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

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information (DPI)
31 December 1974
YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED
NATIONS

1974



Office of Public Information
United Nations, New York

Chapter X
Questions relating to the Middle East

During 1974, various questions relating to the situation in the Middle East continued - as in previous years - to occupy the attention of the Security Council, the General Assembly and other United Nations bodies.

The Security Council was primarily concerned with the establishment of new peace-keeping machinery to implement the cease-fire resolutions it had adopted following the outbreak of hostilities in October 1973.1/ In the Egypt-Israel sector, a Disengagement Agreement was signed by the parties on 18 January 1974, according to which Egypt and Israel committed themselves to observe scrupulously the cease-fire called for by the Security Council and to refrain from all military and paramilitary actions against each other. The Agreement also provided for the separation of Egyptian and Israeli forces and the establishment of a zone of disengagement in which the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) - established by the Security Council on 25 October 1973 - would be stationed. By early February, the United Nations Secretary-General reported, the situation in the sector had become calm and, by 4 March, the disengagement process had been completed. The Security Council twice extended UNEF's mandate by further six-month periods, on 8 April and again on 23 October.

In contrast to the Egypt-Israel sector, the situation in the Israel-Syria sector remained tense during the first months of 1974 until, on 31 May 1974, an Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces was signed at Geneva, Switzerland, after which all firing ceased. Following the signing of the Agreement, the Security Council adopted a resolution on 31 May, by which it set up under its authority the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) for an initial period of six months to maintain the cease-fire and to supervise the disengagement agreement with regard to areas of separation and limitation of armaments and forces. The Secretary-General reported that on 25 June the Force had completed the process of disengagement of forces and the military situation was calm. On 29 November, the Security Council renewed UNDOF'S mandate for six months.

During its 1974 session, the General Assembly approved expenditures for financing UNEF and UNDOF and the method of apportioning the expenses among Member States.

On 24 April 1974, the Security Council adopted resolution 347(1974) after considering a complaint by Lebanon about an Israeli attack on six Lebanese villages. Israel said the operation was a counter-measure which destroyed the houses of known terrorist collaborators following a terrorist attack on the Israeli village of Kiryat Shmona, in which 18 inhabitants were massacred. The Council condemned Israel's violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as all acts of violence, called on Israel to refrain from further military actions and threats against Lebanon, and urged all concerned to refrain from further acts of violence.

During 1974, the situation along the Israel-Jordan cease-fire line remained unchanged. No complaints were received from either country regarding violations of the cease-fire, nor did the Security Council meet to consider any aspect of the situation there.

At its 1974 session, at the request of 56 Members, the General Assembly considered - as a separate item - the question of Palestine. On 14 October 1974, it invited the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to participate in its deliberations. The Assembly heard an address by the head of the PLO delegation and, on 22 November, following a debate on the Palestine question, adopted resolution 3236(XXIX) by which, among other things, it reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including the right to self-determination, and recognized that the Palestinian people was a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Also on 22 November, the Assembly - by resolution 3237(XXIX)- invited to participate, in the capacity of observer, in the sessions and work of the Assembly and of all international conferences convened under its auspices.

The question of the treatment of the civilian population of the Arab territories occupied by Israel was again considered by the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly, both of which took decisions during the year based on the findings of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. Also, the Assembly reaffirmed the right of the Arab States and peoples whose territories were under Israeli occupation to full and effective permanent sovereignty over all their resources and wealth. It called on Israel immediately to rescind all measures to exploit the human, natural and all other resources and wealth of the occupied Arab territories.

The General Assembly, as in previous years, took several decisions concerning the Palestine refugees. Among other things, it extended until 30 June 1978 the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and called on all Governments as a matter of urgency to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the Agency's needs, in the light of its projected budgetary deficit.

Several communications were received by the Secretary-General during the year concerning the status of the City of Jerusalem and the Holy Places.

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

Search for a peaceful settlement: status of the cease-fire
Egypt-Israel sector

Communications and reports
(1-18 January 1974)

During the early part of 1974, Egypt and Israel continued to submit to the Secretary-General of the United Nations complaints of cease-fire violations in their respective areas. Also, the Secretary-General continued to circulate reports based on information received from the headquarters of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO) with regard to the Egypt-Israel sector.

Between 4 and 15 January, Israel - in letters addressed to the Secretary-General - charged Egypt with initiating many cases of artillery, small-arms and tank fire, firing of missiles, and forward movements of forces. Israel also charged that there had been many instances of crossing the cease-fire lines in violation of the Security Council's resolutions of 22 and 23 October 1973.2/

Egypt, for its putt, complained of cease-fire violations by Israel dating this period and submitted lists of many cases of small-arms fire, bombing and artillery shelling by Israeli forces. Egypt rejected Israel's allegations of cease-fire violations.

During this period, UNEF patrols reported frequent firing incidents involving artillery, machine-guns and mortars, as well as aerial activities and anti-aircraft fire. From about the time that the Egyptian-Israeli Agreement on Disengagement of Forces was reached on 18 January (see below), the reports showed a marked decrease in activity, and the situation was described as remaining calm, with the exception of a few sporadic and isolated firing incidents.

In a report on UNEF dated 11 January, the Secretary-General said that the Force was con tinning to supervise the cease-fire and using its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of the fighting. It was also, he said, co-operating with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in its humanitarian endeavour in the area. He also went on to warn that the situation in the sector, with troops of both parties deployed in close confrontation west and east of tile Suez Canal, was unstable and potentially explosive. It was difficult for UNEF to interpose its troops effectively between the two armies, and he hoped that a successful outcome of the talks in the Military Working Group established by the Peace Conference on the Middle East in Geneva, Switzerland 3/ would lead to a substantial measure of disengagement and also facilitate the task of UNEF.

Egyptian-Israeli Agreement on Disengagement of Forces
on 18 January 1974

By a letter dated 18 January 1974, the Secretary-General informed the President of the Security Council that at a meeting held at Kilometre marker 101 on the Cairo-Suez road, an Agreement on Disengagement of Forces in pursuance of the Geneva Peace Conference had been signed by the Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces and the Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces, and by the UNEF Commander as witness.

By the terms of the Agreement - the text of which was annexed to the Secretary-General's letter - Egypt and Israel were scrupulously to observe on land, sea and in the air the cease-fire called for by the Security Council and to refrain from all military and paramilitary actions against each other.

The Agreement provided for the separation of the Egyptian and Israeli forces according to zones and lines contained on a map, forwarded separately, and the establishment between the two forces of a zone of disengagement in which UNEF would be stationed. It also provided that armaments and forces would be limited in the area between the Egyptian line and the Suez Canal, as well as in the area between the Israeli line and a line running along the western base of the mountains where the Giddi and Mitla Passes were located. Those limitations were to be inspected by UNEF.

The detailed implementation of the disengagement of forces was to be worked out by military representatives of Egypt and Israel, who would agree on the stages of the process, to be completed in not more than 40 days after it had begun.

It was then stipulated that the Agreement, which was not regarded by Egypt and Israel as a final peace agreement, constituted a first step towards a final, just and durable peace according to the provisions of the Security Council's resolution of 22 October 1973 4/ and within the framework of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East.

On 24 January, the Secretary-General reported that, in pursuance of the Agreement On Disengagement of Forces, the parties had signed maps on which the different phases of disengagement were represented; a time-table gave details of the actions to be undertaken by the parties and UNEF in each phase.

On 28 January, he reported that the implementation of the Agreement had begun on 25 January with the redeployment of forces of the parties in accordance with the agreed plan and the handover to UNEF by Israeli forces of the areas involved. As a result of the disengagement of forces, the Secretary-General added, the supply convoys to Suez city in Egypt had been discontinued, but those going to the east bank of the Suez Canal were to continue until 30 January. At the request of the two parties and ICRC, UNEF had given its assistance in the recovery of bodies of soldiers killed during the hostilities in the Canal area.

In reports on 4, 12 and 21 February and 4 March, the Secretary-General said that the redeployment of the forces had proceeded smoothly. Units of UNEF had been interposed and had begun patrolling the buffer area, as well as inspecting and verifying the areas of limited armaments and forces. By 4 March, the disengagement process begun on 25 January had been completed. In accordance with the Agreement, the exchange of prisoners of war had taken place by stages and had been completed on 25 February in the presence of UNEF officers and representatives of ICRC.

On 16 March, the Secretary-General reported that the strength of UNEF, which on 20 February had reached 6,973 men, had been reduced to 6,814 as a result of the repatriation of elements of a company of the Peruvian battalion. Elements of six UNEF contingents (Finland, Indonesia, Ireland, Peru, Senegal, Sweden) were deployed in the UNEF zone of disengagement and elements of three more contingents (Austria, Ghana, Panama) were to be deployed in the zone shortly. The activities being carried out by UNEF, with the co-operation of UNTSO military observers, included: surveying and marking the lines defining the zone of disengagement; supervision of the cease-fire; implementation of the disengagement of forces, inspection of the areas of limited armaments and forces; the search for mortal remains; the hand-over of civilians; and mine-clearing operations carried out in co-operation with the parties.

On 1 April 1974, Major-General Bengt Liljestrand, of Sweden, was appointed by the Secretary-General as Chief of Staff of UNTSO, replacing Lieutenant-General Ensio P. H. Siilasvuo, who had been appointed Commander of UNEF on 25 November 1973.

Report of Secretary-General
(1 April 1974)

On 1 April 1974, the Secretary-General submitted a comprehensive report on the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force from its inception on 26 October 1973 to 1 April 1974. During this period, the Secretary-General said, the military situation in UNEF'S area of responsibility had passed from one of direct and active military confrontation to the current state of disengagement of forces and of substantial compliance - in the Egypt-Israel sector - with the cease-fire provisions of the Security Council's resolutions of 22, 23 and 25 October 1973.5/


In this process, the Secretary-General went on to say, UNEF'S tasks had gone through three main phases: first, as an interposing force and observation element between the Egyptian and Israeli forces; later, in controlling the separation and disengagement process; and, currently, in manning the zone of disengagement and inspecting the zones of limited armaments and forces. In carrying out these tasks, UNEF had played an indispensable role as a peace-keeping instrument, the Secretary-General said.

After reviewing the activities of the Force, the Secretary-General said that one of the remaining problems it faced concerned restrictions on the freedom of movement of personnel of certain contingents. He affirmed his consistent position that UNEF had to function as an integrated and efficient military unit, the contingents of which served on an equal basis, and that no differentiation could be made regarding the United Nations status of the various contingents. Another problem concerned the rate of reimbursement to contributing Governments for the costs incurred by them as a result of supplying troops to the United Nations. These matters, he said, were being given his close attention.

In connexion with the financial aspects of the operation, the Secretary-General recalled that, by its decision of 11 December 1973,6/ the General Assembly had appropriated $30 million for the initial period of UNEF'S operation, on the basis of approximate initial cost estimates, and had given him the financial authority to carry on the operation if the Security Council were to extend the mandate of the Force. While there had been a number of unexpected expenses, he said, including the cost of supplies and equipment for some contingents and of substantial portions of logistic support, as well as increased prices for some supplies, there had been some offsetting savings as a result of the gradual rate of build-up of the Force. It was estimated that the Force would cost slightly more than $5 million per month for the six-month period beyond 24 April 1974, owing to new expenses such as those for rotation of Contingents, unanticipated expenditures for heavy logistical equipment and continuing cost increases for supplies. He said he would keep under review the required strength of the Force with a view to making reductions and economies when the situation permitted.

The Secretary-General observed that the establishment of the Force by the Security Council at the height of the crisis in the Middle East on October 1973 had been a milestone in the history of the United Nations. The arrival of UNEF units and the immediate actions taken by them had served to defuse a highly explosive situation, which otherwise could well have had major consequences for world peace.

However, he said, the disengagement of forces was only a first step towards the settlement of the Middle East problem. The situation in the area remained unstable and potentially dangerous. The continued operation of UNEF was essential not only for maintaining quiet in the sector but also to assist, if required, in further efforts for the establishment of a just and durable peace in the whole area. He therefore considered it necessary to recommend that the Security Council extend the mandate of UNEF for another period of six months.

Consideration by Security Council
(8 April 1974)

The Security Council considered the Secretary-General's report on UNEF at a meeting on 8 April 1974 and adopted - by a vote of 13 to 0 - resolution 346(1974), the text of which had been elaborated in the course of consultations among the members of the Council. China and Iraq did not participate in the vote.

By the operative part of the text, the Council: expressed its appreciation to the States which had contributed troops and to those which had made voluntary financial and material contributions to UNEF; expressed its appreciation to the Secretary-General for his efforts in implementing the decisions of the Security Council regarding the establishment and functioning of UNEF; commended the Force for its contribution to efforts to achieve a just and durable peace in the Middle East: decided that the mandate of UNEF should be extended for a further period of six months, that is, until 24 October 1974; noted with satisfaction that the Secretary-General was exerting every effort to solve the problems of UNEF in a satisfactory way, as well as his intention to keep under constant review the strength of the Force with a view to making reductions and economies when the situation allowed; called on Member States, particularly the parties concerned, to extend their full support to the United Nations in implementation of the resolution and requested the Secretary-General to report to the Council on a continuing basis.

(For text of resolution 346(1974), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Before the vote, the representative of China said that if a genuine settlement in the Middle East was to be achieved, Israel must withdraw from the Arab territories, the Palestinian people must regain their national rights, and the super-powers must cease to practise hegemonism and power politics in the Middle East. With regard to UNEF, he said that China had always opposed it in principle, and would not participate in the voting on the draft resolution prolonging its mandate.

According to Kenya's representative, experience had shown that unless the parties to the conflict were separated by a neutral force like the United Nations, the mere calling for a cease-fire would in many cases have no appreciable result. He recalled that by its resolution of 25 October 1973,7/ the Council had called for the return of the opposing forces to positions occupied on 22 October 1973, and he pointed out that the forces that had advanced beyond the 22 October line had now withdrawn even behind the 1967 cease-fire line. Thus, the Security Council's resolution had been implemented and the image of the Council had been improved.

Following the voting, the representatives of Australia, Austria, Costa Rica and Peru, among others, expressed support for the extension of UNEF'S mandate which, they said, was essential for the preservation of peace and calm in the area.

The spokesman for Mauritania said that the cease-fire currently obtaining between Egypt and the Zionist occupation authorities was precarious, and the least incident could lead to a resumption of hostilities. In his view, there would be no definitive solution so long as a durable peace was not established; UNEF must therefore continue on an emergency footing and carry out its activities within the framework of the terms of reference already determined by the Council. He stressed that the Force should be regarded as an integrated military unit and enjoy full freedom of movement, and that all contingents must be treated on an equal footing.

The representative of the United Republic of Cameroon welcomed the fact that the disengagement had taken place without incident and with the full co-operation of the parties directly concerned, and that the Force had at all times had the confidence of the Council and the parties concerned. He also noted with gratification that the financial estimates for the functioning of the Force had been adhered to, without affecting its efficiency, and that its varied geographical composition was one factor of its efficiency that should be borne in mind in the future.

The USSR representative said that the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR, Comrade Leonid Brezhnev, had declared on 29 January 1974 that the agreement between Egypt and Israel concerning troop disengagement was a positive step, but only a partial measure of a purely military nature. Matters could not be allowed to rest there; the Geneva Conference had to press for a radical political settlement, which could be obtained only if Israeli troops were withdrawn from all Arab territories occupied in 1967 and if the lawful rights of the Arab people of Palestine were respected.

He went on to say that the USSR considered that systematic supervision by the Security Council of the activities of UNEF was helping matters substantially. He noted with satisfaction that the Secretary-General was submitting periodic progress reports to the Council, but shared the hope that in future those reports would be more detailed. He also noted that it had been possible not only to refrain from increasing the strength of the Force, but to get by with a strength of less than 7,000 men. Concerning freedom of movement for UNEF'S contingents, he said that Israel should halt all restrictive measures and discrimination practiced against the contingents of any country included in the composition of UNEF, as they were United Nations troops conducting an international United Nations peace-keeping operation entrusted to them by the Council. The Council, on the other hand, must see to it that the principle of equitable geographical distribution should be applied in all the command posts and units of the Force, as well as in the Secretariat department which was conducting UNEF affairs. Similar views were expressed by the representative of the Byelorussian SSR.

The Indonesian representative said that the problems of reimbursement and of freedom of movement of all contingents required solutions; Indonesia hoped that it would be possible for the Secretary-General to start soon the process of reimbursing the countries contributing contingents to UNEF - partially, if necessary, until the availability of funds made full reimbursement possible.

The spokesman for the United States said his Government would continue to extend its full support to the efforts of UNEF, which had played an indispensable role in re-establishing peace in the Middle East. The Force had made possible the implementation of the cease-fire ordered by the Council on October 1973 and the subsequent Egyptian-Israeli Agreement on Disengagement of Forces. The contribution made by UNEF to peace in the Middle East, he said, had outweighed any difficulties caused by differences of opinion regarding questions of financing and operations, and the United States fully supported the Secretary-General's efforts to solve those problems on an equitable and practical basis.

The United Kingdom representative said that while his Government had no desire to see an emergency force of this nature become permanent, it believed that the Force was performing an invaluable service and making an important contribution to the efforts for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. With regard to the problems described by the Secretary-General, he said his Government was confident that the Secretary-General would be able to resolve them and would constantly keep in mind the possibility of reductions and economies in the Force. However, the financial position should never be permitted to lessen the effectiveness of the Force in carrying out its mandate.

The French representative said his Government fully supported the Secretary-General's report and was of the opinion that the Force had been able to fulfil the terms of the mandate entrusted to it. He added that, regarding the question of reimbursement, a formula should be devised and applied that would do away with the current disparities. Any hindrance of the freedom of movement of all contingents was contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and Security Council resolutions.

The representative of Iraq said his country had dissociated itself from the Council's resolutions by which the current role of the United Nations was defined. However, Iraq recognized its responsibilities as a United Nations Member and had fulfilled its financial obligations towards the financing of UNEF. With regard to the question of reimbursement paid to the Governments contributing contingents to UNEF, he said the disparity in the rate of reimbursement was clearly a question of discrimination. As for the limitation on the freedom of movement of certain UNEF contingents, it was an act of discrimination by Israel against certain troop-contributing countries. He warned that, if practices of discrimination were allowed to continue, the future participation of Governments in the formation of United Nations peace-keeping forces would be in jeopardy and the whole principle of equitable geographical distribution and composition would be in danger.

Communications and reports
(19 April-12 October 1974)

The Secretary-General issued progress reports on the United Nations Emergency Force on 19 April and 13 May 1974, in which he stated that the Force continued the manning, patrolling and control of the zone of disengagement and conducted weekly inspections of the areas of limited armaments and forces. The strength of the Force stood at 6,645 men on 13 May. While no significant incidents had been reported, overflights of the zone of disengagement by unidentified aircraft had taken place and there had been occasional minor incursions into that zone by military personnel of the parties. During the period under review, he said, there had been an exchange of civilians between Israel and Egypt, witnessed by UNEF officers and representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Secretary-General also reported that the parties had agreed, in the presence of a UNEF officer, to recommence the operations for the recovery of the bodies of soldiers killed during the hostilities in the Suez Canal area. Further efforts had been made regarding the question of freedom of movement for all UNEF contingents in the operational area, and consultations had continued with the representatives of the troop-contributing countries concerning the possibility of standardizing costs and determining a reimbursement ceiling.

On 20 May, the Secretary-General said he had been informed by the Permanent Representative of Ireland that his Government had decided to withdraw the Irish contingent serving with UNEF, in view of bomb outrages in Ireland and the exceptional strains imposed on the Irish security forces. The Secretary-General said that the Irish contingent would be relieved by the Nepalese battalion. He subsequently reported that in a letter dated 21 May the Government of Ireland had said that when the need to retain its troops in Ireland had passed, it would be ready to return them to the Middle East should the United Nations feel that desirable, as it wished to be regarded as continuing its commitment to UNEF. The President of the Security Council issued a note on 23 May stating that the members of the Council had no objection to the request of the Irish Government and agreed to the course of action set out in the Secretary-General's reports. The Chinese delegation dissociated itself from the matter.

On 18 June 1974, the Secretary-General reported that the military situation in UNEF's area of operations had remained calm. The Irish contingent had been repatriated on 22 May, and certain other elements of UNEF had been deployed to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (see pp. 198-200). By 18 June, the strength of personnel in the UNEF area of operations, including headquarters staff, was 5,079 men. In addition, rear parties remaining in the UNEF area of operations as of the same date numbered 118 men. The Force had continued to patrol and control the zone of disengagement and conduct weekly inspections of the areas of limited armaments and forces. On 20 May and 3 June, a number of civilian detainees and their families had been transferred from Israel to Egypt. In addition, under a family reunification programme, 139 persons had passed from Israel to Egypt on 21 May and 73 from Egypt to Israel. The arrangement had been made through ICRC and had taken place in the zone of disengagement under UNEF supervision.

On 23 July, the Secretary-General reported that the strength of personnel in the UNEF area of operations, including headquarters staff, amounted to 5,527 men. The military situation had remained calm, he said, and the Force had continued to carry out the tasks assigned to it, including search operations for the recovery of bodies of soldiers killed. The transfer of detainees between Egypt and Israel had continued. Also during July, some 1,350 students had crossed from Egypt to their homes in Israeli-held territory. As before, those transfers had been arranged through ICRC and had taken place in the zone of disengagement.

On 30 August, the Secretary-General reported that the military situation in the UNEF area of operations had remained stable. Personnel strength in that area totalled 5,247 men. Students crossing from universities in Egypt to their homes in Israeli-held territory had totalled 3,148 during the period from 10 July to 5 August. Under family reunion programmes, 509 members had crossed to the occupied territories during August, and 268 had crossed in the other direction.

Prior to the expiration of UNEF's six-month mandate, the Secretary-General submitted a comprehensive report on the activities of the Force from 2 April to 12 October. The repot described the composition and deployment of the Force, its accommodations and logistics, its humanitarian activities in co-operation with ICRC and, finally, the financial aspects of its operation. As of 12 October, the report noted, the strength of the Force totalled 4,491 men. The Nepalese contingent, which had relieved the Irish contingent, had subsequently been repatriated and its area of responsibility in the zone of disengagement had been assumed by the Swedish battalion.

The Secretary-General observed that the functions and guidelines of the Force had not changed; it had continued to fulfil its tasks under the Egyptian-Israeli Agreement on Disengagement of Forces, including carrying out inspections in the areas defined in the Agreement, with every effort being made to ensure the independent functioning of the Force in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council. The problem of restrictions on the freedom of movement of personnel of certain contingents still existed, and the Secretary-General said he had continued to take the position that UNEF had to function as an integrated and efficient military unit, with its contingents serving on an equal basis under the Force Commander.

The Secretary-General went on to say that the Force Commander had continued to lend his assistance and good offices in cases where one of the parties raised questions concerning the observance of the agreed limitations on armaments and forces. While no significant incidents had been observed, there had been several cases of restrictions of UNEF's freedom of movement which had been the subject of official protests.


During the period under review, 2,363 persons had passed from Israel to Egypt and 7,097 from Egypt to Israel under the family reunification and student exchange programmes. The arrangements had been made through ICRC and had taken place in the zone of disengagement under UNEF supervision. Sixty-five civilians and civilian detainees had also been transferred to Egypt from Israel in the same zone. Search operations for the recovery of bodies of soldiers killed during the hostilities in the Suez Canal area had terminated on 1 July. Since then, 13 bodies had been turned over to the parties.

With regard to the financial aspects, the Secretary-General said that in the course of consultations on the question of reimbursement, the troop-contributing countries had put forward an agreed proposal for the reimbursement of all contributing Governments on an equal basis at the rate of $500 per man per month, with a proposed supplementary payment of $150 per man per month for a strictly limited number of specialist personnel. On such a basis, it would be necessary to seek additional authority from the General Assembly to cover the requirements of the period ending on 24 October 1974 in the amount of $23.6 million.

Although the situation in the Egypt-Israel sector, with the exception of a few minor incidents, had remained quiet - largely because of the effective operation of UNEF - the Secretary-General observed that the over-all situation in the Middle East would remain fundamentally unstable as long as the underlying problems were unresolved. He considered that the continued operation of UNEF was essential not only to maintain the current quiet but also to assist, if required, in further efforts for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. He recommended once again that the Security Council extend the mandate of UNEF for another period of six months. He added that in the current circumstances he did not anticipate that any increase in UNEF's strength would be necessary; every effort would he made to achieve further reductions if that could be done without affecting the effectiveness of the Force.

Consideration by Security Council
(23 October 1974)

When the Security Council met on 23 October 1974 to consider the Secretary-General's report on the United Nations Emergency Force, it had before it a draft resolution drawn up after consultations among Council members. Before voting on the text, it heard a statement by the Secretary-General, who observed that the period under review had been one of tranquillity in the area and that his report therefore dealt more with organization and administration than with operational matters. He informed the Council that the proposal of the troop-contributing countries for an equal reimbursement formula had been submitted informally to other Member States, some of which had expressed reservations. He assured the Council that he would continue to exercise the strictest economy consonant with efficient operation. He also informed the Council that the Government of Panama had decided to withdraw its contingent from UNEF at the end of the year.

The draft resolution before the Council was adopted by 13 votes to 0, as resolution 362(1974). China and Iraq did not participate in the vote.

By the resolution, the Council, after among other things recalling previous decisions on the question and noting from the Secretary-General's report that in the current circumstances the operation of the Force was still required:


(1) decided that the mandate of the Force should be extended for an additional period of six months - that is, until 24 April 1975 - to assist in further efforts for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

(2) commended UNEF and those Governments supplying contingents to it for their contribution towards the achievement of peace in the Middle East;

(3) expressed its confidence that the Force would be maintained with maximum efficiency and economy; and

(4) reaffirmed that UNEF had to be able to function as an integral and efficient military unit in the whole Egypt-Israel sector of operations without differentiation regarding the United Nations status of the various contingents, and requested the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to that end.

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

The representative of China reiterated his Government's position that the dispatching of UNEF to the Middle East would be of no help whatsoever to a solution of the question and could only pave the way for international interference, with the super-powers as "behind-the-scenes boss." A genuine settlement of the problem could be achieved, he said, only by relying on the Arab and Palestinian peoples to strengthen their unity, firmly oppose Israeli aggression and heighten their vigilance to eliminate all meddling of the super-powers. For these reasons, he said, China did not participate in the voting and it went without saying that China would not contribute to the expenditures for the Force.

The representative of Iraq said his country had repeatedly dissociated itself from Council resolutions defining the current role of the United Nations in the Middle East, including those resolutions establishing UNEF. United Nations forces deployed in different parts of the world had tended to continue in existence indefinitely, thereby freezing an iniquitous status quo, he said; to renew UNEF's mandate without determined efforts by the Council to ensure Israel's immediate withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories would make the UNEF presence appear as an act of complicity, leading to greater dangers in the future.

Other Council members supported the extension of UNEF's mandate and felt that the resolution was in line with efforts towards preventing war in the Middle East. Concern was expressed about the problem of freedom of action of the contingents of the Force and about its finances, particularly the deficit beyond the ceiling figure authorized by the Council.

The spokesman for France, for example, said that strict control was needed if the Council was to avoid getting into a long-term operation with-out any assurance of sound financing. The Byelorussian SSR believed that the Council, by exercising full control over peace-keeping operations, was the organ which had to determine the total volume of expenditures for their maintenance.

The representative of Australia said that as United Nations Members had agreed to assume collective responsibility for the costs of UNEF, they should have an opportunity to express their views on UNEF's financial situation in the appropriate Committees. The ultimate authority over the Force's operations - including its over-all cost - had to reside with the Security Council.

The representative of the United States said that efficient operation of the Force must be combined with maximum attention to economy. He urged the Secretary-General to continue his policy of keeping UNEF costs as low as possible, consistent with efficient operations and fair compensation to troop-contributing Governments.

The representative of the USSR said that the UNEF presence on the area was only part of a broad complex of international efforts, the central factor of which should be the speedy resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East. The disengagement of troops was only the first step, he said, and should not be an excuse for perpetuating the existing situation. Peace could be achieved only on the basis of the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967 and the guaranteeing of the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine. With regard to the question of financing, the USSR did not consider justified the increase of total expenditure beyond the ceiling determined by the Security Council and approved by the General Assembly.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that the continued operation of UNEF was essential to provide the necessary conditions for negotiations leading to a just and lasting settlement. He reiterated his Government's position that a clear distinction should be drawn between the present Emergency Force and any, more permanent, peace-keeping force that might later be set up to guarantee a settlement. The United Kingdom stood ready to play a part in such a force.

In a further progress report on UNEF dated 18 January 1975, the Secretary-General said that the Panamanian contingent had been withdrawn by 25 November 1974 and had not been replaced. The current total troop strength stood at 4,044 men, with contingents from Canada, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Poland, Senegal and Sweden.

He reported that arrangements had been made by ICRC and UNEF for the transfer of 4,188 persons from Israeli-occupied territory to Egypt, and 1,309 persons from Egypt to Israeli-occupied territory under the family reunification and student exchange programmes.

Search operations for the recovery of bodies of soldiers had terminated on 1 July 1974.

The Secretary-General also reported that, on 24 December 1974, three members of the Canadian contingent had been killed in a motor-car accident.
Documentary references

Communications and reports
(1-18 January 1974)

S/11057/Add.192, 195, 198, 199, 201, 204, 207, 208, 212, 215, 218, 219, 222, 225, 228, 231, 232, 234, 235, 238, 241, 243, 245. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1 -19 January 1974.

S/11181 (A/9479). Letter of 4 January 1974 from Israel.

S/11184. Letter of 7 January 1974 from Egypt.


S/11188 (A/9482), S/11189 (A/9483). Letters of 10 and 11 January 1974 from Israel.

A/11191. Letter of 11 January 1974 from Egypt.

S/11194 (A/9484). Letter of 15 January 1974 from Israel.

S/11196, S/11197. Letters of 14 and 16 January 1974 from Egypt.


Egyptian-Israeli Agreement on
Disengagement of Forces of 18 January 1974

S/11056/Add.7 and Add.7/Corr.1, Add.8-11, Add.12 and Add.12/Corr.1, Add.13, Add.14. Further progress reports of Secretary-General on UNEF, dated 11, 24 and 28 January, 4, 12 and 21 February and 4 and 16 March 1974.

S/11198 and Add.1. Letters of 18 and 23 January from Secretary-General.

S/11214. Note of 11 February 1974 by President of Security Council.


Further reports
(January and February 1974)

S/11057/Add.247, 249, 251, 253, 257, 258, 263, 266, 269, 272, 275, 278. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 20-26 and 28-31 January 1974.

S/11057/Add.280, 283, 286, 296, 312. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1-3, 7 and 15 February 1974.


Report of Secretary-General (1 April 1974);
consideration by Security Council (8 April 1974)

Security Council, meeting 1765.

S/11248. Report of 1 April 1974 of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 26 October 1973 to 1 April 1974).

S/11253. Draft resolution.

Resolution 346(1974), as proposed following consultations among Council members, S/11253, adopted by Council on 8 April 1974, meeting 1765, by 13 votes to 0 (China and Iraq did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolution 340(1973) of 25 October and 341(1973) of 27 October 1973 and the agreement reached by members of the Security Council on 2 November 1973,

Having reviewed the functioning of the United Nations Emergency Force set up under these resolutions as reported by the Secretary-General,

Noting from the report of the Secretary-General of 1 April 1974 (S/11248) that in the present circumstances the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force is still required,

1. Expresses its appreciation to the States which have contributed troops to the United Nations Emergency Force and to those which have made voluntary financial and material contributions for the support of the Force;

2. Expresses its appreciation to the Secretary-General for his efforts in implementing the decisions of the Security Council regarding the establishment and functioning of the United Nations Emergency Force;

3. Commends the United Nations Emergency Force for its contribution to efforts to achieve a just and durable peace in the Middle East;

4. Notes the Secretary-General's view that the disengagement of Egyptian and Israeli forces is only a first step towards the settlement of the Middle East problem and that the continued operation of the United Nations Emergency Force is essential not only for the maintenance of the present quiet in the Egypt-Israel sector but also to assist, if required, in further efforts for the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Middle East and accordingly decides that, in accordance with the recommendation in paragraph 68 of the Secretary-General's report of 1 April 1974, the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force, approved by the Security Council in its resolution 341(1973), shall be extended for a further period of six months, that is, until 24 October 1974;

5. Notes with satisfaction that the Secretary-General is exerting every effort to solve in a satisfactory way the problems of the United Nations Emergency Force, including the urgent ones referred to in paragraph 71 of his report of 1 April 1974;

6. Further notes with satisfaction the Secretary-General's intention to keep under constant review the required strength of the Force with a view to making reductions and economies when the situation allows;

7. Calls upon all Member States, particularly the parties concerned, to extend their full support to the United Nations in the implementation of the present resolution;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on a continuing basis as requested in resolution 340(1973).


Communications and reports
(19 April-12 October 1974)

S/11248/Add.1-7. Further progress reports of Secretary-General on UNEF, dated 19 April, 13, 20 and 21 May, 18 June, 23 July and 30 August 1974.

S/11296. Note of 23 May 1974 by President of Security Council.

S/11536. Report of 12 October 1974 of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 2 April to 12 October 1974).





Consideration by Security Council
(23 October 1974)

Security Council, meeting 1799.

S/11536. Report of 12 October 1974 of Secretary-General on UNEF (for period 2 April to 12 October 1974).

S/11542. Draft resolution.

Resolution 362(1974), as proposed following consultations among Council members, S/11542, adopted by Council on 23 October 1974, meeting 1799, by 13 votes to 0 (China and Iraq did not participate in voting).

The Security Council

Recalling its resolutions 338(1973) of 22 October, 340(1973) of 25 October, 341(1973) of 27 October 1973 and 346(1974) of 8 April 1974,

Having examined the report of the Secretary-General on the activities of the United Nations Emergency Force (S/11536),

Noting the opinion of the Secretary-General that "although quiet now prevails in the Egypt-Israel sector, the over-all situation in the Middle East will remain fundamentally unstable as long as the underlying problems are unresolved,"

Noting also from the report of the Secretary-General that in the present circumstances the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force is still required,

1. Decides that the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force should be extended for an additional period of six months, that is, until 24 April 1975, in order to assist in further efforts for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Commends the United Nations Emergency Force and those Governments supplying contingents to it for their contribution towards the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

3. Expresses its confidence that the Force will be maintained with maximum efficiency and economy;

4. Reaffirms that the United Nations Emergency Force must be able to function as an integral and efficient military unit in the whole Egypt-Israel sector of operations without differentiation regarding the United Nations status of the various contingents, as stated in paragraph 26 of the report of the Secretary-General (S/11536) and requests the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to that end.

S/11536/Add.1. Progress report of Secretary-General on UNEF, dated 18 January 1975.







Israel-Syria sector

Reports and communications
(January-May 1974)

From January 1974 until the establishment of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) on 31 May 1974, a continuous pattern of incidents marked the situation in the Israel-Syria sector. According to reports submitted daily by the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO), the incidents involved artillery and mortar fire, the use of automatic weapons, and overflights by Israeli and Syrian aircraft. Frequent complaints of cease-fire violations were submitted by the two patties. Incidents of firing on or close to United Nations personnel and installations were reported, resulting, on a few occasions, in injuries to personnel and damage to United Nations property.

The Chief of Staff reported that cease-fires proposed from time to time by United Nations observers occasionally resulted in a temporary cessation of firing.

From early March until the end of May, the situation in the sector became increasingly tense, and firing - involving the use of artillery, tanks and rockets - intensified. On 20 March, the United Nations Secretary-General expressed his deep concern at the deterioration of the situation in the sector and appealed to the parties to exercise the utmost restraint and strictly observe the cease-fire. On 28 March, he reiterated his concern at the increasing level of firing and at the resulting casualties and damage.

Throughout this period, in numerous letters addressed to the Secretary-General, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic exchanged charges of violations of the cease-fire. Israel stated repeatedly that the violations proved the existence of a deliberate policy of the Syrian Government with the object of creating an atmosphere of military confrontation, attacking Israeli forces and attempting to effect changes in the cease-fire line in favour of Syria. Moreover, Israel said, the heads of the Syrian Government openly boasted of their acts of aggression, proclaiming it to be their policy to wage a war of attrition against Israel.

For its part, the Syrian Arab Republic asserted that since Israel's acceptance of the Security Council's resolutions of 22 and 23 October 1973,8/ it had never stopped its continued violations of them. It had continued to occupy positions acquired after the cease-fire and had constantly tried to improve its positions or to acquire and occupy new positions advantageous to its front lines. Israel's acts were the "absolute proof" of its expansionist desire to annex the Golan Heights, which was occupied Syrian territory.

Establishment of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force

Reports of Secretary-General
(29 and 30 May 1974)

On 29 May 1974, the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that the signing of the Agreement on Disengagement of Forces between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, which had been announced that day, would take place on 31 May in the Egyptian-Israeli Military Working Group of the Peace Conference on the Middle East in Geneva, Switzerland. Lieutenant-General Ensio P. H. Siilasvuo, Commander of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), would be available for the signing, the Secretary-General said, and he had also designated his personal representative to the Geneva Conference, Roberto Guyer, to represent him at the signing.

On 30 May, the Secretary-General transmitted to the Security Council the text of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces, together with the Protocol to that Agreement concerning the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force. He pointed out that those documents called for the creation of a United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF); if the Security Council decided to establish the Force, he said, he would take the necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol. It was his intention to draw the Force, in the first instance, from United Nations military personnel in the area.

Under the terms of the Agreement, Israel and Syria were scrupulously to observe the cease-fire on land, sea and in the air and refrain from all military actions against each other from the time of the signing of the document, in implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 October 1973.9/ It further provided that the two military forces would be separated in accordance with certain principles (see page 201). The precise delineation of a detailed map and a plan for the implementation of the disengagement of forces was to be worked out by the military representatives of Israel and Syria in the Egyptian-Israeli Military Working Group of the Geneva Peace Conference. They were to begin their work 24 hours after the signing of the Agreement and complete it within five days. Disengagement was to begin within 24 hours thereafter, and be completed not later than 20 days after it had begun.

The provisions of the Agreement concerning the cease-fire, the separation of forces and the absence of military forces in the specified area were to be inspected by UNDOF personnel. All wounded prisoners of war were to be repatriated within 2 hours after its signature, and all other prisoners upon completion of the work of the Military Working Group. The bodies of all dead soldiers held by either side would be returned for burial within 10 days.

It was then stated that the Agreement was not a peace agreement. It was a step towards a just and durable peace on the basis of Security Council resolution 338(1973) of 22 October 1973.

According to the Protocol, Israel and Syria agreed that the function of the Force would be to maintain the cease-fire, to see that it was scrupulously observed, and to supervise the Agreement and Protocol thereto with regard to the areas of separation and limitation. In carrying out its mission, the Force was to comply with generally applicable Syrian laws and regulations and not hamper the functioning of local civil administrations. It was to enjoy the freedom of movement and communication necessary for its mission, be mobile and be provided with personal weapons of a defensive character to be used only in self-defence. The strength of UNDOF was set at 1,250, to be selected by the Secretary-General, in consultation with the parties, from Members of the United Nations which were not permanent members of the Security Council.

By the terms of the Protocol, UNDOF was to be under the command of the United Nations, vested in the Secretary-General, under the authority of the Security Council. It was to carry out inspections and report to the parties not less often than once every 15 days and when requested by either party, and mark on the ground the lines shown on the map attached to the Agreement.

Finally, the Protocol provided that Israel and Syria were to support a Security Council resolution providing for the Force contemplated by the Agreement. The initial authorization was to be for six months, subject to renewal by the Security Council.

Consideration by Security Council
(30 and 31 May 1974)

On 30 May 1974, the representative of the United States requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider the situation in the Middle East, in particular the disengagement of Israeli and Syrian forces.

The Council held two meetings on 30 and 31 May. At its meeting on 30 May, the Secretary-General drew attention to his report to which were annexed the texts of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces and the Protocol concerning the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, and said that the announcement of the Agreement on Disengagement - the result of many days of hard negotiation - was most welcome news which he hoped would constitute another important step towards a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East. If the Council so decided, he said he would take the necessary steps to set up the Force on the basis of the same general principles which had governed the establishment of the United Nations Emergency Force. It would be also his intention that UNDOF would be drawn, in the first instance at any rate, from United Nations military personnel already in the area.

When the Council met on 31 May, the representatives of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

The Security Council had before it the text of a draft resolution sponsored by the USSR and the United States and revised by them. By this text, the Council would, among other things, welcome the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces negotiated in implementation of Security Council resolution 338(1973) of 22 October 1973. It would take note of the Secretary-General's report and annexes thereto and his statement and decide to set up immediately under its authority a United Nations Disengagement Observer Force. The Secretary-General would be requested to take the necessary steps to this effect in accordance with his report and the annexes thereto. The Force was to be established for an initial period of six months, subject to renewal by the Council, and the Secretary-General would be asked to keep the Council fully informed of further developments.

The United States representative said that the Agreement, together with the agreement reached earlier on disengagement of Egyptian and Israeli forces, would open the way for progress in Geneva towards the achievement of an enduring settlement in the Middle East. The United States, he said, through the efforts of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had been privileged to help bring about the agreement and it also welcomed the co-operation of the USSR as reflected in conversations held in recent weeks by the Secretary of State and the USSR Foreign Minister. He urged the Council to authorize the creation of UNDOF by approving the draft resolution.

The representative of the USSR said that, in spite of its positive significance, the troop disengagement agreement was just the first step towards the fulfilment of the major task, namely, the total liberation from Israeli occupation of all Arab territories occupied in 1967 and the ensuring of the national rights of the Arab people of Palestine. Accordingly, he said, the Geneva conference had the task of finding a solution which would be in the interest of peace, security and the protection of all the States and people in the area, including the Arab people of Palestine. The USSR would continue to support the Syrian Arab Republic and other friendly Arab States in their struggle for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. He hoped the Council would support the draft resolution so that it could take the first step in implementing the major task he had mentioned.

China's representative reiterated his Government's position on the dispatching of troops in the name of the United Nations in whatever form. In seeking a fundamental solution of the Middle East question, he said, it was imperative to stop the hegemonism and power politics practiced by the two super-powers in the region, and demand Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories and restore to the Palestinian people their national rights.

The Iraqi representative reiterated that his Government dissociated itself from any resolution defining the role of the United Nations Forces.

The Security Council then adopted the two power draft resolution by 13 votes to 0, as resolution 350(1971). China and Iraq did not participate in the vote.

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

Following the vote, many Council members, among them Australia, Austria, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Kenya and Peru, welcomed the Agreement as marking the first step towards peace in the area. They commended the two Governments for their spirit of accommodation and praised the efforts of the Secretary of State of the United States. The representatives of the United Kingdom and France said their Governments were ready to play any part, including participation in any future peace-keeping force, which might be needed to guarantee a final peace agreement.

The representative of Mauritania cautioned against considering the Agreement as a peace agreement and said it was simply a first step towards a just and lasting peace in the area. Furthermore, he said, the presence of the Force should be in no way prejudicial to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.

The spokesman for the Syrian Arab Republic said his Government considered the Agreement as a first step along the road to a just and stable peace in the area, on the basis of Security Council resolution 338(1973) of 22 October 1973, which was based on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories occupied in June 1967 and on the safeguarding of the national rights of the Arab Palestine people.

The representative of Israel said his Government was in agreement with the resolution just adopted and believed that the Agreement signed in Geneva would provide an opportunity for bringing about a positive change of great value in the relations between Israel and Syria.

The Secretary-General then presented his proposals for interim arrangements to give effect to the resolution just adopted. He suggested that, initially, UNDOF should comprise the Austrian and Peruvian contingents from UNEF, supported by logistical elements from Canada and Poland and, in addition, the United Nations military observers who were already deployed in the area. He proposed to appoint Brigadier-General Gonzalo Bricenio Zevallos of Peru as Interim Commander of UNDOF. The parties concerned had accepted those arrangements, he added.

The Secretary-General also pointed out that the new operation would inevitably involve additional expenditure but said he would make every effort to keep it to a minimum, having in mind that the primary objective was the effectiveness of the Force.

The Council agreed to the proposals made by the Secretary-General.


Reports and communications
(1 June-27 November 1974)

In a report dated 1 June 1974, issued one day following the signing at Geneva of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces, the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine reported that all firing had ceased in the Israel-Syria sector as of 1109 hours (GMT) on 31 May.

On 5 June, the Secretary-General issued his first progress report on the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 31 May (350 (1974)). He said that in response to his request Austria and Peru had agreed to the transfer to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force of their contingents serving with the United Nations Emergency Force. Canada and Poland had also agreed to the transfer of elements of their contingents from UNEF to UNDOF to provide logistic services.

With regard to the implementation of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces, he said that the Egyptian-Israeli Military Working Group of the Geneva Peace Conference had begun its work immediately after the signing of that Agreement. Following discussions in Geneva with Roberto Guyel, his personal representative to the Conference, and Lieutenant-General Siilasvuo, Commander of UNEF, the Secretary-General had given instructions to move advance elements of UNDOF to the operational area on 3 June with a view to making the Force operational there by 5 June. On 3 June, he had appointed Brigadier-General Briceno as Interim Commander of UNDOF, who had established temporary offices in Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic, on the same day. The strength of the contingents being transferred to UNDOF from UNEF was approximately as follows: Austrian contingent, 500; Peruvian contingent, 350; and Canadian and Polish logistic elements, 250. In addition, 90 military observers of UNTSO deployed in the area were to be transferred to UNDOF.

On 6 June, the Secretary-General reported that from 31 May to 5 June 1974, the Egyptian-Israeli Military Working Group of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East, under the aegis of the United Nations, had held six meetings. Military representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic had joined the Group and representatives of the Co-Chairmen of the Conference had also participated in the meetings. At the meeting held on 31 May, the military representatives of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic had signed the Agreement on Disengagement of Forces and a map attached thereto. In the subsequent meetings, full agreement had been reached on a map showing different phases of disengagement, a disengagement plan (areas and a time-table) and an agreed statement which had been signed also by Lieutenant-General Siilasvuo, who had presided over the meetings and had read the statement at the final meeting on 5 June 1974. The map of the plan of disengagement was reproduced and circulated by the Secretary-General on 9 July.

The plan of separation of forces involved the redeployment of Israeli forces from the area east of the 1967 cease-fire line. It also provided for Israeli redeployment from Quneitra and Rafid and the demilitarization of an area west of Quneitra still held by Israel. Under the plan, UNDOF would occupy a buffer zone between the parties and, by 26 June, the separation of forces was to be completed. After the completion of each phase of the redeployment of forces set out in the plan, UNDOF would carry out an inspection and report its findings to the parties; after verifying, on 26 June, that the agreed limitation of forces was being observed, it would carry out regular bi-weekly inspections of the 10-kilometre restricted-forces area.

Agreement was also reached in the Military Working Group that both sides would repatriate all prisoners of war by 6 June; that they would co-operate with the International Committee of the Red Cross in carrying out its mandate, including the exchange of bodies, also to be completed by June; and that they would make available all information and maps of minefields in their respective areas and the areas to be handed over by them.

The Secretary-General continued to issue progress reports on UNDOF which indicated that since the signing of the Disengagement Agreement the military situation between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic had remained very calm, and that the Force had continued to carry out the tasks entrusted to it. By 18 June, the transfer of the Austrian and Peruvian contingents from UNEF to UNDOF had been practically completed, and the Force totalled 1,218 men.

On 27 June, he reported that the Force had on 25 June completed the process of disengagement of forces between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic in accordance with the time-table agreed between the parties in Geneva, and that on the evening of 25 June Syrian administration had been established in the specified areas, which included the towns of Quneitra and Rafid and part of Mount Hermon. Between 25 and 27 June, 500 Syrian soldiers equipped with mine-clearing tanks had carried out mine-clearing operations under the close supervision of UNDOF observers. Delineation and marking of agreed lines were proceeding satisfactorily and both sides had extended their full co-operation. However, the process had been marred by a serious accident on 25 June which caused the death of four Austrian soldiers when their vehicle ran over a mine on a road close to Mount Hermon. In that connexion, the report added, intensive measures had been taken by UNDOF to protect its soldiers from mine explosions.

On 30 July, the Secretary-General reported that the strength of the Force was 1,191 men. The presence of large and uncleared minefields within the area of separation presented a continuing hazard to the troops, he said, and mine-clearing operations conducted by Syrian Army units were far from complete.

In a report on 25 October, the Secretary-General said that the Force had continued to carry out the tasks entrusted to it in supervising the Agreement on Disengagement. It had made regular bi-weekly, as well as special, inspections of the areas of limited armaments and forces, and had received the full co-operation of both parties. It has also investigated and reported on complaints received and had notified the parties of violations it had itself observed. The Secretary-General said that the situation within the area of separation and in its immediate vicinity remained calm, although each side continued to maintain substantial military forces in relatively close proximity to one another.

On 29 July, the report stated, an Austrian soldier had been seriously injured as a result of a mine accident on Mount Hermon and had been evacuated with the assistance of both parties. A helicopter which had been made available by the Syrian authorities to assist in his evacuation had crashed on Mount Hermon while attempting to land, without causing injuries.

The Secretary-General also reported that on 9 August a United Nations aircraft, flying from Ismailia (Egypt) to Damascus, had crashed as a result of anti-aircraft fire. All nine Canadians aboard had been killed. Efforts were being made in accordance with recommendations by a board of inquiry to work out procedures for avoiding a recurrence of such an incident.

In that connexion, the Syrian Arab Republic, in a letter to the Secretary-General on 9 August, drew attention to a statement of the Syrian Civil Aviation Administration to the effect that, during the course of an Israeli Air Force raid on the southern sector of Lebanon, a formation of fighter-planes had penetrated Syrian air space and, coincidentally, contact had been lost with a United Nations aeroplane in the same area. It was later discovered that it had crashed on Syrian territory. Syrian rescue teams had rushed to the site and an investigation had begun at once to find out the causes of the crash, which had taken the lives of all aboard.

In a letter on 12 August, Israel said that the Syrian letter was a transparent and futile attempt to involve Israel in the tragic disaster, for which Syria alone was responsible. There had been no Israeli aerial activity in the area when the United Nations plane was shot down by Syrian armed forces.

During the period from the end of July to the end of November 1974, the Secretary-General received from Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic a number of communications containing charges and countercharges of violations of the Agreement on Disengagement.

Among the charges made by the Syrian Arab Republic were that Israeli aircraft had made flights over the line of separation, that Israeli military personnel had fired on farmers working in the buffer-zone and that Syrian civilians had been abducted and detained. Other charges were that Israel had established barriers, minefields, tank ditches and wire fences, and continued to occupy several posts east of the 1967 cease-fire line in contravention of the plan of separation of forces. Israel was also charged with maintaining an excessive number of tanks in one of the zones of limited armaments and forces.

Israel, for its part, rejected these allegations and said that Syria was attempting to divert attention - by means of distortions and falsifications - from its own systematic and continuing violations of the Agreement. Israel also said, among other things, that it did not maintain in the areas of limitation any tanks or other armaments in excess of those provided for in the Agreement, the provisions of which it was scrupulously observing.

Report of Secretary-General
(27 November 1974)

On 27 November 1974, the Secretary-General submitted a comprehensive report on the operations of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force from its inception on 3 June 1974 until 26 November. The Secretary-General said he considered that the continued operation of the Force was essential not only to maintain the current quiet in the area but also to assist any further efforts towards the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Middle East. In the light of discussions he had held with the Governments concerned, he recommended that the Security Council extend UNDOF's mandate for a further period of six months.

He observed that, with the conclusion of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces and the establishment of UNDOF, fighting between Israeli and Syrian forces had come to an end on 31 May and since that time the situation on the Golan Heights had been quiet. Unlike previous peace-keeping forces, he said, UNDOF had been set up for the purpose of supervising a specific Agreement, in accordance with the stipulations agreed to by the parties. It was specifically stated in the Disengagement Agreement that it was not a peace agreement, but a step towards a just and durable peace on the basis of Security Council resolution 338(1973) of 22 October 1973. Despite the current quiet, he stressed, the situation would remain fundamentally unstable and potentially explosive so long as progress towards a settlement of the underlying problems was not achieved.

The Secretary-General reported that, as at 26 November, the strength of UNDOF, including its headquarters staff, was 1,224, with contingents from Austria, Canada, Peru and Poland. Eighty-eight military observers were detailed from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine. He said he had been informed by the Peruvian Government of its intention to withdraw its contingent from UNDOF during the first half of 1975.

In the six months since its establishment, he went on to say, UNDOF - with the assistance of both parties - had overcome a number of difficulties in order to be in a position to carry out its tasks effectively. One of the problems still outstanding related to restrictions on the freedom of movement of some UNDOF personnel. As in the case of the United Nations Emergency Force, he said, he had taken the position that UNDOF had to function as an integrated and efficient military unit with the freedom of movement specified in the protocol to the Disengagement Agreement, that its contingents had to serve on an equal basis under the command of the Interim Commander of the Force and that no differentiation was to be made regarding the United Nations status of various contingents. As in the case of UNEF, he said, the matter was being actively pursued.

As to the financial aspects of the Force, the Secretary-General recalled that in his report on UNEF of 12 October he had said that the estimated costs of UNEF for a further six-month period - to 24 April 1975 - would be of the order of $40 million, and that in his report of 30 October to the General Assembly he had added that, of that estimated $40 million, the cost attributable to UNDOF would be about $7.6 million.

Consideration by Security Council
(29 November 1974)

The Security Council met on 29 November 1974 to consider the Secretary-General's report on UNDOF and invited the representatives of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

The Council had before it a draft resolution, sponsored by Austria, Indonesia, Kenya, Mauritania, Peru and the United Republic of Cameroon, by the preambular part of which the Council would, among other things, express concern over the prevailing state of tension in the area and reaffirm that the two Agreements on Disengagement of Forces [concerning the Egyptian-Israeli sector and the Israeli-Syrian sector] were only a step towards the implementation of Security Council resolution 338(1973) of 22 October 1973.

By the operative part of the text, the Council would decide: (a) to call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Council resolution 338(1973); (b) to renew the mandate of UNDOF for another period of six months; and (c) that the Secretary-General would submit at the end of that period a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement Council resolution 338(1973).

The Secretary-General informed the Council that his recent visit to the Middle East had left no doubt in his mind that all the Governments concerned were anxious to reach a settlement through negotiations. However, its progress was not achieved in the near future, tension would rise again and the dangers of a new military confrontation would steadily increase.

He went on to say that, certainly, the extension of UNEF's mandate in October and, if the Council so decided, the extension of the mandate of UNDOF for a further six months were important factors in reducing tension in the area. On the other hand, peace-keeping operations were not an end in themselves; they helped to create the necessary conditions in which progress could be made towards a political settlement. He considered it vital that the next six months be used for redoubled efforts to reach political solutions of the formidable problems in the Middle East. He believed that the draft resolution before the Council faithfully reflected the essentials of the situation, and hoped it would provide a useful basis for renewed and constructive efforts towards a just and lasting peace.

The representative of Peru said that, in the opinion of the sponsors, the presence of UNDOF had helped prevent a further outbreak of hostilities, but renewal of its mandate should not be considered as a substitute for the initiation of peace negotiations in accordance with resolution 338(1973).

The Security Council then adopted the draft resolution by 13 votes to 0 as resolution 363(1974). China and Iraq did not participate in the vote.

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

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said his Government had considered that the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces was not a peace agreement but that it represented a first step towards a just and lasting peace on the basis of resolution 338(1973). However, six months had elapsed and no progress had been made. He said that the purpose of his Government's acceptance of the resolution just adopted by the Council was to provide a fresh opportunity for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, on the condition that a serious, positive and constructive effort was made to implement the resolutions of the United Nations.

The representative of Israel said that UNDOF was an integral part of the Agreement on Disengagement signed by Israel and Syria on 31 May 1974. The Agreement and the Force were indivisible and the fact that both Israel and Syria favoured a resolution renewing the mandate of the Force was an indication that the Agreement had been helpful to both parties and would undoubtedly continue to be so in the future.

The USSR representative recalled that, following the disengagement of troops, further steps were to follow immediately with a view to a comprehensive and just settlement within the framework of the Geneva Peace Conference. Unfortunately, that did not take place because of Israel's aggressive policy towards the Arab countries. The disengagement of troops should in no way serve as a pretext for freezing the situation or perpetuating Israel's occupation of Arab lands. He felt that the only reliable road to lasting peace in the area was the complete liberation of all Arab lands, the exercise of the lawful right of the Palestinian people to establish their own State and the guarantee of the security and independence of all countries in the area of conflict. All this could and must be achieved within the framework of the Geneva Peace Conference, and the USSR, he said, would continue to call for the earliest resumption of its work.

The spokesman for Mauritania said his Government had previously stated that the Disengagement Agreement might open up new prospects for a lasting solution of the problem. However, he said, those hopes were far from being fulfilled: no progress towards peace in the field had been made; no withdrawal of occupying troops had taken place, no peace conference had begun. In his view, the additional period of time afforded by extension of UNDOF's mandate might be a last chance for peace.

According to the United Republic of Cameroon, the international community would not derive any real benefit from the presence of UNEF and UNDOF unless the parties showed a firm determination to negotiate in a businesslike way to uproot the deeper causes of the dispute. Any action designed to freeze the political situation and thus, with the help of the emergency forces, to maintain the status quo could only increase the frustration of the States which were victims of aggression and lead to further military conflict.

The Chinese representative reiterated his Government's position with regard to the dispatch of United Nations forces, which was why it had not taken part in the vote on the resolution. Iraq said it had always dissociated itself from resolutions relating to UNEF and UNDOF.

The representative of the United Kingdom said it was crucial that the time that had been won should not be wasted and that the next six months should be used to continue negotiations.

The French representative expressed the hope that Israel would at last adopt a more constructive attitude, by the very fact of its continued occupation of extensive Arab territory, it had a particular responsibility to manifest more clearly the will to negotiate and to make the necessary gestures that would help to reduce tension.

The President of the Council, speaking as representative of the United States, said that by extending UNDOF's mandate, the Council had demonstrated its awareness of the critical role of that Force in helping to preserve the disengagement between Syrian and Israeli forces. His country, he said, would continue to search for a just and lasting peace in the area through negotiations under the Security Council's resolutions of 22 November 1967 10/ and 22 October 1973 11/.

In a note on 10 January 1975, the President of the Security Council said that the Secretary-General had informed him that, at the request of the Peruvian Government, he had agreed to release Brigadier-General Briceno from his assignment as Interim Force Commander as at 15 December 1974 and had asked the Chief of Staff of UNDOF, Colonel Hannes Philipp of Austria, to act as Officer-in-Charge. The President said that after consulting the members of the Council he had informed the Secretary-General that the Council had taken note of Peru's intention to withdraw its contingent from UNDOF and would await a communication from the Secretary-General as to which Latin American country would be able to replace the Peruvian contingent. The Council had no objection to having Colonel Philipp carry out General Briceno's functions on a temporary basis and would await the Secretary-General's proposal concerning the appointment of a Commander of UNDOF. The Chinese delegation dissociated itself from both matters.

Documentary references
Reports and communications
(January-May 1974)

S/11057/Add.190, 193, 196, 202, 205, 210, 213, 221, 224, 226, 230, 237, 240, 254, 255, 259, 261, 264, 267, 271, 273, 277. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16,17, 23-26 and 28-31 January 1974.

S/11057/Add.281, 284, 287, 288, 291, 292, 294, 298, 300, 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 313, 315, 317, 319, 321, 323, 328, 330, 332, 334. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 2-7, 9, 11-16, 18-21 and 25-28 February 1974.

S/11057/Add.338, 341, 343, 345, 348, 350, 353, 356, 357, 360, 362, 363, 365, 366, 368-375, 377-380, 382, 383. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 4-7, 9, 11-16, 18-23 and 25-30 March 1974.

S/11057/Add.384, 387-395, 397-401, 403, 406, 407, 411, 412, 414, 416, 418, 420, 423, 426, 428, 429, 431, 433, 435, 437, 439. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1-27, 29 and 30 April 1974.

S/11057/Add.441, 443, 445, 448, 450, 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, 462, 464, 466, 468, 470, 472, 474, 476, 478, 480, 482, 484, 486, 488, 490, 492, 494, 496, 498, 500, 502. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-25 and 27-31 May 1974.

S/11182 (A/9480), S/11186 (A/9481), S/11195 (A/9485), S/11203 (A/9486), S/11209 (A/9487), S/11217 (A/9490). Letters of 6, 9, 16 and 29 January, and 5 and 12 February 1974 from Israel.

S/11219 (A/9491), S/11220 (A/9493). Letters of 12 and 14 February 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11222 (A/9494). Letter of 16 February 1974 from Israel.

S/11227 (A/9495). Letter of 21 February 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic (transmitting text of complaint of 16 January 1974 presented to ICRC delegate).

S/11232 (A/9497). Letter of 11 March 1974 from Israel.

S/11234 (A/9498). Letter of 14 March 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11235 (A/9499), S/11236 (A/9500). Letters of 15 and 19 March 1974 from Israel.

S/11238 (A/9501). Letter of 20 March 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11240 (A/9502), S/11242 (A/9503), S/11243 (A/9504). Letters of 22 and 27 March 1974 from Israel.

S/11244 (A/9505), S/11245 (A/9506). Letters of 27 and 28 March 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11249 (A/9508). Letter of 2 April 1974 from Israel.

S/11251 (A/9509), S/11252 (A/9510), S/11255 (A/9511), S/11256 (A/9512). Letters of 4, 6 and 9 April 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11257 (A/9513). Letter of 10 April 1974 from Israel.

S/11258 (A/9514), S/11265 (A/9517), S/11266 (A/9518). Letters of 10 and 15 April 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11267 (A/9519). Letter of 16 April 1974 from Israel.

S/11268 (A/9520), S/11269 (A/9521). Letters of 17 and 19 April 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11270 (A/9522). Letter of 22 April 1974 from Israel.

S/11274 (A/9523). Letter of 24 April 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11277 (A/9525). Letter of 28 April 1974 from Israel.

S/11278 (A/9526), S/11281 (A/9528). Letters of 29 April and 3 May 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11282 (A/9529). Letter of 3 May 1974 from Israel.

S/11283 (A/9530). Letter of 6 May 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11284 (A/9532), S/11286 (A/9533). Letters of 8 and 14 May 1974 from Israel.

S/11292 (A/9536). Letter of 20 May 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11293 (A/9537), S/11298 (A/9538). Letters of 21 and 26 May 1974 from Israel.

S/11300 (A/9539). Letter of 28 May 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.


Establishment of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force

REPORTS OF SECRETARY-GENERAL (29 AND 30 MAY 1974)

S/11302 and Add.1. Reports of Secretary-General, dated 29 and 30 May 1974.


CONSIDERATION BY SECURITY COUNCIL (30 AND 31 MAY 1974)

Security Council, meetings 1773,1774.

S/11302 and Add.1. Reports of Secretary-General, dated 29 and 30 May 1974.

S/11304. Letter of 30 May 1974 from United States (request to convene Council).

S/11305. United States: draft resolution.

S/11305/Rev.1. USSR and United States: revised draft resolution.

Resolution 350(1974), as proposed by 2 powers, S/11305/Rev.1, adopted by Council on 31 May 1974, meeting 1774, by 13 votes to 0 (China and Iraq did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,


Having considered the report of the Secretary-General contained in documents S/11302 and Add.1, and having heard his statement made at the 1773rd meeting of the Security Council,

1. Welcomes the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces, negotiated in implementation of Security Council resolution 338(1973) of 22 October 1973;

2. Takes note of the Secretary-General's report and the annexes thereto and his statement;

3. Decides to set up immediately under its authority a United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, and requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps to this extent in accordance with his above-mentioned report and the annexes thereto; the Force shall be established for an initial period of six months, subject to renewal by further resolution of the Security Council;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council fully informed of further developments.


Reports and communications
(1 June-27 November 1974)

S/11057/Add.504. Further report received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1 June 1974.

S/11302/Add.2. Report of Secretary-General, dated 6 June 1974.

S/11302/Add.3. Report of Secretary-General of 9 July 1974.

S/11310. Progress report of Secretary-General, dated 5 June 1974, on UNDOF.

S/11310/Add.1-4. Further progress reports of Secretary-General on UNDOF, dated 18 and 27 June, 30 July and 25 October 1974.

S/11330 (A/9562), S/11395 (A/9567), S/11396 (A/9568). Letters of 8 and 30 July 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11406 (A/9569), S/11408 (A/9570). Letters of 1 and 2 August 1974 from Israel.

S/11414 (A/9571). Letter of 5 August 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11427 (A/9572). Letter of 8 August 1974 from Israel.

S/11434 (A/9574). Letter of 9 August 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11436 (A/9670). Letter of 12 August 1974 from Israel.

S/11443 (A/9671), S/11451 (A/9672). Letters of 13 and 15 August 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11452 and Corr.1 (A/9674 and Corr.1). Letter of 15 August 1974 from Israel.


S/11454 (A/9675), S/11455 (A/9676). Letters of 16 August 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic

S/11460 (A/9677). Letter of 19 August 1974 from Israel.

S/11482 (A/9678), S/11483 (A/9679). Letters of 3 September 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11497. Letter of 6 September 1974 from Israel.

S/11503 (A/9682). Letter of 11 September 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11512 (A/9685). Letter of 16 September 1974 from Israel.

S/11534 (A/9798), S/11535 (A/9799). Letters of 9 October 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11536. Report of Secretary-General of 12 October 1974 on UNEF (for period 2 April to 12 October 1974).

S/11538 (A/9805). Letter of 15 October 1974 from Israel.

S/11561 (A/9880). Letter of 26 November 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11564 (A/9889). Letter of 28 November 1974 from Israel.


Report of Secretary-General
(27 November 1974)

S/11563. Report of Secretary-General of 27 November 1974 on UNDOF (for period 3 June to 26 November 1974).


Consideration by Security Council
(29 November 1974)

Security Council, meeting 1809.

S/11563. Report of Secretary-General of 27 November 1974 on UNDOF (for period 3 June to 26 November 1974).

S/11565. Austria, Indonesia, Kenya, Mauritania, Peru, United Republic of Cameroon: draft resolution.

Resolution 363(1974), as proposed by 6 powers, S/11565 adopted by Council on 29 November 1974, meeting 1809 by 13 votes to 0 (China and Iraq did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on
the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (S/11563)

Having noted the efforts made to establish a durable and
just peace in the Middle East area and the developments in
the situation in the area,

Expressing concern over the prevailing state of tension in
the area,

Reaffirming that the two agreements on disengagement of
forces are only a step towards the implementation of Security
Council resolution 338(1973) of 22 October 1973,

Decides:

(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338(1973);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months;

(c) That the Secretary-General will submit at the end of this
period a report on the developments in the situation and the
measures taken to implement resolution 338(1973).

S/11563/Add.1. Further progress report of Secretary-General on UNDOF dated 21 January 1975.

S/11595. Note of 10 January 1975 by President of Security Council.

Israel-Lebanon sector

Communications and reports
(January-April 1974)

During the first part of 1974, the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO) continued to submit reports on border incidents and cease-fire violations recorded by UNTSO observers in the Israel-Lebanon sector. Frequent border crossings by Israeli forces were reported and occupation during daylight hours of some posts near the Armistice Demarcation Line inside Lebanese territory. The reports also showed that there had been some artillery fire and frequent overflights of Lebanese territory by Israeli aircraft.

In a letter dated 11 April, Israel stated that a group of terrorists had early that morning crossed the Israel-Lebanon frontier, seized an apartment building in the village of Kiryat Shmona, massacred 18 of its inhabitants including eight children and five women, and wounded 15 other persons. The letter went on to say that responsibility for the savage slaughter had been acknowledged in Beirut, Lebanon, by the terrorist organization known as the Popular Front-General Command. It added that Lebanon, where the Arab terror organizations - all of which were affiliated with the so-called Palestine Liberation Organization - enjoyed freedom of movement and operation, must bear full responsibility for a situation that permitted terror attacks to be initiated and carried out from its territory against Israel.

Lebanon replied on 12 April that reports by United Nations observers had not contained any contention that any infiltration had taken place from Lebanon to Israel. For its part, the Lebanese Government wished to assert that no infiltration whatsoever had taken place from Lebanon into Israel, and that measures taken by the Lebanese Army prevented any infiltration. The letter went on to state that the Palestine Liberation Organization had affirmed that it was conducting its resistance movement from within Israel and the occupied territories by elements stationed there. Neither the Lebanese Government nor the Lebanese people could be held responsible for Questions relating to the Middle East the actions of non-Lebanese operating outside Lebanon, or for actions by Palestinians in Israel or elsewhere.

On 13 April, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO reported that there had been artillery fire by Israeli forces across the Armistice Demarcation Line and flights by two of its jet aircraft over Lebanese territory. He also said he had received complaints from Lebanon alleging that, on the night of 12/13 April, Israeli commandos had infiltrated into Lebanese territory and demolished a number of houses in several villages. Lebanon had requested an inquiry on those incursions, and the Chief of Staff subsequently reported that an inquiry by United Nations military observers had confirmed that several houses had been destroyed in several villages and that two women had been killed.

In a letter dated 13 April, the Permanent Representative of Lebanon stated that, as a result of an attack by Israeli armed forces against six villages in southern Lebanon, two civilians had been killed and others wounded, 13 civilians had been kidnapped and 31 houses destroyed. Israeli officials were mounting a campaign of continued terror and threats against Lebanon, the representative said, and he requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council in view to the gravity of the situation, which endangered Lebanon's peace and security.


Consideration by Security Council
(15-24 April 1974)

The Security Council held four meetings between 15 and 24 April 1974 to consider Lebanon's request, and invited the representatives of Israel and Lebanon, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. Also invited were the representatives of Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Lebanon's spokesman charged that on the night of 12/13 April the Israeli regular armed forces had attacked six Lebanese frontier villages inhabited solely by civilians, under the pretext that the assailants responsible for the Kiryat Shmona incident had come from Lebanon. He said that Lebanon deplored acts of violence wherever they might occur, but it could not be held responsible for acts committed beyond its borders by elements that were completely outside its control.

The Lebanese representative went on to say that in attacking the Lebanese villages Israel had committed a premeditated and obvious act of aggression, and was claiming the right to set itself up as judge and jury. If Israel suspected that Lebanon was involved in the Kiryat Shmona affair, why had it not seized the Security Council of the question? If Israel truly wished to end acts of violence, it must recognize the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people set forth in international law and defined, confirmed and proclaimed by appropriate United Nations resolutions. He recalled previous Security Council resolutions warning Israel against any repetition of armed attacks against Lebanon and said that Lebanon expected the Council to adopt the necessary measures to implement its own resolutions.

Israel's representative said that in recent years Lebanon had become a principal centre for Arab terrorist operations, from which terror attacks against Israel had been continuously carried out. On 11 April, a group of terrorists had crossed the Israel-Lebanon frontier and massacred 18 persons in Kiryat Shmona, including eight children and five women. Statements made by the leaders of an Arab terrorist movement in Beirut had verified that fact and, in Beirut and some other Arab capitals, the atrocious murder of innocent women and children had been hailed as an act of heroism.

He said that on 12/13 April units of the Israel Defence Forces had entered several Lebanese border villages and had dynamited 20 houses of known terrorist collaborators, after evacuating the inhabitants. Israeli forces had detained some 10 terrorist collaborators for questioning.

Israel, he said, had come before the Council to accuse the Lebanese Government and all others which harboured, assisted and co-operated with Arab terrorist organizations, and to emphasize that they would not be absolved of their obligation to prevent armed attacks against Israel.

Representatives of the Arab countries participating in the Council's discussion, including Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic, maintained that the question before the Council was that of State terrorism practiced by Israel, which was fundamentally distinct from acts of individual violence. Israel's latest aggression against Lebanon, coupled with the escalation of its military operations on the Syrian front, would have far-reaching consequences on the chances of peace in the Middle East. Kuwait's representative said that Israel's aggression against Lebanon was a violation of the territorial integrity of Lebanon, contrary to established international obligations, including the United Nations Charter. Saudi Arabia pointed out that 300,000 Palestinians lived in Lebanon, whose Government could not suppress them without provoking civil war.

The USSR representative said that the Israeli extremists were trying by means of terror - which had been elevated to the status of State policy - to achieve the fulfilment of their annexationist plans in flagrant violation of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by means of war or the use of force. The Security Council, he recalled, had categorically condemned attempts by Israel to justify its military crimes by referring to them as "retaliatory measures." The Council should now take effective measures to call a halt to acts of aggression by the Israeli militarists. Similar views were expressed by the Byelorussian SSR.

The Chinese representative said that his Government had always supported the Palestinian and other Arab peoples in their just struggles to oppose zionism and hegemonism, to recover their lost territories and to regain their national rights. He urged the Council to condemn Israel's aggression and to support the just demand of the Lebanese Government and people in resisting aggression and safeguarding their national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The spokesman for the United Kingdom said his Government deplored all acts of violence and terrorism in the Middle East wherever and by whomsoever they were committed. It had hoped that the cycle of senseless violence and counter-violence had been ended following the October 1973 war. It condemned the brutal and vicious action that had occurred at Kiryat Shmona but at the same time considered that a Government-organized operation into the territory of another sovereign State in retaliation could not be justified under the Charter. It was the duty of the Council and the United Nations, he said, to do all in their power to prevent a new spiral of terrorism and retaliation which could dash the hopes for peace in the Middle East. That task demanded from the Arab peoples that they refrain from expressing their indignation in deeds and demanded from Israel that it exercise restraint towards its neighbours.

The French representative also considered that the Council should condemn all acts of violence regardless of their origin or reason, as did the representative of Australia and others, who felt that acts of violence and reprisal could only exacerbate tensions and threaten the precarious progress made towards a settlement over the past few months.

At its meeting on 24 April, the Council had before it a draft resolution which had emerged from consultations among its members.

By the preambular part of this text, the Council would among other things express itself as being deeply disturbed at the continuation of acts of violence and gravely concerned that such acts might endanger efforts currently taking place to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

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

(1) condemn Israel's violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty and call once more on the Government of Israel to refrain from further military actions and threats against Lebanon;

(2) condemn all acts of violence, especially those resulting in the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, and urge all concerned to refrain from any further acts of violence;

(3) call on all Governments concerned to respect their obligations under the United Nations Charter and international law;

(4) call on Israel forthwith to release and return to Lebanon the abducted Lebanese civilians; and

(5) call on all parties to refrain from any action which might endanger negotiations aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The representative of Israel said that the draft resolution before the Council was another example of the bias and inequity which prevailed in Security Council debates on the Middle East, as it did not even mention the massacre at Kiryat Shmona. It could in no way detract from Lebanon's legal and moral obligation to end the activities of the murder organizations on and from its territory, and Israel, he said, would continue to hold the Lebanese Government responsible for any armed attacks organized in or perpetrated from Lebanon.

The United States proposed that the second operative paragraph of the draft text be amended so that the Council would condemn all acts of violence especially those which "as at Kiryat Shmona" resulted in the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, and would urge all concerned to refrain from any further such acts.

The Council rejected the United States amendment by 6 votes in favour (Australia, Austria, Costa Rica, France, the United Kingdom and the United States) to 7 against (China, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Mauritania, Peru and the United Republic of Cameroon), with 2 abstentions (the Byelorussian SSR and the USSR). The Council then adopted the draft resolution by 13 votes to 0, as resolution 347(1974). China and Iraq did not participate in the vote on the draft resolution.

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


The representative of China, explaining his non-participation in the vote on the resolution, said that the crux of the Middle East question lay in the contention of the two super-powers for oil resources and important strategic points there. In advocating a so-called just and lasting peace in the Middle East, the super-powers spread illusions about peace and lulled the fighting will of the Arab and Palestinian peoples. The wording of the resolution would also mean asking the Palestinian and other Arab peoples to submit servilely to the manipulations of the two super-powers and forbidding those peoples to take any action of resistance in self-defence, lest they be charged with "endangering peace negotiations."

Mauritania's representative said he understood the second and third operative paragraphs as being addressed solely to Israel, and had therefore supported the draft resolution.

The United States representative, while regretting that his amendment had not received the Council's support, believed that the resolution just adopted did condemn all violence whatever its origin, including the tragedy at Kiryat Shmona.

The Indonesian representative said that, although his Government had supported the resolution it did not think the Council should treat acts of violence committed by desperate and frustrated victims of aggression equally with acts of aggression committed by a country as part of its official policy.
The USSR representative said he did not consider the resolution sufficiently strong and effective, but had supported it because it was acceptable to Lebanon.

The Lebanese spokesman wondered whether the conditions expressed in the resolution were sufficient inasmuch as past condemnations expressed by the Council had not yielded any positive results. He noted that the resolution called on Israel promptly to release and return to Lebanon the abducted civilians and he took it that the Council wished Israel to do so at the earliest possible moment.


Communications and reports
(April-December 1974)

By letters dated 15 and 17 May 1974, the United States transmitted the texts of statements by the United States Secretary of State and its Permanent Representative to the United Nations, as well as a resolution passed by the United States Senate, regarding the killing of innocent persons in Ma'alot, Israel, on 15 May, and the retaliatory Israeli air attacks on 16 May which had led to the deaths of civilians in southern Lebanon. The statements expressed outrage, condemned such cycles of violence which could well undermine the search for peace in the Middle East, and called on all parties to redouble their efforts to secure a just and lasting peace.

On 17 May, Lebanon charged that on 16 May, in two major raids, the Israeli Air Force had attacked several Lebanese towns, villages and Palestinian refugee camps, killing over 40 people and wounding over 180, in addition to destroying 41 houses and damaging 21. Lebanon said that, following the tragic developments at Ma'alot, Israel had sought a scapegoat for an act committed by three Palestinians operating from within Israel and had once again launched an attack against innocent Palestinians living in refugee camps.

On 18 May, Israel charged in reply that the latest atrocity planned, organized and carried out from Lebanon against Israel had been the massacre at Ma'alot in which 21 school boys and girls had been murdered and another 70 wounded. Israel had taken action against terror organizations located in Lebanon, including the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which had declared its responsibility for the massacre. Israel considered that responsibility for the results of such action fell squarely on Lebanon, which continued to make it possible for acts of terror to be directed against Israel and its citizens. On 22 and 24 May, Israel in further letters gave details of what it alleged to be further evidence showing that those responsible for the murders at Kiryat Shmona and Ma'alot had penetrated into Israel from across its northern borders.

In further letters dated 3, 6 and 13 June, Israel said that Lebanon continued to serve as a base for murder and sabotage activities against Israel; on several occasions murder squads had infiltrated into Israel from Lebanon and had been interrupted by Israeli patrols or otherwise repulsed. Israel said that even after the horrors of Kiryat Shmona and Ma'alot the Lebanese Army had taken no effective measures to eradicate the terrorist bases, especially those in southern Lebanon, or to prevent terror and murder actions against Israel and its citizens.

On 17 June, Lebanon charged that Israel, continuing its acts of aggression against Lebanese territory, had daily penetrated Lebanese air space throughout the preceding month, attacking towns and villages with shells and bombs, causing death and destruction among the civilian population. Israel's purpose, Lebanon said, was to terrorize the civilian population and victimize Lebanon for acting as host to 300,000 Palestinians on its soil, making it a scapegoat for acts committed by Palestinians operating within Israel.

Israel rejected the Lebanese charges in letters dated 18 and 21 June, and asserted that, under an agreement concluded in Cairo, Egypt, in 1969 between the Government of Lebanon and the terrorist organizations, Lebanon had facilitated the establishment on its territory by those organizations of a practically independent regime. Thus, it was from Lebanon that the terrorists set out on their murder missions into Israel.

On 25 June, Israel charged that on the previous night three terrorists, who had come by boat from Lebanon, had attacked a house in the coastal town of Nahariya. In a subsequent clash with Israeli security forces, the terrorists had been killed.

On 10 July, Israel reported that on 8 July units of its naval forces had sunk about 10 boats in each of the harbours of Tyre, Sidon and Ras a-Shakh in southern Lebanon; Israeli commandos had left behind leaflets warning the population that they should not let terrorists operate from their fishing harbours. Israel said that the purpose of the 8 July action was to foil further planned atrocities and avert the use of the Lebanese harbours by terrorists as their auxiliary bases.

Lebanon complained on the same day that Israeli naval forces had on 8 and 9 July attacked three ports in southern Lebanon, destroying 39 fishing boats. Coming in the aftermath of a murderous assault by Israel on Palestinian refugee camps between 18 and 20 June, which left 73 persons killed and 109 wounded, those unprovoked attacks could serve only to revive the cycle of violence and hamper efforts towards a peaceful settlement in the area, Lebanon said.



In a letter dated 9 August, Israel charged that a three-man squad had infiltrated into Israel from Lebanon on 6 August and kidnapped four workers, taking them to terrorist bases in Lebanese villages.

In letters dated 4 and 27 September, Israel submitted further complaints regarding attempted penetrations of its coast and borders by terrorists coming from Lebanon, and noted that the Palestinian organizations in Lebanon had recently increased their activities, causing friction between various Lebanese political parties. On 15 and 26 November, Israel complained of additional incidents of infiltration or firing from Lebanon across its frontier between 28 September and 22 November.

Lebanon stated in a letter dated 21 November that its sovereignty had been violated on an almost daily basis by Israeli forces, by air or land or sea, or by a combination of all three means. As a result, many civilians had been killed or wounded and property had been destroyed; the entire population of southern Lebanon lived in constant terror of attack. The letter cited a number of incidents that had occurred between 18 July and 14 November.

In letters dated from 2 to 19 December, Israel put forward new charges of attacks in which Israeli civilians had been killed or wounded by terrorists of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) coming from Lebanese territory, and Israeli settlements fired upon. Israel said that in many of the cases cited, communiques issued in Beirut by PLO had confirmed its responsibility for the attacks.

On 13 December, Lebanon protested that on 12 December Israeli jet aircraft had attacked Palestinian refugee camps near Beirut, wounding 10 persons, and that on 13 December a town in southern lebanon had been shelled by Israeli artillery, wounding six.

During the period from June 1974 to the end of the year, reports of the Chief of Staff of UNTSO showed that the situation in the cease-fire sector was marked by frequent incidents, including overflights by Israeli aircraft, firing incidents across the Armistice Demarcation line and violations of Lebanese territorial waters by Israeli warships. Personnel of the Israeli forces continued, during daylight hours, to occupy positions located on Lebanese territory.

Documentary references

Communications and reports
(January-April 1974)

S/11057/Add.191, 194, 197, 200, 203, 206, 209, 211, 214, 216, 217, 220, 223, 227, 229, 233, 236, 239, 242, 244, 246, 248, 250, 252, 256, 260, 262, 265, 268, 270, 274, 276. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1-26 and 28-31 January 1974.

S/11057/Add.279, 282, 285, 289, 290, 293, 295, 297, 299, 301, 303, 305, 307, 309, 311, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322, 324-327, 329, 331, 333, 335. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1-9, 11-16, 18-23, and 25-28 February 1974.

S/11057/Add.336, 337, 339, 340, 342, 344, 346, 347, 349, 351, 352, 354, 355, 358, 359, 361, 364, 367, 376, 381. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18, 19, 25 and 28 March 1974.

S/11057/Add.385, 386, 396, 402, 404, 405, 408-410. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1, 8 and 13-16 April 1974.

S/11259 (A/9515). Letter of 11 April 1974 from Israel.

S/11263 (A/9516), S/11264. Letters of 12 and 13 April 1974 from Lebanon.


Consideration by Security Council
(15-24 April 1974)

Security Council, meetings 1766-1769.

S/11264. Letter of 13 April 1974 from Lebanon (request to convene Council).

S/11275. Draft resolution.

Resolution 347(1974), as proposed following consultations among Council members, S/11275, adopted by Council on 24 April 1974, meeting 1769, by 13 votes to 0 (China and Iraq did not participate in voting).

The Security Council,

Having considered the agenda item contained in document S/Agenda/1769/Rev.1,

Having noted the contents of the letters dated 12 and 13 April 1974 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon (S/11263 and S/11264) and the letter dated 11 April 1974 from the Permanent Representative of Israel (S/11259),

Having heard the statements of the Foreign Minister of Lebanon and of the representative of Israel,

Recalling its previous relevant resolutions,

Deeply disturbed at the continuation of acts of violence,

Gravely concerned that such acts might endanger efforts now taking place to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

1. Condemns Israel's violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty and calls once more on the Government of Israel to refrain from further military actions and threats against Lebanon;

2. Condemns all acts of violence, especially those which result in the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, and urges all concerned to refrain from any further acts of violence;

3. Calls upon all Governments concerned to respect their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law;

4. Calls upon Israel forthwith to release and return to Lebanon the abducted Lebanese civilians;

5. Calls upon all parties to refrain from any action which might endanger negotiations aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.


Communications and reports
(April-December 1974)

S/11057/Add.413, 415, 417, 419, 421, 422, 424, 425, 427, 430, 432, 434, 436, 438, 440. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 14-27, 29 and 30 April 1974.

S/11057/Add.442, 444, 446, 449, 451, 453, 455, 457, 459, 461, 463, 465, 467, 469, 471, 473, 475, 477, 479, 481, 483, 485, 487, 489, 491, 493, 495, 497, 499, 501, 503. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 14, 6-11, 13-18, 20-25 and 27-31 May 1974.

S/11057/Add.505-521. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1, 3-8, 10, 17, 19-22 and 24 June 1974.

S/11057/Add.522-528. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 1, 8, 9, 15, 20, 22 and 29 July 1974.

S/11057/Add.529, 530 and Corr.1, 531-535. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 19 and 26 August 1974.

S/11057/Add.536-543. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 2, 4, 12,16, 23-25 and 30 September 1974.

S/11057/Add.544-548. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 7, 14, 21, 28 and 31 October 1974.

S/11057/Add.549-557. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 18, 25 and 30 November 1974.

S/11057/Add.558-565. Further reports received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 2, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, 23 and 30 December 1974.

S/11057/Add.566. Further report received by Secretary-General on status of cease-fire in Middle East, dated 2 January 1975.

S/11287 (A/9534), S/11288 (A/9535). Letters of 15 and 17 May 1974 from United States.

S/11289 and Corr.1. Letter of 17 May 1974 from Lebanon.

S/11290, S/11295, S/11297, S/11309, S/11314, S/11319 and Corr.1. Letters of 18, 22 and 24 May and 3, 6, and 13 June 1974 from Israel.

S/11320. Letter of 17 June 1974 from Lebanon.

S/11321, S/11324, S/11326, S/11331. Letters of 18, 21 and 25 June and 10 July 1974 from Israel.

S/11332 and Corr.1. Letter of 10 July 1974 from Lebanon.

S/11430 (A/9573), S/11487 (A/9680), S/11520 (A/9687), S/11558 and Corr.1 (A/9859 and Corr.1). Letters of 9 August, 4 and 27 September and 15 November 1974 from Israel.

S/11560. Letter of 21 November 1974 from Lebanon.

S/11562 (A/9882), S/11566 (A/9895), S/11567 (A/9912), S/11570 (A/9945), S/11571 (A/9965). Letters of 26 November and 2, 3, 9 and 12 December 1974 from Israel.

S/11572. Letter of 13 December 1974 from Lebanon.

S/11577 (A/9985), S/11585 (A/9990), S/11589 (A/9995). Letters of 16 and 19 December 1974 and 2 January 1975 from Israel.

S/11590. Letter of 4 January 1975 from Lebanon.

Financing of the United Nations Emergency Force and of
the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force

On 23 October 1974, the Security Council extended the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) for six months - from 23 October 1974 to 24 April 1975 - by resolution 362(1974) (see pp. 195-96). The mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) continued until 30 November 1974, by the provisions of Council resolution 350(1974) of 31 May 1974 (see pp. 199-200). However, the United Nations Secretary-General's authority to enter into commitments for UNEF was to expire on 31 October 1974. 12/ In order to permit time for the General Assembly at its 1974 session to consider the question of the financing of UNEF (including UNDOF), the Secretary-General on 31 October asked the Assembly for authorization to enter into commitments for the Forces for an additional one-month period - from 1 to 30 November 1974.

The request was submitted to the Assembly through the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee in the form of a draft resolution which, after consideration and amendment, the Committee approved, also on 31 October, by 79 votes to 3, with 6 abstentions. The Assembly adopted the text on the same date by 87 votes to 3, with 2 abstentions, as resolution 3211 A (XXIX). Expenses, not to exceed $5 million, were to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with a scheme established by the Assembly in 1973. 13/ A drafting amendment by Brazil was approved by the Fifth Committee, as was an amendment by Yemen - adopted by 39 votes to 3, with 39 abstentions - to add the operative paragraph indicating how the expenses were to be apportioned.

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

The Secretary-General later suggested a draft resolution in a similar vein to cover the situation for December 1974 in the event the Fifth Committee, which was at the time considering the item, was unable to reach a decision on the financing of the Forces in time for the Assembly to take action before 30 November. Since the Committee subsequently approved such a draft resolution, it took no action on the Secretary-General's proposal.



On 29 November 1974, the Security Council, by resolution 363(1974), renewed the mandate of UNDOF for another period of six months - until 31 May 1975 (see pp. 203-4).

A report of the Secretary-General was before the Fifth Committee when it began consideration of the question of financing UNEF and UNDOF on 25 November 1974. According to the report, the revised estimated cost of the Forces for the period 25 October 1973 to 24 October 1974 would amount to $19.8 million more than the initial $60 million estimate for that period.

The initial estimates had been based, the report stated, on several assumptions which had proved to be erroneous, relating among other things to unforeseen transportation costs, expectation of voluntary contributions which were not realized, underestimation of daily allowance and equipment costs, and the unavailability of accommodations. Moreover, a sum of $3.8 million of $6.8 million in uncollected contributions to the expenses of the Force for that period represented amounts due from four States which, according to the Secretary-General, had to be assumed to be uncollectable, in view of those States' declaration of principle.

Costs for the six-month period of UNEF's recently extended mandate (from 25 October 1974 to 24 April 1975) were estimated at $40 million.

The Secretary-General said he had not found it possible to present a standard costing formula for troop reimbursements, as the Fifth Committee had requested in 1973, 14/ since some countries considered that the necessary statistical information he had sought was privileged and not to be released even on a confidential basis. However, he reported that consultations with troop-contributing countries had produced a proposal, agreed to by troop-contributors, that the rate of payment to those countries should be $500 per man per month, plus a supplementary amount of $150 per specialist per month. Previous practice had been to reimburse troop contributors only for extra and extraordinary expenses incurred.

During the discussion in the Fifth Committee, the representative of the Secretary-General stressed that the extra amount required to finance the peace-keeping forces during the past year was not due to the claims for reimbursement; it was because the Secretary-General had had to spend such unexpectedly large amounts on the establishment and maintenance of the Forces in the field that he had been left with an inadequate balance to reimburse the troop contributors on an equitable basis. Although the combined Force numbered only 5,750 instead of the 7,000 originally requested, he said, it was dispersed over a wide expanse of territory with dozens of offices and outposts, all of which had to be manned, supplied and linked; that dispersal inevitably increased expenditure.

The Assembly's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions observed that the necessary additional resources for the year ended 24 October 1974 would depend on resolving the questions of the rate of reimbursement to troop contributors and the method of financing the $3.8 million in "uncollectable" contributions. Subject to that proviso, and to the assurance that the operations of the Forces were carried out as economically as possible and that their accounts would be audited by the United Nations Board of Auditors, the Advisory Committee accepted the revised estimates for that year, as well as those for the forthcoming six-month period.

On 29 November 1974, on the Fifth Committee's recommendation of the same day, the Assembly, in addition to appropriating $30 million authorized and apportioned in 1973 for the operation of the Forces for the six-month period 25 April to 24 October 1974, appropriated all additional $19.8 million to cover the shortfall for the year 25 October 1973 to 24 October 1974. The proportions for the additional amount were determined by the scale of assessments for 1974-1976 and apportioned among Members in accordance with the four categories established in 1973 (permanent members of the Security Council, economically developed States not permanent members of the Council, and two categories of economically less developed States). The scheme had been established by the Assembly taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries were in a position to make relatively larger contributions to peace-keeping operations financed in this manner, as well as the special responsibilities of permanent members of the Security Council in financing such operations.

The Assembly also appropriated $40 million for the operation of the Forces from 25 October 1974 to 24 April 1975, apportioning - as an ad hoc arrangement without prejudice to positions of principle taken by Members regarding arrangements for financing peace-keeping operations - various specific amounts for the six-month period among the four groups defined in 1973.

The Secretary-General was asked to continue to maintain a Special Account for UNEF, and he was asked to ensure that the Forces were conducted with a maximum of efficiency and economy - endorsing the Advisory Committee's comments in this connexion. Further, he was authorized to enter into commitments not to exceed $6,666,667 per month for the period 25 April to 31 October 1975, should the Security Council decide to continue the Forces beyond 24 April 1975, apportioning the amounts according to the same scheme.

The Assembly stressed the need for voluntary contributions to the Forces, both in cash and in services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General.

These decisions were embodied in resolution 3211 B(XXIX), which the Assembly adopted by 92 votes to 3, with 10 abstentions. The text was proposed in the Fifth Committee by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal and Sweden: it was approved by 82 votes to 2, with 9 abstentions.

At the request of the USSR, separate votes were taken in the Fifth Committee on four paragraphs on which it said it would abstain. These referred to the appropriations for the October 1973 to October 1974 period and for the October 1974 to April 1975 period, as well as their apportionment in accordance with the 1973 scheme, and to authorization for the Secretary-General to enter into commitments front April to October 1975. These paragraphs were approved by a vote of 81 to 2, with 9 abstentions, two votes of 79 to 2, with 9 abstentions, and a vote of 80 to 2, with 9 abstentions, respectively.

The United Republic of Tanzania had wanted to extend the period of authorization to eight months - from 25 April to 31 December 1975, rather than to 31 October - to obviate the need to provide the Secretary-General with interim financing authorization. Although the sponsors of the resolution did not object to the change, the amendment was withdrawn at the request of Egypt and the USSR, which felt it would create political implications and appear to presuppose the continued financing of the Forces beyond their current mandates.

(For text of resolution 3211 B (XXIX), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

In the debate in the Fifth Committee which preceded adoption of this resolution, Australia, Austria, Ghana, Morocco and the United Kingdom, among others, expressed their understanding of the circumstances which had resulted in the underestimation of the cost estimates for the two Forces. Nevertheless, the need for economy and the exercise of reasonable restraint and careful management was stressed by most speakers. In this connexion several Members, including France, the German Democratic Republic, Japan, Morocco, Poland, the Ukrainian SSR and the United Kingdom, welcomed the fact that a team of internal auditors had been dispatched to the area to check on equipment received and on the rate of losses and spoilage of equipment and supplies, as well as the fact that the United Nations Board of Auditors would audit the accounts of the Forces.

Some Members, including the Byelorussian SSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR, expressed the view that the additional appropriations requested, as well as the estimate for the period beginning 25 October 1974, were excessive, and they were not convinced by the explanations given by the Secretary-General for the cost overrun. The USSR believed that the additional costs should be made up by strict economies, by a possible reduction of the Force and by a redistribution of available funds. It concurred with the view of the Byelorussian SSR that, before additional appropriations were approved, the Board of Auditors should be asked to study the situation and report to the Assembly in 1975.

The representatives of Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Greece and Poland, among others, called attention to the restrictions imposed by Israel on the freedom of movement and communications of contingents of some countries which, they maintained, had resulted in additional and unnecessary expenditure and was, in their view, in contravention of Article 43 of the Charter of the United Nations.15/

The Ukrainian SSR and the USSR agreed with the opinion of Egypt that since Israel was responsible for the perpetration of the circumstances which resulted in the operations, it was reasonable that Israel and its supporters should bear the related expenditure.

A number of representatives objected to adding to the supplementary estimate of $19.8 million the $3.8 million deemed uncollectable. The United Republic of Tanzania said the uncollected sums had arisen from a previous apportionment by the Assembly and could not therefore be reapportioned. Australia, Italy, Japan and the Philippines were among those States which, while they respected the positions of principle, could not accept the idea that other Members should be asked to assume the burden of the uncollected amount. The United Kingdom's spokesman reiterated his Government's position of principle that responsibility for expenses of the Organization lay with each Member State and such sums that remained uncollected were the deficit of the Organization. Sierra Leone said that countries which had the capacity, but refused, to pay their share of the costs should realize they could not indefinitely remain aloof from a problem which involved the whole world. These views generally coincided with those of Ghana, and New Zealand, among others, that payment of expenses relating to peace-keeping operations was a collective responsibility of Member States under the Charter.

India and Mexico pointed out that, although reference was constantly made to the principle of collective responsibility in respect of peace-keeping operations, account was not taken of the fact that such operations were by their very nature provisional and should not be used as a pretext for slowing down the search for a basic solution to the problems at issue. The Byelorussian SSR, the USSR and Yemen were among several other States which said the problem of financing the Forces could be resolved only on the basis of a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict.

India, Indonesia, Greece and the USSR were among those which stressed that assessed contributions for the Forces should be paid promptly and in full. Japan and others expressed dismay that there had not been any significant voluntary contributions from Member States.

Most representatives said they were willing to accept the ad hoc arrangements established in 1973 for apportionment of the expenses of the Forces. Portugal, however, said that in no circumstances could it continue to be classified among the wealthier countries with which it had been grouped in 1973 for the purpose of financing UNEF. The scale of assessments should be reviewed on the basis of objective criteria and in the light of the specific situation of each Member State, and it formally requested that Portugal be reclassified.

Canada and the United Kingdom were among those which, although accepting the ad hoc arrangement in the current circumstances, observed that the collective responsibility of all Member States for peace-keeping would best be reflected in the regular scale of assessments used for the expenditures of the Organization. The Central African Republic, France and Germany (Federal Republic of) added that no proposal for a different arrangement even further removed from the regular scale would be acceptable.

The United Republic of Tanzania was among those which said they would accept the agreed ad hoc arrangement only on the explicit understanding that it would apply only to the six-month period under discussion and could be changed if the mandates of the Forces were further extended. In response to a decision taken by the "Group of 77" developing countries that a paragraph indicating that the question of the apportionment of the costs of the two Forces would be reconsidered in 1975 should be included in the Fifth Committee's report to the Assembly, the Tanzanian representative introduced a draft decision which, as ultimately revised, read:

Speaking in support of the paragraph, Brazil, Egypt and Mexico, among others, maintained that it referred only to the method of financing the Forces should their current mandates be extended, and that if necessary the current financing arrangements should be reviewed in the light of the situation of the developing countries. Members opposing it, however - including the Central African Republic, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Poland and the USSR - felt, variously, that it appeared to presuppose an extension of the mandate, it appealed to make the ad hoc arrangements depart even further from the regular scale of assessments, or it implied that those arrangements would be reviewed in the light of one particular set of circumstances.

Consequently, the Tanzanian representative stated that the Group of 77, following consultations, had decided not to press the proposal to a vote as it had given rise to interpretations which were alien to the Group's intention.
Reservations with respect to their position on the question under consideration were expressed by several Members. Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic objected to any financing arrangement in which the aggressor and the victim were treated on the same footing. The Syrian representative opposed the arrangements for apportioning the costs as completely unacceptable to his country.

The Libyan Arab Republic objected to the creation of the Forces as a complicating factor in the solution of the problem and as enabling the aggressor to continue its aggression; it said it would not contribute to the financing of UNEF.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, Israel said such statements, typical of aggressor States and dealing with the issues in the usual one-sided way, went beyond the scope of the item. To say that Israel started the war of aggression in the Middle East was a blatant falsehood entirely refuted by official United Nations documentation, Israel said.

Albania also maintained its opposition to the creation of UNEF and its refusal to contribute to its financing, believing it was essential to oppose what it considered to be efforts by the United States and the USSR to use the United Nations to serve their imperialist designs in the Middle East. China said it had consistently opposed the dispatch of those Forces to the Middle East and the inclusion of expenditure on them in the United Nations budget; China would not accept any obligation for any expenditure of those Forces and would not participate in the voting.

Democratic Yemen said it would also refrain - as it had done in 1973 - from participating in the vote because, among other reasons, it rejected Security Council resolution 242(1967).16/ Iraq, too, said it had repeatedly dissociated itself from all the resolutions which established UNEF and would not participate in the voting.

On the question of reimbursement of expenses to troop-contributing countries, most representatives who spoke agreed that application of the principle of equal treatment of all troop- contributors was basic and essential, and that it was important to facilitate participation by small and medium-sized countries in peace-keeping efforts. According to Indonesia, a differentiation in remunerations would reflect a colonialist approach and was completely unacceptable. Any solution, in the view of Afghanistan, France and Ireland, among others, should be fair to both troop-contributing countries and the membership at large.

Canada, Finland, Panama, Poland and Sweden - troop-contributing countries - stated that although the rates proposed in the Secretary-General's report would not cover the actual costs incurred by their Governments in respect of the operations, they accepted the principle of equal treatment even though, in some cases, it would cause difficulties. It was also pointed out that because of inadequate remuneration some troop-contributing developing countries had decided to withdraw or reduce their troops or were considering doing so.

Ireland, Italy, Morocco, the United Kingdom, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Yugoslavia were among those which believed the rates proposed were reasonable or at least an acceptable compromise in the circumstances. Austria, Finland and Ghana, moreover, stressed that any lowering of the proposed rates would make it materially and politically difficult for the smaller countries, especially the developing ones, to participate in peace-keeping operations, thereby limiting the possibility of a broad representation of the membership in such operations.

Australia and France were among States which, although willing to accept the proposed rates, considered them to be rather high. Australia and Germany (Federal Republic of) regretted that more detailed information on actual costs incurred in support of requests for reimbursement was not available, in order to facilitate a more accurate opinion on the question and to justify requests to their Governments for additional funds.

Although stating their approval of the principle of equal treatment, the Byelorussian SSR and Czechoslovakia, among others, considered that the proposed rates were excessive. Along with the USSR, the Byelorussian SSR believed that the Security Council should accelerate the negotiation of agreements with troop-contributing countries, in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 of the Charter. In the USSR's opinion, a reimbursement rate of $250 per man-month, increased by 30 per cent for specialists, would be preferable.

Peru introduced a draft decision on this question, stating that it was the result of the efforts by the troop-contributing countries to reach agreement on a rate of reimbursement, and that it was supported by the 99 developing countries of the "Group of 77."

The Peruvian text was approved by the Fifth Committee on 29 November 1974, by 81 votes to 2, with 8 abstentions, and endorsed in a plenary meeting of the General Assembly on the same date by 91 votes to 3, with 10 abstentions. Thus, the Assembly decided:

(a) that the rate of payment to troop-contributing countries for pay and allowances for their troops serving in UNEF and UNDOF should be standardized, and that with effect from 25 October 1973 these payments were to be established at the rate of $500 per man per month; and

(b) to establish at the standard rate of $150 per man-month a supplementary payment for a limited number of specialists serving with the various Force contingents, on the understanding that this payment was to be limited to a maximum of 25 per cent for the logistic contingents and to 10 per cent for other contingents of their actual total strength, and that the rates of payment were to be subject to review by the Assembly.

The representative of the Secretary-General drew attention to two problems which arose as a result of the decisions taken by the Fifth Committee and the Assembly. First, the amount appropriated assumed that assessed contributions would be 100 per cent paid, although some had to be considered uncollectable; the extent to which the Secretary-General would be able to honour in full the commitment with respect to the rate of pay and allowances for the two Forces would depend on the promptness and completeness of payments. Second, the authorization given him to enter into commitments for the April to October 1975 period was not accompanied by a corresponding appropriation.
Documentary references

General Assembly-29th session

General Committee, meeting 218.

Fifth Committee, meetings 1646, 1651, 1653, 1654, 1672, 1674-1680, 1695.

Plenary meetings 2236, 2273, 2303, 2324.

A/9822. Financing of United Nations Emergency Force and of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force. Report of Secretary-General.
A/9870. Report of ACABQ.

A/C.5/L.1183. Note by Fifth Committee Chairman (transmitting suggested draft resolution for consideration by Fifth Committee), as orally amended by Brazil and by Yemen, approved by Fifth Committee on 31 October 1974, meeting 1654, by 79 votes to 3, with 6 abstentions.

A/9825. Report of Fifth Committee (part 1).

Resolution 3211 A (XXIX), as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/9825, adopted by Assembly on 31 October 1974, meeting 2273, by 87 votes to 3, with 2 abstentions.

The General Assembly,

Recalling that the present authority of the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Emergency Force, as provided by paragraph 4 of General Assembly resolution 3101(XXVIII) of 11 December 1973, expires on 31 October 1974,

Taking note of Security Council resolution 362(1974) of 23 October 1974, which extended the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for the period from 25 October 1974 to 24 April 1975 inclusive,

Noting further that the present mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, which was established by the Security Council in resolution 350(1974) of 31 May 1974, continues until 30 November 1974 inclusive,

1. Decides to authorize the Secretary-General to enter into commitments not to exceed $5 million for the United Nations Emergency Force (including the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force) for the period from 1 November to 30 November 1974 inclusive, in order to allow adequate time for consideration by the General Assembly of the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the Force;

2. Also decides to apportion the above-mentioned expenses among Member States in accordance with the scheme set forth in General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII).

A/C.5/L.1196. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Sweden: draft resolution, as orally amended by sponsors, approved by Fifth Committee on 29 November 1974, meeting 1678, by 82 votes to 2, with 9 abstentions.

A/C.5/L.1197. Note by Fifth Committee Chairman (transmitting suggested draft resolution for consideration by Fifth Committee).

A/C.5/L.1198. Peru: draft decision.

A/9825/Add.1. Report of Fifth Committee (part II), draft resolution, and draft decision, para. 10.

A/9825/Add.2. Report of Fifth Committee (part III), paras. 1-33.

Resolution 3211 B (XXIX), as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/9825/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 29 November 1974, meeting 2303, by 92 votes to 3, with 10 abstentions.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Emergency Force and of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force as well as the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 340(1973) of 25 October 1973, 346 (1974) of 8 April 1974, 350(1974) of 31 May 1974, 362(1974) of 23 October 1974 and 363(1974) of 29 November 1974,

Recalling its resolutions 3101(XXVIII) of 11 December 1973 and 3211 A (XXIX) of 31 October 1974,

Reaffirming its previous decisions regarding the fact that, in order to meet the expenditures caused by such operations, a different procedure is required from that applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget of the United Nations,

Taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries are in a position to make relatively larger contributions and that the economically less developed countries have a relatively limited capacity to contribute towards peace-keeping operations involving heavy expenditures,

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

1. Decides to appropriate the amount of $30 million authorized and apportioned by paragraph 4 of General Assembly resolution 3101(XXVIII) for the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 25 April to 24 October 1974 inclusive;

2. Decides further, in accordance with the ad hoc arrangement in paragraph 2 of resolution 3101(XXVIII), to appropriate an additional amount of $19.8 million for the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 25 October 1973 to 24 October 1974 inclusive in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for 1974-1976 as follows:

(a) $12,503,700 among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of resolution 3101(XXVIII);

(b) $6,886,440 among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 3101(XXVIII);

(c) $399,960 among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of resolution 3101 (XXVIII);

(d) $9,900 among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (d) of resolution 3101(XXVIII);
II

1. Decides to appropriate an amount of $40 million for the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force from 25 October 1974 to 24 April 1975 inclusive, and requests the Secretary-General to continue to maintain a Special Account for the Force;

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

(a) To apportion an amount of $25,260,000 for the above- mentioned six-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of resolution 3101(XXVIII) in the proportions provided therein;

(b) To apportion an amount of $13,912,000 for the above- mentioned six-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 3101(XXVIII) in the proportions provided therein;

(c) To apportion an amount at $808,000 for the above-mentioned six-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of resolution 3101(XXVIII) in the proportions provided therein;

(d) To apportion an amount of $20,000 tor the above-mentioned six-month period among the Member States referred to in paragraph 2 (d) of resolution 3101(XXVIII) in the proportions provided therein;

3. Reaffirms for the purpose of the present resolution the definition of the term "economically less developed Member States" contained in paragraph 3 of resolution 3101(XXVIII);

4. Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $6,666,667 per month for the period from 25 April to 31 October 1975 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond 24 April 1975, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;

5. Stresses the need for voluntary contributions to the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to take all necessary action to ensure that the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force are conducted with a maximum of efficiency and economy, and in this connexion endorses the comments of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions in paragraph 23 of its report.

A/C.5/L.1193 and Rev.1. United Republic of Tanzania: draft decision and revision.

A/C.5/L.1210. Draft report of Fifth Committee (part III).

A/C.5/9825/Add.2. Report of Fifth Committee (part III), paras. 34-41.

A/9631. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly during its 29th session, Vol. I, 17 September-18 December 1974. Other decisions, p. 140.
Consideration by the General Assembly

The item entitled "The situation in the Middle East" was included in the agenda of the twenty-ninth (1974) session of the General Assembly in accordance with a decision taken by the Assembly on 16 September 1974. On 18 December 1974, it approved without objection a procedure proposed by its President whereby the twenty-ninth session would not be declared closed. The President informed the Assembly that extensive consultations had indicated that, owing to recent developments in the Middle East, there was a general sentiment not to take up the item at that time and that the best course to follow would be to resume the session if circumstances should so warrant. If, therefore, after consultations with Member States and with the Secretary-General, the President believed that conditions would be favourable for the consideration of the question, the session would be resumed at a date to be established after consultations.

The General Assembly did not otherwise consider the item during the period under review.
Documentary references

General Assembly-28th session

Plenary meeting 2232.

A/9478 and Rev.1 (S/11180 and Rev.1), A/9479 (S/11181), A/9480 (S/11182), A/9481 (S/11186), A/9482 (S/11188), A/9483 (S/11189), A/9484 (S/11194), A/9485 (S/11195), A/9486 (S/11203), A/9487 (S/11209), A/9488 (S/11213), A/9489 (S/11215), A/9490 (S/11217). Letters of 3, 4, 6, 9-11, 15, 16 and 29 January and 5, 8, 11 and 12 February 1974 from Israel.

A/9491 (S/11219), A/9493 (S/11220). Letters of 12 and 14 February 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9494 (S/11222). Letter of 16 February 1974 from Israel.

A/9495 (S/11227). Letter of 21 February 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9497 (S/11232). Letter of 11 March 1974 from Israel.

A/9498 (S/11234). Letter of 14 March 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9499 (S/11235), A/9500 (S/11236). Letters of 15 and 19 March 1974 from Israel.

A/9501 (S/11238). Letter of 20 March 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9502 (S/11240), A/9503 (S/11242), A/9504 (S/11243). Letters of 22 and 27 March 1974 from Israel.

A/9505 (S/11244), A/9506 (S/11245). Letters of 27 and 28 March 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9507 (S/11246). Letter of 29 March 1974 from Jordan.

A/9508 (S/11249). Letter of 2 April 1974 from Israel.

A/9509 (S/11251), A/9510 (S/11252), A/9511 (S/11255), A/9512 (S/11256). Letters of 4, 6 and 9 April 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9513 (S/11257). Letter of 10 April 1974 from Israel.

A/9514 (S/11258). Letter of 10 April 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9515 (S/11259). Letter of 11 April 1974 from Israel.

A/9516 (S/11263). Letter of 12 April 1974 from Lebanon.

A/9517 (S/11265), A/9518 (S/11266). Letters of 15 April 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9519 (S/11267). Letter of 16 April 1974 from Israel.

A/9520 (S/11268), A/9521 (S/11269). Letters of 17 and 19 April 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9522 (S/11270). Letter of 22 April 1974 from Israel.

A/9523 (S/11274). Letter of 24 April 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9525 (S/11277). Letter of 28 April 1974 from Israel.

A/9526 (S/11278). Letter of 29 April 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9527 (S/11279). Letter of 30 April 1974 from Israel.

A/9528 (S/11281). Letter of 3 May 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9529 (S/11282). Letter of 3 May 1974 from Israel.

A/9530 (S/11283). Letter of 6 May 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9532 (S/11284), A/9533 (S/11286). Letters of 8 and 14 May 1974 from Israel.
A/9534 (S/11287), A/9535 (S/11288). Letters of 15 and 17 May 1974 from United States.

A/9536 (S/11292). Letter of 20 May 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9537 (S/11293), A/9538 (S/11298). Letters of 21 and 26 May 1974 from Israel.

A/9539 (S/11300). Letter of 28 May 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9540 (S/11303). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting Commission on Human Rights resolution 1 (XXX) adopted on 11 February 1974).

A/9560 (S/11318). Letter of 12 June 1974 from Israel.

A/9561 (S/11327), A/9562 (S/11330). Letters of 1 and 8 July 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9563 (S/11333). Letter of 10 July 1974 from Israel.

A/9564 (S/11360). Letter of 22 July 1974 from Egypt.

A/9566 (S/11386). Letter of 26 July 1974 from Israel.

A/9567 (S/11395), A/9568 (S/11396). Letters of 30 July 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9569 (S/11406), A/9570 (S/11408). Letters of 1 and 2 August 1974 from Israel.

A/9571 (S/11414). Letter of 5 August 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9572 (S/11427), A/9573 (S/11430). Letters of 8 and 9 August 1974 from Israel.

A/9574 (S/11434). Letter of 9 August 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9596 (S/11276). Letter of 23 April 1974 from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and USSR (transmitting text of communique of and statements adopted at conference of Political Consultative Committee of States Parties to Warsaw Treaty, Warsaw, Poland, 17 and 18 April 1974).

A/9670 (S/11436). Letter of 12 August 1974 from Israel.

A/9671 (S/11443), A/9672 (S/11451), A/9673. Letters of 13 and 15 August 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9674 and Corr.1 (S/11452 and Corr.1). Letter of 15 August 1974 from Israel.
A/9675 (S/11454), A/9676 (S/11455). Letters of 16 August 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9677 (S/11460). Letter of 19 August 1974 from Israel.

A/9678 (S/11482), A/9679 (S/11483). Letters of 3 September 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9680 (S/11487). Letter of 4 September 1974 from Israel.

A/9681 (S/11502). Letter of 10 September 1974 from Israel (transmitting copy of complaint dated 6 August 1974 by Israel against Syrian Arab Republic).

A/9682 (S/11503), A/9683 (S/11506). Letters of 11 and 12 September 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9684 (S/11507). Letter of 12 September 1974 from Lebanon (transmitting "Quneitra Appeal" approved by Council of League of Arab States, 62nd session, Cairo, Egypt, 1-5 September 1974).

A/9685 (S/11512). Letter of 16 September 1974 from Israel.

A/9030/Add.1. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly during its 28th session, Vol. II, 16 September 1974. Decisions taken without reference to Main Committee, p. 1.


General Assembly - 29th session
Plenary meeting 2325.

A/9601. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1973-15 June 1974, Part One, Chapter I.

A/9602. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1973-15 June 1974, Chapter 1.

A/9686 (S/11516), A/9687 (S/11520), A/9688 (S/11530). Letters of 23 and 27 September and 4 October 1974 from Israel.

A/9689 (S/11533), A/9798 (S/11534), A/9799 (S/11535). Letters of 9 October 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9805 (S/11538), A/9859 and Corr.1 (S/11558 and Corr.1). Letters of 15 October and 15 November 1974 from Israel.

A/9880 (S/11561). Letter of 26 November 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9882 (S/11562), A/9889 (S/11564), A/9895 (S/11566), A/9912 (S/11567), A/9945 (S/11570), A/9965 (S/11571), A/9985 (S/11577). Letters of 26 and 28 November and 2, 3, 9,12 and 16 December 1974 from Israel.

A/9986 (S/11578). Letter of 16 December 1974 from Egypt.

A/9989 (S/11581). Letter of 18 December 1974 from Israel.

A/9631. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly during its 29th session, Vol. 1, 17 September-18 December 1974. Other decisions, p.12.

A/9990 (S/11585). Letter of 19 December 1974 from Israel.

A/9991. Letter of 19 December 1974 from Morocco.

A/9993, A/9995 (S/11589). Letters of 23 December 1974 and 2 January 1975 from Israel.


The question of Palestine

By a letter dated 11 September 1974, the representatives of 56 States asked the United Nations Secretary-General to include in the agenda of the twenty-ninth (1974) session of the General Assembly, as a separate item, an item entitled "Question of Palestine." They were subsequently supported by seven additional States. In an explanatory memorandum accompanying their request, the signatories pointed out that the General Assembly had been continuously seized of the problem of Palestine since April 1947. In consequence of some of the Assembly's early resolutions regarding this issue, they said, a great number of Palestinians had been displaced and forced to endure the status of refugees, and the Palestinian people had been prevented from exercising its inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination.


Nevertheless, the memorandum continued, for more than 20 years the question of Palestine as such and the question of the status and fate of the people of Palestine as such had not appeared on the agenda of any session of the General Assembly, even though various aspects, ramifications or consequences of the problem had been dealt with by the Assembly and other United Nations organs.

The sponsors of the item went on to point out questions relating to the Middle East that since 1948 the Assembly had recognized and reaffirmed the right of the Palestine refugees to repatriation and, since 1970, had recognized the inalienable rights - including the right to self-determination - of the people of Palestine, as had the international community in recent years. As the United Nations had, since its inception, borne an historic, political and juridical responsibility regarding the problem of Palestine, it was therefore incumbent upon the General Assembly to consider the question in its true nature and proper form.

The request for inclusion of the item was made by Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burundi, Chad, China, the Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, the German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire. Their request was supported in separate letters dated 16 September by Hungary and by Turkey, on 17 September by the Byelorussian SSR, by Poland and by the USSR, and on 18 September by the Ukrainian SSR and by Upper Volta.

The item was included in the Assembly's agenda and, at two meetings held on 14 October, the Assembly first considered a proposal by 72 Member States to invite the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to participate in its deliberations on the question in plenary meetings. The proposal was submitted as a draft resolution by which the General Assembly, considering that the Palestinian people was the principal party to the question of Palestine, would invite the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings.

The Assembly adopted the 72-power text on 14 October as resolution 3210(XXIX), by a roll-call vote of 105 to 4, with 20 abstentions.

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

Sponsors of the text were Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burundi, the Byelorussian SSR, the Central African Republic, Chad, China, the Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, the Gambia, the German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, the Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Cameroon, the United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire and Zambia.


Introducing the draft proposal, the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said it was normal that the Palestinian people, as the principal party to the question of Palestine, should have its representatives present during the discussion of the question. The Palestine Liberation Organization had, he said, already been recognized by more than 90 States and by a number of international organizations as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and had been accorded observer status at a number of international conferences. He and other sponsors of the proposal - including Algeria, Dahomey, Egypt, Romania and Yugoslavia - said that PLO's participation was a necessary and useful action which would assist in promoting efforts to bring about a just and peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem. The Tunisian representative observed that attempts at discrediting PLO or challenging its representatives were no different from similar futile attempts undertaken in the past to discredit other resistance movements in Europe and elsewhere. Cuba's spokesman expressed similar views.
Other sponsors expressing support for the right of PLO to participate in the Assembly's discussion were Albania, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India and Kuwait, as well as the USSR, whose representative also said that the Peace Conference on the Middle East at Geneva, Switzerland, should be reconvened immediately, with the effective participation of all parties concerned, including PLO, on an equal footing.

The representative of Israel said that the draft resolution proposed to reward a relentless campaign against the very existence of an independent Member State. The so-called Palestine Liberation Organization had not emerged from within the Palestinian community but was an umbrella organization for all existing terrorist groups. Its goal was to liquidate the Jewish State and to destroy, uproot and scatter its people. In pursuit of its goal, he said, PLO employed the most despicable methods - the deliberate murder of guiltless civilians - and its head, Yasser Arafat, continued to serve also as head of the El-Fatah-Black September murder group. He added that the resolution made a mockery of the United Nations and its Charter. It would encourage international terrorism, he warned, and threaten the diplomatic process towards a settlement of the Middle East conflict. At the same time, it would not affect Israel's defence against the atrocities being perpetrated by PLO, which had been and remained an association of murder squads unrepresentative of Palestinians. Israel, he declared, would continue to protect its citizens from the crimes of PLO, and would continue to strike at the PLO terrorists and at their bases. The resolution also would not weaken Israel's resolve to pursue agreement and peace with the Arab States and would strengthen the understanding of Israel's need for secure boundaries.

The representatives of Austria, France, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden spoke in support of the 72-power resolution, but said that their positive votes in no way prejudged the position they might adopt when the Assembly at a later stage discussed the substantive issues involved.

The spokesman for the United Kingdom said his Government had abstained the vote because, although it considered it right that the views of Palestinians should be heard, it nevertheless attached great importance to the practice that only representatives at States should participate in the debates of the plenary Assembly. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands expressed similar views.

The United States representative said his Government's negative vote in no way reflected a lack of understanding or sympathy for the concerns and yearning for justice of the Palestinian people. Rather, it reflected the conviction of the United States that the justice they sought would come only as part of a peace that was just for all the parties. Such a peace had to be negotiated with the utmost care and had to lead to an over-all settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, at the heart of which was the Palestinian problem. He feared that the 72-power text could be interpreted as prejudging the negotiating process and also expressed profound concern that the Assembly - in departing from its practice of allowing only the representatives of Governments to take part in plenary meetings - might have created a dangerous precedent which could return to haunt the United Nations and perhaps cripple its effectiveness.

Before the General Assembly resumed its consideration of the question of Palestine on 13 November, the Secretary-General received a number of communications relating to the item. On 11 October, the representative of the Libyan Arab Republic, on behalf of the Arab group of Member States at the United Nations, transmitted to the Secretary-General a list containing what he described as a sample of the criminal acts committed between 1939 and 1974 by "the Zionist gangs" against Arab citizens of Palestine and citizens of other States. The representative of Tunisia transmitted on 18 October a list of what he termed the most important resolutions adopted by the United Nations, the non-aligned countries and the Organization of African Unity on the rights of the Palestinian people to return to their homeland, to self-determination, to struggle for the recovery of their rights, to their recognition as an indispensable element in the establishment of peace in the Middle East, and to the recognition of PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. On 6 November, the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic requested the circulation of a document entitled "Israel and South Africa."

The General Assembly resumed consideration of the question of Palestine at meetings held between 13 and 22 November; on 13 November it heard a statement by Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, who had been invited to address the Assembly in accordance with its decision of 14 October.

Mr. Arafat recalled the historical developments that had led to the establishment of a Zionist entity in Palestine, at the expense of most of its indigenous inhabitants, and said that, as the world order was being subjected to change, the question of Palestine had finally emerged in its true context, not merely as a problem of refugees or a border dispute between neighbouring States, but rather as the question of a people uprooted from its homeland and deprived of its rights, as a result of a Zionist plot supported by imperialist and colonialist powers.

He went on to say that, in spite of the many obstacles put in its way and the attempts made to liquidate it, the Palestinian people had not only preserved its national identity and kept its faith in the future but had also managed, under the harsh conditions of exile, to educate its children and produce thousands of physicians, lawyers, teachers and scientists who actively participated in the development of the Arab countries bordering on their usurped homeland. The Palestinian people had continued to wage its struggle for self-determination, at first through exclusively political means and later - when the international community continued to ignore its rights - through armed struggle. It was through that armed struggle, he said, that a national liberation movement comprising all the Palestinian factions had materialized in the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had been granted its legitimacy by the Palestinian masses, strengthened by the support of the entire Arab nation as well as that of other liberation movements and friendly like-minded nations. The most recent Arab summit conference had reiterated the right of PLO - in its capacity as sole representative of the Palestinian people - to establish an independent national State on all liberated Palestinian territory.

In spite of all the vicissitudes it had suffered, the Palestinian people was neither vindictive nor vengeful, Mr. Arafat went on to say. The Palestine Liberation Organization hoped for a peaceful and democratic Palestine where Christians, Jews and Moslems could live in justice, equality, fraternity and progress. He appealed to the General Assembly to accompany the Palestinian people in its struggle to attain its right to self-determination - a right consecrated by the Charter and repeatedly confirmed in Assembly resolutions. He then said he had come "bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter's gun" and concluded by saying: "Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand."

Also on 13 November, the representative of Israel said that the General Assembly, by making possible the invitation to the Palestine Liberation Organization, had turned its back on the United Nations Charter, on law and humanity, and had virtually capitulated to a murder organization which aimed at the destruction of a Member State of the United Nations. When its "chieftain" had addressed the Assembly that morning, he said, the rostrum had been defiled.

The Israeli representative maintained that the real reason for the special consideration given to questions concerning the Arabs of Palestine was the continuous exploitation of those questions as a weapon of Arab belligerency against Israel. It was obvious, he said, that the initiators of the discussion of the so-called question of Palestine were concerned primarily not with the realization of the rights of the Palestinians but with the annulment of the rights of the Jewish people. It was false to allege that the Palestinian people had been deprived of a State of its own, or that it had been uprooted from its national homeland. The Palestinians did in fact possess a political entity within which they exercised their national, political and cultural rights: that political entity was the Palestinian Arab State of Jordan. To the extent that some of their needs had not been fully satisfied, or that some aspects of their national identity required solution, they could be dealt with in the context of negotiations between Israel and its eastern neighbour, the Palestinian State of Jordan.

Israel's representative maintained that PLO was not representative of the Palestinians. It did not emerge from the Palestinian community but was a creation of the Arab Governments themselves as an instrument for waging terror warfare against Israel. He vowed that Israel would "pursue the PLO murderers", until justice was meted out to them. It would not permit the establishment of PLO authority in any part of Palestine. The Palestine Liberation Organization would not be forced on the Palestinian Arabs, nor would it be tolerated by the Jews of Israel. Israel, he said, would continue to strive for peace and would work towards an agreement with Jordan. In the Jordanian-Palestinian Arab State east of Israel the specific identity of Jordanians and Palestinians would find expression in peace and good-neighbourliness with Israel. That, he said, remained Israel's policy. However, if the peace-making process became paralysed because of General Assembly resolutions, Israel would find a way - by the exercise of its sovereignty - to ensure its political and security interests while also doing justice to the Arab population living in the administered areas. Should the Arab States espouse continued hostility and aggression, they would find Israel equally ready.

At the Assembly's meeting on 14 November, the President said that several delegations had expressed the desire to speak more than once during the debate. He then cited rule 35 of the Assembly's rules of procedure 17/ - which stated among other things that the President might, in the course of the discussion of an item, propose to the Assembly the limitation of the number of times each representative might speak - and rule 72 18/ according to which the Assembly among other things might limit the number of times each representative might speak on any question. He urged delegations to agree voluntarily to speak only once, without affecting the possibility of using the right of reply, when justified.

Later in the meeting, the President formally proposed that the Assembly assist him in deciding the matter by applying rule 72, and said the Assembly would hear two speakers in favour of allowing delegations to speak more than once during the debate and two speakers to defend the contrary proposition, after which the Assembly would vote.

The representative of Israel said the motivation for the President's suggestion was obvious: there was only one Israel and there were 20 Arab States. His delegation had inscribed its name to speak every day but had indicated that it would not necessarily avail itself of the opportunity to do so each time. It had inscribed its name so as to ensure that the debate was not utterly unbalanced and that the views of one of the principal parties were heard in a fair and equitable way. The proposal was, he said, an expression of the bias the President had displayed against Israel and its rights since the beginning of the current session, an example of which were the illegal arrangements made on the President's own initiative for the appearance before the Assembly of the "head of a murder organization" bent on the destruction of a Member State of the United Nations and on the indiscriminate killing of its citizens. He wished to go on record as expressing his Government's strongest protest.

The spokesman for Senegal proposed in accordance with rule 72 that each delegation be asked to speak only once on the substance of the item, with the option of speaking in exercise of the right of reply. When one's cause was just, he added, it was not necessary to speak several times.

The United States representative said he supported unlimited debate, under the General Assembly's rules, in view of the magnitude of the problem under discussion, and he appealed to the President to exercise with the utmost flexibility his judgement about the number of times a delegation might appropriately speak.

The President said the Assembly remained completely free to decide how it would conduct its work.

The representative of Iraq supported the Senegalese proposal, which the Assembly then adopted by a recorded vote of 75 to 23, with 18 abstentions.

Among those speaking in explanation of vote, Nicaragua said it had voted against the proposal because it believed that the inalienable right of every State to reply to attacks levelled against it was being distorted and that many rights were being taken away on the basis of mechanical majorities. The United Republic of Tanzania denied that any mechanical majority had been put into operation.

In connexion with the Assembly's decision, the representative of Israel, in a letter to the Secretary-General dated 14 November, said that, contrary to practice and the rules of procedure, the President of the Assembly had prevented him from speaking that day in the Assembly, despite the fact that Israel had been inscribed on the list of speakers for two weeks before the debate on the Palestine question had begun. He therefore requested that the statement he had intended to make at that meeting be circulated as an Assembly document.



In the statement, Israel reiterated its charges against neighbouring Arab States, particularly Lebanon, accusing them of abetting PLO in its campaign of premeditated murder. The Palestine Liberation Organization, Israel said, was an un-welcome guest in the Arab States, particularly Lebanon. It urged them to liberate themselves from "the PLO plague" as Jordan had done, and let the Palestinians speak for themselves, not through the mouths of assassins. There could be accommodation and peace between the Arab States and Israel, and between the Palestinians and Israel, but with PLO there could be no peace, no coexistence, no understanding or acquiescence.

On 21 November, Lebanon, in a letter to the Secretary-General, replied to the Israeli statement by stating that the references to Lebanon therein were repetitions of the usual Israeli fabrications used in implementing a malicious plan to prejudice Lebanese national unity. All Lebanese, he said, of whatever faith, were united in support of the rights of their Palestinian brothers because it was the cause of right and justice.

During the Assembly's debate on the question of Palestine, statements were made by representatives of more than 80 Member States. There was wide agreement that the Palestinians were central to the Middle East conflict and that without their effective association in the search for a settlement, no lasting peace in the area could be envisaged. For that reason, most of the speakers welcomed as positive developments both the decision of the Assembly to hold a debate on the question of Palestine as such, and the invitation to PLO to participate in that debate.

Several Members - including Jordan, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United Republic of Tanzania - said, with regard to Israel's contention that the Palestinians already possessed a State of their own, that Israel was trying to confuse the issue by attempting to transfer the rights of the Palestinians to other sovereign States. Jordan also doubted Israel's willingness to negotiate with its eastern neighbour, adding that negotiating was precisely what Israel had not done for the past seven years.

Many participants in the discussion, including the Byelorussian SSR, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, the USSR and Yugoslavia, disagreed with Israel's description of PLO as a murder organization. Mauritius said in that connexion that after hearing Yasser Arafat it was difficult to continue to treat him as a terrorist and not as the leader of his people. His statement had shown that PLO was not a terrorist organization whose avowed aim was Israel's destruction. The Tunisian representative said it came as no surprise that Israel's spokesman had described PLO as he did. Other colonial authorities had used similar terms when speaking of other national liberation movements. The Palestinian people, he said, had resorted to armed struggle for the purpose of opposing oppression and defending its rights. Senegal stated that national liberation movements had always been regarded as associations of evil-doers by their oppressors. Mali said it ill behooved the Zionists - who had set up terrorism as a State doctrine - to deny the Palestinians their choice of means to wage their fight to win back their legitimate rights.

In the opinion of the USSR, the Israeli statement was Zionist propaganda aimed at misleading world public opinion regarding the genuine purpose of the Palestinian struggle. The whole world had become convinced, particularly after hearing the statement of the Chairman of the Executive Committee of PLO, that the Palestinian people were fighting for a just cause, for their legitimate rights, against cruel and unscrupulous usurpers.

The representative of Zaire said the PLO Chairman had brought a message of conciliation and peace.

Many representatives, including Bangladesh, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal and Somalia, expressed the view that the General Assembly, by putting the problem of Palestine in its true perspective as a major political problem and not merely as a refugee problem, had taken an historic step towards the search for a just and durable settlement to the Middle East conflict.

The view was also widely expressed, particularly by representatives of African and Asian States, that the Palestinian people had suffered a grievous wrong as a result of having been uprooted from its ancestral land and homes in the process of the creation of the State of Israel. The time had finally come, those representatives maintained, to redress the injustice by enabling the Palestinian people to exercise its legitimate rights. The United Nations, having decided on the partition of Palestine in 1947 against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its people, was partly responsible for the tragedy of the Palestinians and was therefore responsible for seeking a solution.

The representative of the United Kingdom said his Government continued to believe that full implementation of Security Council resolution 242(1967) of 22 November 1967 19/ was an indispensable requirement for a settlement of the question. On the one hand, it called for the withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces; on the other, it reaffirmed the principle that Israel, like other States in the area, was entitled to live at peace with its neighbours within secure and recognized boundaries. But it took no account of the belief of the Palestinians that, as a separate people, they had political rights which extended beyond the rights of refugees referred to in the resolution. The United Kingdom, he said, had much sympathy for those sentiments and believed that the Palestinians - who were central to the Middle East conflict - should be fully involved in any settlement.

The spokesman for Germany (Federal Republic of) said that without due regard for the rights of the Palestinians there would be no lasting peace in the region. However, the settlement to be reached should incorporate all the essential principles laid down in resolution 242(1967) and had to be based on respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every State in the area, as well as the right to a secure existence that applied not least to Israel, he said.

Australia, Canada, Fiji and New Zealand were among others which considered that Security Council resolution 242(1967) provided the best agreed basis for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict, although it was pointed out by Fiji, and others, that it did not specifically cover the Palestinian question as the Assembly was currently dealing with it.

The representative of Mauritius said his Government stood for implementation of resolution 242(1967) and therefore insisted on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories occupied since 1967. Nigeria, Sierra Leone and others shared this view and also felt that the resolution did not deal adequately with the problem of Palestine. According to Sierra Leone, it could achieve a settlement between Israel and the Arab States but it could not settle the basic conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. Legally, Sierra Leone maintained, Palestine belonged to the Palestinians, whose sovereignty was inalienable and imprescriptible; the land of Palestine could not validly be the subject of any disposition, alienation or other transaction without the consent of the Palestinians.

China felt that resolution 242(1967) and others adopted by the United Nations had the common feature of twisting the question of the restoration of Palestinian rights into a problem of refugees, with the aim of obliterating those sacred rights. China supported the position of the broad masses of the Palestinians and other Arab peoples who rejected that view. To gain their rights, the Arab countries and the Palestinian people must rely on their own close unity and unremitting struggle.

The USSR representative maintained that the main reason for the dangerous situation in the Middle East was that Israel, with the support of external forces, continued to pursue an aggressive and expansionist policy vis-à-vis the Arab States, and stubbornly refused to withdraw from the Arab lands it had seized. The USSR, he said, had consistently favoured the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which took into account the interests of all States and peoples in the area. To do that, it was essential to ensure the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the Arab lands seized in 1967 and to ensure the legitimate national rights of the Arab people of Palestine. The USSR also favoured the immediate resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East, which provided the most appropriate forum for dealing with the complex problems involved.

The representative of the United States believed that the goal of the United Nations must be to seek ways to promote movement towards a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute while avoiding any measure which might make such movement more difficult. The sole alternative to the sterile pursuit of change through violence, he said, was negotiation. For the first time the parties had accepted that alternative and a landmark in that effort had been the Security Council's resolution of 22 October 1973 20/ by which the Council had for the first time called for immediate negotiations between the parties under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace. The primary objective of the United States, he said, had been to maintain the momentum of the negotiating process to move forward through a series of agreements, each representing progress, yet limited enough for Governments and peoples to accept. The way to move towards a situation more responsive to the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people was not through new resolutions or dramatic manoeuvres but by weaving the Palestinian interests into the give and take of the negotiating process.

On 22 November 1974, two resolutions were adopted by the General Assembly on this issue, by one of which it affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including the right to national independence, and by the other of which it granted observer status to the Palestine Liberation Organization in the Assembly's work and in all international conferences convened under its auspices.

The first resolution, sponsored by 47 Member States, was adopted by a roll-call vote of 89 to 8, with 37 abstentions, as resolution 3236(XXIX).

By the preamble to this text, the Assembly expressed its deep concern that no just solution to the problem of Palestine had yet been achieved and that that problem continued to endanger international peace and security. It also, among other things, recognized that the Palestinian people was entitled to self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter, expressed its grave concern that the Palestinian people had been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination; and recalled its relevant resolutions which affirmed that right.

By the operative paragraphs of the text, the Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine - including the right to self-determination without external interference and the right to national independence and sovereignty; it reaffirmed also 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.

Next, the Assembly emphasized that full respect for and the realization of those inalienable rights were indispensable for the solution of the Palestine question. It recognized that the Palestinian people was a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and, further, recognized the right of that people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. It appealed to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter.

The Secretary-General was asked by the Assembly to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine and to report to the Assembly at its thirtieth (1975) session on the implementation of the resolution. The assembly decided to include the item in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth session.

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

Sponsors of the text were Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, the Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Cameroon, the United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire.

Speaking in explanation of vote, several Members which supported the text - Argentina, Bhutan, Liberia, Mauritius, Thailand and Trinidad and Tobago, among others - said that their vote was in no way intended to place in doubt the right of all States in the region, including Israel, to exist in peace and security. Those who cast negative votes or abstained objected to the resolution's lack of balance and its failure to mention Security Council resolution 242(1967), in particular to recognize the right of every State in the area - including the State of Israel - to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. These Members included Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Ireland, Nepal, the Netherlands and Uruguay.

The second resolution, sponsored by 36 Members, was adopted by the Assembly by a recorded vote of 95 to 17, with 19 abstentions, as resolution 3237(XXIX).

By the preambular paragraphs of the text, the Assembly among other things noted that the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, the World Population Conference and the World Food Conference had in effect invited the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in their respective deliberations. It also noted that the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea had invited it to participate in its deliberations as an observer.

By the operative paragraphs of the text, the Assembly invited the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the sessions and work of the Assembly in the capacity of observer, and to so participate in all international conferences convened under its auspices or those of other organs of the United Nations. The Assembly asked the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps for the implementation of the resolution.

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

The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

During this period, the Secretary-General received several communications relating to the question of Palestine.

In a letter dated 18 November, the representative of Egypt, on behalf of the Arab group of Member States at the United Nations, requested circulation of a statement by PLO regarding the situation in the Israeli-occupied territories and repressive methods used by the occupying authorities to prevent the population from demonstrating its solidarity with and support for the position taken by PLO at the United Nations. The statement requested the immediate intervention of the United Nations to put an end to such practices and ultimately to the occupation itself.

By a letter dated 20 November, the representative of Bulgaria requested circulation of a document containing an appeal in favour of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians adopted by the Ninth Assembly of the World Federation of Democratic Youth, held at Varna, Bulgaria, in November 1974.

By a letter dated 21 November, the representative of Cuba and the Head of the Delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization transmitted the text of a Cuban-Palestinian joint communiqué, issued at the end of an official visit to Cuba in November by a delegation of PLO headed by Yasser Arafat.
Documentary references

General Assembly - 29th session

General Committee, meetings 219, 220.

Plenary meetings 2236, 2267, 2268, 2282-2285, 2287-2296.

A/9742 and Corr.1 and Add.1-4. Letter of 11 September 1974 from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burundi, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire (request for inclusion in agenda of item entitled: "Question of Palestine").

A/9753, Letter of 16 September 1974 from Hungary.

A/9754. Letter of 17 September 1974 from Poland.

A/9755. Letter of 17 September 1974 from USSR.

A/9756. Letter of 17 September 1974 from Byelorussian SSR.

A/9757. Letter of 16 September 1974 from Turkey.

A/9758. Letter of 18 September 1974 from Ukrainian SSR.

A/9759. Letter of 18 September 1974 from Upper Volta.

A/9801. Letter of 11 October 1974 from Libyan Arab Republic.

A/L.736 and Add.1, 2. Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia: draft resolution.

Resolution 3210(XXIX), as proposed by 72 powers, A/L.736, adopted by Assembly on 14 October 1974, meeting 2268, by roll-call vote of 105 to 4, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Khmer Republic, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Against: Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Burma, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Germany (Federal Republic of), Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Laos, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Paraguay, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

The General Assembly,

Considering that the Palestinian people is the principal party to the question of Palestine,

Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings.

A/9810, Letter of 18 October 1974 from Tunisia (transmitting excerpts from resolutions relating to question of Palestine).


A/9844 (S/11554). Letter of 6 November 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic (transmitting document entitled: "Israel and South Africa: Development of Relations, 1967-1974").

A/9856. Letter of 14 November 1974 from Israel.

A/9862. Letter of 18 November 1974 from Egypt (transmitting statement by Palestine Liberation Organization on situation in occupied territories).

A/9864. Letter of 20 November 1974 from Bulgaria (transmitting appeal dated 14 November 1974 from 9th Assembly of World Federation of Democratic Youth to Secretary-General).

A/9874. Letter of 21 November 1974 from Lebanon.

A/9876. Letter of 21 November 1974 from Cuba and Palestine Liberation Organization (transmitting Cuban-Palestinian joint communiqué).

A/L.741 and Add.1. Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia. Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire: draft resolution.

Resolution 3236(XXIX), as proposed by 47 powers, A/L.741, adopted by Assembly on 22 November 1974, meeting 2296, by roll-call vote of 89 to 8, with 37 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Iceland, Israel, Nicaragua, Norway, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Laos, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Singapore, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of Palestine,

Having heard the statement of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,

Having also heard other statements made during the debate,

Deeply concerned that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has yet been achieved and recognizing that the problem of Palestine continues to endanger international peace and security,

Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self- determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. 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;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution;

9. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth session.


A/L.742 and Add.1. Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen: draft resolution.

Resolution 3237(XXIX), as proposed by 36 powers, A/L.742, adopted by Assembly on 22 November 1974, meeting 2296, by recorded vote of 95 to 17, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Germany (Federal Republic of), Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Colombia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Japan, Laos, Malawi, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Uruguay.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of Palestine,

Taking into consideration the universality of the United Nations prescribed in the Charter,

Recalling its resolution 3102(XXVIII) of 12 December 1973,

Taking into account Economic and Social Council resolutions 1835(LVI) of 14 May 1974 and 1840(LVI) of 15 May 1974,

Noting that the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, the World Population Conference and the World Food Conference have in effect invited the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in their respective deliberations,

Noting also that the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea has invited the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in its deliberations as an observer,

1. Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly in the capacity of observer,

2. Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the sessions and the work of all international conferences convened under the auspices of the General Assembly in the capacity of observer;

3. Considers that the Palestine Liberation Organization is entitled to participate as an observer in the sessions and the work of all international conferences convened under the auspices of other organs of the United Nations;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps for the implementation of the present resolution.

The question of Jerusalem

Several communications regarding the situation in and around Jerusalem and its Holy Places were received during 1974 by the United Nations Secretary-General.

On 29 March 1974 the representative of Jordan complained that Israeli authorities were carrying out destructive excavations near the Al Aqsa Mosque and the surrounding area. He said that the Chairman of the Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem had protested against the excavations, which were said to have caused a crack in the historic building of Al Jawhariyah School on the western side of the mosque, and had demanded an immediate halt to those excavations. The Jordanian representative said that the excavations could ultimately cause the collapse and destruction of several religious and historic buildings and render homeless the 3,000 persons living in the area, and it asked that action be taken to halt any further excavations in the Holy City, which were in violation of the 1949 (Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and the Hague Convention of 1907 (prohibiting the seizure or destruction of public or private property and institutions dedicated to religion or education), as well as of the principles of international law, the United Nations Charter, and numerous Security Council resolutions on Jerusalem.

On 30 April, the representative of Israel rejected Jordan's charges as being without any foundation and denied that there had been any excavation under the building in question, which, in view of its age and general state of dilapidation, had to be repaired periodically. As to the excavations conducted in the area of the Temple Mount, they were being carried out by distinguished archaeologists who had made invaluable contributions to the knowledge of the different cultures, societies and religions identified with that historic site, without posing any danger whatsoever to existing historic and religious monuments.

On 22 July, Egypt called the Secretary-General's attention to plans by the occupation authorities to connect all Arab villages and quarters within the municipality of Jerusalem with the Israeli telephone network, a scheme that would violate the relevant United Nations resolutions concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the character and status of the City of Jerusalem.

In a reply dated 26 July, Israel stated that telephone connexions were being provided for the Arab villages at the express desire of their inhabitants.
Documentary references

S/11246 (A/9507). Letter of 29 March 1974 from Jordan.

S/11279 (A/9527). Letter of 30 April 1974 from Israel.

S/11360 (A/9564). Letter of 22 July 1974 from Egypt.

S/11386 (A/9566). Letter of 26 July 1974 from Israel.


The situation in the occupied territories

During 1974, various United Nations bodies concerned themselves with questions relating to the civilian population of territories occupied by Israel as a result of hostilities in the Middle East. A number of communications from Arab States and from Israel concerning the treatment of the civilian population in those territories and related matters were received by the Security Council and the Secretary-General.

The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories reported to the General Assembly in October. Earlier in the year, the Commission on Human Rights - after considering the Special Committee's 1973 report - adopted a resolution by which, among other things, it deplored Israel's continued breaches of the (fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and called upon Israel to stop immediately the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories and rescind all measures affecting their physical character and demographic composition.

In its 1974 report, the Special Committee concluded that Israel continued to act towards the population of the occupied territories in flagrant violation of their basic rights and in defiance of relevant international conventions. On the specific question of the destruction of the town of Quneitra, which was visited by the Special Committee on 9 September, the Committee concluded that the devastation had been a predominantly single and deliberately executed operation and that the Israeli occupying authorities were responsible.

During its twenty-ninth session, the General Assembly on 29 November 1974 adopted three resolutions on the question. By the first - 3240 A (XXIX) - the Assembly among other things demanded that Israel desist forthwith from annexing and colonizing the occupied Arab territories and from all their policies and practices in contravention of international law, including destruction of towns, confiscation of property, displacement of inhabitants, mass arrests, and illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories. The Assembly called on all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel.

By the second resolution - 3240 B (XXIX) - the Assembly reaffirmed that the fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, called on Israel to comply with the provisions of that Convention, and urged States parties to the Convention to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in those territories.

By the third - 3240 C (XXIX) - the Assembly among other things endorsed the conclusion of the Special Committee that Israel was responsible for the destruction of Quneitra, condemned Israel's action as a grave breach of the fourth Geneva Convention, and requested the Special Committee to undertake a survey to assess the nature, extent and value of the damage.


In another action at its twenty-ninth session, the General Assembly, on 17 December 1974, adopted resolution 3336(XXIX), by which it reaffirmed the right of the Arab States and peoples whose territories were under Israeli occupation to full and effective permanent sovereignty over all their resources and wealth, and to the restitution of and full compensation for the exploitation, depletion and loss of, and damages to, their natural and all other resources and wealth. Details of these developments are to be found in the sections that follow.
Treatment of the civilian population in Israeli-occupied
territories and related matters

Communications

During 1974, a number of communications from Arab States and from Israel concerning the treatment of the civilian population in Israeli-occupied territories and related matters were received by the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General.

On 3 and 7 January 1974, Israel rejected as baseless charges made by Egypt in December 1973 about Israel's treatment of prisoners of war and the civilian population, and countercharged that Egypt had not complied with its obligations under the (third) Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of 12 August 1949.

Letters from the Syrian Arab Republic on 21 February and 9 April concerned the alleged maiming and maltreatment by Israel of wounded Syrian prisoners of war, allegations which Israel rejected unequivocally in a letter of 27 March. By a letter dated 12 June, Israel submitted a statement of the Israeli Minister of Defence concerning the alleged maltreatment and torture of Israeli prisoners of war by the Syrian Arab Republic.

In a further letter of 10 September, Israel submitted a copy of a complaint against the Syrian Arab Republic which it had lodged with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) concerning grave breaches of the third Geneva Convention of 1949 committed against Israeli prisoners of war in the course of the 1963 Yom Kippur war and during the period of their captivity in the Syrian Arab Republic. On 9 October, the Syrian Arab Republic submitted a statement concerning the treatment of Syrian prisoners of war during their captivity in Israel, indicating that an official complaint in that respect had been submitted to ICRC.

In letters of 2 January and 8 and 11 February, Israel drew attention to attacks by terrorist organizations enjoying freedom of movement and action in Lebanon, whose actions included an assassination attempt in the United Kingdom and the killing of two Israeli citizens and the wounding of a third inside Israeli territory. Later in the year, on 4 October, Israel transmitted a letter in which it stated that it was submitting a list of the crimes perpetrated by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and said that an invitation by the General Assembly to PLO to participate in its deliberations would be contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and to the Assembly's rules of procedure.

In a letter of 14 February, the Syrian Arab Republic complained of the establishment of settlements on and the transfer of an alien population by Israel to the Golan Heights, which was Syrian territory. It quoted press reports which indicated that the Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, had stated that the Golan Heights would never be taken away from Israel.

On 6 May, the Syrian Arab Republic charged that Israeli forces had committed further acts of aggression against Syrian villages and their civilian population by firing on and shelling a town and several villages, destroying a school and wounding civilians. In a letter dated 8 July, the Syrian Arab Republic quoted further press reports to the effect that the then Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, had also stated that Israel would never give up the Golan Heights, and, with regard to Transjordan, had confirmed that Israel would not return to 1967 lines.

On 1 July, the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted a statement published by an Israeli lawyer which it claimed provided proof that the Israeli authorities violated fundamental human rights in the occupied Arab territories. In a reply dated 10 July, Israel refuted the charges, stating that the letter from the Syrian Arab Republic and the article annexed to it reiterated standard Arab propaganda distortions.

Following the signature of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces on 31 May 1974, the Secretary-General received a number of communications concerning the destruction of Quneitra and other villages in formerly occupied Syrian territory in the Golan Heights. In a letter dated 30 July, the Syrian Arab Republic charged that, upon withdrawal, Israeli forces using explosives and bulldozers had destroyed Syrian villages, including the city of Quneitra, in violation of international law and the (fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. In a further letter dated 12 September, the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted a report charging that Israeli occupation authorities had destroyed and pillaged cultural property, including religious and historical buildings and schools. Such actions, the letter charged, were violations of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, of 14 May 1954, which both Israel and Syria had ratified.

On 9 October, the Syrian Arab Republic submitted further descriptions of the destruction of the city of Quneitra, and indicated that it had addressed a letter to ICRC asking it to publicize the facts and prevent a repetition of such a crime and to request Israel to investigate and bring those responsible to trial.

In a letter dated 12 September, Lebanon, on behalf of the Arab group of Member States at the United Nations, transmitted the text of "The Quneitra Appeal," approved that month in Cairo, Egypt, by the Council of the League of Arab States. The appeal was addressed to all Governments and international and regional organizations in order, it stated, to expose the acts committed by Israel before its withdrawal from Quneitra.

In a letter dated 13 September, Algeria, on behalf of the group of non-aligned countries accredited to the United Nations, transmitted the text of a declaration, adopted the day before by the Coordinating Committee of the group, condemning the destruction by Israeli forces of Quneitra and the village of Rafid, contrary to international law and international conventions.

In replies dated 2 August and 23 September, Israel stated that it was a matter of common knowledge that the damage and destruction caused in front-line villages and in the town of Quneitra were the direct result of acts of aggression carried out by the Syrian Arab Republic at various times since 1967, culminating in its war against Israel in October 1973. The Syrian Arab Republic's claim that Quneitra had been destroyed on the eve of its evacuation by the Israeli forces, Israel stated, was nothing but a propaganda fabrication.

In a letter of 13 August, the Syrian Arab Republic charged that, by recalling reservists, mobilizing forces, building military roads and carrying out extensive military manoeuvres Israel had continued to create an atmosphere of tension with a view to committing a new aggression and destroying the international efforts made for the establishment of a just peace in the area. On 15 August, Israel replied that it had submitted complaints regarding violations of the Disengagement Agreement by the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force command. The letter stated that the mobilization of Israeli reserves was an exercise of a limited nature intended to test mobilization procedures.

The sentencing by Israel of Archbishop Hilarion Capucci of Jerusalem to 12 years' imprisonment was the subject of communications from Egypt, Morocco and the Syrian Arab Republic. On 16 December, Egypt transmitted a statement made by the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs saluting Archbishop Capucci as an example of the struggle of free believers against repression, aggression and terrorism, and denouncing his sentencing by Israel as shameful and a flagrant aggression against human rights. On 19 December, Morocco, on behalf of the Arab group at the United Nations, requested the Secretary-General to intercede on the Archbishop's behalf to try to bring about his immediate release. Morocco also requested that the matter be referred to the Commission on Human Rights and to the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. On 6 January 1975, the Syrian Arab Republic called the attention of the Secretary-General to a declaration issued by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to a declaration issued by the leaders of the Christian, Jewish and Moslem communities in that country protesting against the sentencing of Archbishop Capucci and appealing to the international community to intervene to secure his immediate release.

Israel replied on 18 and 23 December 1974 and 10 January 1975 that Archbishop Capucci had abused his office by engaging in the smuggling of large quantities of arms and sabotage material on behalf of Arab terrorist organizations, that he had admitted his misdeeds and had been found guilty by the District Court of Jerusalem. As to the charges made by Egypt, Morocco and the Syrian Arab Republic, Israel stated that they were an attempt to exploit the affair for reasons of propaganda and to incite religious passions.


Decisions of Human Rights Commission

At its thirtieth session in February-March 1974, the Commission on Human Rights had before it, among other things, the 1973 report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.21/ On 11 February, the Commission adopted a resolution on the question of the violation of human rights in the territories occupied as a result of hostilities in the Middle East.

By the preambular part of this text, the Commission among other things expressed its alarm at the continuation by Israel of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the occupied Arab territories - in particular, the destruction of houses, expropriation of Arab properties, ill-treatment of prisoners, pillaging of the archaeological and cultural heritage and exploitation of the natural resources of the territories, as well as interference in family life and in religious freedom and practices. It was concerned also that Israel persisted in establishing settlements in the occupied territories, in implementing massive programmes of immigration, in continuing to deport and transfer the indigenous population, and in refusing to allow the return to their homes of refugees and displaced persons.

By the operative part of the resolution, the Commission deplored Israel's breaches of the (fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and Israel's persistent defiance of the relevant United Nations resolutions. It reaffirmed that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic structure and status of the occupied territories - including occupied Jerusalem - were null and void and declared that Israel's policies of annexation, establishment of settlements and transfer of population were in contravention of the United Nations Charter as well as the principles of international law concerning occupation, the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity and the basic human rights of the people.

The Commission called on Israel once more to comply with its obligations under the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and to implement all the relevant United Nations resolutions. Israel was also called on to stop immediately the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories and to rescind all measures affecting their physical character and demographic composition.

The Commission then called on all States to do their utmost to ensure that Israel respected the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention and desisted from its current policies in the occupied territories. The Secretary-General was asked to bring the resolution to the attention of all Governments, competent United Nations organs, specialized agencies and regional inter-governmental organizations and to give it the widest possible publicity. He was asked to report to the Commission at its thirty-first session in 1975 when, it was decided, the matter would be given high priority.

Report of Special Committee in 1974

The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories presented its sixth report to the Secretary-General on 25 October 1974. The Special Committee said that although the Government of Israel had continued to deny it access to the occupied territories to conduct its investigations on the spot, it had continued to follow developments on a day-to-day basis. It had, it said, taken note of information gathered from the Israeli and Arab press, evidence furnished by Governments, oral testimony, information contained in United Nations documents, as well as information communicated to it by the International Committee of the Red Cross and contained in ICRC publications.

Meetings were held by the Special Committee during February, May, September and October 1974. During its May meetings, it visited Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic, and Beirut, Lebanon, to hear the testimony of persons who had been expelled from the occupied territories earlier in the year.

The Special Committee reported that Israel's policy of annexation and settlement had continued, and that there had been a marked increase in the adoption of measures which were contrary to the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention. It received evidence relating to allegations of violations of human rights of the population of the occupied territories in connexion with: annexation and settlement of the territories; demolition of houses; mass arrests; prison conditions; curfews, administrative detention and similar measures, expulsion and denial of the right to return; and measures involving economic exploitation.



The Special Committee visited the town of Quneitra on 9 September, at the request of the Syrian Arab Republic, to investigate the destruction alleged to have been caused by Israeli forces before their withdrawal under the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces, signed at Geneva, Switzerland, on 31 May 1974.

The Special Committee concluded that the devastation of Quneitra was a predominantly single and deliberately executed operation, that it was recent, that it had taken place from the ground, nearly always by the application of heavy equipment and sometimes by the use of explosives. In the Special Committee's view, the destruction had not been caused by aerial bombardment or ground-fire or in the course of hostilities; it was convinced that the Israeli occupying authorities were responsible.

The Special Committee recommended the appointment of a commission to study the legal consequences of the devastation of the town, to assess the damage and make the necessary recommendations.

In the conclusions to its report, the Special Committee said that the occupying power continued to act towards the population of the occupied territories in flagrant violation of their basic rights and in defiance of relevant international conventions. It reiterated its conviction that the situation of the civilian population of the occupied territories would be rectified only when the occupation - itself a violation of their basic human rights - was terminated.

The Special Committee called attention once again to the proposal it had made in each of its previous reports for the adoption of an arrangement inspired by the protecting-power formula envisaged under the Geneva Conventions to protect civilian persons living in occupied territories.22/

Consideration by General Assembly

The report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories was considered at the General Assembly's twenty-ninth session in 1974 by the Assembly's Special Political Committee, which also had before it a letter dated 9 October concerning Quneitra from the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic (see section on communications above), and a report by the Secretary-General prepared in response to a 1973 Assembly resolution 23/ asking him among other things to ensure wider circulation of the reports of the Special Committee and of information regarding its activities and findings.

In his report, the Secretary-General said that the United Nations Office of Public Information had taken appropriate steps to ensure wide circulation of the Special Committee's reports and had also disseminated information regarding its activities and findings.

On 29 November 1974, the General Assembly adopted three resolutions on the 1974 report of the Special Committee. By the preamble to the first of these (3240 A (XXIX)), the Assembly among other things expressed the view that the implementation of the (fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, could not and should not be left open in a situation involving foreign military occupation and the rights of the civilian population of the occupied territories. It deplored Israel's continued refusal to allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories.

By the operative part of the text, the Assembly commended the Special Committee for its efforts and called upon Israel to allow it access to the occupied territories. Concern was expressed at the continued and persistent disregard by Israel of the fourth Geneva Convention and other applicable international instruments, in particular violations which included: annexation of parts of the occupied territories and the establishment of Israeli settlements therein and the transfer of an alien population thereto; destruction and demolition of Arab houses, villages and towns; confiscation and expropriation of Arab property and other property transactions, evacuation, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories and denial of their right to return; mass arrests administrative detention and ill-treatment of the Arab population; pillaging of archaeological and cultural property; interference with religious freedom and practices; and illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories.

The Assembly declared that those policies of Israel were not only a direct contravention of international law, but also an impediment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace, and it reaffirmed that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the occupied territories were null and void. Israel's policy of settling parts of its own population and new immigrants in the occupied territories was contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention, the Assembly said, and it urged all States to refrain from any action which Israel could exploit in carrying out its policy of colonizing those territories.

The Assembly demanded that Israel desist forthwith from annexation and colonization of the occupied Arab territories, as well as from all the policies and practices referred to above. It reiterated its call to all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in those territories and to avoid action (including action in the field of aid) which might be used by Israel in pursuance of its policies.

The Special Committee was asked by the Assembly to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices, to consult with ICRC as appropriate and to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arose, the Secretary-General was asked to render the necessary facilities to the Special Committee, including those required for its visits to the occupied territories, to ensure the widest circulation of the reports of the Special Committee and to report to the Assembly at its thirtieth (1975) session, when the item would be included in the provisional agenda.

This resolution was adopted by the Assembly on 29 November 1974 by a recorded vote of 95 to 4, with 31 abstentions. The Special Political Committee had approved the text on 12 November by a recorded vote of 32 to 4, with 25 abstentions. The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Chad, Guinea, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, Pakistan, the Philippines and Upper Volta.

(For text of resolution 3240 A (XXIX), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By the preambular part of the second resolution (3240 B (XXIX)), the Assembly among other things recalled that Israel and those Arab States whose territories had been occupied by Israel since June 1967 were parties to the fourth Geneva Convention and reaffirmed that States parties to that Convention undertook not only to respect but also to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances.

By the operative part of the text, the Assembly: (1) reaffirmed that the fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, (2) called once more on Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of that Convention in those territories; and (3) urged all States parties to that Convention to exert all efforts to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in the occupied territories.

The Assembly adopted the resolution on 29 November by a recorded vote of 121 to 0, with 7 abstentions, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, which had approved the text on 12 November by a recorded vote of 102 to 0, with 5 abstentions. The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Argentina, Greece, Guinea, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Niger Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey and Upper Volta.

(For text of resolution 3240 B (XXIX), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By the preambular part of the third resolution (3240 C (XXIX)), the Assembly among other things recalled that the fourth Geneva Convention prohibited the destruction by the occupying power of real or personal property belonging to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations, and noted the Special Committee's deep-seated conviction that Israeli occupying authorities were responsible for the deliberate and total devastation of Quneitra, in violation of the Convention.

By the operative part of the text, the Assembly: (1) endorsed the conclusion of the Special Committee that Israel was responsible for the destruction of Quneitra; (2) regarded Israel's action as a grave breach of the fourth Geneva Convention and condemned Israel for such acts, (3) requested the Special Committee, with the assistance of experts, to undertake a survey of the destruction of Quneitra and to assess the nature, extent and value of the damage caused by the destruction; and (4) requested the Secretary-General to make available to the Special Committee all the necessary facilities and to report to the Assembly at its thirtieth (1975) session.

The Assembly adopted the resolution on 29 November by a recorded vote of 89 to 4, with 36 abstentions, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, which had approved the text on 12 November by a recorded vote of 79 to 4, with 28 abstentions. The text was sponsored by Afghanistan, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Niger, Pakistan and Upper Volta.

(For text of resolution 3240 C (XXIX), see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

During the debate in the Special Political Committee, the Chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories said he regretted to inform the Assembly once again that the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention, the Regulations attached to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict continued to be disregarded. The basic policy of the Government of Israel continued unchanged, he said, and the scale and pattern of the violation of human rights of the civilians of the territories were such that they could not be justified on the grounds of over-whelming military necessity.



The destruction of the town of Quneitra had been a new factor in the Special Committee's investigations, he continued, and its nature had been such that for the most part it could not have been caused by aerial bombardment or ground shelling.

The Chairman regretted, as in 1973, the Assembly's failure to take appropriate action on the Special Committee's recommendations regarding machinery for the supervision of the implementation of international laws protecting the human rights of the population of the occupied territories. The Committee was, however, encouraged by the support that certain Members had given to its proposal to establish special machinery as an alternative to the protecting- power formula.24/

The representative of Israel, as in previous years, maintained that the Special Committee lacked impartiality. The evidence on which the Special Committee had relied in its conclusions against Israel was completely worthless, he said, and furthermore the approach of that Committee to that evidence and the conduct of its proceedings had to invalidate any findings or conclusions drawn by it. With regard to the fourth Geneva Convention, he said that Israel for a number of legal reasons reserved its position on the applicability of that Convention in the administered areas.

He referred to the statement he had made at the 1973 session of the Assembly on the allegations of an Israeli policy of annexation and settlement, and emphasized that there was no evidence of a policy of annexation and that the settlements which had been established were required for defence reasons.

After refuting a number of the allegations concerning, inter alia, the demolition of houses, mass arrests and prison conditions, the Israeli representative turned to the subject of the destruction of Quneitra and said that the assumptions, findings and conclusions of the Special Committee were hasty and unwarranted, and unsupported by any substantive evidence. Reports in the world press, he said, had shown that Quneitra had been substantially damaged long before 1974.

Many members, including Bahrain, the Byelorussian SSR, India, Mali, Mauritania and Tunisia, commended the Special Committee for its work, despite the refusal of the Israeli Government to cooperate by allowing it to visit the occupied territories. Jordan said that the Special Committee had been the target of continuous vilification and slander from Israel, but that could not detract from the dignity of the Committee. Yugoslavia said that the attempt to discredit the Committee and the United Nations by describing its members as anti-Israeli and partial could not succeed, because no member of the United Nations could countenance aggression, occupation or annexation whether carried out by Israel or anyone else.

The representative of Egypt said that Israeli measures to annex Arab territory, to establish Israeli settlements and to deport and expel the Arab population from their homes and lands were most deplorable. All those measures constituted a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions, he said. The representative of Lebanon said that Israel, which had uprooted and evicted the Palestinian people and occupied their entire homeland and the territories of Arab States, was pursuing a policy aimed at dispersing and exterminating them and punishing the civilian population in the countries in which they had taken refuge.

The destruction of Quneitra was a matter raised by many of the Members who spoke. The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said that Israel, by its deliberate destruction of the town with no valid justification, had committed a war crime. Israel, he said, had violated the United Nations Charter, United Nations resolutions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the fourth Geneva Convention and other relevant international conventions. Qatar said that the international community should compel Israel to pay compensation for the damage so that the Syrian monuments and works of art could be restored.

Israeli actions in Jerusalem were also criticized. Jordan said that Israel had a premeditated plan to alter the demographic, historical and cultural landscape of the city and to destroy its Arab heritage, including the Christian and Islamic holy places.

The representative of the USSR said that the report of the Special Committee was a convincing indictment which revealed Israel's flagrant violations of the human rights of the population of the occupied Arab lands. He supported the Special Committee's conclusion that the question of those violations would not be resolved until the Israeli occupation of the Arab territories was itself ended, which had to be achieved as part of a general political settlement in the Middle East.

The representative of France said he shared the concern expressed by the representatives of the occupied territories at the establishment of Israeli colonies in those territories, which was obviously contrary to the obligations imposed on the occupying power by international law. France continued, however, to have reservations about the Special Committee, although it recognized that it came up against insurmountable obstacles in the exercise of its mandate.

The United Kingdom representative said that the Special Committee had been unable to act as effectively as it should because of the way in which it had been established and had had to operate. Like the Special Committee, the United Kingdom was convinced that the most effective way of securing respect for the human rights of the inhabitants of the occupied territories was for the occupation to be terminated as part of a just and lasting settlement on the basis of Security Council resolution 242 (1967)25/

The representative of China reiterated that it was because of the two super-powers that Israel had dared to commit so much evil, act so truculently and persist in making itself the enemy of the Arab peoples. Those super-powers, he said, intended to maintain the tense situation of "no war, no peace" in the Middle East in order to contend for spheres of influence and to appropriate all resources and strategic positions in the region.

Following the vote on the three draft resolutions before the Special Political Committee, a number of Members explained that they had not been able to support the resolution concerning the destruction of Quneitra because they were not in possession of sufficient facts. Those Members included Australia, Bolivia, Canada, France (on behalf of the nine member States of the European Economic Community), Japan and the United States.


Related General Assembly decisions

At its twenty-ninth session in 1971, the General Assembly took two other decisions bearing on various aspects of the treatment of the civilian population in Israeli-occupied territories.



On 29 November, the Assembly adopted a resolution (3246(XXIX)) on the importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights. By that resolution the Assembly among other things strongly condemned all Governments which did not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, including the Palestinian people. (See also p. 638.)

On 10 December, the Assembly adopted a resolution (3266(XXIX)) on the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, by which among other things the Assembly shared that Committee's concern about the situation in the Golan Heights where the Syrian Arab Republic had been prevented from fulfilling its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (See also pp. 620-22.)

Documentary references

Communications

S/11177, S/11180 and Rev.1 (A/9478 and Rev.1), S/11183, S/11213 (A/9488), S/11215 (A/9489). Letters of 2, 3 and 7 January and 8 and 11 February 1974 from Israel.

S/11220 (A/9493), S/11227 (A/9495). Letters of 14 and 21 February 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11242 (A/9503). Letter of 27 March 1974 from Israel.

S/11256 (A/9512), S/11283 (A/9530). Letters of 9 April and 6 May 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11303 (A/9540). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting Human Rights Commission resolution 1 (XXX) of 11 February 1974).

S/11318 (A/9560). Letter of 12 June 1974 from Israel.

S/11327 (A/9561), S/11330 (A/9562). Letters of 1 and 8 July 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11333 (A/9563). Letter of 10 July 1974 from Israel.

S/11396 (A/9568). Letter of 30 July 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11408 (A/9570). Letter of 2 August 1974 from Israel.

S/11443 (A/9671). Letter of 13 August 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11452 and Corr.1 (A/9674 and Corr.1), S/11502 (A/9681). Letters of 15 August and 10 September 1974 from Israel.

S/11506 (A/9683). Letter of 12 September 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11507 (A/9684). Letter of 12 September 1974 from Lebanon (transmitting "Quneitra Appeal" approved by Council of League of Arab States, 62nd session, Cairo, Egypt, 1-5 September 1974).

S/11508. Letter of 13 September 1974 from Algeria (transmitting text of declaration concerning Quneitra adopted on 12 September 1974 by Co-ordinating Committee of Group of Non-Aligned Countries accredited to United Nations).

S/11516 (A/9686), S/11530 (A/9688). Letters of 23 September and 4 October 1974 from Israel.

S/11533 (A/9689), S/11535 (A/9799), S/11554 (A/9844). Letters of 9 October and 6 November 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

S/11578 (A/9986). Letter of 16 December 1974 from Egypt.

S/11581 (A/9989). Letter of 18 December 1974 from Israel.

A/9991. Letter of 19 December 1974 from Morocco.

A/9993. Letter of 23 December 1974 from Israel.

A/9997. Letter of 6 January 1975 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9999. Letter of 10 January 1975 from Israel.


Decisions of Human Rights Commission

E/5464. Report of Commission on Human Rights on its 30th session, United Nations Headquarters, New York, 4 February-8 March 1974, Chapters III and XIX A (resolution 1 (XXX)).


Report of Special Committee in 1974

A/9817. Report of Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of Population of Occupied Territories. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report).


Consideration by General Assembly

General Assembly-28th session

A/9524, Letter of 26 April 1974 from President of General Assembly to Secretary-General.

A/9540 (S/11303). Note by Secretary-General (transmitting Human Rights Commission resolution 1 (XXX) of 11 February 1974).

General Assembly-29th session Special Political Committee, meetings 928-932. Fifth Committee, meeting 1672. Plenary meeting 2303.

A/9601. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1973-15 June 1974, Part Three, Chapter 1E 1.

A/9799 (S/11535). Letter of 9 October 1974 from Syrian Arab Republic.

A/9817. Report of Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of Population of Occupied Territories. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report).

A/9843. Report of Secretary-General.

A/SPC/L.305. Afghanistan, Chad, Guinea, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Upper Volta: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 12 November 1974, meeting 932, by recorded vote of 82 to 4, with 25 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Bolivia, Israel, Nicaragua, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malawi, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

A/SPC/L.308 and Rev.1, A/C.5/1629. Administrative and financial implications of 11-power draft resolution, A/SPC/L.305. Statements by Secretary-General.

A/9881. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolutions A and C recommended by Special Political Committee in A/9872. Report of Fifth Committee.

A/9872. Report of Special Political Committee. draft resolution A.

Resolution 3240 A (XXIX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9872, adopted by Assembly on 29 November 1974, meeting 2303, by recorded vote of 95 to 4, with 31 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Bolivia, Israel, Nicaragua, United States.



Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Laos, Luxembourg, Malawi, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.


* Subsequently Honduras advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations as well as the principles and provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Bearing in mind the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, as well as of other relevant conventions and regulations,

Recalling its resolutions on the subject, as well as those adopted by the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights and other United Nations bodies concerned and by specialized agencies,

Considering that the implementation of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 cannot and should not be left open in a situation involving foreign military occupation and the rights of the civilian population of those territories,

Deploring the continued refusal by Israel to allow the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories access to the occupied territories

Having considered the report of the Special Committee,

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

2. Calls upon Israel to allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories;

3. Expresses the gravest concern at the continued and persistent disregard by Israel of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and other applicable international instruments, in particular the following violations:

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

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

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

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

(e) The evacuation, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories, and the denial of their right to return;

(f) Mass arrests, administrative detention and ill-treatment of the Arab population;

(g) The pillaging of archaeological and cultural property;

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

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

4. Declares that those policies of Israel constitute not only a direct contravention to, and violation of, the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, the principles and provisions of the applicable international law concerning occupation and the basic human rights of the people, but also an impediment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace;

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

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

7. Demands that Israel desist forthwith from the annexation and colonization of the occupied Arab territories as well as from all the policies and practices referred to in paragraph 3 above;

8. Reiterates its call upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid actions, including actions in the field of aid, which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

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

10. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To render all necessary facilities to the Special Committee, including those required for its visits to the occupied territories with a view to investigating Israeli policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

(b) To ensure the widest circulation of the reports of the Special Committee, and of information regarding its activities and findings, by all means available through the Office of Public Information of the Secretariat;

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

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

A/SPC/L.306. Afghanistan, Argentina, Greece, Guinea, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, Upper Volta: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 12 November 1974, meeting 932, by recorded vote of 102 to 0, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Khmer Republic, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: None.

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

* Subsequently Tunisia stated that its vote in favour of the draft resolution had not been properly recorded.

A/9872. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution B.

Resolution 3240 B (XXIX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9872, adopted by Assembly on 29 November 1974, meeting 2303, by recorded vote of 121 to 0, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Khmer Republic, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: None.

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

The General Assembly,

Affirming that the promotion of respect for the obligations arising from the Charter of the United Nations and other instruments and rules of international law is among the basic purposes and principles of the United Nations,

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

Recalling that Israel and those Arab States whose territories have been occupied by Israel since June 1967 are parties to that Convention,

Reaffirming that States parties to that Convention undertake, in accordance with article 1 thereof, not only to respect but also to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances,

1. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

2. Calls once more upon Israel to respect and to comply with the provisions of that Convention in the Arab territories occupied by Israel;

3. Urges all States parties to that Convention to exert all efforts in order to ensure respect for and compliance with the provisions thereof in the Arab territories occupied by Israel.

A/SPC/L.307. Afghanistan, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Niger, Pakistan, Upper Volta: draft resolution, as orally amended by sponsors, approved by Special Political Committee on 12 November 1974, meeting 932, by recorded vote of 79 to 4, with 28 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Bolivia, Canada, Israel, Nicaragua.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Malawi, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

A/SPC/L.309, A/C.5/1609. Administrative and financial implications of 7-power draft resolution, A/SPC/L.307. Statements by Secretary-General.
A/9881. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolutions A and C recommended by Special Political Committee in A/9872. Report of Fifth Committee.

A/9872. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution C.

Resolution 3240 C (XXIX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9872, adopted by Assembly on 29 November 1974, meeting 2303, by recorded vote of 89 to 4, with 36 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Bolivia, Canada, Israel, Nicaragua.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Laos, Luxembourg, Malawi, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, in particular section V thereof concerning the destruction of the town of Quneitra,

Recalling that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, provides that any destruction by the occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations is prohibited,

Noting the Special Committee's deep-seated conviction that the Israeli forces and the Israeli occupying authorities were responsible for the deliberate and total devastation of Quneitra, in violation of article 53 of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and under article 147 thereof,

Noting further the Special Committee's opinion that the gravity of the circumstances would justify the appointment of a commission to study the legal consequences of the devastation of Quneitra, particularly within the context of articles 53 and 147 of the Geneva Convention, bearing in mind the provisions of article 6 (b) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, confirmed by the General Assembly in its resolution 95(1) of 11 December 1946,

1. Endorses the conclusion of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories that Israel is responsible for the destruction and devastation of the town of Quneitra;

2. Regards Israel's deliberate destruction and devastation of the town of Quneitra as a grave breach of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and condemns Israel for such acts;

3. Requests the Special Committee, with the assistance of experts, designated it necessary in consultation with the Secretary-General, to undertake a survey of the destruction in Quneitra and to assess the nature, extent and value of the damage caused by such destruction;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to make available to the Special Committee all the facilities necessary in the performance of its task and to report to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session.

Permanent sovereignty over national resources
in occupied Arab territories

By a resolution adopted on 17 December 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the right of the Arab States and peoples whose territories were under Israeli occupation to full and effective permanent sovereignty over all their resources and wealth. All measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the human, natural and all other resources and wealth of the occupied Arab territories were illegal, the Assembly reaffirmed, and it called on Israel immediately to rescind all such measures.

The Assembly then further reaffirmed the right of the Arab States, territories and peoples subjected to Israeli aggression and occupation to the restitution of and full compensation for the exploitation, depletion and loss of, and damages to, their natural and all other resources and wealth. It declared that those principles applied to all States, territories and peoples under foreign occupation, colonial rule, alien domination and apartheid, or subjected to foreign aggression.

The Assembly requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of the relevant specialized agencies and United Nations organs, including the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, to prepare a report for its 1975 regular session on the adverse economic effects on the Arab States and peoples resulting from repeated Israeli aggression and continued occupation of their territories.

The Assembly took these decisions when it adopted resolution 3336(XXIX) by a roll-call vote of 99 to 2, with 32 abstentions. The Assembly acted on the recommendation of its Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, which had approved the text on 21 November by a roll-call vote of 95 to 2, with 28 abstentions, on a proposal by Afghanistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Togo, Uganda, the United Republic of Cameroon, the United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta and Yugoslavia.

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

Introducing the draft resolution in the Second Committee, the representative of Pakistan said its purpose was to reaffirm the provisions of the decision taken by the Assembly on this item in 1973,26/ adding the concept of national wealth to that of natural resources, and to call for a report on the adverse effects on the Arab States and peoples of continued occupation of, and acts of aggression against, Arab lands. He explained that the concept of wealth in the text meant all forms of wealth, including items of cultural or national heritage, personal wealth of the Arab peoples, and so on. There was ample evidence, Pakistan said, of the illegal, immoral and unjust acts committed by Israel in the Middle East, which left no doubt that Israel's motives were similar to those of the racist regime in South Africa. By adopting the draft resolution, Pakistan continued, the Committee would be expressing its firm disapproval of those acts and its firm adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Israel's representative regretted the renewed attempt to involve the Second Committee in highly sensitive political matters which were being dealt with elsewhere by the General Assembly. He stated that the motives behind the draft resolution were essentially political: they aimed at attributing to Israel exclusive responsibility for all the consequences of the continuous aggression by Arab States against it since 1948. To refer to the Israeli presence in the occupied areas while ignoring the fact that Israel had arrived there in the course of a war of Arab making was to pervert fundamental truth, he said.

The policy of the Israeli military administration had been to maintain the laws in force and to administer the territories in accordance with the relevant rules of international law, to promote social and economic development, to foster good-neighbourly relations and to keep options open for future peace negotiations, Israel's representative continued. International law, he added, did not provide that the occupying power should be responsible for providing public and social services to the population in the occupied territories while the income from those territories reverted to the former power.

Many Committee Members supported the text, among them Burundi, Cyprus, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Japan, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey and Zaire.

The USSR representative said that the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories (see section above) showed that Israel was deriving $400 million per year from its exploitation of Arab oil in the Sinai peninsula and was exploiting the labour of some 80,000 Arab workers.

The spokesman for China emphasized the importance of the support expressed in the resolution for all countries and peoples subjected to aggression, plunder and threats by imperialism, social imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the nine member States of the European Economic Community, said that those States recognized the fundamental importance of the text, but that they did not regard the Second Committee as the appropriate forum for a discussion of the issues raised, which concerned the economic consequences of a political situation that was currently under consideration by the political organs of the United Nations. Similar views were expressed by Bolivia, Canada, Guatemala and the United States.

In the Second Committee the representative of Iraq asked for separate roll-call votes on the two operative paragraphs of the text by which the Assembly, respectively, reaffirmed the right of occupied Arab territories to the restitution of and full compensation for exploited, depleted, lost or damaged natural or other resources and wealth, and declared that the same principles applied to all territories under foreign domination. The first of those paragraphs was approved by a vote of 93 to 2, with 29 abstentions; the second, by 95 votes to 2, with 27 abstentions.

There were no objections to a similar request by the Syrian Arab Republic for a separate roll-call vote on the first of these two paragraphs (on restitution and compensation) in the plenary meeting of the Assembly on 17 December 1974, before the resolution as a whole was adopted. That paragraph was adopted then by 97 votes to 2, with 34 abstentions.

In the Second Committee, after the voting Honduras said it had abstained from voting because the resolution had not been confined to the question of the exploitation of natural resources by the occupying force, but contained a statement which extended its scope to other situations; how-ever, Honduras believed that no occupying nation had the right to use national resources of occupied territories for its own benefit. Fiji, while supporting the resolution as a whole, also had reservations, inter alia, because of the reference to all colonial situations. Fiji thought it was conceivable that some territories might wish to remain colonies not because of any pressure by the administering power but because of the economic implications of separation.

Finland, also supporting the text as a whole, said it had abstained in the separate votes because it considered the wording of the two relevant paragraphs to be vague and their meaning ambiguous.

The representative of the Libyan Arab Republic referred to the resolution as unfortunately another in a series of useless resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council which were not implemented because of the moral and material assistance received by the Zionist entity from imperialist countries, particularly the United States. He warned against getting caught up in side issues and forgetting the essence of the question: the restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people.
Documentary references

General Assembly-29th session
Second Committee, meetings 1630, 1635.
Fifth Committee, meeting 1692.
Plenary meeting 2323.

A/C.2/L.1372. Afghanistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia, Zaire: draft resolution.

A/C.2/L.1372/Rev.1. Afghanistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia: revised draft resolution, approved by Second Committee on 21 November 1974, meeting 1635, by roll-call vote of 95 to 2, with 28 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Italy, Laos, Malawi, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

A/C.2/L.1385, A/C.5/1649, A/9978/Add.1. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution 11 recommended by Second Committee in A/9886. Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.

A/9886. Report of Second Committee (part 1) (on report of Economic and Social Council), draft resolution II.

Resolution 3336(XXIX), as recommended by Second Committee, A/9886, adopted by Assembly on 17 December 1974, meeting 2323, by roll-call vote of 99 to 2, with 32 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Laos, Luxembourg, Malawi, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

The General Assembly,

Bearing in mind the relevant principles of international law and the provisions of the international conventions and regulations, especially the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1969, concerning the obligations and responsibilities of the occupying Power,

Recalling its previous resolutions on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, particularly their provisions supporting resolutely the efforts of developing countries and the peoples of the territories under colonial and racial domination and foreign occupation in their struggle to regain effective control over their natural resources,

Recalling the pertinent provisions of the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade and its resolution 3176(XXVIII) of 17 December 1973 on the first biennial over-all review and appraisal of progress in the implementation of the Strategy,

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

Bearing in mind the pertinent provisions of its resolution 3201(S-VI) of 1 May 1974, containing the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, and Its resolution 3202(S-VI) of 1 May 1974, containing the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order,

Recalling further its resolution 3175(XXVIII) of 17 December 1973, entitled "Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories," and deploring that Israel has not complied with its provisions, in particular those contained in paragraph 2,

1. Reaffirms the right of the Arab States and peoples whose territories are under Israeli occupation to full and effective permanent sovereignty over all their resources and wealth;

2. Also reaffirms that all measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the human, natural and all other resources and wealth of the occupied Arab territories are illegal, and calls upon Israel immediately to rescind all such measures;

3. Further reaffirms the right of the Arab States, territories and peoples subjected to Israeli aggression and occupation to the restitution of and full compensation for the exploitation, depletion and loss of, and damages to, the natural and all other resources and wealth of those States, territories and peoples;

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

5. Requests the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant specialized agencies and United Nations organs, including the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, to prepare a report on the adverse economic effects on the Arab States and peoples, resulting from repeated Israeli aggression and continued occupation of their territories, to be submitted to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session.


Questions pertaining to refugees in the Near East

In 1974, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) maintained its relief, health and educational programmes of assistance for Palestine refugees in Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, Jordan, the occupied West Bank of Jordan and the Gaza Strip. This was achieved despite the Agency's precarious financial position.

Although the Agency had experienced financial difficulties in preceding years, in 1974 adverse economic factors radically changed the dimensions of its budgetary problem. The rise in prices of supplies, especially flour, the continued appreciation of three of the local currencies against currencies of major importance in the Agency's income, and local increases in the cost of living - which in 1974 ranged from 11 per cent in the Syrian Arab Republic to 47 per cent in the Gaza Strip - resulted in a rise in expenditure from $62.5 million in 1973 to $88.1 million in 1974.

On 11 February 1974, the United Nations Secretary-General issued an appeal for additional contributions to the Agency. In May, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA informed the Secretary-General that, unless there was a very early significant improvement in income, reductions in services would be inevitable in order to avoid financial collapse in 1974. Cuts in services were averted at the last moment in June, when the budget deficit was covered by emergency additional contributions from the European Economic Community and the United States. For 1975, however, the Agency was faced with a deficit of unprecedented magnitude, then estimated at $44.7 million in a budget that had risen to $115 million, owing to the cumulative and continuing effects of higher commodity prices and inflation.

In a statement on 29 November, during the General Assembly's twenty-ninth session, the Commissioner-General again called attention to the Agency's serious financial situation in the coming year and to supply problems in 1974, which had forced temporary reductions in the size of the components of the basic ration programme.

In December, the General Assembly extended UNRWA'S mandate for three years, to 30 June 1978, and that of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA for one year. The Assembly also, among other decisions: appealed for generous contributions to UNRWA; placed the cost of the Agency's international staff in the regular budget of the United Nations; called once more upon Israel to take steps for the return of inhabitants who had fled the occupied territories since the outbreak of hostilities in 1967; and called upon Israel to desist from further destruction of refugee shelters in the Gaza Strip and removal of refugees; to return the refugees concerned to their camps and to provide adequate shelters for them.

Details of these Assembly decisions are described below.


Activities in 1974

The number of refugees registered with UNRWA in 1974 rose through natural increase to 1,607,897, of whom an average of 827,000 received basic rations monthly and 1,394,168 were eligible for the Agency's health and education programmes. The Agency also distributed monthly rations to about 205,000 displaced persons and 39,000 displaced refugee children in east Jordan at the expense of the Jordanian Government.

At the end of 1974, there were 577,816 registered refugees (about 36 per cent of the total) living in 53 camps established before the June 1967 hostilities and 10 emergency camps established after those hostilities. The latter also accommodated 42,157 displaced persons.

The Agency continued to provide preventive and curative medical services for eligible refugees, in co-operation with the World Health Organization (WHO). Expenditure on health services totalled $10.3 million in 1974. In addition, UNRWA continued its emergency and regular supplementary feeding programmes for nutritionally vulnerable groups, particularly young children. The Agency also established seven new clinical laboratories and four specialized clinics at selected health centres.

On 21 May, the WHO World Health Assembly requested the Director-General of WHO to intensify and increase the organization's programmes and health assistance to the refugees and displaced persons in the Middle East.

Expenditure on education increased to $38.3 million, representing 43.4 per cent of the Agency's total budget. The programme, conducted in association with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), included general education for the first nine years (10 years in Lebanon), some assistance to refugee pupils in government and private secondary schools, vocational and teacher training in eight centers and a number of university scholarships. Of UNRWA's 15,197 employees, almost all Palestine refugees themselves, over 8,000 were teachers.

In the 1974/75 school year, 275,306 children were enrolled in the 577 UNRWA/UNESCO elementary and preparatory schools. There were also about 70,000 refugee pupils enrolled in government and private schools. Some 63 per cent of the pupils in UNRWA/UNESCO schools were attending classes on a shift basis, despite the construction of 57 new schoolrooms during the year.

The number of students enrolled in the Agency's eight training centres in 1974/75 rose to 3,037 in vocational and 1,253 in teacher-training courses. Financial assistance from the United Nations Development Programme enabled the UNRWA/UNESCO Institute of Education, in co-operation with the United Nations Children's Fund, to make its experience available to government educationalists in the region. The Agency also established two education development centres - in Amman (Jordan) and Gaza - for further improving the quality of education in UNRWA/UNESCO schools.

In 1974, the Agency's operations were again affected by hostilities. In May and June, Israeli raids in southern Lebanon resulted in heavy loss of life and extensive damage to refugee shelters and UNRWA installations in Nabatieh, Ein el-Hilweh, Rashidieh and Burj el-Shemali camps. Loss of life and damage to property were particularly severe at Nabatieh camp, where only 70 of the 400 families escaped destruction of or damage to their dwellings. The Agency provided emergency assistance such as blankets, clothing medical aid and construction materials and began reconstruction in Nabatieh. By mid-1974, a total of 37 refugees had been killed and 206 injured. Further Israeli raids in August, October and December in southern Lebanon and near Beirut caused additional casualties.

Consideration by General Assembly

The question of the situation of refugees in the Near East was considered by the General Assembly at its regular 1974 session and referred to the Assembly's Special Political Committee, which had before it: the annual report of and a note on revised budget estimates by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA; a report by the Secretary-General; a report of the Working Group on the financing of UNRWA; and a report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine.

Report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA

In his annual report to the General Assembly, covering the period from 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA stated that the Agency had entered a critical year, the twenty-fifth of its operational existence, in which there were serious grounds for anxiety about the Agency's viability. The situation in the Middle East, at least so far as the Palestine refugees were concerned, was more fluid and volatile than for many years. The Agency faced a deficit of unprecedented magnitude and it was extremely doubtful whether traditional methods and sources of financing could clear with it adequately.

In discussing the possible extension of the Agency's mandate beyond 30 June 1975, the Commissioner-General said that, given the prospect of negotiations, an extension ought to be accompanied by recognition that the political situation might develop in such a way as to require a reassessment and reorientation of the Agency's responsibilities in order to ensure continuing relevance to the needs of the Palestine refugees and UNRWA'S ability to respond adequately to the requirements of a new situation.

Reviewing the Agency's activities, the Commissioner-General emphasized that the expression "UNRWA refugee camps" or "United Nations refugee camps" was misleading if taken to mean more than that those camps were inhabited by less than half of the refugees for whom UNRWA provided services and that UNRWA had installations in them for that purpose, such as distribution centres for rations, feeding centres for small children, clinics and some schools. The Agency was not responsible for the administration or policing of the 53 camps established before June and the 10 emergency camps set up after the hostilities of that year; they remained the responsibility of the Governments concerned. In Lebanon, however, Government officials and police, which had been withdrawn from the camps in October 1969, had not returned during the period under report.

The Commissioner-General stated that the Agency's operations were affected in various ways by the war of October 1973 and its aftermath but there was no such widespread displacement of population as had occurred in 1967. He noted in this connexion that despite repeated calls by the General Assembly, comparatively few of the hundreds of thousands of refugees and other persons displaced in 1967 had been allowed to return to the occupied territories. Some 17,000 of the refugees registered in the Syrian Arab Republic left the Golan Heights area in June 1967 and so far as was known none had been allowed by the Israeli authorities to return. Of the displaced refugees in Jordan, about 260,500 were registered in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip before 1967. The Agency believed no more than 40,0000 to 50,000 of them might have moved to east Jordan from the West Bank before June 1967, the remainder fleeing during or in the aftermath of the fighting. From the Agency's records of requests for re-registration on return to their original place of refuge, only about 8,000 had been allowed to return to the West Bank and to the Gaza Strip.

In the Gaza Strip, he said, no progress had been made in the provision of housing for the 706 families who in 1973 27/ had been found to be still inadequately housed as a result of demolition of their shelters by the military authorities, who had recognized the need, and by the end of the period under report there had been indications that action to deal with the most pressing cases would shortly be taken.

In conclusion, the Commissioner-General pointed out that if the Agency was to play a constructive role it required more positive guidance from the General Assembly and the firm assurance of much greater financial support.

Report of Secretary-General

On 17 September 1974, the Secretary-General submitted a report in response to a request by the General Assembly for information concerning Israel's implementation of an Assembly resolution of 7 December 1973, 28/ dealing with the displaced persons who had fled from the Israeli-occupied areas since the outbreak of hostilities in June 1967 and with the refugees who had been removed from their camps in the Gaza Strip. By that resolution, the Assembly among other things called on Israel to take immediate steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants, to desist from all measures that obstructed their return - including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories - and to take effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they had been removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation.

The Secretary-General reported that, in response to his request for information, Israel had stated on 20 August 1974 that the conditions prevailing in the area were not such as to permit a large-scale return of the displaced persons. The willingness of Israel to permit the return, on humanitarian grounds, of a number of displaced persons had been exploited for infiltrating trained terrorists and saboteurs. Nevertheless, Israel said, it had continued to facilitate the return of displaced persons; since 1967, more than 53,000 had returned to their homes.

Israel also said that the security measures taken by the Israeli authorities in refugee camps in the Gaza area in 1971 had been designed to put an end to the reign of terror and murder; they had met with considerable success; and the security situation in the Gaza area had greatly improved. A joint survey of the situation had been conducted in 1973 by the Israeli authorities in Gaza and representatives of UNRWA and, during 1974, further action had been taken by the Israeli authorities to provide suitable housing for those still in need of it, Israel stated.

The Secretary-General also reported on developments in the Gaza Strip based on information obtained from the Commissioner-General of UNRWA. Up to July 1974, about 8,000 displaced refugees had returned from Jordan to the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In addition, about 1,000 displaced refugees had returned to the Gaza Strip from Egypt.

Also on the basis of information received from UNRWA, the Secretary-General reported that, since his 1973 report, there had been 12 cases of punitive demolition of refugee shelters in the camps in the Gaza Strip, as well as further demolitions in the Rafah camp. By 30 June 1974, 149 Agency-built shelter-rooms, six shelter-rooms built with UNRWA assistance and 160 privately built shelter-rooms had been demolished, affecting 148 families. The demolitions were carried out by the refugees concerned in order to salvage building materials. In connexion with the joint survey conducted by UNRWA and the Israeli authorities, the Secretary-General reported that, of a total of 942 families surveyed, 706 were still inadequately housed, of whom 266 were considered to be serious cases of hardship; there was an assurance from the Israeli authorities of housing for 156 of those hardship cases. The Agency was pursuing with the Israeli authorities housing for the balance of the hardship cases, as a first priority, and also of the other families unsatisfactorily housed.


Report of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA

The Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, which was established by the General Assembly in 1970 to assist in reaching solutions to the Agency's financial problems, met several times during 1974 to discuss those problems, which were seriously aggravated by the loss in value of the United States dollar and rapid inflation in the Middle East.

In its report to the General Assembly, issued on 1 November 1974, the Working Group said that, as a result of the gloomy financial outlook, it had decided on 7 February 1974 to ask the Secretary-General to launch an appeal. Accordingly, on 11 February, he addressed a letter to all United Nations Member States and members of specialized agencies appealing most urgently for additional help to overcome the major financial crisis facing UNRWA. A reduction in UNRWA's services would entail severe hardships for more than a million refugees, he said, and the adverse effects would be felt not only in the area but also at the Peace Conference on the Middle East at Geneva, Switzerland, in the United Nations and in the international community as a whole.

The Working Group said that, as long as a just and lasting settlement of the problem of the Palestine refugees had not been achieved, it would continue to assume that UNRWA'S services in the form of relief assistance, health care and education must be maintained at least at their current minimal level. It noted that, thanks to special and additional contributions made in June, the Agency would be able to maintain its service throughout 1974. However, prospects for 1975 were more bleak and alarming than ever before. The Working Group therefore reiterated and strongly emphasized that in order to enable the Agency to continue its services, it was essential that those Governments which had not contributed in the past and those Governments which had thus far contributed inadequately should be willing to reconsider their position and contribute generously to the common effort.

Report of Conciliation Commission for Palestine

The twenty-eighth report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, covering the period from 30 September 1973 to 29 September 1974, was submitted in response to a request by the General Assembly of 7 December 1973 29/ that it exert continued efforts towards the implementation of paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948 30/ concerning the repatriation or compensation of the refugees. The Commission said among other things that it had been encouraged by recent efforts towards a Middle East settlement which could lead to a just and lasting peace in the area. However, the circumstances governing the possibilities open to the Commission had remained essentially unchanged. The Commission hoped that recent developments would permit it to carry forward its work vigorously, and it remained determined to do so.

General Assembly discussion

In presenting his annual report to the Special Political Committee, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA observed that the circumstances surrounding the presentation of that report were significantly different from those in other years. For the first time since 1947, he noted, the political dimension of the Palestine question had been recognized and given prominence in the General Assembly. The Palestine Liberation Organization, which represented the Palestinians and therefore the Palestine refugees in general, had participated in that debate, and two resolutions which affected the Palestine refugees have been adopted. He hoped therefore that the Special Political Committee would be able to give attention to the serious financial problem confronting the Agency.

The Commissioner-General drew attention to the scale of services and to the character and complexity of the operations the Agency carried out for the refugees in the area and noted that many of the programmes consisted of continuing services - such as education and preventive medicine - of a quasi-governmental nature which were essential to the refugees, which had become part of the social and economic fabric of the host countries, and which, in the continued absence of a political solution, were an important element of stability in the whole region.

He then drew the Committee's attention to demands for improvements in their condition of service by UNRWA'S local staff - who numbered over 15,000 and who were almost all Palestine refugees. Some of the demands, he said, merited sympathetic consideration. If adequate income could be found to meet them and if the cost of international staff could be accepted as a charge on the regular budget of the United Nations, the funds released in the UNRWA budget could be used to satisfy some of the most urgent of those demands.

The Commissioner-General went on to say that since the issuance of the report there had been important political developments. Until it was known how those developments would affect the Agency's role, he felt that he should be able to consult the Secretary-General about the possibility of assistance with a preliminary, internal review until such time as the General Assembly might decide to undertake a more far-reaching reassessment.

Dominating all considerations, the Commissioner-General said, was the question of whether UNRWA could survive financially through 1975. The Agency's income had always been uncertain, he said, and that uncertainty had been aggravated by currency fluctuations, inflation and soaring commodity prices which could not be accurately forecast. The aspects of the financial problem of the Agency should be noted, all of them disturbing: first, the deficit was of an order of magnitude never before experienced; second, there was a periodic shortage of cash resulting from inadequate working capital; and third, the Agency had substantial unfunded liabilities which it might or might not be able to meet, depending on the circumstances in which the need to meet them arose. Assuming that payment of outstanding contributions could be obtained in time to avert the threatened cash crisis for December, UNRWA would be faced with the necessity of planning for early reductions in services unless sufficient assurances of income had been obtained by then. With an expected deficit of $45 million, or even half that amount, it would not be possible to carry on for several months in the absence of assurances of additional funds.

The effect of reductions on the scale required to eliminate that deficit would, he said, be devastating. Among other things, the distribution of basic rations would have to be restricted to what could be provided from donations in kind and by exhausting the flour inventory. The whole of the system of general education would disappear in the course of 1975, leaving 270,000 children without education and thousands of Palestinian teachers without employment. The international community, he added, had to bear in mind that the Palestinian refugees believed the education of their children to be the most important service rendered to them by the United Nations. That the education system would not survive intact seemed to him an appalling prospect, one that would make a mockery of the recognition of the rights of the Palestine refugees and of any extension of the Agency's mandate to care for them in the meantime.

The Commissioner-General felt that uncoordinated voluntary efforts were no longer sufficient and those that had a special interest in maintaining UNRWA's programmes for the Palestine refugees ought to concert their efforts to see the financial problem solved.

The representative of Norway, in his capacity as Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, said that UNRWA's financial outlook for 1975 was even more gloomy than had been anticipated when the Working Group's report was being prepared; extraordinary efforts by all concerned would be required to enable the Agency to continue its operations through the coming year at their current level. If UNRWA'S precarious financial position was to be improved without any reductions in the Agency's services, it was imperative for Member States to be willing to follow up their verbal and political support with generous contributions.

During the discussion in the Special Political Committee, many Members expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Commissioner-General and staff of UNRWA, as well as for the efforts of members of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, in raising funds for the Agency.

Several representatives, including those of France, Greece, the Libyan Arab Republic, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom, noted that the recent debate in the Assembly on the question of Palestine had helped to clarify the political aspects of the refugee problem. However, that problem remained urgent and until a settlement was achieved, UNRWA'S work in assuring the security and education of the Palestine refugees would continue to be of great importance, both as a humanitarian service and in order to help achieve some progress towards the eventual settlement of the problem.

Almost all speakers expressed concern over UNRWA'S precarious financial situation, especially in the light of the projected deficit of about $45 million in 1975. The generally expressed feeling was that the Agency provided indispensable services and that it was essential to maintain them without any reduction.

A number of Members - including France, Finland, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States - agreed that to enable the Agency to continue its programmes a substantial increase in contributions was necessary. They appealed to countries which had not contributed to UNRWA in the past to do so, and to those which had contributed to increase their contributions. In that connexion, the United States representative noted that the resources of some countries had recently increased in considerable proportions and that they could now do more than they had felt able to do in the past.

According to the representatives of Egypt and Lebanon, the current system of voluntary contributions was precarious, vulnerable, and inadequate to enable the Agency to perform its functions. Kuwait, Lebanon and others suggested that UNRWA's budget be entirely or partially incorporated in the regular budget of the United Nations, pending a just solution of the problem of the Palestine refugees. Kuwait also suggested, as the most natural method of financing UNRWA, that Israel contribute to the Agency the revenue it derived from property belonging to the refugees.

The spokesman for Germany (Federal Republic of) pointed out that the Agency's mandate provided expressly for the financing of relief programmes out of voluntary contributions, a principle which applied to all United Nations Relief programmes. As the United Nations budget was primarily administrative, it would be incompatible with United Nations budgetary principles to include in it the budget of a relief programme. At the most, consideration might be given to including UNRWA's administrative expenses in the United Nations budget, as in the case of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The representative of Jordan said that, as in previous years, the central issue was how to restore to the Palestinian people, unjustly uprooted from their homes, their right to live in dignity in their homeland. All that had been attempted for the past 25 years had been to continue providing minimal assistance to the Palestine refugees. The international community, he stressed, had a moral responsibility to ensure the survival of Palestine refugees in their prolonged exile until the General Assembly's resolution of 11 December 1948 31/ - which provided for the return of the refugees to their homes - could be implemented.

Jordan, he went on, understood better than anyone the gravity of the problem, because it had taken in thousands of refugees and, since the 1967 war, had assumed responsibility for maintaining tens of thousands of displaced persons from the West Bank and from Gaza. But there were limits to what a host country could do; there was a clear need for more assistance from the international community which had helped to create the problem.

The representative of Jordan expressed concern at what he said was happening to the refugee camps outside the occupied territories, which were being bombed continuously by the Israeli authorities. Jordan believed that the United Nations should do everything possible to safeguard the defenceless refugees from military attacks by Israel. It also believed that the right of the persons displaced as a result of the 1967 war to return to their homes must be reaffirmed and that, in the meantime, those persons should be entitled to receive international assistance.

The representative of Israel said that UNRWA had become an almost permanent fixture on the Middle East scene because Arab Governments had considered it in their political interest to perpetuate the problem of the refugees and to use them as a weapon in the campaign against Israel. The military, political and ethnic convulsions of the twentieth century, he observed, had turned many millions of people into refugees, and experience had indicated that resettlement was the only practical answer. Israel had opened her gates to refugee brothers from all parts of the world, while the Arabs had refused to do the same to their Palestinian brethren.

At the time UNRWA was established, he went on to say, the General Assembly had called for the reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East. If those recommendations had been carried out, he said, the refugees would now be productive members of the Arab societies to which they were bound by every link of sentiment, language, culture and national loyalty. After 25 years, the time had come to take a fresh look at the problem and to prepare the way for a constructive settlement in the framework of peace and regional and international co-operation. The Arab Governments, and apparently UNRWA too, had come to assume in practice that the status of "refugee" was handed down from the original displaced persons to all subsequent generations.

As to the financial difficulties of UNRWA, the representative of Israel said, the Arab Governments had over the years rejected any constructive solution of the refugee problem, and they could not escape the consequences of their attitude and try to have the entire world bear the costs of their political strategy. The over-all solution of the problem would also have to await the hoped-for peace settlement. A just and lasting solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict would also include a just settlement of the refugee problem.

The representative of Kuwait said that as long as Israel prevented even a single refugee from returning, the General Assembly would be under a strong obligation to continue to keep the Agency in operation. Responsibility for assistance rested with Israel and the super-power which enabled Israel to remain Israel. But since Israel was not living up to its responsibilities and since the international community was not compelling it to do so, the international community must provide assistance to the Palestine refugees.

The representative of the USSR said his Government had always emphasized that the problem was primarily political and that no matter what measures, including humanitarian measures, were adopted with regard to its other aspects, they could never solve the problem of the Palestine refugees. What had been required and was still required was to put an end to Israel's policy of aggression against the Arab States and peoples.

Other speakers also stressed that the problem was primarily political. Resolution 3236(XXIX), adopted by the Assembly on 22 November 1974 (see pp. 226-27), had, they said, been a turning point in the evolution of the Palestine question; by recognizing the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, it pointed the way towards a permanent and equitable solution of the problem. Until the political problem had been solved in accordance with justice and law, there would be no lasting peace in the Near East and the situation in that region would continue to endanger international peace and security. Malaysia said in that connexion that the United Nations had to look beyond the question of the existence of UNRWA and seek a lasting political solution to the problem of the Palestine refugees.

The representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization, who had been allowed to participate in the work of the Special Political Committee as an observer in accordance with the General Assembly's decision of 22 November 1974 - by resolution 3237(XXIX) (see page 227) - said that, however important it was for the refugees to be fed and sheltered, the real problem was the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by the Israeli Zionists and imperialists. For over 25 years, he said, the Assembly had been repeating that the Palestinians were entitled to return to their homes and property. The only course in harmony with the Charter of the United Nations and with international morality and law was to return the Palestinian people to Palestine and Palestine to its people. If that was achieved, he asserted, the financial crisis of UNRWA would disappear and the Palestinian people would cease to be a charge of the international community that had created their tragedy and should rightly assume total responsibility for their welfare. The Palestinian refugees did not want to be integrated into the economic and political life of any neighbouring country or to be resettled in any place other than their own.

General Assembly decisions

Five draft resolutions on questions relating to the Palestine refugees were introduced in the Special Political Committee, which approved them on 6 December 1974. The General Assembly adopted them on 17 December.

By the first of these, the Assembly among other things noted with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in the Assembly's resolution of 11 December 1948 had not been effected, that no substantial progress had been made in the programme endorsed by the Assembly on 26 January 1952 32/ for the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement, and that therefore the situation of the refugees continued to be a matter of serious concern.

By this text, the Assembly noted with regret that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine had been unable to find a means of achieving progress in the implementation of paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194(III), and it asked the Commission to exert continued efforts towards that end and to report no later than 1 October 1975.

The Assembly also directed attention to the unprecedented seriousness of the financial position of UNRWA; noted with concern that despite an increased level of income the Agency would fall short of funds needed to cover essential budget requirements in the coming year; called upon all Governments as a matter of urgency to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the Agency's anticipated needs and urged non-contributing Governments to contribute, and contributing Governments to consider increasing their contributions; and decided to extend UNRWA's mandate until 30 June 1978.

These decisions were taken by the Assembly when it adopted resolution 3331 A (XXIX) by a recorded vote of 122 to 0, with 3 abstentions. The text was approved by the Special Political Committee - on a proposal by the United States - by a vote of 106 to 0, with 2 abstentions.

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

By a second resolution, the Assembly among other things noted that - in the Agency's critical financial situation - the financing from voluntary contributions of the expenses for salary of international staff employed by the Agency limited the amount available for local costs and noted also that international staff were made available to the Agency by UNESCO and WHO on a non-reimbursable basis. It then decided that the expenses for salaries of international staff in UNRWA service - which would otherwise be a charge on voluntary contributions - should, with effect from 1 January 1975, be financed from the regular budget of the United Nations for the duration of the Agency's mandate.

The Assembly took this decision when it adopted resolution 3331 B (XXIX) without a vote on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, which approved it, also without a vote, on a proposal by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, as revised by them.

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

By a third resolution, the Assembly among other things expressed concern about the continued human suffering resulting from the June 1967 hostilities in the Middle East and, after reaffirming previous decisions on the question, endorsed the efforts of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who were currently displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 hostilities.

The Assembly strongly appealed to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously to the Agency and to the other inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

These decisions were embodied in resolution 3331 C (XXIX), adopted by the Assembly without a vote, following approval, also without a vote, by the Special Political Committee, where it was sponsored by Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, and Yugoslavia.

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

By the preamble to the fourth resolution, the Assembly among other things noted that the Israeli occupation authorities had persisted in adopting measures that obstructed the return of the displaced population to their homes and camps in the occupied territories - including changes in the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories, by displacement of inhabitants, transfer of population, destruction of towns, villages and homes, and establishment of Israeli settlements - in violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, as well as the pertinent United Nations resolutions. The Assembly reaffirmed that it considered those measures null and void.

The Assembly also noted that the Israeli armed forces had repeatedly attacked refugee camps, resulting in heavy loss of life and extensive damage to refugee shelters and UNRWA installations.

By the operative part of the text, the Assembly reaffirmed the right of the displaced inhabitants to return to their homes and camps and deplored the refusal of the Israeli authorities to take steps for their return.

It called once more upon Israel immediately: to take steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants; to desist from all measures that obstructed their return, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories; to take effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation; and to desist from further removal of refugees and destruction of their shelters. The Assembly deplored Israeli military attacks on refugee camps and called upon Israel immediately to desist from such attacks.

Finally, the Assembly asked the Secretary-General after consulting with the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, to report to it not later than at its 1975 session on Israel's compliance with and implementation of the resolution.

The Assembly took these decisions when it adopted resolution 3331 D (XXIX) by a recorded vote of 105 to 6, with 17 abstentions. The resolution was sponsored in the Special Political Committee by Afghanistan, the Congo, the German Democratic Republic, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia and Zambia and approved by a roll-call vote of 97 to 5, with 15 abstentions.

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

By the preamble part of the fifth resolution, the Assembly among other things expressed grave concern at the alarming financial situation of UNRWA, imminently endangering the essential minimum services being provided to the Palestine refugees, and it emphasized the urgent need for extraordinary efforts to maintain - at least at their current minimum level - the activities of the agency.

The Assembly then commended the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA and asked it to continue its efforts, in co-operation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, for the financing of the Agency for a further period of one year, and asked the Secretary-General to provide it with the necessary services and assistance.

These decisions were taken by the Assembly when it adopted resolution 3330(XXIX) without a vote, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, which approved it, also without a vote, on a proposal by Afghanistan, Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Sweden and Yugoslavia.

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

Pledges and payments for 1974

For the calendar year 1974, 62 countries and territories and an inter-governmental organization pledged the equivalent of $85,320,533 towards UNRWA's budget. As at 31 December 1974, the equivalent of $76,527,878 had been received in payment of those pledges. In addition, contributions were received from non-governmental organizations, private individuals and business corporations.

PLEDGES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNRWA
FOR YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1974
(showing equivalent in U.S. dollars of pledges and
contributions in cash, kind and services)
Pledged by

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium a/
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Cyprus
Denmark a/
Egypt
Finland
France a/
Gaza Authorities
Germany (Fed Rep of) a/
Ghana
Pledge

6,000
321,020
50,000
674,335
10,009
2,094,275
2,000
697
1,108,893
7,680
258,340
1,343,345 b/
78,105
2,963,424
4,000
Contribution received

6,000
321,020
50,000
671,556
10,009
2,094,275
2,000
697
1,002,698
-
258,340
1,101,039 b/
78,105
2,961,979
4,000
Pledged by

Greece
Holy See
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland a/
Israel
Italy a/
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Republic of Korea
Kuwait
Lebanon
Liberia
Libyan Arab Republic
Luxembourg a/
Madagascar
Malaysia
Mauritius
Monaco
Morocco
Netherlands a/
New Zealand
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Republic of Viet-Nam
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom a/
United States
Yugoslavia
European Eco Community
(inter-governmental)

Total
Pledge

17,000
3,000
12,500
15,493
6,000
18,000
240,256
100,000
1,263,176
152,697
3,000
5,750,000 c/
251,709
10,000
400,000
70,450
5,000
600,000
5,900
612
1,500
989
1,667
51,236
564,574
143,692
1,401,664
25,000
21,804
1,250
60,000
3,000
947,000
9,680
1,500
1,000,000
1,000
6,027
4,193,336
1,545,394
101,981
2,899
7,000
20,000
250,000
4,760,000
28,285,076
25,000

24,041,348
----------
85,320,533
Contribution received

17,000
3,000
12,500
-
5,500
18,000
118,222
100,000
1,263,176
152,697
3,000
5,750,000 c/
251,709
10,000
400,000
70,450
-
600,000
5,900
-
1,500
989
1,667
51,236
563,740
117,338
1,401,664
25,000
21,804
1,250
60,000
3,000
947,000
9,680
-
999,718
-
6,027
4,193,336
1,026,057
66,435
-
7,000
20,000
250,000
4,760,000
28,278,621
-

16,371,944
----------
76,527,878 d/

a/In addition to their direct contributions to UNRWA, the members of the European Economic Community (EEC) also pledged through EEC, as shown at the end of the table.

b/Of this amount, $10,266 represents an adjustment of contributions received in prior years.

c/This amount includes 2,630 tons of rice valued at $750,000 pledged by Japan in 1973 but not received until after 31 December 1973 and allocated by the Agency to its operations in 1974.

d/A total of $9,329,614 was also received (in cash and in kind) in 1974 against prior years' pledges.

Documentary references

General Assembly - 29th session

Ad Hoc Committee of General Assembly for Announcement of Voluntary Contributions to UNRWA, meeting of 3 December 1974 (A/AC.171/SR.1).

Special Political Committee, meetings 941-947.

Fifth Committee, meeting 1694.

Plenary meeting 2322.

A/9582. Letter of 11 February 1974 from Secretary-General to all States Members of United Nations or members of specialized agencies.

A/9601. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1973-15 June 1974, Part One, Chapter V A.

A/9613 and Corr.1. Report of Commissioner-General of UNRWA, 1 July 1973-30 June 1974.

A/9740 Report of Secretary-General under General Assembly resolution 3089 C (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973.

A/9789. Report of United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report covering period 30 September 1973-29 September 1974)

A/9815 and Corr.1. Report of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA.

A/SPC/172 and Corr.1. Note by Commissioner-General of UNRWA on revised budget estimates for 1974 and 1975.

A/SPC/L.317. United States: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 6 December 1974, meeting 947, by 106 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.

A/9959. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution II A.

Resolution 3331 A (XXIX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9959, adopted by Assembly on 17 December 1974, meeting 2322, by recorded vote of 122 to 0, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Khmer Republic, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Barbados, Israel, Malawi.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 3089 B (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973 and all previous resolutions referred to therein, including resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the annual report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974,

1. Notes with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194(III) has not been effected, that no substantial progress has been made in the programme endorsed by the Assembly in paragraph 2 of resolution 513(VI) of 26 January 1952 for the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continues to be a matter of serious concern,

2. Expresses its thanks to the Commissioner-General and to the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for their continued faithful efforts to provide essential services for the Palestine refugees and to the specialized agencies and private organizations for their valuable work in assisting the refugees,

3. Notes with regret that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine has been unable to find a means of achieving progress in the implementation of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194(III) and requests the Commission to exert continued efforts towards the implementation of that paragraph and to report as appropriate, but no later than 1 October 1975,

4. Directs attention to the unprecedented seriousness of the financial position of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as outlined in the Commissioner-General's report;

5. Notes with concern that, despite the commendable and successful efforts of the Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions which met the serious budget deficit of the past year, this increased level of income to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East will fall short of the funds needed to cover essential budget requirements in the coming year;

6. Calls upon all Governments as a matter of urgency to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, particularly in the light of the budgetary deficit projected in the Commissioner-General's report, and therefore urges non-contributing Governments to contribute and contributing Governments to consider increasing their contributions;

7. Decides to extend until 30 June 1978, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194(III), the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

A/SPC/L.318 and Rev.1. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden: draft resolution and revision, approved without vote by Special Political Committee on 6 December 1974, meeting 947.

A/SPC/L.322, A/C.5/1655. Administrative and financial implications of 5-power revised draft resolution, A/SPC/L.318/Rev.1. Statements by Secretary-General.

A/9608/Add.21, A/9974. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolutions I and II B recommended by Special Political Committee in A/9959. Reports of ACABQ and Fifth Committee.
A/9959. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution II B.

Resolution 3331 B (XXIX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9959, adopted without vote by Assembly on 17 December 1974, meeting 2322.

The General Assembly

Having recognized the continuing responsibility of the United Nations towards the Palestine refugees by extending the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for a further period of three years from 1 July 1975,

Noting that in the critical financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East the financing from voluntary contributions of the expenses for salary of international staff employed by the Agency limits the amount available for local costs,

Noting also that international staff are made available to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the World Health Organization on a non-reimbursable basis,

Decides that the expenses for salaries of international staff in the service of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East which would otherwise be a charge on voluntary contributions should with effect from 1 January 1975 be financed by the regular budget of the United Nations for the duration of the Agency's mandate.

A/SPC/L.319. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved without vote by Special Political Committee on 6 December 1974, meeting 947.

A/9959. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution II C.

Resolution 3331 C (XXIX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9959, adopted without vote by Assembly on 17 December 1974, meeting 2322.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2252(ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2341 B (XXII) of 19 December 1967 2452 C(XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 C (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, 2672 B (XXV) of 8 December 1970, 2792 B (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 B (XXVII) of 13 December 1972 and 3089 A (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973,

Taking note of the annual report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974,

Concerned about the continued human suffering resulting from the June 1967 hostilities in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its resolutions 2252(ES-V), 2341 B (XXII), 2452 C (XXIII), 2535 C (XXIV), 2672 B (XXV), 2792 B (XXVI), 2983 B (XXVII) and 3089 A (XXVIII);

2. Endorses, bearing in mind the objectives of those resolutions, the efforts of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who are at present displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 hostilities;

3. Strongly appeals to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously for the above purposes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and to the other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

A/SPC/L.320. Afghanistan, Congo, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia, Zambia: draft resolution approved by Special Political Committee on 6 December 1974, meeting 947, by roll-call vote of 97 to 5, with 15 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Khmer Republic, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Bolivia, Costa Rica, Israel, Nicaragua, United States.

Abstaining: Belgium, Canada, Chile, El Salvador, Germany (Federal Republic of), Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

A/9959. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution II D.

Resolution 3331 D (XXIX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9959, adopted by Assembly on 17 December 1974, meeting 2322, by recorded vote of 105 to 6, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Khmer Republic, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

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

Abstaining: Bahamas, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

* Subsequently the Federal Republic of Germany advised the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237(1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 2252(ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2452 A (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, 2672 D (XXV) of 6 December 1970, 2792 E (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 C and D (XXVII) of 13 December 1972 and 3089 C (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973,

Emphasizing the necessity of full implementation of the above-mentioned resolutions,

Having considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and the report of the Secretary-General of 17 September 1974,

Noting that the Israeli occupation authorities have persisted in adopting measures that obstruct the return of the displaced population to their homes and camps in the occupied territories - including changes in the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories, by the displacement of inhabitants, the transfer of population, the destruction of towns, villages and homes, and the establishment of Israeli settlements - in violation of the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, as well as the pertinent United Nations resolutions,

Reaffirming that it considers those measures null and void,

Noting also that the Israeli armed forces have repeatedly attacked refugee camps and that those raids have resulted in heavy loss of life and extensive damage to refugee shelters and installations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

1. Reaffirms the right of the displaced inhabitants to return to their homes and camps and deplores the refusal of the Israeli authorities to take steps for their return;

2. Calls once more upon Israel immediately:

(a) To take steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants;

(b) To desist from all measures that obstruct the return of the displaced inhabitants, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories;

3. Reiterates its call upon Israel immediately:

(a) To take effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation;

(b) To desist from further removal of refugees and destruction of their shelters;

4. Deplores Israeli military attacks on refugee camps and calls upon Israel immediately to desist from such attacks;

5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report as soon as possible, and whenever appropriate thereafter, but in any case not later than the opening date of the thirtieth session of the General Assembly, on Israel's compliance with and implementation of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the present resolution.

A/SPC/L.316. Afghanistan, Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Sweden, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved without vote by Special Political Committee on 6 December 1974 meeting 947.

A/SPC/L.321, A/C.5/1654. Administrative and financial implications of 17-power draft resolution, A/SPC/L.316. Statements by Secretary-General.

A/9608/Add.21, A/9974. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolutions I and II B recommended by Special Political Committee in A/9959. Reports of ACABQ and Fifth Committee.

A/9959. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution 1.

Resolution 3330(XXIX), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/9959, adopted without vote by Assembly on 17 December 1974, meeting 2322.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2656(XXV) of 7 December 1970, 2728(XXV) of 15 December 1970, 2791(XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2964(XXVII) of 13 December 1972 and 3090(XXVIII) of 7 December 1973

Having considered the report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

Taking into account the annual report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974,

Gravely concerned at the alarming financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, imminently endangering the essential minimum services being provided to the Palestine refugees,

Emphasizing the urgent need for extraordinary efforts in order to maintain, at least at their present minimum level, the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

1. Commends the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for its work;

2. Notes with appreciation the report of the Working Group;

3. Requests the Working Group to continue its efforts, in co-operation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, for the financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for a further period of one year;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary services and assistance to the Working Group for the conduct of its work.






ENDNOTES


1/See Y.U.N., 1973, p.213, texts of resolutions 338(1973), 339(1973) and 340(1973) of 22, 23 and 25 October 1973, respectively.

2/See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, texts of resolutions 338(1973) and 339(1973)

3/Ibid., pp. 208-9.

4/Ibid., p. 213, text of resolution 338(1973).

5/Ibid., p. 213, texts of resolutions 338(1973), 339(1973) and 340 (1973).

6/Ibid., pp. 222-23, text of resolution 3101(XXVIII).

7/Ibid., p. 213, text of resolution 340(1973).

8/See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, texts of resolutions 338(1973) and 339( 1973).

9/Ibid., p. 213, text of resolution 338(1973).

10/See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242(1967).

11/See footnote 9.

12/See Y.U.N., 1973, pp. 222-23, text of resolution 3101(XXVIII) of 11 December 1973.

13/Ibid.

14/Ibid., pp. 220-21.

15/For text of Article 43 of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.

16/See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242(1967) of 22 November 1967.

17/Rule 35 of the rules of procedure states: "In addition to exercising the powers conferred upon him elsewhere by these rules, the President shall declare the opening and closing of each plenary meeting of the session, direct the discussions in plenary meeting, ensure observance of these rules, accord the right to speak, put questions and announce decisions. He shall rule on points of order and, subject to these rules, shall have complete control of the proceedings at any meeting and over the maintenance of order thereat. The President may, in the course of the discussion of an item, propose to the General Assembly the limitation of the time to be allowed to speakers, the limitation of the number of times each representative may speak, the closure of the list of speakers or the closure of the debate. He may also propose the suspension or the adjournment of the meeting or the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion."


18/Rule 72 of the rules of procedure states: "The General Assembly may limit the time to be allowed to each speaker and the number of times each representative may speak on any question. Before a decision is taken, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, a proposal to set such limits. When the debate is limited and a representative exceeds his allotted time, the President shall call him to order without delay."

19/See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242(1967).

20/See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 213, text of resolution 338(1973).

21/See Y.U.N., 1973, pp. 227-29.

22/See Y.U.N., 1972, pp. 432-33

23/See Y.U.N., 1973, pp. 233-34, text of resolution 3092 B (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973.

24/See footnote 22.

25/See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242(1967) of 22 November 1967.

26/See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 236, for text of resolution 3175(XXVIII) of 17 December 1973.

27/See Y.U.N., 1973, p. 238.

28/Ibid., pp. 246-47, text of resolution 3089 C (XXVIII).

29/Ibid., p. 246, text of resolution 3089 B (XXVIII).

30/Operative paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194(III) states, in part, that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property....".
See Y.U N., 1948-49, pp. 174-76 for text of resolution 194(III).

31/Ibid.

32/See Y.U.N., 1951, pp. 315-16, text of resolution 513(VI).



Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter