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

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



Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS

UNITED
NATIONS
A

        General Assembly
Distr.
GENERAL
A/C.3/48/SR.32
25 January 1994

ENGLISH
ORIGINAL: SPANISH

Third Committee
32nd meeting
held on
Friday, 12 November 1993
at 3 p.m.
New York

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 32ND MEETING

Chairman: Mr. KUKAN (Slovakia)

/...

AGENDA ITEM 108: RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION (continued)

(a) RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION (continued)

(b) EFFECTIVE REALIZATION OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION THROUGH AUTONOMY (continued)

/...


The meeting was called to order at 3.20 p.m.


/...

AGENDA ITEM 108: RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION (continued)

(a) RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION (continued)

/...

Draft resolution A/C.3/48/L.19: Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

42. Mr. BUBBA (Iraq), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that his delegation had reservations with respect to the fourth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution.

43. Mr. ATASHI (Israel), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that the changes that had been made in the draft resolution in comparison with resolutions of the same title adopted in former years did not properly reflect the historic changes taking place in the Middle East. A resolution which called for "the struggle ... by all available means" was not conducive to negotiations, but was bound to encourage the continuation of violence. Therefore, Israel would once again vote against the draft resolution.

44. A recorded vote was taken.

45. Draft resolution A/C.3/48/L.19 was adopted by 87 votes to 25, with 34 abstentions.

46. Ms. FOSTIER (Belgium), speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of the European Economic Community, said that the draft resolution did not adequately take into account the recent developments which could lead to peaceful solutions. The delegations which she represented disagreed with paragraph 2, which reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples by all available means; the United Nations should, above all, encourage the search for peaceful solutions.

47. Mr. KUEHL (United States of America) said that he had voted against the draft resolution because it did not reflect the positive developments now under way in South Africa and placed sole blame on Israel for past violence.

48. Mr. DA SILVA (Venezuela) said that he had voted in favour of the draft resolution, but would have preferred it more if it had more adequately reflected the Washington Declaration of Principles between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

49. Mr. BRAHA (Albania) said that he had voted against the draft resolution because it did not fully reflect the recent positive developments in South Africa and in the Middle East.

50. Mr. REZVANI (Islamic Republic of Iran) said that, although his delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution, it had strong reservations regarding the last preambular paragraph. His delegation believed that the recent agreements would not lead to the full restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

51. Mr. KASOULIDES (Cyprus) said that his delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution but stressed that Cyprus supported the latest agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and believed that the Committee should encourage the peace process.

52. Mr. LAZARO (Peru), speaking in explanation of vote, said that in voting for the draft resolution, his delegation had wished to reaffirm its recognition of the right of peoples to self-determination. At the same time, he wished to point out that the words "in all its forms and by all available means" and paragraph 5 did not reflect the current situation in the Middle East and contradicted the last preambular paragraph.

53. Mr. SHARP (Australia) said that he had abstained from voting for several reasons. It was disappointing that the text of paragraph 5 did not take into account the significance of the agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. It was also disappointing that the text did not make greater reference to recent developments in Mozambique. Paragraph 15 referred to the refugee problem in Lesotho, but his delegation wished to draw attention to the serious problems of refugees and displaced persons in many other African countries. Finally, his delegation was disappointed that the text did not adequately acknowledge the process of transition to democracy in South Africa.

54. Mr. ASAHI (Japan), speaking in explanation of vote, said that the draft resolution did not fully reflect the positive developments in the Middle East or the constructive efforts made by concerned parties in South Africa to move the country towards democracy.

55. Mr. SABOIA (Brazil) said that his delegation's positive vote underlined its strong support for the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination. Nevertheless, his delegation was of the opinion that positive developments in South Africa and the Middle East had not been sufficiently taken into account.

56. Mr. JAAFARI (Syrian Arab Republic) said that he had voted in favour of the draft resolution in order to contribute to South Africa's progress towards the realization of the right of the South African people to self-determination.

57. With respect to the last preambular paragraph, he pointed out that the evolution which the text qualified as "positive" had occurred outside the legitimate framework for peace, namely, the Madrid Conference, whose work had not yet been completed. His delegation therefore saw nothing positive in that "evolution".

58. Mr. AL-SAEID (Kuwait) said that, although he had voted in favour of the draft resolution, his delegation had found it difficult to accept paragraph 6, because it believed that support to the Palestinian people should not be provided solely through the Palestine Liberation Organization.

59. Mr. LAZARO (Philippines) said that his delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution because it recognized the various moves towards peace, freedom and equality in many parts of the world.

60. Mr. MAQUIERA (Chile) said that he had voted in favour of the draft resolution in order to reiterate his delegation's permanent support for the self-determination of peoples. However, paragraphs 2 and 5 did not fully reflect the peace process currently under way.

61. Mr. ALVAREZ (Uruguay) said that his delegation had abstained from voting because, although it endorsed the spirit of the draft resolution, it did not believe that reference should be made to specific States.

62. Mr. MRA (Myanmar) said he had voted in favour of the draft resolution but considered that it should have reflected the positive developments which had taken place in the Middle East and South Africa.

/...

The meeting rose at 6.15 p.m.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter