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

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



Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS

UNITED
NATIONS
E

        Economic and Social Council
Distr.
GENERAL
E/CN.4/1994/SR.30
23 February 1994

Original: ENGLISH

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Fiftieth session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 30th MEETING

Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 18 February 1994, at 10 a.m.

Chairman: Mr. van WULFFTEN PALTHE (Netherlands)



CONTENTS



/…

Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine (continued)

The right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation (continued)

/...




This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be submitted in one of the working languages. They should be set forth in a memorandum and also incorporated in a copy of the record. They should be sent within one week of the date of this document to the Official Records Editing Section, room E.4108, Palais des Nations, Geneva. Any corrections to the records of the public meetings of the Commission at this session will be consolidated in a single corrigendum, to be issued shortly after the end of the session.

The meeting was called to order at 10.20 a.m.



/…

QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES, INCLUDING PALESTINE (agenda item 4) (continued) (E/CN.4/1994/L.3**, 4 and 5)

Draft resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories (E/CN.4/1994/L.3**)

16. Mr. BOUCAOURIS (Observer for Greece), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its sponsors, said that its main objective was to reaffirm the applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. The text followed closely the resolution adopted by the Commission the previous year. He hoped that it could be adopted by consensus.

17. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of Australia and Japan and the observers for Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden had become sponsors of the draft resolution.

18. Mr. KHOURY (Syrian Arab Republic) drew attention to an error in the Arabic text of the draft resolution. The title, which read "Israeli settlements in the united Arab territories" should read "Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories".

19. The CHAIRMAN said that the error in the Arabic text of the draft resolution would be rectified.

20. Mrs. FERRARO (United States of America), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that her Government's position on the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories was well known. It did not believe that it would be productive at that stage to address the issue of the legality of the settlements. The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, signed by the Palestinians and Israel on 13 September 1993, defined the question of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as a permanent status issue. It was therefore premature and non-productive to address it in a multilateral forum.

21. At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a vote was taken by roll-call on the draft resolution.

22. Finland, having been drawn by lot by the Chairman, was called upon to vote first.

In favour: Angola, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: United States of America.

Abstaining: Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

23. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.3** was adopted by 49 votes to 1, with 1 abstention.

Draft resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan (E/CN.4/1994/L.4)

24. Mr. KHOURY (Syrian Arab Republic), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its sponsors, said that the human rights situation in the occupied Syrian Golan had not changed. If anything, it had grown even worse as a result of Israel's continuing policy of occupation and the establishment of settlements. The Commission must condemn Israel's continued non-compliance with the resolutions of the Commission, the Security Council and the General Assembly, with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and with international humanitarian law and international law in general.

25. Thousands of Syrian citizens in the occupied Golan area had been under the yoke of Israeli occupation for over a quarter of a century; another 500,000 were still waiting to be repatriated and to recover their property. The sponsors hoped that the resolution, which was consistent with the principles upheld by the Commission, would be adopted by consensus.

26. Mrs. FERRARO (United States of America), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that the time had come for the Commission to recognize that a new day had dawned in the Middle East. The signing of the Declaration of Principles by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization represented a fundamental change in the region, but draft resolutions E/CN.4/1994/L.4, L.5 and L.6, written in the sterile language of the past, appeared to take no notice of that positive development. She compared the one-sided allegations directed against the State of Israel year after year with the total silence about the actions of the other side. The false picture that painted was unacceptable.

27. A just and lasting peace between Arabs and Israelis had been the overarching goal of the United States for more than two generations. Committed to acting as a full partner and an intermediary in the peace process, and to working with both sides, it could not support a flawed, unbalanced resolution on the Middle East which did little to further that process. Her delegation would thus vote against draft resolutions E/CN.4/1994/L.4, L.5 and L.6.

28. Mr. ZACKHEOS (Cyprus) said that his delegation would vote in favour of draft resolutions E/CN.4/1994/L.4, L.5 and L.6. They were based on a principle that also applied to his own country - namely, the occupation of 37 per cent of its territory and the continued violation of human rights in the occupied portion of Cyprus. At the same time, his delegation wished to express its wholehearted support for the Middle East peace process, for the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel and for all other parties involved. It hoped that the positive climate thus created and the settlement of regional conflicts elsewhere would have favourable repercussions on the situation in Cyprus.

29. At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a vote was taken by roll-call on draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.4.

30. Bulgaria, having been drawn by lot by the Chairman, was called upon to vote first.

In favour: Angola, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Venezuela.

Against: United States of America.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malawi, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Togo, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay.

31. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.4 was adopted by 25 votes to 1, with 25 abstentions.

Draft resolution on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine (E/CN.4/1994/L.5)

32. Mr. SAHLOUL (Sudan), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its sponsors, said that it was divided into two parts: part A on the deterioration of the human rights situation in the occupied Arab territories and part B on the implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in those territories.

33. Unlike the resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session on that question, the draft resolution before the Commission referred to the positive developments which had recently taken place in the Middle East, namely, the signature of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel.

34. The draft resolution omitted several points which had been a source of misunderstanding in the past and it took into account the report submitted by the Special Rapporteur (E/CN.4/1994/14), with particular reference to the continued human rights violations in the territories, even after the signature of the Declaration of Principles. The situation in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, did not reflect the political spirit that had prevailed at the moment the Declaration of Principles was signed.

35. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegation of India had become a sponsor of the draft resolution.

36. At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a vote was taken by roll-call on draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.5, part A.

37. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, having been drawn by lot by the Chairman, was called upon to vote first.

In favour: Angola, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Venezuela.

Against: Bulgaria, Russian Federation, United States of America.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Canada, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Romania, Togo, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay.

38. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.5, part A, was adopted by 26 votes to 3, with 23 abstentions.

39. At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a vote was taken by roll-call on draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.5, part B.

40. Mauritania, having been drawn by lot by the Chairman, was called upon to vote first.

In favour: Angola, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Venezuela.

Against: United States of America.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Togo, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay.

41. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.5, part B, was adopted by 26 votes to 1, with 25 abstentions.

42. Mr. MALGINOV (Russian Federation) said that his delegation had voted against draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.5 which did not fully reflect the new reality in the region following the signature of the Declaration of Principles on 13 September 1993. Laying all the blame for human rights violations on one side was inaccurate; the Commission must take an objective view of the situation. His delegation had abstained on draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.4, because the changes that had been made to the text since the previous year were not sufficient to reflect the changes that had taken place on the ground.

43. Mr. HELLER (Mexico) said that his delegation had voted for draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.4 because it upheld some fundamental principles of international law. It would have been preferable, however, if that draft resolution had reflected the major advances made in the Middle East peace process.

44. Mr. MARUYAMA (Japan) said that, while his delegation welcomed the fact that draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.5 reflected the recent developments in the Middle East peace process, it had reservations about the eleventh preambular paragraph, operative paragraph 2 of part A and operative paragraph 3 of part B.

45. The language, content and general wording of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.4 lacked overall balance. His delegation had abstained on that draft resolution because it did not facilitate the peace process currently under way.

46. Mr. TARABATABAEE (Islamic Republic of Iran) said that, had it been possible to cast a separate vote on every paragraph of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.5, his delegation would have voted against the tenth preambular paragraph of part A. It would explain its position at a later stage.

47. Mr. KHOURY (Syrian Arab Republic) said that his delegations votes in favour of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.3 and draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.5 did not necessarily mean that it either agreed with or opposed the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements.

48. Mr. HAFYANA (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said that his delegation had abstained on draft resolutions L.3 and L.5, because it did not approve the paragraphs welcoming the Declaration of Principles signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Any settlements of the Arab-Israel conflict must be global and just; it must impose upon Israel the obligation to implement all United Nations resolutions unconditionally; and it must reaffirm the credibility of the Security Council. The Palestinian leadership must resist pressure to make concessions without obtaining the right to exercise of self-determination. There were more occupied Arab and Palestinian territories than just the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area. Jericho and Gaza were pawns in a game whereby Israel was seeking greater power. The West Bank and Jerusalem were still under Israeli military occupation and were being made to face the creation of settlements, forced annexation and terrorism ... .

49. The CHAIRMAN said that explanations of vote should be brief and must not be a repetition of the general debate.

50. Mr. HAFYANA (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said that resolutions welcoming the Declaration of Principles lent legitimacy to the Israeli occupation and settlement policy and were thus not consistent with a just and lasting peace or the relevant United Nations resolutions. Hence his delegation's abstention.

51. Mr. GONZALEZ (Colombia) said that his delegation, which recognized the efforts made by all the parties to the conflict to reach a stable peace in the Middle East, would support any initiative to that end that responded to the aspirations of those concerned. It would have been preferable, however, if the resolutions in question had reflected the new developments in the region somewhat more positively.

52. Mr. Chang Hoon KIM (Republic of Korea) said that his delegation had voted in favour of draft resolutions E/CN.4/1994/L.4 and L.5 because the human rights situation in the occupied Arab territories still required monitoring and action by the Commission. Nevertheless, the language of those resolutions failed to reflect properly the recent developments in the Middle East peace process. His delegation would have liked to see a more balanced wording in certain passages.

53. Mr. DOBREV (Bulgaria) said that his delegation had voted against part A of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.4, because it did not fully reflect the important and positive changes that had taken place in the area.

54. Mr. FASEHUN (Nigeria) said that, although his delegation had voted in favour of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.4, it would have preferred language consistent with the current spirit of the peace process. It was particularly concerned about the wording of operative paragraphs 1, 2 and 4. By the fifty-first session of the Commission, the progress of the peace process would, he hoped, make such a resolution superfluous.

55. Mr. STOKVIS (Netherlands) said that, despite improvements since the previous year in the text of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.5, particularly its part A, further changes should have been made to reflect the peace process more fully, especially in the eleventh preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 2 of part A, and in operative paragraph 3 of part B. Nevertheless, in order to make a constructive contribution to the peace process, his delegation had abstained.

56. The CHAIRMAN said that the Commission had concluded its consideration of and adoption of resolutions on agenda item 4.

THE RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND ITS APPLICATION TO PEOPLES UNDER COLONIAL OR ALIEN DOMINATION OR FOREIGN OCCUPATION (agenda item 9) (continued) (E/CN.4/1994/L.2, 6, 7 and 9)

Draft resolution on the Middle East peace process (E/CN.4/1994/L.2)

57. Mrs. FERRARO (United States of America), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Angola, Barbados, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, India, Italy, Kenya, Malawi, Republic of Korea and Tunisia and the observers for Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Malta, Myanmar, New Zealand, Panama, Philippines, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden, said she was pleased that the draft resolution had gathered such wide support. The text, which had been drafted in close cooperation with the delegations of Palestine and Israel, struck a fair balance and should enjoy a broad consensus.

58. Its adoption would enable the Commission to lend support to the Middle East peace process and would mean that, for the first time, the Commission had spoken in a unified voice on the need for peace in the Middle East. The draft resolution encouraged those who rejected violence and acknowledged that the road to peace was also the road to improving human rights throughout the region. There was surely general agreement that the best hope of improving human rights in the region lay in supporting peaceful relations between Arabs and Israelis.

59. Mr. NASSERI (Islamic Republic of Iran) said that the draft resolution dealt with an issue of a political nature that had nothing to do with the subject of agenda item 9. The Commission had not debated the peace process in Palestine and was thus not in a position to take a decision concerning it. The Commission had always avoided political issues in the past and should continue to do so.


60. At the request of the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, a vote was taken by roll-call.

61. Gabon, having been drawn by lot by the Chairman, was called upon to vote first.

In favour: Angola, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: Iran (Islamic Republic of), Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Sudan.

62. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.2 was adopted by 48 votes to 2, with 2 abstentions.

Draft resolution on the situation in occupied Palestine (E/CN.4/1994/L.6)

63. Mr. LEMINE (Mauritania), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its sponsors, reviewed its main points and noted that it had taken into consideration the recent developments in the Middle East peace process. It was to be hoped that the draft resolution would enjoy the full support of the Commission.

64. At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a vote was taken by roll-call.

65. Mauritius, having been drawn by lot by the Chairman, was called upon to vote first.

In favour: Angola, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lesotho, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Venezuela.

Against: United States of America.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Bulgaria, Canada, Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Mauritius, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Togo, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay.

66. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.6 was adopted by 26 votes to 1, with 25 abstentions.

/…

74. Mr. DAUFRESNE de la CHEVALERIE (France) said that his Government had welcomed the recent developments in the Middle East, particularly the signature of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements in September 1993. It therefore wholeheartedly endorsed draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.2. Nevertheless, his delegation had chosen not to sponsor the draft resolution because it failed to refer to Security Council resolution 425 (1978), which stated that, within the framework of a settlement in the Middle East, Lebanon should be able to recover its sovereignty and independence within its internationally recognized borders. The principles set forth in that resolution had formed part of the Madrid negotiations; they must not be overlooked at a crucial moment in the peace process.

75. Mr. PEREZ NOVOA (Cuba) said that his delegation had voted in favour of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.2 because it reflected the spirit of peace to which his country aspired. It was unfortunate, however, that the resolution did not mention certain elements that were essential to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East such as the return to Syria of the occupied Golan.

76. Mr. KHOURY (Syrian Arab Republic) said that his Government had always been committed to the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in accordance with the pertinent United Nations resolutions and the Madrid agreements. Consequently, it could not accept a resolution on that issue which did not make a specific reference to Security Council resolution 425 (1978) concerning Lebanon, which had taken part in the Madrid talks and the subsequent bilateral negotiations.

77. Resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.2 also failed to mention the violations of human rights of Arab citizens in the occupied territories and the fact that such violations fell within the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions.

78. His delegation's vote in favour of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.6 was not meant to indicate any particular position with regard to the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements.

79. Mr. NASSERI (Islamic Republic of Iran) said that his delegation had voted in favour of resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.6. However, had each individual paragraph been put to the vote, it would have voted against the last preambular paragraph.

80. His delegation had voted against draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.2. That text was allegedly about self-determination but was basically, in fact, concerned with the political issue of the peace process. In that connection, even the most pragmatic supporters of the Palestinian cause could not have envisaged the extent to which justice would be buried in the fiasco of a ceremony that had taken place on 13 September 1993.

81. In the Declaration of Principles agreed upon, the Palestinians had been given a small village to administer as a token and had been promised self-rule in the Gaza Strip, where Israel was suffocated by the Palestinian heroes of the intifadah. Security outside the borders and foreign relations were reserved for Israel. It was difficult to see how the Palestinian people could have its own State when foreign relations and defence - the two major pillars of statehood - were in Israeli hands. He wondered whether the Palestinians would even be able to continue to represent themselves in international forums.

82. The great Palestinian cause seemed to have been reduced to an issue of human rights. Even worse, all the years of sacrifice and struggle seemed to have brought the Palestinians the most paltry of results - minor practical arrangements agreed upon during the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations with regard to security controls at the borders. That was surrender not peace, submission to injustice, degrading treatment, aggression and torture. However, history repeated itself in cycles and the Palestinian cause would rise again.

83. Ms. PARK (Canada) said that the language of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.6 had been a significant improvement on its 1993 counterpart, with its positive reference to the Middle East peace process and to the Declaration of Principles. Nevertheless, it still contained language such that her delegation had had to abstain, namely, the reference to the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination without external interference and to the establishment of an independent State on their national soil.

84. Her Government fully supported the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in the context of the peace negotiations and the right of Israel and other States to live in peace within secure and recognized borders. It was not, however, prepared to endorse language intended to prejudge the outcome of the peace negotiations.

85. Mr. FERNANDEZ de CORDOBA (Ecuador) said that his Government supported the Middle East peace process. It was convinced that there must be an end to war and violence as a means of solving the problems of mankind. Moreover, in accordance with one of the basic principles of international law, it could not recognize the right to any territory acquired by force.

86. Ms. MAKHEKHE (Lesotho) said that her delegation had voted for draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.2 because it recognized the positive contribution that the peace process was making to the Middle East question. That resolution was not necessarily incompatible with the other resolutions that had just been adopted by the Commission. Although the peace process was important, emphasis should also be placed on Security Council resolutions, international law and the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

87. Mr. SAHLOUL (Sudan) said that his delegation had abstained from voting on draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.2 because it did not refer to violations of human rights occurring in the occupied Arab territories and did not express the hope that such violations would cease. It also failed to mention Security Council resolution 425 (1978). His delegation's abstention was thus a means of expressing solidarity with the Lebanese people.

88. Mr. LEMINE (Mauritania) said that his delegation had voted in favour of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.2 despite the fact that it made no mention of Security Council resolution 425 (1978). Lebanon was involved in the conflict in the Middle East and part of its territory was occupied. That situation thus deserved a mention in the resolution.

89. Mr. HAFYANA (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said that he wished to reiterate the position his delegation had expressed in explaining its decision to abstain in the voting on the resolution concerning the Declaration of Principles. The reasons underlying a particular stance of his delegation were not necessarily the same as those given by other delegations. His delegation had exercised its legitimate right to explain its vote and had remained within the limit of the rules in doing so.

/…
The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter