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

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source:
31 December 1987
YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED NATIONS

Volume 41


Department of Public Information
United Nations, New York



Middle East

Throughout 1987, the search for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict was vigorously pursued by the General Assembly, the Security Council and other bodies of the United Nations. Despite repeated calls for an international peace conference under United Nations auspices, again endorsed by the Assembly, and a special effort towards convening it on the part of the Secretary-General at the beginning of the year, no agreement on either the principle or the procedures of such a conference had been reached by year's end.

Meanwhile, the main aspects of the Middle East situation continued to be considered, including the Palestine question, incidents and disputes involving individual Arab States and Israel, the situation of the Palestinians in the territories occupied by Israel, the United Nations peace-keeping forces that remained in place in the Golan Heights and in Lebanon, and the Palestine refugees.

The Palestine question was kept under review by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (Committee on Palestinian rights), which gave priority to the convening of the proposed conference as a means to secure United Nations objectives on the question. The Assembly endorsed the Committee's call for urgent Security Council action on its original (1976) recommendations and for constructive efforts to bring about the conference. In addition, the Assembly again determined that Israel's decision to impose its laws and administration on Jerusalem was null and void.

During the year, the Security Council twice extended the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), each time for a six-month period. The Council also reiterated its support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries. UNIFIL remained unable to fulfil its mandate - to confirm the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, restore international peace and security and assist the Lebanese Government to ensure the return of its effective authority in the area. In his report on UNIFIL operations, the Secretary-General stated that the main problem lay in Israel's refusal to withdraw completely from Lebanon and its insistence on maintaining its "security zone" in that country's territory for protection against attacks launched from Lebanon.

The Council similarly twice extended the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), which continued to supervise the observance of the cease-fire between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic in the Golan Heights and to ensure that there were no military forces in the area of separation between the two countries. The Assembly again declared null and void Israel's 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the Golan Heights.

The Secretary-General drew attention to the chronic shortfall in contributions to the two peace-keeping forces, emphasizing the increasingly heavy burden which that situation placed on the troop-contributing States. Besides retaining the current standard rates of reimbursement to them, the Assembly in December approved appropriations for UNDOF operations up to 31 May 1988 and for UNIFIL operations up to 31 January 1988.

The territories occupied by Israel - the West Bank of the Jordan River, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights - were the subject of Assembly resolutions demanding that Israel desist from certain policies and practices, comply with the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, desist from changing the territories' legal status and demographic composition, and rescind its expulsion of Palestinian leaders as well as its measures against Palestinian detainees and educational institutions. Israeli practices violating human rights in the territories were also the subject of action by the Commission on Human Rights.

A deteriorating situation of the Palestinian inhabitants of the territories was reported by the Committee on Palestinian rights and by the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories (Committee on Israeli practices). The Security Council convened urgently in December to consider what was described in the debate as the ongoing wave of violence or uprising in the territories; it called on Israel to desist from its policies and practices, in particular the opening of fire by its army, killing and wounding defenceless Palestinians.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continued its programme of assistance to Palestine refugees, who in 1987 numbered over 2.2 million and were living in Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic. Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The emergency conditions under which UNRWA had to operate in Lebanon owing to continual outbreaks of violence and fighting posed severe challenges. The Council issued an appeal in February for a cease-fire and another in March to all parties concerned to facilitate delivery of emergency relief to the besieged refugee camps. UNRWA operations in the occupied territories, particularly in the West Bank and Gaza, were seriously affected by developments there in December.

Also during the year, a draft programme of assistance for Palestinians was prepared, which the Economic and Social Council and the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to implement in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Topics related to this chapter. Disarmament: nuclear-weapon-free zones - Middle East. International peace and security: review of peace-keeping operations. Human settlements and political, economic and social issues: homeless Palestinians - in the Israeli-occupied territories, in Lebanon. Human rights: human rights violations - Middle East. Refugees and displaced persons: refugee assistance and protection - Middle East, North Africa and South-West Asia. Legal aspects of international political relations: non-use of force in international relations; prevention of terrorism.


_____________________

Middle East situation
_____________________

A continuation of the status quo in the Arab-Israel conflict was contrary to the interests of all the parties concerned as it hampered economic development, social stability and freedom of choice, the Secretary-General stated in his September 1987 report on the Organization's work (see p. 3). In the search for a comprehensive settlement, the central priority should be the achievement of a just and lasting peace, which would meet the aspirations of all the people in the region. The right road was that which led to fruitful negotiations, based on Security Council resolutions 242(1967)(1) and 338(1973),(2) and took fully into account the rights of the Palestinians. No solution could be found without negotiations and delay could only prolong the violence and danger that had become daily companions to life in the Middle East. From his extensive consultations, the Secretary-General was convinced that the composition and agenda of an international conference on peace in the Middle East did not need to present insurmountable obstacles.

In a November report, the Secretary-General noted encouraging developments during the preceding year: contacts had increased between the permanent members of the Security Council and between them and the parties to the Middle East conflict; and the idea of an international peace conference under United Nations auspices had been given high priority among the Arab parties to the conflict and had been the subject of discussion in Israel. He noted a growing international consensus in favour of the early convening of such a conference, but remarked that agreement had yet to be reached by all the parties on its principle.

In December, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions dealing with aspects of the Middle East situation, by which it declared once more that peace in the Middle East must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution under United Nations auspices and on the basis of its relevant resolutions (42/209 B), and reaffirmed once again that the most appropriate means to that end was through the convening of an international Middle East peace conference (42/209 A). It also adopted a resolution under the agenda item on the Palestine question by which it noted the increasing international consensus in favour of such a conference, stressed the need for additional government efforts to convene it without delay, and requested the Secretary-General to continue his efforts in that regard (42/66 D).

Communications. The Arab-Israeli conflict was the subject of a number of communications addressed to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council and General Assembly Presidents during the year.

In a resolution on the question of Palestine and the Middle East, the Fifth Islamic Summit Conference (Kuwait, 26-29 January 1987)(3) called on its members to exert continuous efforts to enlist international support for implementation of the 1982 Arab Peace plan adopted at the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference,(4) and asked them not to establish political, economic, cultural or military relations with Israel. The Conference invited members to use their economic and financial capabilities against zionism and racism, called a halt to Jewish immigration to Palestine and reaffirmed Palestinian rights.

The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the 12-member European Community (EC), in a 23 February declaration issued at Brussels, by Belgium,(5) reiterated their conviction that the search for peace in the Near and Middle East remained a fundamental objective and voiced concern at the absence of progress in finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

A declaration adopted at a meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Committee of Nine Non-Aligned Countries on Palestine (Harare, Zimbabwe, 14 and 15 April)(6) reaffirmed the commitment of the nine (Algeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, India, Senegal, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)) to the search for a comprehensive, just and durable Middle East solution.

The final communiqué of the Seventh Summit Conference of the Heads of State of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, and Sao Tome and Principe (Maputo, Mozambique, 21 and 22 May)(7) noted with concern the grave situation in the Middle East resulting from Israel’s aggressive and annexationist policies.

By a joint communiqué issued on 5 June at Bucharest, Romania,(8) the Secretary-General of the Romanian Communist Party and President of Romania and the PLO Chairman summarized the conclusions of their two-day talks, which included their stand on, among other matters, the establishment of a comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East based on Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, a solution to the Palestine question that recognized the Palestinians right to self-determination and to an independent Palestinian State, and the guaranteed sovereignty and security of all States in the area.

The EC Foreign Ministers, in a declaration adopted at Copenhagen, Denmark, on 13 July,(9) stated their decision to pursue their contacts at all levels with all interested parties in order to contribute to the search for a just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Commonwealth heads of Government, by a communiqué issued at their 13-17 October meeting at Vancouver, Canada,(10) expressed concern at the dangerous tensions arising from the unresolved problems of the Middle East, especially the Palestinian issue, which continued to pose a grave threat to international peace and security.

The Final Declaration of the Extraordinary Arab Summit Conference (Amman, Jordan, 8-11 November)(11) declared that Arab solidarity and an effective common stand were necessary for tackling the Israeli danger threatening the entire Arab nation and placing its existence at risk. It supported an international peace conference as the only means for a just and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, to be convened under United Nations auspices, with the participation on an equal footing of all parties concerned, including PLO and the permanent Security Council members.

By a declaration issued at the end of a meeting of the European Council (Copenhagen, 4 and 5 December),(12) the 12 EC heads of State and Government deplored the continuing absence of a resolution to the crises in the Middle East, reaffirmed their willingness to develop a political dialogue with all States in the region, and expressed the wish that the current negotiations on an economic co-operation agreement between EC and the Gulf Co-operation Council be completed rapidly. They confirmed their desire for a negotiated solution to the Arab-Israel conflict and reiterated their support for an international peace conference under United Nations auspices, welcoming the Arab Summit’s endorsement of such a conference and calling for renewed efforts by all concerned to agree on convening it.

Reports of the Secretary-General. In a November 1987 report on various aspects of the situation in the Middle East,(13) the Secretary-General said he was encouraged by the favourable developments in the political environment during the past year, in terms of the level and frequency of the contacts between the permanent Security Council members and between them and the parties; he was also encouraged by the fact that the idea of an international peace conference under United Nations auspices had been given high priority among the Arab parties to the conflict and had been the subject of lively discussion in Israel. Those positive trends, combined with the growing international consensus in favour of the early convening of a conference, demanded that the foundation so far established be consolidated.

Not to do so would cause increasing frustration and tension and would further aggravate an already volatile situation, the Secretary-General warned. Israel’s occupation of Arab territory for over 20 years continued to be deeply resented by the inhabitants, and, as long as no settlement was reached, the situation would remain unstable. Meanwhile, the start of a negotiating process, under United Nations auspices and acceptable to all, would create a spirit of dialogue and would be a significant step in the direction of peace and stability.

In an August report, with a later addendum,(14) the Secretary-General submitted the replies received from 10 Member States to his request for information on steps taken or envisaged to implement three 1986 Assembly resolutions relating to the Middle East situation: by two of them,(15) the Assembly had called on States to adopt a number of measures concerning military, economic, diplomatic and cultural relations with Israel; by the third,(16) it had called again on States which had transferred their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem to abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions (see also below, under Palestine question).


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 11 December 1987, the General Assembly adopted, by recorded vote, resolution 42/209 B on the situation in the Middle East.

The General Assembly,

Having discussed the item entitled “The situation in the Middle East”,

Reaffirming its resolutions 36/226 A and B of 17 December 1981, ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982, 37/123 F of 20 December 1982, 38/58 A to E of 13 December 1983, 38/180 A to D of 19 December 1983, 39/146 A to C of 14 December 1984, 40/168 A to C of 16 December 1985 and 41/162 A to C of 4 December 1986,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 425(1978) of 19 March 1978, 497(1981) of 17 December 1981, 508(1982) of 5 June 1982, 509(1982) of 6 June 1982, 511(1982) of 18 June 1982, 512(1982) of 19 June 1982, 513(1982) of 4 July 1982, 515(1982) of 29 July 1982, 516(1982) of 1 August 1982, 517(1982) of 4 August 1982, 518(1982) of 12 August 1982, 519(1982) of 17 August 1982, 520(1982) of 17 September 1982, 521(1982) of 19 September 1982 and 555(1984) of 12 October 1984,

Taking note of the reports of the Secretary-General of 7 May 1987, 10 August 1987 and 13 November 1987,

Reaffirming the need for continued collective support for the decisions adopted by the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference, held at Fez, Morocco, on 25 November 1981 and from 6 to 9 September 1982, reiterating its previous resolutions on the question of Palestine and its support for the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and considering that the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 38/58 C and other relevant resolutions related to the question of Palestine, would contribute to the promotion of peace in the region,

Welcoming all efforts contributing towards the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people through the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in accordance with the United Nations resolutions relating to the question of Palestine and to the situation in the Middle East,

Welcoming the world-wide support extended to the just cause of the Palestinian people and the other Arab countries in their struggle against Israeli aggression and occupation in order to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights, as affirmed by previous resolutions of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine and on the situation in the Middle East,

Gravely concerned that the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, still remain under Israeli occupation, that the relevant resolutions of the United Nations have not been implemented and that the Palestinian people is still denied the restoration of its land and the exercise of its inalienable national rights in conformity with international law as reaffirmed by resolutions of the United Nations,

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to all the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,

Reaffirming also all relevant United Nations resolutions which stipulate that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law and that Israel must withdraw unconditionally from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Reaffirming further the imperative necessity of establishing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region, based on full respect for the Charter and the principles of international law,

Gravely concerned also at the continuing Israeli policies involving the escalation and expansion of the conflict in the region, which further violate the principles of international law and endanger international peace and security,

Stressing once again the great importance of the time factor in the endeavours to achieve an early comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its conviction that the question of Palestine is the core of the conflict in the Middle East and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region will be achieved without the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights and the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from all the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories;

2. Reaffirms further that a just and comprehensive settlement of the situation in the Middle East cannot be achieved without the participation on an equal footing of all the parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people;

3. Declares once more that peace in the Middle East is indivisible and must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the Middle East problem, under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of its relevant resolutions, which ensures the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 including Jerusalem, and which enables the Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to exercise its inalienable rights, including the right to return and the right to self-determination national independence and the establishment of its independent sovereign State in Palestine in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations relating to the question of Palestine, in particular General Assembly resolutions ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 36/120 A to F of 10 December 1981, 37/86 A to D of 10 December 1982, 37/86 E of 20 December 1982, 38/58 A to E of 13 December 1983, 39/49 A to D of l1 December 1984, 40/96 A to D of 12 December 1985 and 41/43 A to D of 2 December 1986;

4. Considers the Arab Peace Plan adopted unanimously at the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference, held at Fez, Morocco, on 25 November 1981 and from 6 to 9 September 1982, and reiterated by the Extraordinary Summit Conference of the Arab States, held at Casablanca, Morocco, from 7 to 9 August 1985, as well as relevant efforts and action to implement the Fez plan, as an important contribution towards the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people through the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of the Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations the principles of international law and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, and demands the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from all the territories occupied since 1967;

6. Rejects all agreements and arrangements which violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and contradict the principles of a just and comprehensive solution to the Middle East problem to ensure the establishment of a just peace in the area;

7. Deplores Israel's failure to comply with Security Council resolutions 476(1980) of 30 June 1980 and 478(1980) of 20 August 1980 and General Assembly resolutions 35/207 of 16 December 1980 and 36/226 A and B of 17 December 1981, determines that Israel's decision to annex Jerusalem and to declare it as its "capital" as well as the measures to alter its physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and status are null and void and demands that they be rescinded immediately, and calls upon all Member States, the specialized agencies and all other international organizations to abide by the present resolution and all other relevant resolutions and decisions;

8. Condemns Israel's aggression, policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories and outside these territories, including expropriation, establishment of settlements, annexation and other terrorist, aggressive and repressive measures which are in violation of the Charter and the principles of international law and the relevant international conventions;

9. Strongly condemns the imposition by Israel of its laws jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Arab Golan, its annexationist policies and practices, the establishment of settlements, the confiscation of lands the diversion of water resources and the imposition of Israeli citizenship on Syrian nationals, and declares that all these measures are null and void and constitute a violation of the rules and principles of international law relative to belligerent occupation, in particular the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;

10. Considers that the agreements on strategic co-operation between the United States of America and Israel, signed on 30 November 1981, and the continued supply of modern arms and materiel to Israel, augmented by substantial economic aid, including the recently concluded Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area between the two Governments, have encouraged Israel to pursue its aggressive and expansionist policies and practices in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and have had adverse effects on efforts for the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and pose a threat to the security of the region;

11. Calls once more upon all States to put an end to the flow to Israel of any military, economic, financial and technological aid, as well as of human resources, aimed at encouraging it to pursue its aggressive policies against the Arab countries and the Palestinian people;

12. Strongly condemns the continuing and increasing collaboration between Israel and the racist régime of South Africa, especially in the economic, military and nuclear fields, which constitutes a hostile act against the African and Arab States and enables Israel to enhance its nuclear capabilities, thus subjecting the States of the region to nuclear blackmail;

13. Reaffirms its call for the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of its relevant resolutions, as specified in paragraph 5 of the Geneva Declaration on Palestine and endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 38/58 C;

14. Endorses the call for setting up a preparatory committee, within the framework of the Security Council, with the participation of the permanent members of the Council, to take the necessary action to convene the Conference;

15. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council periodically on the development of the situation and to submit to the General Assembly at its forty-third session a comprehensive report covering the developments in the Middle East in all their aspects.


General Assembly resolution 42/209 B
11 December 1987 Meeting 97 99-19-33 (recorded vote)
21-nation draft (A/42/L.42 & Add.1); agenda item 89.

Sponsors: Bahrain, Cuba, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: plenary 86-89, 97.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burma, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Japan, Liberia, Malawi, Malta, Panama, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Spain, Sweden, Togo, Uruguay, Zaire.

Before voting on the text as a whole, the Assembly adopted paragraph 10 by a recorded vote of 64 to 33, with 41 abstentions.

Explaining its vote, the United States said the text was polemical and condemnatory with regard to its relations with other Member States. According to New Zealand, the text reflected neither the principles embodied in Security Council resolutions nor the measured approach necessary for a just and lasting solution; any Middle East settlement must take account of the rights and aspirations of the Arab people of Palestine, including their right to self-determination, as well as of Israel's right to exist as a sovereign State within recognized and secure borders, free from threats or acts of force; Israel's neighbours and PLO had to accept unequivocally that Israel had that right if there was to be a durable settlement.

In Sweden's opinion, the text - particularly paragraphs 10 and 11 - suffered from a severe lack of balance. Austria could not support any formulation that could be interpreted as impinging on the principle of universality of membership in the United Nations or other elements which would not only aggravate the situation but also impede the search for peace; it did not believe that measures aimed at breaking relations with Israel, thus leading to its isolation, could bring about a solution of the Middle East problem. Turkey, which abstained on paragraph 10, felt that singling out third parties either by name or by designation and using accusatory language was inappropriate and unhelpful. Mexico felt that the judgements contained in that paragraph undermined the Assembly's jurisdiction, adding that it also had serious reservations on paragraph 6. Greece voiced opposition to paragraph 10 and strong reservations on paragraph 12 - the same two paragraphs that Malta said it could not support. The Philippines also expressed reservations on some provisions, as did Bolivia, which characterized the approach in certain paragraphs as not in keeping with its position.

Egypt underlined the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force as the first and foremost element that should define any just and lasting Middle East settlement.

Iran reiterated its reservations on all terms implying any recognition of the Zionist base of terror occupying Palestine. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya voiced reservations on paragraphs implying that it recognized the de facto situation in occupied Palestinian lands, a situation which it considered a flagrant violation of the national rights of the Palestinian people.

Proposed peace conference

In his report on the work of the Organization (see p. 3), the Secretary-General said he had undertaken a special effort at the beginning of the year to pursue the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East. With the international community's support, he had held numerous consultations with the parties and the Security Council members on the principle of a conference and questions of procedure. The views expressed differed in nuance and detail, but it was hoped that those differences could be narrowed to make possible a conference at which the difficult substantive issues could be tackled. Unfortunately, it had not yet proved possible to obtain the parties' agreement to the principle of an international conference, thus hindering progress on procedural issues. Bilateral efforts to promote the peace process had also apparently run into difficulties. The Secretary-General emphasized that despite those set-backs, the search for a comprehensive settlement through a negotiating process under United Nations auspices, in which all parties would participate, must be sustained by all means.

During the December 1987 Security Council debate on the situation in the occupied territories (see p. 304), a number of speakers also advocated the convening of an international peace conference.

Communications. In a statement of 7 January 1987,(17) the Foreign Ministry of the USSR restated the USSR's position that it was essential to prepare for an international conference without delay and to form a preparatory committee within the Security Council, that the timetable for the preparations was a matter for bilateral and multilateral discussion, and that the primary task was to start untangling the knot of tensions in the Middle East.

The EC Foreign Ministers, in a 23 February declaration on the Middle East,(5) stated their support for an international conference under United Nations auspices, with the participation not only of the parties concerned but also of any party able to contribute to the restoration of peace and to the region's economic and social development. They believed that the conference should provide a suitable framework for negotiations and were prepared to contribute, individually and through EC, to bring the parties' positions closer. In the mean time, they requested the parties to avoid any action likely to worsen the situation or complicate and delay the search for peace.

By a 29 April letter transmitted by Tunisia,(18) PLO brought to the Secretary-General's attention a resolution by which the Palestine National Council expressed support for the convening of a conference with full authority and within the United Nations framework, and for the expeditious establishment of a preparatory committee.

The Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to the 1987 General Assembly session (New York, 5-7 October), in its final communiqué,(19) urged the Committee of Nine Non-Aligned Countries on Palestine to continue its work towards the early convening of a conference by actively approaching Security Council members and by other appropriate ways, reaffirmed support for the Committee's endeavours to hasten the preparatory process and for the efforts of the Secretary-General, and urged all parties to co-operate fully with him.

The Committee of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the States members of the Warsaw Treaty (Prague, Czechoslovakia, 28 and 29 October) issued a communiqué(20) stating that the holding of a conference under United Nations auspices, to be attended by all parties concerned, including PLO, on an equal footing, and the permanent Council members, would be of major significance for attaining an equitable and comprehensive settlement and for safeguarding a lasting peace in the Middle East.

Similar expressions of support for the early convening of a peace conference and urgings to intensify efforts towards that end were conveyed by several previously mentioned communications: a resolution of the Fifth Islamic Summit Conference (26-29 January),(3) the 15 April declaration of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Committee of Nine Non-Aligned Countries on Palestine;(6) the final communiqué of the Seventh Summit Conference of the Heads of State of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and Sao Tome and Principe (21 and 22 May);(7) the joint Romania-PLO communiqué of 5 June;(8) and the communiqué of the 13-17 October meeting of the Commonwealth heads of Government.(10)

The holding of a conference was also advocated in several communications dealing with the situation in the occupied territories (see p. 297).

Report of the Secretary-General. In May 1987 (21) the Secretary-General reported on his continued efforts, in consultation with the Security Council, to promote the convening of a conference, as the Assembly had requested in 1986.(22) He said that consultations had been held with Council members individually during February-May 1987. In contrast with the experience of recent years, none of them opposed in principle the idea of an international conference under United Nations auspices. It was clear, however, that wide differences still existed as to the form it should take. The parties' positions remained far apart on a number of issues of substance and procedure, but in recent months there had been indications of greater flexibility in attitudes towards the negotiating process. The Council members agreed that a conference would have to be carefully prepared, but were divided on the proposed formal preparatory committee. Some favoured its early establishment; others felt that further consultations would be required and that the views of the parties would be of special importance in that context.

During March and April, a first round of consultations had been held in New York with the parties - Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic - and with PLO to ascertain their positions on the form of a conference and on how it should be prepared. Again, views differed on both issues, but there appeared to be general readiness to consider options for an acceptable negotiating formula.

Summing up, the Secretary-General observed that, although sufficient agreement did not exist to permit the convening of a conference, he was determined to continue his efforts to establish a negotiating process that would lead to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. He was encouraged by the international community's increased interest in the idea of a conference under United Nations auspices on a basis acceptable to all and by the indications of greater flexibility among the parties. At the same time, it was evident that wide differences remained, to bridge which he would intensify his contacts with the parties. Those efforts, to be successful, needed the full support and understanding not only of the parties but also of the Security Council.

In his November report on the Middle East situation,(13) the Secretary-General reported on the intensified contacts he had undertaken. They included: a mission he had sent to the area in June, which held talks with leaders in Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic and with PLO in Tunisia; his meetings in July at Geneva with the President of Egypt and the Foreign Minister of Israel; and his meetings during the 1987 General Assembly session with the President of Lebanon, the Crown Prince of Jordan, the Foreign Ministers of Egypt, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic and the head of delegation of PLO, among others. He had also pursued consultations with the Security Council, in particular with its five permanent members.

Those discussions reconfirmed his earlier observations, the Secretary-General said, noting that there was no apparent change in the positions of those parties and Council members who did not regard as an acceptable basis the guidelines in the 1983 Assembly resolution(23) endorsing the call for a conference. The major obstacle, he said, was the inability of the Government of Israel as a whole to agree on the principle of an international conference under United Nations auspices. The discussions confirmed, however, that there was widespread support for a conference that urgently needed to be convened.

Human Rights Commission action. In a 19 February 1987 resolution on the situation in occupied Palestine (see p. 819), the Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed its support for an international conference as endorsed by the 1983 Assembly resolution and other relevant resolutions, appealed for further constructive efforts by all States towards convening such a conference, and called on those States negatively disposed to the idea to reconsider their attitude. In this connection, it reaffirmed the right of PLO, as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians, to participate fully in all efforts and international conferences on the Palestine question and the future of the Palestinians.

Action by the Committee on Palestinian rights. The Committee on Palestinian rights, in its annual report to the General Assembly,(24) reaffirmed that the convening of an international conference, in accordance with the 1983 Assembly guidelines,(23) was the most widely accepted proposal that would constitute a major United Nations contribution towards solving the Palestine question, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Committee recommended that the Assembly call once again on those Member States which did not support the proposal to reconsider their position, that it call for additional constructive efforts by all Governments, in particular by those of the permanent Security Council members, and that it renew the Secretary-General's mandate to continue his efforts to promote the convening of a conference.

Other action. The Eighteenth United Nations Seminar on the Question of Palestine (see p. 264), in which the Committee on Palestinian rights participated,(25) concluded unanimously that the way to a just and lasting Middle East peace was through an international conference, to be convened under United Nations auspices and with the participation of all parties, including PLO on an equal footing, and the United States, the USSR and other concerned States, and that the Committee had an important role to play in promoting its realization.

The Seminar urged the international community to strengthen its support for the Committee's efforts to facilitate the convening of a conference and the establishment of a preparatory committee. It also urged Israel and the United States to reconsider their negative attitude towards the idea of a conference. It appealed to the permanent Security Council members to make every effort to convene the conference without further delay and welcomed PLO's unequivocal support for the conference.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the question of Palestine, the General Assembly on 2 December 1987 adopted resolution 42/66 D by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 38/58 C of 13 December 1983 39/49 D of 11 December 1984, 40/96 D of 12 December 1985 and 41/43 D of 2 December 1986, in which it, inter alia, endorsed the call for the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East,

Recalling also the relevant resolutions of the Security Council,

Reaffirming its resolutions 39/49 D, 40/96 D and 41/43 D, in which it, inter alia, requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Security Council, to continue his efforts with a view to convening the Conference,

Having considered the reports of the Secretary-General of 7 May 1987, and of 13 November 1987, in which he, inter alia, stated that "the major obstacle at present however, is one of a different kind, namely, the inability of the Government of Israel as a whole to agree on the principle of an international conference under United Nations auspices",

Expressing its regret that, owing to the attitudes of some Member States, the difficulties regarding the convening of the Conference have remained essentially the same, and expressing its hope that those Member States will reconsider their attitudes,

Having heard the statements made by numerous representatives, including the statement by the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization,

Taking note of the resolutions as well as the Final Declaration of the Extraordinary Arab Summit Conference held at Amman from 8 to 11 November 1987, in which, inter alia, the Arab leaders declared that "in the context of promoting peaceful efforts and endeavours seeking to achieve a just and durable peace in the Middle East region in accordance with international legality and the resolutions of the United Nations and on the basis of the return of all the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories and the restoration of the national rights of the Palestinian Arab people, the leaders supported, as the only appropriate means of settling the Arab-Israeli conflict in a peaceful, just and comprehensive manner, the convening of the International Peace Conference under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation, on an equal footing, of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian Arab people and the permanent members of the Security Council",

Noting with satisfaction the growing international consensus in favour of convening the Conference under the auspices of the United Nations, and in conformity with its relevant resolutions, to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the just solution of the question of Palestine, which is the core of this conflict,

Emphasizing the need to bring about a just and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has persisted for nearly four decades,

1. Takes note of the reports of the Secretary-General;

2. Notes with satisfaction the ever-increasing international consensus in favour of the early convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East, as reflected in the statements made during the debate;

3. Determines once again that the question of Palestine is the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East;

4. Reaffirms once again its endorsement of the call for convening the Conference in conformity with the provisions of resolution 38/58 C, particularly the guidelines and participation determined therein;

5. Reiterates its endorsement of the call for setting up a preparatory committee, within the framework of the Security Council, with the participation of the permanent members of the Council, to take the necessary action to convene the Conference;

6. Stresses once again the urgent need for additional concrete and constructive efforts by all Governments in order to convene the Conference without further delay;

7. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Security Council, to continue his efforts with a view to convening the Conference and to report thereon to the General Assembly not later than 31 March 1988;

8. Decides to consider at its forty-third session the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the present resolution.


General Assembly resolution 42/66 D
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 129-2-24 (recorded vote)
12-nation draft (A/42/L.40 & Add.1); agenda item 38.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Senegal, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: plenary 78-82, 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, United Kingdom.

If negotiations could be launched by way of an international conference, the United States said, it would not be the conference described in the unbalanced guidelines enumerated in the 1983 Assembly resolution endorsing the call for the convening of a conference;(23) those guidelines sought to impose a particular concept of a solution rather than to launch the parties in negotiating one. The United States could not support the text which, by tying successive Assembly resolutions back to the 1983 resolution, revealed a one-sided approach that would not advance prospects for reaching an agreed formula for negotiations.

In Norway's opinion, the text contained guidelines concerning conference format and modalities which could be construed as imposing a procedure not acceptable to all parties and prejudicial to the outcome of negotiations; it was imperative that the framework and content of negotiations be freely decided on by the parties themselves. Similarly, Denmark, speaking for the 12 EC members, considered it essential to avoid prejudging the form in which negotiations might be held; the EC members were not convinced that the text reflected the increasing international consensus in favour of the early convening of a conference in its most widely accepted terms. Australia could not endorse elements of the seventh preambular paragraph which, it felt blurred fundamental issues and sought to prescribe the form of the conference. Canada said that efforts needed to be invested by the main parties to establish an appropriate negotiating format which would meet their concern and facilitate real progress towards lasting peace in the region. It also did not believe that an international conference was a substitute for direct negotiations between the parties; if there was to be an international framework, it must be accepted by all concerned, including Israel, in a framework that would facilitate rather than hinder direct negotiations.

Finland reiterated its reservations on the Geneva Declaration and the Programme of Action adopted by the 1983 International Conference on the Question of Palestine.(26) Japan had reservations on some provisions, in particular paragraph 4 and the fourth preambular paragraph.

Iran did not wish to see its Palestinian brothers at any negotiating table with Zionist usurpers, nor did it support the resolutions of the November Extraordinary Arab Summit Conference at Amman.(11) The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had reservations on any references that could be taken to mean recognition of the fait accompli imposed by force in occupied Palestine and could be interpreted as taking away the rights of the Palestinians.

On 11 December, under the agenda item on the Middle East situation, the Assembly adopted resolution 42/209 A by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Having discussed the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East",

Recalling its relevant resolutions on the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East,

Recalling also the relevant resolutions of the Security Council,

Recalling the report of the Secretary-General of 13 November 1987,

Taking note with appreciation of the resolutions of the Extraordinary Arab Summit Conference, held at Amman from 8 to 11 November 1987, on the Arab-Israeli conflict and on the International Peace Conference on the Middle East,

Taking note with appreciation of the growing international consensus in favour of convening the Conference to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, of which the question of Palestine is the core,

1. Reaffirms once again that the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations and at the invitation of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the participation of the five permanent members of the Security Council and all the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, on an equal footing, is the appropriate way to a peaceful, comprehensive and just settlement of the conflict which will ensure the restoration of the occupied Arab territories and the solution of the Palestinian question in all its aspects and guarantee the realization of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian Arab people;

2. Calls upon all States that have not done so to lend their support to the convening of the Conference;

3. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Security Council, to continue his efforts with a view to convening the Conference and to apprise the General Assembly of the results of his consultations no later than September 1988.


General Assembly resolution 42/209 A
11 December 1987 Meeting 97 124-3-22 (recorded vote)
16-nation draft (A/42/L.41/Rev.1 & Add.1), orally revised; agenda item 39.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: plenary 86-89, 97.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua Now Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Honduras, Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, United Kingdom.

In the view of the United States, the text did not take account of the criteria necessary for progress towards peace, or the issues already addressed by the parties. It made no mention of bilateral or direct negotiations and subsumed the universally accepted basis of negotiations - Security Council resolutions 242(1967)(1) and 338(1973)(2) - under an ambiguous umbrella formulation.

Canada regretted that the text had been modified to include language that, in its view, prejudiced the organization and outcome of the proposed conference.

New Zealand regretted the inclusion of certain elements in paragraph 1, whence its abstention. Chile had reservations on the wording of the same paragraph. So did Finland, on the grounds that it unduly prejudiced the composition of and participation in the conference; it also had doubts concerning the formulation of the fifth preambular paragraph. Sweden registered surprise that the Assembly should adopt yet another resolution on an international conference, as one such resolution had already been adopted under the agenda item on the Palestine question, it stated that its affirmative vote, cast with some hesitation, did not mean that it subscribed to every element in the text, adding that it could not support the fifth preambular paragraph as it had not had an opportunity to study an authoritative text of all the resolutions adopted at the November Arab Summit.(11) The Philippines voiced reservations on some of the text's formulations.

Iran, which did not participate in the vote, said it did not wish to see the inalienable rights of its Palestinian brothers and sisters become the subject of negotiations with the Zionist usurpers.

United Nations Truce Supervision Organization

In his November report on the Middle East situation,(13) the Secretary-General provided an overview of the three peace-keeping operations in the region: the two peace-keeping forces - UNDOF and UNIFIL (see pp. 288 and 277) - and one observer mission, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). Apart from assisting UNDOF and UNIFIL in their tasks, UNTSO maintained two observation groups of its own, the Observer Group in Beirut (see p. 277) and the Observer Group in Egypt, where with the Government's agreement about 50 observers had remained since 1979 when the second United Nations Emergency Force was withdrawn. In addition to liaison offices at Cairo and Ismailia, the Observer Group in Egypt maintained six observation posts in the Sinai.

Credentials of Israel

By a 7 October 1987 letter to the Secretary-General,(27) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, on behalf of 20 States members of the Arab Group at the United Nations and PLO, protested against the credentials of the delegation of Israel to the General Assembly's 1987 regular session on the grounds that it had failed to comply with Security Council and Assembly resolutions on Palestine, the Middle East and other related issues; that it continued its annexation of Palestinian and other Arab territories and violated human rights in those territories; that it continued its aggression against the Arab States and extended the area of its aggression to the whole of Lebanon, Iraq and Tunisia; and that it continued to co-operate with the racist régime in South Africa.

On 12 October,(28) 35 States expressed their reservations on Israel's credentials, underlining its defiance and persistent violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, as well as of United Nations resolutions, in particular those concerning Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of its own State, and those declaring illegal its policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories. They further underlined Israel's systematic resort to intimidation and use of force in the name of pre-emptive action, hot pursuit and security, and to biblical and other fallacious arguments to extend its supremacy over the neighbouring Arab countries.

Before adopting resolution 42/2 A, approving the first report of the Credentials Committee,(29) the Assembly, by a recorded vote of 80 to 39, with 10 abstentions, decided not to act on an amendment to that report by Algeria, Bahrain, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen(30) to reject Israel's credentials. The motion to take no action was tabled by Finland on behalf also of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden (see p. 366).

REFERENCES

(1)YUN 1967, p. 257, SC res. 242(1967), 22 Nov. 1967. (2)YUN 1973 p. 213, SC res. 338(1973), 22 Oct. 1973. (3)A/42/178-S/18753. (4)YUN 1982, p. 387. (5)A/42/151-S/18718. (6)A/42/284-S/18856. (7)A/42/352-S/18903. (8)A/42/342-S/18919. (9)A/42/401-S/18978. (10)A/42/677. (11)A/42/779-S/19274. (12)A/42/858-S/19322. (13)A/42/714-S/19249. (14)A/42/465 & Add.1 (15)YUN 1986, pp. 264 & 336 GA res. 41/162 A & B, 4 Dec. 1986. (16)Ibid., p. 273, GA res. 41/162 C, 4 Dec. 1986. (17)A/42/78-S/18567. (18)A/42/267-S/18841. (19)A/42/681. (20)A/42/708 & Corr.1. (21)A/42/277-S/18849. (22)YUN 1986, p. 267, GA res. 41/43 D, 2 Dec. 1986. (23)YUN 1983 p. 278, GA res. 38/58 C, 13 Dec. 1983. (24)A/42/35. (25)A/43/35 (26)YUN 1983, p. 274. (27)A/42/638 & Add.1 (28)A/42/647 & Corr.1 & Add.1. (29)A/42/630. (30)A/42/L.3.


__________________

Palestine question
__________________

The question of Palestine continued in 1987 to be a concern of the General Assembly and its Committee on Palestinian rights.

By four resolutions adopted in December on the question, the Assembly endorsed the Committee's call for urgent Security Council action on its 1976 recommendations - drawing the Council's attention to the fact that such action was still awaited - and for constructive efforts to bring about the proposed international conference on peace in the Middle East (see p. 258), as a means of securing United Nations objectives on the Palestine question (resolution 42/66 A); requested resources and co-operation to enable the Division for Palestinian Rights to perform its tasks (42/66 B); and asked the Department of Public Information (DPI) to continue its special information programme on the Palestine question (42/66 C). The fourth resolution dealt with the proposed international peace conference (see p. 260). In a resolution on the Middle East situation (42/209 D), the Assembly determined that Israel's 1980 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem was illegal and without validity.

Various United Nations bodies continued providing assistance to the Palestinians. The Secretary-General submitted a draft programme of assistance for 1988-1990, which, by their respective resolutions on the subject, the Economic and Social Council (1987/77) and the Assembly (42/166) asked him to develop and implement in co-operation with PLO.

The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (29 November) was observed on 30 November 1987 at United Nations Headquarters and the United Nations Offices at Geneva and Vienna. It was also commemorated in many other cities throughout the world.

Communications. By a letter of 3 February 1987,(1) Israel reported that, on 1 February, a bomb exploded on a bus-load of civilian commuters en route from Haifa to Jerusalem; the blast injured nine passengers, one seriously. On 2 February, the Fatah faction of PLO headed by Yasser Arafat assumed responsibility for the attack in simultaneous broadcasts from Tunis, Tunisia, and Baghdad, Iraq. To justify that blatant act of terrorism, Israel said, PLO resorted to lying about the facts, claiming the bus was a military vehicle and its passengers enemy soldiers. Israel called the attack and distorted explanation typical PLO tactics, stating that it would continue to punish the perpetrators and expose the distortions.

On 19 February,(2) Israel alleged further PLO targeting of civilians: a two-rocket attack on a village in western Galilee on 1 February; a Molotov-cocktail attack on a passenger bus at Hebron on 2 February; a fire-bomb attack on a passenger bus at Kalandiah on 12 February; and a failed attempt to plant a bomb in Meir Hospital at Kfar Saba on 15 February, the bomb having exploded in the terrorists' car en route to the hospital. Israel also alleged that PLO, in announcements following the attacks, described the targets as military, and the bomb intended for the hospital as having damaged a vehicle of the enemy's intelligence services. Such falsifications of the facts, including the claim that its campaign of terror was limited to Judaea and Samaria (Israel's term for the occupied territories of the West Bank) and Gaza - when in fact it extended to Haifa, Galilee, Kfar Saba and elsewhere - were implicit acknowledgement by PLO that it was engaged in condemnable criminal acts, all clearly showing its aim to be the liquidation of Israel, considered "occupied territory" in its entirety.

On 15 June,(3) Israel charged PLO with attempted attacks on civilians and with faking the results, as when it claimed responsibility, on 9 June, for attacks on two military buses, one said to be on its way to Petach Tikva and another at Rehovot. The first turned out to be a public bus and the second the Rehovot central bus station, in which PLO had planted grenades; they were dismantled before they could explode. Israel also cited PLO attempts to launch terrorist attacks against it from Lebanese territory (see p. 276).

In a declaration adopted at their meeting at Harare on 14 and 15 April, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Committee of Nine Non-Aligned Countries on Palestine reiterated the non-aligned countries' solidarity with and firm support for the Palestinians led by PLO,(4) as did the heads of State of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, and Sao Tome and Principe in a final communiqué adopted at their Seventh Summit Conference (Maputo, 21 and 22 May).(5)

The Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to the 1987 General Assembly session (New York, 5-7 October), in its final communiqué,(6) stressed that a comprehensive, just and durable Middle East solution could not be achieved without total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and the exercise by the Palestinians of their rights to return to their homes, to self-determination and to a sovereign State in Palestine. They reaffirmed their support for PLO and emphasized that only PLO had the right to represent the Palestinians. They welcomed the outcome of the Palestine National Council meeting (Algiers, Algeria, 20-25 April) as a major victory for the Palestinians, and welcomed the efforts of the Committee of Nine Non-Aligned Countries on Palestine to resolve the Palestinian issue - the core of the Middle East crisis.

By a communiqué issued in New York on 19 October,(7) the Organization of the Islamic Conference rejected as unacceptable Amendment No. 940 recently adopted by the United States Senate, making unlawful the presence in the United States of the Permanent Observer Mission of PLO to the United Nations. It viewed the move as a denial of the Palestinians' right to present their cause in international forums, particularly in the United Nations, and an attempt to obstruct the search for peace in the Middle East. Recalling that the Mission's presence was in accordance with a 1974 Assembly resolution(8) and with the 1947 Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations (Headquarters Agreement),(9) the Conference considered Amendment No. 940 a violation of international law and the right of United Nations invitees, such as PLO. It called on the Secretary-General to declare the United Nations position on the matter and to ensure respect by the host country of the Headquarters Agreement.

A similar protest was made by the Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (New York, 16 October).(10)

Human Rights Commission action. In a 19 February 1987 resolution on the situation in occupied Palestine (see p. 819), the Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed the Palestinians' inalienable rights to self-determination without external interference and to the establishment of their sovereign State on their national soil, to return to their homeland and property, and to regain their rights by all means in accordance with the Charter and United Nations resolutions.

The Commission condemned Israel for its continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories and for non-compliance with relevant United Nations resolutions, calling on it to withdraw from those territories. It asked the Secretary-General to transmit the resolution to Israel and to make available to the Commission in 1988 all information pertaining to the resolution's implementation.

Activities of the Committee on Palestinian rights. The Committee on Palestinian rights continued in 1987 to follow developments in the Israeli-occupied territories and actions by Israel which the Committee regarded as violations of international law or of United Nations resolutions. It brought such actions - including Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, Israeli exploitation of Arab-owned lands and other matters affecting Palestinian rights (see below, under "Territories occupied by Israel") - to the attention of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

As described in its annual report to the Assembly,(11) the Committee and, under its guidance the Division for Palestinian Rights undertook to expand co-operation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in order to heighten awareness of the facts relating to the Palestine question and to create conditions favourable for full implementation of the Committee's recommendations. To that end it held regional symposia for NGOs in Asia (New Delhi, India, 8-10 June) and North America (New York, 24-26 June), and an international NGO meeting (Geneva, 7-9 September). In addition, it held its sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth regional seminars: for Asia (New Delhi, 8-12 June), North America (New York, 22 and 23 June) and Latin America (Havana, Cuba, 15-17 December).

During the period under review, the Committee noted that international understanding of the Palestine question and support for the attainment and exercise of Palestinian rights had reached new heights and that the deterioration of the situation of Palestinians had aroused widespread concern that tension and violence would increase; a new phase had thus been reached, necessitating intensified collective efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question. To secure United Nations objectives, the Committee continued to give priority to the early convening of the proposed international peace conference on the Middle East under United Nations auspices, based on guidelines contained in the 1983(12) and 1986(13) Assembly resolutions endorsing the call for such a conference. It noted that, despite a growing international consensus in favour of the proposal, it had not yet proved possible to obtain the agreement of all the parties.

In the light of those observations, the Committee recommended that the Security Council take urgent positive action on the Committee's original recommendations submitted to(14) and endorsed by the Assembly in 1976,(15) and on those adopted by the 1983 Geneva Conference on the Palestine question,(16) again reaffirming that those recommendations, repeatedly endorsed by the Assembly, were solidly founded on fundamental and internationally accepted principles. It also recommended that the Assembly call on those Member States which had not agreed to the proposed conference to reconsider their attitude, and also call for constructive efforts by all Governments, in particular the permanent Council members, towards the early convening of the conference, and for continued efforts by the Secretary-General to achieve that objective. These recommendations were in addition to those it had submitted in 1976, reiterated yearly since for implementation.

Annexed to the Committee's report were its 1976 recommendations; the Geneva Declaration on Palestine and the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights, adopted by the 1983 Conference; the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Sixteenth and Seventeenth United Nations Seminars on the Question of Palestine (see p. 264); as well as the declarations adopted by the United Nations Asian and North American Regional NGOs Symposia and by the International Meeting of NGOs on the Question of Palestine (see p. 264).


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Following consideration of the report of the Committee on Palestinian rights, the General Assembly, in December, adopted four resolutions on the Palestine question, dealing with the Committee and its recommendations, the Division for Palestinian Rights, public information, and the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East (see p. 260).

Resolution 42/66 A was adopted on 2 December by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 181(II) of 29 November 1947 194(III) of 11 December 1948, 3236(XXIX) of 22 November 1974, 3375(XXX) and 3376(XXX) of 10 November 1975, 31/20 of 24 November 1976, 32/40 of 2 December 1977, 33/28 of 7 December 1978, 34/65 A and B of 29 November 1979 and 34/65 C and D of 12 December 1979, ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980 35/169 of 15 December 1980, 36/120 of 10 December 1981, ES-7/4 of 28 April 1982, ES-7/5 of 26 June 1982, ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982, 37/86 A of 10 December 1982, 38/58 A of 13 December 1983, 39/49 A of 11 December 1984, 40/96 A of 12 December 1985 and 41/43 A of 2 December 1986,

Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,

1. Expresses its appreciation to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People for its efforts in performing the tasks assigned to it by the General Assembly;

2. Endorses the recommendations of the Committee contained in paragraphs 92 to 96 of its report and draws the attention of the Security Council to the fact that action on the Committee's recommendations, as repeatedly endorsed by the General Assembly at its thirty-first session and subsequently, is still awaited;

3. Requests the Committee to continue to keep under review the situation relating to the question of Palestine as well as the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights and to report and make suggestions to the General Assembly or the Security Council, as appropriate;

4. Authorizes the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the implementation of its recommendations, including representation at conferences and meetings and the sending of delegations, to make such adjustments in its approved programme of seminars and symposia and meetings for non-governmental organizations as it may consider necessary, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its forty-third session and thereafter;

5. Requests the Committee to continue to extend its co-operation to non-governmental organizations in their contribution towards heightening international awareness of the facts relating to the question of Palestine and creating a more favourable atmosphere for the full implementation of the Committee's recommendations, and to take the necessary steps to expand its contacts with those organizations;

6. Requests the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, established under General Assembly resolution 194(III), as well as other United Nations bodies associated with the question of Palestine, to co-operate fully with the Committee and to make available to it, at its request, the relevant information and documentation which they have at their disposal;

7. Decides to circulate the report of the Committee to all the competent bodies of the United Nations and urges them to take the necessary action, as appropriate, in accordance with the Committee's programme of implementation;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Committee with all the necessary facilities for the performance of its tasks.


General Assembly resolution 42/66 A
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 131-2-22 (recorded vote)
13-nation draft (A/42/L.33 & Add.1); agenda item 38.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Guyana, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Senegal, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Financial implications. 5th Committee, A/42/801; S-G, A/C.5/42/45 & Corr.1.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: 5th Committee 42; plenary 78-82, 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Also on 2 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 42/66 B by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,

Taking note, in particular, of the relevant information contained in paragraphs 56 to 80 of that report,

Recalling its resolutions 32/40 B of 2 December 1977, 33/28 C of 7 December 1978, 34/65 D of 12 December 1979, 35/169 D of 15 December 1980, 36/120 B of 10 December 1981, 37/86 B of 10 December 1982, 38/58 B of 13 December 1983, 39/49 B of 11 December 1984, 40/96 B of 12 December 1985, and 41/43 B of 2 December 1986,

1. Takes note with appreciation of the action taken by the Secretary-General in compliance with General Assembly resolution 41/43 B;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat with the necessary resources and to ensure that it continues to discharge the tasks detailed in paragraph I of General Assembly resolution 32/40 B, paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 34/65 D, paragraph 3 of resolution 36/120 B paragraph 3 of resolution 38/58 B and paragraph 3 of resolution 40/96 B, in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and under its guidance;

3. Also requests the Secretary-General to ensure the continued co-operation of the Department of Public Information and other units of the Secretariat in enabling the Division for Palestinian Rights to perform its tasks and in covering adequately the various aspects of the question of Palestine;

4. Invites all Governments and organizations to lend their co-operation to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Division for Palestinian Rights in the performance of their tasks;

5. Takes note with appreciation of the action taken by Member States to observe annually on 29 November the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, and of the issuance by them of special postage stamps for the occasion.


General Assembly resolution 42/66 B
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 133-2-20 (recorded vote)
13-nation draft (A/42/L.34 & Add.1); agenda item 38.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Guyana, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Senegal, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Financial implications. 5th Committee, A/42/801; S-G, A/C.5/42/45 & Corr.1.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: 5th Committee 42; plenary 78-82, 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome end Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey. Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Israel, which had requested the vote, could not endorse what it felt were the quite substantial financial implications, and asserted that the meetings provided for would do nothing to advance the search for a peaceful and negotiated settlement.

Explaining in a single statement its position on resolutions 42/66 A-C, the United States said they perpetuated bodies and activities dedicated to expounding only the Palestinian perspective and were inconsistent with the effort to put forward the United Nations as sponsor of a conference to launch negotiations; United Nations auspices would have to be accepted by all sides, a goal the resolutions would not help to achieve. Speaking for the EC members, Denmark reiterated their previously stated position;(17) namely, the need to take due consideration of the Organization's financial difficulties in determining the tasks of the bodies concerned.

In Finland's view, resolutions 42/66 A and B failed to represent the balance required for a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East settlement. Explaining its abstention on resolution 42/66 B, Canada said it had changed from its negative vote on similar resolutions of previous years to underline its concern for the tragic plight of the Palestinians. It also voiced concern that, in a period of financial restraint, duplication existed among the mandates of the Committee on Palestinian rights, the Division for Palestinian Rights and DPI, adding that, too often, the mandated activities were marred by a partisan spirit detrimental to reaching a negotiated and just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Iran declared itself opposed in principle to any resolution, action or report that might directly or indirectly imply recognition of the Zionist base of terror occupying Palestine. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, whose vote reflected its belief in the national rights of the Palestinians, voiced reservations on any references in the text that could interpreted as detracting from those rights or recognizing the fait accompli imposed by force in occupied Palestine.

In other action, the Assembly, by resolution 42/95, reaffirmed the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without foreign interference. It condemned those Governments not recognizing the right to self-determination and independence, notably of the Palestinians (among others). It also condemned the constant and deliberate violations of the Palestinians’ rights, as well as Israel’s expansionist activities in the Middle East, which were an obstacle to the Palestinians self-determination and independence and a threat to peace and stability in the region.

Public information activities

The Committee on Palestinian rights(11) reviewed implementation of a 1986 Assembly request(18) that DPI continue its 1986-1987 special information programme on the Palestine question. The programme included press and publication activities; radio-visual coverage, and a fact-finding mission to the Middle East and national and regional encounters for journalists.

During 1987, DPI continued to disseminate through articles and press releases, information on the Palestine question and on the related seminars and symposia organized by the Committee. Consideration of the question by the Assembly, the Security Council and other United Nations bodies was reported in the UN Chronicle. While a personnel recruitment freeze precluded issuance of new publications, DPI reproduced for distribution The United Nations and the Question of Palestine and The Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.

Besides providing radio coverage in all of the official United Nations languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish), DPI produced a substantial number of television news items on the question and on related Middle East events, and circulated video packages world-wide.

DPI arranged a fact-finding visit to Egypt, Jordan and Iraq, from 2 to 15 June, by a team of 12 prominent journalists and media representatives from around the world. Visits to Israel and the occupied territories were not possible since Israel had not responded to an official request for such visits.

Two regional encounters between high-level journalists and experts on Palestine were again organized: the first, for North and Latin American journalists, took place in Argentina from 20 to 23 January; the second, for Asian journalists, took place at Singapore from 6 to 9 April. Two series of national encounters, in which a team of expert panelists held in-depth press conferences with national journalists and foreign correspondents, were also organized: one for Latin America, held in Peru and Venezuela on 28 and 30 January, respectively; another for Asia, held in India, Japan and Thailand between 31 March and 13 April.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/66 C by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,

Taking note, in particular, of the information contained in paragraphs 81 to 91 of that report,

Recalling its resolution 41/43 C of 2 December 1986,

Convinced that the world-wide dissemination of accurate and comprehensive information and the role of non-governmental organizations and institutions remain of vital importance in heightening awareness of and support for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian State,

1. Takes note with appreciation of the action taken by the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat in compliance with General Assembly resolution 41/43 C;

2. Requests the Department of Public Information in full co-operation and co-ordination with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to continue its special information programme on the question of Palestine during the biennium 1988-1989, with particular emphasis on public opinion in Europe and North America and, in particular:

(a) To disseminate information on all the activities of the United Nations system relating to the question of Palestine, including reports of the work carried out by the relevant United Nations organs;

(b) To continue to issue and update publications on the various aspects of the question of Palestine, including Israeli violations of the human rights of the Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories as reported by the relevant United Nations organs;

(c) To expand its audio-visual material on the question of Palestine, including the production of special series of radio programmes and television broadcast;

(d) To organize fact-finding news missions to the area for journalists;

(e) To organize regional and national encounters for journalists.


General Assembly resolution 42/66 C
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 133-3-18 (recorded vote)
13-nation draft (A/42/L.35 & Add.1): agenda item 38.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Guyana, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Senegal, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Financial implications: 5th Committee, A/42/801; S-G, A/C.5/42/45 & Corr.1.

Meeting numbers: GA 42nd session: 5th Committee 42; plenary 78-82, 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Canada, Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom.

The States which explained their votes on resolution 42/66 C did so when they explained their positions on resolutions 42/66 A and B (see p. 266).

Jerusalem

The General Assembly, by resolution 42/209 D, again determined that Israel's 1980 decision(19) to impose its laws and administration on Jerusalem was illegal and therefore null and void. Applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (fourth Geneva Convention) to the Israeli-occupied territories (see p. 308), including Jerusalem, was repeatedly reaffirmed by the Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, as well as in reports and communications dealing with the situation in the occupied territories (see p. 296).

Communications. The Fifth Islamic Summit Conference (Kuwait, 26-29 January 1987),(20) in a resolution on the city of Al-Quds Al-Sharif (Jerusalem), reiterated that: the question of Palestine and Jerusalem took priority over all other questions for all Muslims; Jerusalem was an indivisible part of the usurped Palestinian homeland and the capital of Palestine; and its return to Arab Palestinian sovereignty was the only guarantee for preserving its Arab-Islamic character, its sanctity and the freedom of worship. The Conference also reiterated the commitment of its members to employ all their capabilities in confronting Israel's decision to annex Jerusalem, including breaking political and diplomatic relations with it and ending all co-operation with any State recognizing that decision. It called on all countries, especially the United States, to refrain from dealing with Israel's occupation authorities in a manner that might suggest recognition or acceptance of the fait accompli arising from Israel's decision; and called on them not to recognize the legitimacy of Israeli measures to change the Arab-Islamic features of Jerusalem and introduce demographic changes.

In a 31 July letter,(21) Jordan accused Israel with a new act of aggression against an Islamic historic landmark in Jerusalem, the Tankiziyah Madrasah. Prompted by a 21 June Israeli newspaper report on the condition of the building and after obtaining long-delayed permission from Israeli authorities, officials of the Islamic Antiquities Division, accompanied by Israel's Inspector of Antiquities, visited the building. In the only room they were allowed to inspect, they found fissures in the foundation walls and ceiling, a disintegrating floor, and damaged doors and windows - largely due, it was concluded, to persistent excavations underneath Islamic buildings that proved more extensive than had been made public. Jordan called for urgent action to ensure the preservation and integrity of Islamic historic and sacred places, and called for implementation of United Nations resolutions on Jerusalem.

Israel replied on 11 August(22) that excavations completed in 1984 could not cause damage to surrounding buildings, as had been confirmed by a special representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1986; and that the recent visit to the building, referred to by Jordan, determined that water seepage had caused the floor in question to sink. Israel found it astonishing that structural defects in a building nearly 700 years old could be ascribed to a "Judaization" of Jerusalem and to a deliberate obliteration of Islamic landmarks. Such imaginative language, it observed, was consistent with the selective manner in which certain States chose to voice concern over the sanctity of Islamic sites and holy places.

In a 13 October letter(23) detailing incidents in the Israeli-occupied territories (see p. 298), the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights drew attention to a report by the news agency Reuters that a renewed attempt by militant Jews to enter the Islamic shrine of Al-Aqsa on 11 October sparked a protest demonstration by some 2,000 Palestinians. He quoted The New York Times of 13 October as reporting that soldiers fired tear-gas at the demonstrators, injuring 25 people and arresting 12 others. Protest demonstrations over the incident followed at Ramallah, where a Palestinian woman was shot dead and six students were wounded by Israeli troops, who also arrested some 100 Palestinians and sealed off the centre of the town; general strikes were declared at Nablus, Jerusalem and elsewhere.

Report of the Secretary-General. In an August 1987 report, with a later addendum,(24) the Secretary-General transmitted replies from 10 countries to his request for information on steps taken or envisaged to implement three 1986 Assembly resolutions on various aspects of the Middle East situation. By one of these,(25) the Assembly again called on those States that had transferred their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions.

UNESCO action. The Executive Board and the General Conference of UNESCO, at their September-November and October/November 1987 sessions, respectively, examined a report on the application of the UNESCO resolutions and decisions concerning the cultural heritage of Jerusalem.

The Board, by a decision, and the Conference, by a resolution, reaffirmed previous UNESCO resolutions designed to safeguard the city's spiritual cultural, historical and other values. They deplored actual and attempted assaults on the Islamic holy places, and the destruction and alterations to which the city's monumental heritage and traditional historical site had been subjected since occupation. Drawing attention to the state of degradation of the Islamic cultural and religious heritage, they invited the financial support of States, foundations and individuals for its maintenance and restoration. They also invited the UNESCO Director-General to continue the strict application of their resolutions on the matter so long as the city was occupied and to report on modifications to the city as a result of that occupation.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the Middle East situation, the General Assembly adopted on 11 December 1987 resolution 42/209 D by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 36/120 E of 10 December 1981 37/123 C of 16 December 1982, 38/180 C of 19 December 1983, 39/146 C of 14 December 1984, 40/168 C of 16 December 1985 and 41/162 C of 4 December 1986 in which it determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which had altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called "Basic Law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, were null and void and must be rescinded forthwith,

Recalling Security Council resolution 478(1980) of 20 August 1980, in which the Council, inter alia, decided not to recognize the "Basic Law" and called upon those States that had established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 13 November 1987,

1. Determines that Israel's decision to impose its laws, Jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem is illegal and therefore null and void and has no validity whatsoever;

2. Deplores the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478(1980), and their refusal to comply with the provisions of that resolution;

3. Calls once more upon those States to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.


General Assembly resolution 42/209 D
11 December 1987 Meeting 97 140-3-7 (recorded vote)
25-nation draft (A/42/L.44 & Add.1): agenda item 39.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: plenary 86-89, 97.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia. Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Israel.

Abstaining: Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Malawi, United States.

Speaking for the EC members, Denmark said their position relative to the resolution had been made known previously (most recently during the Assembly debate on the Middle East situation): the solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute should be based on Charter principles, including the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force; this implied that Israel must end the territorial occupation it had maintained since the 1967 conflict, and that its policy in East Jerusalem, among other occupied territories, was contrary to international law, so that all measures taken within that policy's framework were to be considered null and void.

Iran reiterated it reservations on all terms that implied any recognition of what it called the Zionist base of terror occupying Palestine. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya voiced reservations on any provisions that could imply a recognition of the de facto situation in the occupied Palestinian lands.

Argentina and Bolivia supported the text because it embodied the principles to which they subscribed.

In related actions, the Assembly reaffirmed the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem (resolution 42/160 B); again determined that Israeli measures to change the status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the territories, including Jerusalem, violated the Convention and were without legal validity (42/160 C); condemned Israel's annexation of parts of the territories, including Jerusalem, asked the Security Council to ensure Israel's compliance with the Convention and halt its practices there, and called for the reopening of the Roman Catholic Medical Facility Hospice at Jerusalem, closed in 1985,(26) so that it might resume its services to the city's Arab population (42/160 D); and asked for continued measures towards establishing a university for Palestine refugees at Jerusalem (42/69 K).

Assistance to Palestinians

Various organizations of the United Nations system continued in 1987 to provide assistance to the Palestinian people within the terms of their respective mandates. Notable among them were UNRWA which maintained an extensive programme of education, health and relief services for Palestinian refugees (see p. 325), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), whose programme of economic and social assistance was primarily for the non-refugee population (see below); the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) whose assistance focused on the protection and improvement of the environmental situation in the occupied territories (see p. 324); and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and UNICEF (see below). Assistance was also provided by the Secretariat's Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs (CSDHA), the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), ILO, FAO, UNESCO, WHO, UPU, ITU, WMO, IMO, WIPO and UNIDO.

In May 1987,(27) the Secretary-General submitted a draft programme of assistance for 1988-1990 outlining system-wide response to the most pressing needs of Palestinians in the occupied territories. First requested by the General Assembly in 1983,(28) the programme was based on existing assistance and took account of the agreement reached at Geneva in 1986 on the subject.(29) For its preparation, a consultant undertook a mission in February 1987 to gather information from the system's relevant entities in Geneva, New York, Rome and Vienna, supplementing it with written information from sources which could not be visited.

The programme's main objective was to rebuild the productive base of the economy in the occupied territories to enable it to absorb its own labour force, numbering an estimated 116,000 working in Israel at the end of 1986. Criteria for project selection included: productivity; absorption of surplus agricultural output, especially through the establishment of agro-industries; contribution to import substitution; project complementarily; geographical spread; and labour absorptive capacity.

The programme identified projects classified as current, planned, or suggested for future development. They were grouped under: research, analysis and organization of data; infrastructure (such as water-supply and sewage systems, human resources training, machinery and equipment, industrial zones and commercial centres); agriculture (including animal husbandry and fisheries); industry (to promote olive oil, glass and ceramics plastics, canning and tourism, among others); employment; education and vocational training; health; social welfare; and human settlements.

Financing for the current and planned projects had been largely provided for in the regular programme budgets of the executing organizations, some of which could also draw upon special contributions and other extrabudgetary funds. Financing for the suggested projects, which were relatively costly remained to be sought from extrabudgetary sources. For the programme's implementation, the considerable experience gained in planning, developing and implementing projects in the unique environment of the occupied territories could be drawn upon.

As requested by the Assembly in 1986,(30) the Secretary-General convened a meeting of the system's relevant programmes, organizations, agencies, funds and bodies (Geneva, 19 dune 1987) to consider the draft programme of assistance. Also at the meeting were representatives of PLO and Arab host countries, as well as of intergovernmental organizations and NGOs.

The meeting agreed that there was continuing system-wide commitment to provide assistance to the Palestinians, but that the draft programme, given its focus, did not reflect the contributions of the Arab host countries. It was, however, co-ordinated and took account of the priorities identified by PLO, although concern was expressed that the consultant did not include a visit to the occupied territories. It was agreed that the programme should serve as an evolving, dynamic framework for action and that its implementation required a major effort to mobilize the necessary resources, possibly to be undertaken jointly by PLO and the United Nations.

UNDP activities. The UNDP programme of assistance to the Palestinian people, in operation since 1980, had become a leading element in the economic and social development efforts in the West Bank and Gaza. Under the 1980-1986 programme, UNDP had delivered over 30 projects. Of these, 11 projects totalling $2.8 million had been completed; 18 projects amounting to $11.6 million were under implementation in 1987, with those on sewage disposal systems and effluent recycling, education and health taking the lion's share of the costs. A number of UNDP-administered projects were financed as follows: by WHO - four health projects amounting to $590,835; by UNFPA - one project providing 6 fellowships in demographic and socio-economic training for $133,200; and by ILO - five management training and consultancy projects totalling $352,242.

As described by the UNDP Administrator in a March 1987 report,(31) the projects formulated for the assistance programme for 1987-1991 were in the areas of natural resources, agriculture, industry, human settlements, health, education and employment. As updated, the projects showed notional costs totalling $56.7 million, far in excess of the $8 million approved by the Governing Council from Special Programme Resources for the fourth (1987-1991) programming cycle. Thus far, appeals for contributions had resulted only in $1 million each from the United States Agency for International Development and the Arab Gulf Programme for United Nations Development Organizations. UNDP continued to seek additional support through cost-sharing arrangements, special voluntary contributions or financing by organizations within or outside the United Nations system.

By an 18 June decision,(32) the Governing Council, noting the achievements of the UNDP assistance programme to the Palestinians, invited financial contributions from Governments and other donors.

UNCTAD activities. Through its Special Economic Unit (Palestinian people), UNCTAD continued to prepare reports and technical publications reviewing and analysing developments in the economic conditions of the Palestinians and to propose strategies for future development. In 1987, its activities included the completion in March of an in-depth study of the financial sector in the occupied territories, undertaken in collaboration with ESCWA, which focused on Israeli policies affecting that sector. In addition, extracts from the Unit's expanded data base were scheduled for publication during the year, including a statistical series, a chronology of current economic issues and a bibliography of reference material on the Palestinian economy.

UNICEF activities. In 1987, UNICEF provided technical assistance to local health departments for the training of traditional birth attendants, funding the training of 150 such attendants and 16 supervisors (midwives) in the West Bank.(33)

In the area of early childhood development, assistance was directed towards establishing four prototype child development centres for the prevention and early detection of the most common childhood disabilities and towards providing guidance for treatment and rehabilitation. Assistance was also provided to train 652 kindergarten teachers and upgrade sanitation facilities in 60 kindergartens. Other assistance took the form of construction materials and supplies for the renovation of 20 kindergartens and basic furniture for another 120. A pre-school project for such facilities as day-care centres and kindergartens run by the private sector and NGOs covered only 12 per cent of the total pre-school age-group in the West Bank and 6 per cent in Gaza. Originally scheduled to end in 1986, the project was extended through 1987 to permit a thorough review on which to base a new programme.


ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ACTION

On 8 duly 1987, the Economic and Social Council, on the recommendation of its Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee, adopted resolution 1987/77 by roll-call vote.

Assistance to the Palestinian people

The Economic and Social Council,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 41/181 of 8 December 1986,

Recalling also Economic and Social Council resolution 1986/49 of 22 July 1986,

Recalling further the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights, adopted by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine,

Noting the need to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people,

Noting also that the meeting on assistance to the Palestinian people was held at Geneva on 19 June 1987 in response to General Assembly resolution 41/181,

1. Takes note with appreciation of the report of the Secretary-General on assistance to the Palestinian people;

2. Welcomes the preparation of the programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people set out in the report of the Secretary-General;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to develop the programme and seek its implementation in close co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization and to co-ordinate the activities envisaged by various organizations of the United Nations system within the framework of the programme;

4. Urges the international community, the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to disburse their aid or any other forms of assistance to the occupied Palestinian territories solely for the benefit of the Palestinian people and in a manner that will not serve to prolong the Israeli occupation;

5. Requests the international community, the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to sustain and increase their assistance to the Palestinian people in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session, through the Economic and Social Council, on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.


Economic and Social Council resolution 1987/77
8 July 1987 Meeting 35 48-1 (roll-call vote)

Approved by Third Committee (E/1987/119) by roll-call vote (41-1), 30 June (meeting 8); 9-nation draft (E/1987/C.3/L.1); agenda item 17.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Viet Nam.

Roll-call vote in Council as follows:

In favour: Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of Guinea, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, USSR, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: United States.

Speaking before the vote in the Council, the United States said it opposed adoption of the text, explaining that it would not vote for programmes implemented in close co-operation with PLO, but pointing to its substantial contributions to UNRWA over the previous five years, which had amounted to $343 million, plus an additional $8 million in emergency assistance in 1985.

Uruguay said its vote was without prejudice to its reservations on certain aspects of paragraphs 3 and 5.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 11 December, on the recommendation of the Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/166 by recorded vote.
Assistance to the Palestinian people

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 41/181 of 8 December 1986,

Taking note of Economic and Social Council resolution 1987/77 of 8 July 1987,

Recalling the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights, adopted by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine,

Aware of the need to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people,

Noting the meeting on assistance to the Palestinian people, held at Geneva on 19 June 1987 in response to resolution 41/181,

1. Takes note with appreciation of the report of the Secretary-General on assistance to the Palestinian people;

2. Welcomes the preparation of the programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people set out in the report of the Secretary-General;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to develop the programme and seek its early implementation in close co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization and to co-ordinate the activities envisaged by various organizations of the United Nations system within the framework of the programme;

4. Also requests the Secretary-General to mobilize resources for the programme in close co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization;

5. Urges the international community, the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to disburse their aid or any other forms of assistance to the occupied Palestinian territories solely for the benefit of the Palestinian people and in a manner that will not serve to prolong the Israeli occupation;

6. Requests the international community, the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to sustain and increase their assistance to the Palestinian people in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session, through the Economic and Social Council, on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.


General Assembly resolution 42/166
11 December 1987 Meeting 96 152-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by Second Committee (A/42/820/Add.2) by recorded vote (126-2), 11 November (meeting 34); 11-nation draft (A/C.2/42/L.22), orally revised; agenda item 12.

Sponsors: Bangladesh, China, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Indonesia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Yemen.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: 2nd Committee 26, 29, 34; plenary 96.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Granada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

The Second Committee, before approving the draft resolution as a whole, approved paragraph 3 by a recorded vote of 115 to 1, with 3 abstentions. In the light of an oral revision of paragraph 4 by the sponsors, an amendment by Jordan,(34) as sub-amended by Democratic Yemen,(35) was not pressed for action. By the amendment, proposed to replace paragraphs 3 and 4, the Assembly would have asked the Secretary-General to develop the assistance programme, mobilize resources for it, and seek its early implementation in dose co-operation with PLO and the Arab Governments concerned, when appropriate. Democratic Yemen's sub-amendment would have replaced the reference to "the Arab Governments concerned, when appropriate" by "when appropriate, outside the occupied Palestinian territories with the Arab host countries concerned".

Explaining their positions before the Committee, the United States reiterated its opposition to channelling assistance to the Palestinians through PLO. In Israel's view, the text should have deplored the fact that, with the exception of $8 million allocated by UNDP, funds for a programme of some $57 million had not been obtained, and should have urged the Governments that had expressed interest in helping the Israeli-administered territories to make contributions; it was unfortunate that the hopes raised by the amendment's reference to Arab Governments had been in vain; moreover, the text introduced irrelevant political elements by intimating that Israel was attempting to profit from the assistance programme and by assigning a role to PLO, which had done nothing but provoke bloodshed and terror.

Jordan considered it unacceptable to omit mention of the role of the Arab States concerned, whence its abstention on paragraph 3.

Denmark, speaking for the European Economic Community (EEC) members, referred to their vote as reflecting their resolve to do their utmost to meet the needs of the Palestinian people. Cameroon said the text suffered from a few imperfections but it trusted that the machinery provided for would not impede humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians. Iran's vote was in keeping with its policy of active solidarity with the Palestinians.

In resolution 42/190, the Assembly took note of the statement made by PLO on 27 October before the Second Committee. By that statement, PLO expressed regret that the draft programme of assistance for the Palestinians had been prepared not by a multi-disciplinary mission but by a single consultant who had been denied access to the territories. It welcomed the programme, which should be viewed as a dynamic framework subject to modification and improvement; it suggested that a joint United Nations/PLO mission be organized to mobilize the resources for the programme's implementation, particularly for the main priority projects (construction of a seaport, a fishing port and a cement plant; development of agro-industries; production and training centres) and for two UNCTAD projects relating to the establishment of a research centre for project identification and formulation, and to statistics.
REFERENCES

(1)A/42/119-S/18660. (2)A/42/134-S/18709. (3)A/42/345-S/18921. (4)A/42/284-S/18856. (5)A/42/352-S/18930. (6)A/42/681. (7)A/42/666. (8)YUN 1974, p. 227, GA res. 3237(XXIX), 22 Nov. 1974. (9)YUN 1947-48, p. 199; GA res. 169(II), 31 Oct. 1947. (10)A/42/696-S/19237. (11)A/42/35. (12)YUN 1983, p. 278, GA res. 38/58 C, 13 Dec. 1983. (13)YUN 1986, p. 267, GA res. 41/43 D, 2 Dec. 1986. (14)YUN 1976, p. 235. (15)Ibid., p. 245, GA res. 31/20, 24 Nov. 1976. (16)YUN 1983 p. 274. (17)YUN 1986, p. 272. (18)Ibid., GA res. 41/43 C, 2 Dec 1986. (19)YUN 1980, p. 399. (20)A/42/178-S/18753. (21)A/42/439-S/19013. (22)A/42/471-S/19034. (23)A/42/655-S/19203. (24)A/42/465 & Add.1. (25)YUN 1986, p. 273, GA res. 41/162 C, 4 Dec. 1986. (26)YUN 1985, p. 281. (27)A/42/289-E/1987/86 & Add.1,2 & Add.2/Corr.1 (28)YUN 1983, p. 284, GA res. 38/145, 19 Dec. 1983. (29)YUN 1986, p. 278. (30)Ibid., p. 280, GA res. 41/181, 8 Dec. 1986. (31)DP/1987/23. (32)E/1987/25 (dec.87/22). (33)A/43/367-E/1988/82 & Corr.1,2. (34)A/C.2/42/L.46. (35)A/C.2/42/L.47.


___________________________________

Incidents and disputes
involving Arab countries and Israel
___________________________________

In 1987, the 1981 armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations had again been inscribed as an item in the agenda of the General Assembly. Although it was the subject of communications from intergovernmental bodies, no Assembly action was taken on it.

Two other matters relating to the Middle East situation that occupied the attention of the United Nations during the year concerned Israel's relations with Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic. Southern Lebanon remained the main focus of attention, in respect of which the Security Council issued two appeals on behalf of the civilian population there. The Council, on the Secretary-General's recommendations, also renewed the mandates of the peace-keeping forces deployed in southern Lebanon and in the Golan Heights, namely, UNIFIL and UNDOF.

Commending the United Nations peace-keeping operations, the Secretary-General stated that sacrifices had been a part of their services, particularly in southern Lebanon, where UNIFIL soldiers had daily risked their lives and 21 had died in the line of duty since August 1986 in protecting the well-being of others; the value of those operations had been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Council and the velour and dedication of those who served were deeply appreciated by the international community (see p. 6).

Iraq and Israel

The item on armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations, on the agenda of the General Assembly since 1981, following the bombing by Israel of a nuclear research centre near Baghdad,(1) was the subject of two communications addressed to the Secretary-General in 1987.

The Fifth Islamic Summit Conference (Kuwait, 26-29 January)(2) reiterated its condemnation of that armed aggression and of Israel's refusal to implement the 1981 Security Council resolution(3) (which called on Israel to refrain from such attacks or threats thereof, called on it to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and considered that Iraq was entitled to redress for the destruction caused); it also reiterated its rejection of attempts by some States to delete the item from the Assembly's agenda.

In its final communiqué, the Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to the 1987 Assembly session (New York, 5-7 October)(4) condemned Israel in similar terms and requested IAEA to ensure against a repetition of the strike by Israel on nuclear installations under the IAEA safeguards system in Iraq or elsewhere.

The Assembly retained the item on its agenda by decision 42/460 of 21 December on the suspension of its 1987 session.

Lebanon

The situation in Lebanon was marked by unremitting hostilities and escalating violence throughout 1987, with dire consequences, largely for the civilian population. This was reflected in communications addressed to the Secretary-General, the majority of which were from Lebanon and Israel, with Lebanon reporting repeated Israeli attacks on its territory that inflicted heavy casualties and material damage, and Israel citing terrorist attacks against it from southern Lebanon; in UNRWA reports, which spoke of conditions of emergency and of the tragic plight of the Palestinian refugees trapped in camps under siege by militias; and in the Secretary-General's reports on developments in the UNIFIL area of operation, underscoring casualties suffered also by the peace-keeping mission at the hands of the main protagonists of the conflict in Lebanon - the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and the South Lebanese Army (SLA) on the one hand, and the various armed resistance groups on the other.

As a result of the crisis in the besieged camps early in the year and of the mounting number of displaced persons and refugees requiring emergency relief, UNRWA in February appealed for funds to finance its emergency relief programme. The Security Council, alarmed by the suffering of the civilians inside those camps, issued an appeal in February for a cease-fire and another appeal in March to all the parties concerned to facilitate delivery of emergency food and medical supplies to the camps.

The Secretary-General assessed the situation in the UNIFIL area as one of impasse, with little realistic hope for Israel's early withdrawal from southern Lebanon and thus for the fulfilment of UNIFIL's mandate to confirm such withdrawal and assist Lebanon in restoring its effective authority in the area. Nevertheless, at the request of Lebanon and on his recommendation, the Security Council, by resolutions 594(1987) and 599(1987), extended UNIFIL's mandate in January and July, each time for a six-month period.


Israel and Lebanon

Communications. Throughout 1987, Lebanon addressed communications to the Secretary-General and to the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly, charging Israel with persistent acts of violence against its territory and population that had left many people killed or wounded and had caused considerable property damage. Lebanon condemned those acts as savage and criminal, designed to provoke an explosive situation in southern Lebanon and thereby provide Israel with a pretext for a large-scale military aggression against it. Lebanon repeatedly warned of the consequences of those acts for peace and security in the region and the world, and appealed to the Council to ensure compliance with its resolutions calling for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon so that Lebanon could regain sovereignty over the whole of its territory.

Lebanon, on 5 January,(5) reported that, on the previous day, Israeli combat helicopters had bombed the villages of Kabrikha and Khirbet-Salum in southern Lebanon, to the north of the so-called security zone, causing dozens of civilian casualties and destroying buildings and crops. On 12 January,(6) it reported further incidents of bombings and shelling of towns, villages and farms in southern Lebanon on 9, 11 and 12 January.

By a 29 April letter,(7) Lebanon drew attention to what it described as the explosive situation in southern Lebanon resulting from an escalation of aggression by Israel's military forces and by the so-called South Lebanese Army - portending a major military attack by Israel north of the "security zone". Annexed to the letter was a list of acts of aggression alleged to have taken place between 7 and 24 April, including: an SLA bombardment on 21 April, of Yatar and Kafra villages that killed or injured five civilians; and Israeli air raids, on 23 April, on the outskirts of the city of Sidon, on the Ein el-Hilweh and Mieh Mieh refugee camps and on Darb es Sim and Jebel el-Halib in the outskirts of Maghdoushe township, during which more than 30 bombs and rockets were fired, injuring a number of civilians and damaging property.

On 1 May,(8) Lebanon charged Israel with carrying out three air raids on that date: a 15-minute sortie each on Sidon's eastern outskirts, on Ein el-Hilweh and Mieh Mieh camps, and on the villages of Jinsnaya, Ain ed-Delb and el-Qarieh, killing no fewer than 14 people, wounding 37 others and destroying more than 15 houses. Lebanon also alleged Israeli attacks on the Finnish and Norwegian units of UNIFIL with heavy machine-gun fire, continued reconnaissance flights over Mount Lebanon and Beirut, and continued naval patrolling inside Lebanon's territorial waters in intensified siege of the ports of Tyre and Sidon.

On 7 May,(9) Lebanon accused Israel of having bombed Sidon's south-eastern suburbs the preceding day, aiming at a number of villages and Palestinian camps, particularly Ein el-Hilweh; counted so far were 15 civilians killed and 30 wounded. It further accused Israel of stepping up its naval blockade of the ports of Tyre and Sidon, preventing the entry of commercial vessels. On 8 May,(10) Lebanon wrote that, on that date, Sidon's outskirts and the Palestinian camps in the area had been subjected anew to indiscriminate bombing that killed seven civilians and wounded 34 and caused considerable property damage.

On 31 May,(11) Lebanon reported that an Israeli armoured force had that day penetrated deep into Lebanese territory, reaching the town of Jezzine some 10 miles north of the "security zone", where it set up quarters; and that, together with SLA, Israel had bombarded Nabatiye and its environs with artillery fire, causing an undetermined number of deaths and injuries, and extensive property damage; on 28 May, Israeli war-planes had intercepted a Lebanese reconnaissance plane, forcing it to land in Israel and subjecting the crew to a four-hour interrogation before releasing both crew and plane. Lebanon also reported that Israel's Air Force had continued to overfly southern Lebanon day and night, terrifying the population and creating an atmosphere of tension.

On 19 June,(12) Lebanon stated that, two days before, Israel had bombarded Kabrikha with five air-to-ground missiles, and Sidon's eastern outskirts, Ein-el-Hilweh and Kafr Roummane and Habbouche villages along the edge of the "security zone" with artillery fire. Casualties included three dead and six wounded, in addition to property damage. Lebanon also reported that an SLA force had advanced hundreds of metres towards Kafra, within the area of operations of the UNIFIL Nepalese unit, demolishing a deserted house with 15 missiles fired from tanks; hundreds of tank-supported Israeli forces had also penetrated 6 kilometres to the north of the "security zone", combing a number of villages and farms. Unless Security Council resolutions were implemented, Lebanon warned, the "security zone" would be used by Israel not for protecting its borders but as a base from which to promote an explosive situation in southern Lebanon to serve its own interests.

On 28 July,(13) Lebanon alleged that, on the night of 26/27 July, on the usual pretext of combating and forestalling terrorist activities mounted from Lebanon, an Israeli commando force of some 40 men had come ashore on the Lebanese coast south of Sarda, 40 kilometres north of the Israeli border; using fast boats and helicopters, they had launched an attack with missiles and machine-guns, killing seven Lebanese and wounding four before withdrawing under cover of intense sea and air bombardment. Lebanon drew attention to the seriousness of Israel's encroachment on the sovereignty of a neighbouring State, violating its territory and territorial waters with no regard for the lives or property of its inhabitants.

On 12 August,(14) Lebanon informed of continued attacks on southern Lebanon: on 9 August, an air raid on Soultaniye village, and, during the night, an SLA mortar shelling of areas east of Sidon; and on 10 August, bombardment with machine-gun fire and air-to-ground missiles of the village of Qa'qa'iyat al-Jisr and along the Litani River by four Israeli helicopters. A civilian was killed and two were wounded in a car that had been hit, to justify which Israel claimed the car was suspect. Stating that hills and valleys had been sprayed with incendiary bombs, igniting fires in farmlands and olive orchards, Lebanon drew attention to Israel's policy of creating exclusive zones where it was impossible for farmers to work their land, as in the case of Yatar, Kafra, Jebaa, Arabsalim and Zaoutar.

On 12 October,(15) Lebanon charged that, two days before, Israel had staged a four-plane air raid on Yanta and its environs in the Bekaa, some 40 kilometres from the Lebanon-Israel border, firing over 20 rockets that inflicted many casualties and major material damage. Summing up, Lebanon stated that, since the year began, Israel had conducted 23 air raids against Lebanese territory, the most recent being the barbarous shelling of Ein el-Hilweh, which had killed more than 50 people and injured over 100.

On 30 October,(16) Lebanon presented the tragic plight of a large number of its citizens in the south and the western Bekaa bordering the "security zone", owing to what it described as the persistent inhumane practices of Israel's occupation forces. Those practices included random shooting and bombardment that killed and wounded many persons, the burning and destruction of agricultural crops with phosphorus bombs, and obstruction of villagers attempting to farm their land and harvest crops, thus depriving them of their livelihood. Lebanon asked that the Secretary-General consider practical measures to halt those practices, which were an obstacle to a solution of the Lebanon crisis.

Lebanon, on 16 December,(17) reported a series of attacks that had occurred the previous day: the bombing of a Lebanese army position in the western Bekaa that destroyed an armoured vehicle and wounded a soldier; an attack on the town of Maidoun, 21 kilometres from the Israeli frontier, that killed or wounded 25 persons, with the attacking Israeli force, supported by tanks and helicopters, subsequently occupying the town as a new Israeli position outside the "security zone"; and the shelling of Yatar, Braachit and Kafra villages, damaging houses and agricultural crops.

On 24 December,(18) Lebanon reported the bombardment of Nabatiye and the outskirts of Habbouche on 19 December; and of the area between the Qa'qa'iyat al-Jisr valley and Habbouche, aimed mainly at Arabsalim, and of Jebaa and Arabsalim and around Ain Kana on 21 December. The bombardments took seven lives, wounded 25 and caused considerable material losses.

Israel, in several related communications, advanced the argument that it had taken such measures solely to defend and protect itself against terrorist attacks launched from Lebanese territory.

Israel claimed on 5 January 1987(19) that, on 31 December 1986, a Lebanese Shiite terrorist group closely allied to Hezbollah announced the murder of three Lebanese Jews whom it had kidnapped and held captive since 1985; over the past two years, the same group had tortured and murdered five others and was holding captive another three. Israel condemned this latest anti-Semitic atrocity, calling for its universal repudiation and for immediate action to prevent the murder of the remaining captives and to stop further kidnappings. It moreover reserved the right to seek out the perpetrators.

On 20 January,(20) Israel accused the terrorists of having killed one of their remaining captives on 12 January, calling it yet another anti-Semitic attack on innocent Lebanese civilians who had been abducted and murdered only because they were Jews and again urging repudiation of that atrocity. Israel observed that, while Lebanon repeatedly voiced concern for the safety of its citizens, it greeted the murder of Jewish citizens with complete silence.

Replying on 3 February,(21) Lebanon stressed that it spared no effort in ensuring the safety of its citizens without distinction or discrimination and condemned acts of violence against any Lebanese citizen of whatever ethnic community. It called Israel's reference to anti-Semitism an attempt to elicit international sympathy and to justify its savage air, land and sea attacks against peaceful Lebanese citizens, their property and possessions. Israel was not authorized to protect Jews irrespective of their nationality, Lebanon asserted, adding that it regarded Israel's reservation of the right to bring the perpetrators to justice - an action solely within Lebanon's competence - as a veiled threat.

On 31 March,(22) Israel referred to a 28 February Amnesty International report, according to which Syrian troops, in the third week of December 1986. had entered the city of Tripoli in northern Lebanon and had slaughtered over 200 civilians including women and children; the fate of hundreds of others who had disappeared remained unknown. The troops had surrounded the Sunni district, setting up road-blocks to prevent both escape and entry, especially entry by journalists. Syrian commandos then invaded the district using machine-guns, grenades and tanks; eyewitness accounts cited by Amnesty had spoken of civilians being dragged out of their homes and summarily shot (see also p. 317).

On 15 June,(23) Israel accused PLO of terrorist attacks against its civilians (see p. 263) mounted from Lebanese territory, citing incidents involving three heavily-armed Fatah terrorists caught on 19 April following their infiltration into northern Israel to take civilian hostages, and a five-man PLO squad, ordered by Yasser Arafat on 8 May to carry out a massacre at Israel's Nahariya central bus station. The squad had been apprehended in the security zone before it could cross the border; two were killed and three taken prisoner. Israel attributed its ability to abort those wanton attacks to the security arrangements it had found necessary to put in place along its northern border, claiming there was no central Government able to prevent PLO and other terrorist groups from using Lebanon as a staging ground for aggression against Israel.

By a declaration on the Middle East adopted on 13 July at Copenhagen,(24) the EC Foreign Ministers expressed concern about the continuation of violence in Lebanon, highlighted once again by the recent assassination of its Prime Minister, by further hostage-taking and by an escalation of killings in southern Lebanon. They condemned the continuing detention of hostages and victims of kidnapping and expressed hope for moderation by all parties in order to permit the resumption of political dialogue towards national reconciliation based on respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity. Their concern was reiterated in a declaration by the EC heads of State and Government issued at their meeting in the European Council (Copenhagen, 4 and 5 December),(25) by which they also reaffirmed their support for UNIFIL, calling on all concerned to allow it to fulfil its mandate unobstructed.

In its final communiqué, the Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to the 1987 Assembly session (New York, 5-7 October),(4) concerned over the dangerous situation that continued to confront Lebanon, demanded implementation of the 1978(26) and 1982(27) Security Council resolutions calling for Israel's immediate and unconditional withdrawal from all Lebanese territory and for the deployment of UNIFIL and Lebanon's army up to the internationally recognized boundaries. It condemned Israel's aggression against Lebanon, its continued occupation of parts of southern Lebanon and its inhuman practices there, and expressed support for the National Lebanese Resistance aimed at liberating southern Lebanon.

The Commonwealth heads of Government, in a communiqué adopted at their 13-17 October meeting at Vancouver,(28) conveyed their concern about the continuing violence in Lebanon, reaffirmed support for the country's territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty, and expressed the hope for continued efforts towards national reconciliation.


Israel-Lebanon border

By a letter of 6 October 1987 to the President of the Security Council, Lebanon protested against ongoing Israeli military construction projects along the international border between Israel and Lebanon, namely the building of a road and fence south-east of the village of Alma Ash-Sha'b and south of the village of Yarun. Lebanon asked that the Council hold consultations on the matter.

The Council accordingly met in informal consultations on 15 October and asked the Secretary-General to report on the situation.

Note of the Secretary-General. By a note of 24 November to the Security Council President (29) the Secretary-General reported that the Israeli authorities had constructed a large number of military installations in that part of southern Lebanon called the "security zone", close to the Armistice Demarcation Line. An accompanying map indicated their location. The installations, referred to in the note as border encroachments, had the apparent effect of realigning the border, giving rise to concern that Israel was attempting to annex Lebanese territory. An encroachment usually resulted from the construction of a fence enclosing a piece of land on the Lebanon side of the border, varying in size from several hundred square metres to several square kilometres. A paved patrol road, with broad raked dirt strips on either side, and military installations put up by IDF were generally found within the fenced-off area. First reported to the Council in 1980, the encroachments effectively denied the inhabitants of the neighbouring villages access to their lands close to the border, often of great economic importance to them.

As confirmed by the Force Commander of UNIFIL, two new encroachments were under construction in the localities indicated by Lebanon's 6 October letter, and an existing military installation just north of the border near Rosh Haniqra was being fenced off in a manner that would create a further encroachment. These raised to 10 the number of border encroachments observed by UNIFIL along the Armistice Demarcation Line.

The Secretary-General had ascertained that Israel's position on the question - raised by the United Nations from time to time - remained consistent: it had no territorial claims to any Lebanese territory; the current arrangements on Israel's northern border had resulted from security constraints and were designed solely to protect, defend and ensure the security of its northern population centres from repeated attacks emanating from Lebanese territory; and those arrangements would be essential only in the absence of a central Lebanese authority capable of preventing such attacks. He noted that, to justify its maintenance of the "security zone" Israel had used a similar argument, which Lebanon did not accept.

The Secretary-General concluded that only the start of a process leading to full implementation of Council resolution 425(1978)(30) - calling for strict respect for Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence within its internationally recognized boundaries, calling on Israel to withdraw forthwith from Lebanon, and establishing UNIFIL (see below) - could create a realistic prospect of restoring peace and security along the Israel-Lebanon border.


UNIFIL

During 1987, at the request of Lebanon and on the recommendation of the Secretary-General, the Security Council twice extended the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, in January and July, each time for a six-month period. The authorizing resolutions were adopted unanimously.

Established by the Council in 1978(30) following Israel's invasion of Lebanon in March of that year,(31) UNIFIL was entrusted with confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security, and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. A second Israeli invasion, launched in June 1982,(32) radically altered the situation in which UNIFIL had to function. Shortly thereafter, the Council authorized the Force to carry out, in addition, the interim tasks of maintaining its positions in its area of deployment and providing protection and humanitarian assistance to the local population.(33)

The Force was assisted by Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), a group of unarmed military observers organized from UNTSO and under the operational control of the Force Commander. The Observer Group in Beirut, constituted from United Nations observers assigned to the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission, had been deployed by the Council in 1982(34) to monitor the situation in and around Beirut following west Beirut's occupation by Israeli troops. With Israel's withdrawal from that area in September 1983, the Group's activities had been reduced; its total strength, originally of 50 observers, currently stood at 18.

Communications (January). On 6 January 1987,(35) Lebanon, stating that UNIFIL remained a stabilizing factor and the best available option for peace and security in the region, requested the Security Council to extend the UNIFIL mandate, due to expire on 19 January, for another six months. Lebanon took the occasion to express gratitude to the Secretary-General and his staff and to pay tribute to UNIFIL and the troop-contributing countries for their efforts and sacrifices in the cause of peace in Lebanon and the region.

The Ministry of Defence of Ghana, by a note transmitted on 30 January,(36) protested what it called a deliberate, hostile and unwarranted act perpetrated by SLA with IDF support, namely the shelling, on 15 December 1986, of the positions of UNIFIL's Ghanaian contingent, as a result of which a Ghanaian soldier sustained shrapnel wounds in the chest and legs.


Activities

Report of the Secretary-General (January). The Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on developments in the UNIFIL area for the six-month period from 11 July 1986 to 11 January 1987.(37) He characterized the period as a very difficult and precarious one for the Force, during which it had suffered heavy casualties at the hands of the main protagonists to the conflict in Lebanon: IDF, SLA and various resistance groups.

The Secretary-General stated that Israel had continued to maintain its "security zone" in southern Lebanon, manned by IDF and SLA. Although not defined, its boundaries were determined by positions maintained by those two forces and by the patrols conducted between them, embracing all of the area adjacent to the international border, parts of the UNIFIL deployment area and extensive areas to the north of it. Of the 21 positions within the UNIFIL area - located in the Nepalese, Irish, Finnish and Norwegian sectors - 18 were permanently manned.

Armed resistance groups had launched 84 attacks against IDF and SLA positions, using small arms, rocket-propelled grenades, rockets, mortars and roadside bombs. Attacks in the UNIFIL area had become fewer but larger in scale and involved armed elements coming from elsewhere in Lebanon. One such attack, mounted on 2 January by a group of 40 or more men, had briefly captured an IDF/SLA position near Brashit, killing six of its defenders.

Fifteen villages in the UNIFIL area had come under frequent firings from SLA - and sometimes IDF - positions and patrols in the "security zone" killing four civilians and injuring some 30 others. The Force had been harassed by more than 200 such firings with serious consequences. Seven UNIFIL members had been wounded; two soldiers of the Irish contingent at Brashit had been killed one on 6 December 1986 and another on 10 January 1987, by machine-gun rounds fired from an SLA/IDF position and from an IDF Merkava tank. The results of Israel's promised inquiry into the earlier killing had yet to be received, those for the later one were preliminary (see below). Vigorous and repeated UNIFIL protests and political efforts to get Israel to stop the unprovoked and apparently deliberate firings at villages and at the Force had been met with denials by SLA, which accused UNIFIL instead of permitting armed elements to attack IDF/SLA positions. The Secretary-General condemned all such attacks whatever their source and urged that every effort be made to get them stopped.

The Force had also suffered casualties as a result of hostile activities by armed elements. Besides the very serious August/September 1986 incidents,(38) a car bomb had exploded at a UNIFIL check-point on 20 November, killing three Fijian soldiers and three civilians, and wounding two Fijians and three civilians. Information received by UNIFIL suggested that the car bomb had not been intended for UNIFIL but was detonated by remote control when the car was held up at the check-point. On 29 November, a Finnish soldier was injured by a grenade that exploded close to the UNIFIL office in Beirut during hostilities between Amal and Palestinian armed elements in the vicinity of the Shatila refugee camp. In addition, the hostilities frequently interrupted a major supply route as well as electricity and water supply thus hampering UNIFIL operations.

The Force continued to distribute relief funds and goods for the Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator (UNDRO) and other humanitarian agencies whenever the need arose its medical centres and hospital at Naqoura, which had more than 300 in-patients, had treated some 2,600 Lebanese. It further made facilities available at the Norwegian battalion headquarters at Ebel es Saqi for final secondary school examinations held in August and November 1986 for some 1,400 students.

The Secretary-General reported that his efforts to achieve full implementation of Council resolution 425(1978)(30) had proved unsuccessful. The main problem, he said, remained Israel's refusal to withdraw completely and its insistence on maintaining the "security zone" on the grounds that it was necessary for protection against attacks launched from Lebanon; Israel was not prepared to change current arrangements until a period of peace and tranquillity in all or part of southern Lebanon had been achieved. Lebanon firmly rejected Israel's argument and continued to insist on its withdrawal, as did the Syrian Arab Republic. Conditions in Lebanon itself had deteriorated, particularly in the economic field, and the so-called "camps war" had been added to an already violent and complicated situation.

In the current impasse and with little realistic hope of early progress towards implementation of resolution 425(1978), the question confronting the Security Council was whether it was worth while to extend UNIFIL for a further six months, as Lebanon had requested. The Secretary-General pointed to the danger that UNIFIL efforts to prevent its deployment area from being used for hostile activities could be perceived by the local population as protecting the "security zone" and thereby condoning the continuing Israeli occupation. He was convinced, however that UNIFIL remained an important stabilizing element, whose withdrawal would create a critical vacuum leading to even greater conflict. Accordingly, he recommended that the Council accede to Lebanon's request and extend the UNIFIL mandate for a period of 6 months and 12 days, or until 31 July 1987.

The Secretary-General felt obliged to emphasize that all in a position to help should make every possible effort to enable UNIFIL to fulfil its mandate; this of necessity implied a change in Israel's position. He warned that if the UNIFIL situation continued to deteriorate, the Council might eventually feel it no longer right to ask the troop-contributing countries to keep UNIFIL in being, for they were paying the price for the international community's wish to maintain a most important United Nations peace-keeping operation - a price expressed both in the lives of their soldiers and in costs for which they were not being fully reimbursed because certain Member States had not paid their assessed share of maintaining the Force. The United Nations and the parties concerned, he said, owed a debt of gratitude to the troop-contributing Governments, which in some cases had increased their contributions and had provided extra troops during the current mandate period.

In an addendum of 14 January 1987 to the Secretary-General's report,(39) Israel outlined the preliminary results of its inquiry into the death of the Irish corporal on 10 January. It said that the UNIFIL post had been misidentified as a terrorist position and mistakenly fired on by an IDF tank. New directives designed to prevent a recurrence of the incident had been issued to all IDF units in the area. A full report would be forwarded to the Secretary-General.


SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (January)

The Security Council met on 15 January 1987 to consider the Secretary-General's report. At their request, Ireland, Israel and Lebanon were invited to participate without the right to vote.

The Council adopted resolution 594(1987) unanimously.

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 425(1978), 426(1978), 501(1982), 508(1982), 509(1982) and 520(1982), as well as all its resolutions on the situation in Lebanon,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon of 12 January 1987, and taking note of the observations expressed therein,

Taking note of the letter dated 6 January 1987 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General,

Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon,

1. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of six months and twelve days, that is, until 31 July 1987;

2. Reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;

3. Re-emphasizes the terms of reference and general guidelines of the Force as stated in the report of the Secretary-General of 19 March 1978, approved by resolution 426(1978), and calls upon all parties concerned to co-operate fully with the Force for the full implementation of its mandate;

4. Reiterates that the Force should fully implement its mandate as defined in resolutions 425(1978), 426(1978) and all other relevant resolutions;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to continue consultations with the Government of Lebanon and other parties directly concerned on the implementation of the present resolution and to report to the Security Council thereon.


Security Council resolution 594 (1987)
15 January 1987 Meeting 2731 Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/18597).

The question of the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate was a grim reminder of Israel's continuing aggression in southern Lebanon, the USSR stated, in disregard of Council demands for its immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Israel was attempting to perpetuate its occupation and establish a beach-head from which to launch new strikes deep into Lebanese territory and to destabilize the general situation in the country. The presence of UNIFIL should promote the most prompt attainment of Israel's withdrawal.

The United States believed that agreed-upon, long-term security arrangements were the best means to bring permanent stability to southern Lebanon and assure security along the Israel-Lebanon border, but that, in the interim, there appeared no real alternative to UNIFIL.

France agreed with the Secretary-General's observations, particularly those concerning implementation of resolution 425(1978) defining the mandate and role of UNIFIL, whose continued presence in southern Lebanon manifested the international community's will to see Lebanon's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity restored. It should be a matter of serious concern to all, the United Kingdom observed, that, since the last renewal of UNIFIL's mandate, no progress had been made towards implementing that resolution; it shared the belief that the main problem remained Israel's refusal to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon and its retention of the so-called security zone.

Japan urged all parties, especially Israel, to co-operate fully so that the Force could fulfil its mandate. While supporting the mandate's renewal, the Federal Republic of Germany expected that UNIFIL would at long last be given the chance to fulfil its mandate.

Italy acknowledged the stabilizing role of UNIFIL but said it could not be confined indefinitely to its worthy but marginal humanitarian activities; it should be enabled to fulfil the essential task for which it had been set up and deployed, namely to assist in ensuring the return of the Lebanese Government's authority over all of its territory - a task it could not fulfil unless Israel withdrew from the "security zone". Italy voiced the conviction that Israel had a right to protect its northern territory from cross-border violence but also hoped that Israel would review its position and recognize that its security interests would be better served if peace and stability prevailed in southern Lebanon than if the current process of deterioration was allowed to continue.

Ireland, which fully agreed with the Secretary-General's evaluation of the 10 January killing of an Irish UNIFIL soldier as a particularly irresponsible act, felt that the incident could serve to focus attention on the casual, almost arbitrary, dispensing of death. While accepting the inescapable hazards of peace-keeping, it said the peace-keepers had the right to ask that all reasonable measures be taken to reduce the dangers facing them and to demand that Israel and all other parties ensure through the imposition of discipline and restraint that their lives not be endangered by pointless actions.

Israel said it had again conveyed its willingness to co-operate with the United Nations to enhance UNIFIL's security and to use its influence to prevent attacks on the Force. It stressed that simply to abandon its current security arrangements and to deploy UNIFIL southwards to the international border would neither solve the problem of southern Lebanon nor prevent terrorist attacks from there against Israel. The situation in the whole of Lebanon was deteriorating and the "battles of the camps", complicated by shifting loyalties, were intensifying; UNIFIL alone, despite its best intentions, could not stop those factional battles from spilling over Israel's borders. Observing that a stalemate in the current situation was detrimental to all concerned, Israel underscored its interest in reaching a permanent solution for the security of its border with Lebanon and reiterated its willingness to negotiate and co-operate with the Government of Lebanon or any other credible partner in that country which genuinely sought, and could ensure, peace in southern Lebanon.

In that context, Israel proposed that efforts towards a solution be based on the acceptance of the principles of trial periods and a stage-by-stage approach, beginning with an immediate and total cease-fire in the entire area for at least six months once those principles were accepted and implemented by the parties, the territorial and binding aspects of a permanent solution could be negotiated. Those principles should constitute an accepted framework for dialogue on lines similar to those envisaged by the Council in 1967(40) and 1973;(41) Israel was ready to consider any viable proposal that would take account of the legitimate security concerns for its northern border and to work with any party in Lebanon that sought peace on both sides of the border.

Lebanon called on the Council and its members, collectively and individually, to endeavour promptly and effectively to implement the 1978 resolutions on UNIFIL(26) and all other relevant resolutions; while Israel bore direct responsibility for obstructing UNIFIL's mission, the Council had the fundamental responsibility for removing the impediments facing it. If Israel continued its obstructionist stand, it would be incumbent on the Council to consider practical ways to secure full and unconditional implementation of its resolutions.

Communication July). On 16 July 1987,(42) Lebanon requested the Security Council for another extension of UNIFIL's mandate, due to expire on 31 July, for a further six months. Lebanon restated that the Force continued to be an essential factor for stability in the south of the country and again expressed gratitude to all concerned for their efforts and sacrifices in the cause of peace in Lebanon and in the region.

Report of the Secretary-General (July). In his report on UNIFIL and the situation in its area of operation covering the period 12 January to 24 July 1987,(43) the Secretary-General stated that five members of the Force had lost their lives: a French soldier, killed by an explosion while defusing a roadside device, and four other soldiers - two Ghanaian, one Irish and one Norwegian - who had died in accidents or from other causes. Six soldiers had been wounded by hostile action. These brought the number of soldiers who had died since UNIFIL's inception to 144 (58 by firings and mine or bomb explosions, 61 in accidents, 25 from other causes) and the wounded to more than 200. Another casualty, a Lebanese army captain serving as liaison officer to UNIFIL at Tyre, had been murdered on 24 June by unknown assailants.

The Secretary-General described the situation in the UNIFIL area as essentially unchanged. Israel had continued to maintain its "security zone" in southern Lebanon, with IDF and SLA manning 19 positions within the UNIFIL area. IDF strength appeared to have increased, notably at the IDF position overlooking the Akiya Bridge in the Finnish sector.

Armed resistance operations against "security zone" positions within and outside the UNIFIL area had been frequent. Most of the 56 such operations recorded by UNIFIL as having occurred within its deployment area had been limited in scope, mainly to mine-laying and ambushes. About half of these had been directed against two adjacent "security zone" positions on Tallet Huqban, overlooking Kafra and Yatar in the UNIFIL Nepalese sector; frequent firings from those positions had targeted those villages, taking the lives of three civilians and wounding four others. In addition, retaliatory firings from the "security zone" into inhabited areas had killed a man in Brashit in January and injured a boy in Kafra in March.

A number of larger, co-ordinated attacks on "security zone" positions by groups of up to 150 men, including increasingly accurate mortar fire, had also occurred, which had generally drawn heavy artillery and mortar response from IDF tanks and helicopter gunships. One of two such attacks within the Finnish sector had taken place on the night of 17/18 April, during which armed elements had overpowered two Finnish sentries at the Akiya Bridge check-point, and, by holding them hostage, had disarmed the Finnish troops pinned by cross-fire in a shelter nearby. In the Nepalese sector, following a co-ordinated ambush of an SLA convoy en route from Tallet Huqban to Sribbin on 13 June, the attacking group disarmed the UNIFIL sentries at a check-point outside Haris. The arms that had been taken from the UNIFIL troops were later returned.

UNIFIL had protested some 300 firings at or close to its positions and vehicles, from SLA, and less frequently from IDF, positions that had resulted in the wounding of three Nepalese soldiers. It had also come under 50 firings from unidentified armed elements, mainly because they had been denied passage at UNIFIL check-points. On 28 January, a building at Tibnin housing 18 Irish soldiers had been destroyed by explosive charges, injuring two soldiers; it had not been possible to determine who was responsible for that action.

In a new development, IDF patrols had attempted on five occasions, between 28 March and 7 July, to move forward of the "security zone" into the UNIFIL area, bypassing UNIFIL positions. These not only had resulted in clashes with armed elements from nearby villages but had also created tense confrontations between UNIFIL and the opposing sides when the latter had attempted breaking through UNIFIL areas or check-points and when UNIFIL had tried to dislodge armed elements that, on two occasions, had succeeded in occupying UNIFIL positions from which to engage the enemy.

On 1 July, UNIFIL, having observed SLA earthworks that appeared to be the makings of a new position on a hill some 1,200 metres forward of the current SLA position at Al Qantarah, pre-empted the project by occupying the site without incident the following day. The Force Commander had made clear to Israeli military authorities that any extension of the "security zone" into the UNIFIL area was unacceptable and that he would set up a permanent UNIFIL position on the hill. IDF subsequently informed him that the project would not be pursued.

The Secretary-General reported that a general decline in Lebanon's economy had brought serious hardship to many families in the UNIFIL area, resulting in a rise in property crimes of which UNIFIL personnel had occasionally been the victims. On three occasions, unarmed OGL military observers had been robbed at gunpoint. In a more serious incident on 20 May, two men who had removed a load of timber from a UNIFIL position at Kafr Dunin in the Ghanaian sector had been fired upon by a UNIFIL sentry on their return to the area; both had died from their wounds.

UNIFIL had continued its humanitarian activities, distributing in May some 1,000 tons of foodstuffs and a large amount of medicines, financed by various European organizations and shipped to Tyre. Many Lebanese had been treated at its medical centres, including some 3,600 at its hospital at Naqoura, which also had more than 200 in-patients.

UNIFIL had been unable, however, to assist families of prisoners known or believed to be held in a prison at El Khiam in the "security zone" in obtaining the prisoners' release, information on their fate or visiting permits. Having professed total non-involvement with the prison, Israel had referred all requests to SLA, which had denied access to the prisoners, not only to UNIFIL but to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) among other international organizations.

The Secretary-General further stated that Lebanon had drawn to his attention the damage being done to the Tyre archaeological site by the illegal excavation and sale of antiquities - a matter taken note of by the Security Council in 1979.(44) The question had been raised as to whether UNIFIL's mandate could be extended to include the protection of Tyre's archaeological heritage. He had had to point out that control of illegal digging was a police function not normally undertaken by a peace-keeping force; it would require much manpower at a time when UNIFIL was already stretched in carrying out its functions; and, as most of the site was outside the UNIFIL area of operation, a geographical, as well as functional, extension of its mandate would be required, which might not be acceptable to all the parties concerned. He had instructed the Force Commander, however, to discuss with the authorities what UNIFIL might be able to do within its existing manpower and priorities, without changing its mandate.

As to administrative matters relating to the Force, the Secretary-General reported that, on his instructions, the Force Commander had instituted a number of measures, as a matter of priority, to enhance UNIFIL's effectiveness and improve the security of its personnel. These included: the introduction of revised standing operating procedures to ensure that the tasks assigned to the individual units were realistic and practicable under the prevailing circumstances in southern Lebanon and carried out as uniformly as possible; and minor readjustments to the sectors assigned to each battalion in the light of experience gained since the boundary adjustments and major redeployment at the end of 1986 (see p. 284).

In addition, the Secretary-General raised with the Lebanese authorities the increasing difficulty encountered by the Force in obtaining additional land and buildings needed for new positions. Under existing arrangements, UNIFIL rented directly from owners and the Lebanese authorities paid the rent due. However, no payments had been made since 1984. Consequently, owners had become reluctant to make additional land and buildings available to the Force.

In summary, the Secretary-General observed that the situation in southern Lebanon remained highly unstable; Israel's refusal to withdraw completely and its insistence on maintaining the "security zone" continued to thwart efforts towards the restoration of international peace and stability there. In the central part of the UNIFIL area and to the north of it, the various Lebanese resistance groups had intensified their campaign against IDF and SLA, which had often responded with great violence. The main sufferers were the civilian population, many of whom had evacuated their villages in the UNIFIL area to live as refugees elsewhere.

While the security measures and new operating procedures had contributed significantly to a decline in UNIFIL casualties, the need for vigilance remained, amidst deliberate harassment by SLA and IDF firings and cross-fires from armed exchanges between those forces and resistance groups. The Secretary-General renewed his appeal to those involved in the hostilities to treat UNIFIL with the respect due those on a mission of peace, to help them fulfil their tasks and not put their lives at risk.

He regretted that it had again proved impossible to make progress towards implementing resolution 425(1978).(30) He pointed not only to Israel's continuing presence in southern Lebanon but also to the inability of Lebanon's central Government to exercise effective authority. He felt it a matter of great regret that the assassination of Lebanon's Prime Minister Rashid Karame on 1 June had proved a major set-back for the hoped for national reconciliation.

Referring to Lebanon's request of 16 July,(42) the Secretary-General recommended that, for reasons previously stated, the Council should renew UNIFIL's mandate for a further six months, or until 31 January 1988. Acceptance of that recommendation, however, meant asking the troop-contributing Governments to continue to send their nationals on a dangerous mission and to bear much of the cost of doing so. In again paying them tribute for their generous response to the Council's requests, he underlined the unfairness of a situation in which they were not being fully reimbursed for the amounts determined by the General Assembly because of the withholding by some Member States of their assessed contributions.

The Secretary-General also paid tribute to the Force Commander, Major-General Gustav Hagglund (Finland), and to those under his command and control, both military and civilian, who had faced another very difficult mandate period with courage and determination; their discipline and bearing had been of a high order and a credit to themselves, their countries and the United Nations.


SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (July)

The Security Council met on 31 July 1987 to consider the Secretary-General's report. At their request, Israel and Lebanon were invited to participate without the right to vote.

The Council adopted resolution 599(1987) unanimously.

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 425(1978), 426(1978), 501(1982), 508(1982), 509(1982) and 520(1982), as well as all its resolutions on the situation in Lebanon,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon of 24 July 1987, and taking note of the observations expressed therein,

Taking note of the letter dated 16 July 1987 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General,

Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon,

1. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for a further period of six months, that is, until 31 January 1988;

2. Reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;

3. Re-emphasizes the terms of reference and general guidelines of the Force as stated in the report of the Secretary-General of 19 March 1978, approved by resolution 426(1978), and calls upon all parties concerned to co-operate fully with the Force for the full implementation of its mandate;

4. Reiterates that the Force should fully implement its mandate as defined in resolutions 425(1978), 426(1978) and all other relevant resolutions;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to continue consultations with the Government of Lebanon and other parties directly concerned on the implementation of the present resolution and to report to the Security Council thereon.

Security Council resolution 599(1987)

31 July 1987 Meeting 2751 Adopted unanimously
Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/19008).

The United Kingdom again expressed disappointment that there had been no change in Israel's position to allow implementation of Council resolution 425(1978).

The USSR said the need to renew UNIFIL's mandate was dictated by the unstable situation in southern Lebanon, for which Israel bore responsibility, and underscored the Secretary-General's observation that Israel's determination to retain the so-called security zone impeded efforts to restore peace in the area. It reiterated its view that the question of guaranteeing Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be considered in the context of an overall Middle East peace settlement that would ensure Israel's withdrawal from all the territories it occupied; the realization of the right of all States and peoples in the region, including Israel, to peace and a secure existence; and implementation of the Palestinians' right to self-determination.

As France saw it, UNIFIL's presence in southern Lebanon doubtless remained an essential element of stability and demonstrated the international community's will to see Lebanon's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity restored and respected.

Lebanon declared that the only way to make southern Lebanon a zone of peace and security was for Israel to heed the Council's resolutions and allow UNIFIL to fulfil its mandate. It called erroneous and misleading the Secretary-General's remark about the inability of Lebanon's central Government to exercise effective authority, recalling that the regular forces it had twice dispatched to the south had been attacked by Israel's forces and its satellite militia, the so-called South Lebanese Army. The real difficulty, it said, was that UNIFIL had been rendered unable to fulfil its mission to assist Lebanon in extending its sovereignty and authority to all of its territory. In the light of the unanimous vote on the current extension of UNIFIL's mandate, Lebanon was hopeful that the Council would take a strong stand to ensure implementation of its resolutions and fulfilment of UNIFIL's mission.

Israel agreed with the Secretary-General's assessment that UNIFIL's situation had remained essentially unchanged. Putting the matter in what it said was its proper perspective, Israel drew attention to the continued use of southern Lebanon by terrorists as a base for cross-border attacks against Israel and for infiltrating the country. The population centres in northern Israel were the direct targets, on which Katyusha rockets had landed. Faced with such threat, Israel said it would continue to safeguard the northern areas where its citizens lived. It restated that it had no designs on Lebanese territory, that the "security zone" was a temporary arrangement, and that it could contemplate no change in that arrangement until the Government of Lebanon was able effectively to control the situation in the south of the country and guarantee peace and security along Israel's northern border Finally, it restated its readiness to consider any viable proposal that would adequately take account of its legitimate security concerns.

Special report of the Secretary-General (October). In a special report of 5 October 1987,(45) the Secretary-General informed the Security Council of two grave incidents, on 25 August and 4 October, that had caused the death of two members of the Nepalese UNIFIL contingent. He said those deaths were the first deliberate killings of UNIFIL personnel since the series of incidents that had occurred between August and December 1986.(46)

The earlier incident involved the ambush of a UNIFIL vehicle carrying five members of the Nepalese battalion - two officers including the "B" Company commander and three soldiers - on a road west of Kafra. One soldier was killed and three were wounded, one seriously. It had not been possible to identify or apprehend the assailants. The findings of the UNIFIL board of inquiry indicated, however, that the ambush had been a deliberate attempt by armed elements to assassinate the company commander, who had anonymously been threatened with death if the Nepalese battalion continued constructing wire obstacles across a track known to be used by Lebanese armed elements to infiltrate through the UNIFIL area into the "security zone".

The later incident involved SLA personnel who, with a tank and an armoured personnel carrier (APC), had tried to force their way through a UNIFIL position but were blocked by a Nepalese APC. Following negotiations, the SLA personnel returned to their positions on Tallet Huqban, from which they soon fired three rounds of light machine-gun fire at another UNIFIL position, wounding a sentry in the leg. The ambulance evacuating him to UNIFIL headquarters for treatment was then attacked with three rounds of heavy machine-gun fire, fatally wounding the sentry in the neck. Despite a vigorous protest to IDF and a demand for a halt to further unprovoked SLA firings, intermittent mortar and machine-gun fire at or close to UNIFIL positions in the area continued for another three hours.

IDF promised a full investigation of the incident and conveyed its condolences through the Force Commander, who informed the Secretary-General that there had been no apparent reason for SLAPS actions. As previously reported, SLA positions on Tallet Huqban had for many months been responsible for unprovoked firings at inhabited areas and at UNIFIL; in August and September alone, there had been some 36 cases of firing at or close to Nepalese battalion personnel from those positions.

The Secretary-General stated that the incidents illustrated UNIFIL's dangerous situation, deployed as it was between IDF/SLA forces in southern Lebanon and various armed Lebanese resistance groups. Such unjustifiable incidents were liable to develop whenever UNIFIL took action - as required by its terms of reference approved by the Council in 1978(47) - to ensure that its area of operation was not used for hostile activities of any kind. Those difficulties could be resolved if Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon and if the resistance groups co-operated with UNIFIL in maintaining international peace and security on the border, pending full restoration of the Lebanese Government's effective authority. The Secretary-General renewed his appeal to Council members especially to its permanent ones, to do all in their power to get the parties to help UNIFIL carry out its mandate; only such action could justify the sacrifices that the Council continued to ask of the troop-contributing Governments.

Composition and deployment

In his reports for the periods 11 July 1986 to 11 January 1987(37) and 12 January to 24 July 1987,(43) the Secretary-General reported changes in the composition and deployment of UNIFIL.

Based on the Force Commander's recommendations, a substantive redeployment of the Force took place in December 1986 and January 1987. In addition to adjustments made to boundaries between the battalions, various positions that were particularly vulnerable and/or of limited operational value were closed and four new positions were opened; the number of permanent positions held by the Force was thus reduced from 214 to 173, making possible the reinforcement of positions previously only lightly manned.

The Lebanese army unit serving with UNIFIL maintained a strength of some 128, all ranks; the main bulk was stationed at Tyre, with the remainder attached to various battalions in the UNIFIL area. The Force Commander continued to explore with the Lebanese authorities possible ways of deploying a Lebanese army unit to the north-western part of the UNIFIL area as a first step towards the return of the Government's effective authority in the area; by July, small Lebanese army elements were stationed at Arzun, Al Yatun and Qana.

Adjustments were also made to the logistic branch of UNIFIL. That part of the French logistic unit withdrawn during 1987 was replaced by additional Swedish troops. The branch currently consisted of the Swedish logistic battalion, elements of the French composite battalion, the Norwegian maintenance company, the Ghanaian engineer company and the Italian helicopter unit, as well as certain civilian staff sections responsible for communications and vehicle maintenance.

The Force Mobile Reserve of UNIFIL, comprising elements from five (Fijian, Finnish, Ghanaian, Irish, Nepalese) of the six infantry battalions moved into position near Qana in January Steps were under way to add the Norwegian component to the Reserve and to bring its vehicle holdings up to strength.

As at 24 July 1987, UNIFIL had a strength of 5,778 troops, from the following countries: Fiji, 627; Finland, 528; France, 521; Ghana, 933; Ireland, 745; Italy, 48; Nepal, 850; Norway, 881; Sweden, 645.

Assisting UNIFIL was OGL (see p. 277), composed of 74 unarmed military observers as at 24 July. They manned five observation posts along the Lebanon side of the Israel-Lebanon armistice demarcation line and a post at Chateau de Beaufort; they also operated seven mobile teams in the UNIFIL area and one at Tyre.


Palestinian refugees in Lebanon

Of the 2.2 million Palestinian refugees registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, 278,609 (12.7 per cent) were living in Lebanon, mainly in camps; the remainder were living in Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (see P. 325).

The 1987 activities of UNRWA on behalf of the refugees in Lebanon (see below) were described in its reports covering the periods 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987(48) and 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988.(49)

UNRWA activities. Continued fighting and the resulting conditions of emergency prevailing throughout much of Lebanon during 1987 imposed enormous demands on UNRWA and seriously affected its operations in the country. This was true for its regular services (medical care, environmental health, nutrition and supplementary feeding, and educational programmes) to three Palestinian refugee camps - Shatila and Burj el-Barajneh in the southern outskirts of Beirut, and Rashidieh near Tyre in the south - all under siege since 1985 so that normal entry of UNRWA personnel and essential food and medical supplies had not been possible. Despite continued negotiations, no relief organization, including UNRWA, could persuade those in control to permit entry of relief supplies in January, when the situation of the refugees, in the besieged camps in particular, was regarded as perilous. The Commissioner-General's appeal for a cease-fire to permit access to the camps also proved unsuccessful.

In early February, another effort to negotiate the entry of relief supplies into Burj el-Barajneh ended when the besieging militia demanded that a strategic hilltop held by Palestinians near Saida be handed over before any relief operation would be allowed - a demand beyond UNRWA's power to meet. Also informed that relief operations would be permitted only if equal amounts of assistance were delivered to the non-refugee population around the camps also affected by the fighting, UNRWA, which was limited to assisting Palestine refugees, resolved the difficulty by associating other organizations in an operation that would reach all groups in Lebanon. A relief convoy accordingly organized was dispatched shortly to Burj el-Barajneh but ongoing gunfire prevented its entry into the camp and the supplies were stolen. The convoy for Rashidieh was also prevented entry; Agency commodities were confiscated at Tyre and its store at Saida was looted.

On 25 February, UNRWA was finally able to deliver supplies to Burj el-Barajneh, including to needy Lebanese civilians around the camp to whom supplies provided by WFP and UNICEF were distributed; and, on 27 February, to Shatila. Further deliveries were made to Burj el-Barajneh on 3 and 14 March and 23 April and to Shatila on 10 April that included donations by Austria, France, Italy and Turkey. As at 30 June, no relief convoy had been permitted into Rashidieh, although refugees had been allowed out of the camp to obtain supplies, some furnished by UNRWA.

UNRWA engineering staff, who were permitted to survey the damage to its installations and refugee shelters at the camps, determined that 2,390 shelters at Burj el-Barajneh and 1,530 at Shatila had been damaged, estimating $3.2 million for repairs. A later survey at Rashidieh and at El-Buss and Burj el-Shemali camps south of the Litani River estimated a further $1.2 million for repairs to some 2,100 damaged shelters there.

Emergency assistance to refugees displaced by the fighting consisted of an initial supply of blankets, kitchen kits and cleaning materials, and regular supplies of food. By May, UNRWA was extending assistance to over 47,000 displaced refugees: 21,000 in Beirut, 23,000 in Saida, 1,400 in Tripoli, 1,400 in the Bekaa Valley and 300 in Tyre. Of these, some 10,000 had been displaced as a result of damage to shelters in the besieged Beirut camps; several hundred families, under varying pressures, evacuated their camps in the south (Rashidieh and others in the vicinity of Tyre) and fled north, with some 100 families accommodated in UNRWA schools for lack of alternative shelter. Many eventually returned to their camps so that, by the end of June, the number of displaced refugees had fallen to about 32,000.

As in 1982,(50) UNRWA in 1987 extended emergency assistance to all Palestine refugees in Lebanon, regardless of whether or not they were registered with UNRWA, because of the difficulty of distinguishing between refugees directly affected by the fighting and those who found it increasingly difficult to provide for themselves. More than $8 million was spent during the year on three general distributions of rations to refugees and on other emergency supplies, hospitalization and additional international staff needed to maintain and control the Agency's activities. The first distribution reached some 245,000 refugees.

In response to UNRWA's February appeal for funds to finance its emergency operations in Lebanon, $13.4 million - $11 million in cash and $2.4 million in kind - had been pledged or contributed by Governments, EEC, NGOs and individuals as at 30 June. The appeal was for $20.6 million, to cover such main items of expenditure as food supplies ($5.5 million); other relief supplies including blankets, mattresses and kitchen kits ($1.2 million); emergency hospitalization ($1 million); additional temporary staff ($0.4 million); repairs to local hospitals and UNRWA clinics ($1 million); repair and re-equipment of UNRWA installations ($2.5 million); repairs to refugee shelters ($7.2 million); and repair of camp infrastructure ($0.8 million).

In December, the Secretary-General issued an appeal for the funding of emergency relief programmes for non-Palestinians, based on the recommendations of an inter-agency group headed by UNDRO, which had visited Lebanon to assess immediate relief needs. In view of mounting and generalized hardships brought about by the worsening economic conditions, the Commissioner-General authorized UNRWA to provide services to all categories of Palestine refugees in Lebanon through the end of 1988. Accordingly, the expanded distribution of basic rations, which had begun in the second quarter of 1987 as a temporary emergency measure, was continued.

Despite periodic disruptions to the Agency's health services, there were no reports of major epidemics of communicable diseases, and UNRWA managed to carry out its regular vaccination programmes for refugee children without interruption. It established two mobile medical teams that operated in the Beirut and Saida areas where regular health facilities were inoperative. It resumed services at its health centre at Nabatiye in November, and, in late December, a team was able to enter Shatila for the first time in over 14 months.

UNRWA's education programme provided schooling for some 34,000 Palestine refugee children through nine grades of elementary and preparatory education in 83 schools. Because of the country's disturbed situation, schools in many areas remained closed, but by the end of June, 65 schools had become operational. To complete the 1986/87 academic year, many schools offered only a restricted curriculum and instructions were extended through the summer vacation months to make up for lost time. While the 1987/88 school year opened more or less on time in most areas, it was deferred at Saida, where the schools remained occupied by refugee families displaced from Tyre. At Burj el-Barajneh, some pupils attended classes in schools outside the camp; those unable to leave camp attended classes organized by popular committees with Agency support.

For the 1986/87 academic year, there were 33 university scholarship holders in engineering, medicine, and arts and sciences. The UNRWA Siblin Training Centre in Lebanon, for vocational and technical education and pre-service teacher training which had remained inoperative for four years, reopened in September 1987 with an intake of 386 trainees.

A constant concern of UNRWA was the safety of its staff members at west Beirut, Saida and Tyre, and along roads to other UNRWA areas of operation in Lebanon. For this reason it maintained its sub-office at Larnaca, Cyprus, and, from time to time, made other temporary office arrangements. Although the situation had improved since the Syrian armed forces took action in February and March to curb the militias, the staff still required special protection, including bodyguards, when going through sensitive areas. During the 1986/87 reporting period, seven staff members were killed in Lebanon and scores wounded, bringing the total killed since 1982 to 29, with hundreds kidnapped, missing and wounded; they included Alec Collett, a journalist working for UNRWA at the time he was kidnapped in 1985 and about whom there had been no news since 1986 when his kidnappers claimed that he had been executed.

Communications (3-11 February). On 3 February 1987,(51) Lebanon referred to a December 1986 communiqué(52) issued by a plenary meeting of non-aligned countries calling on the Secretary-General to provide guarantees for the protection of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Emphasizing its position on the matter, Lebanon asserted that it was responsible for the security of all those residing in Lebanese territory, and that nobody was authorized to act on Lebanon's behalf in that regard; it rejected any reversion to the situation prior to 1982, and any autonomy in security matters or Palestinian expansion outside the camps; it stressed that the Security Council, not the Secretary-General, was the competent authority, which, however, had never before provided such guarantees as had been called for by the communiqué.

On 11 February,(53) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights again expressed the Committee's concern at the persistent and intensified attacks on the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra, Shatila and Burj el-Barajneh at Beirut and Rashidieh at Tyre, which had had tragic consequences for the civilian population. Noting the recent escalation of violence and destruction causing thousands of casualties, he conveyed the Committee's concern that UNRWA had been unable to deliver food or medicine to those camps, which were surrounded and remained inaccessible and in which thousands of innocent women, children and old people were trapped, several of them ill and close to starvation. He further conveyed the Committee's urgent appeal to all interested parties to use their influence to enable UNRWA and other humanitarian organizations to deliver essential emergency relief to the refugees.


SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (13 February)

Following consultations, the President of the Security Council made a statement on 13 February on behalf of the Council members:(54)

"The members of the Security Council mindful of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon, express their profound concern at the continued escalation of violence in certain parts of Lebanon, affecting the civilian population, particularly in and around Palestinian refugee camps.

"Deeply alarmed by the tragic suffering undergone by the civilian population, particularly inside the Palestinian refugee camps, they call on the parties concerned to observe an immediate cease-fire and to permit access to these camps for humanitarian purposes.

"They also urgency appeal to all concerned to facilitate the efforts of various Governments and United Nations agencies, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East as well as non-governmental organizations, to provide critically needed humanitarian assistance.

"Recalling their previous statements, they reiterate their call for a speedy return to peace and a situation of normalcy and for the safeguarding of civilian lives in Lebanon."

Further communications (18 February-12 March). On 18 February,(55)Japan transmitted a government announcement that, in the light of the Security Council President's statement, it was giving $300,000 for UNRWA relief operations in Lebanon's refugee camps.

On 20 February,(56) the Acting Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights expressed the Committee's concern that UNRWA had again been prevented from delivering food and medicine to the refugee camps at Beirut and Tyre, despite repeated and urgent international appeals. He was referring to information made public by UNRWA on 19 February that a United Nations relief convoy trying to deliver food to Rashidieh had been held up for two consecutive days; the current fighting in west Beirut had hampered all attempts to reach Burj el-Barajneh and Shatila, which were likewise cut off. In view of the desperate situation of the civilians trapped for months in those camps and on the verge of starvation, the Committee reiterated its urgent appeal that everything possible be done to enable UNRWA and other humanitarian organizations to provide emergency relief to the refugees.

Yemen, as Chairman of the Group of Arab States at the United Nations, transmitted a PLO letter of 24 February,(57) drawing the Secretary-General's attention to the continuing critical situation in and around the camps: developments during the past weekend, particularly in west Beirut, had serious implications for the safety and security of the camps, especially in the light of threats made by the Chief of Syrian Military Intelligence in Lebanon physically to liquidate camp residents supporting PLO. PLO called on the Secretary-General and the Council to take all necessary measures, including deploying United Nations observers in accordance with 1982 Council resolutions,(58) to facilitate the supply of humanitarian relief by international agencies and to end the continuing siege of the camps so as to restore a normal situation there.

By a letter of 10 March 1987, transmitted by the United Arab Emirates,(59) PLO brought to the Secretary-General’s attention the deteriorating situation in the refugee camps. It quoted a recent statement by UNRWA that it had been unable to arrange for further relief convoys into the camps and had been advised against attempting entry in the next few days; that, since the deliveries to Burj el-Barajneh on 25 February and 3 March and Shatila on 27 February, no further relief had entered those camps; and that Rashidieh had received no relief at all. With the resumed shelling of the camps, the situation had reached a critical stage no longer to be tolerated by the international community. PLO called on the Secretary-General and the Council to end the suffering by all means available and to implement the Council appeals for an immediate cease-fire to permit access to the camps for humanitarian purposes.

On 12 March,(60) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights drew attention to recent information that UNRWA had been barred from delivering medical supplies to Shatila, reported to be totally destroyed, and that Rashidieh remained isolated. Convinced that the situation was bound to deteriorate further, the Chairman reiterated the Committee's appeal that everything possible be done to enable UNRWA and other relief organizations to provide humanitarian emergency assistance.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (19 March)

On 19 March, following consultations, the President of the Security Council issued a statement on behalf of the Council members:(61)

"The members of the Security Council, mindful of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon, note with profound concern that, in spite of their previous statements, the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon have not been receiving the necessary humanitarian assistance and that the situation in those camps remains critical.

"Alarmed by the suffering of the civilian population in the camps, they therefore again urge all parties concerned urgently to facilitate the efforts of various United Nations agencies, particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as well as any other humanitarian assistance aimed at distributing food and medical supplies in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and, thus, at fulfilling a critically needed mission.

"Recalling their previous statements, they reiterate their call for a speedy end to violence in and around the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and a return to a durable peace and a situation of normalcy and for the safeguarding of civilian lives."

Further communications (April-October). On 3 April,(62) Egypt and Iraq requested an immediate Council meeting to consider the situation in and around the refugee camps at Beirut.

The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Committee of Nine Non-Aligned Countries on Palestine, by a declaration adopted at a meeting (Harare, 14 and 15 April), transmitted by Zimbabwe on 5 May,(63) expressed grave concern and anguish at the escalation of fighting in and around the camps that had brought untold suffering to the civilian population in the area. They stressed the need for free access to the camps of medical supplies, food, water and fuel, for lifting the siege on the camps and for ending the fighting and destruction.

On 7 May,(64) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights drew attention to recent Israeli air raids against refugee camps near Sidon as reported by Agence France Presse. One raid had been carried out by four fighter-bombers on Ein el-Hilweh in the early morning of 6 May, killing eight civilians and wounding 28 others, besides destroying 10 houses and damaging 15. An earlier attack had taken place on 1 May against Mieh Mieh, killing 14 and injuring 37, also civilians. The Chairman conveyed the Committee's concern about those actions, which heightened tension in the region and posed a serious obstacle to international efforts to solve the Palestine question.

On 8 September,(65) Lebanon reported that, three days before, a squadron of Israeli war-planes had carried out three successive air raids on Ein el-Hilweh and the surrounding area, leaving at least 49 persons dead and 70 wounded; occurring at 20-minute intervals, the raids were proof of Israel's intention to cause the greatest injury to civilians, including the first-aid teams that rushed to the scene after each raid. Lebanon condemned the attack as inhumane and placed full responsibility on Israel. It again called on the Council to take urgent measures to make Israel halt its attacks forthwith and comply with Council resolutions and international law.

PLO, by a letter of 8 September, transmitted by Kuwait,(66) also drew the Secretary-General's attention to the raids on Ein el-Hilweh and what it described as the resulting carnage, updating the toll to over 100 wounded and scores of civilians missing. At the same time, it reported that, less than 24 hours after the raids, an Israeli destroyer and six gunboats bombarded Rashidieh, resulting in several civilian casualties.

On 9 September,(67) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights said the attacks against the camp had to be seen in the context of the intensification of Israeli measures against Palestinians in the occupied territories and the recent general military escalation in southern Lebanon; the resultant explosive situation in the area could not but arouse the gravest concern.

The Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to the 1987 General Assembly session (New York, 5-7 October), by its final communiqué,(4) expressed grave concern about the situation in the refugee camps. It strongly condemned the September raids on Ein el-Hilweh, reiterated the need to ensure the safety of all civilians in Lebanon, including the Palestinian refugees, and reaffirmed United Nations responsibility for the Palestinians.

On 12 October,(15) Lebanon, charging Israel with having conducted 23 air raids in 1987 against Lebanese towns and villages (see p. 275), singled out what it called the barbarous shelling of Ein el-Hilweh.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

By resolution 42/69 I, adopted under the agenda item on UNRWA, the General Assembly, having considered the Secretary-General's report on protection of Palestine refugees including those in Lebanon (see p. 337), urged the UNRWA Commissioner-General, in consultation with the Government of Lebanon, to provide housing to the Palestine refugees whose houses were demolished or razed by the Israeli forces and to provide emergency housing repairs for the shelters and Agency installations partly damaged or destroyed in the fighting; it called again on Israel to compensate UNRWA for the damage to its property and facilities resulting from Israel's invasion of Lebanon, without prejudice to Israel's responsibilities for all damages resulting from that invasion.

Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic

In 1987, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights again dealt with the situation in the Syrian Golan Heights in the light of Israel's 1981 decision(68) to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Israeli-occupied territories (see p. 317).

UNDOF

The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, established by the Security Council in 1974(69) as called for by the Agreement on Disengagement of Forces between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic concluded that year,(70) was charged with supervising the observance of the cease-fire between the two countries in the Golan Heights area and ensuring that there were no military forces in the area of separation between their forces. UNDOF remained deployed within and close to the separation area, with its headquarters located at Damascus. Its mandate was renewed twice in 1987, in May and November, each time for a six-month period. The authorizing resolutions were adopted unanimously.

Activities

Reports of the Secretary-General. Before the expiration of the mandate of UNDOF on 31 May and 30 November 1987, the Secretary-General submitted reports to the Security Council on the activities of the Force for two six-month periods from 13 November 1986 to 17 May 1987(71) and from 18 May to 13 November 1987.(72)

The Secretary-General stated that UNDOF had continued to perform its functions effectively with the co-operation of the parties and that the situation in the Israel-Syria sector had remained quiet with no serious incidents. The cease-fire had been maintained, with UNDOF continuing to supervise the area of separation by means of static positions and observation posts manned 24 hours a day, foot and mobile patrols operating day and night at irregular intervals on predetermined routes, and temporary outposts and patrols on specific assignments.

Fortnightly inspections of armament and forces in the area of limitation had been conducted with the assistance of liaison officers from the parties. While UNDOF had continued receiving co-operation from the parties, both had placed restrictions on the movement and activities of its inspection teams in certain areas. In this respect, the Secretary-General noted that, whereas the Protocol to the Agreement on Disengagement provided for the freedom of movement necessary for the discharge of UNDOF's mission, restrictions on that freedom remained. He said he would continue to exert every effort to correct the situation.

UNDOF remained concerned for the safety of Syrian shepherds who grazed their flocks close to and west of the separation line. Intensified patrolling of new mine-cleared patrol paths and the setting up from time to time of standing patrols in those areas helped to prevent incidents, as had the grazing security fence in the southern part of the area of separation. New patrol paths were under construction.

In addition, UNDOF continued its mine-clearing operations, finding and destroying, among other ammunition, 15 anti-tank and seven anti-personnel mines during the year.

Despite the current quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, the Secretary-General cautioned that the Middle East situation as a whole continued to be potentially dangerous and likely to remain so, unless a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East problem was reached. Stating in each report that he considered UNDOF's continued presence in the area to be essential, the Secretary-General, with the Syrian Arab Republic's assent and Israel's agreement, recommended that its mandate be extended for a further six months, until 30 November 1987 in the first instance and until 31 May 1988 in the second.


SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

On 29 May 1987, without debate, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 596(1987).

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force,

Decides:

(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338(1973);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 30 November 1987;

(c) To request the Secretary-General to submit, at the end of this period, a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338(1973).

Security Council resolution 596(1987)
29 May 1987 Meeting 2748 Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/18881).

On 25 November, again without debate, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 603(1987).

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force,

Decides:

(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338(1973);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 31 May 1988;

(c) To request the Secretary-General to submit, at the end of this period, a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338(1973).

Security Council resolution 603(1987)
25 November 1987 Meeting 2769 Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/19296).

Following adoption of each resolution, the President made the following statement:(73)

"In connection with the resolution just adopted on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, I have been authorized to make the following complementary statement on behalf of the Security Council:

"'As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force states, in paragraph 24: "Despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, the situation in the Middle East as a whole continues to be potentially dangerous and is likely to remain so, unless and until a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem can be reached." That statement of the Secretary-General reflects the view of the Security Council.’"


Composition

As at 5 November 1987, UNDOF had a strength of 1,330 troops. It was composed of contingents from four countries - Austria, 531; Canada, 227; Finland, 410; and Poland, 155 - and of 7 United Nations military observers detailed from UNTSO. Assisting the Force as required were UNTSO observers assigned to the Israel-Syria Mixed Armistice Commission.
REFERENCES

(1)YUN 1981, p. 275. (2)A/42/178-S/18753. (3)YUN 1981, p. 282, SC res. 487(1981), 19 June 1981. (4)A/42/681. (5)A/42/69-S/18559. (6)A/42/82-S/18584. (7)A/42/259-S/18831. (8)A/42/268-S/18843. (9)A/42/276-S/18848. (10)A/42/281-S/18854. (11)A/42/311-S/18886. (12)A/42/356-S/18934. (13)A/42/424-S/19001. (14)A/42/470-S/19032. (15)A/42/643-S/19195. (16)A/42/702-S/19243. (17)A/42/894-S/19350. (18)A/43/67-S/19383. (19)A/42/70-S/18560. (20)A/42/94-S/18621. (21)A/42/116-S/18654. (22)A/421202-S/18771. (23)A/42/345-S/18921. (24)A/42/401-S/18978. (25)A/42/858-S/19322. (26)YUN 1978, p. 312, SC res. 425(1978) & 426(1978), 19 Mar. 1978. (27)YUN 1982, p. 450, SC res. 508(1982) & 509(1982), 5 & 6 June 1982. (28)A/42/677. (29)S/19318. (30)YUN 1978, p. 312, SC res. 425(1978), 19 Mar. 1978. (31)Ibid., p. 296. (32)YUN 1982, p. 428. (33)Ibid., p. 450, SC res. 511(1982), 18 June 1982. (34)Ibid., p. 475, SC res. 516(1982), 1 Aug. 1982. (35)S/18580. (36)S/18645. (37)S/18581 & Corr.1. (38)YUN 1986, p. 299. (39)S/18581/Add.1. (40)YUN 1967, p. 257, SC res. 242(1967), 22 Nov. 1967. (41)YUN 1973, p. 213, SC res. 338(1973), 22 Oct. 1973. (42)S/18999. (43)S/18990. (44)YUN 1979, p. 340, SC res. 459(1979), 19 Dec. 1979. (45)S/19175 & Corr.1. (46)YUN 1986, pp. 299-305. (47)YUN 1978, p. 312, SC res. 426(1978), 19 Mar. 1978. (48)A/42/13 & Add.1. (49)A/43/13 & Add.1. (50)YUN 1982, p. 549. (51)A/42/115-S/18653. (52)A/42/79-S/18569. (53)A/42/122-S/18682. (54)S/18691. (55)A/42/131-S/18699. (56)A/42/135-S/18713. (57)A/42/152-S/18720. (58)YUN 1982, p. 475, SC res. 516(1982), 517(1982) & 518(1982), 1, 4 & 12 Aug. 1982. (59)A/42/177-S/18752. (60)A/42/176-S/18751. (61)S/18756. (62)S/18781. (63)A/42/284-S/18856. (64)A/42/278-S/18850. (65)A/42/538-S/19111. (66)A/42/546-S/19120. (67)A/42/550-S/19122. (68)YUN 1981, p. 308. (69)YUN 1974, p. 205, SC res. 350(1974), 31 May 1974. (70)Ibid., p. 198. (71)S/18868. (72)S/19263. (73)S/18885, S/19301.


_________________________________

Financing of peace-keeping forces
_________________________________


The financing of the United Nations peace-keeping operations in the Middle East - UNDOF and UNIFIL, and the UNTSO observer mission - was the subject of General Assembly consideration and action in 1987.

In December, the Assembly approved appropriations totalling more than $35 million for UNDOF operations from 1 June 1987 to 31 May 1988 and $145.5 million for UNIFIL operations from 19 January 1987 to 31 January 1988 (resolutions 42/70 A and 42/223). In each case, the Assembly apportioned the expenses for the Forces among all Member States according to a special scale used for this purpose since 1973,(1) when the second United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF II) was established.(2) Under that arrangement, the permanent members of the Security Council were assessed more than they would have been under the scale of assessments for the United Nations regular budget, while most developing countries were assessed 80 per cent less and the least developed countries 90 per cent less than under the regular scale.

In view of the difficult financial situation of the two Forces, the Assembly authorized suspension of certain provisions of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations to enable UNDOF and UNIFIL to retain a "surplus balance" of $1.3 million and $6.8 million, respectively (resolutions 42/70 B and 42/223).

The Assembly further retained the current standard rates of reimbursement to troop-contributing States, as revised in 1980 (resolution 42/224).(3)

Appropriations for UNTSO totalling $41.4 million were included in the United Nations regular programme budget for the 1988-1989 biennium.

UNDOF financing

The Secretary-General reported(4) that, as at 30 September 1987, he had received $736 million in assessed contributions for UNDOF - for the period from its inception in 1974 to 30 November 1987 - and for UNEF II (established at the end of 1973 and liquidated in 1980). The unpaid assessed balance totalled $72.5 million, consisting of $31.5 million apportioned among Member States and presumed uncollectible, and $36 million transferred to a Special Account in accordance with a 1981 General Assembly resolution.(5) The collectible balance was estimated to be $5 million.

The UNDOF Special Account showed a shortfall of approximately $7.9 million in respect of the period 25 October 1979 to 30 November 1987; in addition, a combined account showed an estimated shortfall of $59.6 million for both UNDOF, from its inception up to 24 October 1979, and the entire period of UNEF II. Consequently, the troop contributors had been neither paid on time nor reimbursed fully in accordance with agreed rates. They continued to convey to the Secretary-General their serious concern over the heavy burden placed on them.

Commitments for UNDOF operations from 1 December 1986 to 30 November 1987 amounted to $34,800,000.(6) For operations from 1 December onwards, the Secretary-General estimated monthly costs of $2,944,000 gross ($2,893,000 net); or, on that basis, an estimated $35,328,000 gross ($34,716,000 net) for the 12-month period from 1 December 1987 to 30 November 1988.

The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ),(7) in approving the estimates subject to the Security Council's renewal of the UNDOF mandate, emphasized that UNDOF requirements for the 12-month period should not exceed the estimated amounts. In the interests of good management and efficiency, ACABQ recommended that the Secretary-General be permitted the usual flexibility to transfer credits between items of expenditure if necessary.

ACABQ noted that the 1986-1987 interim accounts showed, under the Special Account for UNDOF and UNEF II, a "surplus balance" of $1,331,921 for 1986, representing excess income over expenditures in accrued interests and miscellaneous credits - the income included, however, assessed contributions irrespective of collectibility. Because of the withholding of contributions by certain States, the "surplus" had been drawn upon to its full extent. ACABQ said it intended to review in detail the operation and management of the Special Account in the context of its 1988 examination of the Secretary-General's report on UNDOF financing.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1987, the General Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, simultaneously adopted two resolutions on the financing of UNDOF by the same recorded vote.

The first, resolution 42/70 A, set forth the details of the appropriations for the Force.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, as well as the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Bearing in mind Security Council resolution 350(1974) of 31 May 1974, by which the Council established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, and the subsequent resolutions by which the Council extended the mandate of the Force, the latest of which was resolution 603(1987) of 25 November 1987,

Recalling its resolution 3211 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974 on the financing of the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and its subsequent resolutions thereon, the latest of which was resolution 41/44 A of 3 December 1986,

Reaffirming its previous decisions regarding the fact that in order to meet the expenditures caused by such operations, a different procedure is required from that applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget of the United Nations,

Taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries are in a position to make relatively larger contributions and that the economically less developed countries have a relatively limited capacity to contribute towards peace-keeping operations involving heavy expenditures,

Bearing in mind the special responsibilities of the States permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of such operations, as indicated in General Assembly resolution 1874(S-IV) of 27 June 1963 and other resolutions of the Assembly,
I

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section II, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution 3211 B (XXIX) the amount of $17,400,000 gross ($17,100,000 net) authorized and apportioned by section III of Assembly resolution 41/44 A for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1987, inclusive;
II

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $17,664,000 for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 December 1987 to 31 May 1988, inclusive;

2. Decides further, as an ad hoc arrangement, without prejudice to the positions of principle that may be taken by Member States in any consideration by the General Assembly of arrangements for the financing of peace-keeping operations, to apportion the amount of $17,664,000 among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in section II, paragraph 2, of Assembly resolution 41/44 A;

3. Decides that there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraph 2 above, their respective share in the estimated income of $10,000 other than staff assessment income approved for the period from 1 December 1987 to 31 May 1988, inclusive;

4. Decides that, in accordance with the provisions of its resolution 973(X) of 15 December 1955, there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraph 2 above, their respective share in the Tax Equalization Fund of the estimated staff assessment income of $296,000 approved for the period from 1 December 1987 to 31 May 1988, inclusive;
III

Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $2,944,000 gross ($2,893,000 net) per month for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1988, inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 603(1987), the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in section II, paragraph 2, of Assembly resolution 41/44 A;
IV

1. Stresses the need for voluntary contributions to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to take all necessary action to ensure that the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force is administered with a maximum of efficiency and economy.

The second resolution, 42/70 B, concerned the suspension of the application of certain provisions of the Financial Regulations to the UNDOF Special Account.

The General Assembly,

Having regard to the financial position of the Special Account for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, as set forth in the report of the Secretary-General, and referring to paragraph 6 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Recalling its resolution 33/13 E of 14 December 1978 and the subsequent resolutions in which it decided that the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations should be suspended, the latest of which was General Assembly resolution 41/44 B of 3 December 1986,

Mindful of the fact that it is essential to provide the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force with the necessary financial resources to enable it to fulfil its responsibilities under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council,

Concerned that the Secretary-General continues to face difficulties in meeting the obligations of the Forces on a current basis, particularly those due to the Governments of troop-contributing States,

Recognizing that, in consequence of the withholding of contributions by certain Member States the surplus balances in the Special Account for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force have, in effect, been drawn upon to the full extent to supplement the income received from contributions for meeting expenses of the Forces,

Concerned that the application of the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations would aggravate the already difficult financial situation of the Forces,

Decides that the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations shall be suspended in respect of the amount of $1,331,921, which otherwise would have to be surrendered pursuant to those provisions, this amount to be entered into the account referred to in the operative part of General Assembly resolution 33/13 E and held in suspense until a further decision is taken by the Assembly.


General Assembly resolutions 42/70 A and B
3 December 1987 Meeting 90 94-3-5 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/42/840) by recorded vote (94-3-7), 30 November (meeting 48); 12-nation draft (A/C.5/42/L.5, parts A & B); agenda item 125 (a).

Sponsors: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Ghana, Ireland, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: 5th Committee 46, 48; plenary 90.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam,a/ Zaire, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Iraq, Maldives.

a/ Later advised the Secretariat it had intended to abstain.


Albania objected to the dispatch of peace-keeping forces to various regions for political reasons. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya believed that their presence in the Middle East was not a practical solution to the problems there and that only the aggressor State should finance UNDOF. The presence of United Nations forces was a direct result of Zionist attacks against neighbouring countries, the Syrian Arab Republic stated, and the financial responsibility should be borne by the aggressor and the major Powers supporting it.

In Yemen's view, no United Nations peace-keeping forces would be needed in the Middle East had there been no acts of aggression there. Iraq said only Israel, as the aggressor, should bear the burden of UNDOF expenses.

Jordan stressed that its affirmative vote should not be construed as acceptance of the continued Israeli occupation, the main source of tension in the region.

Bulgaria felt that the cost of UNDOF equipment was surprisingly high in certain cases and suggested that wider international bidding would make for a more efficient procurement of supplies. The USSR, referring to the request made of the Secretary-General to ensure UNDOF's administration with maximum efficiency and economy, suggested, based on its understanding that reserves were available to improve the budgetary control machinery, that a practical measure would be for him to report periodically on expenditures. It welcomed ACABQ's intention to investigate thoroughly the operation of the UNDOF Special Account.

Canada, when it introduced the draft resolutions on behalf of the sponsors, said the recent announcement by one Member State of its intention to settle all its arrears was particularly encouraging.

UNIFIL financing

The Secretary-General reported(8) that, as at 30 September 1987, he had received $1,071.9 million for the operation of UNIFIL, out of $1,410.6 million apportioned among Member States for the periods from the inception of the Force in March 1978(9) to 31 January 1988. Of the unpaid balance of $338.7 million, only $94.6 million could be considered collectible, leaving a shortfall of $244.1 million, including $19.6 million due from China, transferred to a Special Account in accordance with a 1981 General Assembly resolution.(5)

Owing to the shortfall, UNIFIL could not meet its obligations on a current basis, particularly those due to the troop-contributing States, which had never been paid on a current and full basis in accordance with established rates. The UNIFIL Suspense Account, set up in 1979(10) to facilitate reimbursement to them for the costs of equipment and supplies to UNIFIL, had thus far not achieved that purpose; voluntary contributions to it amounted to only $34,356.

Commitments for UNIFIL operations from 19 January 1987 to 31 January 1988 totalled $145,500,000 gross ($143,064,000 net) as authorized in 1986;(11) costs for the 12-month period beginning 1 February 1988 were estimated at $141,180,000 gross ($139,416,000 net), based on an average Force strength of 5,850 troops.

In the event that future Security Council decisions on UNIFIL's status entailed additional costs over the limit authorized by the Assembly, commitment authority would be sought from the Assembly if it was in regular session; otherwise recourse would be had, with prior ACABQ concurrence, to Assembly resolution 42/227 on unforeseen and extraordinary expenses for 1988-1989 providing for the convening of a special Assembly session to consider the matter.

As to the Special Account's administration, the Secretary-General proposed that, with effect from 1 February 1988, the special financial period of UNIFIL should be 12 calendar months, from l February of one year to 31 January of the next. Pursuant to a 1979 Assembly decision,(12) the Account had been maintained for the periods of the UNIFIL mandates subsequent to 18 January 1979; such abbreviated financial periods, ranging from one to six months, had posed administrative difficulties in terms of the strict application of financial regulation 4.2 (providing for appropriations to be available for obligation during the financial period to which they related) and the smooth operation of the Force, particularly with regard to the international procurement of goods and services.

The Secretary-General observed that, as a result of the accumulated shortfall in the Special Account caused by the non-payment of assessed contributions, the United Nations continued to fall behind in its reimbursement of amounts due to the troop-contributing Governments for expenditures incurred by their participation in UNIFIL. He was extremely concerned about that state of affairs, which placed an unfair and increasingly heavy burden on the troop-contributing States, particularly the less wealthy ones; if not remedied, it might jeopardize the functioning of UNIFIL. He appealed in the strongest terms to all Members to pay their assessments without delay. In view of the urgency of the matter, he also appealed to Governments in a position to do so to consider making available voluntary contributions to the Suspense Account.

ACABQ(7) recommended approval of the estimates corresponding to the commitments entered into for the mandate period from 19 January 1987 to 31 January 1988 and of the estimates for the 12-month period beginning on 1 February 1988. However, as it had stated in 1986,(13) it believed that commitment authority should continue to be expressed as a monthly amount rather than as a lump sum for an entire 12-month period. It thus recommended that the Assembly approve commitment authority up to $11,765,000 gross ($11,618,000 net) a month for the period beginning on 1 February 1988.

ACABQ had no objection to the proposed 12-month financial period, which coincided with two consecutive six-month mandate periods, having been satisfied that such a period made for administrative efficiency with respect to the apportionment of expenses and would not change the manner in which Member States were currently assessed for the expenses of the Force, that is, at the beginning of each mandate period.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 21 December 1987, the General Assembly acting on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee, adopted resolution 42/223 by recorded vote.

Financing of the United Nations
Interim Force in Lebanon

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Bearing in mind Security Council resolution 425(1978) of 19 March 1978, by which the Council established the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, and the subsequent resolutions by which the Council extended the mandate of the Force, the latest of which was resolution 599(1987) of 31 July 1987,

Recalling its resolution S-8/2 of 21 April 1978 on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and its subsequent resolutions thereon, the latest of which was resolution 41/179 of 5 December 1986,

Reaffirming its previous decisions regarding the fact that, in order to meet the expenditures caused by such operations, a different procedure from the one applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget of the United Nations is required,

Taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries are in a position to make relatively larger contributions, that the economically less developed countries have a relatively limited capacity to contribute towards peace-keeping operations, and that the States permanent members of the Security Council have special responsibilities in the financing of peace-keeping operations decided upon in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Having regard to the financial position and the administration of the Special Account for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, as set forth in the report of the Secretary-General, and referring to paragraph 18 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Recalling its decision 34/439 of 17 December 1979 that the Special Account for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon should be maintained for the periods of its mandates subsequent to 18 January 1979,

Recalling also its resolution 34/9 E of 17 December 1979 and subsequent resolutions which suspended the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the latest of which was resolution 41/179 B,

Mindful of the fact that it is essential to provide the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon with the necessary financial resources to enable it to fulfil its responsibilities under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council,

Concerned that the Secretary-General is continuing to face increasing difficulties in meeting the obligations of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon on a current basis, including reimbursement to current and former troop-contributing States, resulting from the withholding of contributions by certain Member States,

Concerned also that the surplus balances in the Special Account for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon have, in effect, been drawn upon to the full extent to supplement the income received from contributions for meeting expenses of the Force,

Concerned further that the application of the provisions of financial regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 would aggravate the already difficult financial situation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section I, paragraph l, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 an amount of $77,932,200 gross ($76,627,400 net) authorized and apportioned by section IV of Assembly resolution 41/179 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 January to 31 July 1987, inclusive;

2. Decides also to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $67,567,800 gross ($66,436,600 net) authorized and apportioned by section IV of General Assembly resolution 41/179 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 1 August 1987 to 31 January 1988, inclusive;

3. Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon at a rate not to exceed $11,765,000 gross ($11,618,000 net) per month for the 12-month period beginning 1 February 1988, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 599(1987);

4. Decides, as an ad hoc arrangement, without prejudice to the positions of principle that may be taken by Member States in any consideration by the General Assembly of arrangements for the financing of peace-keeping operations, to apportion among Member States the amount resulting from the implementation of the provisions of paragraph 3 above, in accordance with the provisions of Assembly resolution 973(X) of 15 December 1955 and the scheme set out in section III, paragraph 2, of resolution 41/179 A;

5. Decides also that the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations shall be suspended in respect of the amount of $6,845,651, which otherwise would have to be surrendered pursuant to those provisions, this amount to be entered in the account referred to in the operative part of General Assembly resolution 34/9 E and held in suspense until a further decision is taken by the Assembly;

6. Decides further that the special financial period of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be for 12 months, beginning on 1 February of one year and ending on 31 January of the next, effective from 1 February 1988, subject to the renewal of the mandate of the Force by the Security Council;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to take all necessary measures to ensure that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be administered with a maximum of efficiency and economy;

8. Renews its invitation to Member States to make voluntary contributions to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General and also to make voluntary contributions in cash to the Suspense Account, established in accordance with its resolution 34/9 D of 17 December 1979.


General Assembly resolution 42/223
21 December 1987 Meeting 99 133-3-9 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/42/879) by recorded vote (87-2-7). 11 December (meeting 60); 18-nation draft (A/C.5/42/L.10), orally corrected; agenda item 125 (b).

Sponsors: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sweden.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: 5th Committee 46, 60; plenary 99.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Iran, Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Angola, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Iraq, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Poland, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Speaking before the vote in the Fifth Committee, Lebanon said UNIFIL's presence was an expression of the international will as represented by the Security Council, with specific financial obligations for Members; it was frustrating that a number of countries, including some developing ones, were being forced to shoulder the financial burden of UNIFIL because others were withholding their assessed contributions. That unfair situation undermined the very principles of international solidarity and created a regrettable precedent that might damage future United Nations peace-keeping missions. Lebanon shared the concerns of the troop-contributing States regarding UNIFIL's financial crisis and hoped for the restoration of the necessary financial balance by prompt action of the countries concerned so that it could finally carry out its mandate.

The Syrian Arab Republic, believing that peace-keeping forces, if they became permanent, protected the aggressor, said Israel was exploiting the protection afforded by United Nations peace-keeping forces in order to persist in its aggression and occupation. It restated its belief that the aggressor should bear responsibility for the financing of the peace-keeping forces - a position taken by Iraq, as well as by Cuba, which stated that the forces had not, in any case, proved capable of dealing with the aggressor.

The USSR said it would participate in the financing of UNIFIL and was prepared to give consideration to eliminating the deficit in the budget of the peace-keeping forces. Referring to the resolution's provision requesting the Secretary-General to ensure that UNIFIL was administered with maximum efficiency and economy, the USSR said he should bear in mind ACABQ’s intention to review the operations of the UNIFIL Special Account, with particular reference to the transfer to it of undisbursed resources.

Israel said its affirmative vote was in appreciation of the task performed by UNIFIL and by United Nations peace-keeping forces in general; despite its being spuriously designated as the aggressor, the reality was that the troubles in Lebanon would cease only when the Government of that country was in a position to exercise its authority over terrorist and other forces operating in its territory.

Review of reimbursement rates
to troop contributors

Pursuant to a 1985 General Assembly request,(14) the Secretary-General submitted in July 1987(15) a report on the first biennial review of the rates of reimbursement to the troop-contributing States for pay and allowances of their troops serving in UNIFIL and UNDOF. Established as from 25 October 1973 by a 1974 Assembly decision,(16) the standard rates had previously undergone three reviews - in 1977, 1980 and 1985 - and were revised in 1977(17) and again in 1980.(3) As a consequence of the 1985 review,(14) the Assembly decided to retain the rates as revised in 1980: $950 per person per month for all ranks; $280 per person per month in supplementary payment for specialists, comprising 25 per cent of logistics contingents and 10 per cent for other contingents; $65 per person per month for personal clothing, gear and equipment for all ranks; and $5 per person per month for personal weaponry, including ammunition, for all ranks.

The three previous reviews had shown that the costs to troop-contributing Governments in providing troops varied widely; consequently, the current standard reimbursement rates could not fully compensate all Governments but at least provided reimbursement for the actual overseas allowances paid to their troops. The portion of the costs not compensated for and absorbed by the troop contributor was referred to as the absorption factor.

In the 1980 review, the costs to the troop contributors for troop pay and allowances, when compared with United Nations reimbursements, showed an average absorption factor of 45.9 per cent; the 1985 review showed a decrease to 34.3 per cent. An extrapolation of the 1985 review data, based on changes in inflation and currency exchange rates since then, showed a rise to 46.3 per cent as at 31 December 1986, representing a 0.4 per cent increase in the absorption factor above the 1980 level.

The Secretary-General concluded that, as the overall average absorption factor at the end of 1986 was similar to that in 1980, it appeared that the current rates were not unreasonable and therefore warranted no adjustment at this stage. Based on consultations between the Secretariat and the troop-contributing States to UNDOF (Austria, Canada, Finland, Poland) and to UNIFIL (Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Nepal, Norway, Sweden), it was proposed that the current rates be retained. It was noted, however, that, as a consequence of the continuing shortfall in the receipt of assessed contributions to the peace-keeping special accounts, troop-contributing States were not being reimbursed on a current basis or to the full extent of the established rates.

These conclusions were taken note of by ACABQ(7) in November 1987.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Acting on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/224 by recorded vote on 21 December 1987.
Review of the rates of reimbursement to the
Governments of troop-contributing States

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the review of the rates of reimbursement to the Governments of troop-contributing States, submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 40/247 of 18 December 1985, as well as the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Recalling its decision of 29 November 1974, taken at its twenty-ninth session, by which it established, as from 25 October 1973, standard rates of reimbursement to the Governments of troop-contributing States for pay and allowances of their troops serving in the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, and its decision 32/416 of 2 December 1977, by which it revised those rates of reimbursement as from 25 October 1977,

Recalling also its resolution S-8/2 of 21 April 1978, by which it applied the same standard rates of reimbursement in effect for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force to those Governments of States contributing troops to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Recalling further its resolution 35/44 of 1 December 1980, by which it established the current standard rates of reimbursement to the Governments of troop-contributing States, with effect from 1 December 1980 in the case of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and from 19 December 1980 in the case of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Recalling further its decision of 15 December 1975, taken at its thirtieth session, by which it approved the principle of reimbursing troop-contributing States for the usage factor for personal clothing, gear and equipment and personal weaponry, including ammunition, issued to their troops for service in the United Nations peace-keeping forces,

1. Takes note with concern that, in consequence of the shortfall of financial contributions, troop-contributing States are not being reimbursed to the full extent of the established rates and are thus bearing considerably larger portions of the costs for their troops serving in the United Nations peace-keeping forces than those indicated by the Secretary-General in his report;

2. Takes note of the conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary-General as outlined in paragraph 7 of his report;

3. Requests the Secretary-General, in the light of the evolving financial situation, to expedite, to the extent possible, the payment of arrears due to current and former troop-contributing States;

4. Decides to retain the current rates of reimbursement of $950 per person per month for all ranks, plus the allowance for specialists of $280 per person per month for 25 per cent of logistics contingents and 10 per cent of other contingents, as well as $65 per person per month for the usage factor for personal clothing, gear and equipment and $5 per person per month for personal weaponry, including ammunition;

5. Also decides that the rates of reimbursement to the Governments of troop-contributing States shall be reviewed by the Secretary-General, in consultation with the troop-contributing States, and requests the Secretary-General to report thereon to the General Assembly, at least once every two years, if, in the light of inflation and currency-exchange fluctuations or other factors brought to the attention of the Secretary-General, these rates appreciably affect the absorption factor of two or more of the troop-contributing States.


General Assembly resolution 42/224
21 December 1987 Meeting 99 133-3-10 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/42/879) by recorded vote (94-1-8), 11 December (meeting 60); 17-nation draft (A/C.5/42/L.11); agenda item 125(c).

Sponsors: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sweden.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: 5th Committee 46, 60; plenary 99.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao
Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Iran, Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Iraq, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Viet Nam, Yemen.

The Syrian Arab Republic reiterated that the aggressor should bear the costs of the peace-keeping forces. Iraq believed that the United Nations should force the Zionist entity, the aggressor, to do so.
REFERENCES

(1)YUN 1973, p. 222, GA res. 3101(XXVIII), 11 Dec. 1973. (2)Ibid., p. 213, SC res. 340(1973), 25 Oct. 1973. (3)YUN 1980 p. 369, GA res. 35/44, 1 Dec. 1980. (4)A/42/642. (5)YUN 1981, p. 1299, GA res. 36/116 A, 10 Dec. 1981. (6)YUN 1986, p. 314, GA res. 41/44 A, 3 Dec. 1986. (7)A/42/791. (8)A/42/692. (9)YUN 1978, p. 312, SC res. 425(1978) 19 Mar. 1978. (10)YUN 1979, p. 352, GA res. 34/9 D, 17 Dec. 1979. (11)YUN 1986, p. 306, GA res. 41/179 A, 5 Dec. 1986. (12)YUN 1979, p. 353, GA dec. 34/439, 17 Dec. 1979. (13)YUN 1986, p. 306. (14)YUN 1985, p. 325, GA res. 40/247, 18 Dec. 1985. (15)A/42/374. (16)YUN 1974, p. 215. (17)YUN 1977, p. 281, GA dec. 32/416, 2 Dec. 1977.


______________________________

Territories occupied by Israel
______________________________


The territories occupied by Israel as a result of previous armed conflicts in the Middle East comprised the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

During 1987, the Committee on Palestinian rights observed that the deterioration of the situation of the Palestinians in those territories had aroused widespread concern that tension and violence would increase unless progress was finally made towards a negotiated settlement of the long-standing Palestine question (see p. 263). The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories (Committee on Israeli practices) reported a similar deterioration of the situation, marked by an intensifying climate of repression and confrontation. The UNRWA Commissioner-General, describing developments in early December as they affected the Agency's operations, stated that incidents had quickly spread in the territories: what seemed a spontaneous uprising at first had turned into a broader confrontation characterized by more frequent and varied incidents between the Palestinians and occupation authorities. Numerous communications addressed to the Secretary-General throughout the year also drew attention to the Palestinians' growing resistance to Israeli occupation.

The Commission on Human Rights, in February, called on Israel to comply with its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and withdraw from the Palestinian and other Arab territories it had occupied since 1967; it condemned Israel for its policies and practices in the territories for its refusal to apply the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (fourth Geneva Convention) there, and for its persistent disregard for United Nations resolutions relating to occupied Syrian territory.

The General Assembly, in December, having examined the report of the Committee on Israeli practices, adopted seven resolutions by which it demanded that Israel desist from specific policies and practices in the territories (42/160 D); that it comply with the fourth Geneva Convention (42/160 B); that it rescind its arbitrary detention or imprisonment of hundreds of Palestinians and release them immediately (42/160 A); that it desist from any action that would change the legal status and demographic composition of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 (42/160 C), including the Golan Heights (42/160 F); that it rescind the expulsion of Palestinian leaders and facilitate their immediate return (42/160 E); and that it rescind measures against educational institutions and ensure their freedom (42/160 G).

Also in December, the Security Council met to consider what was described in the debate as the ongoing wave of violence or uprising, which Israel claimed was organized. The Council called on Israel to desist from its policies and practices, in particular the opening of fire by its army, resulting in the killing and wounding of Palestinian civilians; it asked the Secretary-General to examine the situation and report to it in January 1988 with recommendations to ensure the protection of Palestinian civilians under occupation (resolution 605(1987)).

In addition, the Assembly, having taken note of the Secretary-General's report on a seminar in March that identified project proposals for improving the living conditions of Palestinians in the territories, asked the Secretary-General for a study on future needs in the field of infrastructure (resolution 42/190). The Economic and Social Council, which had before it a study of the financial sector undertaken by the UNCTAD Special Economic Unit (Palestinian people) in collaboration with ESCWA, requested the Secretary-General to report also on Israel's trade practices in the territories (resolution 1987/87).

Communications. In communications addressed to the Secretary-General throughout the year, Israel was charged with various measures against Palestinians, said to lead to a deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories. The Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, in drawing attention to those measures, repeatedly conveyed to the Secretary-General the Committee’s concern that they heightened tensions and impeded international efforts towards a comprehensive and just solution, as well as the Committee’s request that he do all in his power to facilitate such a solution, in particular to promote the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East (see p. 258).

By a 14 April letter, transmitted by Tunisia,(1) PLO alleged that, as a result of various Israeli measures, the situation in the territories had become highly volatile and was rapidly deteriorating, necessitating an immediate response from the international community. Those measures included imposing a curfew on the Palestinian town of Qalqilia, which was being surrounded by Israeli troops and armed settler vigilantes; provoking panic among the population at Ramallah, El-Bireh, Dura' and Rafah in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinian protests continued, by settler vigilantes who attacked residents and shot at their property; administrative detention of three Palestinian intellectuals (see p. 310); and firing at protesting Palestinian students and closing down of Palestinian universities (see p. 315).

On 20 May,(2) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights expressed the Committee's concern about the continuing deterioration of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza, where Palestinian demonstrations against Israeli military occupation had intensified. To quell the demonstrations, Israel had resorted to armed force, six-month detentions of Palestinian leaders, arrests, closing down of universities, and expulsions (see p. 313), heightening tension in the region. The Chairman reiterated the Committee's conviction that Security Council action on its recommendations (see p. 265) would advance prospects for a just and lasting peace.

The Committee Chairman, on 3 June,(3) drew the Secretary-General's attention to reports of 1 and 2 June by the Kuna and Reuters news agencies, according to which Israel had begun a massive detention campaign: Israeli soldiers had burst into the Balata refugee camp near Nablus, opened fire on the demonstrators, arrested 60 people, put 10 under a six-month detention without trial and imposed a curfew.

By a 9 June letter, transmitted by the Sudan,(4) PLO claimed that, at the storming of the Balata camp, Israeli soldiers, in a house-to-house search, gathered every male beyond the age of 14 for questioning; they arrested 53 for further interrogation and ordered 10 to a six-month administrative detention and 1 for deportation from the West Bank. PLO further alleged Israeli harassment of Palestinian residents of Nablus, where two teenage boys were fatally shot and a 10-year-old was shot twice in the face; a shooting rampage through Dheisheh refugee camp, on 6 June, by armed Zionist settlers from Kiryat Arba, who physically attacked men, women and children in their homes, destroyed furniture and other possessions, including vehicles, and where Israeli forces later set up road-blocks and enforced a curfew; and, on 7 June, a siege of Qalqilia - the third since the month began - where the Israeli military arrested scores of Palestinians. PLO called on the Secretary-General and the Security Council to take steps to ensure Israel's respect for the 1949 Geneva Conventions and compliance with United Nations resolutions so as to end human rights violations and repressive measures against Palestinians under Israeli occupation.

On 22 September,(5) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights once again drew attention to what he called a steady deterioration of the human rights situation in the territories as a result of Israeli policy and practices, in particular the detention of Palestinians (see p. 309).

The Committee Chairman, on 13 October,(6) drew attention to the explosive situation in Gaza where mass protests against actions taken by the Israeli military met with further violence. He referred to Al-Fajr (a West Bank daily) and United Press International (UPI) reports to the effect that: on 1 October, the shooting of three Palestinians by Israeli soldiers who had fired at demonstrators sparked further demonstrations and a general student strike in the Gaza Strip; on 6 October, widespread protests ensued as tensions rose following the killing of four Arab men whom Israeli authorities identified as guerrillas; on 10 October, at least 25 Palestinians were wounded by Israeli troops in various incidents, in addition to the serious wounding of two youths when an army patrol opened fire at an anti-Israel student protest at the Islamic University; and, on 12 October, as Palestinian youths burned tyres in the streets of Gaza City and hurled stones at Israeli army patrols, the latter fired warning shots into the air to disperse the crowds, forced people at gunpoint to clear away the burning mounds and also forced striking businesses to reopen by ripping shop doors off. In the West Bank, demonstrations broke out when militant Jews tried to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (see p. 268).

On 13 November,(7) the Committee Chairman cited press reports of further incidents between Palestinians and Israeli troops that had resulted in the death and injury of several Palestinians. They included: a Jerusalem Post report about four Gaza residents who, on their way to work on 18 October, were shot at and wounded from a road-block between the town of Deir el-Balah and Bureij refugee camp which they claimed had not been marked by a "stop" sign; a 28 October Reuters report of a Bethlehem University student who had been shot in the head during a demonstration and later died of his wounds; a UPI account of a 16-year-old girl fatally shot on 10 November, when Israeli settlers fired on student demonstrators at Deir el-Balah; and a report by The New York Times about an Israeli driver who, on 11 November, to ward off protesters surrounding and stoning his car, fired a pistol, wounding two 14-year-old Gaza City schoolgirls, one critically.

On 11 December,(8) the Committee Chairman referred to press accounts of renewed acts of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that had again resulted in casualties. Among them were UPI and Associated Press accounts of Israeli troops who, on 9 December, shot two Palestinian youths dead and wounded 18 students protesting the death of four Palestinians in a road accident reportedly caused by an Israeli truck driver to avenge the fatal stabbing of a Jewish businessman in Gaza on 6 December, later, protesters gathered outside Shifa Hospital, where four of those injured were in critical condition, were attacked with tear-gas canisters dropped from Israeli helicopters.

The New York Times and UPI attributed the widespread protest demonstrations to clashes with Israeli soldiers and to the death by shooting of a Palestinian youth at Nablus and the wounding of at least 12 others on 10 December; the same sources reported that, at Kalandia refugee camp north of Jerusalem, 23 students were arrested for raising Palestinian flags during a demonstration and another 12 were hurt in a scuffle with police. Reuters reported that, during anti-Israel protests in the Gaza Strip, at least eight Palestinians were wounded and an 11-year-old boy died from having been shot in the head; and that, in Jerusalem, military authorities sentenced the head of the Arab Journalists' Union to six months in jail without trial and imposed a 10-day halt to the distribution of Al-Fajr; in the West Bank. Reuters and UPI also reported that, on 11 December, Israeli troops opened fire on another protest demonstration at Balata camp, killing four Palestinians and injuring another 30.

The Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, by a 14 December letter transmitted by Kuwait,(9) expressed outrage and indignation at what he called Israel's terroristic policies, particularly in the West Bank and Gaza, which had resulted in the death of many innocent and unarmed men, women and children, and in injuries to many more. He called on the international community to assume its responsibility to ensure that Palestinians were not subjected to daily massacres, unlawful detention and oppression, and urged the Security Council to adopt immediate and enforceable measures to that end.

The Islamic Conference members at the United Nations, by a communiqué adopted at an urgent meeting on the situation in the occupied territories (New York, 15 December),(10) urged the United Nations, in particular the Security Council, to intervene immediately to stop the massacres, to send a special fact-finding mission to investigate the situation in the territories, and to take effective steps, including imposing the sanctions stipulated in Chapter VII of the Charter, so as to end the occupation of all Palestinian and other Arab territories.

The Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, by a communiqué issued at a meeting, also on 15 December in New York, transmitted by Zimbabwe,(11) likewise called for the dispatch of a fact-finding mission and for imposition of the same Charter sanctions. Stressing that conflict and violence would continue as long as occupation remained and Palestinians were prevented from exercising their inalienable rights in their independent homeland, the Bureau further called for a comprehensive solution of the Middle East situation, the core of which was the Palestinian problem.

By a communiqué issued by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 16 December,(12) Spain deplored the events and resultant tense situation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and condemned the actions that had already caused a large number of casualties. It called on the parties to exercise restraint so as not to aggravate the spiralling violence, and on Israel, as the de facto occupying Power, strictly to abide by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and ensure the protection, security and freedom of the population in the territories. It urged the parties to exert every effort to set in motion a peace process - the only course likely to eliminate violence and create a climate of just coexistence.

Greece, by a 17 December statement,(13) expressed concern over the seriousness of the situation, which had resulted in the death and injury of many Arab demonstrators, and in arrests and detentions contrary to international law. It denounced the violence as widening the gap between the two sides and hindering efforts to solve the problem, and called on Israel to end the situation.

By an 18 December statement from its Foreign Ministry,(14) Japan, also expressing concern about the worsening situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and regret over the many casualties, believed that the harsh political, economic and social conditions to which the Palestinians continued to be subjected underlay the recent disturbances. It hoped for the realization of peace as soon as possible through implementation of Security Council resolutions 242(1967)(15) and 338(1973),(16) and recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, including their right to self-determination.

Tunisia, by a 17 December statement,(17) stated that the Palestinian uprising was a response to Israel's policies of terrorism and repression, including arrests, deportations, torture, the use of firearms against children, women and old people, dynamiting of homes, expropriations, implantation of settlements, Judaization of towns and villages' closing of schools and universities, and desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. It appealed to the international community to find a just solution to the Palestinian problem on the basis of (United Nations resolutions and exhorted the Council to adopt measures to ensure protection for the Palestinians and to end Israel's policies which threatened peace and security.

Egypt, in a statement by its Foreign Ministry transmitted on 18 December,(18) voiced concern and regret over the escalating violence and the increasing number of innocent persons killed by Israeli gun-fire. It called on Israel to reconsider its policy of escalation, which constituted a real obstacle to Egypt's indefatigable efforts to promote peace and achieve a just settlement. Warning that the situation was extremely dangerous, Egypt said the world should make clear to Israel that a policy of escalation might involve the region in more extensive and dangerous confrontations.

Malaysia, by a 19 December statement,(19) condemned what it labelled Israel's atrocities that revealed a total disregard for justice and gross disrespect for human life.

Egypt, by another statement, issued by the Office of the President and transmitted on 21 December,(20) warned that Israel's random firing at civilians could only lead to more violence and tension, intensify hatred, repugnance and vengeance, and damage peace efforts. It called on Israel to respect the rights of the Palestinians - the owners of the occupied territories - as laid down in international conventions and covenants and to respond to their legitimate demands; it appealed for action without delay to end Israel's occupation and arrive at an acceptable formula for peaceful coexistence.

Indonesia, by a statement of 22 December,(21) condemned Israel's "iron fist" policy (adopted in 1985(22)) as a blatant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention; the deplorable state of affairs would continue, it feared, as long as the Palestinian people were denied their inalienable right to self-determination, including to an independent homeland in Palestine. Indonesia called on the Security Council to shoulder its responsibility and put an end to the wanton acts of brutality, which could not but seriously undermine efforts towards a Middle East settlement.

Ghana, also by a 22 December statement,(23) protested what it called the barbaric excesses of the Israeli occupation forces against the defenceless inhabitants of the territories who were only exercising their right of legitimate protest against the degrading and inhuman subjugation to which they had been reduced. Ghana called on the international community to act in consonance with the Council to bring an immediate end to the wave of Israeli atrocities. The unrest in the territories, it said, only emphasized the urgent need for an international Middle East peace conference, with full PLO participation.

The head of State of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, by a message transmitted on 29 December,(24) viewed what he called the maltreatment and slaughter of Palestinians as a desperate attempt by Israel to eradicate their just cause: their right to their land and to life in freedom and dignity. The world could not disregard such carnage, he said, and must halt Israel's recklessness, brutality and continuing acts of terrorism. He appealed to the Secretary-General to ensure that the United Nations adopted urgent and effective measures to stop Israel's crimes, punish the perpetrators and enable the Palestinians to regain their land and obtain their full freedom.

Also on 29 December,(25) the Acting Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights drew attention to the deteriorating situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as reflected in press reports. These included a 24 December report by the Christian Science Monitor that live ammunition used by Israeli troops had killed at least 23 Palestinians and injured hundreds of others; a 26 December New York Times report that the number of Palestinian youths arrested for suspected involvement in the recent wave of protests had risen to 1,000, whereas the Palestine Press Service in Jerusalem put the number at more than 2,000; a New York Times account of round-the-clock pick-up of Palestinians by squads of Israeli soldiers with arrest warrants issued by the army, for detention in two makeshift prisons pending trial; and a 27 December report by the same paper that the trials were to be mass courts martial, defence lawyers had not been allowed to see the detainees, and, in the Gaza Strip Palestinian lawyers were boycotting the trials owing to pressures on the defendants by offers of one-month prison terms to those who confessed and by threats of much longer sentences for those who insisted on a trial; a 24 December Jerusalem Post quote of a military official as saying that the army arrested and expelled where the law allowed it to do so, and that it had shut down several universities and about 800 schools in the West Bank and 92 in the Gaza Strip. The Chairman conveyed the Committee's appeal to the Secretary-General to take such measures as were possible to alleviate the sufferings of the affected Palestinians and to protect those under Israeli occupation.

Human Rights Commission action. The Commission on Human Rights, by a 19 February 1987 resolution on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine (see p. 819), reaffirmed that occupation was itself a fundamental human rights violation and that Israel's breaches of the fourth Geneva Convention and of the 1977 Additional Protocols(26) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions were war crimes (see p. 308). It condemned Israel's "iron fist" policy and practices violating human rights in the territories, among them the annexation of parts of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem; acts of violence against Arab civilians by Israeli settlers armed for that purpose, causing death and injury and wide-scale damage to Arab property; and mass arrests, collective punishments, administrative detention and attacks against Palestinian students. It requested that the measures under Chapter VII of the Charter be adopted by the Security Council against Israel for its persistent human rights violations in the territories.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its report to the General Assembly covering the period 10 September 1986 to 31 August 1987,(27) the Committee on Israeli practices presented information on Israeli policy developments in the occupied territories in relation to the treatment of civilians and detainees, and to annexation and settlement measures.

The report was based on monthly reports from Jordan and PLO, from November 1986 to May 1987; written statements from Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic, PLO, NGOs and individuals; the testimony of individuals with first-hand knowledge of the situation of the population in the territories; Israeli press reports of pronouncements by persons in the Government of Israel that had not been contradicted by the Government; and reports in other media, including the Arab language press in the occupied territories, in Israel and in the international press.

The Committee conducted a series of hearings between 1 and 14 June 1987 at Geneva, Amman and Damascus, at which it heard testimonies of persons living in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. It met again at Geneva between 31 August and 4 September to examine its findings and adopt its report.

The Committee observed that the general policy of Israel remained based on the principle that the territories it occupied were part of the State of Israel. Hence it continued to establish settlements (see p. 311), expropriate property, transfer Israeli citizens to the territories and encourage Palestinians to leave their homeland. In that context and as a result of Israel's pursuit of the "iron fist" policy it adopted in 1985,(22) the prevailing climate of repression and confrontation intensified. As resistance in the territories exploded in demonstrations and strikes, and as Israeli crowd-control methods and stepped-up military presence invariably resulted in death and injury to demonstrators, more violent and widespread demonstrations were triggered, in turn triggering increased arrests, administrative detentions, harsh sentencing including of minors, and harassment and humiliation of the population. Arbitrary expulsions and deportations continued (see p. 313), as did the illegal practice of collective punishment, which in many cases penalized innocent relatives whose houses were demolished or sealed off. Denial of the right to family reunification was persistent.

Ill-treatment of detainees and harsh prison conditions (see p. 309) led to hunger strikes by several thousand Arab prisoners throughout the territories. Incidents of abuse of detainees at a new detention camp were also reported.

Freedom of movement for a number of civilians, both individually and collectively, was arbitrarily restricted. Freedom of association and of the press was curtailed by censorship, harassment of journalists and trade unionists, or closure of newspapers and trade unions. As a result of student demonstrations, freedom of education was further restricted. In addition to the continuing denial to educational institutions of adequate equipment and buildings, modification of curricula and harassment of teachers and students alike, the main Palestinian universities were also subjected to closures (see p. 315).

The living conditions of the population continued to deteriorate, in the agricultural sector, workers and farmers were subjected to harassment and adding to their difficulties was Israeli control over water resources (see p. 322). The situation in the Golan Heights was also reported as deteriorating (see p. 317).

The Committee assessed the situation in the territories as one of continuing violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and of disregard for the fourth Geneva Convention, reaffirmed by various Assembly resolutions as applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967. The persistent policy of annexation, which the population met with fierce resistance, had engendered a cycle of tension and repression that seemed bound to provoke yet more dramatic events in the future. The Committee reiterated the need for the international community to assume its responsibility and adopt measures to prevent a further deterioration of the situation and provide effective protection for the rights and freedoms of the civilians in the territories.

Reports of the Secretary-General. In his November 1987 report on various aspects of the Middle East situation,(28) the Secretary-General stated that Israel's occupation of Arab territory, already over 20 years long, had always been deeply resented by the inhabitants and thus had given rise to much unrest and violence. Since December 1986, when the Security Council adopted resolution 592(1986)(29) in the wake of grave incidents in the territories, further violent incidents had occurred and more lives had been lost. He said the situation in the territories would remain unstable as long as a settlement was not reached. The start of a negotiating process, under United Nations auspices and acceptable to all, would be a significant step in the direction of peace and stability.

Responding to a 1986 General Assembly request,(30) the Secretary-General, in September 1987,(31) reported that he had made available to the Committee on Israeli practices the additional staff member and temporary staff assistance it required. DPI gave the Committee's 1987 hearings and report press-release and radio-news coverage in a number of languages, including telephone feeds. A "World Chronicle" television programme on human rights also highlighted the Committee's work. A 20-minute film entitled "The Palestinians" was scheduled for release on the occasion of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (29 November). Several United Nations information centres highlighting the Palestine question in newsletters made mention of the Committee's work, which was also given press coverage by the Information Service at Geneva.

UNRWA operations. In his report on UNRWA activities for the period 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988,(32) the Commissioner-General stated that incidents in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in early December 1987 added greatly to the challenges facing the Agency. The incidents had spread so quickly that it soon found itself facing a new and serious situation in the territories. What had seemed a spontaneous uprising turned into a broader confrontation characterized by more frequent and varied incidents between Palestinians and occupation authorities. By the end of 1987, over 20 Palestinians had been killed and dozens wounded in clashes with Israeli security forces.

Measures taken by the occupation authorities to deal with the incidents had also had an impact on the lives of refugees and on the Agency's ability to meet their new demands for services and other assistance. Administrative detention of large numbers of refugees suspected of being involved in the demonstrations, demolition or sealing off of houses occupied by families of Palestinians accused of security violations, curfews and other restrictions on travel, expulsion of individuals considered to have had a role in directing resistance against the Israeli occupation, fines, taxation, confiscation of identity cards (without which residents of the territories could neither work nor move freely), school closures, cutting off water and electricity services, and other economic and political measures added to the difficulties confronting the residents.

Owing to substantially increased demands on health services, the 400 UNRWA-subsidized hospital beds and medical supplies proved insufficient. UNRWA health centres had to cope with significantly increased numbers of casualties, many of whom sustained severe multiple contusions and fractures from beatings, injuries from rubber bullets and live ammunition, and exposure to crowd-control gases.

The disturbances, curfews and administrative and military restrictions impeded the free movement of UNRWA staff, which adversely affected UNRWA environmental health services in the camps, among other services. They likewise delayed and, in some cases, prevented delivery of essential items of assistance to the neediest of refugees (the special hardship cases) - dry food commodities, blankets, clothing, and cash and help for shelter repair and reconstruction.

On 10 December, during the incidents, IDF forcibly entered the Kalandia Training Centre, using tear-gas bombs and truncheons; they left behind 11 severely beaten trainees and six others unconscious from tear-gas exposure. The Commissioner-General cited this as illustrative of how developments in the territories were affecting UNRWA with respect to its rights, privileges and immunities and its ability effectively to discharge its functions.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 8 December, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 42/160 D on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and by the principles and provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Bearing in mind the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, as well as of other relevant conventions and regulations,

Recalling all its resolutions on the subject, in particular resolutions 32/91 B and C of 13 December 1977, 33/113 C of 18 December 1978, 34/90 A of 12 December 1979, 35/122 C of 11 December 1980, 36/147 C of 16 December 1981, ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982, 37/88 C of 10 December 1982, 38/79 D of 15 December 1983, 39/95 D of 14 December 1984, 40/161 D of 16 December 1985 and 41/63 D of 3 December 1986,

Recalling also the relevant resolutions adopted by the Security Council by the Commission on Human Rights, in particular its resolutions 1983/1 of 15 February 1983, 1984/1 of 20 February 1984, 1985/1 A and B and 1985/2 of 19 February 1985, 1986/1 A and B and 1986/2 of 20 February 1986, and by other United Nations organs concerned and the specialized agencies,

Having considered the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories which contains, inter alia, self-incriminating public statements made by officials of Israel, the occupying Power, and the report of the Secretary-General dated 9 September 1987,

1. Commends the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories for its efforts in performing the tasks assigned to it by the General Assembly and for its thoroughness and impartiality;

2. Deplores the continued refusal by Israel to allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories;

3. Demands that Israel allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories;

4. Reaffirms the fact that occupation itself constitutes a grave violation of the human rights of the civilian population of the occupied Arab territories;

5. Condemns the continued and persistent violation by Israel of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and other applicable international instruments, and condemns in particular those violations which the Convention designates as "grave breaches" thereof;

6. Declares once more that Israel's grave breaches of that Convention are war crimes and an affront to humanity;

7. Reaffirms, in accordance with the Convention, that the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian and other Arab territories is of a temporary nature, thus giving no right whatsoever to the occupying Power over the territorial integrity of the occupied territories;

8. Strongly condemns the following Israeli policies and practices:

(a) Annexation of parts of the occupied territories including Jerusalem;

(b) Imposition of Israeli laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Syrian Arab Golan, which has resulted in the effective annexation of that territory;

(c) Illegal imposition and levy of heavy and disproportionate taxes and dues;

(d) Establishment of new Israeli settlements and expansion of the existing settlements on private and public Arab lands, and transfer of an alien population thereto;

(e) Eviction, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories and denial of their right to return;

(f) Confiscation and expropriation of private and public Arab property in the occupied territories and all other transactions for the acquisition of land involving the Israeli authorities, institutions or nationals on the one hand and the inhabitants or institutions of the occupied territories on the other;

(g) Excavation and transformation of the landscape and the historical, cultural and religious sites, especially at Jerusalem;

(h) Pillaging of archaeological and cultural property;

(i) Destruction and demolition of Arab houses;

(j) Collective punishment, mass arrests, administrative detention and ill-treatment of the Arab population;

(k) Ill-treatment and torture of persons under detention;

(l) interference with religious freedoms and practices as well as family rights and customs;

(m) Interference with the system of education and with the social and economic and health development of the population in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories;

(n) Interference with the freedom of movement of individuals within the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories;

(o) Illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories;

9. Strongly condemns, in particular, the following Israeli policies and practices:

(a) Implementation of an "iron fist" policy against the inhabitants of the occupied territories since 4 August 1985;

(b) Ill-treatment and torture of children and minors under detention and/or imprisonment;

(c) Closure of headquarters and/or offices of trade unions and harassment of trade union leaders;

(d) Interference with the freedom of the press, including censorship, closure and suspension of newspapers and magazines;

(e) Killing and wounding of defenceless demonstrators; House and/or town arrests;

10. Condemns also the Israeli repression against and closing of the educational institutions in the occupied Syrian Arab Golan, particularly the prohibition of Syrian textbooks and the Syrian educational system, the deprivation of Syrian students from pursuing their higher education in Syrian universities, the denial of the right to return to Syrian students receiving their higher education in the Syrian Arab Republic, the forcing of Hebrew on Syrian students, the imposition of courses that promote hatred, prejudice and religious intolerance, and the dismissal of teachers, all in clear violation of the Geneva Convention;

11. Strongly condemns the arming of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories to commit acts of violence against Arab civilians and the perpetration of acts of violence by these armed settlers against individuals, causing death and injury and wide-scale damage to Arab property;

12. Reaffirms that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or legal status of the occupied territories, or any part thereof, including Jerusalem, are null and void, and that Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories constitutes a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention and of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations;

13. Demands that Israel desist forthwith from the policies and practices referred to in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 above;

14. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to take immediate steps for the return of all displaced Arab and Palestinian inhabitants to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, in implementation of Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967;

15. Urges international organizations, including the specialized agencies, in particular the International Labour Organisation, to continue to examine the conditions of Arab workers in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem;

16. Reiterates its call upon all States, in particular those States parties to the Geneva Convention, in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and upon international organizations, including the specialized agencies, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid actions, including those in the field of aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any of the other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

17. Requests the Special Committee, pending early termination of Israeli occupation, to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, to consult, as appropriate, with the International Committee of the Red Cross in order to ensure the safeguarding of the welfare and human rights of the population of the occupied territories and to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arises thereafter;

18. Requests the Special Committee to continue to investigate the treatment of civilians in detention in the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

19. Condemns Israel's refusal to permit persons from the occupied territories to appear as witnesses before the Special Committee and to participate in conferences and meetings held outside the occupied territories;

20. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To provide all necessary facilities to the Special Committee, including those required for its visits to the occupied territories, so that it may investigate the Israeli policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

(b) To continue to make available additional staff as may be necessary to assist the Special Committee in the performance of its tasks;

(c) To ensure the widest circulation of the reports of the Special Committee and of information regarding its activities and findings, by all means available, through the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat and, where necessary, to reprint those reports of the Special Committee that are no longer available;

(d) To report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session on the tasks entrusted to him in the present resolution;

21. Requests the Security Council to ensure Israel's respect for and compliance with all the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to initiate measures to halt Israeli policies and practices in those territories;

22. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to allow the reopening of the Roman Catholic Medical Facility Hospice at Jerusalem in order to continue to provide needed health and medical services to the Arab population in the City;

23. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its forty-third session the item entitled "Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories".

General Assembly resolution 42/160 D
8 December 1987 Meeting 95 112-3-38 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/811) by recorded vote (95-2-27), 25 November (meeting 34); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Yemen for Arab Group (A/SPC/42/L.26); agenda item 75.

Financial implications. 5th Committee A/42/853: S-G, A/C.5/42/53,
A/SPC/42/L.31.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: 5th Committee 54; SPC 29-34; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Colombia,a/ Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, France,a/ Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Costa Rica, Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zaire.

a/ Later advised the Secretariat it had intended to abstain.


The Special Political Committee, before approving the draft resolution as a whole, approved paragraphs 6 and 22 by recorded votes of 78 to 21, with 23 abstentions, and by 120 to 2, with 2 abstentions, respectively. The Assembly adopted paragraph 6 by a recorded vote of 83 to 26, with 37 abstentions.

Israel said the text reproduced the false allegations put forward by the Committee on Israeli practices and completely disregarded the actual circumstances; it took no account of the principle of international law that, in addition to ensuring the welfare of the local population, administering authorities had a clear duty to protect that population, together with its own, against terrorism. Furthermore, it renewed the mandate of the Committee on Israeli practices, which had become a sinecure for its members.

The United States believed that the text could only inflame an already embittered situation. It noted with particular dismay such new charges as the "ill-treatment and torture of children and minors under detention" and objected to the expense imposed by the Committee on the United Nations budget, especially at a time of budgetary constraint when scarce resources should not be wasted on pointless exercises.

Although Sweden could support most of the text's provisions, specifically the condemnation of various Israeli policies and practices in paragraphs 8 and 9, it was not convinced that all the formulations in those paragraphs were fully justified by facts; moreover, the text went beyond the Assembly's competence. Austria, while supporting the basic thrust of the text, abstained because of certain formulations; nevertheless, it supported paragraph 22 and hoped for the vigorous pursuit of contacts between the Catholic Medical Facility Hospice at Jerusalem and the Jordanian Government so that a satisfactory solution might be found to meet the medical and social requirements of the Arab population. In Uruguay's opinion, the text contained several formulations that did not contribute to efforts towards restoring peace.

Iran stated that its vote should in no way be construed to imply recognition of the Zionist occupation of the Palestinian territories, which, it stressed, must all be liberated.

Stating their positions on their affirmative vote on the draft, as well as on the other six drafts concerning the report of the Committee on Israeli practices, Bolivia said its vote was based on its unalterable opposition to occupation, conquest or annexation of other peoples' territories, and to practices leading to the assimilation of such territories by an occupying Power; the Niger voted as it did because the Palestinian problems were a matter of international concern and required a satisfactory settlement that allowed the peoples of the region to live in peace and security; its vote notwithstanding, Argentina reserved its position regarding some of the text's terminology, which did not relate to the substance of the questions addressed and might lead to equivocal interpretations that it could not support; Mongolia, voicing condemnation of Israel's annexation policy and non-recognition of any changes in the physical character, demographic composition or legal status of the occupied territories said Israel's unconditional withdrawal from them was essential for a just and lasting solution to the Middle East problem.


SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Security Council held seven meetings between 11 and 22 December to consider the situation in the occupied territories, as requested by Democratic Yemen on behalf of the Group of Arab States at the United Nations.(33) The Council invited the following, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, German Democratic Republic, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Invited to participate under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure a/ were the Permanent Observers of the League of Arab States and of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations, at the request of the United Arab Emirates(34) and Kuwait,(35) respectively; and the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, at his own request.

Also at the request of the United Arab Emirates,(36) the Council decided, by 10 votes to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, United Kingdom), that an invitation to participate be accorded to a representative of PLO. The invitation, though not made pursuant to rules 37 b/ or 39, conferred on PLO the same rights as those conferred on a Member State when invited pursuant to rule 37.

a/ Rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure states: "The Security Council may invite members of the Secretariat or other persons, whom it considers competent for the purpose, to supply it with information or to give other assistance in examining matters within its competence."

b/ Rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure states: "Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may be invited, as the result of a decision of the Security Council to participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council when the Security Council considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected, or when a Member brings a matter to the attention of the Security Council in accordance with Article 35(1) of the Charter."



Before the vote, the United States, which had requested it, reiterated its opposition to what it called special ad hoc departures from orderly procedure and to extending to PLO the same rights to participate as if it represented a Member State the United States did not agree with recent practice which appeared selectively to try to enhance, through a departure from the rules, the prestige of those wishing to speak in the Council. The Federal Republic of Germany said it was guided in its abstention by the Council's rules; the procedure followed in this instance was clearly designed to grant PLO a status similar to that of a Member State - a status not reflective of its true relationship to the United Nations.

Japan confirmed its position that PLO, as one of the major parties to the Middle East question, should be invited to participate when the Council deliberated on the question, including the Palestine question.

On 22 December, the Council adopted resolution 605(1987).

The Security Council,

Having considered the letter dated 11 December 1987 from the Permanent Representative of Democratic Yemen to the United Nations, in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of Arab States at the United Nations for the month of December,

Bearing in mind the inalienable rights of all peoples recognized by the Charter of the United Nations and proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Recalling its relevant resolutions on the situation in the Palestinian and other Arab territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and including its resolutions 446(1979), 465(1980), 497(1981) and 592(1986),

Recalling also the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

Gravely concerned and alarmed by the deteriorating situation in Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation,

Considering that the current policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, in the occupied territories are bound to have grave consequences for the endeavours to achieve comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

1. Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, and in particular the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenceless Palestinian civilians;

2. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violation of the provisions of the Convention;

4. Calls furthermore for the exercise of maximum restraint to contribute towards the establishment of peace;

5. Stresses the urgent need to reach a just, durable and peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to examine the present situation in the occupied territories by all means available to him, and to submit a report no later than 20 January 1988 containing his recommendations on ways and means for ensuring the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation;

7. Decides to keep the situation in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, under review.

Security Council resolution 605(1987)
22 December 1987 Meeting 2777 14-0-1

5-nation draft (S/19352/Rev.1).

Sponsors: Argentina, Congo, Ghana, United Arab Emirates, Zambia.

Meeting numbers. SC 2770, 2772-2777.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Bulgaria, China, Congo, France, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Italy, Japan, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Zambia.

Against: None.

Abstaining: United States.

Following the vote, the United States stated that, through the international media, it had watched with profound concern the explosion of violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the preceding two weeks and had been deeply grieved by the extensive loss of life and the large number of people wounded. Its views on the use of live fire in certain circumstances were clearly known; however, the resolution went beyond deploring such use to a generalized criticism of Israeli policies and practices, ignoring the fact that Israeli lives were also at risk and that Israel's security forces had been faced by provocations and, in some cases, by life-threatening situations. It cautioned the Council against polemics in dealing with those tragic events, stressing that the challenge before it was how to assist in the search for a mutually acceptable political settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict that would enable Israelis and Palestinians, and the people throughout the region, to live in peace and security.

Speaking before the vote, Japan urged Israel to exercise utmost restraint so as to avert further casualties and demanded that it scrupulously abide by the fourth Geneva Convention and international law. It reiterated its demand for a solution based on the recognition of, and respect for, Palestinian rights, and for the early and full implementation of Council resolutions 242 (1967)(15) and 338 (1973)(16) requiring Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories. Saying the core of the problem was the absence of a just and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the harsh and depressive political, economic and social conditions in which the Palestinians lived, Japan called on all the parties to give their fullest co-operation to the Secretary-General's efforts to convene an international Middle East peace conference. With those considerations in mind, Japan said it would vote for the draft resolution.

Also before the vote, Israel objected to the draft as not a reasonable and balanced attempt to address the issues at hand and the events as they had transpired in the preceding two weeks; there was not even a minimal attempt to consider the deliberate incitements to violence that had fomented the tensions underlying the disturbances. The text purported to relate to security matters that were Israel's exclusive responsibility, interference with which it would not countenance. By entertaining such texts, the Council implicitly weakened those genuinely interested in a peaceful settlement and encouraged those who saw violence not only as a means but also as an end. Israel stressed that the conflict could be solved only through direct peace negotiations based on Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and on mutual respect for the rights of Jews and Arabs alike. Such a political solution lay with the States concerned rather than with the Council. It further stressed that, despite the baseless accusations to the contrary, the fact remained that its security forces had reacted with the maximum restraint possible in the violent circumstances that confronted them.

During the debate, Israel presented what it said were facts showing that the wave of violence being witnessed was not spontaneous. It had begun with two incidents, it said, that were primed up by a carefully orchestrated campaign: the first involved the death by stabbing of an Israeli in an Arab market on 6 December by one of Yasser Arafat's bodyguard force; the second involved a traffic accident at Jabaliya near Gaza on 10 December in which four Arabs were struck dead by a veering Israeli truck, reported by Al-Fajr, a Jerusalem pro-PLO paper, as a deliberate assault to avenge the Israeli's death. On the same date, a PLO broadcast from Baghdad exhorted the Arab population "to increase the disturbances and to teach the enemy an unimaginable lesson". Disturbances then followed at Jabaliya on 11 December and in Balata and Kalandia camps on 12 December. Israel pointed out that in November and early December, PLO had openly incited riots organized around a succession of dates marking such events as the Balfour Declaration on 2 November, the Extraordinary Arab Summit on 8 November, the tenth anniversary of Anwar Sadat's visit to Jerusalem on 19 November and the twentieth anniversary of the founding of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine on 11 December. It also cited the anniversary of the founding of the Fatah on 1 January.

As to compliance with the fourth Geneva Convention, called for throughout the debate, Israel asserted that it neither considered itself to be an occupying Power, nor accepted the Convention's de jure applicability, since it applied in cases where the ousted Power was a legitimate sovereignty; it thus pertained neither to Judaea and Samaria, illegally annexed by Jordan for 19 years, nor to Gaza, administered by the Egyptian military during the same period. None the less, Israel had, since 1967, acted in de facto accordance with the Convention's humanitarian provisions.

PLO stated that the Council was responsible for ensuring Israel's implementation of the Convention. As Israel had not heeded the repeated calls to abide by its provisions, the Council should take stronger action, including sanctions. The dangerous situation made it incumbent on the Council to adopt an action-oriented resolution to provide for Israel's withdrawal and its replacement with United Nations peace-keeping forces, to guarantee the safety and protection of Palestinian citizens in the occupied territories and to dispatch a fact-finding mission.

Alarmed by the deteriorating situation and repeated confrontations, France insisted that Israel assume its duties under international law and that the Council remind it of its obligations as an occupying Power under the Convention. The United Kingdom was of the view, based on available evidence, that the use of force by the occupation authorities had been excessive and had contravened the Convention's article 27 requiring the occupying Power to treat all protected persons humanely at all times; it also rejected any attempt to cloud the issue by talking about application de facto rather than de jure. China believed it necessary for the Council to reaffirm the Convention's applicability and to adopt effective measures to ensure Israel's immediate and strict compliance. Calls for such compliance were likewise made by Afghanistan, Algeria, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, the Federal Republic of Germany, Morocco and Qatar.

Ghana suggested that the Council call anew on Israel to fulfil its responsibility towards the populations in the occupied Arab territories in accordance with the Convention and to release all persons detained as a result of the week-long riots. Nicaragua alleged that Israel refused to accept applicability of the 1949 Geneva Conventions because it had no intention of withdrawing from the territories and was trying to legitimize its occupation by increasing settlements, seizing land, annexing territory and applying collective sanctions against the lawful inhabitants. The League of Arab States said Israel's refusal to recognize its status as occupying Power, accountable under the Convention, explained the ferocity of its coercive measures in the territories; unless Israel complied with international law and the Council's resolutions, further polarization and violence would ensue.

It was widely agreed that the events in the territories were the outcome of Israel's 20-year occupation and its policies and that, therefore, a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem was urgently needed. Jordan observed that the Palestinian Arab people, chafing under occupation, had long been frustrated and humiliated by Israel's tendency, especially in the last two years, to strengthen its actions to annex the occupied territories. Yugoslavia, along with Czechoslovakia, believed that the explosive situation and justified protests were the natural consequence of an untenable situation created by Israeli occupation and of the continuous denial of the Palestinians' legitimate rights and aspirations to self-determination and to a State of their own. In Nicaragua's view, Israeli occupation and the dislocation and dispersal of Palestinians were the source of the problem. India regarded the popular uprisings - not mere demonstrations - as a reflection of an entire people's will for an independent homeland of their own. Sharing those views were Afghanistan and Yemen, among others.

France believed that the current events indicated the precariousness of a situation that was in keeping with neither law nor justice. Iraq pointed out that Israel's persistent policy of aggression and expansion and use of force and terrorism were not likely to lead either to peace and security or to the fulfilment of its master plan to eliminate the Palestinians. The United Kingdom said its concern about the tragedy of what was happening in the territories was not only humanitarian; it arose also from the Council's duty to apply itself to the serious consequences of the Israeli occupation for international peace and security - not least in view of resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

In the opinion of the USSR, objective possibilities existed for ending the dangerous course of events in the Middle East. It was important, therefore, to begin moving in the direction of a comprehensive settlement that must provide for Israel's withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 1967 and implementation by the Palestinian Arabs of their rights to self-determination and to the establishment of their own State; it must also ensure the rights of the region’s States to a safe and independent existence and development. Similarly, the League of Arab States, noting a measure of international détente stimulated by the successful summit meeting between the two super-Powers, said the atmosphere at this juncture was conducive for the Council to address the roots of the Middle East problem, of which the violent incidents in recent days were but an expression of Palestinian frustration accumulated under their 20-year occupation.

Total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and realization of the Palestinian people's inalienable national rights were widely considered as prerequisites for restoring peace in the territories and in the region. States subscribing to that position included Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, the German Democratic Republic, Nicaragua, Qatar, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yugoslavia, which added respect for the rights of the region's countries, including Israel, to live in peace and security within their internationally recognized borders. Czechoslovakia held it necessary to continue all United Nations efforts towards those objectives. Cuba and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya called for decisive action to bring about Israel's withdrawal. In Tunisia's opinion, the Council must take measures to end the violence, torture and killing by treating the cause of the disease, namely, foreign occupation and violation of Palestinian rights. Pakistan warned that peace and security could not return unless Israel recognized the Palestinians' right to have a homeland of their own, while the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights warned of increased tension and violence. Democratic Yemen hoped for immediate and practical Council measures to deal with the Israeli occupation and to redress the situation perpetrated against the Palestinians for 40 years. Condemning the massacre of unarmed civilians, Iran affirmed its unreserved support for the struggle of the Palestinians to regain the whole of their territory.

In order to achieve a just and comprehensive settlement, the majority of speakers advocated the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East, under United Nations auspices, with the participation of the parties and the permanent Council members (see p. 258). The United Kingdom considered it essential that early progress be made towards convening such a conference, in a form to be agreed upon by all the parties to serve as a framework for negotiations. Ghana felt the matter should be addressed with urgency; to that end Algeria called on the Council to do everything to remove existing obstacles. China urged Israel to demonstrate the necessary political will by agreeing to such a conference. For the USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany, an international conference would give real impetus to the peace process. For France and Bulgaria, it was the most realistic and direct way to achieve a settlement, and, for the Congo, the only forum whereby the Palestine and Middle East question could be solved. Italy said the Council was duty bound to contribute to finding a solution, including promoting such a conference.

Similar statements of support and urgent calls for a conference were made by Afghanistan, the German Democratic Republic, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe. The Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights said the international community considered such a conference an urgent necessity.

To ensure Israel's compliance with Council resolutions, several speakers called for stronger measures, including sanctions, among them Afghanistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam, Yemen and Zimbabwe. According to the United Arab Emirates, the Council was at a critical stage it could decide either to shoulder its responsibilities under the Charter, or to shirk them and leave the outcome to be decided on the ground. Saudi Arabia said that, if condemning the Zionist authorities was sufficient for some, it was not for the Palestinian Arab people whose blood was being shed in the streets. A just verdict would, in the eyes of the Arab and Muslim peoples, enhance the credibility of the Council, which bore a fundamental responsibility to deter those authorities from committing their acts of terror, and restore justice to the Palestinians.

Among other immediate measures, several countries - including Afghanistan, India, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe - supported the dispatch to the territories of a special fact-finding mission, as had been proposed in communications of the non-aligned countries and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (see p. 298).

Fourth Geneva Convention

In 1987, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights again reaffirmed that the 12 August 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (fourth Geneva Convention) applied to the Israeli-occupied territories. Continuing disregard of the Convention - the main international instrument in humanitarian law that applied to the occupied territories - was reported by the Committee on Israeli practices, which cited Israel's policy of annexation and establishment of settlements, as well as its reported ill-treatment of detainees, in flagrant violation of its obligations under the Convention.

In December, during the Security Council debate on the situation in the occupied territories (see p. 304), it was repeatedly emphasized that Israel, as the occupying Power, was obliged to abide by the Convention.

Communications. A number of communications dealing with various aspects of the situation in the Israeli-occupied territories, addressed to the Secretary-General throughout 1987, stressed the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to the territories and charged Israel with infringing a number of its provisions. Among these were the letters of 20 May(2) and 3 June(3) by the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, by which he recalled that the Security Council - most recently in 1986(29) - had repeatedly affirmed that the Convention was applicable to the territories and had called on Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by it.

Human Rights Commission action. In a 19 February 1987 resolution on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine (see p. 819), the Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed the applicability of the Convention to all those territories, including Jerusalem, strongly condemned Israel's systematic refusal to apply it to the territories, and called on Israel to abide by the United Nations Charter and international law. The Commission once more urged all parties to the Convention to ensure compliance with it in the territories, including Jerusalem.

Report of the Secretary-General. On 7 August 1987,(37) the Secretary-General informed the Assembly that Israel had not replied to his January request for information on steps taken or envisaged to implement the 1986 Assembly resolution(33) demanding that Israel acknowledge and comply with the Convention in the occupied territories.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 8 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 42/160 B on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 465(1980) of 1 March 1980, in which, inter alia, the Council affirmed that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Recalling also its resolutions 3092 A (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3240 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, 3525 B (XXX) of 15 December 1975, 31/106 B of 16 December 1976, 32/91 A of 13 December 1977, 33/113 A of 18 December 1978, 34/90 B of 12 December 1979, 35/122 A of 11 December 1980, 36/147 A of 16 December 1981, 37/88 A of 10 December 1982, 38/79 B of 15 December 1983, 39/95 B of 14 December 1984, 40/161 B of 16 December 1985 and 41/63 B of 3 December 1986,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 7 August 1987,

Considering that the promotion of respect for the obligations arising from the Charter of the United Nations and other instruments and rules of international law is among the basic purposes and principles of the United Nations,

Bearing in mind the provisions of the Geneva Convention,

Noting that Israel and the Arab States whose territories have been occupied by Israel since June 1967 are parties to the Convention,

Taking into account that States parties to the Convention undertake, in accordance with article I thereof, not only to respect but also to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances,

1. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Condemns once again the failure of Israel, the occupying Power, to acknowledge the applicability of the Convention to the territories it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. Strongly demands that Israel acknowledge and comply with the provisions of the Convention in the Palestinian and other Arab territories it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

4. Urgently calls upon all States parties to the Convention to exert all efforts in order to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/160 B
8 December 1987 Meeting 95 142-1-8 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/811) by recorded vote (116-1-5), 25 November (meeting 34); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Senegal, Yemen for Arab Group (A/SPC/42/L.24): agenda item 75.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 29-34; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago. Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Belize, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Liberia, United States, Zaire.

Before voting on the text as a whole, the Assembly and the Committee adopted paragraph 1 by recorded votes of 147 to 1, with 2 abstentions, and 122 to 1, respectively.

Israel stated that, although it did not acknowledge the Convention's applicability to the areas under its administration, in fact it applied the Convention's principles to the inhabitants and even granted them privileges not laid down in the Convention; the question of applicability was a matter of legal interpretation and Israel's position was supported by acknowledged authorities in the field of international law.

The United States said it firmly supported the Convention's applicability to the territories; for that reason, it had requested a separate vote on paragraph 1 and had voted for it to underscore that position. The resolution as a whole, however, served no purpose other than to delay the solution of the very problems it claimed to address; also, the phrase "Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem" was merely demographically and geographically descriptive and not indicative of sovereignty.

Explaining their affirmative votes, Uruguay said it was for strictly legal reasons, although it disagreed with certain of the text's political statements, while Bolivia based its vote on the principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by force.

PLO observed that Israel stood entirely alone in denying the Convention's applicability to the occupied territories.

Palestinian detainees

The General Assembly in 1987 again demanded that Israel immediately release all Palestinians detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle for self-determination; the Commission on Human Rights made a similar request. Information on the treatment of Palestinian detainees was contained in the report of the Committee on Israeli practices. The imprisonment of Palestinian intellectuals by Israel was the subject of a number of communications.

Communications. Tunisia transmitted a letter from PLO of 9 April 1987,(39) reporting that 4,000 Palestinian detainees in Israeli gaols had been on hunger-strike since 25 March in protest over the inhuman conditions to which they were subjected, in particular against the use of torture; their other complaints included overcrowding, inadequate ventilation due to windows blocked with asbestos sheets, poor and inadequate food, and lack of proper medical care. They were also raising the issue of Israel's repressive "iron fist" policy in the territories. PLO further reported that a general strike had been in effect since 8 April in Jerusalem, Ramallah and El-Bireh in support of the hunger-strike, and that demonstrations and protests had spread throughout the territories, to which Israeli troops had responded with violence, using live ammunition and tear-gas on the unarmed protestors, injuring several.

In a 14 April letter dealing with various aspects of the situation in the territories,(1) PLO reported the arrest of three prominent Palestinian intellectuals under Israeli administrative detention laws providing for imprisonment without charge or trial for up to six months: Faisal Husseini, President of the Arab Research Society at Jerusalem; Mamoun Al-Said, former Editor-in-Chief of the Palestinian newspaper Al-Fajr; and Salah Zaheeka, member of the Administrative Committee of the Arab Journalists' League.

By a 22 September letter,(5) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights drew attention to the continuing practice of subjecting suspected opponents of Israeli occupation to administrative detention, the latest case being that of Faisal Husseini, arrested on 12 September. According to press reports, Israel's Minister of Defence had ordered a six-month detention for Husseini, allegedly for not having changed his activities following his release two months earlier (Ha'aretz, 14 September) after a three-month detention on charges of making a statement in favour of PLO to a Jerusalem Post reporter (Ha'aretz, 8 February). Prior to his latest arrest, Husseini had been held for 10 days for his membership in an "illegal organization", but was released on 4 September.

A lawyer for Husseini stated that his recent arrest was linked to his activities in the Committee Confronting the Iron Fist Policy, a Jewish-Arab group opposed to Israeli policies in the territories. It was also reportedly linked with a recent press conference at which Husseini gave a demonstration of what he described as Israeli methods of torture used against Palestinian prisoners (The Jerusalem Post, 30 August). In addition, Husseini had been under town arrest for five years until earlier in 1987. The Chairman reiterated the Committee's concern over Israel's policy and practices, which only exacerbated tension in the region and created new obstacles to a negotiated and peaceful settlement.

Human Rights Commission action. The Commission on Human Rights, in a 19 February 1987 resolution reaffirming the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to the Israeli-occupied territories (see p. 819), condemned Israel for its ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian detainees and prisoners and demanded that it cease those practices forthwith. The Commission urged Israel to grant prisoner-of-war status to all captured Palestinian fighters and requested it to release all Arabs detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle for self-determination and liberation of their territories and to accord them the protection envisaged in the international instruments concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. The Commission further urged Israel to co-operate with ICRC and allow it to visit all Arab detainees in Israeli prisons.

In a resolution, also of 19 February, on the question of human rights violations in the occupied territories (see p. 819), the Commission again condemned administrative detention, torture of detainees and inhuman prison conditions, as well as attacks and use of tear-gas against prisoners in the Kfar Youna, Janeed, Narha, Hebron, Ashkelon and Fara'a prisons in September and October 1986.

Report of the Secretary-General. On 10 August 1987,(40) the Secretary-General reported on implementation of the 1986 resolution by which the General Assembly had called on Israel to release all Arabs arbitrarily detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle for self-determination and for the liberation of their territories.(41) In reply to his January 1987 request for information on steps taken or envisaged to implement the resolution, Israel stated on 17 June that it had set out its position during the debate on the resolution.(42) It explicitly rejected the release called for on the grounds that all prisoners had undergone a fair trial and their criminal guilt had been established beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Equating them with those seeking political redress not only emphasized the extent to which the Assembly had fallen victim to the contorted language of extremists, but also undermined the rule of law and justice. In the light of those facts, Israel continued to view the 1986 resolution as unwarranted and devoid of substance, and as such should be dropped from the Assembly's agenda.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its 1987 report,(27) the Committee on Israeli practices considered information concerning arrests, trials and sentences. It noted that, during the reporting period (10 September 1986-31 August 1987), the general climate of tension and repression in the territories was also noticeable in the treatment of detainees. Various forms of ill-treatment, both physical and psychological, the lack of adequate sanitary facilities, nutrition and clothing, and the overcrowding of cells had led to protests by detainees in the form of widespread hunger-strikes by several thousand Arab security prisoners in most prisons and detention camps of the territories. The Committee also noted another preoccupying development: the opening of the Ansar 2 detention camp in the Gaza Strip, where various incidents involving abuse of detainees had been reported.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 8 December, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 42/160 A on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 38/79 A of 15 December 1983, 39195 A of 14 December 1984, 40/161 A of 16 December 1985 and 41/63 A of 3 December 1986,

Taking note of the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories,

Taking note also of the report of the Secretary-General of 10 August 1987,

1. Calls upon Israel to release all Arabs arbitrarily detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle for self-determination and for the liberation of their territories;

2. Notes the initial release of Palestinian prisoners on 20 May 1985;

3. Deplores the Israeli subsequent arbitrary detention or imprisonment of hundreds of Palestinians, and demands that the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, rescind its action against the detainees and imprisoned Palestinians and release them immediately;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly as soon as possible but not later than the beginning of its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/160 A
8 December 1987 Meeting 95 111-2-36 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/811) by recorded vote (89-2-29), 25 November (meeting 34); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Yemen for Arab Group (A/SPC/42/L.23); agenda item 75.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 29-34; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Melta, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zaire.

The United States stated that the text went beyond the question of administrative detention and gave the totally unacceptable impression of condoning violence.

Sweden abstained mainly because of what it felt was the sweeping formulation in paragraph 1 that might lead to dubious interpretations. Austria's abstention Was likewise due to its reservations on that paragraph's wording.

In resolution 42/69 I on the protection of Palestine refugees, the Assembly called on Israel to release all detained Palestine refugees, including UNRWA employees.

Israeli settlements

The Committee on Israeli practices reported in 1987 that Israel continued its policy of physical annexation of the territories by planning and establishing new Israeli settlements there and expanding existing ones. The General Assembly deplored Israel's persistence in such activities and demanded that it desist from any action that would change the legal status, geographical nature or demographic composition of the territories. The settlement activities were condemned by the Commission on Human Rights, deplored by the UNEP Governing Council and were the subject of several communications, principally from Jordan.

Communications. On 31 March,(43) 16 April,(44) 29 June,(45) 30 July,(45) 9 September,(47) 16 October,(48) 1 December(49) and 22 December 1987,(50) Jordan transmitted information on Israeli policy and practices designed to evict the Arab population from their lands and expropriate them for the implementation of its settlement programme, in violation of international law, in particular the Hague Convention (IV) of 1907 and the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention. Jordan detailed such practices as outright land confiscation, land acquisition by deception and forgery, fragmentation of the West Bank by the building of a network of roads, attacks by armed settlers against Arabs and their property, especially the demolition and closing of houses, the burning or uprooting of hundreds of saplings and trees, and setting farmlands ablaze. Jordan said the continuation of such a policy endangered international peace and security and the prospects for peace in the region.

By a 14 September declaration issued at Brussels, transmitted by Denmark,(51) the EC member States noted with concern Israel's continuing policy of establishing new settlements in the territories, most recently at the Avnei Hefetz site on the West Bank. They reiterated their conviction that progress towards a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region depended on the creation of a climate of confidence between the parties. They believed that the opening of new settlements, as well as the disturbing increase of the number of settlers in existing ones, posed a serious risk of jeopardizing peace prospects. They considered every settlement to be in violation of international law and called on Israel to end its illegal settlements policy.

The Ministers for Foreign Affairs and heads of delegation of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to the 1987 General Assembly session (New York, 5-7 October), in their final communiqué,(52) condemned the establishment of Israel settlements and reaffirmed that all Israeli measures to alter the political, cultural, religious, demographic and other features of the territories were illegal, null and void. They requested the United Nations to take effective steps, including sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter, against Israel with a view to enforcing its immediate and total withdrawal from the territories.

Human Rights Commission action. In a 19 February 1987 resolution on the question of human rights violations in the territories (see p. 819), the Commission on Human Rights condemned Israel's administrative and legislative measures to promote and expand the establishment of settler colonies there. It specifically condemned the continuing establishment of new Israeli settlements and expansion of existing ones on private and public Arab lands, and the transfer of an alien population thereto; the arming of settlers to commit acts of violence against Arab civilians, causing injury and death and wide-scale damage to Arab property; and the confiscation and expropriation of Arab property from Palestinian owners and demolition and destruction of Arab houses.

UNEP Council action. On 18 June 1987,(53) the UNEP Governing Council stressed the importance of a 1980 Security Council resolution(54) by which the Council had determined that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 had no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories was a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention. The Council deplored such measures, in particular the confiscation of land and water resources, the establishment of settlements and the destruction of trees and plantations.

Report of the Secretary-General. On 7 August 1987 (55) the Secretary-General reported that no reply had been received from Israel to his January request for information on steps it had taken or envisaged to implement the 1986 General Assembly demand(56) that it desist from taking any action that would result in changing the legal status or demographic composition of the territories.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its 1987 report,(27) the Committee on Israeli practices stated that, according to information gathered during the reporting period, Israel continued its policy of physical annexation of the territories; settlements had continued to be planned, established and expanded by forcibly expropriating Palestinian farmlands and thus inducing the farmers to emigrate and leave their homeland. The Committee noted that that policy, which was based on the principle that the territories were a part of the State of Israel, was in violation of Israel's obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention, which stipulated that military occupation was to be considered as a temporary, de facto situation, giving the occupying Power no right over the territorial integrity of the occupied territories.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 8 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 42/160 C on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 465(1980) of 1 March 1980,

Recalling also its resolutions 32/5 of 28 October 1977, 33/113 B of 18 December 1978, 34/90 C of 12 December 1979, 35/122 B of 11 December 1980, 36/147 B of 16 December 1981, 37/88 B of 10 December 1982, 38/79 C of 15 December 1983, 39/95 C of 14 December 1984, 40/161 C of 16 December 1985 and 41/63 C of 3 December 1986,

Expressing grave anxiety and concern at the present serious situation in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, as a result of the continued Israeli occupation and the measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of those territories,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 7 August 1987,

Confirming that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to all Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that all such measures and actions taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, are in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and constitute a serious obstacle to the efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and therefore have no legal validity;

2. Strongly deplores the persistence of Israel in carrying out such measures, in particular the establishment of settlements in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem;

3. Demands that Israel comply strictly with its international obligations in accordance with the principles of international law and the provisions of the Geneva Convention;

4. Demands once more that Israel, the occupying Power desist forthwith from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status, geographical nature or demographic composition of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

5. Urgently calls upon all States parties to the Geneva Convention to respect and to exert all efforts in order to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/160 C
8 December 1987 Meeting 95 143-1-8 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/811) by recorded vote (118-1-5), 25 November (meeting 34); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Senegal, Yemen for Arab Group (A/SPC/42/L.25) agenda item 75.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 29-34; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Belize, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Liberia, United States, Zaire.

Israel asserted that the Special Political Committee was not competent to pronounce on the legal validity of measures and actions it had taken since 1967 in the territories. The claim that its actions constituted a serious obstacle to efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace was particularly out of place; it was precisely resolutions of the type just adopted which obstructed prospects for lasting peace and harmony in the region.

The United States felt that the text diverted attention from the real task of promoting peace through direct negotiations.

Uruguay said that although it disagreed with certain political statements in the text, it voted in favour for strictly legal reasons.

Expulsion and deportation of Palestinians

In 1987, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights again called on Israel to allow expelled Palestinian leaders to return, in particular the Mayor of Halhul and the Sharia (Islamic) Judge of Hebron, so that they could resume the functions for which they had been elected and appointed. The latter two had been deported in 1980,(57) together with the Mayor of Hebron who had since died, on the ground that they had systematically engaged in inciting the local Arab population to acts of violence and subversion, abusing their public offices.

Communications. On 20 May 1987,(2) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights expressed the Committee's concern about the deterioration of the situation in the territories due to a variety of Israeli measures to quell demonstrations, among them the recent deportation of three Palestinian youth leaders: Marwan Barghouti and Khalil Ashour, Chairmen of the Student Councils at the West Bank's Bir Zeit and An-Najah Universities, respectively, and Ahmed Abdulfatah Nasser, President of the Arab Youth Federation at Khan Yunis in Gaza - all accused of encouraging activities in opposition to Israel's military occupation. The Committee Chairman added that Barghouti and Ashour, lacking confidence in Israel's legal system, had withdrawn their appeal against the deportation order before the Military Objections Committee and were thus forced to cross the border into Jordan on 14 May.

By a 9 June letter(4) reporting various Israeli measures against Palestinians, including the storming of the Balata refugee camp (see p. 297), PLO also reported that a camp resident, Jihad Massimi, had been ordered deported from the West Bank.

Human Rights Commission action. In a 19 February 1987 resolution on the question of human rights violations in the occupied territories (see p. 819), the Commission on Human Rights condemned the deportation of Arab inhabitants. In another resolution of the same date (see p. 819), reaffirming the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to the territories, the Commission also condemned Israel for its policy of deporting Palestinians from their homeland, citing the recent deportation of Akram Haniyeh, editor of the East Jerusalem daily Al Sha'ab. It called on Israel to refrain forthwith from deporting Palestinians and to rescind its deportation decisions so as to enable the return of deportees to their homeland and property.

Report of the Secretary-General. On 10 August 1987,(58) the Secretary-General reported on Israel's response, received on 17 June, regarding implementation of a 1986 General Assembly resolution(59) demanding that Israel rescind the 1980 expulsion of the Mayor of Halhul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron, as well as of other Palestinian leaders expelled since 1985, and facilitate their immediate return. Israel restated its position, previously set out in oral and written statements on several occasions:(60) that the continuing threat that terrorist activity posed to its security accounted for its measures to ensure the maintenance of public order as contemplated by international law. Exercised only in the most extreme cases, those measures were subject to judicial and administrative controls, in particular to a review by Israel's High Court of Justice, which a person under an expulsion order could petition at any time. The 1986 resolution, Israel asserted, was based on erroneous assumptions and displayed the most biased and distorted picture of the events surrounding the expulsions; as such, it should be dropped from the Assembly's agenda.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its 1987 report,(27) the Committee on Israeli practices stated that it had heard several statements and had received written information concerning the arbitrary practice of expelling and deporting Palestinians from the occupied territories. The Committee noted in particular the case of Akram Haniyeh, accused of hostile activity on behalf of PLO and expelled in December 1986 from Israel to Algeria, via Zurich, Switzerland, under ICRC supervision. A journalist, Haniyeh had stressed the political reasons behind his deportation, while other testimonies outlined the illegal deportation procedure and gave account of the difficult physical conditions of the deportation process.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 8 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 42/160 E on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 468(1980) of 8 May 1980, 469(1980) of 20 May 1980 and 484(1980) of 19 December 1980,

Recalling also its resolutions 36/147 D of 16 December 1981, 37/88 D of 10 December 1982, 38/79 E of 15 December 1983, 39/95 E of 14 December 1984, 40/161 E of 16 December 1985 and 41/63 E of 3 December 1986,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 10 August 1987,

Deeply concerned at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayor of Halhul, the Mayor of Hebron who has since died, the Sharia Judge of Hebron and, in 1985, 1986 and 1987, other Palestinians,

Alarmed by the expulsion of many Palestinian leaders from the occupied Palestinian territories by the Israeli military occupation authorities in 1985, 1986 and 1987,

Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in particular article 1 and the first paragraph of article 49, which read as follows:
"Article 1

"The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."
"Article 49

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive . . .",

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Strongly condemns Israel, the occupying Power, for its persistent refusal to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

2. Demands that the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayor of Halhul, the Sharia Judge of Hebron and, in 1985, 1986 and 1987, other Palestinian leaders and that it facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinians so that they can, inter alia, resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed;

3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease forthwith the expulsion of Palestinians and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly as soon as possible but not later than the beginning of its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/160 E
8 December 1987 Meeting 95 130-1-23 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/811) by recorded vote (108-1-16), 25 November (meeting 34); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Yemen for Arab Group (A/SPC/42/L.27): agenda item 75.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 29-34; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United
Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire Denmark, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, France,a/ Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Norway, Swaziland, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire.

a/ Later advised the Secretariat it had intended to vote in favour.

Before approving the draft resolution, the Committee approved paragraph 1 by recorded vote of 96 to 2, with 25 abstentions.

Israel found the text unacceptable, saying the situation required it to attach utmost importance to safeguarding public order and security. Recalling the 1980 attack outside the Hadassah House at Hebron that killed six Jewish worshippers and wounded 16 others, Israel stressed that it had had to take steps to prevent the recurrence of such outrage, including the expulsion of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and the Judge of Hebron, who had been systematically inciting the local Arab population to acts of violence and subversion.

The United States believed that the deportations cited in the text were contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention and that the deportees should be allowed to return; it abstained, however, because the text presented an unbalanced picture, ignoring factors that had led to the deportations.

Uruguay explained that it voted in favour for strictly legal reasons, although it disagreed with certain political statements in the text.

Israeli measures against educational institutions

Both the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights condemned what they called systematic Israeli repression of Palestinian educational and cultural institutions in the occupied territories, which included the closing of universities and restrictions on academic activities. The Assembly demanded that Israel rescind such actions. Following consideration of an expert's study, the UNESCO Executive Board and the General Conference deplored all violations of academic freedoms and repression against Palestinian educational and cultural institutions in the territories; they asked the occupation authorities to cancel measures and military orders against those institutions, as well as other acts of discrimination.

Communications. PLO, by a letter of 14 April 1987,(1) alleged that, on the preceding day, Israeli occupation troops had opened fire on protesting students from Bir Zeit University at Ramallah, killing a 23-year-old Palestinian and wounding seven others; the arrival and departure of ambulances at military check-points in the area had been delayed. Bir Zeit University was ordered closed for four months, and Al-Najah University, where several hundred Palestinian students were inside the campus, was under siege by Israeli troops and armed settler vigilantes. PLO reported other acts of violence and the administrative detention of three prominent Palestinian intellectuals (see p. 310).

On 9 June,(4) PLO further charged Israeli occupation troops with various other measures against Palestinians (see p. 297), including the storming of the Islamic University in the Gaza Strip on 7 June, during which scores of students were arrested and the University was ordered closed until further notice.

Human Rights Commission action. By a 19 February 1987 resolution on the question of human rights violations in the occupied territories (see p. 819), the Commission on Human Rights condemned what it called the systematic Israeli repression of cultural and educational institutions, especially universities, schools and institutes, including closures or the restriction and obstruction of academic activities by subjecting curricula, textbooks, educational programmes, student admissions and faculty appointments to the control of the military occupation authorities. The Commission further condemned attacks against Palestinian students, such as the shooting at Bir Zeit University students on 4 December 1986,(61) which resulted in the killing of three students and the wounding of a number of others.

Report of the Secretary-General. On 10 August 1987,(62) the Secretary-General reported on Israel's response of 17 June to his request for information on implementation of a 1986 General Assembly resolution(63) demanding that Israel rescind all actions and measures against educational institutions in the territories, ensure their freedom and refrain from hindering their effective operation. Israel stated that its position on the Assembly's demand had been fully set out in 1986, both in writing(64) and in a statement before the Special Political Committee.(65)

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its 1987 report,(27) the Committee on Israeli practices noted that the situation of education in the territories had been particularly preoccupying during the reporting period. In addition to various problems that continued to affect and restrict freedom of education - the denial of adequate equipment and buildings, efforts to modify curricula, the harassment of teachers and students by administrative detention, arrest, restriction of freedom of movement and deportation - the period had been marked by particularly dramatic events leading to the death of a number of students, increased tension in the main Palestinian educational institutions, closures of those institutions and harsh repression against teachers and students.

UNESCO action. In keeping with a 1985 UNESCO General Conference request, Reverend Father E. Boné (Belgium), Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was appointed to carry out a study of the conditions under which academic freedoms were guaranteed and exercised in the occupied territories. Father Boné undertook a series of missions, including to the occupied territories and to Israel, and reported on his findings to the UNESCO Director-General in August 1987.

Commending the report's high quality, the UNESCO Executive Board, by a decision adopted at its September-November 1987 session, and the General Conference, by a resolution adopted at its October/November session, deplored all violations of academic freedoms in all their forms and the obstruction of and repression against Palestinian educational and cultural institutions. They asked the occupation authorities to respect the Geneva and Hague Conventions by cancelling all measures and military orders against those institutions, as well as all discrimination in respect of taxes and customs duties on imported cultural, educational and scientific material, and to preserve academic freedoms. They recognized that the co-operation given to enable Father Boné to carry out his mission impartially appeared to offer a valuable opportunity for exploring constructive action under UNESCO auspices. The Board and Conference invited the Director-General to ask Father Boné to complete his mission by examining other educational and cultural institutions in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and to explore feasible means of facilitating and increasing UNESCO co-operation to assist Palestinian educational institutions.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 8 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 42/160 G on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

Bearing in mind the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

Deeply concerned at the continued and intensified harassment by Israel, the occupying Power, against educational institutions in the occupied Palestinian territories,

Recalling its resolutions 38/79 G of 15 December 1983, 39/95 G of 14 December 1984, 40/161 G of 16 December 1985 and 41/63 G of 3 December 1986,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 10 August 1987,

Taking note of the relevant decisions adopted by the Executive Board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization concerning the educational and cultural situation in the occupied territories,

1. Reaffirms the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Condemns Israeli policies and practices against Palestinian students and faculties in schools, universities and other educational institutions in the occupied Palestinian territories, especially the opening of fire on defenceless students, causing many casualties;

3. Condemns the systematic Israeli campaign of repression against and closing of universities and other educational and vocational institutions in the occupied Palestinian territories, restricting and impeding the academic activities of Palestinian universities by subjecting the selection of courses, textbooks and educational programmes, the admission of students and the appointment of faculty members to the control and supervision of the military occupation authorities, in clear contravention of the Geneva Convention;

4. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with the provisions of that Convention, rescind all actions and measures against all educational institutions ensure the freedom of those institutions and refrain forthwith from hindering the effective operation of the universities and other educational institutions;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly as soon as possible but not later than the beginning of its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/160 G
8 December 1987 Meeting 95 137-2-14 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/811) by recorded vote (111-2-11), 25 November (meeting 34): draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Yemen for Arab Group (A/SPC/42/L.29); agenda item 75.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 29-34; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi,a/ Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe,, Saudi Arabia. Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Barbados, Belize, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Honduras, Liberia, Uruguay, Zaire.

a/ Later advised the Secretariat it had intended to abstain.

In the opinion of the United States, the text indiscriminately condemned alleged Israeli actions in dealing with educational institutions and students in the occupied territories. No nation upheld academic freedom more strongly than the United States, which had not hesitated to address criticisms to Israel when justified; it was opposed to the text's inaccurate and inflammatory language, however, which only undermined genuine efforts to resolve disputes.

Israel said that, in view of subversive acts instigated on behalf of PLO by students and faculty members since 1979, it had been duty-bound to take appropriate measures. The issue was whether academic freedom and freedom of speech and belief could be exploited to mask incitement to violence and subversion. Israel would not interfere in academic affairs, but it expected institutions of higher education to concentrate on education, not on terrorist activities.

In Uruguay's view, the text contained formulations which did not contribute to efforts to restore peace.

In related actions, the Assembly, by resolution 42/69 K, emphasized the need to strengthen the educational system in the Arab territories, asked the Secretary-General to continue taking measures towards establishing the proposed University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds" and again called on Israel to remove the hindrances it had put in the way; by resolution 42/69 D, it appealed for more grants and scholarships for qualified Palestine refugee candidates.

Golan Heights

The Committee on Israeli practices reported a continuing deterioration of the situation in the Golan Heights, part of the Syrian Arab Republic occupied by Israel since 1967. As in previous years, developments there in 1987 drew action from the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. The Assembly condemned Israel for persisting in changing the composition of the Golan Heights and for refusing to comply with United Nations resolutions declaring null and void Israel's 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Golan.(66) The Assembly and the Commission called on Israel to rescind that decision and all other measures it had taken to alter the character and legal status of the Syrian Arab Golan.

Communications. On 10 March 1987,(57) the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic drew attention to Israel's acts of oppression and terrorism against the civilian population in the Golan Heights, which he said had reached alarming proportions and had caused the deaths of innocent citizens whose only offence had been their rejection of Israeli occupation and their declaration of adherence to their Syrian identity and loyalty to their country. He cited the savage suppression, on 12 February, of a large-scale demonstration marking the fifth anniversary of the Golan uprising against Israel's decision to annex the area; and the firing, on 8 March, at groups of unarmed demonstrators commemorating the twenty-fourth anniversary of the Syrian revolution, which resulted in the wounding of many and a woman's death. The Minister described those acts as a link in a long chain of practices of oppression and economic, political and cultural pressure, whose continuation threatened regional and international peace and security.

Israel, on 31 March,(68) referred to a recent accusation made by the Syrian Arab Republic that it had engaged in "oppressive" measures to disperse an illegal demonstration in the Golan Heights. Its purpose, Israel asserted, was to deflect world attention from the massacre perpetrated by Syrian troops in Tripoli, Lebanon, as reported by Amnesty International on 28 February (see p. 276).

The Syrian Arab Republic replied on 3 April(69) that Israel's claim was nothing more than part of a campaign to divert attention from crimes it committed daily against the population of the occupied territories. It drew attention at the same time to what it called arbitrary judgements pronounced recently by an Israeli military tribunal in the case of five Syrian nationals of the Golan Heights that were reminiscent of the punishments meted out by the racist South African régime or by the Nazis on the resistance fighters during the Second World War.

The Ministers for Foreign Affairs and heads of delegation of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to the 1987 General Assembly session (New York, 5-7 October), by their final communiqué,(52) condemned Israel for its continued occupation of the Golan Heights and reiterated that its 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Golan Heights was null and void and considered an act of aggression under Article 39 of the United Nations Charter.

Human Rights Commission action. By a 19 February 1987 resolution on human rights in occupied Syrian territory (see p. 819), the Commission on Human Rights condemned Israel for its persistent defiance of United Nations resolutions relating to occupied Syrian territory and deprecated Israel's failure to end its occupation and cease its repressive measures and human rights violations. It deplored Israel's continued refusal to allow the Committee on Israeli practices access to the territories and demanded such access.

The Commission declared once more that Israel's 1981 decision, resulting in effective annexation, was null and void and constituted an act of aggression under the Charter and a grave violation of international law. It deplored the inhuman practices that Israel continued to apply against Syrian citizens in the occupied Golan Heights to force them to carry Israeli identity cards and for their refusal to assume Israeli nationality - practices that violated the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,(70) the fourth Geneva Convention and United Nations resolutions. It called on Israel to rescind its 1981 decision and cease its acts of terrorism against Syrian citizens.

The Commission emphasized that Israel must allow the Golan evacuees to return to their homes and recover their property and residences; it further emphasized the overriding necessity of total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian and Syrian territories as essential for a just and comprehensive Middle East peace. It deplored the negative vote and pro-Israel position of a permanent Security Council member which had prevented the Council from adopting appropriate measures against Israel under Chapter VII of the Charter. It asked the Secretary-General to give the resolution the widest publicity.

Reports of the Secretary-General. On 10 August 1987,(71) the Secretary-General reported on replies to his request for information on action taken or envisaged to implement a 1986 General Assembly resolution relating to the occupied Golan Heights.(72) On the resolution's call on Israel to desist from repressive measures against the Golan population, Israel, on 17 June 1987, referred to its position (that it could not be expected to maintain indefinitely a military administration merely to accommodate the Syrian Arab Republic's interest in persistent conflict and that the legislation applied to the Golan Heights did not in the slightest diminish the local population's rights) as set forth in a letter that the Secretary-General conveyed in a 1981 report to the Security Council.(73) As to the call on Member States not to recognize Israeli measures purporting to alter the character and legal status of the Golan Heights, the Secretary-General reproduced in his report the replies received from the Byelorussian SSR, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Iraq, Kuwait and the USSR.

In another report, also of 10 August, with a 23 September addendum,(74) the Secretary-General annexed information received from 10 countries as of the later date, on their implementation of three 1986 Assembly resolutions on various aspects of the Middle East situation, among them one on Israeli policies in the Golan Heights(75) calling on States to apply a series of specific measures concerning military, economic, diplomatic and cultural relations with Israel.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its 1987 report,(27) the Committee on Israeli practices provided information on the situation in the occupied Golan Heights, as supplied in oral testimony by the Syrian Arab Republic's Deputy Foreign Minister and a former Golan resident, and as gathered from press reports. Orally described were land confiscations and the establishment of more than 40 settlements to which water resources were being diverted; deterioration of the economic infrastructure and of health services; curtailment of the freedom of expression, of association and of union rights; closure, under security pretexts, of 65 per cent of occupied Golan; and harassment of the population, in addition to murders, arrests and expulsions.

From the press were reports of convictions on charges of incitement to violence; arrests on suspicion of planning pro-Syrian demonstrations including Syrian flag-raising, terrorist attacks and violent demonstrations and clashes with Israel's security forces; serious disturbances in Mas’ada due to the detention of a secondary school student that developed into a mass anti-Israel demonstration; riots in Buk'ata and attacks on IDF soldiers by stone-throwing youths in Majdal Shams.

Underscoring a continuing deterioration of the situation in the Golan Heights, the Committee noted that the disturbances during the reporting period had led Israel to set up a new border-guard unit to maintain public order and to assist in dealing with security events (Ha'aretz, 24 April).


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 8 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 42/160 F on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned that the Arab territories occupied since 1967 have been under continued Israeli military occupation,

Recalling Security Council resolution 497(1981) of 17 December 1981,

Recalling also its resolutions 36/226 B of 17 December 1981, ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982, 37/88 E of 10 December 1982, 38/79 F of 15 December 1983, 39/95 F of 14 December 1984, 40/161 F of 16 December 1985 and 41/63 F of 3 December 1986,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 10 August 1987,

Recalling its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 3414(XXX) of 5 December 1975, 31/61 of 9 December 1976, 32/20 of 25 November 1977, 33/28 and 33/29 of 7 December 1978, 34/70 of 6 December 1979 and 35/122 E of 11 December 1980, in which it, inter alia, called upon Israel to put an end to its occupation of the Arab territories and to withdraw from all those territories,

Reaffirming once more the illegality of Israel's decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Syrian Arab Golan, which has resulted in the effective annexation of that territory,

Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and that all territories thus occupied by Israel must be returned,

Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

1. Strongly condemns Israel, the occupying Power, for its refusal to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council particularly Council resolution 497(1981), in which the Council, infer alia, decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Arab Golan was null and void and without international legal effect and demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;

2. Condemns the persistence of Israel in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Arab Golan;

3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the Syrian Arab Golan are null and void and constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect;

4. Strongly condemns Israel for its attempts to impose forcibly Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Arab Golan and calls upon it to desist from its repressive measures against the population of the Syrian Arab Golan;

5. Calls once again upon Member States not to recognize any of the legislative or administrative measures and actions referred to above;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/160 F
8 December 1987 Meeting 95 143-1-10 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/811) by recorded vote (118-1-6), 25 November (meeting 34); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Yemen for Arab Group (A/SPC/42/L.28); agenda item 75.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 29-34; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Belize, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Liberia, Malawi, United States, Zaire.

Israel regarded the text as yet another manifestation of Syrian propaganda and warfare against Israel, which ignored the reasons for Israel's presence in the Golan Heights: its repeated use for launching attacks against towns and villages in northern Israel.

The United States explained that it could not support any resolution that went beyond the 1981 Security Council resolution(75) that demanded the rescission of Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and determined the continued applicability to the territory of the fourth Geneva Convention. The United States nevertheless believed in the Convention's applicability to the Golan Heights and asserted that Israel, as the occupying Power, must meet its obligations under that Convention.

Uruguay stated that it voted for the text strictly for legal reasons, although it disagreed with certain political statements in it.

On 11 December, under the agenda item on the situation in the Middle East, the Assembly adopted resolution 42/209 C by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Having discussed the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East",

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 13 November 1987,

Recalling Security Council resolution 497(1981) of 17 December 1981,

Reaffirming its resolutions 36/226 B of 17 December 1981, ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982, 37/123 A of 16 December 1982, 38/180 A of 19 December 1983, 39/146 B of 14 December 1984, 40/168 B of 16 December 1985 and 41/162 B of 4 December 1986,

Recalling its resolution 3314(XXIX) of 14 December 1974, in which it defined an act of aggression, inter alia, as "the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof” and provided that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression",

Reaffirming the fundamental principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,

Noting that Israel's record, policies and actions establish conclusively that it is not a peace-loving Member State and that it has not carried out its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations,

Noting further that Israel has refused, in violation of Article 25 of the Charter to accept and carry out the numerous relevant decisions of the Security Council, in particular resolution 497(1981), thus failing to carry out its obligations under the Charter,

1. Strongly condemns Israel for its failure to comply with Security Council resolution 497(1981) and General Assembly resolutions 36/226 B, ES-9/1, 37/123 A, 38/180 A, 39/146 B, 40/168 B and 41/162 B;

2. Declares once more that Israel's continued occupation of the Syrian Arab Golan and its decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Arab Golan constitute an act of aggression under the provisions of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 3314(XXIX);

3. Declares once more that Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Arab Golan is illegal and therefore null and void and has no validity whatsoever;

4. Declares all Israeli policies and practices of, or aimed at, annexation of the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, to be illegal and in violation of international law and of the relevant United Nations resolutions;

5. Determines once more that all actions taken by Israel to give effect to its decision relating to the occupied Syrian Arab Golan are illegal and invalid and shall not be recognized;

6. Reaffirms its determination that all relevant provision of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect for their obligations under these instruments in all circumstances;

7. Determines once more that the continued occupation of the Syrian Arab Golan since 1967 and its annexation by Israel on 14 December 1981, folliowing Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on that territory, constitute a continuing threat to international peace and security;

8. Strongly deplores the negative vote by a permanent member of the Security Council which prevented the Council from adopting against Israel, under Chapter VII of the Charter, the "appropriate measures" referred to in resolution 497(1981) unanimously adopted by the Council;

9. Further deplores any political, economic, financial, military and technological support to Israel that encourages it to commit acts of aggression and to consolidate and perpetuate its occupation and annexation of the occupied Arab territories;

10. Firmly emphasizes once more its demand that Israel the occupying Power, rescind forthwith its illegal decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Syrian Arab Golan, which resulted in the effective annexation of that territory;

11. Reaffirms once more the overriding necessity of the total and unconditional withdrawal by Israel from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, which is an essential prerequisite for the establishment of a comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East;

12. Determines once more that Israel's record, policies and actions confirm that it is not a peace-loving Member State, that it has persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter and that it has carried out neither its obligations under the Charter nor its commitment under General Assembly resolution 273(III) of 11 May 1949;

13. Calls once more upon all Member States to apply the following measures:

(a) To refrain from supplying Israel with any weapons and related equipment and to suspend any military assistance that Israel receives from them;

(b) To refrain from acquiring any weapons or military equipment from Israel;

(c) To suspend economic, financial and technological assistance to and co-operation with Israel;

(d) To sever diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with Israel;

14. Reiterates its call to all Member States to cease forthwith, individually and collectively, all dealings with Israel in order totally to isolate it in all fields;

15. Urges non-member States to act in accordance with the provisions of the present resolution;

16. Calls upon the specialized agencies and other international organizations to conform their relations with Israel to the terms of the present resolution;

17. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/209 C
11 December 1987 Meeting 97 82-23-43 (recorded vote)

23-nation draft (A/42/L.43 & Add.1); agenda item 39.

Sponsors. Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Oatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd aession: plenary 88-89, 97.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Bunundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Ropublic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahirlya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Sanegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrlan Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cameroon, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Liberia, Malawi, Nepal, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire.

The United States opposed the text because of its unbalanced and harmful language and one-sidedness; its stale slogans and condemnations took the parties not one step closer to a settlement. Malta regretted the text's condemnatory language and formulations that were potentially far-reaching in their legal, implications. New Zealand voted negatively because of the absence from the text of the principles for a comprehensive Middle East settlement as embodied in Securitv Council resolutions the measured approach necessary for a just and lasting solution. Sweden strongly objected to a number of paragraphs, 12 to 16 in particular with respect to substantive content, and to the fact that to be reconciled with the division of responsibilities between the Assembly and the Council as envisaged by the Charter.

Denmark, speaking for the EC members, said their views on the principles needed to secure Middle East peace were well known and were restated during the Assembly debate on the Middle East: a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on Council resolutions 242(1967) and 338(1973) and on two fundamental, principles - the right of all States in the area, including Israel, to exist within secure frontiers and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination with all that that implied; its essence must be a full, just and lasting accommodation between the two sides.

Among those abstaining, Bolivia viewed the approach in certain paragraphs as not in keeping with its position. Argentina felt that certain ideas, particularly in paragraphs 2, 9 and 12 to 14, were incompatible with the guiding principles of its foreign policy. Egypt said the text contained several elements that were difficult to endorse and lacked those that would encourage peace efforts. Austria neither believed that measures aimed at breaking relations with Israel and isolating it could bring a Middle East solution any closer, nor could it support any formulation that could be interpreted as impinging on the principle of universality in the United Nations membership. The Philippines felt that draft resolutions on complex international issues such as the Middle East conflict should be presented in a balanced manner and that the sovereign right of States to conduct their own international affairs should be upheld.

Mexico would have abstained on paragraphs 12 to 14 referring to measures falling within the Council's jurisdiction, had separate votes been taken on them. Greece expressed strong reservations on paragraphs 8, 13 (c) and (d) and 14. Turkey was of the view that neither the Assembly nor any other United Nations organ should pass value judgements on Member States' votes and so would have abstained had there been a separate vote on paragraph 8; also, it would not have voted for paragraphs 13 and 14, which it found difficult to reconcile with efforts to initiate an appropriate framework for a negotiating process.

Iran reiterated its reservations on all terms in the text that implied any recognition of what it called the Zionist base of terror occupying Palestine and its belief that the Zionist forces must withdraw unconditionally from all Palestinian territories, including those occupied prior to 1967.

Living conditions of Palestinians

Pursuant to a 1985 General Assembly request,(77) a seminar on the living conditions of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories was held at Vienna from 2 to 6 March 1987. It was attended by 10 experts and by representatives of UNCTAD, CSDHA (Department of International Economic and Social Affairs), WHO, PLO and the League of Arab States.

The experts presented various project proposals related to agriculture and industry, manpower development and employment, and housing and infrastructure, which three working groups examined. It was agreed to give high priority to those projects designed to: improve, increase and diversify agricultural and industrial production; develop agro-industries for the utilization of surplus perishable agricultural produce; promote housing and related activities; increase import substitution and export potential; and improve geographical project distribution. The themes underlying these objectives were labour absorption and entrenchment of Palestinians in their homes and on their land.

In all, 16 projects were summarized in the Secretary-General's report on the seminar.(78) They ranged from the establishment of a cement company in the West Bank, a ceramics factory in Hebron, a seaport and a sardine-canning factory in Gaza, a co-operative food-processing factory, a marketing agency for agricultural products and a training/production centre for textiles and clothing, to the development of jojoba oil products, sheep and poultry farming, housing, energy and water resources, transport co-operatives and road networks.

The Economic and Social Council took note of the report by decision 1987/173 of 8 July.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 11 December, acting on the recommendation of the Second Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 42/190.

Living conditions of the Palestinian people
in the occupied Palestinian territories

The General Assembly,

Recalling the Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements, 1976, and the relevant recommendations for national action adopted by Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements,

Recalling also its resolution 40/201 of 17 December 1985,

Gravely alarmed by the continuation of the Israeli settlement policies, which have been declared null and void and a major obstacle to peace,

1. Takes note with appreciation of the report of the Secretary-General on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories;

2. Takes note also of the statement made on 27 October 1987 by the observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization;

3. Rejects the Israeli plans and actions intended to change the demographic composition of the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly the increase and expansion of the Israeli settlements, and other plans and actions creating conditions leading to the displacement and exodus of Palestinians from the occupied Palestinian territories;

4. Expresses its alarm at the deterioration, as a result of the Israeli occupation, in the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967;

5. Affirms that the Israeli occupation is contradictory to the basic requirements for the social and economic development of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to prepare an in-depth study on future needs in the field qf infrastructure for the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967;

7. Also requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-fourth session, through the Economic and Social Council, on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/190
11 December 1987 Meeting 96 151-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by Second Committee (A/42/821/Add.7) by vote (116-2), 9 November (meeting 30); 7-nation draft (A/C.2/42/L.23), orally revised; agenda item 82 (g).

Sponsors: Bangladesh, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Tunisia, Yemen.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: 2nd Committee 25, 26, 30; plenary 96.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Auatralia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cate d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel,a/ Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mrexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucla, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, Unitad Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

Abstaining: Togo.

a/ Later advised the Secretariat it had intended to vote against.

Israel said the proposal for an in-depth study on the needs of Palestinians was yet another attempt to use the United Nations and its resources for services that were neither necessary nor appropriate; UNCTAD, through its Special Economic Unit (Palestinian people), was already dealing with the territories' economic development and preparing the necessary reports, and UNEP had also been asked to do a study. The text should have urged those really wishing to be useful to provide more funds to improve the Palestinians' living conditions. The assertions that Israel had put into effect plans and had taken actions intended to change the demographic composition of the territories and that living conditions there had deteriorated were false and not supported by the Secretary-General's report referred to in the text; the Palestinian population in the territories, far from diminishing, had expanded considerably; the same was true of per capita income and educational opportunities.

The United States explained that it could not support the text because of its exaggerated tone and distortion of the true situation, an approach that neither furthered the Palestinian cause nor fostered a just and equitable solution to the Palestinians' problems.

Denmark, speaking for the 12 EEC members, expressed their understanding that the study requested in paragraph 6 would bear on infrastructure for basic living conditions and take account of other studies provided for in other related resolutions and decisions.

The Syrian Arab Republic would have preferred the inclusion of a clear and forceful condemnation - not the simple rejection in paragraph 3 - of the practices and actions intended to change the territories' demographic character. Iran stressed that it did not recognize the existence of the illegitimate occupying régime in Palestine and that the occupied territories were not limited to those occupied since 1967 but extended to the entire Palestine territory.


Israeli economic practices

Communications. On 26 February 1987,(79) the Syrian Arab Republic charged that Israel continued to block the export of citrus fruit from the Gaza Strip to EEC. That act threatened to create a slump in citrus production, the primary source of income in the Gaza Strip, and violated the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Charter and resolutions, and economic rights as endorsed by the United Nations.

On 6 July,(80)Jordan charged Israel's occupation authorities with implementing a new project to gain control of ground-water resources in the occupied territories, in particular in the Bethlehem area. The plan provided for a well to be dug 1,000 metres deep in an area south-east of Bethlehem and for water to be pumped, at 18 million cubic metres a year, to the western half of Jerusalem and to Israeli settlements there. This would adversely affect the domestic water supply of Bethlehem, Beit Jala, Beit Sahur and neighbouring villages, as well as of parts of Hebron, and damage their economy.

Broached two years earlier as part of a major plan to gain control over all sources of surface and ground water in the territories, the project enjoyed the support of Israel's Ministry of Agriculture and recent approval by the Defence Minister. Official Israeli assessments indicated that 42 per cent of the water pumped out of the territories went to Israeli settlements. Wells were being dug where ground water flowed towards the Jordan Valley (east of the watershed in the occupied West Bank), in an attempt to deplete water resources there and to preserve those in areas where water flowed towards the Mediterranean Sea (west of the water-shed), most of which had been under Israel's control since 1948.

Jordan said the plan violated the Hague Convention IV of 1907, the fourth Geneva Convention, the 1972 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment(81) and the 1982 World Charter for Nature,(82) it challenged several United Nations resolutions; and it was incompatible with the June 1987 UNEP Governing Council decision on the environmental situation in the territories (see p. 324). In view of the plan's implications and dangers, Jordan requested the Secretary-General to intervene immediately and directly to halt the project and reserved its right to request a Security Council meeting.

The Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to the 1987 General Assembly session (New York, 5-7 October), by a final communiqué,(52) condemned Israel's exploitation of the natural resources and wealth of the territories and called on all States and international bodies to refrain from co-operating with Israel.

The EC heads of State and Government, by a declaration adopted at their meeting in the European Council (Copenhagen, 4 and 5 December),(83) reiterated their preoccupation about the living conditions in the territories. They declared that, without prejudging future political solutions, they would continue to contribute to the territories' economic and social development.

Report of the Secretary-General. As requested by the General Assembly in 1985,(84) the Secretary-General, in June 1987,(85) presented to the Economic and Social Council the conclusions and recommendations of an in-depth study of the financial sector in the occupied territories, completed by the Special Economic Unit (Palestinian people) of UNCTAD, in collaboration with ESCWA (86) The study provided an overview of the territories' economy, analysing the recent performance of the main aggregates and sectoral developments; examined the various aspects of money and banking and their role in the financing of economic activities in the territories; analysed the fiscal determinants in the Palestinian economy, with emphasis on the role of the tax system; analysed external financial flows to the territories, focusing on remittances and private and official transfers; and summarized its findings and conclusions and examined feasible ways of meeting the rapidly growing financial resource needs of the Palestinian economy.

The study found the relative share of the traditional sector in domestic output in rapid decline a virtually stagnant industrial sector and a labour force increasingly dependent on employment opportunities in Israel and elsewhere in the world. The closure of banks and other financial institutions following the 1967 occupation had deprived those and other sectors of the economy of short and long-term sources of finance for output expansion. In trade, the territories had been transformed gradually into the largest single importer of Israeli (non-military) products with a growing balance-of-trade deficit that could only be met from workers' remittances and transfers from abroad.

The inability of domestic output to meet rising demand and the growing imports from Israel, coupled with the use of a depreciating Israeli currency as legal tender in the territories, had resulted in high price levels; domestic contribution to savings had declined as had gross capital formation, existing financial institutions were unable to absorb some liquidity injected from abroad; and investments in the economy were mainly in buildings and construction works as a hedge against rising inflation. Continued political and economic instability, lack of investment opportunities in commodity-producing sectors, and Israeli land confiscation practices had further pushed private savings into speculative activities.

In general, the economy of the territories was characterized by a high degree of fragmentation, reflecting an increasing distortion in the structure of output and income, a widening gap between domestic and national output, and a high degree of openness that rendered it vulnerable to outside economic and political forces. The lack of appropriate institutions to safeguard the interest of the local economy through various policy instruments had further compounded the problems of indigenous economic management and had led to increasing subservience of the local economy to the economy of the occupying authorities.

The study concluded that bold policy measures were needed to reverse the current state of affairs and should include initiating a policy of economic recovery and development, accelerating capital accumulation to increase agricultural and industrial productive capacity, providing incentives to local and foreign investors, easing restrictions and licensing procedures in connection with production and marketing, promoting equitable trade relations with Israel to take account of existing limitations on Palestinian agricultural exports to it, allowing local financial institutions to re-emerge and promoting their intermediation, and promoting the entrepreneurial spirit.

Several basic objectives were suggested to serve as a frame of reference for policy formulation: economic growth at a rate sufficient to sustain natural population increases and to raise per capita income; increased productivity in the neglected areas of agriculture and industry through import substitution industries based on local raw materials, thereby reducing the foreign exchange gap and trade deficit; reduction of prices of essential commodities; employment opportunities to absorb natural increases in the labour force and migrant workers employed in Israel and elsewhere greater expenditures for basic infrastructure an financial institutions to mobilize, allocate an, manage domestic resources; and establishment requisite institutional capabilities within public administration for the effective formulation and implementation of economic and social policy measures.

In its statement before the Assembly's Second Committee in October, later taken note of by the Assembly in resolution 42/190, PLO said it was unfortunate that the Secretary-General's report covered only Israel's financial practices, but hoped that a comprehensive report to include also its trade practices would be submitted in 1988. The current report nevertheless indicated that Israel had prevented the establishment of Palestinian commercial banks and credit institutions, while its banks operated freely in the territories and mobilized Palestinian savings for the benefit of Israel's economy; moreover, Palestinian firms were required to convert export revenue into the constantly depreciating Israeli currency, and Palestinians were forced to pay taxes that went directly to Israel's treasury and from which they did not benefit.

UNCTAD action. On 3 August 1987, the seventh session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, by a roll-call vote of 80 to 2, with 32 abstentions, adopted a resolution (169(VII)) on the economic situation in the occupied Palestinian territories.(37) The Conference welcomed the creation of UNCTAD's Special Economic Unit (Palestinian people) and the EC decision to give Palestinian goods and products preferential access to its market on the basis of a Palestinian certificate of origin. It deplored Israel's obstruction of that decision's implementation and of the establishment of a commercial seaport in the Gaza Strip that would give Palestinian goods and products direct access to external markets.

Recognizing the need for a centre to market and export Palestinian goods and products, in co-operation with PLO, the Conference asked UNCTAD to provide advice on the establishment of such a centre. It urged all States to facilitate access of Palestinian goods and products to their markets, and further urged them, United Nations bodies, and governmental and non-governmental organizations to continue assisting the Palestinians, in close co-operation with PLO, to develop their national economy, including the trade sector, free of occupation. It called for the granting to UNCTAD personnel of access to the occupied territories and requested the UNCTAD Secretary-General to report periodically to the Trade and Development Board and the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, on implementation of the resolution.

UNEP Council action. In an 18 June 1987 decision on the environmental situation in the occupied territories,(53) the UNEP Governing Council, concerned about the practices of the Israeli authorities, deplored the confiscation of land and water resources, the establishment of settlements and the destruction of trees and plantations. It requested the Executive Director to provide, within the UNEP mandate and within available resources, assistance to the Palestinians, particularly to the municipalities, in co-operation with UNDP and PLO, in order to help them protect and improve the territories' environment; it also requested him to report to the Council in 1989 on the environmental situation in the territories and on implementation of the decision.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ACTION

On 8 July 1987, the Economic and Social Council adopted resolution 1987/87 by roll-call vote.
Israeli economic practices in the occupied
Palestinian and other Arab territories

The Economic and Social Council,

Recalling General Assembly decision 40/432 of 17 December 1985, by which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to prepare a report on the financial and trade practices of the Israeli occupation authorities in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories,

Noting that the report of the Secretary-General covers only the financial practices of the Israeli occupation authorities in the occupied Palestinian territories,

Requests the Secretary-General to implement General Assembly decision 40/432 in full and to report on its implementation to the Assembly at its forty-third session, through the Economic and Social Council.

Economic and Social Council resolution 1987/87
8 July 1987 Meeting 36 47-0-1 (roll-call vote)

11-nation draft (E/1987/L.43); agenda item 6.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bulgaria, Djibouti, German Democratic Republic, Iran, Iraq, Oman, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic.

Meeting numbers. ESC 33, 34, 36.

Roll-call vote in Council as follows:

In favour: Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, China, Colombia, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guinea, Iceland, India, Iraq, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, USSR, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstaining: United States.

Following the vote, the Syrian Arab Republic voiced hope that the resolution would be followed up so that the Council would have no further occasion to request the Secretary-General fully to implement the 1985 Assembly decision.(84)

Before the vote, the United States reminded the Council of the Organization's continuing delicate budget situation, saying that an obvious way to improve the efficiency of the United Nations machinery and to save money and time was to cut down the number of identical or virtually identical items inscribed on the agenda of various bodies in the same year, or on the agenda of the same body year after year. While the Council debated permanent sovereignty over national resources in occupied Palestine and other Arab territories, its sessional committees were engaged with reports on the living conditions of the Palestinian people and assistance to the Palestinians (see p. 270); it had been so at the 1986 Assembly and Council sessions, and every year for many years before that. It was doubly unfortunate that discussions of those items were politically inspired, were devoid of serious economic content and generated reports lacking objectivity. As long as such items appeared on the agenda of every meeting that came along and the Secretariat was inundated with requests for meaningless reports, the United States would continue to decline to participate in those discussions and oppose any related resolution, and urged others to do likewise as a message to their sponsors.
REFERENCES

(1)A/42/229-S/18812. (2)A/42/297-S/18874. (3)A/42/318-S/18893. (4)A/42/338-S/18914. (5)A/42/575-S/19150. (6)A/42/655-S/19203. (7)A/42/768-S/19270 (8)A/42/877-S/19337. (9)S/19343. (10)A/42/892-S/19348. (11)A/42/889-S/19360. (12)A/42/899-S/19357. (13)A/43/60- S/19373. (14)A/42/903-S/19362. (15)YUN 1967, p. 257, SC res. 242(1967), 22 Nov. 1967. (16)YUN 1973, p. 213, SC res. 338(1973), 22 Oct. 1973. (17)A/43/62-S/19375 & Corr.1. (18)A/42/901-S/19361. (19)A/43/72-S/19393. (20)A/42/904-S/19365. (21)A/43/61-S/19374. (22)YUN 1985, p. 331. (23)A/43/65-S/19380. (24)A/43/71-S/19392. (25)A/43/73-S/19394. (26)YUN 1977, p. 706. (27)A/42/650. (28)A/42/714-S/19249. (29)YUN 1986, p. 323, SC res. 592(1986), 8 Dec. 1986. (30)Ibid., p. 320 GA res. 41/63 D, 3 Dec. 1986. (31)A/42/460. (32)A/43/13. (33)S/19333. (34)S/19339. (35)S/19344. (36)S/19336. (37)A/42/454. (38)YUN 1986, p. 326, GA res. 41/63 B, 3 Dec. 1986. (39)A/42/218-S/18795. (40)A/42/459. (41)YUN 1986, p. 328, GA res. 41/63 A, 3 Dec. 1986. (42)Ibid., p. 329. (43)A/42/104-S/18776. (44)A/42/230-S/18815. (45)A/42/369-S/18951. (46)A/42/430-S/19009. (47)A/42/545-S/19118. (48)A/42/670-S/19221. (49)A/42/843-S/19315. (50)A/43/63-S/19376. (51)A/42/569-S/19139. (52)A/42/681. (53)A/42/25 (dec. 14/11). (54)YUN 1980, p. 427, SC res 465(1980), 1 Mar. 1980. (55)A/42/455. (56)YUN 1986, p. 329, GA res. 41/63 C, 3 Dec. 1986. (57)YUN 1980, p. 411. (58)A/42/461. (59)YUN 1986, p. 331, GA res. 41/63 E, 3 Dec. 1986. (60)YUN 1981, p. 313; YUN 1982, p. 538; YUN 1985, p. 344, YUN 1986, p. 332. (61)YUN 1986 p. 323. (62) A/42/463. (63) YUN 1986, p. 333, GA res. 41/63 G, 3 Dec. 1986 (64)Ibid. p. 332. (65)Ibid., p. 334. (66)YUN 1981, p. 308. (67)A/42/173. (68)A/42/202-S/18771. (69)A/42/208-S/18782. (70)YUN 1948-49, p. 535, GA res. 217 A (III), 10 Dec. 1948. (71)A/42/462. (72)YUN 1986, p. 335, GA res. 41/63 F, 3 Dec. 1986. (73)YUN 1981, p. 312. (74)A/42/465 & Add.1. (75)YUN 1986, p. 336, GA res. 41/162 B, 4 Dec. 1986. (76)YUN 1981, p. 312, SC res. 497(1981), 17 Dec. 1981. (77)YUN 1985, p. 314, GA res. 40/201, 17 Dec. 1985. (78)A/42/183-E/1987/53. (79)A/42/159. (80)A/42/385-S/18968. (81)YUN 1972, p. 319. (82)YUN 1982, p. 1024, GA res. 37/7, annex, 28 Oct. 1982. (83)A/42/858-S/19322. (84)YUN 1985, p. 347, GA dec. 40/432, 17 Dec. 1985. (85)A/42/341-E/1987/78. (86)TD/B/1142. (87)Proceedings of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Seventh Session, Geneva, 9 July-3 August 1987, vol. I, Report and Annexes (TD/352, vol. I), Sales No. E.88.II.D.1.


__________________

Palestine refugees
__________________

In 1987, more than 2.2 million Palestine refugees were beneficiaries of the UNRWA programme of assistance. The emergency conditions under which UNRWA had to operate in Lebanon, especially in the first months of the year, posed severe challenges (see p. 285). In December, its operations were seriously affected by events in the occupied territories, especially in the West Bank and Gaza (see p. 301).

UNRWA activities and various aspects of the Palestine refugee problem were addressed by the General Assembly, which in December adopted 11 resolutions on: assistance to Palestine refugees (42/69 A) and to displaced persons (42/69 C); the Working Group on the financing of UNRWA (42/69 B); scholarships for higher education and vocational training (42/69 D); Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip (42/69 E) and the West Bank (42/69 J); ration distribution to Palestine refugees (42/69 F); refugees displaced since 1967 (42/69 G); revenues from refugee properties (42/69 H); refugee protection (42/69 D; and a proposed University of Jerusalem for Palestine refugees (42/69 K).

UN Agency for Palestine refugees

As at 30 June 1987, Palestine refugees registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East numbered more than 2.2 million, living in and outside camps, as follows: 278,609 in Lebanon (see p. 285); 257,989 in the Syrian Arab Republic; 845,542 in Jordan; 373,586 in the West Bank; and 445,397 in the Gaza Strip. UNRWA maintained field offices in these five areas of operation and was headquartered at Vienna.

The UNRWA programme of assistance consisted of direct relief assistance to only 5 per cent of all Palestine refugees, with the bulk devoted to educating children and furnishing advanced training (see p. 332), maintaining an effective public health care service and providing basic welfare service to a largely industrious and self-supporting refugee population.

The health programme comprised both curative and preventive medical care services, environmental (sanitation) health services in camps, and nutrition and supplementary feeding for vulnerable groups. Services were dispensed through a network of some 100 health centres/points, maternal and child health clinics, specialist and special care clinics, dental clinics, laboratories, rehabilitation centres and maternity centres. During 1987, 3,025,136 visits were made to those clinics. Under the supplementary feeding programme, through which some 18,000 pre-school children normally received a full midday meal six days a week, no less than 29,000 beneficiaries received meals, served at 94 centres. Expenditures on the health programme totalled $37.3 million for the year, against a budget of $38.9 million, representing about 20 per cent of the UNRWA regular budget.

Under the first phase of the 1987-1989 medium-term plan, 37 additional medical, dental, nursing and other support staff posts were established. Construction of a new health centre at Baqa'a camp in Jordan, funded by Canada, was completed. Two additional dental clinics each were set up in the West Bank and Gaza; dental services were reorganized and facilities and equipment were upgraded.

UNRWA expenditures for hospital bed subsidies increased due to rising hospital costs and to the increase in the number of beds to meet growing demands in the Gaza and the West Bank, including Jerusalem. Donations from Canada, Denmark and Sweden enabled UNRWA to provide essential medical equipment at subsidized hospitals. The number of bed days utilized by refugees in 34 hospitals with which UNRWA had special agreements amounted to 89,736.

Preventive medical services - epidemiology, communicable disease control, maternal and child health, school health and health education - continued to be a major component of the UNRWA primary health care programme. Increasing emphasis was being placed on development of health programmes for non-communicable disease control, mental health and health care for the elderly. Successful monitoring of children, pregnant women and nursing mothers continued to be one of the major achievements of the UNRWA primary health care programme. In all five fields of operations, the camp refugee population had already improved on the target of 50 deaths per thousand live births by the turn of the century set by WHO for developing countries. In West Bank camps, where infant mortality statistics had been closely monitored for over two decades, the rate in 1987 declined to 24 per thousand, compared to 64 per thousand 10 years earlier.

Family planning was offered on a limited basis through UNRWA clinics in Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic. Under the health and family life education programme, supported by the NGO Radda Barnen International (Save the Children Federation), health education was provided for teenage girls in their third and final year of preparatory school in Gaza. A research intervention project carried out in co-ordination with UNICEF, WHO and Radda Barnen to assess the psychological problems of refugee children at the Jabal el-Hussein and Marka camps in Jordan had been extended for two years to October 1988.

Basic community sanitation services in 61 camp locations comprised potable water supply, sanitary waste disposal, storm water drainage, latrine facilities and control of insect and rodent vectors of disease; sanitation in several camps was being steadily improved, with community participation and continued support by municipalities, local and village councils and host Governments.

UNRWA continued to provide financial and technical support for such self-help-activities as construction of drains, laying of sewers and paving of pathways. Support for such projects for the West Bank was also made available by the Arab Gulf Programme for the United Nations Development Organizations and by the Fund of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

The Agency's relief services consisted of a programme for special hardship cases (SHC) and a general welfare programme. In 1987, 30,549 families (4.68 per cent of the registered refugees) received SHC assistance in the form of food, clothing, blankets, small amounts of cash aid, cash grants for income-generating projects, assistance in the repair or reconstruction of shelters and preferential access to vocational and teacher training. Direct cash assistance amounting to $581,548 was provided to qualified SHC and other families in the five areas of UNRWA operations. Assistance for shelter repair and reconstruction at a cost of $603,033 was given to 826 families, and $191,097 in cash grants to assist 47 families become self-supporting.

The general welfare programme comprised casework, women's activities, adult training courses, education and training of the disabled, promotion of self-support projects and assistance to refugees in emergency situations. Total 1987 expenditure on the relief services programme amounted to $22 million, against a budget of $20.4 million, representing about 10 per cent of the UNRWA regular budget.

In Jordan, the Government was providing indoor water taps to refugee shelters from recently completed water augmentation schemes at Baqa'a, Marka, Suf, Jarash and Husn camps. In the West Bank, indoor water connection facilities were provided to all shelters at Deir Ammar camp from the Israeli regional water distribution network part of a water augmentation scheme for Dheisheh camp also was completed. An UNRWA-subsidized municipal water supply scheme for Sbeineh camp in the Syrian Arab Republic was completed and shelters were gradually being provided with indoor taps. A joint water and sewerage scheme to provide proper shelter connections was drawn up by UNICEF for Qabr-Essit camp in Damascus.

In addition, some 4,147 young men and 671 women participated in sporting, cultural and educational activities in 47 centres. The men's youth activities centres were organized and supervised by their members with support from UNRWA and the World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations; those for women were organized and supervised by UNRWA.

UNRWA activities and its financial situation in 1987 were described in the Commissioner-General's reports covering the periods 1 July 1986-30 June 1987(1) and 1 July 1987-30 June 1988.(2)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 A by recorded vote.
Assistance to Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 41/69 A of 3 December 1986 and all its previous resolutions on the question, including resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987,

1. Notes with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194(III) has not been effected, that no substantial progress has been made in the programme endorsed by the Assembly in paragraph 2 of its resolution 513(VI) of 26 January 1952 for the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continues to be a matter of serious concern;

2. Expresses its thanks to the Commissioner-General and to all the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, recognizing that the Agency is doing all it can within the limits of available resources, and also expresses its thanks to the specialized agencies and private organizations for their valuable work in assisting the refugees;

3. Reiterates its request that the headquarters of the Agency should be relocated to its former site within its area of operations as soon as practicable;

4. Notes with regret that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine has been unable to find a means of achieving progress in the implementation of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194(III), and requests the Commission to exert continued efforts towards the implementation of that paragraph and to report to the Assembly as appropriate, but no later than 1 September 1988;

5. Directs attention to the continuing seriousness of the financial position of the Agency, as outlined in the report of the Commissioner-General;

6. Notes with profound concern that, despite the commendable and successful efforts of the Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions, this increased level of income to the Agency is still insufficient to cover essential budget requirements in the present year and that, at currently foreseen levels of giving, deficits will recur each year;

7. Calls upon all Governments, as a matter of urgency, to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the Agency, particularly in the light of the budgetary deficit projected in the report of the Commissioner-General, and therefore urges non-contributing Governments to contribute regularly and contributing Governments to consider increasing their regular contributions.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 A
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 153-0-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/780) by recorded vote (125-0-1), 4 November (meeting 15); draft by United States (A/SPC/42/L.6); agenda item 79.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 8-13, 15; plenary 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Israel.

Israel said it had been forced to abstain because the text contained an interpretation of the 1948 Assembly resolution(3) referred to in paragraph 4 that did not correspond to its own interpretation; any reference to paragraph 11 of that resolution (by which the Assembly had resolved that refugees wishing to return to their homes should be permitted to do so as soon as practicable, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property) could only place new obstacles in the way of negotiations on a comprehensive settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242(1967)(4) and 338(1973).(5)

In resolution 42/69 H, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to take all appropriate steps, in consultation with the Conciliation Commission, for the protection and administration of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel.


UNRWA financing

The audited financial statements of UNRWA for the year ended 31 December 1987(6) showed that the UNRWA budget for 1987 amounted to $178.8 million for the General Fund. Revised budget figures for project funds were $13.7 million for funded ongoing activities and $10 million for capital and special projects (Capital Construction Fund), giving a total of $202.5 million for the General Fund and project funds.

The General Fund budget - representing minimum resources for recurrent costs for the UNRWA core programmes (education, health, relief), including costs for staff, consumable materials, transportation, contractual services, grants and subsidies - was completely funded by October 1987, even though unexpected price increases and renegotiation of certain service contracts necessitated increasing the cash budget within the Fund from $162.2 million to $163.3 million. Ongoing non-construction projects were fully funded.

Expenditure over budget for the General Fund was due primarily to the increased valuations in United States dollars attributed by donors to their in-kind contributions. Expenditure on education services, as part of funded ongoing activities, exceeded the budget by about $900,000, the result of increased contributions and expenditure for the Ramallah training centres in the West Bank. Due mainly to insufficient contributions, UNRWA expenditures on capital and special projects (Capital Construction Fund) amounted to $3.9 million or about 40 per cent of the budget ($10 million) for that purpose.

Because the Capital Construction Fund remained largely unfunded, much needed construction had to be postponed once again, leading to a further deterioration of the standard of UNRWA schools, clinics and other buildings. However, rising exchange rates of most European currencies registered a gain in UNRWA income, thus enabling it to draw on the General Fund for a limited number of the most urgently needed construction projects.

As at 31 December 1987, over $14.8 million had been received for the Lebanon Emergency Fund, in response to UNRWA's February appeal for $20.6 million (see p. 285). Over $8.1 million was spent during the year, leaving a balance of over $6.7 million, earmarked for the repair of refugee shelters damaged during the camp wars, if and when conditions permitted in 1988.

UNRWA ended 1987, as it did the previous year, with an excess of income over expenditure under the General Fund of $2,986,143. That, however, had to be seen in relation to the large deficits of earlier years and to the Agency's need to consolidate its financial situation by rebuilding its much depleted working capital, which totalled $25.8 million by year's end, but still was not adequate in relation to the Agency's financial requirements. The excess of income over expenditure under project funds amounting to $4,101,826 was largely due to the fact that the contributions reallocated from the General Fund during the latter half of 1987 had not been spent by year's end. The reallocations, totalling $4.2 million, were made for six construction projects, three each in Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic; an allocation of $212,000 was added for the purchase of equipment for the vocational training centre in Gaza.

The operating reserves (working capital) rose from $33,420,937 in 1986 to $45,269,424 in 1987, an increase of $11,848,487. More than 40 per cent of that, however, was earmarked or obligated for special purposes and could not be used to cover core programme costs.

Budget estimates for 1988 for the General Fund amounted to $188 million, of which $172.2 million represented cash expenditure and $15.8 million expenditure in donated food commodities and services - an increase of $9.2 million, or 5.1 per cent, over the approved 1987 General Fund budget.

The 1988-1990 medium-term plan, the first multi-year plan covering all Agency activities, was revised in 1987 to review the substantive parts of the programmes and provide an up-to-date forecast of the level of financing required over the next planning period. Income projections for 1988-1990 were endorsed by a meeting of major donors and host Governments, convened by the UNRWA Commissioner-General at Vienna on 6 and 7 duly 1987. The medium-term plan and 1988 budget estimates were based on the assumption that all administrative and support services would be held at the same level as 1987, but envisaged an average annual increase of 4.2 per cent in regular expenditures (those financed from the General Fund) for the requirements of a steadily increasing population, for price and salary increases and for some limited qualitative improvements in services.

The Advisory Commission of UNRWA, which urged Governments and other agencies to contribute generously over and above their support for UNRWA’s regular programme to enable UNRWA to fulfil its construction programme, also recognized the Commissioner-General's concern about the implications for UNRWA of the recommendation of the Group of High-level Intergovernmental Experts to Review the Efficiency of the Administrative and Financial Functioning of the United Nations to reduce staff by 15 per cent.(7) It hoped that a way could be found to avoid such action, which could hamper the Agency's ability to administer services to the refugees. The Commission's appeal and views were transmitted to the Commissioner-General in a 27 August 1987 letter by the Commission Chairman.


Working Group on UNRWA financing

The Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA held three meetings in 1987, on 11 September and on 2 and 9 October.

In its report to the General Assembly,(8) the Group noted that UNRWA had managed a small excess of income over expenditure in 1986, enabling it to begin restoring its much depleted working capital (operating reserves). It also noted that the level of contributions was being maintained in 1987, but regretted that special contribution pledges for the construction programme had not been sufficient. The Group shared the Commissioner-General's concerns about the continued postponement of construction work and the effects of deteriorating facilities on UNRWA services, welcomed his initiative in presenting that problem to the July meeting of major donors and host Governments, and expressed readiness to support him in the matter.

Despite the relatively favourable financial situation in 1986 and 1987, the Group believed that there was no room for complacency; efforts to involve donor Governments more closely with UNRWA must be intensified to take care of the natural increase in refugee population. Moreover, as pointed out to the Group, factors beyond the Agency's control, such as fluctuations in currency exchange rates and inflation, as reflected in the salaries paid to comparable government employees of the host countries, could seriously affect the Agency's financial situation.

The Group drew to the attention of all Governments the need for additional financial support in 1988, urging them either to start contributing or to increase their contributions and to do so as early in the calendar year as possible.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December 1987, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 B without vote.
Working Group on the Financing of the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for
Palestine Refugees in the Near East

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2656(XXV) of 7 December 1970, 2728(XXV) of 15 December 1970, 2791(XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2964(XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3090(XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3330(XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 D (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 C of 23 November 1976, 32/90 D of 13 December 1977,33/112 D of 18 December 1978, 34/52 D of 23 November 1979, 35/13 D of 3 November 1980, 36/146 E of 16 December 1981, 37/120 A of 16 December 1982, 38/83 B of 15 December 1983, 39/99 B of 14 December 1984, 40/165 B of 16 December 1985 and 41/69 B of 3 December 1986,

Recalling also its decision 36/462 of 16 March 1982, whereby it took note of the special report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and adopted the recommendations contained therein,

Having considered the report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

Taking into account the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987,

Deeply concerned at the critical financial situation of the Agency, which permits the provision of only minimum services to the Palestine refugees,

Emphasizing the continuing need for extraordinary efforts in order to maintain, at least at their present minimum level, the activities of the Agency, as well as to enable the Agency to carry out essential construction,

1. Commends the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for its efforts to assist in ensuring the Agency's financial security;

2. Takes note with approval of the report of the Working Group;

3. Requests the Working Group to continue its efforts in co-operation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, for the financing of the Agency for a further period of one year;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary services and assistance to the Working Group for the conduct of its work.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 B
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 Adopted without vote

Approved by Special Political Committee {A/42/780) without vote, 4 November (meeting 15); 16-nation draft {A/SPC/42/L.7): agenda item 79.

Sponsors: Austria, Bangladesh, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Federal Republic of, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Phillippines, Spain, Sweden, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 8-13, 15; plenary 89.


Accounts for 1986

Following the audit of the UNRWA financial statements for the year ended 31 December 1986, the Board of Auditors made several recommendations,(9) summarized also in a July 1987 note by the Secretary-General.(10) They included the need for presentation of a consolidated statement of assets and liabilities covering both the General Fund and project funds, proper accountability and reporting of contributions in kind (school contributions and proceeds from canteen rentals), disclosure of inventory supplies, and tightening control over impress funds. ACABQ, in taking note of the Board's report in September,(11) trusted that the various situations raised by the audit would be resolved expeditiously.

The General Assembly, by resolution 42/206, accepted the financial report and audited financial statements of UNRWA and the Board's audit opinion and report on them, and requested that the executive head concerned be required to take immediate steps to correct the situations that gave rise to the qualification of the audit opinion.


Claims for compensation

In 1987, UNRWA reported(1) that, despite its efforts, no progress had been made towards a settlement of its various claims against the Governments of: Israel (for loss and damage caused to UNRWA property during the 1967 Middle East hostilities, Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its military action before then); Jordan (arising out of the 1967 hostilities and the disturbances of 1970 and 1971); and the Syrian Arab Republic (relating mainly to the levy of certain taxes from which UNRWA believed it was exempt under existing agreements). Those claims had been reported in 1986.(12)

In resolution 42/69 I, the General Assembly called again on Israel to compensate UNRWA for damage to its property and facilities resulting from its invasion of Lebanon, without prejudice to Israel's responsibility for all damages resulting from that invasion.


Legal matters

The number of UNRWA staff arrested and detained without charge or trial did not increase during the 1986/87 reporting period.(1) In Lebanon, however, there had been a considerable increase in the number kidnapped: arrested or detained and later released without charge or trial - 52 (49 who had been kidnapped by militias and 3 understood as having been detained by the Syrian forces in Lebanon); still in detention without charge - 8 (4 kidnapped by militias and 4 understood to be detained by the Syrian forces in Lebanon). UNRWA remained unable to obtain adequate and timely information on the reasons for the arrests and detentions; in the absence of such information, it could neither ascertain whether the staff members' official functions were involved nor ensure that their rights and duties flowing from the United Nations Charter, the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations(13) and the pertinent Staff Regulations and Rules of UNRWA were duly observed.

The Agency's rights, privileges and immunities, and ability to discharge its functions effectively were affected by various developments, in particular violations of its premises, since the uprising began in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in December 1987 (see p. 301). The Agency encountered increasing difficulties in its operations there as a result of procedural changes for the movement of its staff and their effects; three were being prevented from entering the occupied territories on duty travel and some had been denied entry despite possession of entry permits. Staff had also been subjected to substantial delays even when their papers were in order and had been prevented from using the UNRWA courier car to and from the West Bank terminal.

Other aspects

Displaced persons

Humanitarian assistance

In 1987, in addition to providing relief in the form of basic food commodities, blankets, clothing, shelter repair and cash grants, UNRWA continued to provide a small measure of humanitarian assistance to persons who had been displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities in the Middle East but who were not registered with UNRWA as refugees. Since talks between Egypt and Israel had not resolved the problem of refugees stranded in the Sinai peninsula since Israel's withdrawal in 1982,(14) UNRWA continued to provide essential services to 789 families there. In the West Bank, various commodities purchased by or donated to UNRWA were distributed to registered refugees and non-refugees alike; during the 1987/88 reporting period,(2) an average of 4,700 non-refugees benefited monthly from such distributions. In Lebanon, emergency assistance was extended to all Palestine refugees, including those not registered with the Agency (see p. 285).

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 C without vote.
Assistance to persons displaced as a result of
the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 41/69 C of 3 December 1986 and all previous resolutions on the question,

Taking note of the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987,

Concerned about the continued human suffering resulting from the hostilities in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 41/69 C and all its previous resolutions on the question;

2. Endorses, bearing in mind the objectives of those resolutions, the efforts of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to continue to provide humanitarian assistance as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who are at present displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities;

3. Strongly appeals to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously for the above purposes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and to the other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 C
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 Adopted without vote

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/780) without vote, 4 November; (meeting 15); 24-nation draft {A/SPC/42/L.8); agenda item 79.

Sponsors: Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mali, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Samoa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session SPC 8-13, 15; plenary 89.


Repatriation of refugees

In August 1987,(15) the Secretary-General reported on the 8 July reply of Israel to the 1986 General Assembly call on it to take immediate steps for the return of all inhabitants displaced since 1967 and to desist from all measures obstructing the return of such inhabitants.(16) Israel stated that its position on the matter had been fully set out in successive annual replies, the latest having been the subject of a 1986 report by the Secretary-General;(17) as a result of its continued effort to review individual cases of resettlement based on the meets of each case, approximately 73,000 persons had already returned to the administered territories.

The Secretary-General reported at the same time on information from UNRWA on the return of refugees registered with it. Since UNRWA was not involved in arrangements for the return of either refugees or displaced persons not registered as refugees, its information was based on requests by returning registered refugees for the transfer of their service entitlements to their areas of return; UNRWA was not necessarily aware of the return of registered refugees who had not made such requests. Agency records indicated that, between 1 July 1986 and 30 June 1987, 175 registered refugees had returned to the West Bank and 23 to the Gaza Strip. Some of these might not have been displaced in 1967 but might be family members of a displaced registered refugee whom they had accompanied on return or later joined. Displaced refugees known by UNRWA to have returned to the occupied territories since June 1967 numbered about 11,100. It was unable to estimate the total number of displaced inhabitants who had returned, as it kept records only of registered refugees, and even those records, particularly with respect to the location of registered refugees, might be incomplete.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December 1987, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 G by recorded Vote.
Population and refugees displaced since 1967

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237(1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 2252(ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2452 A (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, 2672 D (XXV) of 8 December 1970, 2792 E (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 C and D (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3089 C (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3331 D (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 C (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 D of 23 November 1976, 32/90 E of 13 December 1977, 33/112 F of 18 December 1978, 34/52 E of 23 November 1979, ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 35/13 E of 3 November 1980, 36/146 B of 16 December 1981, 37/120 G of 16 December 1982, 38/83 G of 15 December 1983, 39/99 G of 14 December 1984, 40/165 G of 16 December 1985 and 41/69 G of 3 December 1986,

Having considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987, and the report of the Secretary-General,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of all displaced inhabitants to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and declares once more that any attempt to restrict, or to attach conditions to, the free exercise of the right to return by any displaced person is inconsistent with that inalienable right and inadmissible;

2. Considers any and all agreements embodying any restriction on, or condition for, the return of the displaced inhabitants as null and void;

3. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of the Israeli authorities to take steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants;

4. Calls once more upon Israel:

(a) To take immediate steps for the return of all displaced inhabitants;

(b) To desist from all measures that obstruct the return of the displaced inhabitants, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories;

5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report to the General Assembly, before the opening of its forty-third session, on Israel's compliance with paragraph 4 above.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 G
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 125-2-27 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/421780) by recorded vote (102-2-23), 4 November (meeting 15); 9-nation draft (A/SPC/42/L.12); agenda item 79.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 8-13, 15: plenary 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Denmark, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Zaire.

Israel said the destructive hostility evident in paragraph 2 endangered the Middle East peace process. In Sweden's view, the wording of the text seemed to rule out the possibility of negotiations or discussions on the modalities of repatriation.

Iran stressed that its affirmative vote did not mean that it recognized the Zionist occupation of territories prior to 1967; not only the territories occupied since then but all of Palestine must be liberated.


Food aid

The General Assembly, in December 1987, again called for the resumption of the general distribution of basic food rations to Palestine refugees, which had been suspended in September 1982,(18) except in Lebanon, where it had ceased in March 1984.(19)

The Secretary-General reported in August(20) that response had not been forthcoming to the 1986 Assembly call(21) for generous contributions to meet the needs of UNRWA, particularly in the light of the interruption of its general ration distribution to Palestine refugees in all fields. The annual cost of reinstating the basic ration for 1,730,000 refugees would be $68.3 million, including $6.25 million in cash. Since the required additional resources had not been at UNRWA's disposal in 1987, it had not been possible to consider resuming the ration distribution; whatever income was available to UNRWA had had to be used to maintain its education, health and welfare programmes at the 1986 level.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 F by recorded vote.
Resumption of the ration distribution
to Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 36/146 F of 16 December 1981, 37/120 F of 16 December 1982, 38/83 F of 15 December 1983, 39/99 F of 14 December 1984, 40/165 F of 16 December 1985 and 41/69 F of 3 December 1986 and all its previous resolutions on the question, including resolution 302(IV) of 8 December 1949,

Having considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987, and the report of the Secretary-General,

Deeply concerned at the interruption by the Agency, owing to financial difficulties, of the general ration distribution to Palestine refugees in all fields,

1. Regrets that its resolutions 37/120 F, 38/83 F, 39/99 F, 40/165 F and 41/69 F have not been implemented;

2. Calls once again upon all Governments, as a matter of urgency, to make the most generous efforts possible and to offer the necessary resources to meet the needs of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, particularly in the light of the interruption by the Agency of the general ration distribution to Palestine refugees in all fields, and therefore urges non-contributing Government to contribute regularly and contributing Governments to consider increasing their regular contributions;

3. Requests the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to resume on a continuing basis the interrupted general ration distribution to Palestine refugees in all fields;

4. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Commissioner-General, to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 F
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 131-20-4 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/780) by recorded vote (103-19-5), 4 November (meeting 15); 8-nation draft {A/SPC/42/L.11); agenda item 79.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 8-13, 15; plenary 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mall Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Austria, Equatorial Guinea, Greece, Spain.

The United States supported efforts to use UNRWA's scarce resources most efficiently and respected the Commissioner-General’s judgements concerning the ration distribution system and its relative value as compared to other priority programmes. Without sufficient financial resources, Sweden stated, the resumption of the ration distribution would endanger the vital educational, health care and basic welfare programmes, which must be given the highest priority; it cast a negative vote, since the request to resume distribution was again formulated in such a categorical way as to leave no room for the Commissioner-General to exercise his discretion and maintain priorities.


Education and training services

Schools and teacher training centres

The UNRWA education programme provided nine grades of general education, vocational and technical training, in-service teacher training and some higher education for Palestine refugees in conformity with their educational needs, identity and cultural heritage. The curricula followed in the five areas of operations were those prescribed by the host countries - Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic - and, in the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, by Jordan and Egypt, respectively.

In 1987, expenditures on the education programme amounted to $108.7 million, against a budget of $111.3 million, representing about 55 per cent of the total UNRWA regular budget.

During the year, 348,639 refugee children were enrolled in the 635 UNRWA elementary and preparatory schools served by 9,991 teachers. An additional 56,692 pupils attended government and private schools. Vocational, technical and pre-service teacher training was provided to 4,223 trainees by 416 instructors at seven training centres. During the 1986-87 academic year, there were 1,000 pre-service teacher trainees at three training centres, 773 in-service teacher trainees and 385 university scholarship holders.

Schools and training centres in Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic operated normally throughout the year. In the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, despite widespread disturbances in the early months of 1987, individual schools were interrupted for only relatively short periods and it was possible to make up for lost time by teaching additional periods. In the first three months of the 1987/88 academic year starting in September 1987, the centres operated with only minor interruptions; since the start of the uprising in early December, however, instruction courses were suspended, and, on 22 December, the Ramallah training centres were ordered closed for a month. The situation in Lebanon seriously affected school operations, as well as the training centre there (see p. 286).

In all areas except Lebanon, where no comparison could be made, students at UNRWA schools performed as well as or better than those in government schools in the State examination.

UNRWA continued to provide education and training for 210 disabled children in specialized institutions; of those, 106 attended the UNRWA-operated training centre for the blind in Gaza, funded largely by the Pontifical Mission for Palestine and by NGOs. The centre played an important role in the Gaza Strip in providing education and training for blind children. In Jordan, day care centres for the mentally disabled at Suf, Jerash and Husn camps, administered jointly by UNRWA and OXFAM (United Kingdom) or the Mennonite Central Committee (United States), found strong community support.

The Agency received earmarked contributions in support of its training programmes. Denmark maintained its support for the two training centres at Ramallah, and the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy continued supporting the Wadi Seer (Jordan) and Gaza training centres, respectively. Apart from providing scholarships for 15 UNRWA vocational training instructors, Japan provided experts and equipment for the Wadi Seer centre. OPEC contributed an additional $546,000 during the 1986/87 year to enable UNRWA to buy equipment and tools needed for new courses and to re-equip existing courses in all training centres, except the Siblin Training Centre in Lebanon. EC provided funds for the introduction of two new courses at the Gaza Training Centre.


Proposed University of Jerusalem “Al-Quds"

As requested by the General Assembly in 1986,(22) the Secretary-General reported in June 1987(23) on the establishment of a university for Palestine refugees at Jerusalem. The proposed university, first considered by the Assembly in 1980,(24) had since been the subject of annual reports by the Secretary-General with regard to measures taken towards its establishment, including a functional feasibility study. To assist in the study's preparation, the Rector of the United Nations University had made available the services of an expert, Federico Mayor (Spain).

The Secretary-General had addressed a note verbale to Israel on 11 February 1987, stating that the expert, to carry out his task, would have to meet with the competent Israeli officials in the area, bearing in mind that Israel exercised effective authority there. The Secretary-General indicated his awareness of the questions raised by Israel and its position on the matter, which could best be addressed during the expert's visit. In view of the 1986 Assembly resolution(22) and bearing in mind his reporting obligations, the Secretary-General requested Israel to facilitate the visit at a mutually convenient date.

Replying on 22 April, Israel referred to its previous statements,(25) saying that the sponsors of the annual resolution on the proposal were exploiting higher education to politicize extraneous issues. It pointed out that the higher academic institutions in Judaea and Samaria were successfully meeting all the requirements of the inhabitants there, while improving their education standards, and that Israel had enabled the establishment of five universities, colleges and teacher training schools currently attended by more than 15,000 students. Israel could not assist in taking the matter further until it received the clarifications it required. These related to standards of eligibility for admission, the earmarking of significant amounts of limited United Nations resources for a specific group of refugees, the compatibility of such a separate institution with policies aimed at rehabilitating refugees through their integration into the general population, and how such a university could operate in the light of the principles of the Charter and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and within the framework of local legislation relating to higher education.

The Secretary-General stated that, in view of Israel's position, it had not been possible to complete the feasibility study.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 K by recorded vote.
University of Jerusalem “Al-Quds”
for Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 36/146 G of 16 December 1981, 37/120 C of 16 December 1982, 38/83 K of 15 December 1983, 39/99 K of 14 December 1984, 40/165 D and K of 16 December 1985 and 41/69 K of 3 December 1986,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,

Having also considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987,

1. Emphasizes the need for strengthening the educational system in the Arab territories occupied since 5 June 1967, including Jerusalem, and specifically the need for the establishment of the proposed university;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to take all necessary measures for establishing the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds", in accordance with General Assembly resolution 35/13 B of 3 November 1980, giving due consideration to the recommendations consistent with the provisions of that resolution;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to co-operate in the implementation of the present resolution and to remove the hindrances that it has put in the way of establishing the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds";

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 K
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 151-2-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/780) by recorded vote (125-2), 4 November (meeting 15); 10-nation draft (A/SPC/42/L.16); agenda item 79.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 8-13, 15: plenary 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Equatorial Guinea.

Israel remarked that the text represented a case of special pleading, since it claimed special rights and privileges for one group of refugees the Palestinian Arabs - who were among the most advanced in the Middle East in the field of education; the idea of setting up a university at Jerusalem exclusively for Palestinian Arab refugees did not meet the real needs for education. The United States deemed the text's approach unreasonable and impractical for meeting the educational needs of the Palestine refugees.


Scholarships

The Secretary-General reported in August 1987(26) on responses to the 1986 General Assembly appeal(27) for special allocations for scholarships and grants to Palestine refugees, for which UNRWA acted as recipient and trustee. He also reported on further action in response to similar appeals made yearly since 1977.(28)

In 1987, United Nations agencies responding to that appeal included IMO, which enrolled 29 Palestinians in the Arab Maritime Transport Academy (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) in a variety of training courses. WHO awarded eight regional and international fellowships to Palestine refugee health staff of UNRWA under a post-graduate training programme designed to develop the technical and managerial skills of the Agency's Department of Health and to meet future replacement needs under various health disciplines.

UNESCO awarded five fellowships as part of its long-standing agreement with UNRWA. Outside that framework, it allocated $140,000 to provide, during the 1986/87 academic year, fellowships to students and teaching staff in the occupied territories. In addition, in 1987 UNESCO set up a fund-in-trust (Special Account) made up of voluntary contributions, for the establishment of a Scholarship Fund for the Higher Education of Students of the Occupied Arab Territories, with a target budget of $2.5 million to finance 50 scholarships a year; as of October, pledges had been received from the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Arab Organization for Industrial Development.(29) At their 1987 sessions, the UNESCO Executive Board and General Conference, by a decision and resolution, respectively, on educational and cultural institutions ir the occupied territories (see p. 315), invited the Director-General to renew his appeal to States, organizations, foundations and individuals for contributions to the Account.

Among Member States responding to the Assembly's appeals, Japan provided scholarships fol a further 15 UNRWA vocational training instructors to receive special training in Japan.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 D by recorded vote.
Offers by Member States of grants and
scholarships for higher education, including
vocational training, for Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 212(III) of 19 November 1948 on assistance to Palestine refugees,

Recalling also its resolutions 35/13 B of 3 November 1980, 36/146 H of 16 December 1981, 37/120 D of 16 December 1982, 38/83 D of 15 December 1983, 39/99 D of 14 December 1984, 40/165 D of 16 December 1985 and 41/69 D of 3 December 1986,

Cognizant of the fact that the Palestine refugees have, for the last three decades, lost their lands and means of livelihood,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,

Having also considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987,

1. Urges all States to respond to the appeal contained in General Assembly resolution 32/90 F of 13 December 1977 and reiterated in subsequent relevant resolutions in a manner commensurate with the needs of Palestine refugees for higher education, including vocational training;

2. Strongly appeals to all States, specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations to augment the special allocations for grants and scholarships to Palestine refugees in addition to their contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East;

3. Expresses its appreciation to all Governments, specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations that responded favourably to General Assembly resolution 41/69 D;

4. Invites the relevant specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system to continue, within their respective spheres of competence, to extend assistance for higher education to Palestine refugee students;

5. Appeals to all States, specialized agencies and the United Nations University to contribute generously to the Palestinian universities in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including, in due course, the proposed University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds" for Palestine refugees;

6. Also appeals to all States, specialized agencies and other international bodies to contribute towards the establishment of vocational training centres for Palestine refugees;

7. Requests the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to act as the recipient and trustee for the special allocations for grants and scholarships and to award them to qualified Palestine refugee candidates;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 D
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 154-0-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/780) by recorded vote (128-0-1), 4 November (meeting 15); 9-nation draft (A/SPC/42/L.9/Rev.1); agenda item 79.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 8-13, 15; plenary 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Israel.

Israel said certain of the resolution's formulations showed that its true purpose was not the promotion of education, but rather an unrelenting propaganda campaign against Israel. The United States did not support that part of the resolution dealing with the establishment of a university at Jerusalem.

Iran stressed that its vote for this and other resolutions on the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 did not mean that it recognized the Zionist occupation of territories prior to that date.

Property Rights

Report of the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General reported in August 1987(30) on revenues derived from Palestine refugee properties, as requested by a 1986 General Assembly resolution.(31) He had transmitted the resolution to Israel, with a request for information on its implementation. He had also drawn to the attention of all other Member States the Assembly's call for pertinent information in their possession concerning Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel; none had replied at the time of reporting.

Israel advised on 8 July that its position on the resolution had been set out in statements to the Special Political Committee and in a 1986 report by the Secretary-General.(32) There was no legal basis for taking the steps proposed, as property rights within the borders of a sovereign State were exclusively subject to that State's domestic laws; the right of States to regulate and dispose of property within their territory (and of the income from that property) was a generally accepted principle. Significantly, the resolution's sponsors had not suggested that similar steps be taken regarding confiscated Jewish property in Arab countries. As a result of the 1948 war, approximately 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries were resettled in Israel; the property they had left behind, estimated to be worth billions of dollars, was expropriated by the Arab countries in which they had lived. There could be no difference in law, justice or equity between the claims of Arab and Jewish property owners, Israel asserted.

Report of the Conciliation Commission. The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, in its report covering the period 1 September 1986 to 31 August 1987,(33) stated that the circumstances that had limited its possibilities of action regarding compensation for Palestine refugee properties remained unchanged. The Commission continued to hope, however, that the situation and related circumstances in the region would improve, thus enabling it to carry forward its work in accordance with the 1948 resolution setting forth its mandate.(3)

Referring to prospects for implementing paragraph 11 of that resolution, by which the Assembly resolved that the refugees wishing to return to their homes should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of damage to property, the Commission noted that examination of various ways in which it might be possible to intensify its efforts towards that end had compelled the conclusion that all the ways envisaged presupposed substantial changes in the situation.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 H by recorded vote.
Revenues derived from Palestine refugee properties

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 35/13 A to F of 3 November 1980, 36/146 C of 16 December 1981, 37/120 H of 16 December 1982, 38/83 H of 15 December 1983, 39/99 H of 14 December 1984, 40/165 H of 16 December 1985, 41/69 H of 3 December 1986 and all its previous resolutions on the question, including resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General,

Taking note also of the report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, covering the period from 1 September 1986 to 31 August 1987,

Recalling that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of international law uphold the principle that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her private property,

Considering that the Palestine Arab refugees are entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of justice and equity,

Recalling in particular its resolution 394(V) of 14 December 1950, in which it directed the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, in consultation with the parties concerned, to prescribe measures for the protection of the rights, property and interests of the Palestine Arab refugees,

Taking note of the completion of the programme of identification and evaluation of Arab property, as announced by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine in its twenty-second progress report, and of the fact that the Land Office had a schedule of Arab owners and file of documents defining the location, area and other particulars of Arab property,

1. Requests the Secretary-General to take all appropriate steps, in consultation with the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, for the protection and administration of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel and to establish a fund for the receipt of income derived therefrom, on behalf of the rightful owners;

2. Calls once more upon Israel to render all facilities and assistance to the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution;

3. Calls upon the Governments of all the other Member States concerned to provide the Secretary-General with any pertinent information in their possession concerning Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel, which would assist the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution;

4. Deplores Israel's refusal to co-operate with the Secretary-General in the implementation of the resolutions on the question;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 H
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 123-2-28 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/780) by recorded vote (99-2-25), 4 November (meeting 15); 8-nation draft (A/SPC/42/L.13); agenda item 79.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 8-13, 15; plenary 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Denmark, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, Zaire.

Israel said the text illustrated once again the abusive manner in which the Assembly was being used for an Arab political campaign against Israel; a rational examination would show that there was no logical or legal basis for the measures contained in the text. Neither the Charter nor any other instrument empowered the United Nations to intervene in the regulation of property rights in a Member State. For many years, Israel had managed - with due respect for legality - the derelict lands in order to bring them into productive use; it had spent vast sums on that endeavour without deriving financial profit from it. As for the income from property, reference was usually made to purely imaginary and astronomical figures. In the view of the United States, repatriation and compensation issues should be settled through direct negotiations between the parties. It was Sweden's opinion that property claims should be dealt with not in isolation but in the context of a comprehensive Middle East settlement.

In resolution 42/69 A, the Assembly noted with regret that the Conciliation Commission had been unable to achieve progress in implementing paragraph 11 of the 1948 Assembly resolution;(3) it requested the Commission to exert continued efforts towards implementing that paragraph and to report to it no later than 1 September 1988.


Refugee protection

The Secretary-General reported in August 1987(34) on implementation of a 1986 General Assembly resolution(35) holding Israel responsible for the security of the Palestine refugees in the occupied territories and calling on it to compensate UNRWA for the damage to its property and facilities resulting from Israel's invasion of Lebanon.

The Secretary-General stated that Israel, replying to his request for information on steps taken or envisaged to comply with the resolution, said on 8 July 1987 that its position had been fully set out in previous statements to the Special Political Committee and in a 1986 report by the Secretary-General.(36) The resolution clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy of its sponsors, Israel stated. Despite its withdrawal from Lebanon in 1985, it was still being blamed for the "continuous suffering of Palestinians" in Lebanon and for Arab persecution of Palestine refugees. In the past two years, Syrian and Lebanese forces had killed roughly 5,000 Palestinians and wounded over 10,000 in refugee camps in Lebanon; likewise, Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic were the scenes of untold death, destruction and misery. The sponsors had chosen to omit those facts from the resolution. No similar attacks or anything remotely resembling them had ever taken place among any of the refugee camps in Israeli-administered territories, yet the sponsors chose to single out Israel for imaginary maltreatment of Palestinian refugees and for not providing security for them - charges as preposterous as the resolution itself.

In previous reports on the subject, the Secretary-General had referred to the constraints he had faced in undertaking the measures requested of him by the Assembly. Nevertheless, the UNRWA Commissioner-General, as the senior United Nations official responsible for providing services to the Palestine refugees, continued his efforts, in consultation with the Secretary-General, to do all that was feasible to contribute to the refugees' safety and security. His efforts in regard to Palestine refugees in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were described in his annual report to the Assembly.(1)

Following the withdrawal of Israel's forces from the Saida and Tyre areas in February and April 1985, respectively, there was nothing further to state regarding the Palestine refugees in Lebanon in the context of the current report, the Secretary-General said. He also noted that there had been no progress on the claim against Israel by UNRWA concerning damage to its property and facilities resulting from Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 I by recorded vote.
Protection of Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 508(1982) of 5 June 1982, 509(1982) of 6 June 1982, 511(1982) of 18 June 1982, 512(1982) of 19 June 1982, 513(1982) of 4 July 1982, 515(1982) of 29 July 1982, 517(1982) of 4 August 1982, 518(1982) of 12 August 1982, 519(1982) of 17 August 1982, 520(1982) of 17 September 1982, and 523(1982) of 18 October 1982,

Recalling its resolutions ES-7/5 of 26 June 1982, ES-7/6 and ES-7/8 of 19 August 1982, ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982, 37/120 J of 16 December 1982, 38/83 I of 15 December 1983, 39/99 I of 14 December 1984, 40/165 1 of 16 December 1985 and 41/69 1 of 3 December 1986,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,

Having also considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987,

Referring to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and to the obligations arising from the regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907,

Deeply concerned at the marked deterioration in the security situation experienced by the Palestine refugees as stated by the Commissioner-General in his report,

Deeply distressed at the continuous suffering of the Palestinians resulting from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its consequences,

Deeply distressed at the tragic situation of the civilian population in and around the Palestine refugee camps in Lebanon resulting from the fighting,

Recognizing the efforts of the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General to promote a co-ordinated programme of assistance for Lebanon by the other United Nations agencies, as reflected in paragraph 15 of the Commissioner-General's report,

Reaffirming its support for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon, within its internationally recognized boundaries,

1. Holds Israel responsible for the security of the Palestine refugees in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and calls upon it to fulfil its obligations as the occupying Power in this regard, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;

2. Urges the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to undertake effective measures to guarantee the safety and security and the legal and human rights of the Palestine refugees in all the territories under Israeli occupation in 1967 and thereafter;

3. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to release forthwith all detained Palestine refugees, including the employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East;

4. Urges the Commissioner-General, in consultation with the Government of Lebanon, to provide housing to the Palestine refugees whose houses were demolished or razed by the Israeli forces;

5. Requests the Commissioner-General, in consultation with the Government of Lebanon, to provide emergency housing repairs for the shelters and Agency installations that have been partly damaged or destroyed in the fighting;

6. Calls once again upon Israel to compensate the Agency for the damage to its property and facilities resulting from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, without prejudice to Israel's responsibility for all damages resulting from that invasion;

7. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Commissioner-General, to report to the General Assembly, before the opening of its forty-third session, on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 I
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 124-2-27 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/780) by recorded vote (102-2-23), 4 November (meeting 15); 8-nation draft (A/SPC/42/L.14); agenda item 79.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 8-13; 15: plenary 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Cameroon, Canada Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zaire.

The United States said the text contained an unacceptable and one-sided condemnation of Israel, which would complicate and intensify UNRWA's real problems. It noted that, as the United Nations Legal Counsel had pointed out in 1982 during consideration of a similar draft resolution,(37) a text calling on the Secretary-General to guarantee the safety, security and rights of the refugees in the occupied territories raised practical and legal problems owing to possible jurisdictional conflicts.

Denmark, speaking for the 12 EC members, said the text did not reflect in a balanced way the situation of the Palestine refugees in Lebanon, whose suffering resulted from a complex reality and could not be attributed to a single factor. As to paragraph 2, EC deemed that the Secretary-General should not be entrusted with guaranteeing the refugees' safety; moreover, the responsibility of Israel, as the occupying Power, vis-à-vis the civilian population must not be called into question. Noting that the financing of the UNRWA construction programme remained insufficient despite an improvement during the previous fiscal year, EC wondered whether it was advisable to set unrealistic tasks for the Commissioner-General.

Finland and Sweden likewise felt that it was not the Secretary-General's responsibility to guarantee the refugees' security in circumstances where he had no means to do so; also, the language of paragraph 3 was indefinite and too sweeping. Finland added that its understanding of paragraph 6 was that the damages mentioned would be specified in the claim that UNRWA would present to Israel.

In Canada's view, the text contained passages whose scope was too general, such as paragraph 3, calling for the release of detainees regardless of the reasons for their detention. Austria believed that that paragraph in particular could have been improved by inserting the phrase "detained for political reasons".


Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip

The Secretary-General reported in August 1987(38) on Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip, in accordance with a 1986 General Assembly resolution.(39) In reply to his January 1987 request for information on the resolution's implementation Israel stated on 8 July that its position had been set out in successive annual replies, most recently in 1986.(40) The resolution was distorted, unbalanced and inaccurate, and intentionally ignored the improved living conditions in the Gaza District since 1967; it made no mention of the 120 per cent increase in the number of pupils attending school, the 25 per cent drop in the illiteracy rate the extensive development of medical care and the improvement of environmental services, including water supply, and sewage and refuse disposal. Moreover, since 1967 community development projects initiated by Israel in the Gaza District had enabled over 10,000 families to leave refugee camps and relocate to new residential areas; those projects, part of the voluntary refugee rehabilitation programme, were becoming increasingly popular because they materially improved the refugees' living conditions; Israel's positive role in initiating those housing projects had been recognized by the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General in 1985.(41)

The Secretary-General stated that, based on information provided by the Commissioner-General for the 1986/87 reporting period, Israel had demolished 12 shelter rooms, affecting four refugee families (comprising 23 persons), as follows: on 8 July 1986 - two privately built shelter rooms at Khan Yunis camp, occupied by one refugee family (10 persons), on the grounds that the construction contravened building regulations; on 11 February 1987 - two Agency shelter rooms at Rafah camp and eight private rooms at Tel-es-Sultan, as a punitive action.

UNRWA followed up with the Israeli authorities the matter of rehousing refugees who remained affected by the 1971 demolitions.(42) Of 87 families previously categorized as living in hardship conditions, 14 continued to live in hardship, 18 remained inadequately housed, 37 were satisfactorily housed and 18 had previously purchased houses m Israeli-sponsored projects. The authorities continued to assure UNRWA that a solution to the situation of the 14 families living in hardship had been developed and would be implemented as soon as possible.

The Secretary-General stated that the Commissioner-General had received updated information relating to the demolition of refugee shelters on the grounds that they had been built without proper authority on State land outside camp boundaries. Regarding the group of families living on the northern perimeter of Jabalia camp(41) who had been told to remove some of their shelter extensions and against whom the High Court of Israel had ruled on the matter, their shelters had so far not been demolished but had been isolated by the bulldozing of sand around them. Of the 35 families whose shelters on the perimeter of Beach camp had been demolished in 1983,(43) 15 had received plots of land at Sheikh Radwan or the Beit Lahiya housing projects, 3 had left the Beach camp area, 1 had bought land outside the projects, I had moved in with relatives, and 15 were living in self-built temporary shelters on or near the Beach camp perimeter. Israel had stated its willingness to consider allocating land in a housing project for those not yet rehoused, although not at Sheikh Radwan, the nearest project. As to the status of the refugee families at Rafah camp who had agreed to relocate to the Tel-es-Sultan housing project,(40) the Secretary-General reported that, as at 30 June 1987, most of them had been allocated plots of land; pending construction, however, they remained in their shelters, currently isolated by the bulldozing of sand around them.

In addition, 20 plots of land in housing projects had been allocated by the authorities; 301 refugee families (1,854 persons) moved to 174 plots of land in housing projects, having accepted demolition of their camp shelters as a pre-condition. Another five families (33 persons) moved to five plots of land after handing over their shelters to the authorities, which were then made available to three other families, of whom two had to demolish their original shelters before moving. Among refugee families living outside the camps, 14 families (101 persons) moved to 14 plots of land and another five (36 persons) moved to five completed housing units consisting of 15 rooms; in addition, seven families (45 persons) moved prior to demolition of their shelters to seven completed housing units consisting of 22 rooms. In all, 519 shelter rooms were demolished during the reporting period, of which 260 had been built by UNRWA, 12 with UNRWA assistance and 247 without such assistance.

The Secretary-General said that, with a few exceptions, the figures were indicative of the continuing practice of requiring refugee families to demolish their shelters as a pre-condition of moving to new housing. UNRWA had objected to the practice, not only because of practical complications in cases of extended families sharing the same shelter where not everyone wanted to move, but also because of the overcrowded conditions and urgent need for accommodations. The Commissioner-General had taken the matter up with the Civil Administrator of the Gaza Strip in June 1987 and asked for a review and relaxation of the policy in that regard.

To date, Israel had allocated approximately 3,734 plots of land in the Gaza Strip for housing projects. A total of 2,496 plots had been built on by 3,507 refugee families (21,670 persons); buildings on 201 plots were under construction, 910 were still vacant and 127 had been built on by non-refugees. In addition, 2,927 families (18,052 persons) had moved into 2,661 completed housing units, consisting of 5,874 rooms.

Refugee families continued to purchase plots at subsidized rates to construct houses in projects developed by Israel in the Beit Lahiya, Nazleh and Tel-es-Sultan areas. The construction of Israeli-sponsored multi-storey apartment blocks at Sheikh Radwan, offered for sale upon completion, continued.

Speaking before the General Assembly's Special Political Committee, the Commissioner-General said that the situation confronting the refugees in the Gaza Strip was especially acute; despite some improvements, much remained to be done to provide to the camps paved roads, sewage and waste water disposal. However, increased support was being given to UNRWA in the form of special contributions from a number of Governments, EC, UNDP and NGOs.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 E by recorded vote.
Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237(1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 2792 C (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 C (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3089 C (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3331 D (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 C (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 E of 23 November 1976, 32/90 C of 13 December 1977, 33/112 E of 18 December 1978, 34/52 F of 23 November 1979, 35/13 F of 3 November 1980, 36/146 A of 16 December 1981, 37/120 E of 16 December 1982, 38/83 E of 15 December 1983, 39/99 E of 14 December 1984, 40/165 E of 16 December 1985 and 41/69 E of 3 December 1986,

Having considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987, and the report of the Secretary-General,

Recalling the provisions of paragraph 11 of its resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948, and considering that measures to resettle Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip away from the homes and property from which they were displaced constitute a violation of their inalienable right of return,

Alarmed by the reports received from the Commissioner-General that the Israeli occupying authorities, in contravention of Israel's obligation under international law, persist in their policy of demolishing shelters occupied by refugee families,

Emphasizing the statement contained in paragraph 17 of the report of the Commissioner-General, which reads as follows:

"The people of the Gaza Strip, two thirds of whom are refugees, still face the special difficulties to which I drew attention in my last report",

1. Reiterates strongly its demand that Israel desist from the removal and resettlement of Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip and from the destruction of their shelters;

2. Requests the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to address the acute situation of the Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip and accordingly to extend all the services of the Agency to those refugees;

3. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General, to report to the General Assembly, before the opening of its forty-third session, on Israel's compliance with paragraph 1 above.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 E
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 150-2-3 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/780) by recorded vote (123-2-2), 4 November (meeting 15); 9-nation draft (A/SPC/42/L.10); agenda item 79.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 8-13, 15; plenary 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India. Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Costa Rica, Liberia, Zaire.

In Israel's view, the text - an example of manoeuvring by certain Arab countries to promote an anti-Israel campaign in the United Nations displayed a certain degree of cynicism towards the refugees living in the Gaza Strip and disregarded their basic housing needs; it was unreasonable to call on Israel to refrain from providing the refugees with more decent accommodations than in the camps when those concerned were eager to move and continued to retain all the privileges connected with their refugee status.

Austria said it appreciated the slightly different wording of paragraph 2 as compared to the previous year's text; however, it believed that the request it contained implied that the means available to UNRWA and the need to provide services to the Palestine refugees elsewhere would be taken into account. Finland's vote was to express support for the UNRWA services to the refugees in the Gaza Strip on the understanding that all the services would be extended within existing resources. Sweden interpreted paragraph 1 as affirming Israel's obligation to refrain from transferring and resettling refugees against their will.


Palestine refugees in the West Bank

In an August 1987 report,(44) the Secretary-General noted that, of the 373,586 refugees in the West Bank registered with UNRWA, 278,762 lived outside camps. He also stated that, in reply to his request for information on steps taken to implement the 1986 General Assembly resolution(45) calling again on Israel to refrain from removing and resettling refugees in the West Bank, Israel wrote on 8 July 1987 that its position had been set out previously.(46)

The UNRWA Commissioner-General's position remained as set out in previous reports by the Secretary-General: he would not object if refugees in the camps voluntarily sought better housing, whether by improving existing housing or moving into new housing; he would strongly object, however, if any pressure or coercion were used to make refugees move or comply with any scheme. As pointed out in earlier reports, refugees would not lose eligibility for UNRWA services by the mere fact of relocation outside the camps.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December 1987, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/69 J by recorded vote.
Palestine refugees in the West Bank

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237(1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 38/83 J of 15 December 1983, 39/99 J of 14 December 1984, 40/165 J of 16 December 1985 and 41/69 J of 3 December 1986,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,

Having also considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987,

Alarmed also by Israel's plans to remove and resettle the Palestine refugees of the West Bank and to destroy their camps,

Recalling the provisions of paragraph 11 of its resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948, and considering that measures to resettle Palestine refugees in the West Bank away from the homes and property from which they were displaced constitute a violation of their inalienable right of return,

1. Calls once again upon Israel to abandon those plans and to refrain from any action that leads to the removal and resettlement of Palestine refugees in the West Bank and from the destruction of their camps;

2. Requests the Secretary-General, in co-operation with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to keep the matter under close supervision and to report to the General Assembly, before the opening of its forty-third session, on any developments regarding this matter.

General Assembly resolution 42/69 J
2 December 1987 Meeting 89 145-2-7 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/42/780) by recorded vote (121-2-4), 4 November (meeting 15); 9-nation draft (A/SPC/42/L.15): agenda item 79.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 42nd session: SPC 8-13, 15; plenary 89.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Franco, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda. Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nem, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Zaire.

Israel stated that the text made a demand contrary to fundamental human consideration, in disregard of the refugees' basic housing needs. The United States could not support the sweeping injunction restraining Israel from removing and resettling refugees, which effectively excluded implementation of any programme seeking to improve the refugees' quality of life pending an overall political settlement.

Sweden interpreted paragraph 1 as affirming Israel's obligation to refrain from transferring and resettling refugees against their will; it further noted that the definite article preceding the words "Palestine refugees" in the fifth preambular paragraph could be misleading.
REFERENCES

(1)A/42/13 & Add.1 & Add.1/Corr.1. (2)A/43/13 & Add.1. (3)YUN 1948-49, p. 174, GA res. 194(III), 11 Dec. 1948. (4)YUN 1967, p. 257, SC res. 242(1967), 22 Nov. 1967. (5)YUN 1973, p. 213, SC res. 338(1973), 22 Oct. 1973. (6)A/43/5/Add.3. (7)YUN 1986, p. 1050. (8)A/42/633. (9)A/42/5/Add.3. (10)A/42/372 & Corr.1. (11)A/42/579. (12)YUN 1986, p. 342. (13)YUN 1946-47, p. 100, GA res. 22 A (I), annex, 13 Feb. 1946. (14)YUN 1982, p. 517. (15)A/42/480. (16)YUN 1986, p. 344, GA res. 41/69 G, 3 Dec. 1986. (17)Ibid., p. 344. (13)YUN 1982, p. 560. (19)YUN 1984, p. 335. (20)A/42/446. (21)YUN 1986, p. 345, GA res. 41/69 F, 3 Dec. 1986. (22)Ibid., p. 346, GA res. 41/69 K, 3 Dec. 1986. (23)A/42/309. (24)YUN 1980, p. 443, GA res. 35/13 B, 3 Nov. 1980. (25)YUN 1983, p. 351; YUN 1984, p. 340; YUN 1985, p. 361; YUN 1986, p. 346. (26)A/42/445. (27)YUN 1986, p. 347, GA res. 41/69 D, 3 Dec. 1986. (28)YUN 1977, p. 340, GA res. 32/90 F, 13 Dec. 1977. (29)A/42/289/Add.2-E/1987/86/Add.2. (30)A/42/505. (31)YUN 1986, p. 348, GA res. 41/69 H, 3 Dec. 1986. (32)Ibid., p. 348. (33)A/42/515. (34)A/42/481. (35)YUN 1986, p. 349, GA res. 41/69 I, 3 Dec. 1986. (36)Ibid., p. 349. (37)YUN 1982, p. 557. (33)A/42/507. (39)YUN 1986, p. 352, GA res. 41/69 E, 3 Dec. 1986. (40)Ibid., p. 351. (41)YUN 1985, p. 366. (42)YUN 1971, p. 198. (43)YUN 1983, p. 358. (44)A/42/482. (45)YUN 1986, p. 353, GA res. 41/69 J, 3 Dec. 1986. (46)YUN 1984, p. 350; YUN 1985, p. 368; YUN 1986, p. 353.


Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter