Question of Palestine home
16 January 1995
Tuesday, 13 December 1994
at 10 a.m.
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 34TH MEETING
Mr. KHAN (Pakistan)
AGENDA ITEM 12: REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL (
The meeting was called to order at 10.40 a.m
Draft resolution on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli settlements on the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, occupied since 1967, and on the Arab population of the Syrian Golan
(Bulgaria), Vice-Chairman, said that no agreement had been reached in informal consultations.
(Egypt) said that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution.
(Malaysia) said that his delegation wished to join the sponsors of the draft resolution.
(Israel) recalled that in the Declaration of Principles, his Government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had agreed that the issues relating to the permanent status of the territories concerned would be negotiated at a later stage. Israel had long advocated the principle of direct negotiations without preconditions as the only framework to advance peace in the Middle East. That principle had formed the basis of the peace process begun at Madrid, within the framework of which the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles and its subsequent agreements had been signed as well as the October 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. Israel looked forward to progress with other parties to the peace process as well.
10. His Government believed that General Assembly resolutions should take account of the progress already achieved. He urged the Committee to defer the vote on the draft resolution, since the latter prejudged the outcome of the negotiations and was in contradiction with the obligations undertaken by the PLO in the Declaration of Principles. It also contradicted the principle of direct negotiations without preconditions. The bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on the one hand and between Israel and Syria on the other were the appropriate forums for addressing the issue.
11. Furthermore, the fifth preambular paragraph referred to Security Council resolution
, while ignoring the acts of terrorism perpetrated against Israel by fundamentalist organizations such as Hamas or the Islamic Jihad and making no mention of the measures taken by Israel in implementation of the Security Council resolution, including the establishment of a temporary international presence in Hebron and the implementation of security measures to ensure the safety of all worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs.
12. Israel was committed to the peace process. Accordingly, his delegation would vote against the draft resolution, and urged delegations which were in favour of the Middle East peace process to do likewise.
At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a recorded vote was taken
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, United States of America.
Abstaining: Angola, Belarus, Central African Republic, Congo, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Kenya, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia.
Draft resolution A/C.2/49/L.15 was adopted by 112 votes to 2, with 23 abstentions
(Saudi Arabia) said that as a result of a technical malfunction his vote in favour of the draft resolution had not been recorded.
(Egypt) said that his vote had not been recorded for the same reason and that his country had also voted in favour of the draft resolution.
(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said that, although his country had voted in favour of the draft resolution, it wished to make some reservations with respect to certain parts of the draft resolution which might be construed as a recognition of Israel and to a number of elements concerning the ongoing Middle East peace process.
(Observer for Palestine) welcomed the adoption of draft resolution A/C.2/49/L.15 on the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. The vote demonstrated the fact that countries were aware of the seriousness of the situation and of the negative repercussions of those settlements on the region’s economic and social situation.
19. Although under the Declaration of Principles the Palestine Liberation Organization had agreed to put off talks on the Israeli settlements until a later date, it still believed that international law should be applied. The settlers living on Palestinian territory should not obstruct the peace process, and the Israeli Government should adopt effective, bold measures to enforce internationally adopted resolutions. Until a just and lasting solution was found to the conflict, the General Assembly should continue to affirm its position on the issue as part of the Organization’s responsibilities in defence of the Palestinian cause.
20. In view of the problems that had arisen during the voting, it would perhaps be advisable to vote again, thereby enabling all the countries whose votes had not been recorded to vote properly.
(Islamic Republic of Iran) said that he had voted in favour of the draft resolution but that he had reservations concerning the paragraphs which could be interpreted as a recognition of Israel.
(Iraq) said that he had voted in favour of the draft resolution but that he wished to make reservations with respect to the seventh preambular paragraph, which referred to the Madrid conference.
(Senegal) said that his delegation had been unable to vote because of technical reasons but that it would have voted in favour of the draft resolution.
(Ukraine) said that Ukraine had abstained because the draft resolution did not reflect the progress achieved in the peace process, being more political than economic in nature.
Mr. THAN NHAN KHANG
(Viet Nam) said that had he been present during the voting, he would have voted in favour of the draft resolution.
Mr. PEDROSO CUESTA
(Cuba) said that had he been present during the voting, he would have voted in favour of the draft resolution.
(Ghana) said that had he been present during the voting, he would have voted in favour of the draft resolution.
(Botswana) said that had she been present during the voting, she would have voted in favour of the draft resolution.
The meeting rose at 12.25 p.m