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

English (pdf) ||Arabic||Chinese||Français||Русский||Español||

See also: UN DPI Multimedia (Ref: 032-50)
About the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS


        Security Council
29 June 1976

1938th meeting held in New York,
on Tuesday, 29 June 1976, at 3 p.m.

President: Mr. Frederick R. WILLS (Guyana).

Present: The representatives of the following States: Benin, China, France, Guyana, Italy, Japan, Libyan Arab Republic, Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Sweden, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America.

Provisional agenda (S/ Agenda/1938)

1. Adoption of the agenda

2. The question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights: Report of the Committee established under General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX) (S/12090)

The meeting was called to order at 3.45 p.m. Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

The question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights:
Report of the Committee established under General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX) (S/12090)1

1. The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the decisions taken at the 1924th, 1928th and the 1933rd to 1937th meetings, I shall now invite the Chairman and other members of the Committee on the Exercise of we Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Yemen, Egypt, the German Democratic , Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Morocco, Oman, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Arab Emirates and Yugoslavia to participate the Council's discussions without the right to vote.

At the invitation of the President, the delegation of Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and Mr. Al-Hout (Palestine Liberation Organization) took places at Council table and Mr. Siddiq (Afghanistan), Mr. Rahal (Algeria), Mr. Al Saffar (Bahrain), Mr. Grozev (Bulgaria), Mr. Alarcon (Cuba), Mr. Rossides (Cyprus), Mr. Smid (Czechoslovakia), Mr. Ashtal (Democratic Yemen), Mr. Abdel Meguid (Egypt), Mr. Florin (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Camara (Guinea), Mr. Bdnydsz (Hungary), Mr. Jaipal (India), Mr. Marpaung (Indonesia), Mr. Zahawie (Iraq), Mr. Sharaf (Jordan), Mr. Boulom (Lao People's Democratic Republic), Mr. El Hassen (Mauritania), Mr. Zaimi (Morocco), Mr. Al-Said (Oman), Mr. Jaroszek (Poland), Mr. Baroody (Saudi Arabia), Mr. Hussen (Somalia), Mr. Allaf (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Driss (Tunisia), Mr. Turkmen (Turkey), Mr. Humaidan (United Arab Emirates) and Mr. Petric (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved fro them at the side of the Council chamber.

2. The PRESIDENT: I should like to inform the members of the Council that I have just received a letter from the representative of Qatar, in which he asks to be invited to participate in the discussion. Accordingly, I propose, in accordance with the usual practice and with the consent of the Council, to invite him to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, under the provisions of Article 31 of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.

3. In view of the limited number of places available at the Council table, I invite the representative of Qatar to take the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding that he will be invited to take a place at the Council table when it is his turn to speak.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Jamal (Qatar) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber.

4. The PRESIDENT: I should like to inform the Council that a draft resolution bearing on the agenda item under consideration was submitted in the course of this morning's meeting by Guyana, Pakistan, Panama and the United Republic of Tanzania [S/12119].

5. Mr. BENKHAYAL (Libyan Arab Republic): Mr. President, my delegation would like to join others in expressing great pleasure at having you, Mr. Minister, among us today presiding over our deliberations. It is a great honour for me to see an eminent son of the third world presiding over the work of the Council. I should also like to salute your country for its firm stand of solidarity with the noble causes of liberation, peace and justice. It is particularly gratifying to me to express my delegation's great pleasure to Ambassador Jackson for his wisdom and skill, which greatly contributed to the success of the work of the Council during the current month.

6. I should like to express my delegation's condolences to the delegation of the United States on the occasion of the death of the Ambassador of the United States in Beirut and his companions.

7. For the first time, the Security Council has begun to direct greater attention to the Palestinian question, after having ignored the rights of the Palestinians for almost three decades. The Council opened the debate at the beginning of this year on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question with the full participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and for the first time, the Council accorded that organization the same rights as those conferred upon a Member State under rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. Again, during this month, the Council is focusing upon the core of the Palestinian question the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights.

8. These steps reflect continuation of the work of the General Assembly. During its historic twenty-ninth session the General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted two resolutions—resolutions 3236 (XXIX) and 3237 (XXIX). Resolution 3236 (XXIX) affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination without external interference and the right to national independence and sovereignty. That resolution also reaffirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they had been displaced and uprooted, and called for their return. Resolution 3237 (XXIX) recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and granted it observer status at the United Nations.

9. These decisions and actions taken by the General Assembly and the Security Council reflect the profound changes and developments that have occurred in the attitude of the United Nations and of international public opinion. In addition, they point up the universally favourable response to the struggle of the Palestinian people to recover their inalienable rights.

10. During its thirtieth session, in its resolution 3376 (XXX), the General Assembly reaffirmed its resolution 3236 (XXIX) and decided to establish the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. On this occasion I should like to pay a tribute to Ambassador Fall of Senegal, Chairman of the Committee, to the Rapporteur, Mr. Gauci of Malta, and to all the members of the Committee for their dedicated work and sincere efforts.

11. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the Zionist movement was created. Reacting to the adverse social, economic and political conditions under which Jews were living in eastern and Europe and influenced by nineteenth century European colonialism, Zionist leaders set as an objective for themselves the establishment of a Zionist State in Palestine where all the Jews of the world gathered.

12. For many centuries Palestine had been an Arab land like any other part of the Arab homeland. The Zionist movement made many efforts to take advantage of any opportunity to win the support of Western Powers in its endeavour to convert Arab-inhabited Palestine into an exclusively Jewish State. Britain the most powerful super-Power at that time, issued the Balfour Declaration2/ of November 1917, pledging British support for the Zionist goal. The drafting that document can only be termed a blatant conspiracy against the Palestinian people.

13. It is significant to note that when the Balfour Declaration was proclaimed there were still no more than 56,000 Jews in a Palestinian population of some 700,000, despite all the efforts made to encourage Jews all over the world to emigrate to Palestine. The native Jews and the new Jewish immigrants, who together constituted only 8 per cent of the population, owned 2.5 per cent of the land of Palestine. Moreover, even after 30 years of British control and organized mass immigration and land acquisition, Jews; constituted only one third of the population and owned less than 6 per cent of the land.

14. The Zionists conducted a series of barbaric aggressions against the Palestinian people, resulting in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants from their land, forcing them to start a new refugee life far away from their homes and lands. Moreover, the Zionist policy of expansionism has not been restricted to Palestine. Its true expansionist nature was revealed by the 1956 and 1967 wars, and the occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai and the Syrian Golan Heights.

15. The Palestinian people have no choice but to continue its struggle against the racist Zionist entity in Palestine in order to regain their rights. This struggle of the Palestinians is increasingly recognized by the international community and is particularly supported by the third-world and socialist countries.

16. The Arab people, including the Palestinians, will continue their ardent struggle against this Zionist, racist and colonialist entity. Peace in our part of the world can never be achieved so long as the Palestinian problem continues to exist. This problem can be solved only when the Zionist entity withdraws from all the occupied Arab lands and the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people are recognized and restored. The restoration of those rights is central to any solution of the Middle East problem. Restoration of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians calls for the establishment of a democratic secular State in Palestine including all the Palestinians, be they Moslems. Christians or Jews, all sharing equal rights and responsibilities.

17. It is very appropriate at this stage of our debate to reiterate the position of my delegation concerning Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Because those resolutions have been overtaken by events and developments both inside and outside the United Nations, they are irrelevant as a framework for any just and lasting solution to the Middle East question.

18. In my delegation's view, it is high time the Council took effective measures enabling the Palestinian people to obtain their rights, to return to their homes and to decide their future in the framework of self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine. That, we believe, is the only way that can lead to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

19. If the Council fails to make a concrete contribution to resolving the Palestinian tragedy, the people of Palestine will not fail to continue their struggle, with the support of their Arab brothers and the peace-loving people all over the world, to achieve their just goals and to acquire their national rights.

20. Mr. CHALE (United Republic of Tanzania): It gives me great pleasure and satisfaction, Mr. Minister, to see you presiding over our deliberations. Your presence here is a great honour to the Council and a clear manifestation of the importance your country attaches to the United Nations. My delegation has already had occasion, at the 1927th meeting of the Council on 15 June, to say that the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the United Republic of Tanzania have close bonds of friendship and co-operation. For that reason, therefore, my delegation is very pleased to see you presiding over our deliberations at a time when the Council is considering this important Question. Similarly, my delegation wishes to express its satisfaction and gratitude to Ambassador Jackson for the able and energetic manner in which he has guided the Council's deliberations during the month June. He has done so with wisdom, tact, conscientiousness and impartiality. It has been rightly Pointed out by preceding speakers that the month of June has been a very busy one for the Council, which has had to deal with important and even urgent matters. Yet your Permanent Representative and his colleagues of the Guyana Mission, in a team spirit, have spared no effort to make the work of the Council a success. We give them credit.

21. May I also express my delegation's condolences the Unites States delegation on the killing of the States Ambassador to Lebanon Mr. Meloy, his colleagues. Indeed, it is tragic whenever an life is lost through violence.

22. My delegation is pleased to see the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization with us in the Council, for it is logical that at a time when we are discussing the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people the true and authentic representatives of Palestinians should be here. In that regard my delegation is disturbed by Israel's boycotting of this series of Council meetings. My delegation had expected that Israel would show greater co-operation with and consideration and respect for the United Nations, which brought it into existence.

23. Once again, for the third time this year, the problem of the Middle East is before this Council. This time the Council is considering the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Committee on the comprehensive report it has produced. In that context, let me thank the Committee's Chairman, Ambassador Fall of Senegal, and the other officers for the leadership they gave the Committee, which has produced such an important report.

24. The Committee was set up in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX) to consider and recommend a programme of implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. It was only fair, therefore, that the Committee should address itself to the question referred to in that resolution.

25. It is precisely because the issue of Palestine is the core of the Middle East problem that the General Assembly saw fit to set up the Committee. As my delegation has had occasion to state before, it is a self-delusion to treat the question of Palestine as a mere question of refugees. That evasive approach, which ignores the realities in the Middle East, could not lead us to a solution. It was, I believe, because of that consideration that the Committee chose to formulate paragraph 59 of its report as follows:

"The question of Palestine is at the heart of the Middle East problem and, consequently, the Committee stresses its belief that no solution in the Middle East can be envisaged which does not fully take into account the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people."

My delegation therefore cannot accept assertions to the effect that the report is unbalanced, nor can it accept statements to the effect that we have been presented with a one-sided report.

26. As I have indicated, the mandate of the Committee was geared to the rights of the Palestinians, which represent an element that is fundamental to any solution of the Middle East question. The Committee clearly understands this relationship of the rights of the Palestinians to the whole question. Thus, it has dealt extensively with that aspect, as reflected in many sections of the report, and especially in section H of chapter IV, it cannot therefore justifiably be said that, in addressing itself to the rights of the Palestinians, the Committee has tackled the matter in isolation, for unless there is a recognition of those rights to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, there cannot be a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That is all the Committee has attempted to achieve in its recommendations.

27. My delegation believes that the Council cannot afford to ignore that report. We believe that it contains important elements, including the following: (a) the right to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty of the Palestinians; (b) the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes; (c) withdrawal by Israel from all occupied Arab territories; and (d) the right of all States in the region to exist in peace within recognized boundaries.

28. The Palestinians who were expelled from their land and those who were reduced to the status of second-class citizens are looking to the international community to help them achieve their rights. The people of Palestine have suffered for too long. They have waited for too long. It is high time that the conscience of the international community refused to acquiesce in that injustice. The United Nations, which was founded to defend human dignity and justice for all, cannot, 30 years after the calamity that befell the Palestinians, pretend that their problems are of no consequence. We cannot hope to obtain peace in the Middle East in the face of this continuous injustice, for peace cannot coexist with injustice. The Council has an opportunity and a responsibility to do something about the problems of the Palestinians—and that is our considered view. For how else can this Council pay a fitting tribute to the enduring and valiant Palestinians then by recognizing their rights?

29. It is with those considerations in mind that my delegation fully supports the recommendations contained in the Committee's report, which it commends to the Council.

30. It is with pleasure that, on behalf the delegations of Guyana, Pakistan, Panama and my own delegation, I have the privilege of introducing the draft resolution contained in document S/12119.

31. The first preambular paragraph refers to the subject of our discussion, namely, the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights. Our consideration of that item is in accordance with the request contained in paragraph 8 of General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX). The second preambular paragraph speaks for itself. The third preambular paragraph refers to the consideration by the Council of the report of the Committee, transmitted to the Council in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 of General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX). The fourth preambular paragraph refers to our deep concern that, owing to the lack of a just solution of the Palestinian problem, the Arab-Israeli conflict is worsening and continues to endanger international peace and security. The fifth preambular paragraph emphasizes that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be realized without the achievement, among other things, of a just solution to the problem of Palestine on the basis of the recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

32. Operative paragraph 1 takes note of the of the Committee; that is exactly what we in the Council have been doing for many days. Paragraph 21 the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

33. We believe that to affirm the rights of the Palestinian people is the least the Council can do to reflect the desire of the international community. On behalf of the sponsors, I commend the draft resolution to the Council.

34. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the representative of Qatar. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

35. Mr. JAMAL (Qatar): It is indeed an honour for me to address the Council under the presidency of none other than the Minister for Foreign Affairs M Guyana. Your presence proves the attachment of your nation to the cause of justice and peace in the world and, in particular, to the cause of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, which is the subject of our present deliberations. May I also take this opportunity to express my delegation’s gratitude and appreciation to Ambassador Jackson, the Permanent Representative of Guyana, whose competence and devotion are to be commended should like also, through you, Mr. President, express my sincere thanks and gratitude to the members of this Council for allowing my delegation I participate in this debate.

36. I wish to associate myself most sincerely with the sentiments expressed by the speakers who preceded me on the tragic death of Ambassador Meloy and his colleagues in Beirut two weeks ago. I should like to convey to the representative of the United States my condolences and sympathy on that sad news.

37. Equally, I wish to thank the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Ambassador Fall of Senegal and the members of the Committee for the untiring efforts they have exerted in examining the questions of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights.

38. The tragic death of many thousands of innocent Lebanese and Palestinians in Lebanon is a direct result of Zionist colonialism and expansionism in the area, which, by its racist policies and discrimination against the indigenous Arab population of Palestine and the dispersal of that population, has caused all the conflicts and wars in the region since the inception of the Zionist State. Furthermore, the events in which the South African police repressed unarmed demonstrators and school children and which culminated in the death of some hundred persons so far, are a crime against mankind. The situation that led to the urgent meeting of the Council last week must awaken the conscience of those who can compel the racist apartheid regime in South Africa to recognize the rights of the indigenous majority of the population. The problem we have on hand is the continuation of colonialism in the third world, through the illegal regimes of Pretoria and Salisbury and their alliance with the Zionist regime in Tel Aviv.

39. My delegation has expressed the desire to participate in the debate on the basis of the position of principle and the profound conviction of my Government that the time has come to consider a just and lasting solution to the Palestine problem that would eliminate once and for all this protracted and constant source of tension and conflict in the Middle East and the world at large.

40. The Council has before it the report of the Committee which was established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX). The recommendations of the Committee, which appear in the part two of the report, represent a programme of implementation designed to enable the people of Palestine to exercise the rights which were recognized in paragraphs 1 and 2 of General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX). That resolution clearly and precisely defines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination without external interference, and its right to national independence and sovereignty. The same resolution:

"Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return." The right of every people to return to its homeland has always been recognized as an inalienable, universal right. Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his
own, and to return to his country".

41. In its report the Committee makes a series of recommendations based on the position formulated paragraph 59 that "the question of Palestine is at the heart of the Middle East problem", and that therefore, no solution in the area can be envisaged "which does not fully take into account the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people". And in paragraph 64, the Committee recommends that the United Nations, and the Security Council, in particular, "should take appropriate action to facilitate the exercise by the Palestinians of their right to return to their homes, lands and property".

42. In the view of my delegation, the situation in the Middle East constitutes a threat not only to peace in the region, but to international security throughout the world. International peace and security will not be achieved as long as the people of Palestine remain deprived of the most elementary rights enshrined in the Charter, in the numerous resolutions adopted since 1948, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am fully convinced that the situation in the Middle East will continue in a state of constant turmoil, punctuated by wars and cease-fires, until the problem is solved at its roots, justly and correctly.

43. It is now clear that the events of recent years have had an effect on world public opinion, which finally understands that stability in the Middle East cannot be brought about without the recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. It is my delegation's strong belief that the Committee's report is a positive step towards the provision of a framework within which the people of Palestine, as represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, their sole and legitimate representative, can exercise their right to self-determination, sovereignty and independence in their rightful homeland.

44. Mr. President, I should like to conclude my statement by calling upon the Council, under your wise leadership, to exercise pressure by all means available to it to bring about an immediate, total and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from all occupied Arab territories. We believe that the Council has a duty to take the necessary measures to put an end to the establishment of Israeli settlements, to bring about the dismantling of the existing ones, and to make Israel refrain from making any demographic changes in those territories. The Council should not be afraid to invoke punitive sanctions against Israel if it persists in refusing to implement the various United Nations resolutions which have recognized the legitimate aspirations of the people of Palestine, duly represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization.

45. My Government believes that the Security Council is one of the institutions which have enough credibility and moral impact to be able to direct the course of events towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. I urge all members of the Council to seize this opportunity and courageously adopt a resolution that will endorse all the recommendations of the Committee as a first step towards alleviating the plight of the Arab people of Palestine and averting a major eruption of violence in the area.

46. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the representative of Cyprus, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

47. Mr. ROSSIDES (Cyprus): Mr. President, may I join previous speakers in expressing our warm congratulations and our gratification that you, Sir, are honouring the subject matter of our deliberations by your personal presence, conducting these proceedings and lending to them the wisdom of your guidance and determination. I am happy to say that your country, with which we have the best of friendly relations, since joining the United Nations, has been a paragon in its adherence to the Charter for the peaceful solution of problems through the Organization.

48. I take this opportunity to convey to the mission of the United States our deepest sympathy on the tragic death of Ambassador Meloy and his aides in such cruel circumstances. We feel and wish to express indignation at such an outrageous crime. The growing manifestation of uncontrolled aggression and anarchy in the international field is now increasingly reflected in individual acts of terrorism which reveal a sharp decline in the standards of legal order and security in our times.

49. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which was set up under General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX), was given a distinct mandate to recommend to the Assembly a programme of implementation designed to enable the Palestinian people to exercise the rights recognized in resolution 3236 (XXIX), namely, their inalienable right to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty and their equally inalienable right to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted. The resolution further specifically calls for the return of the Palestinian people to their homes and property.

50. I need not enter into the details of the Palestinian question. The report of the Committee is an eminently clear and unambiguous document, both in its explanatory part and in its recommendations. Furthermore, the comprehensive statement of its Chairman [1924th meeting]. Ambassador Fall, presents the salient facts of the whole question with admirable lucidity and objectivity. I take this occasion to pay a tribute to the wise and enlightened chairmanship of the Committee by Ambassador Fall and to his dedicated initiative in guiding the Committee's work. We also warmly congratulate Mr. Gauci of a sister small island, Malta, who performed the duties of Rapporteur with exemplary assiduity and skill, which have been greatly appreciated.

51. As is well known, there is a plethora of United Nations resolutions calling for the return of the refugees to their homes or for compensation for their property if they do not wish to return. While these resolutions have remained unimplemented year after year, the problem has been festering and growing in its dimensions. My delegation early took an active interest in promoting a solution of the problem, and in 1962 3/ we made specific proposals for phased and gradual implementation of the resolution on repatriation which were very reasonable and which have created a new situation, but which, unfortunately, were not accepted. The right of the Palestinian people to return to their homes and lands is, however increasingly and widely recognized, as it is by its nature legitimate and inalienable. No passage of t can affect that basic right.

52. The Palestinian problem has been further aggravated by intermittent wars, as a result of which the extent of the occupied area and the number of refugees were considerably increased with the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967. In consequence of these developments, the original limited refugee problem, a part of the Middle East question has become the much wider problem of the Palestinian people. It has thus acquired its own distinct identity while at the same time being at the very core of the Middle East problem.

53. The report of the Committee represents a positive and comprehensive effort at the implementation of the rights of the Palestinian people, and consequently at the elimination of the basic difficulty and stumbling—block in the solution of the over-all Middle East problem.

54. In carrying out its task, the Committee proceeded in a judicious way, basing itself on the Charter of the United Nations, on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 4/, on the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, commanding overwhelming support, and on mandatory decisions of the Security Council on the subject. The Committee also took due account of the present-day facts of the situation, bearing in mind at the same time, however, the basic precepts and binding norms of contemporary international law, among which are the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and the unacceptability of situations resulting from a forced change in the demographic structure of a country. Such actions in violation of international law, of the Charter and of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, are universally condemned and can never create valid or acceptable situations.

55. The Committee, while being guided by the essential merits of the case, has also shown judicious flexibility in its recommendations so that their application could be pragmatically achievable. Participation in the work of the Committee by the Palestine Liberation Organization has brought a constructive contribution, by its reasonableness of approach regarding the recommendations. Provided that there is good will on the part of the interested parties with regard to reasonable adjustments, a just and lasting solution of this great problem may realistically emerge, and the solutions will, of course, have to be peaceful, for in a technologically transformed world in our nuclear era, problems can no longer be solved by the use of force. Peaceful solutions under the Charter, however, can be achieved only through respect for principles and for justice. Thus, the moral rather than the materialistic approach is the true realism of our times. As a pertinent cartoon in the New Yorker magazine of last week put it, "Things aren't so simple any more, Alston. The ethical high road may be more practical now than the practical low road". So, the practicality of solutions must be sought in the morality of the approach to problems.

56. This is perhaps the first instance of a Committee established by the General Assembly with a mandate of implementation, that is, a mandate to recommend means for the effective implementation of United Nations resolutions which remain unimplemented. By remaining inoperative, such resolutions most prejudicially affect the very purpose of the United Nations and its effectiveness in its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international security and peace. This case may thus be considered as a test case of implementation, that is, of how far in actual practice the Security Council can function in the manner required of it by the specific provisions of the Charter for the implementation of its own resolutions, by which the whole structure of international security and peace through the United Nations stands or falls.

57. Independently of this item, the growing awareness in the United Nations and in the world of the vital need for implementation of Council decisions on matters of international security can be gauged from the increasing number of items on the agenda of the General Assembly during the last few years pertaining to matters of international security, on which there seems to be such characteristic failure.

58. We express the hope that this case may be the beginning of a more careful investigation of the question of implementation, because what indeed can be the purpose of so much effort being put into resolutions and so much expense on the functioning of the United Nations, if its primary purpose of maintaining international security and peace is not fulfilled? It is our hope that, before it is too late, there will be a turn more respect for the Charter and those provisions regarding international security.

59. Mr. SHERER (United States of America): Mr. President at the outset I should like to say that you pay us a high honour in presiding over the Council during this debate and in visiting my country on the eve of its bicentennial celebration. We pay a tribute as well to Guyana's celebration last month of its tenth of anniversary of independence. Further, I should like to add my voice to those of other members of the Council who have expressed their highest admiration for Ambassador Jackson's very able conduct of the pressing affairs of the Council this month.

60. I also take this opportunity once again to thank in the Council who have so generously their sympathy to the United States on the death of the American Ambassador to Lebanon, his economic counsellor and their driver. This terrible act brings to our realization, as often our words do not, the seriousness, the explosiveness, the tragedy of the whole situation in the Middle East.

61. The subject that is before us today, the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, is an effort to come to grips with one aspect—a very central aspect—of the Middle East conflict. My Government does not doubt that the effort has been well-intentioned and that members of the Committee have worked hard and seriously to draft recommendations that will promote a Middle East settlement. But I must say, in all candour, as my delegation has said before, that the basic approach that has been followed strikes us as misguided. The Middle East conflict is probably the most complex dispute on the international scene. Is it realistic to assume such a problem can be resolved by committees, no matter how well-meaning? Or is it not the duty of the United Nations to encourage the parties to resume negotiations on the serious issues that confront them?

62. Peace will come about through a negotiated, comprehensive settlement taking into account all the issues involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute. The frame-work for this settlement exists in resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). In the numerous meetings of this Council since the beginning of the year touching various aspects of the Middle East situation, the United States has made clear its position on the principles that must underlie a Middle East settlement, on the Palestinian question as a whole and on the situation in the territories occupied by Israel.

63. Our position is also clear on the report that has occasioned our meeting. We voted against General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX), which created the Committee, just as we voted against General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX), which it seeks to implement. Our reason is not lack of concern for the Palestinian people. We have consistently made clear our concern on that score and our conviction that there must be a solution to the Palestinian issue if there is to be a lasting settlement. We are convinced that resolutions and committee reports are not the most effective way of dealing with the question of the political future of the Palestinians. The United States will do its utmost to bring about the early resumption of serious negotiations looking towards a settlement of all the issues, and we believe it is through such negotiations that we must seek a solution to the issue of the Palestinians.

64. I should like to explain my Government's position on the draft resolution that is before the Council [S/12119]. There are, in our view, two fundamental flaws to this draft. First, the text is totally devoid of balance, stressing the rights and interests of one party to the Middle East dispute and ignoring the rights and interests of other parties. Secondly, in that draft, the Council

"Affirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine...".

The political interests of the Palestinians and their role in a final Middle East settlement constitute, in my Government's view, a matter that must be negotiated between the parties before it can be defined in resolutions of the Council. For those reasons, my delegation intends to vote against this draft resolution.

65. In closing, I should like to second the appeal made by my British colleague for special contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to enable it to continue its humanitarian work touching the daily lives of Palestinians in need. We are heartened by the news of the generous contribution of Saudi Arabia and of the intentions of the Governments of Japan and the United Kingdom. President Ford has submitted a request to Congress for substantial additional money to add to the United States contribution to the Agency for 1976. We believe this is an appropriate way to deal with immediate Palestinian needs as we resolve to make a better future for the Palestinian people and the Middle East as a whole.

66. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization, on whom I now call.

67. Mr. AL-HOUT (Palestine Liberation Organization): Mr. President, I should like you to know how gratified we are that the debate on the Committee's report and the discussion of the question of the exercise of the rights of the Palestinian people are being guided by you. Your commitment to a progressive international order based on the freedom, dignity and independence of all oppressed people makes it possible for us to hope that the Council's debate will be successfully concluded by the adoption of just measures that will assist our people in the exercise of their national rights in Palestine. Your wise and constructive role is deeply appreciated by our delegation.

68. The Council is once more attempting to address itself to the question of Palestine. As in the debate of January 1976, the Palestine Liberation Organization notes the deliberate absence of the representative of the Zionist occupation forces in Palestine. It is quite clear that their absence is more than compensated for by the presence of those who sponsor and sustain Zionist occupation and aggression in the Middle East. While Zionist views will be expressed by proxy, members of this Council will remember that this is not the only manifest way by which Zionism ignores and insults the international community; Zionism and the Zionists have repeatedly rejected the wise counsel and helpful endeavours of the international community in its attempt to bring about peace with justice in Palestine and in the Middle East.

69. The tragic loss of life in our region and the continuing strife are the direct result of the continuing Zionist aggression. Not only did the Zionists deny the Palestinian people the exercise of their national rights in Palestine but they continue to oppress our people, under occupation and attack our people living in forced exile. Zionist external aggression has already engulfed the Middle East region and undermined its peace.

70. Not only has peace eluded the region for about 30 years but everyone is fully aware that world peace itself is equally threatened. We deeply regret the senseless murder of the Ambassador of the United States in Lebanon, of the Economic Counsellor of the Embassy and their driver, a senseless crime strongly condemned by the Palestine Liberation Organization. My delegation wishes to extend our condolences to the people of the United States and to the families of the murdered men. Is it too much to expect that these acts, following upon thousands of equally senseless murders, may move the Council to deal effectively, courageously and correctly with the basic elements which have produced the strife in Palestine and threatened the peace of the Middle East?

71. The Council has had ample opportunity to express itself on one or more of the questions that undermine the peace of the Middle East region but over the years its will and resolve have been rendered impotent by the unilateral acts of the Zionist regime, which thrives on aggression. Zionist aggressions and transgressions have been made immune to effective international censure and action by the unilateral interposition of the veto by Israel's protector in the Council. Members of this body are fully cognizant of the grave consequences of the Council's previous inability to exercise its legitimate authority or the powers vested in it by the Charter; the peace which it is supposed to protect and promote has been turned into a nightmare. Thus far the principal victims of the aggression and wars waged by the Zionists and sustained by the United States have been Palestinians and other Arabs. There is no doubt that others will be gradually—as some have already been—victims of the same events. Should the Council fail once more in the exercise of its legitimate authority, for whatever reason, its ability to act decisively in other areas where peace is threatened and to halt aggression by any Power will have been severely curtailed.

72. The Council has before it an important document which is the outcome of long and thoughtful deliberations on the part of wise, sincere and able representatives of the international community. On behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization I should like to convey to each member of the Committee our appreciation, and our high esteem to its Chairman, Ambassador Fall of Senegal. The Committee followed closely the terms of reference contained in General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX). We find its report protective of the spirit of that resolution and consistent with its understanding of the totality of the Assembly's resolutions on the question of Palestine. We are therefore not at all surprised that those Powers that traditionally have promoted aggression in the Middle East and that have traditionally opposed the self-determination of the Palestinian people and those who have facilitated the destruction of our Palestinian homeland and the dispersal of our people should try once more to halt the process of the orderly attainment of independence and sovereignty by the Palestinian people as envisaged by the Assembly. I should like to take this opportunity to inform those Powers, once more, that their efforts are doomed; whether they use procedural tactics or resort to pseudo-legal arguments or more lethal instruments, let there be no doubt that our struggle will successfully culminate in the independence and sovereignty of our people in Palestine. The only question which such hostile Powers must ask themselves is simply this: Do they prefer the attainment of independence and sovereignty by the Palestinian people in Palestine in an orderly, relatively peaceful fashion, or must they, in accordance with their historical opposition to the independence and freedom of all oppressed people, endeavour once more to delay and prolong and unsuccessfully try to halt the natural course of history?

73. The members of the Council know that our rights to independence and sovereignty in Palestine are inherent rights; our national rights have been recognized and affirmed by the international community. The report of the Committee emphasizes this international recognition. The Council's task is to assist in the orderly and firm implementation of these rights for two principal reasons: because that is right and because that would contribute to the restoration of Peace in the Middle East.

74. Recent events elsewhere in the world, particularly in southern Africa, remind us once again that imperialism and racism continue to guide the action lid policies of the same Powers. The implicit and implicit financial and military support which those Powers continue to give the racist regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia enable those regimes to practise their oppressive apartheid policies, to occupy African Ids and to frustrate the operation of democratic processes. Recently the Council had an occasion to pronounce itself rightly on the logical consequences these oppressive policies. These policies, whether practised in southern Africa or in Palestine, necessary lead to violence and pose a threat to international peace. For it is clear that military occupation, apartheid and racism and settler colonialism can be maintained only by violence inflicted and generated v the racist occupation. The victim of colonialism, occupation and racism must respond to this violence, there can be only one response. The revolt of the people of Africa against the apartheid authorities of Pretoria is of the same genre as the comprehensive revolt of the Palestinian people in Nazareth, Nablus, Ramallah, Gaza, Jerusalem and everywhere else. They are natural revolts of the oppressed, and there can be only one response to these revolts. The racist occupier and colonizer reinforces its means of oppression, and the oppressed intensify their struggle to attain freedom and dignity. The international community finds it natural to support the victim. Yet the same racist and imperialist Powers which oppressed the majority of mankind in the past now render military and diplomatic support to the same racist occupation forces, whether in Pretoria or in Tel Aviv.

75. It is evident that the members of the Committee, the majority of whom represent countries which endured similar oppression and deprivation of their national rights in the past, have a similar judgement of the confrontation between the colonizer and the colonized, between the oppressor and the oppressed. Accordingly, they have called first and foremost for the immediate and unconditional termination of the Zionist occupation so that the Palestinian people can exercise their national rights in Palestine. The members of this Council should have no difficulty in endorsing that request by the Committee. The Council's pronouncements and the provisions of the Charter are clear on this point: the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, illegal and contrary to any principle of recognized international law. The termination of military occupation is not conditional, is not subject to any limitations. It is an absolute principle; it cannot and certainly it should not be in any form or shape modified or made contingent on something else. For to condone the placing of conditions on it in one area will undoubtedly lead to its invalidation throughout the world. The international community, acting through the General Assembly, has recognized the right of the Palestinian people to independence and sovereignty; the exercise of that independence is possible and feasible with the termination of the Zionist occupation of the Palestinian homeland. The Council is therefore called upon to reaffirm its commitment and adherence to the unacceptability of the principle of conquest and must urgently take effective measures to bring the Zionist occupation of Palestine to an end.

76. I should like to remind the members of this Council that our aspiration is to attain our independence in Palestine and not elsewhere. Just as we struggle against Zionist occupation of our lands, we abhor the occupation of any land by any Power or regime external to that land. Whereas we promote the sovereignty and integrity of all States, the Zionists have worked for years to undermine the independence and sovereignty of the Arab States. While the Zionists justify their conquest of Palestine, they have suggested to the international community that their principle of conquest ought to become a universal principle; thus, they have suggested that the Palestinians should establish their independence and sovereignty on other people's lands.

77. The members of the Committee recognized clearly and explicitly that the rights of the Palestinian people can be exercised solely in Palestine. Thus they have called—and rightly so—for the repatriation of the Palestinian people who have been expelled from their national homeland. The report provides useful suggestions concerning the practical aspects of the repatriation of the Palestinians to their homes and lands. That principle too should come as no surprise to members of this Council. Even those Powers that have been principally responsible for the innumerable tragedies of the Palestinian people have endorsed the principle in the past. That their behaviour and policies contributed to the effective Zionist blocking of the implementation of this principle neither undermines its correctness nor detracts from its legitimacy. The principle has been affirmed and reaffirmed by several General Assembly and Council resolutions. What is required now, therefore, is the adoption of effective measures that will translate this principle into concrete international action. The Palestinian people will return to their lands in Palestine. The question is simply this: Will we return home in an orderly and relatively peaceful fashion or must we struggle by all the means at our disposal and with the support of friendly Powers at a tremendous cost in human lives in order to return? Must the Zionists and their protectors threaten international peace and security in order to prevent our people from returning—and to prevent our people from exercising their national rights in Palestine?

78. The members of the Council are fully aware of the intimate and organic link between the question of Palestine and the so-called Middle East question. We are fully conscious of that link. But it is now recognized, even by those Powers that oppose the Palestinian people, that the question of Palestine is the core of the other question. Yet the Council has found it necessary repeatedly to deal with the derivative question; it has dealt with the question of Palestine only derivatively. Its efforts therefore have not borne fruit, for that as well as for other reasons. The General Assembly, on the other hand, has successfully disentangled the two questions while recognizing the link; it has placed an important priority on reaching a just solution to the question of Palestine and affirmed the national rights of the Palestinian people; it has created an appropriate mechanism to handle the implementation of its resolutions. It has further elaborated a legitimate procedure for handling the question of implementation. Thus the General Assembly has recognized that somewhat different and specific resolutions are needed for the two separate, yet linked, questions; it has recognized that somewhat different frameworks are required for the needed solutions; and it has devised different mechanisms of implementation.

79. The Council therefore now has an opportunity to confront the core of the question and to begin to devise appropriate measures to promote the effective implementation of the resolutions of the General

Assembly. It cannot abdicate its responsibilities must not fall victim to procedures and modalities which might be appropriate to other questions; for now, the Council must address itself to the core of the conflict in Palestine. The Council has not addressed itself to that question in the past; it now has the opportunity to do so. The report of the Committee provides the basis for the adoption of measures by the Council that will facilitate the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine. We trust that the Council will adopt such measures and thus contribute significantly to the restoration of justice and peace in Palestine.

80. The PRESIDENT: I should like now to make a statement as the representative of GUYANA.

81. May I first of all express to the representative of the United States the profound sympathy of my Government and myself on the recent death of the Ambassador, the Economic Counsellor and their driver in Beirut. I ask him to convey these sentiments not only to his Government but also to the relatives of the deceased. Those tragic deaths underline all too grimly the continuing urgency of the Middle East problem and the need to tackle it.

82. There are some who accuse the Council of pursuing sterile debate at the expense of current reality. What is overlooked is that current reality is rooted in a human condition, which, though it may have originated in the past, in intractably and stubbornly preserved for the future by those advocates of current reality.

83. The most outstanding problem bequeathed to mankind at the conclusion of the Second World War was the conflict of cultures and interests in the Middle East. Few problems have taxed the strength of the United Nations as an institution more than this one; and few problems have called in question the capacity of the United Nations to defuse potential conflict more than this one. The old League of Nations, the precursor of the present institution, floundered and failed on the question of global security. As members of the Security Council we are enjoined by the dictates of history and of precedent to reflect on the causes of' that failure and from such reflection to derive the will and the clarity of vision to focus our energies effectively.

84. Many have been the long hours of debate already expended during the course of this year on the intertwined difficulties of the enduring Middle East problem. Of one thing I remain convinced: any search for a solution that seeks to bypass the United Nations system and the many resolutions that we have adopted loses legitimacy, loses credibility and loses the stamp of universal consensus. It would be pointless to fashion an institution for the organized expression of world opinion if that world opinion is to be flouted with impunity and with the brazen assertion that advantages which derive from unlawful and successful violence are not negotiable, and that regional aggrandizement is international virtue.

85. The report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People is the occasion of our immediate concern with this problem. My delegation wishes to congratulate the Chairman, Ambassador Fall of Senegal, for this valuable contribution and for the excellent manner in which he presented the report.

86. There are some who venture criticism of our present efforts because, as they allege, this report deals with only one of a number of factors comprising the total problem. We, on the other hand, are concerned lest the importance of this debate should be lost to a questionable preoccupation with the arithmetic of numbers. We believe that the prospects for a lasting peace in the Middle East begin and end with tie satisfaction of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. It is intolerable that any portion of mankind should be condemned to the lingering indignity of refugee camps and the condescending kindness of global compassion.

87. The struggle of the Palestinian people is an integral part of the liberation struggle which rages throughout the world. It takes place in an area which has been notorious throughout history as the hotbed of contending cultures. Their struggle has been complicated by the false global defence perceptions of others who live far from their region, by unrelenting Preoccupations with the control of global communications and with preoccupations about the vital destiny of energy resources. The plight of the Palestinians makes a mockery of protestations of concern over condition of every single human being on the planet.

88. It was the United Nations that created Israel; it is responsibility of the United Nations to see to it ,that this creation does not abrogate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people nor allow any schemes of fortuitous selectivity permanently to dispossess, deprive and disadvantage those whose claims merely rights which we jealously guard and protect our own selves.

89. Apart from the aforementioned principle, there are two others which Guyana considers to be essential in any solution of the Middle East problem.

90. First, Israel must withdraw from all Arab territories occupied since 5 June 1967—and do so quickly, can never condone the occupation by force y belonging to other peoples and nations on pretext, by whatever fiction, or with whatever spurious military justification. Security is not obtained by the unlawful retention of permanent symbols of injustice; security is not obtained by committing constant and enduring injuries to contiguous nationalisms.

91. Secondly, all States in the area—including the State of Israel—must have the right to exist and to do so within boundaries that are universally recognized and scrupulously respected. Our march along the path of time has not accorded to all nation States the convenience of frontiers that suit the military defence perceptions of modern warfare. Nevertheless, this should not be made the excuse for covetous expansionism and the digestion of wrongfully retained land by the intrusion of alien settlements, settlements that are strategically and economically conceived to perpetuate an original injustice.

92. The Palestinians have shown and continue to show an admirable and touching faith in the United Nations system. Their authentic representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization, has participated diligently and constructively in the work of the Committee whose report is now before us. They have placed their faith in a positive response by the Security Council and the General Assembly to a programme of action such as the one included in that report.

93. The recommendations in the report provide a positive programme of action, the implementation of which would greatly enhance the prospects for a comprehensive settlement. It is significant that the Committee affirms the necessary role and responsibility of the United Nations in the search for a just and lasting solution. Its recommendations are based on the many unimplemented resolutions on the Middle East which have been adopted by the United Nations. We are therefore afforded here the opportunity of breaking out of the current stagnation and taking the initiative to pave the way for a final over-all settlement.

94. We have listened carefully to the many statements made in the course of this debate. The lack of recognition by the Council of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinians is a monstrous omission, occurring at a time when a growing majority of people and international organizations have come to such a recognition. It is an omission on our part that clamours for correction. We must never flag or fail; we must never tire of debate; we must never waver in our constancy. We must not leave to succeeding generations the half-fulfilment of our task. We must allow the imposition of no qualifications on the concept of inalienability. We must as a body affirm and continue to affirm that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination and a right to national independence.

95. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): At yesterday afternoon meeting (1936th meeting), the members of the Security Council once again were obliged to listen to one more routine attack, filled with lying anti-Soviet fabrications and the most shameless slanders, in the statement of the Chinese representative, Mr. Lai Ya-li. In his slanderous attacks not for the first time, he used the methods of Goebbels' propaganda, namely to make the lie so big that naive people can come to believe it and first and foremost the author of the lie himself.

96. In attempting falsely to slander the Soviet Union and to distort its just policy-that of a friend and ally of the Arab peoples-that speaker, without flinching, described the Soviet Union as an enemy of the Arab peoples, an opponent of the attainment of peace in the Middle East and a super-Power aiming at a new world war and hegemonism. The enemies of the Soviet Union have slandered our country ever since the very first days of the Great October Socialist Revolution and continue to do so. Now the dirt work of slandering the Soviet Union is the dirty work of slandering the Soviet Union is being undertaken by the Maoists.

97. However, if one gives some thought to the substance of what was said by the Chinese representative, it is obvious that there are discrepancies-loose ends that cannot be tied up. On the one hand, he expresses his admiration for the heroic and victorious struggle of the Arab peoples-including the Palestinians-against Israel aggression in October 1973. On the other hand, he slanders those people whose active assistance and support-and primarily whose arms-were instrumental in achieving that brilliant victory. But it was not those chatterers in Peking and their hostile attacks on the Soviet Union that helped in the achievement of that victory, it was the positive policy of peace and the genuine assistance o of the Soviet Union, as is well known to the whole world. It is precisely thanks to that assistance and support that success was achieved in the October 1973 war. As Comrade Brezhnev stated in his report to the Twenty-fifth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union:

"All these years, the Soviet Union has consistently supported the Arab peoples' struggle to eliminate the consequences of the Israeli aggression. Our country helped-and effectively, as the October 1973 war showed-to build up the military potential of the countries opposing the aggressor, that is Egypt, Syria and Iraq. We supported the Arab political struggle both within the United Nations and outside it."

98. This help has won the recognition and great gratitude of the Arab peoples, and particularly of the Palestine Liberation Organization. A member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Mr. Khaddoumi, said in an interview in the Beirut weekly Monday Morning at the end of March this year:

“The Soviet Union and the socialist community have been the most faithful champions of the Palestinian cause…The USSR was on our side throughout the October war. Arabs should not forget that their victory was achieved by Soviet arms. In October 1973 the Soviet Union established air bridges linking Moscow with Damascus and Cairo. Across these bridges arms were sent to Syrian and Egypt, and this helped the Arabs in their just straggle against Israel. We must strengthen our friendship with the Soviet Union.”

That is the best possible answer to the Chinese slanderers. It is sufficient to contrast that friendly statement of Mr. Khaddoumi's with the lies of Mr. Lai Ya-li in order to see the true depth of moral degradation and shamelessness of the Chinese Maoists.

99. What are the goals sought by the Chinese delegation in the Council? First, to denigrate and split the socialist countries, including the Soviet Union, and to separate them from the Arab countries, as well as from the non-aligned countries. Secondly, as every one can see, by his slanderous attacks against the Soviet Union, and by his distortions of its policy, the Chinese representative is attempting to divert attention from those really responsible for the tragedy in the Middle East: the leaders of Israel, the militant Zionist circles and their rich protectors. China, by means of anti-Sovietism, is attempting to justify Israeli aggression against the Arab countries, just as it at- tempted by means of anti-Sovietism to justify in the Council the aggression of South Africa against Angola, but was properly rebuffed by representatives of African countries.

100. Thus, as can clearly be seen by all, the Peking leadership is not assisting in a settlement of the Middle East conflict. Quite the contrary: they are actually diverting attention from that settlement and deflecting it towards anti-Sovietism. By so doing they are helping Israel and its protectors to continue to consolidate their domination over the occupied Arab territories, to avoid an over-all settlement of the Middle East conflict and to delay the solution of this problem. Indeed. Peking and its representatives at the United Nation* are playing the role of devil's advocate and patrons of Israeli aggression.

101. This also sheds light on another question—namely, why Israel itself does not need to take part in the Security Council discussion of the Palestine question. Israel is convinced that the Chinese delegation will do all the dirty work of distorting and slandering the policy of the Soviet Union and is counting on this. One cannot help being reminded, in this connexion, of our saving, "Why bark yourself when you haves bought a bad-tempered dog that barks loudly"?

102. With regard to the false assertion that the Soviet; Union is an enemy of the attainment of peace in the Middle East, as alleged, we have every ground for saying—and this again is obvious to everyone—that no State has made such efforts to achieve a just and 1 gleeful settlement in the Middle East as has the Union. In the course of the discussions in the Council, the delegation of the Soviet Union has repeatedly set forth the principles for a just and peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict which were once again proposed by the Soviet Government in its statement of 28 April [S/12063]. But China did not support those principles: it prefers military tension in the Middle East, and the consolidation of the fruits of Israeli aggression.

103. And now a few words about this "new world war" and "hegemonism". Let me recall that the Soviet Union gave 20 million lives—the lives of our sons and daughters—in the years of the Great Patriotic War against Hitlerite fascism, so that neither the Soviet people nor any other people, would ever again be subjected to war. Ever since the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union has been making tireless efforts to strengthen international peace and Security, and we are happy and proud that in this vital question of the day the position of the Soviet Union coincides entirely with the position of the non-aligned countries—something which cannot be said of China's position.

104. The Soviet Union and the non-aligned countries are in favour of the non-use of force in international relations, and the permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. China is against that. The Soviet Union and the non-aligned countries are in favour of disarmament and the convening of a world disarmament conference. China is against that. The Soviet Won and the non-aligned countries are in favour of a halt to the senseless arms race, and of the redaction of military budgets. China, along with the United States and certain other countries, is against that. The Soviet Union and the non-aligned countries are calling for a cessation of the testing of all forms of nuclear weapons. China is against that. Twenty-five non-nuclear countries have declared their readiness, without any conditions, to take part in talks on con-a treaty banning all forms of nuclear testing. China against that. Moreover, a check of actual concrete facts in the United Nations reveals the demagoguery of the Chinese representatives: specifically reveals who is in favour of peace and disarmament and who is against it and is preaching the inevitability of a new world war.

105. With regard to the inevitability of a new world war have repeatedly heard the Chinese delegation making statements about that officially, from the rostrum of the General Assembly, as is well known to everyone. I have here a quotation from the New York Post containing a comment on one such militaristic statement by the head of the Chinese delegation. The article, under the title "Happy days will soon be here again", in the issue of 30 September 1975 reads as follows:

"China told the General Assembly session here ft new world war is inevitable and that, as a result, the future of the world will be bright."*

* Quoted in English by the speaker.

That is a monstrous statement.

106. It is quite clear why it was necessary for the Chinese representative to repeat in his statement the hostile fabrications against the Soviet Union from the Hsinhua news agency with regard to a new world war and hegemony. By this kind of deception, lying and slander against the Soviet Union, China is attempting to divert attention from the general orientation of its foreign policy, which is aimed at provoking a new world war in order to achieve world hegemony.

107. The main purpose of the great-Power hegemonistic plans of the Chinese leadership is to try to convert China into a State that is able to dictate its will to other peoples, and to become the sole world Power, the "mono-super-Power". In order to achieve this purpose, China has been developing at an increasing rate its military and industrial potential. At the present time, China is spending more than 40 per cent of its budget for military purposes. That is why China is against disarmament. In order to achieve its goal, China is attempting to use the non-aligned countries, claiming the role of leader of the third world. In pursuing its hegemonistic policy with regard to the non-aligned countries. China's leadership is attempting to establish pro-Maoist regimes in most of them. Peking is continually provoking internal disorders and organizing armed actions in these countries.

108. At the recent session of the All-China Assembly of People's Representatives, the great-Power hege-monistic purpose was put forward: to convert China by the end of this century into a great world Power. This is, in fact, a repetition of the well-known thesis of Mao Tse-tung: "We must become the first country of the world". This is what he said as far back as 1956. Three years later, in 1959, Mao Tse-tung stated, "We must be masters of the world". In their great-Power hegemonistic plans, the leaders in Peking have assigned a particular role to Asia. They view the Asian countries as the first bridgehead of their annexionist goals. That is why they come out so furiously against collective security in Asia. In determining the policy of China with regard to South-East Asia, Mao Tse-tung stated in August 1965:

"We must take control of South-East Asia, including South Viet-Nam, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia and Singapore. That region of South-East Asia is very rich. It has a lot of minerals and it is certainly worth great expense to get it... After we get hold of South-East Asia, we can then increase our strength in that area."

That is precisely the arm of the leading circles in Peking and that is why they are counting on a world war.

109. As far back as 18 years ago, Mao Tse-tung baldly stated that he saw nothing terrible in the death of half the population of the world and half the population of China in the case of an atomic war. The speeches of the representatives of China in the United Nations have once again shown that in the years which have elapsed nothing has changed in Mao's position. In fact, his position has hardened. Even in his latest poem, "Conversation of birds", published in Jen Min Ji Pao on 1 January 1976, he exalts a "world of people" where "everything is upside down", where "flames from weapons lick the skies", and "the whole earth is torn apart by bomb craters".

110. This misanthropic concept of the exaltation of war reminds us of the barbaric ideas of Hitler, who dreamt of world domination by German fascism. Mao Tse-tung's official statements and his poetic works reveal the same concept, which is an open invitation to a new world war and can be applicable only to international reaction, to aggressors, the Chilean fascists and the South African racists, who voted in the United Nations along with China against the proposal of the Soviet Union on the non-use of force in international relations and the permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, in spite of the fact that the non-aligned countries voted with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in favour of that proposal.

111. These are the facts which characterize the real aggressive, expansionist and great-Power hegemonistic position of China, and no slander against the Soviet Union can possibly camouflage that. This is something that cannot possibly be refuted by the Chinese representative. This concept of war and of hegemonism is hateful to all honest men, who have opposed resolute "no" to a new world war and hegemonism.

112. In so far as concerns the Soviet Union at the present time, we are waging a mass campaign to collect signatures for the Stockholm appeal of the World Peace Council for a halt to the arms race and for disarmament. The Soviet people, in signing this appeal, demand that a halt be called to the arms race and that the relaxation of international tension be made irreversible. They are deeply convinced that the victories won in the struggle for peace and detente have engendered new hopes, new faith and new conviction and optimism among the peoples. Peace can be preserved. It is preserved in our efforts to ensure peace throughout the world. The Soviet Union stands for world forces—and above all, the socialist and nonaligned countries in solidarity—overcoming the obstacles which still stand in the way of the establishment of a just and lasting peace and banishing aggression, oppression, exploitation, hunger and misery for ever from the life of mankind.

113. We are firmly convinced that no amount of deceit, lies or slander, distortion of the truth or of reality by the Peking leadership and its representatives in the United Nations can prevent the triumph of our just cause, namely, the strengthening of international peace and security. We are also firmly convinced that the programme of further struggle for peace and international co-operation and for the freedom and independence of the peoples, approved at the Twenty-fifth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, will be put into effect and that the world witness the triumph of the Soviet concept inevitability of lasting international peace and not the Chinese concept of the "inevitability” of a new world war.

114. The PRESIDENT: If no other representative wishes to speak at this stage, I shall take it that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution contained in document S/12119.

115. The representative of Japan has asked to b allowed to speak in explanation of his vote before the vote, and I now call on him.

116. Mr. ABE (Japan): I have already explained it the Council [1936th meeting] the basic position of the Government of Japan regarding the Middle East problem. Any just and lasting settlement should be based on the three following requirements: first, withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories occupied stag June 1967; secondly, respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in the area, including Israel, and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries; and, thridly, recognition of and respect for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people in accordance with the Charter I wish to reaffirm once again that in any solution of the Middle East problem, all three of these requirements are equally indispensable, and all of them must be met together. I wish to make it clear, therefore, that any draft resolution which is not in line with the aforementioned position of Japan will not be acceptable to my Government.

117. Let me turn to the contents and the wording of the draft resolution before us. First, with respect to operative paragraph 1, while my delegation appreciates the work of the Committee, especially that Part One of the report, it cannot support the recommendations on the implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people because they are, in the view of my delegation, hardly to be implemented either legally or politically. None the less we are able to support that paragraph since it merely takes note of the report of the Committee and does not prejudge the assessment of its contents. Secondly, as regards paragraph 2, my delegation believes that certain inalienable rights, as enunciated in the report, should be recognized to the Palestinian people, and accordingly it can support the affirmation of these rights. It goes without saying that certain of the rights that are to be recognized to the Palestinian people should be equally recognized to any people or peoples in the region. Thirdly, the first preambular paragraph refers to General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX), on which my delegation abstained. My delegation understands that that reference was considered necessary for the reason that the Committee was established under that resolution—namely, for procedural reasons. Consequently, my delegation can go along with that paragraph.118. Having put on record the position and comments of my Government, the delegation of Japan is ready to vote in favour of the draft resolution, on the understanding that it supplements -resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

119. The PRESIDENT: I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution sponsored by Guyana, Pakistan, Panama and the United Republic of Tanzania in document S/12119.

A vote was taken by show of hands.

In favour: Benin, China, Guyana, Japan, Libyan Arab Republic, Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Republic of Tanzania

Against: United States of America

Abstaining: France, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The result of the vote was 10 in favour, 1 against, and 4 abstentions.

The draft resolution was not adopted, the negative tote being that of a permanent member of the Council.

120. The PRESIDENT: I shall now call upon those representatives who wish to speak in explanation of vole after the vote.

121. Mr. THOMAS (United Kingdom): I should like briefly to explain why my delegation abstained on the draft resolution on which the Council has just voted. My delegation regrets that in the end it did not Prove possible to conclude this debate in a more positive manner with a statement from the President which would have reflected the views of the Council as a whole.

122. The reasons why my delegation abstained will be evident from the statement which made on 25 June [1934th meeting]. In particular, my delegation cannot a draft resolution which singles out one of the of the question—namely, the need, which we accept, to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people-but which does not mention the other aspects of which in our view, it forms an integral part.

123. As we made clear in this debate, my Government folly recognizes the need to supplement resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) in order to take account political rights of the Palestinian people and to them to express their national identity. But, view, that must be done in a way which can be reconciled with the right of all States in the area, including Israel, to live in peace within secure and recognized borders.

124. The three fundamental requirements for a settlement must in our view be taken together and seen as an integrated whole. Because this draft resolution did not take account of this essential point, my delegation was unable to vote in favour of it.

125. Mr. de GUIRINGAUD (France) (interpretation from French): It was with regret that my delegation felt compelled to abstain on the text submitted to the Council. The reasons for that attitude are clear from the statement I made here on 25 June [ibid.]. While France recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to an independent homeland, we consider that that right can be implemented only within an over-all settlement, which is the only way to reconcile the legitimate rights and concerns of all the parties, since that would not dissociate the various elements of the problem. Thus we were unable to associate ourselves with an approach which, since it covered only one of the elements, did not take into account the others also.

126. This general reservation applies more particularly to the following points. In the fourth preambular paragraph, it does not seem to us that there is occasion to emphasize that the problem of Palestine is "the core" of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Furthermore, that affirmation is contradicted in the next paragraph, in which we read that the solution to this problem must be found "inter alia" in order to arrive at a just and lasting peace. We think that by mentioning in the fifth preambular paragraph the search for solution to the Palestine problem, the draft resolution does not take account in an appropriately strict manner of the terms of reference of the Committee, which were simply to consider modalities for the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The second operative paragraph is an affirmation of principle which we do not object to, but which should not be isolated from the other elements of a settlement.

127. Furthermore, in regard to operative paragraph 1, we do not believe that the Council's taking note of the report of the Committee justified having recourse to the formula of a draft resolution. The result we have just recorded proves this. It seemed to us that at this stage, when the report is still a provisional document to be reviewed by the Committee before being transmitted to the General Assembly, we could have left it to our President to draw conclusions from the debate.

128. The question of Palestinian rights is too fundamental an element in the search for a settlement in the Middle East for us not to feel genuine regret over the outcome of our present work. But this is only a provisional outcome. The report of the Committee, although it aroused certain reservations on our part, is an interesting contribution for consideration by the Council—for reflection on the problem does not cease this evening. Of necessity it will have to continue until we finally define in a manner acceptable to all parties the recognized components of a settlement, until they are taken into consideration at the same time in negotiations, and until, at last, we endorse the results of those negotiations.

129. Mr. CAVAGLIERI (Italy): I should like to say a few words in explanation of the abstention that my delegation has just recorded with regard to the draft resolution contained in document S/12119.

130. As Ambassador Vinci stated yesterday my Government believes that "the solution of the Palestinian problem is crucial to the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" [1935th meeting, para. 50]. My Government believes as well that
"the recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to establish their own independent State, is one of the three indispensable prerequisites that must be taken together for a final, just and lasting settlement of the Middle East crisis." [ibid. para. 53.]

131. We were gratified to notice that the aforementioned principles enjoy very wide acceptance in the Council and at the United Nations, as shown by so many statements in this debate. We therefore should have very much liked to see them reflected in a draft resolution aimed at giving an up-to-date and clear definition of the rights of the Palestinians for the purpose of supplementing resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), where all the various elements of the Middle East crisis are indicated. This not having been the case, we had to resign ourselves to the idea of abstaining.

132. We should like at the same time to confirm our deep interest in this politically crucial and most human problem as well as our firm wish to contribute within the limits of our capabilities to its gradual reduction and final solution.

133. Mr. Chou Nan (China) (translation from Chinese): The Chinese delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/12119. Nevertheless, we deem it necessary to reiterate the position of the Chinese delegation as set forth in our statement of 28 June [1936th meeting]. To put it briefly, we maintain that the Council must unequivocally recognize the complete restoration of the Palestinian people's national rights without external interference. It must also recognize that the Palestinian people are entitled to resort to all means to regain its rights. At the same time, the Council must enjoin Israel to withdraw from all the illegally occupied territories, immediately and unconditionally, completely and not partially. We support the content of the report of the Committee which is in conformity with the spirit of the foregoing. With regard to the inadequacies and ambiguities of the report, amendments and additions should be made in accordance with the spirit of General Assembly resolutions 3236 (XXIX) and 3376 (XXX).

134. In our statement the Chinese delegation expounded the essence of the Palestine problem and the Middle East question and pointed to the crux of the matter. Before these iron facts, Mr. Malik found himself bereft of all arguments and had to restore once again to lies, denials and abuse. However, the fabrications and the slanderous statement which Mr. Malik and his colleagues spent a whole day and night preparing will be of no help to him at all. Let the facts speak for themselves.

135. Everyone knows how Soviet social-imperialism undermined the October war waged by the Arab countries against aggression. The revelations made recently by the leaders of many Arab countries have further brought to light the ugly features of the news tsars who practise extortion, arrogate privileges to themselves claim military bases and frantically carry on infiltration, subversion and expansion. While some Arab countries were fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Palestinian people in their struggle to resist aggression under difficult circumstances, other Arab countries offered generous contributions as assistance, to those in need. Yet you reaped windfall profits by plundering others' burning houses by most despicable means. Compared with your high-handed way of practising extortion and pressing for the repayment of debts by certain Arab countries, even Shylock, that merchant of Venice so notorious for his avarice and cruelty, is no match for you. But you did not stop at that. On the ground of providing the Soviet fleets with facilities, you asked others to give you military bases where you reserved certain areas for the establishment of a State within a State, in which the Soviet national flag was flown and no admittance was granted to the local people, thus unscrupulously tramping underfoot the sovereignty of other States. When these aggressive activities met with resistance, you did not hesitate to engage in subversive activities for the overthrow of certain lawful Governments. Such behabiour is of course intolerable to countries and peoples that have any sense of national respect. Small wonder that the leader of a victimized Arab country rightly pointed out that you encroached upon that country's independence and sovereignty and that the new tsar was a venimous snake to be guarded against Now that your hypocritical and vicious behaviour has been exposed to the light of day, what is left for you to brag about?

136. It is even more difficult for you to cover up your collusion with Israel. Over a long period, the Soviet Union has been sending a steady flow of emigrants to Israel. Particularly during the October war, when there was an acute shortage of manpower it Israel, the Soviet Union drastically increased the number of emigrants to Israel, reaching a monthly total of 4,000. Some Soviet Jews were enlisted into active service and sent to the front for aggression against the Arab countries immediately upon their arrival in Israel. Arab public opinion indignantlty pointed out that this was a war in which Israel was fighting the Arabs with one super-Power providing the arms and the other super-Power providing the manpower. Is it not crystal clear who is really helping Israel?

137. After the October war, over 20 African countries severed diplomatic relations with Israel, and Israel was in great isolation. And it was precisely at this juncture that Soviet social-imperialism stepped up its flirtation with Israeli Zionism, going so far as to secret talks between the two foreign ministers so as to help Israel extricate itself from its difficulties. Were not you, Mr. Malik, an active participant yourself?

138. In fact, the Soviet policy on the Middle East is totally geared to aggression and expansion in that region and to its need to contend with the other super-Power for world hegemony. You have done your utmost to sow dissension and create division in the Arab world, create and exacerbate tension between States, and incite the different factions to kill each other. For your part, you want to trouble the waters as much as possible, because you can fish in troubled.

139. On the other hand, you deliberately resort to the trick of a thief crying "Stop thief. Whom can you deceive by all this? In a so-called statement issued recently by your official press agency TASS on the domestic situation of an Arab country, did you not brazenly declare that you were entitled to interfere simply because you were geographically closer to that country than others? Is this not the gangster's logic of big-Power hegemonism, pure and simple? According to this logic, would you not have the privilege of trampling upon the sovereignty of the neighbouring countries and blatantly interfering in their internal affairs? We should like to know who asked you to play the role of "international gendarme". Your ambition really knows no bounds. Whenever there is some opportunity for you to exploit, never mind how far away, you invariably resort to intervention, aggression and expansion. You did this to your so-called fraternal neighbour Czechoslovakia, a member of your big community. You did the same to certain Middle East countries which are some distance away. Again, you are doing the same in an African State which is thousands of miles away. This is the practice of the theory of limited sovereignty as advertised by Brezhnev, the new tsar. In other words, the severity of all other States is limited, whereas the sovereignty of Soviet social-imperialism is unlimited.

140. The rivalry over the Middle East is an important component of the new tsars' battle for world hegemony. This rivalry will lead to war some day. That is why we say that you, the new tsars, are the main source of a new world war. I am not going to go into detail about the abundant evidence of your frenzied war preparations or of your activities stretching like tentacles to all parts of the world, because they are well known to everyone. I wish only to quote here the remarkable affidavit made with astonishing frankness by the new tsars themselves. That is a new book by S.G. Gorshkov, Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Navy, entitled The Sea Power of the State, which was published recently. In this rare book Gorshkov quotes from an edict of the Tsar Peter the Great in order to provide a watchword for the building of a new Greater Russian Empire. Let me quote some of it: "Any potentate with a land army has one hand but he who also has a fleet has two hands." Gorshkov extols Peter the Great for "his resolute actions which showed convincingly his understanding of the essence of the notion of supremacy at sea and his ability to put it into practice." What then is the purpose of the new tsars' quest for supremacy at sea? The author admits that "the Soviet Navy continues to believe that that rivalry for supremacy at sea is not an end in itself but "a prerequisite" for "dominating the world" so as to "establish the order the Soviet Union needs in waters belonging to no one." These are the words of the Commander-in-Chief of your naval forces himself, printed black on white in his book. They cannot possibly be anyone's lies or fabrications. Is not this statement by Gorshkov, combined with the new tsars' wanton acts of aggression and expansion, sufficient to reveal socialist-imperialism's ambitions for world domination and its design of launching a new world war?

141. Does it not follow from these facts that all Malik's hypocritical words and attempts at camouflage are completely unsuccessful? Do not the acts of the new tsars, who, under the smoke-screen of sham disarmament and sham detente, are feverishly active in the fields of expansion and aggression, reveal their true face? However, your acts of aggression and your expansionism bear in themselves the seeds of their own destruction. If you dare to start a world war, the Soviet people will be on the side of the other peoples of the world, and they will certainly rise up to over-whelm this clutch of wicked new tsars. We still believe that the future of the world is bright, because it is after all the peoples of the world that will decide it, not a handful of imperialists.

142. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): The representative of China has only confirmed what I said and my reference to the comment in the New York Post to the effect that China is proclaiming a bright future for mankind, after a thermonuclear war. That is, in fact, the essence of the issue and of the Chinese policy. Long live nuclear war! And after that, there will be a bright future for mankind! However, the Chinese warmongers will not be able to drag the world into a thermonuclear war.

143. At the end of my statement this afternoon I said that the concrete facts I had adduced could not be refuted by the Chinese representative Mr. Lai Ya-li. That was my assumption, and it has been amply confirmed. It was not possible to refute a single one of the concrete facts I adduced. He simply continued the slanders of made yesterday by Mr. Lai Ya-li from a prepared text full of quotations taken from the anti-Soviet fabrications of the Hsinhua Agency. The Chinese representative, it seems, finds it difficult to react to my statement today, which he heard only in interpretation. I hope that after he has read it in the verbatim record he will understand that yesterday's anti-Soviet slanders by his colleague Lai and his second edition of those slanders today, full of fabrications, are not only without foundation but devoid of common sense.

144. The Chinese representative was absolutely silent about the hostile act against the Arab people of Palestine committed by a permanent member of the Security Council who, acting as the protector and defender of the Israeli aggressors, did not shrink from misusing the veto, utterly disregarding the inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine. This is also revealing. The task of the Chinese representative is to divert the attention of the Council from the discussion of the substance of the question—the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people—by his vicious anti-Soviet slanders.

145. The people of the Arab East are very well aware who their friends are and who their enemies are, who is doing everything possible to achieve a just peace settlement in the Middle East and who is provoking an exacerbation of the situation in both the Middle East and Cyprus, as well as everywhere else, so as to fulfil their dream of a new world war, which they call inevitable.

146. Mr. SUNDBERG (Sweden): As my delegation said in its statement yesterday [1935th meeting], Sweden recognizes the legitimate national rights and interests of the Palestinian people, including their right to a homeland. However, it was not possible for us to support the draft resolution contained in document S/12119 because that draft is not sufficiently clear about the relationship between the exercise of the rights of the Palestinian people and the rights of the States in the area to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. The lack of a clear reference to the last-mentioned element was the deciding reason for the abstention of the Swedish delegation.

147. Mr. BENKHAYAL (Libyan Arab Republic): The misuse of the veto by the United States against the draft resolution contained in document S/12119 does not surprise my delegation at all. In fact, we expected it, owing to the well-known stand of the United States establishment, which continues its full support of the Zionist entity in Palestine. The draft resolution, which my delegation supports, is the least that can be granted to the Palestinian people, which asks for its right to self-determination, a right recognized and guaranteed by divine law and international constitutions, including the United Nations Charter.

148. Despite international support of that right, which has been very clearly expressed in international conferences and in the Council, the United States stubbornly continues its rejection of the opinion of the majority by using the veto. This is not the first time during this year that the Council's diligent work to arrive at an appropriate decision has ultimately been thwarted by the negative vote of a permanent member of the Council, namely, the United States. This fact supports my country's view that it is high time for the international community to reconsider the right of veto.

149. However, the Council's failure to take a decision on this issue owing to the use of the veto by the United States will not hamper the Palestinian movement or the struggle of the Palestinians to achieve their just objectives.

150. The PRESIDENT: The representative of Saudi Arabia has asked to be allowed to speak. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to his statement.

151. Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia): Mr. President, although I paid a tribute to a son of your country when I addressed the Council at the second meeting it held to discuss the question before us, it behoves me to say how proud I feel to find the Foreign Minister of Guyana sitting in the Chair, when it was beyond an dreams 30 or 40 years ago that there would be suck independent States which would rise to the capability that you and your brothers have manifested through-out the period since your country became a Member of the United Nations.

152. Having said that, I find it my sacred duty to address myself to what has happened during these debates.

153. Sir, you may or may not know that I have personally been seized of this question since 1947, when Palestine unfortunately was partitioned. Let me remind those sitting around this table that it was none other than the late Mr. Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, who, in his Fourteen Points, enunciated the principle of the self determination of peoples; and he had to leave Europe a sad man because of the greed of the victorious Powers of those days. We all looked to the United States as the torch-bearer of freedom and liberty; and that was nothing new, since, after all, in 1776 it had fought to choose its own institutions, its own fate and its own political life. Therefore, it surprises me, as one who has lived for over three decades in this country, to see that none other than the representative of the United States— of course, following instructions — has exercised the veto on a benign draft resolution that had been watered down so much as only to affirm the principle of the right of a people to self-determination. That self-same principle was elaborated in the United Nations into a full-fledged right, and it fell to me and some of our colleagues — Mr. Pazhwak of Afghanistan, the late Ahmed Bokhari of Pakistan, and none other than the late Krishna Menon of India, among others— to stand up for the colonial peoples in the 1950s in the conviction that they should determine their own political fate.

154. I have spoken perhaps a hundred times on this question, but it bears repetition: either the Charter is to be taken seriously, or it is to be used just to serve the interests of those who exercise world power. It seems that we small nations and those who are struggling for their freedom are pawns in the hands of those who exercise world power. And this brings me to a very unfornutate episode which I happened to hear this afternoon, but which is nothing new to me: an altercation two brothers in the Council, Ambassador Malik and my good friend from China, concerning the differences that exist between them. I happen to be a monarchist, but I do not revel in seeing two brothers who share the same ideology springing at each other and throwing mud and invective at each other. What for? They have differences—and this brings me to the following comment.

155. We know very well that the question of detente is nothing new: it was not invented by Mr. Kissinger. To the glory of the French language, detente has had special meaning ever since the fall of Napoleon in 1815, when Talleyrand and Metternich met in Vienna to find out how they could preserve the peace of Europe. But what did they do? They did nothing new: they divided Europe into spheres of influence, and tally there was detente in name only. For the British Empire detente was a period of peace, because at that lime Britain had consolidated its empire—from 1815, during the Victorian age and through the Edwardian age, up until 1914. But, there were many wars in Europe because of the spheres of influence.

156. I do not blame the Americans or the Russians for not wanting to wage a nuclear war—with all due respect to my Chinese friends—because if they were to do so, the danger would not be from the enmity that would flare up; they would be lynched by their own people. The leaders—or misleaders—would go into caves and would save themselves, but there would be some people who would survive, and they would lynch those so-called leaders, should there be a war.

157. So the deterrent of fear is more important than the word "detente". But, at the same time, anything that is based on injustice is bound, sooner or later, to totter and fall. Everything that is built on a false foundation will fall down. And this is what we are witnessing today: a people robbed of its country, frustrated, a situation that has produced a ferment in the whole Arab world, and indeed in the world at large. And this ferment, as I say, affects not only the Palestinians, but the whole world and the activities of the young who are dissatisfied with their leaders.

158. And you gentlemen here, your reduce yourselves along with me, to mere peddlers of words, without action. What for? What we do here is not reported in the mass media. The mass media are not sacrosanct: those correspondents who listen to our words send in full reports, but the mass media in this country are Zionist-oriented. And let me be frank with my good friend Ambassador Sherer: we understand that this is an election year; we know that. I have been here through how many elections? I shook hands with President Roosevelt in 1940 in Washington—yes, since then I have seen many elections, but never have I seen things reduced to such a sad state of affairs as exists today. I realize I am on international ground here, but if I were not true to my good friend the American representative, who is a personal friend of mine, I would be untrue to myself, too. What do those contenders for office do? They wear yarmulkas, and go to the synagogue to get votes. When my good friend Ambassador Goldberg was contending for the governorship of New York State against Mr. Rockefeller, I asked him: "Did you put a cross on a chain around your neck to get votes?" He said: "I don't do such things." To which I replied: "You are an honorable man, but you will lose." And he did. Even our friend Mr. Rockfeller went to the synagogues.

159. This is an election year, so we do not care: veto or no veto, we know and we excuse you. You have your excuse. You do not have to say it, I say it for you. But whether you accept it or not is beside the point, Baroody has to tell you the truth, once and for all, after three decades of service in the United Nations. We are not fooling anybody; we are not fooling ourselves either, but we should be frank. So let us not expect the United States to come up with a miracle. This is an election year. There is an Assembly session coming, and I believe that the election will be in November, so we shall see what will happen—whether someone who wore the yarmulka or someone who did not wear it becomes President.

160. Those Zionists who have permeated the Western world tried to permeate the world of this gentleman sitting on my left, the representative of the Soviet Union, and because his country does not allow this, it is called anti-Semitic. I am called an anti-Semite, too. I am the original Semite and I am called an anti-Semite by those Khazars who rule behind the scenes through their money and their mass media, not telling the American and European peoples the truth. Who are these people siting here as observers, pleading their cause? Palestinians? Let them be absorbed by the Arab world. But they do not want to be absorbed by the Arab world. They have their own entity. Why did not the Americans let the British remain here in America, although the Americans were British? The Americans fought the British.

161. These so-called observers, the people of Palestine, are fighting the usurpers of their homes. Do you think that they are like the Red Indians? This is past. The Red Indians were valiant. Many American writers have said in their books that it was always the white man who broke the pacts with the Red Indians. The Arabs are not Red Indians. They come in all shades. Look at them—some of them are white, some are brown, and there are blacks amongst them, and we are proud of our brothers from the Sudan who are black. We do not have discrimination among the Arabs. Why are we being treated as if we did not exist? Just because we do not have power? Remember that power will fall if it is based on injustice. Where are the empires of the past, including three of our empires? They crumbled and went down the drain. Do you not learn anything from history?

162. Three categories of activists could be mentioned. In the just category are those who are espousers of a good cause or of any case, whether it is considered good or bad, depending on whether it conflicts with the interests of certain parties; but from this category are created the martyrs who are willing to shed their blood, to die for their cause. Those are genuine espousers of causes, whether they are right or wrong. And they are not just the espousers of the cause of their people; they have been robbed of their home, of their patrimony. In the second category are those who use activism to help them to jump on the bandwagon of power; these are the politicians. And then there is the third category, and it is now becoming quite large, numerically speaking. They are on the market to be bought, to create coups d’état they are the agents provocateurs, and for a simple reason: because "detente" has been imposed on us. The Russians do not date conflict with the Americans, and likewise the Americans do not dare conflict with the Russians. They would destroy each other. So what do they resort to? Agents provocateurs, coups d’état. They send money to make war by proxy. This is what is happening. Now war is being waged by proxy.

163. We cannot go on like this. It is my duty to mention once again that there should be a new approach in the Security Council, lest we become the laughing stock of the whole world and people cease to believe in us. We will lose our credibility. I saw the League of Nations dissolve, and I would not want before I leave this earth to see this noble Organization, endowed with the best of Charters, also dissolve. What is the test? Justice. Render justice to those people.

164. There is no doubt that the Jews suffered greatly, but at whose hands did they suffer? At the hands of the Europeans, not at our hands. If the Europeans have developed a sense of guilt, why should they impose those Khazars—Jews converted in the eighth century, who never saw Palestine—on the people of Palestine? Incidentally, many of the people of Palestine were also Jews, but they embraced Christianity, and later on, when they got fed up with Christianity in the days of Byzantium, they embraced Islam. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no compulsion in religion.

165. Here the Palestinians come, pleading their cause, and all that some of the members, some of the nonaligned members, are asking here is that the Council take note of the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Who can object to any of the Words in it. What is the objectionable word, and why did the representative of the United States not submit an amendment? Maybe it could have been accepted, and maybe it would have been rejected. Veto, veto. What is a veto? Sometimes a consensus is worse than a veto.

166. We cannot go on like this, Mr. President. I am glad that you are in the Chair. You represent a new country, and maybe from new countries there will emerge new directives, so that we may put our house in order, so that we may cease to go in circles, so that we may not deviate from the subject and trade invectives, like those we have heard today and like those was told about yesterday. There should be no difference between our friends from China and those from the Soviet Union. I call them friends, although, I differ from them in ideology. Only the other day, I was asked by an ambassador with his tongue in his cheek, "Have you resolved your differences win Ambassador Malik?". I said, "What differences” He said, "You are a monarchist, while he is a communist". I said, "No, we believe in one-ism—humanism". It supersedes and transcends all kinds of -isms, whether socialism, communism, capitalism, conservatism, leftism or what have you. The famous Jewish author who lived in Vienna, Stefan Zweig, when he was asked to join the Zionist movement by none other than the late Mr. Herzl, said, "There art too many-isms. We should only have humanism". And that was a Jew speaking. There is no such thing as Jewish blood. He was a human being.

167. We have nothing against the Jews. They say we are anti-Semites, those Zionists. Shame on them. If anybody is anti-Semitic, it is they, because they set themselves above others. "The chosen people of God." God discriminates? He has different castes of people, does God? And let me say one last word about God. At least God was conceived in my region, whether in Judaism, in Christianity or in Islam. People were tribal or semi-tribal. All the Old Testament and the New Testament and even some of the Koran is written in parables, in flowery language. And the fundamentalists take the letter, but according to all those holy scripts the letter killeth. Those among the Zionists who went to Oxford and Cambridge, do they believe that God wrote them a title deed to Palestine? Come on. They play on the sentiments of the innocent and the poor. For heaven's sake!

168. As I once did when President Hambro asked me to put an end to the quarrel between our Chinese and our Russian friends, I will step in and say, "Please, for heaven's sake, if you want to discuss your differences, come let us do so on the side, but do not do it in public here, because it really pains many of us." We are friends; we are all brothers here under the skin. We should not indulge in such behaviour. I will stop it, and when I say I will stop it, I will stop it. I shall say, "Point of order", and I shall stop it.

169. I must thank my colleagues for bearing with me. This is not a tirade, but a frank talk.

170. There was nothing wrong with that simple draft resolution. But we accept the fact that the host country is going through an election year. We will give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that, after they are through with the mechanics of the elections, American justice will prevail and the leaders will examine the case of the Palestinians objectively, dispassionately, without following the old system of balance of power and spheres of influence. And do not let anybody think be is going to survive in power if the leaders are corrupted by injustice. Like others, they will totter and fall. And we do not want to see them fall, because the American people is a lovely people; the Russian people is a lovely people; the Chinese people — I have yet to see one of them not smiling when I see him. They are always smiling and friendly. And here we have altercations because the leaders of the Zionists, who may number 3,000 or 4,000, have stirred up the whole world. I feel sorry for them; the Zionists are human beings too. We do not want them to suffer. But if they want to bring suffering on their own heads, do not let them overdo it and bring suffering on other peoples' heads also.

171. Indeed, Sir, I am very grateful to you, and I deem myself fortunate to have been able to speak on this question and to have the last word when you, thee Foreign Minister of your country, are presiding over the discussion of this question.

172. The PRESIDENT: My dear colleagues, it is with some trepidation that I must announce that we have now come to the end — at least, I hope it is the end of active work by the Council in the month of June.

173. It is widely acknowledged that during this the members of the Council have been heavily taxed by having to give consideration to a number of important and complex issues some of which have been defying solution by the international community for long time. It has been a long and difficult month, but I would venture to suggest that in general we feel satisfied by the genuine and sincere efforts made by all of us to contribute to the efficiency of the Council and to keep alive the hope that it will be an effective and successful instrument for international peace and security.

174. During the month, we have been concerned with question of Cyprus; the situation in South Africa following the uprising in Soweto and in other areas where the black population is concentrated in that unhappy country; the application of the People's Republic of Angola for membership; and, more recently, the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights.

175. On Cyprus, we adopted a resolution which, if implemented in all its parts, would, I feel, make a significant contribution to the ultimate goal of the Council and of the international community in general, that of achieving a lasting solution to the Cyprus problem. In this respect, a heavy responsibility devolves on the parties concerned, to whom was addressed a special appeal for their fullest cooperation with the efforts of the United Nations. When the Council meets again, before the end of this year, to consider the report of the Secretary-General on Cyprus, it will be in a position to measure success against the decision it took only a few weeks ago.

176. In respect of South Africa, it is universally recognized that the root of the problem is the base, mean, despicable, deplorable and contemptible system of apartheid. The Council can feel satisfied that, in the decisions it took, it assisted all those forces, including those in the General Assembly, which are determined to work resolutely for the eradication of what can only be considered an abhorrent system.

177. It is well known that the Council was unable to reach a decision on the application of Angola and the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights. I can only express the hope, which I know is widely shared, that Angola's exclusion from this Organization will not be maintained for too long a time.

178. Finally, the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights has engaged our continuous attention over the last few days. Many speakers have made reference to the central role of the rights of the Palestinians in the search for an over-all solution of the Middle East situation which can lead to a just and lasting peace. Several speakers have also acknowledged that the work of the Committee appointed by the General Assembly under resolution 3376 (XXX) has made a valuable contribution to the international community's appreciation of the complexities that are involved. The significance of this debate should not be seen in the light of the lack of tangible results, for it is worthy of note that for the first time the Council has specifically discussed the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights. Further, the records of the debates will be available for utilization by the various organs of the United Nations which are dedicated to advancing the cause of peace in the Middle East and to working for a solution that is as just as it is equitable.

179. I wish to conclude by expressing thanks to you all for the patient, fruitful, unstained cooperation you have displayed towards the President during my own time in the chair and that of my dear friend and colleague, Ambassador Jackson. I wish to reiterate my thanks for the kind, generous and sometimes rather flattering remarks you have made about me and my country, Guyana. I hope it is appreciated that my country feels so strongly about the United Nations system that my presence here is not accidental or the result of whim or caprice. It is a symbol which we feel will indicate to the world community how central a role the United Nations plays in our forward planning and in our aspirations for mankind some day to ascend the slopes of peace to the broad uplands where justice and the development of all mankind, including the individual human being, remains the paramount consideration.

180. The Council has thus concluded its consideration of this item.

The meeting rose at 6.50 p.m.

1/ For the report, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-first Session. Supplement No. 35

2/ Official Records of the General Assembly. Second Supplement No. II, vol. II, annex 19.

3/ Ibid., Seventeenth Session, Special Political Committee.) meeting.

4/ United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter