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

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR)
30 May 1991


Madrid, Spain
27-30 May 1991


1 - 4
Opening statements
Panel discussion
Conclusions and recommendations
5 - 10
11 - 28
29 - 43
Motion of thanks
List of participants


1. The Sixth United Nations European Seminar on the Question of Palestine (Twenty-eighth United Nations Seminar), was held at the Conference Centre of the Instituto Nacional de Industria, Madrid, from 27 to 30 May 1991, in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly resolution 44/41 B of 6 December 1989.

2. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was represented by a delegation comprising: H.E. Mrs. Absa Claude Diallo (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee and head of delegation; H.E. Mr. Alexander Borg Olivier (Malta), Rapporteur of the Committee, Vice-Chairman and Rapporteur of the Seminar; H.E. Mr. Nana Sutresna (Indonesia), Vice-Chairman of the Seminar; Mr. Réne Juan Mujica Cantelar (Cuba); and Mr. Nasser Al-Kidwa (Palestine). From 29 May H.E. Mr. Alexander Borg Olivier acted as Chairman of the Seminar.

3. A total of 7 meetings were held and 17 panelists presented papers on various aspects of the question of Palestine. Representatives of 50 Governments, Palestine, 3 United Nations organs, 1 United Nations specialized agency, 1 intergovernmental organization, as well as 23 non-governmental organizations, as observers, attended the Seminar (annex II).

4. The Seminar adopted conclusions and recommendations as well as a motion of thanks to the Government and people of Spain (annex I).

A. Formal opening meeting

5. At the formal opening meeting the following statements were made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain, the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) who read out a message from the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain

6. In welcoming the delegates to the Seminar, H.E. Mr. Francisco Fernández Ordóñez, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain, said that tangible proof of the success of the meeting lay in the expression of different views in search of peaceful negotiated solutions for the Palestinian problem. There would be no peace in the region without that question being settled. Spain recommended a clear line of conduct and not a dual standard that recognized some Security Council resolutions and ignored others. The time had now come to grapple with that problem so as to ensure the right of Israel to security and the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, including their right to independence. In his view, there were two obstacles, one of substance and the other of form, namely, (a) the refusal of some Israeli leaders to accept the "territory for peace" formula as valid interpretation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and (b) divergent views on the role of the United Nations in the peace process. It was ironic that the country that owed its very existence to a United Nations resolution was seeking to put the United Nations aside. In establishing more settlements in the occupied territories and enforcing new deportations, Israel created additional and greater problems. The promised land would only be reached through compromise. Noting Europe's long ties with the peoples of the Middle East, he said that Europe must be present in the quest for peace, and bring the peoples together through dialogue. Good relations between Israelis and Palestinians were the key to peace in the Middle East.

Statement by the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations

7. The representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Under-Secretary- General Ronald I. Spiers, stressed that in the aftermath of the Gulf War efforts must be intensified to attain a just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and, in particular the question of Palestine. The European countries had actively contributed to the ongoing efforts undertaken at the United Nations to bring a just peace to the region and their sustained participation in the search for peace would be an important factor. He emphasized that there was widespread international agreement that a settlement should be based on three considerations: withdrawal of Israeli forces from Arab territories occupied since June 1967; acknowledgement of and respect for the rights of all States in the region to live within secure and internationally recognized boundaries; and a recognition of the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination. He referred to the report of the Secretary-General on measures the international community could take to ensure the protection of Palestinian civilians. The Security Council, in its resolution 681 (1990) had deplored Israel's resumed deportation of Palestinian citizens. It had also supported the idea of convening a meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. In a statement made by its President on 20 December 1990, the Council had reaffirmed its support for negotiations and had agreed that an international conference, "at an appropriate time, properly structured", should facilitate efforts towards a negotiated settlement. For its part, the General Assembly had repeatedly called for the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East. He noted that despite those activities, the situation in the Middle East seemed as volatile as ever. The Secretary-General had therefore maintained constant contact with all parties to the conflict, with a view to establishing some common basis for peace. There was now a recognition of mutual interest among the Security Council that it could now begin to play a role in a comprehensive settlement which would ensure, among other things, the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People could also be an appropriate mechanism for promoting a just peace in the region and a lasting settlement of the question of Palestine.

Statement by the Chairman of the Committee

8. Mrs. Absa Claude Diallo, Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and Chairman of the Seminar, emphasized the Seminar was being held at a particularly delicate time in the history of efforts to solve the Middle East conflict and the question of Palestine. The General Assembly had long supported the national rights of the Palestinian people and the Committee had consistently supported a two-States solution to the question of Palestine. Concerned about harsh measures adopted in response to the intifadah, the Committee had called on Israel to respect its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Committee remained convinced that a peaceful settlement could be achieved through the implementation of the relevant United Nations resolutions. She stressed that all efforts aimed at bringing the parties together were welcome, but the Committee continued to believe that the international conference recommended by the General Assembly provided opportunities of reaching a global, just, lasting and universally recognized peace. She noted that the international community had, in recent months, demonstrated solidarity in the application of international law. It should now apply that same solidarity to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the question of Palestine. The current Seminar should contribute to that process, by providing a framework for debate to end the suffering of the Palestinian people. Those sufferings had increased to such an extent as to threaten that people's very existence. Unfortunately, Israel had not responded to the many requests addressed to it by the United Nations. She also regretted Israel's rejection of the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. She said the Seminar had been organized around two major topics -- the intifadah, and the implementation of United Nations resolutions on the question of Palestine. The Committee was pleased to welcome to the Seminar both Palestinian and Israeli participants, demonstrating that dialogue was indeed possible. In this period of historic change, minds were more open than previously to confront the common challenges facing mankind. The Seminar should contribute to that process.

Message from the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the
Palestine Liberation Organization

9. A message from Mr. Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was read out by Mr. Issam Kamel el Salem, representative of the PLO in Spain. The message said the Palestinian cause was experiencing difficult circumstances because of the Israeli Government's continued intransigence. It cited Israel's rejection of United Nations resolutions, its repressive policies and practices against the Palestinian people, its assaults on Palestinian camps in Lebanon and its continued settlement of Jewish immigrants in the occupied territories. The United States, as the great Power that had provided Israel with all forms of support, bore the major responsibility for the continued suffering of the Palestinian people under occupation. Although the PLO welcomed the principles proclaimed by the United States Administration in the aftermath of the Gulf War as a basis for a peaceful solution to the conflict, the United States did nothing to compel Israel to open the way to a genuine and just peace. The message pointed out that the Palestinian people had placed its reliance on the principles of international legitimacy and on United Nations resolutions. It looked to the Security Council to require an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territory in order to preserve its own credibility through the implementation of its own resolutions. The PLO continued to support the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East under United Nations auspices, as called for by the General Assembly. Israel's actions continued to violate the Palestinian people's rights in the political, economic, educational and health fields. The Israeli Government was escalating its "iron-fist" policies, confiscating land, establishing more settlements, expelling Palestinians, closing schools and universities, and killing, wounding and arresting dozens of Palestinians on a daily basis. The message expressed confidence that the Seminar would make every effort to advance a just and comprehensive peace in the region, including the solution of the question of Palestine. Such a solution should be based on the Palestinian peoples' right to return, to exercise self-determination and to establish an independent Palestinian State with its capital at Jerusalem.

Other statements

10. At the opening meeting a statement in support of a peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its core, the question of Palestine, was made by Mr. Jurica Raos, Yugoslavia, on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.

B. Panel discussion

11. Two panels were established. The panels and panelists were as follows:

Panel I. "The intifadah; the safety and protection of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory"

(a) Protection of the Palestinian civilian population under occupation: action by the international community

(b) The obligations of the High Contracting Parties to ensure respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention

(c) NGO activities to protect lives of Palestinian civilians and to promote peace

(d) Economic assistance to promote the genuine social and economic development of the occupied Palestinian territory; the role of Europe

(e) Presentation on the panel as a whole

Panel II. "The urgency of the implementation of the United Nations resolutions on the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East"

(a) The urgency of convening the International Peace Conference on the Middle East

(b) The EEC and the International Peace Conference on the Middle East

(c) Peace, security and cooperation in the Middle East; new opportunities after the Gulf War

(d) The increasing Jewish immigration and Israel's settlement policy in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem

(e) The problem of the Palestine refugees

(f) Presentation on the panel as a whole

Panel I

"The intifadah; the safety and protection of the Palestinian
people in the occupied Palestinian territory"

12. Mr. Freih Abu-Midain (Palestinian), Chairman of the Bar Association in Gaza, said that the Seminar was particularly important as it was being held after the Gulf War and the United Nations was the only Organization able to represent and maintain the aspirations of the Palestinian people to establish a Palestinian State with the implementation of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 3386 (1973) in the "new international order". He elaborated further on the absence of safety, security and protection faced daily by the people in the occupied territories and noted that Israel, the only State in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), had again deported Palestinians and ignored the Security Council resolution adopted the previous week. He described the life of Palestinians under Israeli rule, the curfews, the repeated detentions without trial or showing any cause, the collective punishments and demolition of homes and farms, confiscations of land, restriction on economic activities, all intended to crush and destroy the intifadah and the Palestinian people. He described the detentions in the Negev desert for the last 3 years of 7,500 prisoners in cages and tents without visitation rights. He also described the restrictions on family life and family reunion and their effect on young couples. He drew attention to the control of water resources by Israel and the growing water pollution and warned that water would be the reason for future wars. He described the closing of schools and universities and the terrifying assaults on Palestinian children; the destruction of the health services and the desecration of holy places and the ban on funerals of those killed. He called upon the United Nations to apply the same pressure to tackle the Palestinian issue as it had done in the Gulf crisis and to take just four steps: (i) to convince Israel to comply with the 1949 Geneva Convention; (ii) to send protective forces to the territories as done for the Kurds in northern Iraq; (iii) to send peace-keeping forces; (iv) to place the occupied territories under United Nations mandate till a solution was found. If the settlements were not frozen, then in five to six years there would be no land left to speak of for the Palestinian people. He pleaded for protection from the international community.

13. Mr. Roberto Mesa (Spain), Professor of International Relations at Madrid University, referred to the Palestinian people as the "unjustly forgotten" and said those were hard times when one had to struggle to demonstrate the obvious. He was attending the seminar to demonstrate solidarity with the Palestinian people and believed that one day the United Nations would be able to do its duty towards the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. He referred to Israel's failure to respect international humanitarian law as the crux of the problem. Elaborating on the tenets of the 1949 Geneva Convention and the general legal opinion of its binding nature and applicability, he said Israel's frequent human rights violations should lead to its exclusion from the Convention. He noted that the intifadah and the Declaration on the Independence of the State of Palestine, in 1988, had led to further aggravation of these violations which had included the use of toxic gases that resulted in deaths, casualties and miscarriages amongst the Palestinian population. Those and other various human rights violations had been noted by Dedi Zucker (Israel) in his report (December 1987-1988) and the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross of June 1989. He implored the international community to adopt measures to sanction Israel and end the occupation. The Secretary-General's report of 21 January 1988 recommended measures which, if adopted, would improve the situation and lead to self-determination. Security Council resolution 681 (1990) called for a meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to consider Israel's violations. Protection of civilians was not merely a question of due process or having legal recourse. It meant physical protection for they could not go on any longer.

14. Mr. Mikko Lohikoski (Finland), Chairman of the European Co-ordinating Committee for Non-Governmental Organizations on the Question of Palestine, wondered whether a peace process could be initiated in the aftermath of the Gulf War. In June 1990 though moderation was already giving way to extremism on both sides, it had been unimaginable that such a major international catastrophe would occur in the region. In his view, a new psychological situation existed now, as a result of which a window of opportunity had opened. The NGO community faced the urgent task of protecting the Palestinian people under occupation. For years NGOs had given support to common tasks through international and local organizations. These included campaigns for the release of political prisoners, the right to education and social security, child sponsorship programmes, etc., and a campaign against inhuman treatment and practices. The NGO community called for a United Nations presence in the occupied territories to monitor the life of Palestinians and for pressuring Governments to send representatives to the occupied territories. The Palestinians needed practical and material support but more than that there was the need for political will and cooperation between the NGO community and European Governments to work on a variety of programmes and projects in the occupied territories. He called for workshops and symposia with balanced participation which would include Israel; and the use of United Nations sponsored NGO forums, government seminars, etc., and for intensive dialogue in the search for practical solutions. Noting Israel's reluctance to participate in such meetings, he called for strengthening the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to include in particular European Governments, convinced that once a serious process of peace was started, it would acquire a logic and momentum of its own.

15. Mr. Hans Peter Kotthaus (Germany), Secretary-General of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Co-operation, spoke on Europe's role in economic assistance to promote the social and economic development of the occupied Palestinian territory. He said that while real progress required a political solution, it was still important to engage in other activities in the mean while. Long-term strategies were needed to help the Palestinians develop structures needed once independence was attained. Such strategies should take account of the 1.5 million Palestinians currently living outside the occupied territories. He noted that European assistance to the occupied territories could be divided into four phases: aid to refugees (from 1971 to 1981); "discovering" the political and economic aspirations of the Palestinian people (1981 to 1986); admitting the possibility of a Palestinian State emerging in the occupied territories (1986-1990); and the post-Gulf War phase (beginning in 1991), in which attention was being given to the extreme aggravation of economic conditions in the territories following the war. Economic assistance given by Europe to the occupied territories was one of the most comprehensive schemes applied to those territories. However, political circumstances limited the scope of deployment of that aid. Due to its economic and trade links with both the Arab world and Israel, the European Community was in a unique position to use its economic weight to encourage both parties to get positively involved in any peace effort. He gave some examples of how the European Community had used economic cooperation for political leverage. He stressed that the European Community should translate its economic power, particularly after 1992, into active peace-making in the Middle East, to search for an overall political settlement. He concluded by saying that the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People could help by persuading European countries to become directly and actively involved in its work.

16. Mr. Moshe Amirav (Israel), Secretary-General of the Shinui (Liberal) Party of Israel, said his participation in the Seminar was in his personal capacity and stemmed from his conviction that dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis was the only way to deal with the complex issues of the Israeli-Palestinian question. He sought a new way, using the United Nations as a vehicle, that went beyond war and monologues which had not yet led to any results. In his view, both Palestinians and Israelis were victims of history and it was only through compromise, understanding and agreement to give up something rightfully claimed by each side in exchange for something else, that peace would eventually be established. Referring to the intifadah, he enumerated the positive effects that it had had on Israel: for the first time, younger Israelis were holding a mirror up to themselves and seeing themselves not as pioneers and victims but as oppressors of other youngsters throwing stones; Israelis were now seeing Palestinians as a people and the "territories" as "occupied". Most of all, the intifadah had shattered the dream reflected in the "coexistence" theory and had brought the realization that the threat to Israel's stability was not external, but came from within. Today, a peace-camp group had been established and a growing number of Israelis supported: (i) the creation of a Palestinian State; (ii) dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization; (iii) the sharing of the city of Jerusalem. In his opinion a dialogue between the two peoples and not between Governments would build the way to peace through the force of public opinion. The two issues that were, in his view, difficult to deal with were the return of refugees still in the camps and the "question of Jerusalem". The first could not return to their original homes, and the second could not be divided. Perhaps discussions, like the Seminar, could deal with those issues and prepare practical models as solutions for further consideration to help convince both sides.

17. Mr. Chawki Armali (Palestinian), representative of the PLO in Brussels, said he was a Galilean born in Haifa. His grandparents, too, were born in Palestine. He was born in a house that his family owned; that house was now occupied by someone who was born elsewhere. He would like to return home. He knew that these were complex questions, but he would like to go back to Haifa to live there when the right to self-determination was recognized. The Israeli Government would have to recognize the need for two States to exist side by side. He stated that the Palestinians had demonstrated their desire to see the city of Jerusalem remain united. If there was a genuine desire for peace, solutions could be found. Many had said that there had been enough of resolutions and that Israel should apply the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied territories. Unfortunately, many of Israel's lawyers and even its Supreme Court found grounds to support Israel's political refusal to consider whether the occupied territories were part of Israel. What should the High Contracting Parties do when proclamations were made that Israel would never withdraw from Judea and Samaria? He stressed that it was high time for international action to promote peace. It was time to create a climate for negotiations for peace by ensuring the protection of the population of the occupied territories through observance of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The High Contracting Parties to the Convention had an important obligation in that regard. The Security Council had called for a meeting of the High Contracting Parties to consider Israel's practices in the occupied territories. If Israel continued its unwillingness to abide by the Convention, then consideration should be given to invoking Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which outlined measures that may be taken to deal with "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression". Perhaps 20 per cent of the population of Israel now supported the establishment of a Palestinian State. It was necessary to step up the pace of that trend through the moral pressure of the international community.

Panel II.

"The urgency of the implementation of the United
Nations resolutions on the question of Palestine and the situation
in the Middle East"

18. Mr. Michele Achilli (Italy), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Italian Senate, pointed out that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had caused great damage to the Arab cause and a deep gap had divided Europe and the whole West from Arab public opinion. Arab public opinion, which had sided with a wrong cause, had paid a useless price in an attempt to find a short-cut solution, and the Palestinian people were paying the highest price. However, war had also generated the renewed authority of the United Nations and the international community's will to apply all United Nations resolutions, particularly those concerning the Palestinian question. He said the process of peace in the Middle East, which should have started immediately after the cessation of hostilities against Iraq, was facing all kinds of impediments, particularly by Israel. There was general agreement that the Palestine question was at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that an international peace conference was an appropriate framework to achieve a just and lasting peace. However, there was a contrast between Israel's promise of concessions and the current attitude of its Government. He said the recent efforts of the United States Secretary of State had failed to convince Israel to accept an international peace conference. There could not be two standards in the application of United Nations resolutions. The true strength of the Palestinians lay in the fact that no conference could be held without their serious participation. He continued in saying that Europe had a role to play in the construction of peace. He referred to the proposal for a conference on security and cooperation in the Mediterranean, initiated by Italy and Spain, which was finding wider consent. The starting point was the general concern to create in the Mediterranean an area of interregional cooperation, that involved both the developed areas of southern Europe and the countries of northern Africa and the Middle East. He stressed that political stability and economic development were indivisible.

19. Rabbi Balfour Brickner (United States of America), Rabbi of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York, spoke on the urgency of convening the International Peace Conference on the Middle East. He said that, at the Fifth European Seminar, held in Stockholm in 1990, he had found it difficult to sit through the numerous attacks on Israel; however, he was learning to absorb and deal with them. As a private citizen and as a Rabbi from the liberal spectrum of Jewish thought, he was concerned both about the situation of the Palestinian people, as well as with the future of Israel. Drawing attention to the history of the Jewish-Muslim encounter in Spain, he said it was only recently that Jews and Muslims found themselves at odds in the world. He stressed the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live securely in their homes. He suggested restructuring the seminars so as to provide more opportunity for round-table discussions and for a broad-based, constructive give-and-take. The United Nations should be a place where those who truly sought peace could turn. He said the Gulf War had shattered the myth of Arab unity. He raised the question of with whom Israel should deal: with the Palestinians, with individual Arab countries? He found it difficult to say whether Arab separateness was good or bad for the peace process. The war had also shattered the myth that Israel could always depend on America's support. The relationship between Israel and the United States today was "testy and crusty". The military option could not solve the problem, as the continued occupation of Gaza and the West Bank remained unacceptable. He emphasized that any settlement must embrace all the major States of the Middle East. Participants at the Seminar could be voices of moderation when they returned to their homes, so that stridency might be replaced with created solutions.

20. Mr. Rafael ESTRELLA (Spain), member of the Senate, speaking on the EEC and the International Peace Conference on the Middle East, said the European Community had a clear commitment to the peace process. Israel had rejected the participation of the PLO, of the United Nations, and of the European Community. It was impossible to be optimistic following the events of the past few months. The decision-making process in the Community led to a policy of the minimum common denominator, and a frequent inability to take a united stand. He referred to the fact that the Community was the main donor to UNRWA; it made that effort because it understood that it had a role to play. The Community was important to the Arab countries and to Israel. It had strategic interests, commitments to honour, and a capability to influence the situation in the Middle East. Discussing the idea of a conference on security and cooperation in the Mediterranean, he said the initiative to organize such a conference did not seek to replace the projected international peace conference. A Mediterranean Security Conference would seek to address a variety of problems affecting the region. The southern Mediterranean suffered from an unfair economic order and an excessive proliferation of armaments. A Mediterranean Conference would build upon the interdependence of the countries of the region. It would understand security not so much in military terms but as a question of stability.

21. Mr. Yilmas Altug (Turkey), member of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Turkish Parliament, said his country had always recognized the right of Palestinians to live in their own State, as well as the right of Israel to live within secure and internationally recognized borders. It supported the "land for peace" formula contained in Security Council resolution 242 (1967). It welcomed the recent peace efforts by the United States Secretary of State and saluted the super-Power cooperation towards organizing a Middle East peace conference. Agreement had been reached on several aspects of such a conference, but Syria and Israel differed on the question of the United Nations role, as well as on whether the conference should be a one-time or an ongoing affair. He emphasized that vast opportunities existed to promote economic interdependence among the States of the Middle East, which was a requirement for lasting peace in the region. Turkish Premier Özal had suggested building a "peace water pipeline" to carry water from two Turkish rivers down to the Arabian peninsula. Collective efforts could be undertaken to build and improve the infrastructure of the Middle East. Opening up of markets and increasing trade exchanges would consolidate economic interdependence. Tourism could be another important area for cooperative efforts. He stressed that cooperation along those lines would not only create an atmosphere of understanding and goodwill but would also serve the well-being of all the nations in the region and help narrow the income gap between them. An economic cooperation fund could be established from petroleum revenues for that purpose. Also, the process of democratization should go hand-in-hand with economic cooperation.

22. Mr. Leonard Doyle (United Kingdom), United Nations correspondent of The Independent described the re-emerging role of the United Nations through actions of the Security Council, specially in the Gulf War, towards a new world order. He pointed out that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had given the international community the opportunity to blaze a trail in its firm, authoritative response to a blatant threat to international peace and security. If that new order was to be more than mere rhetoric, new resources and political commitment would be needed to establish an early warning system for future conflicts; finding a solution to the Middle East conflict would be the acid test. The international response to the plight of the Kurds had set a dramatic precedent which could benefit the Palestinian people under occupation. The move to deploy troops in the region without a formal Security Council resolution had given the United Nations powers to intervene in the internal affairs of Member States. Pressure would now increase to allow the United Nations to play a more prominent role in protecting the right of the Palestinian people. He expressed the view that for the United Nations to be able to play an effective role in the Middle East conflict, it should take another look at and perhaps rescind the General Assembly resolution equating zionism with racism. That would remove an obstacle to Israel accepting a role for the United Nations in the peace talks. He said the support of some Arabs for Saddam Hussein had to be seen in context. The core issue in the Middle East was not support for Saddam Hussein but the plight of the Palestinians. The way forward towards solving the Arab-Israeli conflict might be to focus on its human rights aspects.

23. Mr. V. Gogitidze (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), Chief of Section for a Middle East Settlement, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that the recent events in the Gulf had shown that the continuing tension in the Middle East posed a danger to mankind. The lack of a settlement in the region, particularly of the Palestinian problem, threatened the life and well-being of the people in the Middle East. The possession of weapons of mass destruction by some States of the region was a matter of special concern. In his view, a historic opportunity existed now in the Middle East which if missed, could spark a grave situation and make the whole problem incurable. On 9 September, 1990 the agreement between the Soviet and United States Presidents was achieved to start work on the Middle East problem, which brought a fundamentally new element to the Middle East situation and was supported by many regional States, which relied on it in their expectations of a possible breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli settlement. Both Arabs and Israel were clearly becoming more tired of the State of enmity confrontation that led nowhere and there was an awareness that the lack of political settlement promoted an arms race that placed a heavy economic burden on the region. The desire for peace was apparent but the mistrust between the Israelis and Arabs undermined the emerging compromise solutions or any new political thinking. He emphasized that the achievement of a settlement was first and foremost the responsibility of the immediate parties to the conflict. The great Powers, including the United States and the Soviet Union should concentrate on promoting a propitious climate for peaceful talks to resolve the territorial, political, military and humanitarian problems through compromise and cooperation. The USSR believed that the settlement should be based on (i) Security Council resolution 242 (1967) for Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the armed conflict of 1967; (ii) Palestinian right to self-determination; (iii) secure and recognized borders for both Arab States and Israel. An international conference which gained the great support of the world community would provide the most acceptable framework to resolve all the problems. Representatives of all sides concerned would take part in the conference including legal representatives of the Arab people of Palestine. The permanent members of the Security Council should be present to create a constructive atmosphere for negotiations. The currently discussed peace conference could be a booster for the peace process and deserved the closest possible attention. The leaders of the Middle East had accepted many elements of such a conference which was in line with the Soviet concept of a multi-optional approach on the way to a full-fledged international conference. He emphasized in particular the United Nations potential role in unblocking conflict situations and strengthening international security, which made its involvement in all stages of the Arab-Israeli settlement a matter of great importance. Referring to the settlement of new immigrants in the occupied Arab territories, he stressed that the USSR vigorously opposed that policy and he called on the world community to focus its efforts to prevent Israel building new settlements in the occupied territories, which constituted a new destabilizing factor in the Middle East.

24. Mr. Richard Murphy (United States of America), former Assistant Secretary of State, said the window of opportunity for peace remained open today owing to the Gulf War, which had raised questions about Arab unity, while creating trauma in Israel following the Scud missile attacks. The new respect for the United Nations in his country had been one good result of that war. The war had reminded all parties that force was not acceptable as a means of settling border disputes. It also made clear that there could be no military solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It may have also created a climate more conducive to arms control in the Middle East. Such talks might provide the impetus for a wide-ranging Middle East peace process. He pointed out that the war had also highlighted the differences between the haves and the have-nots in the Middle East, provoking leaders of wealthy States to reassess their aid policies. It had also demonstrated that traditional power concepts in the region were in need of reassessment. It suggested that, although the United States had played a key role in that war, it might not always be in a position to play such a role. The intifadah, rather than leading to a solution, had led both Palestinians and Israelis to accept a higher level of pain in their existence. He noted that the war had been costly to the PLO as a political movement, and had led some Israelis to pull back from the possibility of a substantive dialogue. Israel had opposed the meetings held by the United States Secretary of State with certain Palestinians whom it deemed to be PLO supporters. If there was to be a Middle East peace conference, careful thought would have to be given to arranging Palestinian participation either as part of an all-Arab delegation or as part of a Jordanian delegation. Any such arrangement would call on the PLO leadership to exercise restraint on how it described the loyalties of those Palestinians who attended the session. He did not see a major role for the United Nations at the current stage. Rather, he envisaged joint sponsorship of negotiations by the United States and the Soviet Union. Currently, State-to-State negotiations would be easier to attain than Israeli-Palestinian talks, though such talks should not be neglected. The spotlighting of the "land for peace" principle in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) tended to freeze thinking on the subject in Israel.

25. Mr. V. Pashiouk (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), Director of the Ukrainian Institute of International Relations of Kiev State University, said he was hopeful that for the first time in many years, in the changing world, the Middle East confrontation could be resolved. The continuing unlawful occupation by Israel of Arab territories was at the heart of Arab-Israeli confrontation. Arab misgivings over that was understandable, especially as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had become refugees after the 1948 and 1967 wars. The policy of expulsion and deportation also aggravated the situation and the radical demographic structural change being effected in the territories was nothing short of a "creeping annexation". The immigrants from the Soviet Union had focused the attention of the world community. Israel's illegal practice of settling Jewish immigrants in the occupied territories and its blatant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 were firmly condemned in the Ukrainian SSR. At the same time, the Ukraine would not legislate to prevent or limit Jewish emigration, as some Arab politicians were calling on it to do, since such measures would be a contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions, and would also affect democratic processes in the Republic. He noted that the statements by Israeli leaders regarding the settlement of immigrants in the occupied territories had coincided with the United States decision to reduce the quota for entry of emigrants from the Soviet Union into that country. The intentions of those who initiated the settlement policy were to impede the peace process in the region, create a split in Soviet-Arab relations, detach the Soviet Union from the settlement of the Middle East situation and bring about the de facto annexation of the occupied territories. He pointed to a paradox: where respect for the rights of its Jewish citizens was concerned, Israel was ahead of many States in the region, but towards the Palestinian Arabs it applied a policy of harsh discrimination. Some 150 laws were in force in Israel enforcing that discrimination in practically all aspects of life. He stressed that the process aimed at establishing peace in the Middle East could be conducted only on the basis of a compromise between the parties involved in the conflict; violence and stereotypes must be rejected, and direct dialogue was required between the PLO and Israel, regardless of what conference provided the framework for it. A regional conference with the participation of the Soviet Union, the United States and, logically, the United Nations could serve as the starting point for the process of resolving the situation. The process would be concluded by an international conference under United Nations auspices.

26. Ms. Inger Lise Gjorv (Norway), President of the First Chamber of the Stortinget, speaking on the problem of Palestinian refugees said that three years of the intifadah had adverse effects on UNRWA's capability to provide services and led to disintegration of municipal services in refugee camps and to unemployment and general deterioration of the refugees' living conditions. She noted that the violence in the streets, the frequent and long curfews, the closure of schools and universities, all had devastating psychological effects on the people. There were no signs of cessation in spite of the many killings of Palestinians and 58 deportations. The Gulf conflict had caused unemployment for tens of thousands of Palestinians, as well as additional hardship in the territories to those refugee families who had relied on income previously remitted from the Gulf. That had further strained UNRWA's resources. She pointed out that the growing immigration of Soviet Jews had created a new tension in the job market and their settlement in occupied territories was an obstacle to a solution and a contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israeli obstruction of the economic development in the occupied territories was also a violation of the Hague Convention of 1907 and a matter of great concern. She noted that the basic human rights of the Palestinians were continuously violated through such actions as custody without charge or trial, torture, collective punishment, deportation and exile, confiscation of land, harassment and disruption of trade and other deprivations through protracted curfews and closing of educational institutions. She drew attention to the shortage of water, its inegalitarian distribution that favoured the Israelis and the increase in the salinity of the water, and called for a regionally negotiated solution. She stressed that donations to UNRWA had neither kept pace with the refugees' population growth nor reflected the needs created by the intifadah and the Gulf conflict. Co-operation between UNRWA and Israel had not improved. The few positive elements where progress was being made included the self-supporting grants and loans for projects supported by UNRWA and NGOs. She said that though the situation in the Middle East had changed, obstacles remained for a peace conference. The biggest obstacle was the continuation of the settlement policy. She called on all parties to show responsibility and refrain from provocative activities.

27. Mr. Izhar Beer (Israel), Columnist for Haaretz newspaper, said that dramatic and even tragic events were taking place in the occupied territories. The conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, had reached a critical phase. The two communities were in a struggle over the domination over the land, the water resources and the authority. A massive effort was under-way by settlers, with the help of the Israeli Government, to increase the number of settlers and settlements. That was the real danger to the Palestinian prospects to gain their self-determination. Only 2 to 3 per cent of the new immigrants went to the West Bank - most of the settlers were Israelis who took advantage of the cheaper housing. Mr. Beer enumerated facts and figures to indicate the magnitude of the situation: between 1967 and 1977, the Labour Government had established only 20 settlements. Since then, the Likud had established about 100 settlements in the West Bank. The nature of the settlements too differed in that Labour used them to ensure security; Likud used them as a tool to annex the territory. Further, Labour used private land acquired for military security reason; Likud declared all empty, unoccupied land as part of Israel's historical "promised land" and hence government land, tracing the policy back to laws of the Ottoman Empire. The numbers of settlers were being increased in those settlements and plans existed to settle 100,000 more Jews, thus making the policy irreversible. Commenting on the post-Gulf War situation, he noted that the economic situation had worsened, particularly since the Israeli Government limited Palestinian access to jobs in Israel. The new phenomenon, he noted, was that the people in the territories did not support the Palestinian leaders. Since the end of the Gulf War, Palestinians had turned more against Palestinian "collaborators" in the territories than against Israelis. There had also been a rise of fundamentalist groups that opposed negotiations with Israel or with Jews; that had given rise to Jewish fundamentalism and extremism. He said that it was important for some Palestinians to develop more sense for real-politik and not getting diverted by technicalities. In his view, there was now a last chance to take action before the situation dictated another reality in the area.

28. Mr. Saeb Erekat (Palestinian), Professor of Political Science, Al-Najah University, West Bank, emphasized that Israel and the United States were the only Member States which rejected the United Nations definition of international legitimacy as it applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The key question was whether the Palestinians were a people, equal to anyone else. He expressed the view that during this century, while other peoples had been propelled towards statehood, the Palestinians were being pushed in the opposite direction. He pointed out that for the first time in history, a nation State, Israel, was demanding the right to determine who would negotiate for its enemy. Yet it was only the enemy who could deliver the concessions required for peace. With reference to the role of the PLO, he stressed that it was Palestinian nationalism that had created that Organization, and every Palestinian was a member. As one of the Palestinians who had met with United States Secretary of State, James Baker, he said Mr. Baker had changed his negotiating points on their second series of meetings. Earlier, the Palestinians had been asked to accept Security Council resolution 242 (1967), to accept Israel's right to exist, and to renounce terror. The PLO had delivered on that promise, but in return had been subjected to the most extremist Government in Israel's history. That Government did not want a dialogue but only a monologue. He said that the current Government had been formed to bring the West Bank and Gaza to a demographic point of no return. He pointed out that the Gulf War had left the Palestinians alone, abandoned and betrayed. He himself had been unable to accept the Gulf War after years of preaching peace. He referred to the fact that the PLO had been the first group to introduce a Gulf peace plan, based on Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. He stressed that Israel's practices in the occupied territories led to desperation, and desperation led to desperate acts. For years, acceptance of resolution 242 (1967) was required as a passport for negotiations; now that resolution was being forgotten. Peace required nothing more than a desire for peace on the part of two conflicting parties, together with a desire to create new economic, geographical and political models. He said that it was time to start healing and reconstructing. It was time for Palestinians and Israelis to approach the others as equal partners. Without such an approach, both sides would ultimately be forced to swim in a sea of blood.

C. Formal closing meeting

29. At the formal closing meeting the conclusions and recommendations reproduced below were introduced by the Rapporteur and subsequently adopted by the Seminar participants. The formal closing meeting was addressed by H.E. Mr. Francisco Villar, Secretary-General for Political Affairs of Spain, and by Mr. Issam Kamel el Salem, representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Spain. H.E. Mr. Alexander Borg Olivier, Acting Chairman of the Seminar, made a closing statement.

Conclusions and recommendations

30. The participants noted that the Seminar was being held at a time when fundamental changes were taking place in the international political scene with increased international cooperation and greater respect for norms and principles of international law and morality, including the right of peoples to enjoy peace and their political, civil, social and economic rights.

31. The participants considered that recent events in the Persian Gulf had heightened tensions and brought instability to an already troubled region and focused even more the attention of international public opinion on the urgent need for a peaceful settlement of the conflict in the Middle East, the core of which is the question of Palestine. A solution was urgently needed in the aftermath of the Gulf War, taking into account the new opportunities that now exist, on the basis of international law and in conformity with the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and relevant United Nations resolutions, which must be applied in an even-handed manner.

32. The participants urged the Security Council, particularly its permanent members, to undertake every effort to facilitate the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization. In this regard the participants expressed appreciation for all efforts being made to initiate the peace process.

33. The participants stressed that the peace process and related negotiations must be based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination. The participants expressed their conviction that the "land for peace" formula and the "two peoples, two States" principle adequately addressed the rights and concerns of both parties, Israelis and Palestinians, and their acceptance and implementation would result in a comprehensive and just peace in the region.

34. Participants discussed the intifadah and the Palestine peace initiative of November 1988 and acknowledged these and other efforts by the Palestinian people in its struggle to obtain and exercise its inalienable rights. The participants expressed deep concern at the continued loss of life in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied by Israel and at the continued violations by Israel of the human rights of the civilian population in these territories. The international community had repeatedly deplored the Israeli policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory which were in violation of its obligations as a party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and contrary to United Nations resolutions and generally recognized norms of international law. The participants noted that the United Nations Security Council, in its resolution 681 (1990) urged the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of 1949, to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the said Convention and asked the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure that Israel, as occupying Power, fulfilled its obligations under the Convention. The participants expressed full support to the Security Council's request to the Secretary-General, in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to pursue the idea of convening a meeting of the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention in order to examine measures that might be taken by them under the Convention. They noted that the Secretary-General was requested to monitor and observe the situation regarding Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation, and to make new efforts in this regard on an urgent basis, and to utilize and designate or draw upon the United Nations and other personnel and resources present there, in the area and elsewhere, needed to accomplish this task and to keep the Security Council regularly informed. Many participants appealed to the Security Council to assume and discharge its responsibilities and to take urgent measures, including the deployment of a United Nations force to ensure the physical protection and to guarantee the safety and security of the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation. The participants noted also the recent adoption by the Security Council of its resolution 694 (1991) on 24 May 1991 deploring, as it had done on previous occasions, Israel's deportation of Palestinians in violation of its international obligations.

35. The participants deplored the process of Israeli colonization of the occupied Palestinian territory as manifested in the continued establishment of settlements and usurpation of land and water resources. They were alarmed at the recent establishment of additional settlements and condemned these actions as insensitive and provocative, which created yet another most serious obstacle to peace. The international community had vigorously opposed the Israeli policy of establishing settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, which was in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Security Council resolutions which had declared these settlements to be illegal and that they had to be dismantled.

36. The serious deterioration in the economic situation in the occupied territory was a source of great concern to the participants. They stressed that the United Nations has a duty and responsibility to render all assistance necessary to promote the social and economic development of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory in preparation for the full exercise of national sovereignty in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions.

37. The participants cognizant of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognizes the right of freedom of movement and the right of everyone to leave any country and the right to return to one's own country, condemned the settlement of immigrants and Israeli civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and urged the Security Council to take appropriate measures to address this new and serious obstacle to peace.

38. The participants expressed appreciation for the sustained efforts of the international community to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the question of Palestine, in accordance with United Nations resolutions. They stressed the great importance of the valuable contribution which the European countries have made and could continue to make towards the achievement of an equitable settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East. The participants welcomed the steps already taken by the European countries in this regard and urged them to further increase their valuable assistance to the Palestinian people. In this connection, the participants noted with appreciation the doubling of the aid by the European Community to the occupied territory and the efforts for facilitating and increasing the trade between the territory and the Community, both decided by the Council of Ministers of the European Community. The participants expressed their appreciation for the position adopted by European Governments in response to the proclamation of the State of Palestine, the Palestinian Arab State to exist side by side with the State of Israel, in conformity with the two-State principle, and in accordance with United Nations resolutions. The participants considered that the European Community could play a valuable role in the peace process and should be an active participant in this process.

39. The participants took note with appreciation of new initiatives proposed recently by a number of European countries aimed at enhancing security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region.

40. The participants appealed to all European Governments to support the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in its efforts and urged the same Governments to give serious consideration to participation in the work of the Committee as members or observers. The participants considered that increased representation by European countries and the European Commission in the work of the Committee would broaden the scope of its deliberations and increase its effectiveness.

41. The participants expressed appreciation for the Secretary-General's continuing endeavours to advance the peace process and to facilitate the convening of the International Peace Conference. The participants expressed deep appreciation to UNRWA for the invaluable work being carried out under difficult circumstances for the benefit of the Palestine refugees. They appealed to Governments to increase their contribution to the UNRWA budget and to other organizations and potential donors to contribute generously to the activities of UNRWA. They took note with appreciation of the activities of the Division for Palestinian rights of the United Nations Secretariat and of its commitment to work, under the guidance of and in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, towards the attainment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations.

42. The participants noted with appreciation that the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was intensifying its efforts to ensure that the United Nations regional seminars on the question of Palestine provided an opportunity for diverse points of view to be expressed so that a real dialogue could be held among people of good will on all sides. In that context the participants expressed satisfaction that there had been a constructive and frank exchange at the Seminar between the Israeli and Palestinian participants. They acknowledged the efforts of the moderate elements within the Israeli community who are contributing constructively to the peace process and to a better informed public opinion in their country. The Seminar noted, however, that while Palestinians representing the Palestine Liberation Organization had participated in the Seminar, the official viewpoint of Israel had yet to be expressed.

43. The participants in the Seminar took note with appreciation of the valuable support the Government of Spain had extended over the years to the just cause of the Palestinian people. The participants attributed particular significance to the fact that the Seminar was held in Madrid, the capital of Spain, a country which had throughout its history accommodated people of different faiths and cultures including Moslems, Christians and Jews who were able to coexist peacefully and in harmony. The participants expressed their profound gratitude to the Government and people of Spain for providing a venue for the European Seminar on the Question of Palestine, and for the excellent facilities and warm hospitality extended to them.


Annex I


The participants in the European Seminar on the Question of Palestine, being held from 27 to 30 May 1991 in Madrid, Spain, express their profound thanks to the Government and people of Spain for generously providing a venue for this meeting and for the excellent arrangements made which greatly contributed to its success. The participants wish also to convey their sincere gratitude and appreciation to H.E. Mr. Francisco Fernández Ordóñez, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain, for his constructive statement and support for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the question of Palestine. The participants also wish to express their appreciation to H.E. Mr. Francisco Villar, Secretary-General for Political Affairs, for his contribution to the Seminar. The participants take this opportunity to convey their sincere appreciation to the Government and people of Spain for their valuable support to the just cause of the Palestinian people.

Annex II


Delegation of the Committee on the Exercise of the
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People

H.E. Mrs. Absa Claude Diallo
Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations, Chairman of the Committee

H.E. Mr. Alexander BORG OLIVIER
Permanent Representative of Malta to the United Nations, Rapporteur of the Committee

Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the United Nations

Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Cuba to the United Nations, New York

Mr. Nasser M. AL KIDWA
Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, New York


Mr. Freih ABU-MIDAIN (Palestinian)
Mr. Michele ACHILLI (Italy)
Mr. Yilmas ALTUG (Turkey)
Mr. Moshe AMIRAV* (Israel)
Mr. Chawki ARMALI (Palestinian)
Mr. Izhar BEER* (Israel)
Rabbi Balfour BRICKNER (United States of America)
Mr. Leonard DOYLE* (United Kindgom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Mr. Saeb EREKAT (Palestinian)
Mr. Rafael ESTRELLA (Spain)
Mr. V. GOGITIDZE (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
Ms. Inger Lise GJORV (Norway)
Mr. Hans Peter KOTTHAUS (Germany, Pariamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation)
Mr. Mikko LOHIKOSKI (Finland, European Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the
Question of Palestine)
Mr. Roberto MESA (Spain)
Mr. Richard MURPHY (United States of America)
Mr. Viktor V. PASHIOUK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic)

* These panelists informed the United Nations Secretariat that since they were attending the Seminar as experts and not as participants, they should be excluded from the conclusions and recommendations adopted at the Seminar.

Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Mr. Ronald I. SPIERS
Under-Secretary-General for Political and General Assembly Affairs and Secretariat Services

Member States

Ms. Farida Tedjini-Bailiche

Mr. Christian Berlakovits
Minister Counsellor

Mr. Jan Deboute

Ms. Glaucia Silveira Gauch
First Secretary

Mr. Stefanidy Tchoukov
First Secretary

Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
Mr. Nikolai N. Komissarov

Mr. Miguel Angel Pablo Araya
Second Counsellor

Mr. Xu Changcai
Counsellor (Political Affairs)

H.E. Mr. Alfredo Valdivieso

H. E. M. Chalach Hussein
Minister Plenipotentiary

Mr. Mahmoud Amin

Mr. Azzairi Mohamed

Mr. Saber Mansour
First Secretary

Mr. C. Soderlund
Minister Counsellor

H.E. Mr. Henri de Coignac

Mrs. Monique Barre
Second Counsellor


H.E. Mr. Adamantios Vakalopoulos

Mr. Filippos Trikkas
Third Secretary

Mr. Jozsef Marko

Mr. Ram Mohan
Third Counsellor

Mr. Achmad Wirahasikusumah

Mr. M.J. Sadeghian
Second Secretary

Mr. Kenneth Thompson

Mr. Francesco M. Greco

H.E. Mr. Saher Bak

Mr. J. Subhi Hamiol
Press Attache

H. E. Mr. Hamiyé Abbas

Mr. Jean G. Danier
First Secretary

Mr. Nabil Jeahshan

Libyan Arab Republic
H. E. Mr. Nuri M. Betelmal

Mr. Ahmed Elmenbi
First Counsellor

Mr. Ismail Bin Mustapha

Mr. Oumar Sy

Mr. Mohamed Said Dovelfakar
First Secretary

Mr. Driss El Mhouar

Mr. Niilo Taapopi
Acting High Commissioner, United Kingdom

Ms. Marjanne De Kwaasteniet
Head of Delegation

H.E. Mr. Y.Y Mamman

Mr. Christopher Ogbebor
First Secretary

Mr. Mustapha B. Aliyu
Second Secretary

Mr. J. M. Ishaya
Second Secretary

Mr. F. M. Osewa
Second Secretary

Mr. Samson B. Gambo
Third Secretary

H. E. Mr. Leif Mevik

Mr. Arne Aasheim

H.E. Mr. Naseer Mohammad Shah

Mrs. Humaira Hasan
First Secretary

Mr. Ayaz Hussain
Third Secretary

Mr. Ejaz Ahmad
Commercial Counsellor

Mr. Victor Bocanegra
Minister Counsellor

Mr. Carlos Gil de Montes Molinari

Mrs. Josefina I. Estrada
Third Secretary

Mr. Andrés Malinowski

Mr. Allegro de Magalhaes

Ms. Maria Aleko

Mr. Ion Turturica

Saudi Arabia
Mr. Abdallah Al Rassheed
Second Secretary

South Africa
Mr. S. N. Rhoodie
Third Secretary

H. E. Mr. Jorge Dezcallar
Director General of Foreign Policy for Africa and the Middle East

H. E. Mr. Mariano Alonso-Burón
Director General of the Institute for Cooperation with the Arab World

H.E. Mr. Juan Manuel Cabrera
Director General of International Organizations and Conferences

H.E. Mrs. Almudena Mazarrasa
Assistant Director General of the Institute for Cooperation with the Arab World

H.E. Mr. Juan José Urtasun
Assistant Director General for the Middle East

H.E. Mr. Ignacio Matellanes
Assistant Secretary General for United Nations Division

Mr. Emilio Pérez de Agreda
Technical Advisor
United Nations Division

Mr. Marcos Vega
Technical Adviser
United Nations Division

Mrs. Linda Fernandez Corujedo

Mr. Lars Erik Forsberg
Second Secretary

Syrian Arab Republic
H. E. Mr. M.Z. Akkad

H.E. Mr. Chitrik Sresthabutra

Mr. Mahadi Wimana
Minister Counsellor

Mr. Prephat Chantaharn
First Secretary

Mr. Melih Tezel
First Secretary

Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics
Mr. Victor I. Nagaychuk
Head of Press Centre, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
H.E. Mr. Lakim Kaumov
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Tadshik S.S.R

Mr. D. Anatoli Kouznetsov
Minister Counsellor

Mr. Sergei A. Malinin
Second Secretary

Mr. D. Dimitri Kazimirov
Second Secretary

United Arab Emirates
Mr. Khaled Salem
Chief of Press

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Mr. N.A. R. Backhouse
First Secretary

H.E. Mr. Faik Dizdarevic

Mr. Jurica Raos

Mr. N'swanamkankunga Kabwanga

Non-member States represented by observers

Republic of Korea
Mr. Jang Hee Hong Hee

Mr. Sung Sol Surh
Assistant Director

United Nations specialized agencies, bodies and programmes

International Labour Organisation
Mr. L. Simón Velasco
Representative in Madrid

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mr. G. Da Cunha Lustosa
Representative in Spain

Ms. Deborah F. Elizondo de Trinidad

United Nations Population Fund
Mr. Bashri S. Muntassen

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees
in the Near East
Mr. Douglas Ross

Intergovernmental organizations

League of Arab States
Mr.Ahmed Mahmoud

Mr. Sammy Wabli
Chief of Press

Other organizations having received a standing invitation
to participate in the sessions and the work
of the General Assembly as observers

Mr. Issam Kamel el Salem
Representative of the PLO in Spain

Mr. Hani Faydi
Deputy Representative

Mr. Sabri Atieh

Mr. Gafir Kial
First Secretary

Mr. Mousa Oudeh
Second Secretary

Mr. Marwan Tahbub
Second Secretary

Mr. Randa Nabulsi

Mr. Mahmud Elwani

Non-governmental organizations

Amnesty International
Mr. José María García
Mr. Patricio Rojas

Asociación de Amistad Hispano-Arabe
Ms. Carmen Ruiz Bravo-Villasante
Ms. Elisa Molina Pérez

Asociación Juvenil Amigos Pueblo Palestino Ashral
Mr. Ricardo Alias de la Torre

Asociación Nacional de Amigos del Pueblo Palestino "Al Fatah"
Mr. Fernando Huarte Santamaría
Mr. Ricardo Alias de la Torre
Ms. Elena Galan Hevia

Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España
Mr. Jesús César
Mr. José Antonio Gibernat
Ms. Luisa Silvent
Ms. Esther Almazan

Centro de Investigación para la Paz (CIP)
Ms. Isabel Sánchez García

Christian Peace Conference
Mr. Javier Anso
Mr. Francisco Silvela

Comité España Cooperación Iglesias (CECI)
Mr. Miguel de Olaiz

Comité de Solidaridad con la Causa Arabe
Mr. José Alberto Cruz Bravo
Mr. Carlos Varea González
Ms. Dolores Rico Oliver

Consejo Mundial de Iglesias
(World Council of Churches)
Mr. Luís Poveda

Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología
Mr. Antonio Marquina

Federación Internacional de Resistentes
Mr. Juan Gervasio Puerta Garcia
Mr. Angel Martinez Martinez

Fundación Araguney
Mr. Ildefonso de los Campos Montenegro

Instituto de Estudios Políticos para America Latina y Africa (IEPALA)
Mr. Isaias Barreñada
Mr. Enrique Garcia de Herreros Madueño
Ms. María del Carmen Victory

Instituto de Derechos Humanos-Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Mr. Jesús González Amuchastegui
Mrs. Concepcion Escobar Hernandez

International Organization for the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Mr. Hussein Raiani

International Progress Organization
Mr. Carlos Varea González
Mr. Hans Koechler

Justicia y Paz, España
Mr. Juan Manuel Guillem
Mr. Francisco Silvela

Movimiento por la Paz, el Desarme y la Libertad (MPOL)
Ms. Trinidad López Carral
Mr. Esteban Navarro
Mr. José Palau Balletbo
Mr. Francisco Sauqillo
Mr. Jacobo Echeverría Torres

Plataforma Canario-Palestina
Mr. Mahmoud Hussein Dib El-Hussein
Mr. José Juan González Batista
Mr. Salustiano Garcia Rodriguez

Solidaritaetsdienst International (Germany)
Mr. Thomas Moenkemeyer

Unión General de Escritores y Periodistas Palestinos - España y Portugal
Mr. Majed Mohammed Abdelkader Dibsi

Union General de Estudiantes Palestinos
Mr. José Abu Quevedo


Anadolu Agencia de Noticias, Turkey
Mr. Lafer Kogtürk

Agence France Presse
Mr. Miguel Enesco Arana

Mr. Nazmi Yousef

Antena 3 Radio
Mr. Muguezza Marquinez

Associated Press
Mr. Francisco J. Conde

Ms. Blanca F. Baena Diaz

Diario 16
Mr. Vidal Coy

Diario el Sol
Mr. Miguel Angel Nieto
Ms. Pilar Ortega León

Mr. David Raiamundo Aguilar
Mr. José M. Pastor Sanchez
Ms. Ana Ramos
Mr. Miguel Sáez
Ms. Ana Vaca de Osma
Mr. Juan Carlos Zamora

El Independiente
Ms. Maria Antonia Sanchez-Vallejo

El País
Mr. Ignacio Cembrero Vázquez

Europa Press TV
Ms. Elena Banddres Goldaraz
Mr. Javier Rodriguez

Teheran-Iran-Kyhan Publications
Ms. Irandekht Sadeghivan

OMAYA Magazine
Ms. Nuria Langrero Oropesa

Onda Verde
Mr. Santiago González Vallejo

Radio Exterior de España
Mr. Adnan Al-Ayoubi
Mr. José María Calvo

Radio France International
Mr. José Antonio Zisbona Martin

Revista Critica
Ms. Rosario Marín Malavé

Mr. Francisco Medina Ortega

Televisión Antena 3
Mr. Faustino Alvarez Rodriguez
Mr. Ignacio Colas García
Mr. Carlos Hernández de Miguel
Ms. Felicidad Pelaez Pelaez

Mr. Nabib Abu-Warda

Mr. José Mejía Giraldo


Complete document in PDF format (Requires Acrobat Reader)

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter