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter.
There is no doubt that the annexation of the Golan Heights is an act of aggression in accordance with the definition set out in General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX). Furthermore, the attempt to change the status of the Golan heights from that of an occupied territory to that of an annexed territory constitutes a double act of aggression which threatens the basis of the existing international system. By flouting the fundamental principles of international law, which prohibit the acquisition of territory by force, Israel by its political short-sightedness, has doomed the whole region of the middle East to instability and insecurity, and hence must bear the responsibility for all the consequences ensuing from it. If we say this again today, it is because we know from our own historical experience that peace is indivisible.
It is clear that the annexation of the Golan Heights and the annexation of the Arab part of Jerusalem perpetrated in the summer of 1980 are part and parcel of the policy of territorial expansionism aimed at perpetuating and gradually consolidating the results of three previous acts of aggression perpetrated by Israel against the Arab countries. Furthermore that policy is accompanied by the adoption of further measures to trample on the interests of the Arab population in the occupied Arab territories, by new acts of aggression against Lebanon and by the attack on the peaceful nuclear research centre in Iraq. If the international community does not firmly reject that kind of expansionist policy, which jeopardizes the chances of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, then the annexation of the Golan Heights will not be the last act in a long list of acts of violence against the vital interests of the people of that region. It has become well known that Tel Aviv now has its eyes on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which may become the next target for annexation.
The statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of my country, dated 22 December 1981, emphasizes that:
"The United States also bears full responsibility for the annexation of the Golan Heights. This new aggressive attack is a direct consequence of the policy of separate negotiations and the anti- Arab Camp David agreements. It is the result of the American-Israeli agreement on strategic co-operation, which has not at all been altered by the fact that the United. States has suspended- its validity. The Israeli Government could not pursue its anti- Arab expansionist policies without all-round. American support and aid.'
As everyone knows, on 17 December 198l the delegation of the United States voted, along with other members of the Council, in favour of Security Council resolution 497 (1981), But, in the light of the United States veto cast on 20 January this year, it is clear that the former vote was only a tactical trick intended to placate indignant world public opinion. When it came to practical measures with respect to the aggressor, the United States used its veto against the draft resolution submitted by Jordan, thus demonstrating that it bears direct responsibility for the dangerous developments in the Middle East...
The imposition of sanctions against Israel would doubtless run counter to the American Middle East strategy in which the major stakes are being placed on Israel. As is well known, it consists precisely in claiming for the United States the exclusive right to control over the natural resources of that region and to the approaches thereto and, in addition in consolidating its military presence there.
We believe that a. halt to this dangerous policy can be brought about only by the adoption of effective measures against Israel, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The peoples of the Middle East, like those of all countries, are anxious to eliminate this chronic, focus of tension and need a just end lasting peace in the region. We are convinced that peace and security in the Middle East can be brought about only by the following, first, the total unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied in 1967. including Jerusalem- secondly, the exercise of the inalienable national rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including its right to create its own independent State; and, thirdly, the enjoyment of sovereignty and security for all States of the region. lie believe that a genuine settlement of this kind could be achieved within the framework suggested by the Soviet Union, namely a special international conference convened with the participation of all parties concerned, including, of course, the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Mr. COUTURIER (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): Sir, I should like to begin my statement by expressing my delegation's satisfaction at seeing you presiding over this special session. Your proven ability and well-known experience guarantee that our proceedings will be guided competently and that we shall achieve the successful result we expect on the delicate matter under consideration.
lie should, also like to take this opportunity in the General Assembly to express the satisfaction of the people and the Government of Peru at the recent election of Ambassador Javier Perez de Cuellar as Secretary-General of the United Nations. We are sure that his exceptional talents and capabilities will fully justify the trust placed, in him by the international community with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security and the promotion of friendship and co-operation among peoples.
We wish also to pay a tribute to the work done by Mr. Kurt Waldheim,, who tirelessly devoted his best efforts to the cause of our Organization.
The convening of this emergency special session to consider the situation in the occupied Arab territories illustrates the gravity of the measure recently adopted by Israel to annex the Syrian Golan Heights and highlights Israel's rashness in refusing to rescind its decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on that territory in disregard of the provisions of Security Council resolution 497 (l98l), adopted on 17 December last.
The enactment of that law through which Israel annexed part of Syria's territory violates the basic norms of peaceful coexistence embodied in international law and create a grave situation disrupting the intensive and prolonged efforts of the international community for peace and understanding among the peoples of the Middle East.
At a time when the international situation is going through a critical period of increased tension and localized and global conflicts - the result of a combination of material and destructive interests and of blatant and widespread political short-sightedness - Peru, a country deeply committed to peace and respectful of international law, wishes to express its firm condemnation and rejection of this unilateral act which, like others which are of major concern to us, violates the principles of the United Nations Charter, the 1949 Geneva Convention, the Declaration on Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and other relevant provisions adopted by the United Nations.
This position of principle is in keeping with our status as a Member of the United nations, whose Charter condemns and prohibits the acquisition of territory by force, as well as with my country's full commitment to the concerted action and solidarity of the Non-Aliened Movement, one of these basic tenets is precisely the defence of the principles whose violation has prompted the convening of this emergency special session - respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and for the sell -determination of peoples.
We wish to join in the urgent appeal of the international community addressed to Israel calling on it not only to rescind its latest dangerous decision but also to abandon a counterproductive policy which, far from ensuring it recognition as a sovereign State and the just security to which it aspires, increases its isolation and encourages retaliation and reactions commensurate with the damage done.
Peru mentions these concerns so that Israel, a country with which we maintain cordial relations, may reconsider and devote its efforts to finding, through dialogue and negotiation, formulas of understanding with its Arab neighbours leading to a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. With regard to this need to open up a dialogue, we direct a similar appeal to the Arab countries involved in this tragic confrontation, for, without their resolute co-operation and political participation, it will not be possible to bring about the necessary establishment of a Palestinian Arab State, in recognition of the inalienable right of that people to self-determination and independence.
In keeping with this position, my country has maintained and continues to maintain that Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) provide an appropriate framework for the solution of the Middle East problem, since they protect the right of all the States of the area to live within secure and recognized boundaries. That is why attitudes such as the one we are considering today undermine the political feasibility of those texts which are based on the reaffirmation of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and on the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Arab territories.
We appreciate and support any effort by the parties concerned peacefully to promote understanding in the Middle East, just as we respect the right of States freely and sovereignly to conclude agreements -aimed at consolidating peace between their nations country has also out of solidarity, tirelessly defended the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, whose self-determination, independence and establishment as a sovereign State in Palestinian Arab territory continue to be the basic conditions for any realistic and pragmatic approach to the Arab-Israeli problem.
It is never pointless or superfluous to reaffirm cardinal principles of international law on which relations between States are based. The international community is in duty bound not to condone acts which may involve the use or threat of use of force, Were we to permit such disregard of basic norms for international coexistence, we would be consenting to actions seriously jeopardizing the accepted universal juridical order. In this context the annexation and acquisition of territories by force acquires dimensions which endanger international peace and security. We also consider that the settlement of disputes between States should be achieved through exclusively peaceful means and with sincere respect for the obligations arising from international instruments freely accepted by the parties.
We consider that, because of its nature and purposes and in order to be credible and effective, the United Nations must find a meeting of minds that will lead to the definitive disappearance from the international scene of this deplorable conflict, which continues to have unpredictable consequences for international peace and security and which commits the military establishments of many nations outside the Middle East that should be devoting their energies to more effective forms of co-operation for human development. There is no doubt that a resolute spirit of concertation, equanimity and mutual respect is required, as is a basic commitment by all the parties directly involved to agree to a moratorium on irrational actions that may further obstruct the path to understanding and once again delay fulfilment of the international community's desire to achieve peace among the nations of the Middle East.
Mr. TRAORE (Mali) (interpretation from French): Mr. President, allow me to congratulate you on behalf of the delegation of Mali on your continuing to preside over the work of the General Assembly.
I should also like to pay a sincere tribute to Mr. Perez de Cuellar on his unanimous election to the post of Secretary-General of the United Nations. We congratulate him because he is a son of the third world and comes from that part of the American subcontinent that has been fighting ardently within the non-aligned movement to bring about the triumph of the ideals of peace and progress throughout the world. Furthermore, his personal competence and his long experience, acquired in the quest for just solutions to international problems both within the United Nations Secretariat and in his own country, make him eminently equipped to help the United Nations in remaining faithful to its ideals, purposes and principles. His statement here on 15 December 1981, when he took his oath of office, reflected the common concern to humanize international relations. My delegation pays him a tribute and assures him of its active co-operation.
Our congratulations to you, Mr. President, and to the Secretary-General should have been conveyed by my country's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation. He apologizes for being unable to be present for reasons of national concern.
Before its its thirty-sixth session was suspended the General Assembly having examined the situation prevailing in the Middle East which grows more explosive every day, adopted its resolution 36/226 B, in which expressed its grave alarm at Israel's decision of 14 December 198l to apply Israeli law to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and, in operative paragraphs l, 4 and 6, declared that Israel's decision to apply Israeli law to the occupied Syrian Arab Golan Heights is null and void and has no legal validity whatsoever and demanded that
Israel the occupying Power, rescinds forthwith its decision and all administrative and other measures relating to it, which constitute a flagrant violation of all relevant principles of international law and requested the Security Council
"in the event of Israel's failure to implement the present resolution to invoke Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations".
In needing with that provision of resolution 36/226 B, the Security Council unanimously - I stress the word unanimously adopted its resolution 497 (198l) . operative paragraphs 1 and 2 of which have almost exactly the same wording as operative paragraphs 1 and 4 of General Assembly resolution 36/226 B.
In its resolution 497 (1981), the Security Council demanded that Israel rescind forthwith its decision to annex the Golan Heights. The primary responsibility conferred on the Security Council by the Charter for the maintenance of peace, the procedures for the adoption of decisions by that body and the acuity with which it examines questions before It lead one to believe that the terms it used in drafting resolution 497 (198l) concerning urgency and speed reflected, the existence of an extremely grave international situation, which is furthermore- confirmed by operative paragraph 4 of that resolution, which states that in the event of Israel's non-compliance with the resolution the Security Council would meet urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982 to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Israel did not comply with that resolution, which it had already rejected in the Security Council. It reaffirmed that rejection in the letter the Israeli representative addressed to the United Nations Secretary-General on 29 December 1981.
Meeting in January in accordance with the provisions of operative paragraph 4 of resolution 497 (1981), the Security Council, notwithstanding the moderate provisions of the resolution, completed its work on 20 January without being able to adopt a text that might at the very least have provided for "appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter",
whereas, and I would stress this, the General Assembly had recommended that Chapter VII of the Charter be invoked.
The Council was paralysed despite the grave situation created by the annexation of the Golan Heights, a situation whose gravity it had recognized, and its unanimous commitment to going beyond the provisions of resolution 497 (198l) by proposing solutions in accordance with the Charter in order to defuse the crisis.
In the absence of provisions other than those adopted by the Council in its resolution 500 (1982), the General Assembly is seized of this question in accordance with the general mandate conferred on it by the Charter in matters concerning the maintenance and safeguarding of international peace and security.
Exceptional situations call for exceptional measures. The convening of the ninth emergency special session of the General Assembly is, we repeat, in all respects in keeping with the Charter and in particular the provisions of its Article 12, and it is called upon once more to take up the question of the occupied Arab territories or, to put it clearly, the continuing Israeli aggression against its neighbours.
Indeed, Israel's decision to annex the Golan Heights unfortunately illustrates the statement I made here on 4 December, in which I spoke of Israel's policy of territorial expansion in terms of concentric circles and said "... today, Palestine and a thrust towards the Dead Sea, tomorrow the neighbours of Israel". (A/36/PV.85, p. 17)
Yesterday it was the Golan Heights. How many sacrifices will have to be made by the people of the occupied Arab territories and how much must peace be mangled in order to stop the Israeli Government from dreaming of establishing a State whose borders will only be known to it and of which it will be the sole master when it comes to deciding what means are to be used to assure its security?
It is fitting for my delegation to reaffirm, on behalf of my Government, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and to condemn the annexation of the Golan Heights, which is an integral part of Syrian territory.
Throughout the debates on the Middle East question Israel has never stopped talking about peace; it has constantly been calling on its Arab neighbours to let peace prevail. The statements by the representatives of Israel regarding their wish for peace must be analysed in the light, on the one hand, of their respect for their commitments vis-a-vis the Charter and international law and on the other hand the way in which they implement those commitments in actual fact. What does the Charter say? Does it not recommend the peaceful settlement of international disputes? Does it not order States to fulfil in good faith the obligations into which they have freely entered?
The delegation of Mali has repeatedly stressed the act of reparation which led to the creation of the State of Israel. Mali was among the States which believed that the leaders of this new State would have been stubborn defenders of the Charter and of the decisions of the international community. But the facts were very different. It would tire the General Assembly to enumerate the dozens and dozens of resolutions it and the Security Council have adopted on the Government of Israel's continual and disquieting blocking of the efforts of the international community to safeguard peace in the Middle East. Have we already forgotten that at its 715th meeting, on 19 January 19569 the Security Council adopted a resolution on the Lake Tiberias affair enjoining Israel to discharge its obligations in the future - that means obligation under the United Nations Charter - in default of which the Council would have to consider what further measures under the Charter are required to maintain or restore the peace"? (Security Council resolution 111 (1956))
More than 35 years ago , therefore the Security Council, faced "by an action that endangered the security of a Member State, used the same terms that it used recently when this act in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and of international law, further jeopardized peace.
The Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and the numerous resolutions adopted "by the international Organization including inter alia, resolution l8l (II) Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 497 (198l) have only served to sharpen the Israeli Government's appetite for territorial expansion.
Unfortunately the Security Council was unable although it condemned the annexation of the Golan Heights, to draw the logical conclusion from that condemnation. This cannot fail to have repercussions on peace in the Middle East.
Thus we should be getting off the subject now before the Assembly if we narrowed it down to a futile debate on the consequences of implementing sanctions against a Member State which has deliberately and constantly violated the Charter and international law. But the Assembly cannot award prizes for aggression. And, the annexation of the Golan Heights discussed, in wording used throughout history by all invaders to deceive international public opinion is and remains an act of aggression. It is an act of aggression when it is analysed in relation to the Charter and- the principles of international law it is certainly an act of aggression in the terms of the annex to resolution 3314 (XXIX) on the definition of aggression- In the terms of article 1 of that annex, the occupation of the Golan Heights is most certainly an attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria., whose boundaries have been internationally recognized and which was admitted to the United Nations with those same boundaries. The relations which do or do not exist between States in no wise impair the legal validity of the definition of aggression because the explanatory note to article 1 mentioned above says quite clearly that the term State is used without prejudice to questions of recognition...(resolution 3314 (XXIX), annex, article 1 explanatory note (a))
It is the imperative duty of the General Assembly to preserve peace. At the end of this current session we are convinced that it will adopt the necessary measures to stop the Middle East being a trouble spot, a spark from which will one day set off a world conflagration.
It must, of course, once again condemn the act of annexation of the Golan Heights and advocate measures likely to speed up the return not only of that Syrian territory to Syria but also of all Arab territories occupied since 19-67 to their mother countries, including the Holy City of Jerusalem, and likely to enable the Palestinian people to exercise all its inalienable rights. The Assembly cannot allow a crime against peace to be committed. And each day that passes in the Middle East, which is in a fever of armed conflicts and mounting preparations for war, is a sad day for peace.
Mr. RABETAFIKA (Madagascar) (interpretation from French):
Mr. President, my delegation is pleased to see you presiding once again over this session of the General Assembly. We are familiar with your quiet authority your impartiality and your diplomatic skills. Those qualities, plus our friendship, enable me to look towards the successful conclusion of our work.
I should like to express to Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar on my Government's and my own behalf, our most sincere congratulations on his election to the post of Secretary-General of the United Nations. Seeing that we have known each other for so long . I hardly need to assure him that I and my delegation will co-operate with him as much as he wishes in carrying out his lofty functions.
In a message on 17 December 198l to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the President of the Democratic Republic of Madagascar set forth the position of my country on the law by which Israel decided to extend its laws, jurisdiction and administration to the Syrian Golan Heights.
This message, circulated as an official document of the Security Council, S/l48l5, states:
"We have learned with indignation and concern that Israel has once again, rivalling its South African counterpart in aggressiveness, decided deliberately to threaten world peace and security by an action which defies international law and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. The annexation of the Syrian territory of the Golan by the Zionist State confirms that it has an unceasing desire for expansionism which it has not stopped pursuing since its creation to the detriment of Arab territories, in violation of United Nations decisions. In the face of this act of irremediable hostility, which we vigorously condemn because it aggravates a situation already made dangerous by a long series of Israeli provocations and acts of aggression (bombing of southern Lebanon and Tamouz, violation of Saudi air space), we consider it our duty to call upon the United Nations to demonstrate its solidarity with the Arab peoples and Governments, in particular by denouncing the involvement and responsibility of Israel's allies in the puruit of its present policy. We must also remind the international community that the allies of the Zionist State are also the last bulwarks of the racist South African State, which has recently outdone itself in terrorism against its neighbours and in its defiance of United Nations resolutions." (S/l48l5) On that same day 17 December the General Assembly stated its position on that important question by adopting by a very comfortable majority resolution 36/226 B, which my delegation is honoured to have co-sponsored.
We also noted with particular satisfaction that, at almost the same time and by a unanimous vote, the Security Council endorsed the main decisions and recommendations of the General Assembly.
These were that the law of 14 December 198l adopted by the Knesset was declared null and void and without international legal effect" that all States, specialized agencies and. other international organizations were asked not to recognize Israel's decision; that Israel was enjoined to rescind forthwith the despised law: and that, in the event of non--compliance by Israel, the Security Council would meet to consider taking appropriate measures against it in accordance with the Charter.
Israel's refusal to comply with resolution 36/226 B and Security Council resolution 497 (1981);, as well as the veto cast by a permanent member of the Council against measures which had been agreed to by common accord, gave rise to a situation which, for us, is a serious one to which the international community must respond. Regardless of the contrary opinion expressed by the representative of the Zionist State, the convening of this session was truly necessary and is in no way an exercise in futility.
After the negative positions we have witnessed, it seems to us useful at least to allow Member States the opportunity to reaffirm their attachment to the politically just and juridically irrefutable position that is set forth in the two above-mentioned resolutions.
As shown by the statements of the numerous delegations which spoke earlier, no Government is ready to acquiesce in the most recent act of force by the Zionist authorities or to ignore the challenge they have posed to the authority of the United Nations. That, too, must be mentioned at this session and must be repeated as often as is necessary.
We have noted in the course of this debate that no delegation has wished to sanction the serious injustice done to the Syrian Arab Republic and that all delegations have rejected the vain attempts of the Israeli delegation to minimize the significance of the law of l4 December 1981, to rationalize the decision by its Government and even to shift responsibility onto its victims.
It has been rightly recalled that the principle which prohibits the acquisition of territory by force cannot brook any exception under any pretext, and that - as the crowning irony - the Zionist authorities have deliberately violated in that matter Security Council resolution 242 (1967), to which they so insistently appeal.
The argument of normalization- or regularization has not deceived anyone, because the status of an occupied territory can only be normalized by the return of that territory to the State to which it belongs.
In line with the decision to devote our agenda to the situation in the occupied Arab territories and not just to the question of the Golan Heights, the most widely shared concern in the course of this session is that of the doubt regarding Israel's willingness to evacuate these territories. It is well known that the only difference between Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the The Bank of the Jordan is one of the greater or lesser degree of advancement of the process of annexation; the same policy applies and everywhere there are indications - very clear indications of that will to annex: they take the form of settlements cultural, economic and political measures of de-Arabization and attacks on the physical and demographic structure of the territories in question. Neither ±n the Security Council nor in this Assembly has the representative of Israel said anything which could allay the fears felt in this connexion by all the delegations. On the contrary, at the same time as they endlessly repeat their willingness to negotiate, the authorities in Tel Aviv also proclaim that they have exhausted their capacity for concessions and that, among other things, they are absolutely opposed to the creation of a new Arab State in Palestine, thus rejecting outright the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, the recognition of which would, however, provide the key to the Middle East problem.
Under those circumstances, one could say without risk of contradiction that the pacifist protestations of the Zionist State and its ritual calls for direct negotiations have once again been met with general scepticism.
Many delegations before us have reminded the Tel Aviv authorities that their acts belie their words and art more convincing than are their words. Others have stressed - and rightly so - that there is a consensus in this Assembly for the view that the law of 14 December 1981 - the last in a long series of acts of aggression, injustice and humiliation directed against the Arabs - has brought us further from peace, instead of bringing us closer to it.
Some have said that that law, bearing the stamp of arrogance and defiance, points to Israel's desire not to accept any peace in the Middle East except on its own terms and alone. We fear that they might be right.
There are cynics who remind us that after all the latest act by Israel was foreseeable, not to say expected, and that it could not worsen any further an already desperate situation.
If the implications of that attitude are that nothing more can be done or that nothing more should be tried, we of course reject them. On the contrary, we believe that the question of the Golan Heights underscores the importance of the other dimension of the problem of the Middle East -and of any international political problem as well - which is that of the authority of the United Nations.
Israel has defied that authority and has found among the permanent members of the Security Council accomplices and complaisant partners who enable it to persevere in that attitude.
I do not need to dwell on something which has already been emphasized by so many delegations, the unfortunate timing and the logical sequence of the following events: the recent formalization of the strategic alliance between Israel and the United States of America, the adoption by Israel of the la.w of l4 December, Israel's refusal to comply with Security Council resolutions 497 (l98l) mid the vetoing of voluntary, non-mandatory sanctions.
Attempts have been made to explain that veto by the necessity of choosing either persuasion or recourse to sanctions, but no one explained which problems were preferably dealt with by persuasion and which demanded the imposition of sanctions.
We are afraid that all this is nothing but a handy way of covering up Israel's repeated failure to meet its obligations under Article 25 of the Charter, a failure which is a glaring indication of its bad faith and its reprehensible predilection for "methods of settlement" which ensure it an opportunity to impose its diktats. Those that have prevented the Security Council from adopting the measures demanded by the circumstances have weakened the authority of the United Nations with respect to Israel and have undermined their own credibility in the eyes of the Arab nation, thus greatly weakening its ability to have any real influence on the settlement of the problems of the Middle East. It seems to us this weakening of our power to act explains our inability to reach the just, comprehensive and lasting settlement that we all desire. The time has come for us to react and allow the Organization, in this case as in all others, to play its proper role under the Charter.
The delegation of Madagascar is a sponsor of the draft resolution which is about to be adopted. We have sponsored it because of our natural solidarity with the Syrian Arab Republic and with the Arab nation as a whole, We have done so to protest against the reckless behaviour which led to the convening of this ninth emergency special session. We have done so because the draft resolution reaffirms the validity and relevance of the decisions adopted in December both by the General Assembly and by the Security Council. The draft resolution responds to the need to do justice to the direct victims of the law of 14 December. It emphasizes the specific responsibilities of all parties and proposes measures which, it accepted and implemented in good faith would compel Israel to recognize the weight and the influence of the United Nations and to reconsider its constant defiance of the international community as a whole, and even perhaps why not? to show more respect for the rights of its Palestinian and Arab neighbours.
The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m.