Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS
131. Secondly, the Assembly need not in its emergency special session remind the Security Council of the gravity of the situation. The situation, let us remind ourselves, is one where the Charter of the United Nations has been violated and where aggression and unlawful occupation have been perpetrated and have not been condemned, The General Assembly has failed to condemn aggression. We should acknowledge that failure and not try to cover it up by advancing and by adopting a draft resolution that says: we are aware of the situation, but let the Security Council deal with it. The Security Council has been aware of the situation. And when the Security Council dealt with the situation, it was unable to do so effectively.
132. Perhaps this truth of our failure is not palatable, particularly to the smaller nations whose only hope for justice is in the United Nations. But to acknowledge this truth and to acknowledge this failure is the first step in the right direction which the smaller nations must take, if they are to conduct their policies in the future with full awareness of the realities that obtain within this Organization. The smaller nations should not be concerned about the failure of this special session. They should not be concerned that the United Nations has failed on this question. It is important for them to know the reasons why the United Nations has failed.
133. My delegation is prepared, for one, to face the facts and to acknowledge with regret the failure of the General Assembly to deal with aggression. But we are not prepared to say that this is a matter for the Security Council and therefore think that we have relieved ourselves of all responsibility, because we are as responsible for this failure as any of the other delegations.
134. My delegation, therefore, in honesty will not be able to endorse referring this matter by a decision of the General Assembly to the Security Council, We shall vote against this draft resolution if it is put to the vote as a whole, and if it is voted upon paragraph by paragraph, my delegation will vote against the first operative paragraph.
135. Mr. KA.BANDA (Rwanda) (translated from French): My Government responded favourably to the request from the Soviet Union [see A/6717]-circulated to the delegations by the Secretary-General and concerning the convening of an emergency special session on the crisis in the Middle East-and sent the following reply:
136. In making this reply, the Government of Rwanda cherished the hope that the General Assembly would play the part of mediator and conciliator and thus assist the parties to solve their problem by means of a negotiated solution. In fact, my Government counted on the interest which the parties involved have always shown in the cause of peace and world stability.
137. I repeat: a negotiated solution. Indeed, my Government thinks that this is the only means of overcoming the present crisis and that it is possible-my Government is still convinced-to find a solution through this approach. It is encouraging, for example, to find in the General Armistice Agreement of 24 February 1949 between Egypt and Israel, the principle whereby "the right of each party to its security and freedom from fear of attack by the armed forces of the other shall be fully respected" 2/
138. We believe that the spirit which presided over the preparation and signature of this agreement is still alive, among both our Egyptian and our Israel friends.
139. Since the debate on the question opened, more than a month ago, we have heard official statements and we have heard accusations directed against one or other of the parties involved. Many of the delegations here have accused the General Assembly, or the Security Council, or the Organization itself of being powerless. These delegations are right, if they are considering the results which our discussions generally achieve. But they are also wrong, and why not say so, if they think that the States which make up this Organization and which belong to different ideological families must necessarily have the same approach to problems. Nevertheless, our role here is first of all to have confidence in those who represent this Organization and who represent their countries on the Security Council, because their concern-we know-is for peace and security. To accuse our institutions is to accuse ourselves, which is not a good approach to the solution we are seeking.
140. My Government and my delegation have always been guided by realism. Our position on the Middle Eastern question is realistic, That is why we are convinced that the role of this Assembly is not to adopt resolutions which cannot be applied, but to seek out realistic approaches which can bring an acceptable and lasting settlement of the crisis.
141. We consider that the elements of the Middle Eastern problem are all inter-connected and must all be the object of a comprehensive settlement, and we think that the proper framework for this-even if it is institutionally imperfect-is the Security Council, because under the Charter it is the Security Council which is competent to deal with problems which relate primarily to international peace and security, and it is the Security Council which has the power to take steps to see that its resolutions are applied.
142. We therefore greet with special interest the draft resolution submitted by the representative of Sweden on behalf of three delegations [A/L.529]: We should, however, have liked the draft resolution to include an express recommendation to the Security Council to study all the aspects of the problem and to apply to it the measures prescribed in the Charter of the United Nations.
143. We think, therefore, that we should adjourn our work at this juncture, leaving it to the Security Council to pursue the study of the problem and find a solution to it, for I am convinced that within that framework a solution is possible.
144. Mr. SAYEGH (Kuwait): I should like to announce and explain the vote of my delegation on the draft resolution contained in document A/L.529.
145. We shall vote against this draft resolution because, in our opinion, it is a mask and a disguise, and, by their very nature, masks and disguises are reprehensible. But in this instance what this draft resolution is designed to disguise is even more reprehensible.
146. Not only is this draft resolution, then, an attempt to conceal a fact, but also the fact which this draft resolution attempts to conceal is in itself deplorable. What is the fact that it attempts to conceal? It is. none other than that on 4 July this Assembly passed a vote of no confidence in the Charter of the United Nations; on 4 July this Assembly refused and failed to give its vote of confidence to the Charter of the United Nations; on 4 July this Assembly announced in the eloquent language of the unerring arithmetic of the vote and in the eloquent symbolism of the electronic green, red and yellow of our voting machine, that two thirds of the Members of the Assembly could not be prevailed upon to uphold the Charter of the United Nations.
147. This is all the more reprehensible inasmuch as there was no reason why our proclaimed faith in the Charter should not have been accompanied by an active translation of that faith into a practical resolution. None of the explanations advanced for our failure to translate the Charter into a resolution can stand the scrutiny and tests of our reason. It is not that the facts are not known, because, as the representative of Iraq said a short while ago, there was hardly a voice in this hall that expressed any doubt about the facts of the situation: the fact that there was a resort to armed force; the fact that that resort to armed force was premeditated and calculated; the fact that that resort to armed force, contrary to the Charter, resulted in the occupation of territory; the fact that that occupation still exists; the fact that in part of the occupied territory, annexation-by whatever name it has been called-has been put into effect; and the fact that in the remainder of that territory there have been statements made by leading representatives of the aggressor indicating possible annexation in the future and actual reluctance to give up the occupied territory. All these facts are not in dispute, not in question; so we cannot say that we failed to apply the Charter to the case at hand because the case at hand was not clear and the factual elements of the case were not well known. Nor can we advance another explanation: that there were some of us who failed to apply the Charter to the case at hand because we lacked guidance, we lacked principles to guide us in what to say, we lacked precedents for the United Nations to guide us in what to do. On the contrary, the principles of the Charter are clear and the precedents of the United Nations are such that in every single instance, without exception, in which a similar case has been brought before the Organization, the United Nations has ruled for immediate withdrawal to take place, without linking such withdrawal to distracting and diversionary arrangements or requests. Therefore we cannot say that we have failed to uphold the Charter because the facts are now known; nor can we say we have failed to uphold the Charter because the guidelines are lacking.
148. Nor can we say: We have failed to apply the Charter because the practical results of a suspension of the Charter might serve the spirit of the Charter better. There have been some who have argued that if unconditional and complete withdrawal is requested, we shall go back to the conditions obtaining before 5 June, and that as a result of this, the explosive situation in the Middle East would be back with us again. But do those delegations really believe that, lay not ensuring the withdrawal of the aggressor, we are going to have tranquillity in the Middle East? Do they really believe that, by not requesting the complete, unconditional and immediate withdrawal of the aggressor, the aggressor will withdraw voluntarily, or that the victims will indefinitely acquiesce in the continued occupation of their lands?
149. No, none of the explanations that might be advanced in justification of the failure to uphold the Charter can stand the test of scrutiny. Therefore, a resolution designed to conceal the fact that we have failed to apply the Charter is only one that conceals from our eyes the reasons for our failure. And the reasons for our failure are evident: we failed to uphold the Charter because some Powers-unfortunately, founding Members of the United Nations, Powers that participated in working out the initial draft on which the Charter was based-have chosen to use their considerable power and influence not responsibly, not judiciously, and not in furtherance of respect for the Charter, but irresponsibly, arrogantly and uncharitably. And we have failed because there were among us Members that were willing to be accomplices, willing to be docile followers of those great Powers that pre-empted the will of the General Assembly and sought to manipulate its decisions. We have failed because there were great Powers that abused their power, and because there were small nations that surrendered their sovereignty when it came to standing up for the Charter, when, their attitude was put to the test of the vote.
150. But there has been a heartening number of delegations which, under pressure, under cajolery, under inducement, under all these influences, have nevertheless chosen to stand by the Charter, to maintain its principles and to apply them forthrightly to the ease at hand. To these delegations that withstood every pressure in order to remain faithful to the Charter, we say that we in the delegation of Kuwait are proud to have served with you in this sincere upholding of the Charter; for by maintaining the Charter and by standing against aggression, even though we have not been that majority that could give the Charter a vote of confidence, we have nevertheless proved that there is an independent-minded group in the United Nations that still believes in the United Nations.
151. It is this fact, and the opposite fact that a majority was not found to reaffirm the Charter, that this draft resolution is designed to conceal-and we are opposed to the concealment of the truth.
152. Mr, TARABANOV (Bulgaria) (translated from French): For the past four weeks the General Assembly, meeting in emergency special session, has been considering the question of the aggression committed against its neighbours by a country that owes its very existence to a United Nations resolution against its neighbours.
153. It cannot be said that the discussions and the opinions expressed by the representatives who have spoken from this rostrum one after another have not shown quite clearly that an act of aggression has been committed and who committed it, The aggressor is perfectly well known. The existence of the aggression has also been clearly demonstrated by the fact that part of the territory of the Arab countries is now occupied by the forces of the aggressor.
155. Despite the ardent desire of the peoples of the whole world and, despite international public opinion, which the powers of wealth have tried to work upon through the propaganda media available to them, even trying to substitute propaganda for opinion, the medium for the message, the imperialists have mobilized all their forces and have for the tithe being succeeded in blocking the adoption of an effective resolution by this emergency special session of the General Assembly also.
156. During the discussions, however, and in the light of the draft resolutions submitted, it has become apparent that a vast majority are in favour of the withdrawal of the aggressor's troops and against the occupation by the aggressor of the territory of other countries, against rewarding aggression,
157. This finding emerges also from the two resolutions which the General Assembly has adopted in connexion with the measures taken by Israel to annex the City of Jerusalem, a decision which is illegal according to the Charter but which was taken in order to serve as a precedent for the policy of annexation, conquest and colonization which the leaders of Tel Aviv are promoting in the Middle East and carrying out on behalf of others and on their own behalf.
158. If the General Assembly is now reduced--I might say driven--to trying to adopt a procedural resolution, it is because it has not so far been able, and is still unable, to overcome the pressure and the opposition of those imperialist circles which are siding with the aggressor and have come to the aid of aggression,
159. The present draft resolution (A/L.529), though procedural, would nevertheless enable the General Assembly and the United Nations to pursue their work in regard to the settlement of the question before them. From the way in which the people of the whole world have reacted, it is obvious that they condemn the aggression-and the aggressor too in this case-organized by extremist circles in Israel against their neighbours, the Arab peoples, despite the fact that the General Assembly has. been prevented from taking a decision by the underhand manoeuvring of the imperialists, in particular the United States, World opinion has condemned the aggression, and the delegations which have spoken here have also condemned it. Both in its discussions and in the draft resolutions, the General Assembly has expressed a desire not to see aggression rewarded.
160. There has certainly been evidence of a deep desire to preserve world peace by maintaining it in the Middle East and by muzzling Israel's aggression and the aggressor itself. At the same time, the Assembly has stressed the fact that it is absolutely essential to find solutions to the burning problems that have been caused by developments in the Middle East, particularly the aggression that is still developing, the permanent aggression constituted by the occupation of Arab territory by Israel troops.
161. Despite the momentary setback caused by the pressure of imperialist circles in some countries, especially the United States, every effort must be made to find a solution to this problem within the framework of the United Nations, Failing a solution by the international community, there would be no solution for the peoples struggling against aggression save on the battlefield and we do not at this point want a solution on the battlefield for that would be a world catastrophe. That is why the international community, the United Nations, must find a way to check Israel's aggression and the aggressor, instead of rewarding it.
162. The PRESIDENT: As members are aware, the list of speakers was closed at 6 o'clock.
163. I indicated previously that I would attempt to clarify the situation with regard to how the Assembly should now proceed. The representative of Sweden, when he introduced the draft resolution on behalf of its sponsors, said, "It is our hope that a decision on it will be taken today". I would ask the representative of Sweden to state his delegation's formal position, so that the Assembly may have a clear understanding of it.
164. Mr. ASTROM (Sweden): In response to the question which the President put to me as one of the three sponsors of the draft resolution, I should like my earlier remarks expressing our hope that the vote would take place today to be interpreted as a motion to have the vote today. Should any delegation wish the Assembly to act otherwise, it is for that delegation to say so.
165. The PRESIDENT: The Assembly has heard the clear statement just made by the representative of Sweden.
166. Mr. TILAKARATNA (Ceylon): The Assembly received this draft resolution only a short while ago, and different views have been expressed. I would plead with you, Mr. President, to allow a short recess, perhaps of about an hour, to consider the draft resolution before the vote is taken.
167. The PRESIDENT: I consider that the representative of Ceylon has made a suggestion under rule 78 of the rules of procedure, which reads as follows:
The motion was adopted by 36 votes to 34, with 40 abstentions.
The meeting was suspended at 6.40 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.
168. Mr. JAKOBSON (Finland): May I say first that I am speaking on behalf of the three delegations sponsoring the draft resolution [A/L.529] before the General Assembly, the delegations of Austria, Sweden and Finland.
169. We listened, of course, with close attention to the statements made here this afternoon, and we have taken note of the arguments presented and the objections and doubts expressed in those statements.
170. During the period of the recess, the three sponsors have reconsidered the draft in the light of those arguments, and we now wish to propose a revised text, which we hope will remove the objections and the doubts that were expressed here. We do so in the same spirit of co-operation and understanding that has animated our three delegations throughout these discussions.
171. The revisions we have made are as follows: firstly, to add the following new preambular paragraph after the first paragraph:
(Considering that the Security Council continues to be seized of the problem,"
Secondly, to delete operative paragraph 1; thirdly, to add to the present operative paragraph 2 the following words, at the end of the sentence: "in order to facilitate the resumption by the Security Council, as a matter of urgency, of its consideration of the tense situation in the Middle East," The operative paragraphs will have to be renumbered accordingly.
172. I should now like, for the sake of clarity, to read out in full the revised draft resolution, which I believe will be circulated to delegations very shortly. The revised text [A./L.529/Rev.1] is as follows:
"Having considered the grave situation in the Middle East,
"Considering that the Security Council continues to be seized of the problem,
"Bearing in mind the resolutions adopted and the proposals considered during the fifth emergency special session of the General Assembly,
"1. Requests the Secretary-General to forward the records of the fifth emergency special session of the General Assembly to the Security Council in order to facilitate the resumption by the Security Council, as a matter of urgency, of its consideration of the tense situation in the Middle East;
"2. Decides to adjourn the fifth emergency special session temporarily and to authorize the President of the General Assembly to reconvene the session as and when necessary."
173. The three delegations sponsoring this draft resolution hope that this new text will remove the objections which have been expressed here and that the Assembly can now proceed to a vote.
174. Mr. FAKHREDDINE (Sudan): Since the beginning of this emergency special session there have been delegations that have sought to uphold the Charter of the United Nations and to support its principles, They have worked untiringly and have endeavoured, through various means, to reach a solution that would preserve the dignity of this Organization. To those delegations I say, as the representative of Sudan, and perhaps speaking on behalf of the other Arab countries, we must be grateful. We must acknowledge our indebtedness to them because of their untiring efforts.
175. However, with respect to the revisions just submitted, we find that we still have certain difficulties because the draft, even as revised, in actual fact takes the matter from the General Assembly to the Security Council. We have the situation in this case where both the Security Council and the General Assembly are seized of the same question, and we find some difficulty in that. We find that we are really unable to vote for the draft resolution as revised. To enable us to show that we are co-operating in this matter, I would request a separate vote on operative paragraph 1 in order that we may be able to vote for the rest of the draft resolution.
176. The PRESIDENT: A separate vote has been requested by the representative of Sudan on operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution before us.
177. Under rule 91 of the rules of procedure:
A vote was taken by roll-call.
Netherlands, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to vote first.
Against: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Burundi, Congo (Democratic Republic of), Cuba, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco.
Abstaining: Nigeria, Panama, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Cameroon, Ceylon, Congo (Brazzaville), Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Malta.
Operative paragraph 1 was adopted by 62 votes to 27, with 27 abstentions.
179. The PRESIDENT: I now put to the vote the draft resolution [A/L.529/Rev.1] as a whole.
The. Democratic Republic of the Congo, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to vote first.
In favour: Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Laos, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia.
Against: Congo (Democratic Republic of), Cuba, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan,, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia, Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Burundi.
Abstaining: Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Malta, Nigeria, Panama, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Cameroon, Ceylon, Congo (Brazzaville).
The draft resolution as a whole was adopted by 63 votes to 26, with 27 abstentions.
180. The PRESIDENT: I shall now call upon those representatives who have asked to speak in explanation of their votes after the voting.
181. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): It is now in order to ask ourselves what are the results of the work done at the emergency special session of the General Assembly.
182.In our opinion, there are ample grounds for saying with confidence that something positive has been accomplished at this session of the General Assembly. There is reason for satisfaction at the course taken by the discussion concerning the question of Israel's aggression against the Arab States.
183. On behalf of the States they represent, the overwhelming majority of delegations have in one form or another condemned the aggressor and his seizure of territory, censured the use of force in international relations and urged the prompt removal of the invaders from the occupied Arab territories.
184. Although the delegations of some States may not have been firm enough in voicing their opinions, casting, as it were, wary glances all about them, they too condemned Israel's policy of. aggression and, at the same time, those who are backing Israel.
185. Let us look at the results of the voting on the specific proposals considered at this session.
186. The USSR draft resolution received the votes of 45 States-certainly an impressive number.
187. The draft resolution of the group of non-aligned countries, actively supported by the Soviet Union and other socialist States, received the votes of 53 countries, while 46 voted against it. Thus, this proposal, which like ours contained a demand for the immediate withdrawal of Israel forces from the occupied territories, was favoured by the majority of States that participated in the voting.
188. Moreover, is not evident on whose side really stand those twenty or so States whose delegations abstained in the vote? They held back only because they lacked the determination to demonstrate clearly their support for the Arab States and their disapproval of the aggressor's actions, and to dissociate them-selves from the imperialist forces which encourage Israel. These are the facts, and we are all well aware of them.
189. I know that, according to the rules governing voting in the Assembly, these resolutions failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority. But, over and above this formal sum total there is a political sum total, and it shows unequivocally that the aggressor has been branded as such.
190. The discussion and the voting in the Assembly show that the majority of the States Members of the United Nations are for the immediate withdrawal of Israel's forces from the territories they occupy for the time being. The resolutions on Jerusalem [2253 and 2254 (ES-V)] adopted by the General Assembly amount not only to a condemnation of Israel's actions in that city but also to a rejection of all its other attempts to entrench itself in the occupied Arab territories.
191. The USSR delegation expresses its confidence that the Security Council will duly take into account these opinions of the overwhelming majority of Member States when it resumes its consideration of questions relating to the situation in the Middle East.
192. What prevented the General Assembly from adopting a resolution on the main issue-the immediate withdrawal of Israel forces from the occupied territories? The stubborn resistance of the imperialist forces which are backing Israel. It was the aggressor and his patrons, primarily the United States of America, that voted against the adoption of resolutions based on the principles of the United Nations Charter.
193. The United States Government bears the principal responsibility for actions dictated by hostility towards the Arab States. In this it was supported by most of the members of the NATO military bloc, as well as by some other countries, most of which are situated thousands of miles from the Middle East area.
194. A few words about this latter group, which is mainly composed of the countries of Latin America. The Soviet people have a profound respect for the peoples of the Latin American countries. The Soviet Union strives to maintain good relations with them. It was depressing for us, and we are sure for others too, to witness what was done almost openly-to witness the pressure crudely brought to bear by the United States of America on the Governments of the Latin American countries, with all levers of coercion brought into play.
195. We told these countries, and we tell them now, that we understand their position and their difficulties. But we must tell them also that in questions of war and peace one cannot renounce principles, disregard for which is tantamount to the partial or complete loss of independence, tantamount to making mock of the principles of the United Nations Charter, to which their signatures too are affixed.
196. All countries, irrespective of where they are situated, which gave in to the pressure and took up positions that suited Washington, cannot but realize that they may have jeopardized their own future interests, History does not end today.
197. The States whose representatives said "No" to the proposal for the immediate withdrawal of the aggressor's forces from the occupied territories may themselves on more than one occasion need a kind word and support from the Arab States.
198. Attempts are now being made to slight the peoples of the Arab countries and to whitewash and laud the aggressor. The only possible response is indignation. The Arabs gave to, the world great scientists and writers and made an invaluable contribution to the development of society and culture. The Arab peoples who shook off the yoke of colonialism are now experiencing a renaissance. Nothing can stop them from successfully defending their right to freedom and to social and economic progress, some of the very things at which the Israel aggression was aimed.
199. Are the countries whose representatives said "No" to the proposal for the immediate withdrawal of Israel forces, the condemnation of the aggressor and compensation for the material losses inflicted on the Arab States, really sure that they will not them-selves be in a position where they will have to look hopefully, as they have more than once done in the past, to the Kremlin in Moscow for support, if not rescue?
200. Now as to Israel and its policy. The people who stand at the helm in Israel today are obviously intoxicated with their successes in the military sphere. But so were the nazis in the early days of the Second World War. This comparison may not seem entirely appropriate from the point of view of magnitude and scale. However, no one can deny that these is a similarity.
201. Would it not be better for the Israel leaders, whose names are highly publicized in the United States of America, to live not for today alone but at least to think about the next day as well? Time will show whether or not they are capable of doing that.
202. Everyone knows that Israel would not have dared to lift a finger if its patrons had not wished it to embark upon aggression, Consider the behaviour of Israel today, during the meetings of the General Assembly. Encouraged by its patrons near and far, and primarily by the United States, it haughtily ignores the view of the majority of States as expressed from the rostrum of the General Assembly. It does not implement even the resolutions on Jerusalem [2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V)], which condemn its unilateral actions.
203. We should like to emphasize that if the United States wants peace in the Middle East, as its Government sometimes declares, that can be achieved without difficulty. What must be done to that end is, first of all, to secure the withdrawal of Israel's forces from the occupied territories, eliminate the consequences of Israel's aggression and compel Israel to respect the rights of other peoples, The future will provide the answer to the question whether the United States Government wants peace in the Middle East or whether it is determined to bring about another war.
204. Irrespective of where the situation in the Middle East is considered-in the General Assembly or in the Security Council-the task confronting the United Nations is one and the same: to bring about, as a' first step, the immediate withdrawal of the aggressor's forces from the territories of the Arab States, Each Member State must make its contribution to the solution of this problem.
205. The continued presence of Israel forces in the territories of the Arab States is fraught with serious danger to the cause of peace in the Middle East and to universal peace. The provocatory conduct of Israel in the zone of direct confrontation between its forces and the forces of the United Arab Republic along the Suez Canal indicates that the aggressor is nurturing further plans of conquest.
206. The continued occupation by Israel of the territory of Arab countries is and will remain the principal . obstacle to the solution of a number of pressing problems, including such problems as the resumption of navigation through the Suez Canal and the rehabilitation of refugees.
207. All this goes to emphasize how urgent is the need for all peace-loving States to continue their struggle for the elimination of the consequences of Israel's aggression and, first and foremost, for the expulsion of the aggressor's troops from the territories they have seized.
208. No one can afford to forget how the Second World War crept up on mankind, Those Governments which presume to solve questions of war and peace with no thought of the past and little care for the future lose the confidence of their peoples.
209. The USSR delegation takes this opportunity to express on behalf of its Government its appreciation to the Governments of all States which supported both its initiative to convene this session of the General Assembly and its proposals at the session. We are also gratified by the adoption of the decision that the General Assembly should continue in session. This means that if circumstances should require, the meetings of the Assembly can be resumed immediately.
210. The Soviet Union will continue, in its approach to the dangerous situation prevailing in the Middle East, to be fully aware of its responsibilities in the sphere of international policy. The Soviet Union, together with other States which champion international peace and security and the just cause of the Arab countries victims of aggression, will continue to render to those countries comprehensive help and assistance in political and economic matters, as well as in strengthening their defence capability.
211. The Soviet Union, like other socialist States, pursues a foreign policy based on the principles of peaceful coexistence, respect for the rights of nations large and small, and opposition to aggressors. This was Lenin's policy, and the Soviet Union is fully determined to continue it.
212. Mr. GOLDBERG (United States of America): As every representative here knows, the United States had its reservations about the advisability, in the circumstances, of convening the General Assembly in this emergency special session. Nevertheless, from the moment the decision was taken, we endeavoured to the best of our ability to co-operate in the hope of bringing about a constructive outcome.
213. In the further consideration of this matter by the Security Council, I pledge the best efforts of the United States, sharing as we do the conviction voiced by the Secretary-General nearly two months ago:
Indeed, the proceedings of this Assembly during the past month have clearly shown, above all other things, that such solutions are needed by the parties and by all the world.
214. The United States profoundly believes that such solutions must be founded on the cardinal principle of all international peace-the principle of live and let live, the principle which our Charter expresses in the simple injunction to Member States and their peoples "to practise tolerance and live together in peace." The necessary corollary of that principle is also found in the Charter, namely, that all States must "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State".
215. From the outset of these debates, both in the Security Council and here in the General Assembly, we of the United States have taken those Charter principles as our guide, We have held, and we still hold, to the view that, if the United Nations is to keep faith with these principles, more must be achieved in the Middle East than a return to the precarious armistice of eighteen years; more must be achieved than the withdrawal of Israel's forces from territories occupied during the recent conflict, necessary though that is. What is required is to deal creatively with all the underlying issues and all departures from basic Charter principles that have troubled the Middle East for a generation, and to resolve those issues in a new spirit of conciliation. In short, the structure of a stable and just peace must at last be built in the Middle East.
216. The elements of such a structure were well summed up by President Johnson in his address on 19 June, in which he said:
217. In building this structure of peace, the primary task falls to the parties themselves with such outside assistance as they may find desirable and necessary. But we, the Members of the United Nations, also have a deep interest in the growth of peace in the area and an inescapable Charter responsibility to do all in our power to promote it.
218. As this session comes to a close, we must candidly face the fact that the General Assembly has not resolved the fundamental differences that have plagued the Middle East for twenty years. It is not surprising, nor is it a derogation from the efforts made by nearly all the Members of the Assembly, that this has proved to be the case. Even before the recent conflict the problems were many and complex, the differences of view were deep and genuine, the commitments to one course or another on all sides were strong. And now there has been added the intensely emotional aftermath of the recent tragic conflict. It would be contrary to all historical experience to expect that, in such circumstances, the foundations for peace in the area could be easily or quickly laid despite this Assembly's best efforts. Still less could the Assembly, through a resolution, attempt to draw a detailed blueprint for peace.
219. My Government fully recognized, nevertheless, that there was a strong desire among Members to reach agreement on some resolution which could serve a general guide for peace, both for the parties and for the United Nations, in the difficult period which lies ahead, and we did all within our power to help transform that sentiment into reality. And now the allegation is made by the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union that the United States stood in the way of a constructive resolution. I shall not deign to reply to that comment. The representative of the Soviet Union, more than any other man in this hall, can bear witness that the United States made every effort, even at the last minute, to arrive at a meeting of minds with which this Assembly could concur. The United States has been flexible throughout on the language of several draft resolutions that have been proposed. We remain flexible to this very last hour. But we could not be so flexible, nor could any other, Member of this Assembly, as to give away fundamental Charter principles. We could not go so far as to blind ourselves to the fact that peace in the Middle Eat is indivisible, and that the withdrawal of troops must be linked to the acknowledgement by every Member of the United Nations in the area that each enjoys the right to maintain an independent national State of its own and to live in peace and security, and to a renunciation of all claims and acts inconsistent therewith, including claims or acts flowing from an asserted state of belligerency. We would have been very glad to join in a resolution in this Assembly stating that principle. Surely those two principles of our Charter go hand in hand. Both as a practical matter and as a matter of equity, one side cannot be called upon to abide by the rules of peace while the other side is left free to continue to assert the rights of war. That was the belief which was the foundation of our view held at the beginning of the Assembly and continuously held throughout its deliberations, and that was the belief which underlay the Latin American draft resolution [A/L.523/Rev.1], which the United States supported.
220. Reference has been made to the great States of Latin America by the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. The charge that he levelled that the great States of Latin America could be pressured by the United States scarcely warrants comment by me. That is a ludicrous charge, as anybody familiar with Latin America knows, and its bizarre nature is demonstrated not only by the history of the Latin American States in their international relations, but also by their votes many times in this Assembly. Indeed it has been demonstrated tonight by the votes of the Latin American countries on the resolution which the Assembly just adopted. It was demonstrated by their votes on the resolutions on Jerusalem.
221. I think this Assembly has made constructive contributions. We should and must realize that there are times when the refusal to take a wrong step is in itself an important achievement, and this can truly be said of the Assembly's refusal to adopt not only the Soviet draft resolution but also the one-sided Yugoslav draft resolution which was submitted. The basic defect of those proposals was that they urged a return to the situation as it was on 4 June. Therefore they were a prescription not for peace but for renewed hostilities, and their rejection was a wise decision by this Assembly.
222. We in the United States look ahead, not backward, and we owe the Members, of this Assembly a statement of our own course in the future as we deal with the situation in the Middle East both in and outside the Security, Council, We shall persevere in our efforts to have good relations with all States in the Middle East. Although our efforts toward this end in the past, as our President has said, have not always been successful, we continue to believe that our differences with individual States in the area, as well as the differences between them, can and must be worked out peacefully and in accordance with international practice and the injunctions of the Charter of the United Nations.
223. Guided by that spirit and belief, the United States will do its full share to help find a just and final solution to the refugee problem. The United States will make a full contribution in support of regional co-operation in the Middle East. The United States will do its share, and more, to see that the great promise of peaceful nuclear energy is applied to problems of critical importance to all the countries of the Near East-the desalting of water, the irrigation of arid deserts.
224. And this is perhaps most important for our future deliberations: while others may be tempted to engage in vituperation and entirely unfounded charges and accusations, we rather would appeal to all to exercise vision. While some may feel malice, we would appeal to all to be magnanimous. And we shall try, with determination, to abide by what we ask of others.
225. In such a spirit, rather than in a spirit of hostility to any nation, large or small, we offer our help to all the peoples of the Middle East. If others will do likewise-if the nations of the area themselves will seek to make this their spirit in the future-then we know that an area of the world known to us all as the birthplace of great religions and great teachings can and will flourish once again in our time.
226. The United States will do all within its power to help make it so.
227. Mr. EBAN (Israel): Israel leaves the General Assembly with strengthened resolve to work for the attainment of a just and durable peace. The Assembly has had many moments of tension and even of vehemence. But there is no reason to regard the result as one of paralysis. The rejection of unjust and intemperate charges against a Member State is not an act of abdication; it is an act of considered judgement.
228. Despite the intense and powerful pressure brought to bear upon it, the General Assembly has declined to violate justice or to betray truth. Thus, it has refused to misrepresent Israel's fight for survival as "aggression". A majority of its Member s have seen the recent hostilities in the long and sombre con-text of the events which preceded them, Nineteen years of implacable hostility reached a climax in May 1967, when a small State found itself encircled, besieged, blockaded and openly menaced with destruction.
229. Nothing in contemporary history is comparable with the intense and virulent belligerency which has beset Israel in the first two decades of its independence. No other State in our time has been required to live on such a slender margin of security or in the shadow of such a constant threat. When the noose was tightened around its neck two months ago, Israel's lonely resistance became the only alternative to a disaster which would have weighed intolerably upon the conscience of mankind. For if the openly avowed plan of Israel's extinction had succeeded, there would have been nothing practical for the United Nations now to discuss. Israel has in fact been denounced here by its adversaries for having energetically refused to die. The solid majority votes, first in the Security Council and then in the General Assembly, against the charge of Israeli aggression, bear witness to the inherent sense of justice and truth which has swept across world opinion and found its echoes in this hall.
230. The central theme discussed at this session has been the relationship between two problems: the withdrawal of forces and the establishment of peace. The Soviet Union, the Arab States and those closely associated with them have sought to establish a separation between these two concepts. Nearly all other Members of the General Assembly declined to endorse this separation. They saw the two issues as integrally and inseparably linked. They understood the dangers of restoring the situation which had given rise to active hostilities. For there would have been no Middle Eastern crisis had not Israel's right to peace, to security, to sovereignty, to economic development and to maritime freedom been forcibly denied and aggressively attacked. It is impossible to eliminate the symptoms of the Middle Eastern tension while leaving its basic causes intact.
231. That is the central lesson of this Assembly for Middle Eastern States. The lesson is plain: Member States which maintain a doctrine and practice of war against another Member State cannot receive from the United Nations the help and consideration which they could otherwise expect.
232. The General Assembly session has ended as it has for one reason alone: that Arab States and others refuse to tolerate any resolution which speaks seriously of peace. That is the only reason why no resolution of a substantive character could be adopted. If the Arab States accept the principles of peace, there can be not only resolutions, but, what is more important, solutions.
233. There have been many efforts in recent years to maintain a minimal tranquillity, even within the context of Arab belligerency. We co-operated with those efforts right up to May 1967, It is now evident that, such efforts cannot long succeed. There is no method of avoiding a constant brooding tension, with constant danger of explosion, unless one condition is fulfilled. The condition is that all Middle Eastern States render, each to the other, the full rights which States possess under the Charter to which we are all signatories.
234. Under the Charter, Israel's neighbours owe it the full recognition of its independence and statehood, Under the Charter, all Israel's neighbours are committed to refrain from the use of threat or use of force against that statehood and that independence. Under the Charter, all Arab States are bound to regard Israel as a State endowed with sovereignty equal to their own. Under the Charter, they are pledged to practise tolerance and live together with Israel as good neighbours, and to harmonize their efforts with Israel's for the maintenance of international peace and security.
235. These are the principles of the Charter. These are the accepted principles of international coexistence and of regional security. These are the principles which govern the American hemispheric system and other systems of peaceful regional security and co-operation.
236. Can anyone imagine that, if Israel's neighbours had guided their relations with Israel by these principles, we should be faced today with a crisis which still afflicts the Middle East and darkens the world? The strict application of Charter relationships between sovereign States is the beginning and the end of international wisdom in the Middle East. The replacement of the doctrine and practice of war by the doctrine and practice of peace is the central issue. I repeat: the replacement of the doctrine and practice of war by the doctrine and practice of peace is the central issue. It cannot be evaded. It cannot be sidetracked. If it is faced and solved, all other problems fall into place. For if there is peace instead of belligerency, such problems as the determination of agreed frontiers, the disengagement of forces abstention from the threat of constant violence, and the normal use of international waterways all find their solution through the processes of peaceful settlement which the Charter prescribes. It is impressive to notice and to record how great a body of opinion exists in favour of attempting not a return to in-security, nor a temporary palliative, but a radical and permanent remedy.
237. Once the Arab States acknowledge to Israel those rights which all other Member States acknowledge to each other, the foundations of a peaceful Middle East will become firmly laid. The time has come-indeed, it is long overdue-to adapt the Arab-Israeli relationship to the accepted rules of international conduct amongst sovereign States. Many delegations have understood and affirmed that Israel's neighbours cannot at one and the same time deny its sovereignty, threaten its existence and refuse its basic rights to peace and security while demanding that Israel respect their sovereignty, their existence and their rights. The key to the Middle Eastern future therefore lies in the principle of reciprocity. Those who respect Israel's sovereign interests and rights will encounter from Israel a reciprocal respect of their rights and their interests.
238. It remains for me to discuss the application of these principles to the tasks which lie ahead, The cease-fire has been instituted. It must be meticulously observed. Agreed arrangements for its supervision are in force. But the cease-fire is, of course, an interim situation. It should be replaced as soon as possible by an agreed and viable peace ensuring security for all States. Peace should be negotiated freely between the parties in accordance with the procedures of pacific settlement ,prescribed in our Charter.
239. Israel stands ready to negotiate a peace settlement with Egypt, with Jordan, with Syria and with Lebanon. In such negotiations all parties are free to present and examine any proposals in an effort to reach mutual agreement.
240. In addition to the issues, which lie within the responsibility of Middle Eastern States, there are universal religious interests which demand satisfaction and respect and which should be settled in consultation with those directly concerned. It is our hope and our policy that universal spiritual concerns in the Holy City will find agreed expression.
241. The war of 1948 and the subsequent belligerency have created and perpetuated humanitarian problems whose solution, as experience shows, can be achieved only in the context of normal inter-State relations. Hundreds of thousands of people-Arabs and Jews-have been affected by the population movements generated by two decades of war, belligerency and hostility, The lesson of experience is clear. The conditions necessary to transform homeless refugees into productive members of society can reach full expression only if there is peace. A situation in which States are arrayed and embattled against each other; in which the violent destruction of one State is the avoiwed policy of others; in which an armaments race consumes scarce economic resources; in which refugees are envisaged by certain Governments as a spearhead for the destruction of a sovereign State-such a situation is not one in which Governments and international agencies can successfully undertake enterprises of resettlement. Indeed, the clearest lesson of experience after twenty tormented years is that nothing in Arab-Israeli relations is soluble without peace, while everything is soluble with it.
242. While the main responsibility falls on sovereign States within our region, States outside the Middle East, especially the most powerful amongst them, an do much to affect our destiny for good or for ill. They can affect it for good by respecting the policy of non-intervention; by making an equal distribution of their friendship; by avoiding any identification with hostility; by giving no indulgence to belligerency; and by concerting their action with the States of our region for the promotion of peace and welfare.
243. It was, after all, in the Middle East in ancient times that the idea of a universal human destiny was expressed with incomparable force. It is there, more than anywhere else, that the need is compelling for a new atmosphere of relations on the international plane, Such new relationships are urgently needed for the highest human ends, There should be in the Middle East no belligerents, no victors or vanquished, but only the vision of peoples who have suffered greatly through the errors and illusions of those who have rejected peace as though it were an alien and forbidden word, to be banished from the international vocabulary. For the sake of countless people in the Middle East for whom there is no answer but peace, the world community should continue to set its face against the tensions and rancours of the past two decades. It is in our region that statesmanship now faces its heaviest challenge and its brightest opportunity. To meet the challenge and to fulfil the opportunity will require the utmost dedication of our hearts and minds.
244. The PRESIDENT: In order to expedite the work of the Assembly, I would ask representatives to be as brief as possible, at this stage of explanations of vote after the voting.
245. Mr. GURINOVICH (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated from Russian): The fifth emergency special session of the General Assembly is temporarily suspending its meetings and authorizing the President to reconvene the session as and when it becomes necessary. In this connexion, my delegation deems it necessary to make the following statement.
246. We regret that the General Assembly has not been able to adopt a resolution requiring the immediate withdrawal of Israel forces from the territories seized by them in the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan. In this most important question of the restoration of peace in the Middle East, the United Nations has been paralysed as a result of the attitude taken by the United States of America, a number of other imperialist Powers, and a small group of countries which were blackmailed and browbeaten by the instigators and organizers of Israel aggression, They managed to muster just over one-third of the votes and thus prevent adoption of both the USSR draft resolution [A/L.519] and the draft resolution submitted by the non-aligned countries [A/L.522/Rev.3].
247. It will be remembered that the USSR draft resolution proposed a decisive condemnation of Israel aggression, and contained a demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israel forces from the captured Arab territories and for full reparation by Israel for the losses and damage sustained by the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan as a result of Israel aggression. The draft resolution of the non-aligned countries called for the immediate withdrawal of Israel troops to the positions which they had occupied before 5 June 1967. These fair and legitimate. demands are in keeping with the spirit and principles of the United Nations Charter. Those who voted against those draft resolutions demonstrated to the entire world their disrespect for the obligations they had assumed under the United Nations Charter, one of whose articles reads: