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

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information
31 December 1984
YEARBOOK
of the
UNITED NATIONS
1984

Volume 38



Department of Public Information
United Nations, New York




MIDDLE EAST

The search for a peaceful settlement to the conflict in the Middle East and its key issue, the Palestine problem. continued in 1984. The General Assembly, the Security Council and several other United Nations bodies considered various aspects of the situation, including the Palestine question incidents and disputes between individual Arab States and Israel, the situation in Lebanon and in the territories occupied by Israel, and Palestine refugees. The United Nations continued to maintain two major peace-keeping operations in the region, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

By resolution 39/146 A, the Assembly dealt with a variety of issues related to the Middle East situation. It declared once more that peace in the region must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution under United Nations auspices and reaffirmed that it could not be achieved without the participation on an equal footing of all parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

The question of Palestine continued to be a concern of the Assembly and its Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Following consideration of the Committee's report, the Assembly, in December, adopted four resolutions on the question. It requested the Committee to keep that question under review as well as the implementation of the 1983 Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights (resolution 39/49 A); it invited co-operation with the United Nations Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights (39/49 B); it requested expansion of United Nations public information activities on the question (39/49 C); and it reaffirmed its endorsement of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East (39/49 D). The Secretary-General reported in March 1984 on consultations held on issues relating to the organization of such a conference, particularly the identification of participants. Member States expressed their views in a number of communications. The status of Jerusalem was the subject of Assembly resolution 39/146 C.

Assistance to Palestinians was rendered by the United Nations Development Programme and other organs. The United Nations Children's Fund supported programmes for Palestinian children and mothers in Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as in territories occupied by Israel. The Economic and Social Council, in resolution 1984/56, and the Assembly, in resolution 39/224, requested United Nations organizations to intensify such assistance and provide it in co-operation with PLO and with the consent of the Arab host countries. Both resolutions pointed out the need to ensure that aid to Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories was not used for the interests of the occupation authorities.

The 1981 bombing by Israeli aircraft of a nuclear research centre near Baghdad, Iraq, was again taken up by the Assembly in resolution 39/14, following consideration of a brief report by the Secretary-General.

The situation in Lebanon, particularly in Beirut, was taken up by the Security Council in February; because of the negative vote of a permanent Council member (USSR), it did not adopt a draft resolution by France to constitute a United Nations force in the Beirut area. The Council also met in May following reports of an Israeli search operation at the Ein El-Helweh Palestinian refugee camp near Sidon. After Lebanon came to the Council in August to complain about Israeli practices in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa Valley and the Rashaya district, the Council again convened in August/September but, due to the negative vote of the United States - a permanent member - did not adopt a Lebanese draft calling on Israel to respect the rights of civilians in those areas and demanding that it lift its restrictions - which included the closing of roads and the imposing of curfews - so that normal life could be restored. Responding to the Council's request, the Secretary-General's continued consultations with Lebanon and others resulted in the beginning, in November, of military talks between Lebanon and Israel on the withdrawal of the latter's forces.

The mandate of UNIFIL was extended twice during the year, in April and October, by Security Council resolutions 549(1984) and 555(1984). Also renewed was the mandate of UNDOF, by Council resolutions 551(1984) and 557(1984), adopted in May and November. Appropriations for the operation of UNDOF from 1 June 1984 to 31 May 1985, totalling more than $35 million were made by the Assembly in resolution 39/28 A. For the UNIFIL operation from 19 April 1984 to 18 April 1985, the Assembly appropriated $141 million, by resolution 39/71 A. In view of the difficult financial situation of UNIFIL caused by withholding of contributions by certain Member States, the Assembly, by resolution 39/71 B, authorized suspension of certain provisions of the United Nations Financial Regulations to enable the Force to retain a "surplus balance" of $6 million. A similar procedure was approved for UNDOF, regarding a "surplus" of nearly $5 million, by resolution 39/28 B.

As the last revision of standard rates of reimbursement to countries which contributed troops to both peace-keeping forces had taken place in 1980, the Assembly, by resolution 39/70, requested the Secretary-General to review the existing rates with a view to ensuring an equitable reimbursement.

The situation in the territories occupied by Israel as a result of earlier armed conflicts was again considered by the Assembly and its Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. In December, the Assembly adopted seven resolutions dealing with specific aspects of the Committee's report, including Israeli action against the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron (39/95 E), applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (39/95 B), and the status and composition of Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 (39/95 C). The Assembly condemned Israeli policies and practices in the Golan Heights (39/95 F), those taken against Palestinian students and faculties of educational institutions (39/95 G), and a number of others, demanding that Israel desist from such practices (39/95 D). It also demanded information from Israel on the results of investigations of assassination attempts against three Palestinian mayors in 1980 (39/95 H).

Also under the agenda item on the Committee's report, the Assembly reiterated its demand for the release of the Palestinian Ziyad Abu Eain and other prisoners held in southern Lebanon (39/95 A).

Israeli occupation of the Palestinian and other Arab territories, as well as its policies and practices there, was also condemned by the Assembly in resolution 39/146 A. The Security Council, expressing concern about legislation on settlement activities under consideration in the Israeli parliament, urged that no measures be taken to aggravate tensions in the area.

The refugee problem continued to dominate the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which carried out both emergency relief measures and regular support operations. The Assembly addressed various aspects of the problem in 11 resolutions adopted in December. Resolution 39/99 A dealt with assistance to Palestine refugees and resolution 39/99 B with the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA. Related resolutions covered assistance to displaced persons (39/99 C), scholarships for higher education and vocational training (39/99 D), Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip (39/99 E), ration distribution to Palestine refugees (39/99 F), population displaced since 1967 (39/99 G), revenues from refugee properties (39/99 H), refugee protection (39/99 D, refugees in the West Bank (39/99 J) and a proposed University of Jerusalem for Palestine refugees (39/99 K).

Topics related to this chapter. Disarmament: Nuclear-weapon-free zones - Middle East. Africa: Israel-South Africa relations. Disasters and emergency relief: Lebanon. Regional economic and social activities: Western Asia. Human rights. Refugees and displaced persons: Middle East and South-West Asia.


_____________________

MIDDLE EAST SITUATION
_____________________


The Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East remained unresolved despite intensive efforts by the United Nations and individual Member States. In a 26 October 1984 report,(1) the Secretary-General noted that the continued stalemate in the region had also had adverse effects on the authority and status of the United Nations itself. The conflict, which involved complex interrelated issues could ultimately be resolved only by a comprehensive settlement covering all its aspects. That fact, he stated, needed to be kept in mind by the parties concerned, since all the agreements reached in the past, whether within or outside the United Nations framework, were clearly intended as interim steps in the search for a comprehensive peace. A comprehensive settlement would have to meet the following conditions: the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the occupied territories; respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force; and a just settlement of the Palestinian question based on recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including self-determination. In that context, the Jerusalem question also remained of primary importance. A comprehensive settlement would have to be reached through a process of negotiation in which all parties concerned participated; in addition, the support of the major Powers, especially the USSR and the United States, was essential. Those requirements could best be met, in the Secretary-General's view, if negotiations were undertaken under United Nations auspices.

The various responses to the proposal for a Middle East peace conference exemplified many of the basic problems that since 1948 had hampered all attempts to negotiate a just and lasting settlement, he said. There had always been the question of whether talks should be direct, or indirect through some intermediary, there was the question of whether negotiations should be between Israel and its Arab neighbours one on one, or conducted by all the parties concerned, there was the question of whether the negotiating process should be comprehensive or step by step; and there was the controversy over the manner in which the Palestinian people should be represented. In the light of consultations he had held, the Secretary-General stated, it was evident that the conditions required for convening the proposed conference with any chance of success had not yet been met (see also p. 263).

The United Nations had a special obligation to make another determined effort to move forward to a negotiated peace in the Middle East. What was needed was a framework for negotiations and an umbrella under which the necessary contacts could develop. It should be possible to devise a negotiating process acceptable to all the parties concerned on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242(1967)(2) and 338(1973),(3) the Secretary-General believed. During 1984, he had discussed with a number of Governments concerned the possibility of using the Security Council's machinery in a new way to work with the parties on various aspects of the Middle East problem and to distil from the various proposals and plans put forward in recent years the common elements that could help to work out the basis of a negotiating structure. In June, he had visited Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic to discuss with their leaders various aspects of the Middle East problem. In July, he had met with the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee at Geneva.

In his 1984 report on the work of the Organization (p. 3), the Secretary-General stated that reactions to his ideas and suggestions with regard to the Middle East problem had been mixed. There was a tendency in the direction of bilateral or unilateral action, or no action at all; however, the conflict, like many other disputes around the globe, required the building of a wide consensus if solutions were to hold.

Communications. In connection with the Middle East situation, several communications were addressed during the year to the Presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council and to the Secretary-General. By a letter of 16 January,(4) Israel drew the Secretary-General's attention to what it called an upsurge of anti-Semitism in recent years at the United Nations, particularly evident it said, in statements made in the Assembly by the Byelorussian SSR, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic.

On 29 March,(5) France transmitted declarations adopted on 27 March by the 10 States members of the European Economic Community (EEC). The declaration on the Middle East called for negotiations towards a settlement guaranteeing peace among all the States of the region, stating the right to existence and security of all of them, including Israel, and taking into account the rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. The declaration requested all parties to re-examine their positions with a view to reducing the gap between them, taking particularly into account elements in the 1982 plan proposed by the United States President(6) and in the Fez Declaration adopted the same year at the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference.(7) The EEC members said they would support any constructive step and believed that the Security Council could play a significant role in the pursuit of a solution to the Middle East conflict.

By a letter of 30 July,(5) the USSR submitted proposals dated 29 July for a Middle East settlement based on the following principles: inadmissibility of the capture of foreign lands through aggression; guarantee of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to establish their own independent State on the West Bank of the Jordan River and in the Gaza Strip; return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes or compensation for the property they left behind; return of East Jerusalem to the Arabs to become part of the Palestinian State, with freedom of access throughout Jerusalem ensured to the three religions; guarantee of the right of all States in the region to secure and independent existence and development; respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all parties, including Israel and the Palestinian State; and international guarantees, for example by the Security Council or its permanent members. In order to reach such a settlement, the USSR reiterated the proposal to convene an international conference with all the parties to the conflict participating (see p. 265).

On 2 May,(9) the Niger, as President of the Thirteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, transmitted to the Secretary-General a communiqué issued following a co-ordination meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (New York, 10 October 1983), which discussed various aspects of the Middle East situation and the Palestine question. On 12 October,(10) Bangladesh, serving in that capacity for the Fourteenth Conference, transmitted a communiqué of the co-ordination meeting held in New York on 4 October, listing Israel's rejection of all initiatives aimed at a Middle East settlement as one issue of their concern.

Different aspects of the Middle East situation and the Palestine question were dealt with in seven resolutions adopted by the Fourth Islamic Summit Conference (Casablanca, Morocco, 16-19 January). Those and other resolutions were transmitted to the Secretary-General by Morocco on 13 March.(11) The fifth session of the Supreme Council of the Co-operation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (Kuwait, 27-29 November), in its final communiqué, also addressed various aspects of the Middle East situation. The communiqué was transmitted to the Secretary-General by Kuwait on 14 December.(12)

Report of the Secretary-General. On 2 October 1984,(13) the Secretary-General reported to the General Assembly on implementation of four resolutions(14) it had adopted in December 1983 under the agenda item on the Middle East situation. In reply to requests of 15 and 16 March 1984, he had received information from 13 Member States: Afghanistan, Botswana, Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Mozambique, Poland, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, USSR, Venezuela, Viet Nam. Israel's reply of 28 August addressed only the resolution(15) calling on Israel to make restitution of all cultural property, seized by Israeli forces, belonging to Palestinian institutions in Lebanon (see p. 304).

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 39/146 A, under the agenda item 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 and 38/180 A to D of 19 December 1983,

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 13 March 1984, 13 September 1984, 2 October 1984 and 26 October 1984,

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 relating to the question of Palestine and to 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 occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem,

Reiterating all relevant United Nations resolutions which emphasize 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 occupied by Israel 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 actions 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 the great importance of the time factor in the endeavours to achieve a 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 relevant resolutions of the United Nations, 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 relevant 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 and 38/58 A to E of 13 December 1983;

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, as an important contribution towards 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 June 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, particularly Palestinians in Lebanon, including the expropriation and annexation of territory, the establishment of settlements, assassination attempts 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 Golan Heights, 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, together with the recent accords concluded in this context, would encourage Israel to pursue its aggressive and expansionist policies and practices in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, would have adverse effects on efforts for the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and would threaten the security of the region;

11. Calls upon all States to put an end to the flow to Israel of any military, economic and financial 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 an International Peace Conference on the Middle East - as specified in paragraph 5 of the Geneva Declaration on Palestine, adopted on 7 September 1983 by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine - under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of relevant resolutions of the United Nations;

14. 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 fortieth session a comprehensive report covering the developments in the Middle East in all their aspects.

General Assembly resolution 39/146 A
14 December 1984 Meeting 101 100-16-28 (recorded vote)

28-nation draft (A/39/L.19 & Corr.1 & Add.1); agenda item 36.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Maldives Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: plenary 72-77, 101.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Before adopting the text as a whole, the Assembly, by a recorded vote of 69 to 39, with 26 abstentions, adopted paragraph 10. This followed rejection, by 69 votes to 28, with 23 abstentions, of a motion by the United States that the draft, as well as one on the Syrian Golan Heights (see p. 323), were recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, within the meaning of that phrase as it appeared in Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Charter.

Explaining the motion, the United States said that under Article 18 (2) there was no freedom for the Assembly to decide the matter one way or the other, since the Article required a two-thirds vote on certain issues, among them recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security. As the text to be adopted called for commencing a peace conference, and spoke of efforts to establish peace and of threats to international security, it clearly fell under the provisions of Article 18 (2).

Democratic Yemen called on the Assembly President to ask the United Nations Legal Counsel to clarify the matter.

In the view of the Legal Counsel, a decision on the text fell into the category of decisions mentioned in Article 18 (2) requiring a two-thirds majority for adoption.

Iran interpreted the meaning of the contested references in the text as general references to peace and not as decisions on peace or war. The Syrian Arab Republic charged that, through its motion, the United States wanted to abort the resolution to allow Israel to shirk its international responsibility. Jordan remarked that the 1947 resolution(16) by which the United Nations had established Israel had been adopted by only a simple majority.

Iraq considered that, if the motion was adopted, either past resolutions with language similar to the proposed draft were null and void or a practice would be instituted that ran counter to 39 years of Assembly procedure for adopting resolutions. In a similar vein, Saudi Arabia felt that a vote on the text as being in the category of an important resolution would set a very wrong precedent. Supporting Iraq's and Saudi Arabia's position, Oman called for a vote on the motion.

Also declaring its opposition to the United States motion, Austria expressed concern about the trend to change the established practice of decision-making to suit particular political interests, a tendency which, it believed, could undermine the Assembly's role and functioning. Australia, on the other hand, voted in favour of the motion on the basis of the opinion of the Legal Counsel and its own reading of Article 18 (2).

Israel remarked that, by rejecting the motion, the Assembly had said that the phrase "international peace and security" did not mean international peace and security, and had decreed that the Middle East situation, with all the attendant resolutions condemning Israel, was not an important issue. Israel rejected the draft that became resolution 39/146 A, saying its purpose was to impede a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: especially outrageous were paragraphs 10 and 11, which suggested that war could and should be waged against Israel through the use of United Nations machinery.

The United States opposed the text on the grounds that it was unfair, unbalanced, prejudicial, dysfunctional and made an unacceptable reference to the United States and the way it conducted its foreign policy, which was an unjustified interference in its internal affairs and decision-making. Paragraph 10 considered that the co-operative agreements between the United States and Israel would encourage the latter to pursue its aggressive and expansionist policies - a false, offensive and misleading statement. The United States had asked for a separate recorded vote on that paragraph so that corrective action could be taken and derogatory references removed. The United States believed that the basis for peace between Israel and its neighbours existed in Security Council resolutions 242(1967)(2) and 338(1973),(3) which called for direct negotiations and secure borders for all States in the region. It reiterated its opposition to an international conference on the Middle East, saying that any possibility of such a conference was undermined by resolutions like the one under consideration; it was inconsistent and unproductive to accuse a State of being non-peace-loving and in the same breath urge it to attend a conference devoted to a search for peace.

Explaining the negative votes of the 10 member States of the European Community (EC), Ireland said they had serious reservations on aspects of the text, and had repeatedly stressed the need for resolutions to adopt a balanced approach. Australia said it could not support the text because it emphasized the rights of one party to the conflict to the detriment of the rights of another and failed to guarantee Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries; also, it should have reaffirmed resolutions 242(1967) and 338(1973) as essential elements for a settlement. Norway felt that the text did not reflect the mutual balance between the interests of the parties that was necessary to achieve a Middle East peace; the basic elements of a peaceful settlement were contained in the Council's resolutions of 1967 and 1973, and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace must take into account the legitimate national rights of the Palestinians, including the right to self-determination. New Zealand was disappointed that the text did not adequately reflect the balance of principles embodied in the 1967 resolution and felt that the text was not well calculated to contribute to a negotiated settlement.

Venezuela abstained; in its view, certain paragraphs did not contribute to the achievement of peace and could cause a delay in settling the Middle East problem. Portugal dissociated itself from any initiative having discriminatory or juridical implications that would make more difficult a dialogue on which a peaceful solution should be based. Austria could not support a number of provisions; in particular, it did not believe that breaking relations with Israel would bring a solution closer and it opposed singling out particular countries for criticism. Similarly, Honduras did not consider the singling out of countries a justifiable practice and could not support selective measures incompatible with diplomatic and consular relations it had with other States.

Malawi also abstained, convinced that there was still sufficient room for a just and amicable solution through negotiation. Spain supported the essential elements for a solution to the Middle East problem as set out in the text, but believed acceptance of the 1982 Fez plan(7) and the planned conference should not exclude other possible means of bringing about a peaceful solution; it could not support paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.

Reservations on certain formulations were voiced by the Philippines, which voted in favour but added that, for resolutions on the Middle East to contribute to peace efforts, they should be balanced and not prejudice the sovereign right of States to conduct their international affairs as they saw fit. With regard to a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement, the Philippines said it should be achieved on the basis of: Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, recognition of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and an independent homeland, and participation of the Palestinians, through PLO, in peace negotiations. The Philippines, as well as Bolivia, Brazil and Singapore, also considered that such a settlement must recognize the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally-recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force.

Ecuador did not agree with the wording of some paragraphs which, it felt, detracted from the principle of universality of the United Nations; also, it believed that decisions that were prerogatives of sovereign States should under no circumstances be subordinated to decisions or exhortations from third parties or international organizations. Togo said it did not defend agreements to which it was not a party, but did not wish to attack them either. Argentina had reservations on some paragraphs, in particular 6, 10 and 11 containing statements critical of efforts made to achieve peace in the region. Reservations on the same paragraphs were expressed by Peru, which believed that they did not fully recognize the importance of initiatives for peace in the region and that references to relations between States were strictly linked to the Palestine question as the central problem, to respect for Palestinian rights and to the need to reject and avoid policies or acts which would infringe the objective of bringing about a Middle East settlement. Peru also would have liked to see an explicit reference to resolutions 242(1967) and 338(1973). Nepal considered those resolutions to be the only realistic basis for a settlement and reserved its position on paragraphs 10 and 11. Mexico said that, had there been a separate vote on paragraph 6, it would have abstained. Albania had reservations on some provisions, such as paragraph 13.

Greece declared that its positive vote was determined by its attachment to the Charter principle in Article 2, paragraph 4 (stating that Member States were to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State), as well as to principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, signed on 1 August 1975 at Helsinki, Finland.

Singapore said it could only add its voice to those calling for a halt to hostilities and for a renewed effort to seek a negotiated settlement.

Iran regarded paragraph 4 as unacceptable, saying it was a continuation or version of the Camp David conspiracy; in its view, there was no distinction between the territories occupied before and since 1967, and the solution to the problem of Palestine and the Middle East was simply the united Islamic front. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated its reservations about any reference that could be interpreted as its recognition of the Zionist entity or a legitimization of a fait accompli imposed by force.

Proposed peace conference

In 1984, the General Assembly reaffirmed its endorsement of the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East, as called for by the 1983 International Conference on the Question of Palestine.(17) The Secretary-General, in March 1984, reported on consultations held on issues relevant to organizing and convening the proposed conference, including the question of identification of participants. Member States expressed their views on the convening of such a conference in a number of communications.

Report of the Secretary-General. On 13 March 1984,(18) the Secretary-General reported on implementation of a December 1983 Assembly resolution(19) endorsing the call for the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East. He stated that on 5 January, he had addressed a letter to the President of the Security Council suggesting that the following Governments and authorities could be invited to participate in the conference: the 15 Council members; non-members directly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic; and PLO.

After stating in an interim reply of 30 January that further consultations were necessary, the Council President on 27 February had informed the Secretary-General that he had completed consultations with all the Council members. Their views, he said, reflected their varying positions on the proposed conference, without infringing on the Secretary-General's freedom to continue consultations in any manner he deemed appropriate. Letters to those the Secretary-General suggested could be invited would not constitute invitations; the identification of participants would be a subject for consultations.

Following his own consultations with the Council, the Secretary-General, on 9 March, had addressed letters to the 19 Governments and PLO which he felt could be invited, to ascertain their views on all issues relevant to organizing and convening the proposed conference, including the question of participants.

Annexed to the Secretary-General's report was a letter of 13 January from the United States saying it had voted against the Assembly resolution endorsing the holding of a conference, as it had opposed the 1983 Conference on the Palestine question where the idea had originated. The only path to peace in the Middle East lay in negotiations among the parties based on Council resolutions 242(1967)(2) and 338(1973),(3) a process which the United States had sought consistently to encourage. An international conference as recommended by the Assembly would only hinder that process; the conference would predictably become a forum for propagandistic and extreme positions, and, in the context proposed by the Assembly and further articulated by the Secretary-General, it would very likely yield a one-sided outcome not acceptable to one or more of the parties and therefore inoperable. The United States had no intention of participating in such a conference or any preparatory activities for it.

In an addendum of 13 September,(20) the Secretary-General stated that 18 Governments and PLO had sent replies to his letter of 9 March (see below). The United States had reaffirmed the position set forth in its letter of 13 January. From the replies received and the discussions held, it was evident that the convening of a conference would require, in the first place, the agreement in principle of the parties directly concerned to participate, as well as that of the two States specifically mentioned in the December 1983 resolution - the USSR and the United States. Once such agreement existed, further consideration could more constructively be given to finalizing other related issues, such as the full list of participants, the conference date and an agenda. From the replies of Israel and the United States it was clear that they were not prepared to participate. The Secretary-General said he would continue to follow the question closely and keep Member States informed of any further developments.

In its reply of 27 April, annexed to the addendum, PLO agreed with the view that the Governments directly involved in the conflict were Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic and that PLO was also an "authority" directly involved; however, it was not its understanding that the provision for the agreement with the plan of action should be sought from the Council, as the Assembly's resolution only called for consultation with the Council so that the Secretary-General might undertake preparatory measures to convene the conference. PLO disagreed with the United States that the holding of a conference would only hinder the path to peace; it was clear that the United States planned to undermine and foreclose the option of a process within a United Nations framework. PLO trusted that the Secretary-General would maintain his contacts and endeavours with the aim that a peace conference be held within that framework; it suggested that he consider a visit to the area to make contacts with the parties involved in the conflict and to assess personally the gravity of the situation and the urgency of convening such a conference.

Communications. Several communications were received in reply to the Secretary-General's inquiries. In a letter of 19 April,(21) the United Kingdom expressed the belief that at the right time an international conference could make a major contribution to a negotiated solution, with possible Security Council involvement in providing guarantees for a peace settlement; however, the United Kingdom did not favour the convening of a conference currently, saying it must be for the principal interested parties themselves to agree on its timing and basis. The gap between them remained wide, not only on modalities but also on fundamental points of principle. It was necessary to establish further common ground between the parties before a conference was likely to be productive.

Similar views were expressed by France and the Netherlands. France, in a letter of 27 April,(22) said it considered that an international conference might have a reasonable chance of success and contribute to the search for a comprehensive settlement if elements of a settlement were first assembled through discussions among the parties concerned and if there was agreement among them on participation. The Netherlands, by a letter of 23 April,(23) said it would welcome further consultations by the Secretary-General with the principal parties, aimed at establishing common ground to enable them to enter into genuine negotiations. The principles for a Middle East settlement were not adequately reflected in the December 1983 Assembly resolution.(19) In order to be successful, the peace process should be in accordance with resolutions 242(1967) and 338(1973) and with the principles of the right to existence and security of all States in the region, including Israel, and justice for all the peoples in the region, including recognition of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.

By a letter of 24 April,(24) China stated its support for the convening of a conference, with the participation of PLO on an equal footing.

Israel, on 26 April,(25) reiterated its position that any serious attempt to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East must be initiated through direct negotiations based on resolution 242(1967) which had already proved effective in bringing about the 1978 Camp David accords (framework for peace in the Middle East and for the conclusion of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, agreed at Camp David, United States)(26) and the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty;( 7) the 1983 Assembly resolution was contrary to both the accords and the Council resolution.

On 27 April,(28) Egypt transmitted to the Secretary-General a letter of 26 April from its Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, enclosing a reply to the Secretary-General's letter of 9 March. Egypt believed that the convening of a conference would constitute a major turning-point towards a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the Middle East problem and its core, the Palestine question, within the framework of observance of reciprocal rights and obligations under the Charter, United Nations resolutions, and international law and treaties. Egypt called on the Secretary-General to hold consultations and exert every effort to ensure participation of the parties to the conflict and suitable arrangements and conditions for constructive negotiations within the framework of the United Nations.

The Upper Volta, in a letter of 27 April,(29) reiterated its support for a conference and for the Secretary-General's proposals on participation, adding that the significance of the conference depended primarily on the effective participation of PLO and the great Powers; participation should be extended to include all countries of the Middle East, and they should be closely associated with efforts to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict.

By a letter of 28 April,(30) the USSR stated that the experience of many years had demonstrated that peace could be restored only through collective efforts by all the parties interested in reaching a settlement, including PLO. With the help of an international conference, the chain of dangerous crises and wars in the Middle East could be broken and the people guaranteed peace. The problems of participation should be considered later, when practical steps had been taken to convene the conference; the main task was to eliminate artificial barriers and to have everyone concerned agree in principle to its being convened. The United Nations and the Secretary-General could contribute effectively to achieving a general agreement on the need to arrive at a comprehensive solution through collective efforts.

On 30 July,(8) the USSR submitted proposals dated 29 July on a Middle East settlement. These included the convening of an international conference under United Nations auspices, the outcome of which should be the signing of a treaty embracing the following: withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied since 1967; implementation of the national rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including its right to create its own State; and establishment of peace and ensuring security and independent development of all States parties to the conflict. Simultaneously, international guarantees for compliance with such a settlement should be adopted. Among those having the right to participate in the conference, the USSR named Israel and all the States having a common border with it, i.e. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as PLO, the USSR and the United States, and possibly others.

Fully supporting the preparatory measures undertaken by the Secretary-General, Pakistan, by a letter of 30 April,(31) expressed the view that an international conference should be held without loss of time, with the aim of achieving a comprehensive settlement of the Palestine question, the core of the Middle East problem. Pakistan favoured participation on an equal footing with equal rights for all parties to the conflict, including PLO, as well as the United States, the USSR, the other permanent members of the Security Council and other concerned parties.

By a letter of the same date,(32) the Ukrainian SSR stated that an international conference would open the true way to solving the complex problems created by the Middle East conflict; if the artificial obstacles were eliminated, the essential conditions would be created for the convening of a conference.

India, also on 30 April,(33) stated its broad agreement with the Secretary-General's plan of action for the conference; however, it suggested that flexibility be retained in selecting the participants, which should include States directly involved (Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic); PLO; and the United States, the USSR and other States influential in the Middle East conflict, including the States that were members of the Security Council at the time formal invitations were issued.

Support for the Secretary-General's efforts for convening a conference with the participation of all interested parties was expressed by Peru in a letter of the same date.(34)

By a letter of 2 May,(35) Malta stated that the central objective of the proposed conference should be directed towards a peaceful and fair solution to the unacceptable plight of the homeless Palestinians; participation should initially be limited to those directly concerned, including the Council's permanent members. The outcome of such a conference should be endorsed unanimously by the international community; its recommendations, based on internationally-recognized principles that had already been identified to apply to the Palestinian dimension within the Middle East complex, would therefore more likely be honoured and prevail backed if necessary by guarantees provided by the Security Council.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, by a letter of 4 May,(36) expressed the Committee's belief that the conference would mark an important step forward, and urged the co-operation of all concerned to ensure a positive outcome.

On 9 May,(37) Zimbabwe expressed support for a conference, but stated that it was mindful of the need to consult further to clarify the question of the participants.

By a letter of the same date,(38) Jordan voiced the opinion that the convening of an international conference was worth pursuing; its terms of reference should stem from the principles of international law, such as the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. With regard to participation, Jordan concurred with the Secretary-General's list.

By a letter of 14 May,(39) Nicaragua again declared itself fully in favour of a conference, on the basis of broad and effective participation of all parties directly involved, among whom PLO occupied a place of primary importance, as did the great Powers and other interested States.

On 24 May,(40) Lebanon transmitted a government reply to the Secretary-General's letter of 9 March by which it agreed to participate in the conference. Being host to a large number of Palestinian refugees who awaited a just solution to their problem in accordance with United Nations resolutions, Lebanon was concerned with any effort made to bring about a just and comprehensive solution to the conflict in the region. It considered that the 1949 Israel-Lebanon General Armistice Agreement(41) was the legal text governing Lebanese-Israeli relations, as was stressed in a number of Security Council resolutions.

By a letter of 20 August,(42) the Syrian Arab Republic expressed its support for a conference and reaffirmed its readiness to contribute to the achievement of a just and comprehensive peace, on the basis of complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories occupied in and since June 1967 and the safeguarding of the national rights of the Palestinians, in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

In its final communiqué,(43) the Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of Non-Aligned Countries to the 1984 session of the General Assembly stressed that every support should be extended to the Secretary-General to pursue his consultations for the convening of a conference. The Meeting, held in New York from 1 to 5 October, took note with appreciation of the role of the Non-Aligned Committee of Eight on Palestine in that regard and expressed its desire that the Committee pursue its endeavours.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 11 December 1984, the General Assembly following its discussion of the question of Palestine, adopted resolution 39/49 D by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 38/58 C of 13 December 1984, in which it, inter alia, endorsed the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East,

Reaffirming paragraph 5 of its resolution 38/58 C, in which it requested the Secretary-General to undertake preparatory measures to convene the Conference,

Having considered the reports of the Secretary-General of 13 March 1984 and 13 September 1984, in which he stated that, inter alia, "it is clear from the replies of the Governments of Israel and the United States of America that they are not prepared to participate in the proposed Conference",

Reiterating its conviction that the convening of the Conference would constitute a major contribution by the United Nations towards the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict,

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

2. Reaffirms its endorsement of the call for convening the International Peace Conference on the Middle East in conformity with the provisions of General Assembly resolution 38/58 C;

3. Expresses its regret at the negative response of the two Governments and calls upon them to reconsider their position towards the Conference;

4. Urges all Governments to make additional constructive efforts and to strengthen their political will in order to convene the Conference without delay and for the achievement of its peaceful objectives;

5. 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 15 March 1985;

6. Decides to consider at its fortieth session the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/49 D
11 December 1934 Meeting 95 121-3-23 (recorded vote)

18-nation draft (A/39/L.40 & Add.1); agenda item 93.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Comoros, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session; plenary 88-92, 94, 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Canada, Israel, United States.

Before voting on the text as a whole, the Assembly adopted, by recorded votes, paragraph 2, by 120 to 4, with 22 abstentions, and paragraph 3, by 96 to 18, with 29 abstentions.

Albania did not participate in the vote on the text as a whole, saying the aim of the USSR proposal to convene a conference was to consolidate its position in the Middle East in rivalry with the American imperialists and to secure a greater involvement there.

Speaking before the vote, Israel said the draft was not the first attempt to set guidelines that would sabotage the carefully balanced intent of Security Council resolution 242(1967), which was not even mentioned in the text. The expression of regret at unwillingness to attend a conference was utterly superfluous. The extremist thrust of the proposed conference was well known and it was perfectly legitimate for Israel to keep away from it.

The United States regarded the idea of an international conference under prejudicial conditions, whose outcome was already provided, as fatally flawed; the conference called for in the text would be an exercise in ideology and propaganda and in war by other means against Israel.

Speaking on behalf of the 10 members of EC Ireland did not believe that paragraph 3, which singled out for criticism two of the proposed participants, was helpful or productive. Serious reservations on that paragraph were also voiced by Norway.

Australia considered it essential that the conference framework should not prescribe the outcome of negotiations among the parties on the elements of a Middle East settlement; the 1983 Assembly resolution(19) endorsing the convening of a conference had sought to make such a prescription. Australia refused to recognize PLO as long as PLO maintained its denial of Israel's right to exist; its vote against paragraph 2 reflected its opposition to the reference to the status of PLO, although it acknowledged that PLO represented the opinion of a significant portion of the Palestinians and should be included in the process of seeking a settlement.

While supporting in principle the idea of a conference, New Zealand said that, until all parties concerned were prepared to participate with realistic expectations of contributing to a settlement, it remained cautious about committing United Nations resources to it.

Explaining its abstention, Malawi said it opted for a political solution of the dispute through negotiations without pre-conditions.

Sweden regretted that it had not been possible to arrive at a consensus among the proposed participants of the conference, which was a necessary prerequisite for its convening; it could not be the resolution's intent to attempt to force Governments to come to a conference or convene one without their agreement to participate. Sweden's support for the text in no way implied that it would question the sovereign right of the Governments concerned to decide for themselves on their participation.

Finland recalled reservations it had voiced on the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the 1983 Conference on Palestine.(17)

Uruguay stressed that its affirmative vote was consistent with its constant concern to bring about peaceful solutions and with its participation in the consensus at the 1983 Conference.

Portugal reserved its position on the text because of the wording of paragraph 3, but in the same spirit that had motivated it during the formulation of the consensus achieved at the 1983 Conference, particularly with regard to the role given to various bilateral contacts likely to promote submission of proposals and establishment of conditions aimed at ensuring the success of such a conference.

Spain believed it to be the duty of the international community to leave no path to peace unexplored, adding that the convening of a conference should not be taken to exclude other peace plans.

Austria felt that an international conference, held under the right conditions and with good preparation, could contribute to progress towards a just and lasting solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Singapore regarded the text as a positive contribution to the search for such a solution.

Iran said it cast a positive vote on the text because it was against the Zionist base and would support any resolution that Palestinians considered in their favour. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reaffirmed its position, one of the basic elements of which was reservation concerning any reference that could be interpreted as expressing recognition of the Zionist entity or as ascribing legality to it.

In resolution 39/146 A on the Middle East situation, the Assembly reaffirmed its call for an International Peace Conference on the Middle East under United Nations auspices and on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions.

Military co-operation with Israel

By a letter of 22 June 1984,(44) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, on behalf of the Arab Group of Member States at the United Nations, expressed concern over the commencement of joint United States/Israel military manoeuvres which, it charged, would increase Israel's military capability and contribute to its aggressive policy against the Arab countries and the Palestinians.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In resolution 39/146 A on the Middle East situation, the General Assembly called on all States to put an end to the flow of military, economic and financial aid and human resources to Israel aimed at encouraging it in its aggressive policies against the Arab countries and the Palestinians. In the same resolution, the Assembly also strongly condemned the continuing and increasing collaboration between Israel and South Africa (see p. 150).

Israeli nuclear armament was the subject of Assembly resolution 39/147. By resolution 39/54, the Assembly urged all parties concerned to consider seriously taking steps for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

Credentials of Israel

By a letter of 16 October 1984 to the General Assembly President,(45) 52 States conveyed their reservations on the credentials of Israel, citing instances where, they charged, Israel was continuing its flagrant and persistent violation of the United Nations Charter and international law, and flouting with impunity United Nations resolutions on the Palestine question and the Middle East situation.

On 17 October,(46) Israel responded that the gratuitous and unfounded attack on its credentials was an attempt to abuse the credentials procedure by introducing matters completely irrelevant to it. Aspersions cast on credentials which were in due form and had been accepted as such by the Credentials Committee violated the Charter, the underlying approach of the 52-Power letter was incompatible with the duty of Member States to use the United Nations as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations. The letter further displayed contempt for the Assembly's rules of procedure and harmed the ability of the United Nations to perform its primary function: the maintenance of international peace and security.

Before adopting resolution 39/3 A approving the report of the Credentials Committee on 17 October, the Assembly, by a recorded vote of 80 to 41, with 22 abstentions, decided not to act on an amendment by Iran(47) to reject the credentials of Israel (see p. 376).

REFERENCES

(1)A/39/600-S/16792. (2)YUN 1967, p. 257, SC res. 242(1967) 22 Nov. 1967. (3)YUN 1973, p. 213, SC res. 338(1973), 22 Oct. 1973. (4)A/39/79 & Corr.1. (5)A/39/161-S/16456. (6)YUN 1982, p. 387. (7)Ibid., p. 388. (8)A/39/368-S/16685. (9)A/39/236-S/16535. (10)A/39/585- S/16783. (11)A/39/131-S/16414 & Corr.1. (12)A/39/853 & Corr.1. (13)A/39/533. (14)YUN 1983, pp. 329, 285, 280, 268, GA res. 38/180 A-D, 19 Dec. 1983. (15)Ibid., p. 285, GA res. 38/180 B, 19 Dec. 1983. (16)YUN 1947-48, p. 247, GA res. 181 A (II), 29 Nov 1947. (17)YUN 1983, p. 274. (18)A/39/130-S/16109. (19)YUN 1983, p. 278, GA res. 38/58 C, 13 Dec. 1983. (20)A/39/130/Add.1-S/16409/ Add.1. (21)A/39/202-S/16494. (22)A/39/218-S/16511. (23)A/39/208-S/16503. (24)A/39/217-S/16510. (25)A/39/214-S/16507. (26)YUN 1978, p. 327. (27)YUN 1979, p. 335. (28)A/39/219-S/16512 & Corr.1. (29)A/39/216-S/16509. (30)A/39/222- S/16516. (31)A/39/224-S/16517. (32)A/39/235-S/16533. (33)A/39/227-S/16523. (34)A/39/225- S/16518. (35)A/39/231-S/16527. (36)A/39/234-S/16531. (37)A/39/255-S/16557. (38)A/39/238- S/16543. (39)A/39/259-S/16565. (40)A/39/275-S/16584. (41)YUN 1948-49, p. 185. (42)A/39/416-S/16708. (43)A/39/560-S/16773. (44)A/39/322-S/16643. (45)A/39/584 & Add.1. (46)A/391587. (47)A/39/L.4.


__________________

Palestine question
__________________


The question of Palestine continued in 1984 to be a concern of the General Assembly and its Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (Committee on Palestinian rights). The Assembly, in December, adopted four resolutions on the question. By the first (39/49 A), it requested the Committee to keep under review the Palestine question as well as the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights, adopted by the 1983 International Conference on the Question of Palestine.(1) By the second resolution (39/49 B), the Assembly invited co-operation with the United Nations Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights. By the third (39/49 C), it requested expanded United Nations public information activities on the Palestine question, and by the fourth (39/49 D), it reaffirmed its endorsement of the call for convening an International Peace Conference on the Middle East (see p. 266).

The status of Jerusalem was again dealt with by the Assembly in resolution 39/146 C. In communications, Israel was accused of trying to destroy Islamic Holy Places there; Israel charged PLO with terrorist attacks in the city.

United Nations bodies also continued to examine the situation in the Israeli-occupied territories (see p. 315) and to provide and encourage assistance to Palestinians (see p. 335).

Communications. On 15 March 1984,(2) Bangladesh transmitted to the Secretary-General a number of resolutions pertaining to the Palestine question adopted by the Fourteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Dhaka, 6-11 December 1983).

On 7 August 1984,(3) Yemen transmitted a letter of 6 August from PLO expressing the approval by its Executive Committee of the proposals announced on 29 July by the USSR (see pp. 259 and 265), in particular basic principles of a Middle East settlement: all lands occupied by Israel since 1967 must be returned and all settlements established by Israel in those territories eliminated; the Palestinians had the rights to return, to self-determination and to establish their independent State on Palestinian land liberated from Israeli occupation; those rights would be guaranteed to the Palestinians, represented by PLO as their sole legitimate representative; the Palestinian State could define, after its establishment, the nature of its relations with the neighbouring countries, including the possibility of establishing a confederation; and East Jerusalem was to be a basic part of the Palestinian State.

Activities of the Committee on Palestinian rights. The Committee on Palestinian rights continued in 1984 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. The Committee brought such actions, including Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, exploitation by Israeli authorities of Arab-owned lands and other matters affecting the rights of the Palestinians (for details, see p. 320) to the attention of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

In its annual report to the Assembly,(4) the Committee expressed its conviction that positive action by the Security Council on the recommendations made by the Committee in 1976(5) would advance prospects for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East; it recalled that those recommendations were founded on fundamental and internationally recognized principles relating to the Palestine problem, the core of the Middle East conflict. The Committee reiterated the validity of its recommendations and recommended that the Assembly again urge the Security Council to take positive and overdue action on them. It also reaffirmed the validity of the recommendations adopted by the 1983 International Conference on the Question of Palestine.(1)

The Committee believed that it should consolidate its efforts to increase awareness and understanding of its recommendations which, it asserted, were specifically designed to enable the Palestinians to attain their inalienable rights as well as to achieve peace in the Middle East, with due regard for the concerns of all the parties to the conflict. It felt encouraged by the better understanding of those recommendations in all regions. The Committee believed that a concentrated effort to find a just solution to the Palestine question and to end the unacceptable plight of the Palestinians was long overdue. Convinced that an international peace conference on the Middle East (see p. 263) would provide an opportunity for all parties concerned to participate in negotiations which should lead to a just solution, the Committee strongly recommended that international action should concentrate on the preparations for the convening of a conference and should contribute to its successful and peaceful outcome.

Annexed to the Committee's report were its 1976 recommendations, endorsed by the Assembly the same year,(6) as well as the Geneva Declaration on Palestine and the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights, both adopted by the 1983 Conference on the Palestine question.

With the Committee's participation, the ninth United Nations Seminar on the Question of Palestine, which had as its central theme the inalienable rights of the Palestinians, was held at Tunis, Tunisia, from 14 to 17 August 1984. Annexed to the Committee's report were the Seminar's comments on various aspects of the question, including the United Nations role in the search for peace in the Middle East, the proposed international peace conference, African and European co-operation in the restoration of Palestinian rights PLO's role in the development of the Palestinian people and in attaining their objectives, and the status of Jerusalem.

Under the Committee's guidance, the Division for Palestinian Rights organized a North American non-governmental organization symposium on the question of Palestine (New York, 25-27 June) as the first in a series of non-governmental symposia and international meetings held in response to a December 1983 Assembly resolution.(7) More than 60 organizations and some 20 panellists participated in the symposium, which, in its "North American Declaration", urged Canada and the United States to work towards: recognizing and promoting the struggle of the Palestinians, assisting them and protecting their rights, reducing militarization and protecting the human rights of all persons in the region, halting expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, facilitating and encouraging dialogue among groups and organizations, eliminating travel restrictions, and protecting freedom of association of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The symposium urged the United Nations to assist the North American NGO community in establishing a clearing-house for information on the Palestine question, to produce a comprehensive directory of NGOs working on the issue, and to co-ordinate development of a communication network among NGOs.

An international meeting of NGOs on the question of Palestine was held at Geneva from 20 to 22 August, with the participation of 102 organizations and 26 panellists. The Committee noted with appreciation the resolution adopted at the meeting by which, among other things, it was decided to establish an interim Co-ordinating Committee on Palestine for NGOs to further liaison between NGOs and the Committee on Palestinian rights through the Division for Palestinian Rights, and to launch a campaign to collect signatures from the peoples of the world in support of an international peace conference on the Middle East.

The resolution, as well as the North American Declaration, were annexed to the Committee's report.

A symposium for NGOs on the question of Palestine (Geneva, 3 and 4 November), attended by 15 experts representing members of the NGO interim Co-ordinating Committee, discussed inter alia future co-operation between the Committee and NGOs, and NGO participation in observing the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (29 November). In particular, the symposium elaborated an international petition in support of an international Middle East conference, which was subsequently launched by NGO representatives at United Nations observances of the International Day.

United Nations information centres helped organize the world-wide observance of the Day.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Following consideration of the Committee's report, the General Assembly, in December, adopted three resolutions on the question of Palestine, dealing with the Committee and its recommendations (39149 A), the Division for Palestinian Rights (39/49 B) and public information activities (39/49 C) (see below). By a fourth resolution adopted under this agenda item (39/49 D), the Assembly reaffirmed its endorsement of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East (see p. 266).

Resolution 39/49 A was adopted on 11 December 1984 by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,


Recalling its resolutions 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 and 38/58 A of 13 December 1983,

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 155 to 160 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 adopted by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine 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, to send delegations or representatives to international conferences where such representation would be considered by it to be appropriate, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its fortieth 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;

6. Requests the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, established under General Assembly resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948, 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 39/49 A
11 December 1984 Meeting 95 127-2-21 (recorded vote)

17-nation draft (A/39/L.37 & Add.1); agenda item 33.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Tunisia, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: plenary 88-92, 94, 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

Norway said it would have voted against paragraph 2 had there been a separate vote on it.

Also on 11 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 39/49 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,

Noting the particularly relevant information contained in paragraphs 125 to 132 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 and 38/58 B of 13 December 1983,

1. Notes with appreciation the action taken by the Secretary-General in compliance with General Assembly resolution 38/58 B;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to ensure that the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat continues to discharge the tasks detailed in paragraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 32/40 B, paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 34/65 D, paragraph 3 of resolution 36/120 B and paragraphs 2 and 3 of resolution 38/58 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. Notes with appreciation the action taken by Member States to observe annually on 29 November the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People and the issuance by them of special postage stamps for the occasion.

General Assembly resolution 39/49 B
11 December 1984 Meeting 95 130-3-17 (recorded vote)

17-nation draft (A/39/L.38 & Add.1); agenda item 33.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Tunisia, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: plenary 88-92, 94, 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Canada, Israel, United States.

Israel called the Division for Palestinian Rights a mouthpiece for Arab extremists and their backers which compromised the integrity of the Secretariat and drained the United Nations purse in providing a sinecure for the staff of a propaganda organ of a terrorist organization.

The United States found all three texts relating to the report of the Committee for Palestinian rights to be unbalanced, unfair and uncompromising and an unwarranted interference in its internal affairs. In New Zealand's opinion, the texts did not adequately reflect the balance of principles in Security Council resolution 242(1967)(8) or contribute realistically to the search for a settlement of the Palestinian problem.

Singapore, on the other hand, regarded the texts as positive contributions to the search for a solution to the Middle East problem, the core of which was the Palestine question. Spain considered the current situation, in which the rights of the Palestinians continued to be disregarded, as unacceptable. Portugal stated its continued support for all efforts likely to contribute to a solution to the Palestine problem. A similar position was held by Malawi, which opted for a political solution of the dispute.

Uruguay said the texts were essentially based on the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the 1983 Conference on the Palestine question;(1) its affirmative vote was consistent with its participation in the consensus at the Conference, though with reservations on those documents, and with its concern to bring about a peaceful solution. Peru also recalled its reservations on the Conference documents, particularly regarding the calls to refrain from providing assistance to Israel and to review bilateral relations with that country.

Despite reservations on the texts, Albania fully supported the cause of the Palestinians and voted in favour. Reservations were also voiced by Finland, which abstained, stating that the texts failed to represent a balance which was a prerequisite for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reaffirmed its reservations on any reference that could be interpreted as expressing its readiness to recognize the Zionist entity or ascribe legality to it.

By resolution 39/146 A, the Assembly reaffirmed its conviction that the Palestine question was the core of the Middle East conflict and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region would be achieved without the full exercise by the Palestinians of their rights and the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from all the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories. It also reaffirmed that a Middle East settlement could not be achieved without the participation on an equal footing of all the parties to the conflict, including PLO. It rejected all agreements and arrangements which violated Palestinian rights and contradicted the principles of a comprehensive solution to the Middle East problem and the establishment of a just peace.

By resolution 39/9, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to strengthen co-operation with the General Secretariat of the League of Arab States for the purpose of implementing United Nations resolutions relating to the Palestine question and the Middle East situation.

Jerusalem

Communications. The Acting Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, by a letter of 6 February 1984,(9) drew the Secretary-General's attention to an attempt on 27 January to desecrate, if not destroy, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque: two intruders with explosives, who had scaled the eastern wall of the Old city of Jerusalem, fled upon the arrival of police summoned by a Moslem guard. The Committee believed that the strictest respect for the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions should be ensured.

On 28 March,(10) Egypt transmitted to the Security Council President a letter of the same date from PLO, stating that on 26 March the staircase leading to the entrance of the Higher Islamic Council near the Al-Aqsa Mosque crumbled, due to excavations by the Israeli Department of Archaeology. The letter stated that there had been several such attempts to destroy Islamic and Christian Holy Places in the Israeli-occupied territories in the preceding months.

By a letter of 1 June,(11) Jordan transmitted information on Israeli excavations near the Al-Aqsa Mosque and underneath religious buildings in Jerusalem which, it charged, had damaged buildings surrounding the Mosque, including the Islamic Council building, and were threatening the Mosque itself. Those excavations, Jordan stated, contravened United Nations resolutions and violated international law.

On 21 June,(12) Israel refuted Jordan's allegations as yet another anti-Israel propaganda attempt to revive a totally discredited canard about an "imminent" collapse of Temple Mount and to exploit the United Nations in a relentless vilification campaign. Israel said its record in safeguarding the holy shrines of all faiths not only found expression in its 1967 Protection of Holy Places law, to which it scrupulously adhered, but stood in stark contrast to Jordan's dismal record during its occupation of the Walled city of Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967.

By a letter of 9 August,(13)Jordan warned again of an Israeli plan to destroy ancient historic landmarks of Jerusalem - a plan that consisted essentially of excavation work underneath the western wall of Al-Haram Al-Sharif under the pretext of searching for the remains of the old Temple. In Jordan's view, the purpose of those excavations was to shake the subterranean foundations of the Islamic religious buildings and monuments in the Holy city until they collapsed. Annexed to the letter was information prepared by the Technical Section of the Jordanian Ministry of Islamic Affairs and Sacred Objects concerning damage being done to the historic Manjakiyah School near the Mosque.

By a letter of 29 February,(14) Israel drew the Security Council President's attention to what it called a terrorist outrage committed on 28 February against shoppers on Jerusalem's main thoroughfare. A hand-grenade package had been tossed into a store entrance, injuring 21 persons. Responsibility was claimed by two different extremist PLO groups.

By a letter of 2 April,(15) Israel reported another attack, committed on that date: three terrorists emerging from a clothing store in Jerusalem fired weapons and threw grenades, resulting in 48 civilians being wounded, among them eight foreign tourists; the terrorist faction, "Democratic Front", of PLO had claimed responsibility. On 3 April,(16) Israel stated that the number of casualties was 52 and that another terrorist group under Abu Nidal had claimed responsibility. On 10 April,(17) Israel drew the Secretary-General's attention to a radio statement made by the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, Yasser Arafat, endorsing the attack.

On 30 October,(18) Jordan transmitted a letter of 29 October from PLO charging Israel with perpetrating a rocket attack in Jerusalem on 28 October on a bus with Palestinian workers and shoppers; a 20-year-old Palestinian was killed and 10 others seriously wounded.

By a letter of 19 April,(19) the Acting Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights brought to the Secretary-General's attention reports of a transfer by El Salvador of its Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; in the opinion of the Committee members, such action was not only detrimental to a satisfactory solution to the question of the city's status, but also contrary to the spirit of United Nations resolutions on the subject. On 23 April,(20) Democratic Yemen, as President of the Council of the League of Arab States, transmitted a statement by 21 League members protesting that transfer and adding that it would have serious repercussions on Arab relations with El Salvador, as it indicated a position hostile to the Arab States and the Palestinians.

On 14 May,(21) Morocco transmitted the final communiqué of a special session of the Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Committee (Fez, Morocco, 19 and 20 April). The Committee said it had examined Israel's attempts to pressure different countries into transferring their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as well as its stepped-up aggression against the city and the Islamic and Christian Holy Places there. It discussed in particular the transfer of the embassies of Costa Rica and El Salvador to Jerusalem, and took note of assurances by the United States Administration regarding its commitment to the official United States position on Jerusalem. The Committee recommended: further contacts with political leaders in the United States, with permanent members of the Security Council and with international groups to gain support for the Islamic point of view, and with the Holy See, with a view to urging it to adopt a clear position on Israeli measures in Jerusalem; entrusting the Organization of the Islamic Conference with examining ways to implement a 1980 Committee resolution which called on Arab and Islamic States to use all their potential in dealing with countries that supported Israel's decision to annex Jerusalem; and that any diplomatic representation at Jerusalem be regarded as an actual embassy transfer. The Committee reminded all countries of their obligations under international law to refrain from dealing with Israel in a way which might be interpreted as recognition of the city as the Israeli capital.

By a letter of 15 October,(22) Nicaragua transmitted to the Secretary-General, among other documents, a draft resolution on the status of Jerusalem, presented by the Group of Arab States to the Third Conference of Ministers of Labour of Non-Aligned Countries and Other Developing Countries (Managua, 10-12 May). The draft strongly denounced all Israeli measures to change the status of Jerusalem, declared that any action violating the sanctity of the Holy Places aggravated the situation, and denounced the moving of the embassies of El Salvador and Costa Rica to Jerusalem, as well as efforts in the United States to transfer its Embassy there.

In his 2 October 1984 report on the situation in the Middle East(23) (see p. 260), the Secretary-General informed the General Assembly also about implementation of its December 1983 resolution(24) deploring the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478(1980)(25) - by which the Council had decided not to recognize the "Basic Law" on Jerusalem enacted by Israel - and calling on them to abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with the United Nations Charter.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/146 C, on the situation in the Middle East, by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 36/120 E of 10 December 1981 37/123 C of 16 December 1982 and 38/180 C of 19 December 1983, 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 2 October 1984,

1. Declares once more 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 again 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 fortieth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/146 C
14 December 1984 Meeting 101 138-1-7 (recorded vote)

36-nation draft (A/39/L.21 & Corr.1 & Add.1); agenda item 36.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Omen, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: plenary 72-77, 101.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel.

Israel said Jerusalem had always been the centre of the national and spiritual life of the Jewish people; reunited since 1967, it enjoyed unprecedented freedom and prosperity and the adherents of all faiths were guaranteed free access to their places of worship. Israel would steadfastly continue to advance the peace and well-being of its capital and its inhabitants, as well as preserve Jerusalem's unique place in the hearts of people of diverse faiths.

In Venezuela's view, the text contained paragraphs that did not contribute to the achievement of peace and included points that could cause a delay in settling the Middle East problem.

Greece, voting in favour, based its position on its attachment to the principles of Charter Article 2, paragraph 4, and the Helsinki Final Act. Australia did not accept the validity of measures which claimed to change the status of territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem. New Zealand and Norway said they did not recognize Israel's annexation of Jerusalem and did not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; New Zealand added that it supported a special administrative régime for the city, safeguarding the right of access of all religions. Austria expressed whole-hearted support of the text.

Speaking for the EC members, Ireland recalled the importance they attached to Security Council resolution 478(1980). Mexico's vote in favour, it said, demonstrated again its commitment to United Nations resolutions; and Togo's, its concern over the situation in the Middle East and its wish for peace to be restored. Spain's support accorded with its position of the principle that a just and lasting peace should be based on Israel's withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967, on respect for Palestinian rights, including the right to self-determination, and on the right of all States, including Israel, to live in peace within secure and recognized borders. Similar positions were held by Malawi, Portugal and Singapore. Ecuador rejected the occupation of territories by force and supported the search for a just and comprehensive solution.

Iran believed that what it termed the Zionist usurpers must withdraw from the whole of Palestine and not simply from the territories occupied since 1967.

By resolution 39/146 A, the Assembly deplored Israel's failure to comply with Security Council resolutions 476(1980)(26) and 478(1980)(25) on Jerusalem and the 1980(27) and 1981(28) Assembly resolutions on the Middle East situation. It determined that Israel's decision to annex Jerusalem and declare it as its "capital" as well as the measures to alter its physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and status were null and void, and demanded that they be rescinded immediately. It called on Member States and international organizations to abide by this and all other relevant resolutions and decisions.

Public information

The Committee on Palestinian rights, in its 1984 annual report,(29) also examined implementation of a December 1983 General Assembly resolution(30) requesting the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI), in co-operation with the Committee, to expand public information activities pertaining to the Palestine question. The Committee noted with appreciation that DPI continued to disseminate information on United Nations activities relating to the question through articles, press releases, newsletters, pamphlets, radio news programmes and special feature programmes, including coverage of the 1983 International Conference on Palestine.(1)

During 1984, DPI organized two regional journalists' encounters (Vienna, Austria, 4-7 June; Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania, 28-31 August), bringing high-level journalists together with experts on the Palestine question. A fact-finding news mission was also organized, during which 10 prominent journalists and media representatives from around the world visited Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic from 23 April to 11 May, to acquaint themselves first-hand with various aspects of the question.

A North American NGO symposium, organized in June 1984 by the Division for Palestinian Rights under the guidance of the Committee (see p. 269) adopted a Declaration urging the United Nations to assist the NGO community in Canada and the United States in establishing a clearing-house for information on the Palestine question, produce a comprehensive directory of all NGOs working on the issue, and facilitate and co-ordinate development of a communication network among NGOs.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 11 December 1984, the Assembly adopted resolution 39/49 C on the question of Palestine by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

Noting, in particular, the information contained in paragraphs 133 to 142 of that report,

Recalling its resolution 38/58 E of 13 December 1933,

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. Notes with appreciation the action taken by the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat in compliance with General Assembly resolution 38/58 E;

2. Requests that 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, should:

(a) Continue the implementation of all parts of General Assembly resolution 38/58 E;

(b) Disseminate all information on the activities of the United Nations system relating to Palestine;

(c) Expand and update publications and audio-visual material on the facts and developments pertaining to the question of Palestine;

(d) Publish newsletters and articles in its relevant publications on Israeli violations of the human rights of the Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories;

(e) Organize fact-finding missions to the area for journalists;

(f) Organize regional and national encounters for journalists.

General Assembly resolution 39/49 C
11 December 1984 Meeting 95 131-3-15 (recorded vote)

17-nation draft (A/39/L.39 & Add.1); agenda item 33.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Tunisia, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: plenary 88-92, 94, 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Canada, Israel, United States.

In Israel's view, the text meant another wasteful drain on United Nations funds and would continue the effect of providing a sounding-board for interests and forces extraneous to the United Nations, monopolizing time and funds of DPI to the detriment of its other, legitimate responsibilities.

In the opinion of the United States, paragraph 2 (d) in particular provided good evidence of the caricature of fairness in the text: where was the concern for the human rights of all the region's inhabitants, it asked.

Ireland, on behalf of the EC members, said they trusted that DPI would continue to be guided in its activities by impartiality and would maintain its normal decision-making process, given the difficult financial situation, every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary burdens on the budget.

Though voting in favour, Finland said it did so with reservations.

By resolution 39/49 B, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to ensure the continued co-operation of DPI and other Secretariat units in enabling the Division for Palestinian Rights to perform its tasks and in covering adequately the various aspects of the Palestine question.

Assistance to Palestinians

Reports of the Secretary-General. On 21 May 1984,(31) the Secretary-General reported on economic and social assistance to the Palestinians provided or planned according to information received from seven United Nations organs and 11 specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In another report, of 7 September,(32) the Secretary-General gave an overview of United Nations efforts to identify the social and economic needs of the Palestinians. As requested by the General Assembly in December 1983,(33) he had convened a meeting on economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people (Geneva, 5 and 6 July 1984), with relevant United Nations bodies and agencies participating. Represented also were PLO, Arab host countries, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. In preparation for the meeting, the Director-General for Development and International Economic Co-operation had requested United Nations bodies and organizations to submit proposals for future assistance projects. The meeting called for consultations with organizations and agencies to clarify some of the proposals, including financial resources available or needed, and to identify gaps and avoid duplication. It called for a revised paper on project proposals, taking into account additional ones made at the meeting, for inter-agency review.

Concluding his report, the Secretary-General stated that, subject to discussions in the Assembly, it was intended that a review and update of the proposals discussed at the meeting be prepared for consideration and further development within the existing machinery of the inter-agency Administrative Committee on Co-ordination.

UNIDO action. Following consideration of a February 1984 report by the Executive Director of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO),(34) the Industrial Development Board, on 19 May,(35) requested UNIDO to intensify its efforts, in co-operation with PLO, to provide technical assistance to the Palestinians. The Board called on the Israeli occupation authorities to give UNIDO staff and experts access to the occupied territories and affirmed that the restrictive policies of those authorities inhibited the development of the Palestinian industrial sector. These calls were echoed by the UNIDO Fourth General Conference in August (resolution 14).

As reported by the Executive Director,(36) among UNIDO's activities was a survey of the manufacturing industry in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, completed in mid-1984; it was part of a comprehensive survey by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development of the economy of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. At the request of PLO, the final report on the UNIDO survey(37) was circulated at the Fourth General Conference of UNIDO in August 1984 (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter VI), and an expert group meeting on the subject was held from 10 to 13 September at Vienna.

A project on assistance to the pharmaceutical industry was approved for financing from the United Nations Industrial Development Fund and completed in 1984, while a feasibility study for a West Bank cement plant was cancelled at the request of PLO. Qualified Palestinians were invited to participate in selected UNIDO group training programmes on industrial development.

UNDP action. In early 1984, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) initiated a programming exercise covering an extensive array of project concepts, tentatively identifying projects for Palestinians costing at least $45 million. A total of $7.5 million from Special Programme Resources had been expended for completed projects, committed for projects under way, or allocated for approved projects which were to become operational during 1984. This full utilization of all available UNDP funding, the Administrator of UNDP stated in a March report on the programme of assistance to the Palestinians,(38) meant that the size of any future activity would depend on voluntary contributions project identification no longer was a problem, since four years of experience in the West Bank and Gaza had enabled UNDP to identify critically important sectors and areas of concentration which called for priority action. The tentative plan for future projects represented a programme oriented more fully towards basic development activities, covering, for example: assistance to farmers, citrus producers and fishermen; development of plum and grape processing and olive and olive oil production; roads, classrooms and water supply for rural villages; assistance in primary and secondary education and teacher training, improvement of sewage disposal; development of glass and ceramic engineering technology; agricultural and hydrological research; and strengthening health institutions.

The Administrator stated that the perceived development needs of the Palestinians were so extensive and substantial that the amount and nature of project execution should be dependent on the funding available and UNDP's delivery capabilities, rather than on arbitrarily designated spending levels. However, while a number of Governments and intergovernmental institutions had signified strong interest in supporting the programme with special contributions, only Tunisia had thus far made a definite pledge in response to appeals; he recommended that the UNDP Governing Council consider the future viability of the special programme in the light of the prevailing financial circumstances.

The Council, on 29 June,(39) expressed satisfaction with the Administrator's efforts to assist the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It noted with regret that appeals for additional special contributions of at least $8 million in the 1982-1986 programming cycle had drawn a very modest response, and reconfirmed the need for special contributions. The Council noted that, unless additional contributions were received, it would not be possible to undertake basic development projects in timely and fully effective fashion, and requested the Administrator to make proposals concerning the amount which could be utilized from Special Programme Resources to support programmes of assistance to the Palestinians.

At the 1984 United Nations Pledging Conference for Development Activities (7 and 8 November) (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter II), the United States announced a pledge to the programme of up to $1 million. Shortly thereafter, the Arab Gulf Programme for United Nations Development Organizations announced its intention to contribute $1 million.

UNICEF activities. The Executive Board of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), at its April/May 1984 session,(40) approved commitments totalling $1.95 million and "noted" an amount of $3.2 million, subject to the availability of specific purpose contributions, covering the period mid-1984 to mid-1987 to support new programmes of co-operation to assist Palestinian children and mothers in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the occupied territories. The programmes focused on priority areas of child survival and development, pre-school, promotion of income-generating activities for women, and water supply and sanitation. Specifically, the following amounts were approved for the programme: for Jordan, a commitment of $600,000 from general resources and $450,000 from supplementary funds, subject to availability; for Lebanon, the respective amounts of $800,000 and $600,000; for the Syrian Arab Republic, $550,000 and $450,000; and for the occupied territories, $1.7 million, pledged by the Federal Republic of Germany.

Other activities. During 1984, a study on food security issues in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was completed; the study, undertaken jointly by the Economic Commission for Western Asia and the Arab Organization for Agricultural Development, resulted in recommendations on ways to promote food production and raise nutritional standards under prevailing conditions.

Assistance to the Palestinians continued to be provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in training, including specialized training in agricultural development. FAO was the executing agency of an agricultural training centre project, with $356,000 budgeted from UNDP, to assist Palestinian families in refugee camps in the Syrian Arab Republic to improve crop and livestock production and efficiency.


ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ACTION

On 25 July 1984, on the recommendation of its Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee, the Economic and Social Council adopted resolution 1984/56 by a roll-call vote.

Assistance to the Palestinian people

The Economic and Social Council,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 38/145 of 19 December 1983,

Recalling also Council resolution 1983/43 of 25 July 1983,

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

Noting also the oral report made by the representative of the Secretary-General before the Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee of the Council on 9 July 1984, concerning the meeting on assistance to the Palestinian people held at Geneva on 5 and 6 July 1984 in response to General Assembly resolution 38/145,

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

2. Expresses its thanks to the Secretary-General for convening the meeting on assistance to the Palestinian people pursuant to General Assembly resolution 38/145;

3. Regards such a meeting as a valuable opportunity to assess progress in economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people and to explore ways and means of enhancing such assistance;

4. Draws the attention of the international community the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to the need to ensure that their aid to the occupied Palestinian territories is disbursed only for the benefit of the Palestinian people and is not used in any manner to serve the interests of the Israeli occupation authorities;

5. Requests the competent programmes, organizations, agencies and organs of the United Nations system to intensify their efforts, in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization, to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people;

6. Also requests that United Nations assistance to the Palestinians in the Arab host countries should be rendered in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization and with the consent of the Arab host Government concerned;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fortieth session, through the Economic and Social Council, on the progress made in the provision of assistance to the Palestinian people.

Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/56
25 July 1984 Meeting 48 481 (roll-call vote)

Approved by Third Committee (E/1984/137) by vote (37-1), 13 July (meeting 6); draft by China and Mexico for Group of 77, (E/1984/C.3/L.4); agenda item 22.

Roll-call vote in Council as follows:

Against: United States.

Before voting on the text as a whole, the Council adopted paragraph 4 by a roll-call vote of 38 to 1, with 11 abstentions. The Committee had also voted separately on that paragraph, adopting it by 25 votes to 1, with 10 abstentions.

While reaffirming its determination to continue to assist the Palestinians, Japan said it had abstained in the vote on paragraph 4 because of an ambiguity in the final phrase.

After the vote, the United States said it was a measure of its concern for the plight of the Palestinians that it provided a major portion of the budgets for organizations such as (UNRWA) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which were involved in alleviating the conditions of the Palestinians. It firmly believed that such humanitarian assistance should be provided by the international community without regard to political considerations, a principle violated by the adopted text, which affirmed a role for PLO in receiving international economic and social assistance on behalf of the Palestinians. The United States did not believe that it was the Council’s function to select a representative for the Palestinians or to prejudge the outcome of the eventual exercise of the Palestinians’ right to select their own representatives.

Speaking for the EC members of the Council, Luxembourg pledged that they would continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians through various channels, including food and emergency relief and the co-financing with NGOs of aid projects. Assistance would be furnished directly and through EC, as well as through the competent United Nations organizations.

Poland, for the Eastern European members of the Council, regretted that the resolution had not called for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the withdrawal of all Israeli troops.

On behalf of the Arab Group of Member States, Saudi Arabia said the wording of the resolution was intended to express a humanitarian, not a political, view; in any case, PLO did not need a Council resolution to confirm that it was the genuine representative of the Palestinians. The people suffering under Israeli occupation, however, needed support and there could be no legitimate objection to paragraph 4. The Council naturally wished to declare that the Israeli occupation should be brought to an end.

In a statement after the explanations of vote, Israel said it could not receive with acclamation a resolution granting status to a terrorist organization which had inscribed on its banner the destruction of Israel; however, it was pleased to see that, unlike the corresponding 1983 resolution,(41) the 1984 text did not deplore Israel's actions, the reason for that being that Israel had done all in its power to enable authorized organizations and those with a true mandate to extend humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians. It was to be expected that some attempt would be made in the Council to malign Israel, as had been done in paragraph 4. The needs of the Palestinians would not be met by further resolutions but by concrete assistance; the reason why such assistance had not been provided on the scale required was the absence of adequate funding. Tunisia was alone among the Arab countries in making a pledge of aid to the Palestinians in response to Council and Assembly appeals.

With regard to the claim that everything possible had been done to permit assistance to the Palestinians, PLO challenged Israel to deny that fewer than 6 of the 17 projects approved by UNDP for implementation in the occupied territories had been carried out, moreover, five of the projects rejected by the Israeli authorities had been the most important: a multi-disciplinary research and training centre, the planning and development of higher education, cultural heritage, a faculty of agriculture, and a housing fund. While the Council was not the appropriate place to discuss the contributions of individual countries, it was well known that many Islamic countries, the Arab Group and the Eastern European States provided assistance to the Palestinians and co-operated with PLO. More to the point was the fact that Israel had cut off access by the Arab Support Fund to the occupied territories.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 18 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/224, by recorded vote.
Assistance to the Palestinian people

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 38/145 of 19 December 1983,

Recalling also Economic and Social Council resolution 1984156 of 25 July 1984,

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,

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

2. Takes note also of the report of the Secretary-General concerning the meeting on assistance to the Palestinian people which was held at Geneva on 5 and 6 July 1984 in response to General Assembly resolution 38/145;

3. Expresses its thanks to the Secretary-General for convening the meeting on assistance to the Palestinian people;

4. Regards such a meeting as a valuable opportunity to assess progress in economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people and to explore ways and means of enhancing such assistance;

5. Draws the attention of the international community, the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to the need to disburse their aid to the occupied Palestinian territories only for the benefit of the Palestinian people and to ensure that it is not used in any manner to serve the interests of the Israeli occupation authorities;

6. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To expedite the finalizing, through existing inter-agency mechanisms, of the co-ordinated programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people requested in General Assembly resolution 38/145;

(b) To convene in 1985 a meeting of the relevant programmes, organizations, agencies, funds and organs of the United Nations system to consider the co-ordinated programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people;

(c) To provide for the participation in the meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Arab host countries and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations;

7. Requests the relevant programmes, organizations, agencies, funds and organs of the United Nations system to intensify their efforts, in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization, to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people;

8. Also requests that United Nations assistance to the Palestinians in the Arab host countries should be rendered in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization and with the consent of the Arab host Government concerned;

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

General Assembly resolution 39/224
18 December 1984 Meeting 104 146-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by Second Committee (A/39/789) by recorded vote (131-2), 13 November (meeting 43): 10-nation draft (A/C.2/39/L.19), orally revised; agenda item 12.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bangladesh, China, Democratic Yemen, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: 2nd Committee 33, 40; plenary 104.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

Introducing the draft on behalf of the sponsors, Democratic Yemen said the international community had come to recognize the need to help the Palestinians who were victims of injustices of all kinds and whose lands and natural resources were being plundered by the Israelis.

Speaking before the vote in the Committee, Israel said the text ignored, for political reasons, the fact that Israel was currently the only State engaged, directly and actively, in promoting the well-being, safety and socio-economic development of the Palestinian Arabs of Judaea, Samaria and Gaza. During the 18 years of Israeli administration, they had made spectacular progress and their situation was many times better than that of most neighbouring countries. The resolutions adopted each year on the subject presented Israel as systematically opposed to and as obstructing international aid to the Palestinians. Israel welcomed assistance through legitimate channels and would continue to co-operate with UNRWA and UNDP. The main purpose of the resolution was to emphasize the role of PLO and to attribute to it capabilities and influence it did not possess.

The United States felt that the text was contentious and not constructive; it would perpetuate unproductive, if not counter-productive, activities that would in no way resolve the serious problems in the Middle East or improve the well-being of the Palestinians. The United States continued to be actively involved in efforts to improve Palestinian life through bilateral and multilateral programmes; during the previous year, it had also inaugurated programmes to assist directly deserving Palestinian institutions in the West Bank and Gaza. Such programmes, however, were no substitute for a negotiated settlement.

Jordan expressed reservations on paragraphs 7 and 8; any assistance to Palestinian refugees in Jordan should be subject to consultations with and approval of the authorities there.

On behalf of the States members of EEC, Ireland said EEC had been increasing its assistance to improve the plight of Palestinians not only in the occupied territories but also in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region; its members continued to provide that assistance directly and through EEC and the United Nations system. Japan maintained its position concerning United Nations assistance to national liberation movements.

Gabon stressed that its vote by no means called its well-known views into question. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya declared that its affirmative vote in no way indicated that it accepted the presence of a Zionist entity; it had reservations on any paragraph that might imply such acceptance.

Palestinian detainees

In 1984, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights again took up the case of the Palestinian Ziyad Abu Eain, this time in connection with prisoners held in southern Lebanon. The Assembly and the Economic and Social Council had first considered Abu Eain's case in 1981.(42)

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission on Human Rights, in a resolution of 20 February 1984(43) on human rights violations in the occupied Arab territories, condemned Israel for its continued detention of Abu Eain and called on it to implement fully the agreement on the exchange of prisoners with PLO concluded in November 1983 with TCRC. The Commission called on Israel to release Abu Eain and others detained at Ansar (Insar) Camp, which it said must be closed under the agreement. It further called on Israel to release all Arabs detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle for self-determination and for the liberation of their territories, and demanded that Israel cease all acts of torture and ill-treatment of Arab detainees. By another resolution, of 6 March,(44) the Commission urged Israel to release immediately all civilians arbitrarily detained since the beginning of the war in Lebanon, as well as those it rearrested and detained again at Ansar Camp, in violation of the November 1983 agreement. The Commission also urged Israel to allow ICRC to visit all detainees in all the detention centres under its control and to ensure protection for Palestinian civilians, including released detainees, in the areas under its occupation. (For further details, see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVIII.)

Communication and report. On 3 October 1984,(45)Jordan transmitted a letter of the same date from PLO, containing an appeal by prisoners in the central prison of Nablus (West Bank) for support to Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons and detention camps.

On 14 November,(46) the Secretary-General reported on the implementation of the December 1983 Assembly resolution(47) demanding the immediate release of Abu Eain as well as other prisoners who had been registered to be freed from Insar Camp and other military command posts in southern Lebanon but had not been released, and whose transfer to Algiers was to be secured in conformity with a November 1983 agreement with ICRC.(48) Referring to Israel's statement on the resolution,(49) the Secretary-General stated that Israel had not communicated any further information in reply to his note verbale of 13 October 1904.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, the General Assembly, on 14 December, adopted resolution 39/95 A by recorded vote. The Assembly acted on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 38/79 A of 15 December 1983,

Taking note of the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross of 13 December 1983,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 14 November 1984,

1. Deplores the fact that the Israeli authorities, at the last minute, took one prisoner, Ziyad Abu Eain, who had been registered before embarkation by delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross at Tel Aviv airport;

2. Condemns Israel for its failure to comply with General Assembly resolution 38/79 A;

3. Demands again the immediate release of all prisoners, including Ziyad Abu Eain, who were duly registered to be freed from Insar Camp and other military command posts in southern Lebanon and Israel but have not, in fact, been released, and the securing of their transfer to Algiers in conformity with the agreement reached through the good offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross;

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

General Assembly resolution 39/95 A
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 120-2-15 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/712) by recorded vote (101-2-11), 29 November (meeting 43); 25-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.22/Rev.1); agenda item 71.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 31-39, 43; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

Israel said it was highly improper for the United Nations to interfere in judicial matters which fell within the jurisdiction of a sovereign State; Abu Eain was a convicted murderer serving his prison term and Israel regretted that the activities of ICRC were being exploited for political ends.

Australia noted with concern the report of ICRC that the prisoner exchange had not been carried out fully, but voiced doubts about the practice of focusing attention in Assembly resolutions on an individual case and pointed out that there were other individuals registered to be freed who remained in detention. In Sri Lanka's view, the subject dealt with was outside the Special Committee's mandate.

Canada would have preferred more constructive language, particularly in paragraph 2, but considered it important to encourage international support for humanitarian arrangements to mitigate the suffering resulting from conflicts.

REFERENCES

(1)YUN 1983, p. 274. (7)A/39/133-S/16417. (3)A/39/378-S/16693. (4)A/39/35. (5)YUN 1976, p. 235. (6)Ibid., p. 245, GA res. 31/20, 24 Nov. 1976. (7)YUN 1983, p. 276, GA res. 38/58 B, 13 Dec. 1983. (8)YUN 1967, p. 257, SC res. 242(1967), 22 Nov. 1967. (9)A/39/99-S/16327. (10)S/16450. (11)A/39/283-S/16598. (12)A/39/319-S/16640. (13)A/39/395-S/16695. (14)S/16377. (15)S/16458. (16)A/39/166. (17)A/39/177-S/16474. (18)A/39/619-S/16803. (19)A/39/201-S/16493. (20)A/39/206-S/16501. (21)A/39/257-S/16562. (27)A/39/581-S/16782 & Corr. 1. (23)A/39/533. (24)YUN 1983, p. 280, 38/180 C, 19 Dec. 1983. (25)YUN 1980 p. 426, SC res. 478(1980), 20 Aug. 1980. (26)Ibid., p. 125, SC res. 476(1980), 30 June 1980. (27)Ibid., p. 376, GA res. 35/207, 16 Dec. 1980. (28)YUN 1981, pp. 262, 313, GA res. 36/226 A & B, 17 Dec. 1981. (29)A/39/35. (30)YUN 1983, p. 286, GA res. 38/58 E, 13 Dec. 1983. (31)A/39/265-E/1984/77 & Add.1. (32)A/39/474 & Corr.1. (33)YUN 1983 p. 284, GA res. 38/145, 19 Dec. 1983. (34)ID/B/315. (35)A/39/l6 (conclusion 1984/12). (36)ID/B/332. (37)UNIDO/IO/584. (38)DP/1984/16. (39)E/1984/20 (dec. 84/13). (40)E/1984/l9. (41)YUN 1983, p. 282, ESC res. 1983/43, 25 July 1983. (42)YUN 1981, p. 907. (43)E/1984/14 (res. 1984/1 A). (44)Ibid. (res. 1984/20). (43)A/39/548-S/16766. (46)A/39/665. (47)YUN 1983, p. 273, GA res. 38/79 A, 15 Dec. 1983. (48)Ibid., p. 272. (49)Ibid., p. 273.


_________________________________

Incidents and disputes
between Arab countries and Israel
_________________________________


Iraq and Israel

Armed incident
involving Iraqi nuclear facilities

Note and report of the Secretary-General. By a note of 6 February 1984,(1) the Secretary-General brought to the attention of the Security Council a request made by the General Assembly in November 1983(2) that the Council consider measures to deter Israel from repeating an attack such as the 1981 bombing of a nuclear research centre near Baghdad.(3) He reported on 10 August 1984(4) that by a note of 15 March he had asked Israel to inform him of the action it had decided to take with regard to the Assembly's renewed demand that it withdraw its threat to attack and destroy nuclear facilities in Iraq and other countries. Israel replied on 12 July (see immediately below).

Communications. Referring to the Secretary-General's note, Israel, by a letter of 12 July,(5) recalled a statement made on 2 May by its Prime Minister that Israel supported international arrangements which ensured the status and inviolability of nuclear facilities dedicated to peaceful purposes, and that it viewed positively the activities of organizations and agencies established by the international community for those purposes. It also drew attention to a statement of 21 May by the Director-General of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission that Israel had no policy or intention of attacking nuclear facilities dedicated to peaceful purposes, and that it supported international efforts to arrive at an early arrangement regulating nuclear facilities as well as the mission of IAEA in ensuring that nuclear energy was a safe source of peaceful development. In its letter, Israel expressed regret at the Assembly's acquiescence in being used by Iraq year after year in attempts to vilify Israel.

By a letter of 15 August,(6) Iraq said that the statements quoted by Israel made no mention of the Assembly's November 1983 resolution demanding that it withdraw its threat to attack and destroy nuclear facilities in Iraq and other countries; also, the statements were not issued by the parties who originally had made those threats and they were confined to generalities, whereas the threats were directed specifically against Iraq. The thesis of the Director-General as reported by Israel was a piece of special pleading which could not deceive the international community; moreover, the statements referred to by Israel made no mention of the international safeguards system, leaving it to the goodwill of Israel, whose aggressive designs were well known, to decide which facilities were peaceful. Iraq quoted a statement made in August 1983 by the Israeli Minister of Scientific Research, and published in a United States magazine, Nucleonics Week, that, as long as there was no agreement turning the Middle East into a nuclear-free zone, Israel was compelled to disrupt any Arab project when it became clear beyond doubt that the intention was to produce nuclear weapons. From the statement, Iraq concluded, it was apparent that Israel persisted in its intention to attack nuclear reactors on the basis solely of its own decision as to the nature of those reactors; it was the United Nations duty to prevent Israel from implementing its policy, which was a threat to international peace and security.

By a letter of 20 November,(7) Iraq pointed out that there was more to the Israeli Prime Minister's statement quoted in Israel's letter of 12 July. As reported on 10 May in Nucleonics Week, he had added that, since some régimes violated agreements and rules of behaviour without fear of retribution, he advocated co-ordinated and unified action by democratic countries which were, in his words, capable of punishing the various international pirates. That statement, Iraq said, was not only a blatant affirmation of the aggressor's intention to repeat its acts of aggression, but also an open invitation to lawlessness.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 16 November, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/14 by recorded vote.
Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear
installations and its grave consequences for
the established international system concerning
the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and
international peace and security

The General Assembly,

Having considered the item entitled "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security",

Recalling the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly,

Taking note of the relevant resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency,

Viewing with deep concern Israel's refusal to comply with those resolutions, particularly Security Council resolution 487(1981) of 19 June 1981,

Voting that Israel's statements contained in its communication of 12 July 1984 continue to ignore the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency and do not specify the Iraqi nuclear installations which were the subject of the Israeli attack and subsequent threats,

Convinced that the Israeli threats to attack nuclear facilities in Iraq and in other countries will continue to endanger peace and security in the region,

1. Reiterates its condemnation of Israel's continuing refusal to implement Security Council resolution 487(1981), unanimously adopted by the Council on 19 June 1981;

2. Considers that Israel's statements contained in its communication of 12 July 1984 do not fulfil or, in the view of some, do not completely fulfil the provisions of General Assembly resolution 38/9 of 10 November 1983 which specifically demanded that Israel withdraw forthwith its threat to attack and destroy nuclear facilities in Iraq and in other countries;

3. Further considers that any threat to attack and destroy nuclear faculties in Iraq and in other countries constitutes a violation of the Charter of the United Nations;

4. Demands that Israel undertake forthwith not to carry out, in disregard of the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency, any attack on nuclear facilities in Iraq, or on similar facilities in other countries, devoted to peaceful purposes;

5. Requests the Security Council to consider the necessary measures to ensure Israel's compliance with Security Council resolution 487(1981) and to deter Israel from repeating its attack on nuclear facilities;

6. Reaffirms its call for the continuation of the consideration, at the international level, of legal measures to prohibit armed attacks against nuclear facilities, as a contribution to promoting and ensuring the safe development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fortieth session on the question of the implementation of Security Council resolution 487(1981 and on the consequences of Israel's non-compliance with that resolution;

8. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of it fortieth session the item entitled "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security".

General Assembly resolution 39/14
16 November 1984 Meeting 65 106-2-33 (recorded vote)

27-nation draft (A/39/L.13/Rev.1); agenda item 24.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: plenary 55, 56, 65.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

In Israel's view, the text did not seek as a solution to the complex problem of protecting nuclear facilities, but rather aimed at using the issue as a pretext for an annual anti-Israel spectacle. Israel's position on the inviolability of nuclear facilities dedicated to peaceful purposes had been stated clearly four times in the previous months, while Iraq's attitude was quite different.

In the opinion of the United States, the text served no useful purpose; to bring the matter Up in the Assembly year after year was unproductive. The text unfairly condemned Israel, failed to give due credit to its repeated statements that it had no policy of attacking peaceful nuclear facilities, and gave as a prejudicial characterization of Israeli policy. In addition it did not serve the interests of any IAEA member State to perpetuate as a divisive political debate in that Agency on this issue.

Canada could not support the text, saying it failed to take fully into account Israel's statements in compliance with the requests of the IAEA General Conference. International public opinion on the 1981 incident had been adequately registered; unless there was something further for the Secretary-General to report upon, Canada would not support either as a request for as a report or as a decision to include the item in the agenda.

Ecuador rejected the use and threat of force in international relations and any concept of armed reprisals, particularly against any future danger perceived on the basis of subjective unilateral analyses that could serve to justify the unacceptable sophism of preventive war; it added, however, that the United Nations had repeatedly expressed its views on the matter, which could henceforth be dealt with in the First Committee.

Sweden did not object to the continued presence on the agenda of an item devoted to the follow-up of the 1981 Security Council resolution(8) condemning Israel's attack, as long as Israel failed fully to live up to the terms of that resolution; it was to be noted, however, that in comparison with earlier statements, a clearly more forthcoming attitude by Israel had been reflected in pronouncements to the Assembly and the IAEA General Conference. Against that backdrop, it did not appear appropriate for the Assembly to pronounce itself against the Israeli attitude in terms stronger than those applied in the previous year.

Belgium considered that, in view of the declarations made and the policies followed by Israel since that attack, there was no real danger of another similar occurrence and it was, accordingly, not correct to refer to threats that would continue to endanger peace and security in the region; also, making the subject as a permanent item on the agenda did not appear to further prospects for as a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict.

The Federal Republic of Germany said the text did not reflect the assessment of Israel's statements as a step in the right direction, further consideration of the item and of those statements should be undertaken within IAEA, although repeated condemnations were not conducive to promoting practical work. Also, there seemed to be no evidence that the Israeli threats referred to in the sixth preambular paragraph continued to exist.

The USSR supported the resolution aimed at preventing armed aggression against nuclear installations or threats of such aggression, it fully agreed with the concern over what it called Israel's piratical act which, it said, had serious consequences for international peace and security and the right of States to use nuclear energy for economic and social development. It declared that it was against allowing Israel to repeat such attacks in violation of United Nations resolutions and the Charter.

The Syrian Arab Republic remarked that the wording of the revised text was not in keeping with the main goal of the original draft; the sponsors had suppressed some words and paragraphs reiterating condemnation of Israel's threats to repeat its attack on nuclear facilities in Iraq and other countries and requesting IAEA to suspend all co-operation with Israel until it complied with the 1981 Council resolution and to report thereon. The text was not commensurate with the magnitude of Israel's criminal action or with the danger that such action might be repeated.

Introducing the revised draft on behalf of the sponsors, Iraq said that Israel, in its efforts to remove all strictures on it and allow it to pursue its aggression and threats with total impunity, had called on the Assembly to defeat the draft so that it would be let off the hook it had swallowed when it committed its unprecedented act of aggression.


Complaint by Iraq

Communications. On 16 October 1984,(9) Iraq transmitted to the Secretary-General as a letter of the same date from its Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs charging that, on 14 October, an Israeli patrol had intercepted and fired at an Iraqi ship, Babel, in Jordanian territorial waters en route to the Jordanian port of Aqaba.

Israel referred to those charges in as a letter of 1 November,(10) saying that on 12 October the Iraqi ship Babylon had been sighted moving north in the Gulf of Eilat. The Israel Defence Forces had made no contact with it, and at no time had the ship been stopped, checked or fired upon.

Lebanon situation

In an October 1984 report(11) on the situation in the Middle East, the Secretary-General gave an overview of the situation in the Israel-Lebanon sector. In February, following heavy exchanges of fire in the Beirut area, the Security Council met and voted on as a French draft resolution by which, had it been adopted, as a United Nations force would have been constituted for the Beirut area as soon as all the elements of the four-nation multinational force (France, Italy, United Kingdom, United States) had withdrawn from Lebanese territory (see p. 284). In August and September, the Council met at Lebanon's request. By as a Lebanese draft, also not adopted, the Council would have affirmed that the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War applied to the territories occupied by Israel in southern Lebanon, and would have demanded that Israel immediately lift all restrictions and obstacles to the restoration of normal conditions in the occupied areas (see p. 289).

In as a report of 9 April(12) on UNIFIL (see p. 298), the Secretary-General stated that the Lebanese Government and the people of southern Lebanon clearly desired the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and authority up to the internationally recognized border at the earliest possible date. Israel, while expressing its desire to withdraw its forces from Lebanon, was concerned over the security of its northern border after the withdrawal of those forces. The security of the Palestinian refugees, especially in the camps in the Sidon area, was as a matter of grave concern and responsibility.

In his 9 October report on the Force,(13) the Secretary-General noted that developments in recent weeks seemed to have brought about more positive prospects for an Israeli withdrawal and the working out of arrangements to ensure that southern Lebanon would become as a zone of peace under the sovereignty and authority of the Lebanese Government. As a follow-up to the Secretary-General's own visit to the area in June, the Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs visited Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and Israel to discuss the situation with their authorities; there seemed to be general agreement that an expanded mandate for UNIFIL and as a widening of its area of operation would be key elements in such arrangements.

Following the Secretary-General's recommendation and at Lebanon's request, the Security Council extended UNIFIL's mandate twice during the year, for six months each time (see pp. 299 and 302).

As requested by the Security Council in its October resolution extending the mandate of UNIFIL, the Secretary-General continued consultations with the Lebanese Government and other parties directly involved. On 31 October, following consultations with Lebanon and Israel, he announced the convocation of as a conference of military representatives from the two countries to discuss military aspects relating to the withdrawal of Israeli forces and security arrangements in southern Lebanon. The conference, which met intermittently from 8 November, took place at UNIFIL headquarters at Naqoura.(14)

The Council also met in May to consider events at the Ein El-Helweh refugee camp near Sidon in southern Lebanon (see p. 296).

UNRWA continued to assist Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Protection of those refugees was the subject of General Assembly resolution 39/99 I, adopted following consideration of as a report by the Secretary-General (see p. 343). By resolution 39/197, the Assembly called for intensified United Nations assistance for the reconstruction and development of Lebanon (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter III).

Communications (January). By as a letter of 4 January 1984,(15) Lebanon complained of two Israeli air raids on 3 and 4 January. On 3 January, it charged, Israeli war-planes had attacked the village of Bhamdoun, destroying houses and wounding many civilians. On 4 January, fighter-bombers had attacked as a Lebanese gendarmerie barracks at Baalbek in eastern Lebanon and Immam Mousa Sadr City, causing heavy damage, killing more than 100 persons and wounding 400 others, among them 150 schoolchildren.

In its reply of 13 January,(16) Israel expressed the hope that the Lebanese Government would soon be able to restore its sovereignty throughout Lebanon, so that it could prevent the recurrence of the uncontrolled situation which had obliged Israel to act in self-defence against terrorist bases operating with the consent and encouragement of certain United Nations Member States. Its action was directed solely against terrorist installations, training bases and launching sites, which had served as bases for some of the most heinous acts including suicide attacks, car bombings and the shelling of civilian residential areas. Israel deeply regretted any civilian loss of life; it stressed, however, that the terrorist groups deliberately located their installations and bases in populated areas, shielding themselves behind civilians and their dwellings. Concluding, Israel reiterated its support of the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence within its internationally recognized boundaries and of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanese territory.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (February)

Following as a request by France on 14 February for an urgent meeting,(17) the Security Council considered the situation in Beirut at four meetings on 15, 16, 23 and 29 February. It invited Italy, Lebanon and Senegal, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

Meeting numbers. SC 2514-2516, 2519.

On 29 February, the Council voted on as a draft resolution by France.(18) The vote was 13 to 2, as follows:

Against: Ukrainian SSR, USSR.

Owing to the negative vote of as a permanent member, the draft was not adopted.

By the draft, which was revised twice during consultations, the Council would have again urgently appealed for an immediate cease-fire and cessation of all hostilities throughout Lebanon, to be strictly complied with; requested the Secretary-General to make without delay arrangements to enable the Observer Group Beirut to monitor compliance with the cease-fire in the Beirut area; and decided, in agreement with the Lebanese Government, to constitute immediately under the Council's authority as a United Nations force composed of personnel furnished by Member States not permanent Council members and selected, if appropriate, from UNIFIL contingents. The force was to have taken up as a position in the Beirut area, in co-ordination with the Lebanese authorities concerned, as soon as all elements of the multinational force had withdrawn from Lebanese territory and territorial waters. It would have had the mission of monitoring compliance with the cease-fire and helping protect civilians, including in the Palestinian refugee camps, and, without intervening in Lebanon's internal affairs for the benefit of any party, thereby assisting in re-establishing the peace necessary for restoring Lebanon's territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and independence.

By other provisions, the Council would have requested Member States to refrain from intervening in Lebanon's internal affairs and from any action, in particular military action, that might jeopardize the re-establishment of peace and security in Lebanon, and to facilitate the task of the United Nations force. It would have invited the Secretary-General to report within 48 hours on the implementation of the resolution.

Introducing the revised text, France said the sufferings of civilians and the constant threat to peace in the region posed by the violence made it necessary for the international community to shoulder its responsibilities. The conditions that had prevailed when the multinational force was established had changed drastically and the situation in the Beirut area had further worsened, as a United Nations presence should be substituted for that force. The draft took full account of the concerns expressed on all sides. France later added that, while the text was not intended to settle all the problems of peace in the region, it was as a first step and as a peace-making gesture intended to promote as a climate of reconciliation.

The USSR considered the draft unacceptable, with, for example, ambiguous wording relating to the mandate of the United Nations force in Beirut. The text had been introduced without further consideration of the USSR's position, which favoured continuing consultations. as a real settlement in Lebanon should be achieved not by separate deals and arm-twisting but on the basis of strict implementation of United Nations decisions. Among the conditions for the deployment of as a United Nations force were, over and above the withdrawal of the multinational force, withdrawal of foreign warships and guarantees that there would be no resumption of artillery fire, air strikes or any other interference in Lebanon's internal affairs by the multinational force.

The Ukrainian SSR said the draft did not contain provisions which would achieve the goals the Council was pursuing, such as urgent, effective measures that would lead to peace and stability and eliminate everything hindering normalization of the situation in the country. In spite of repeated Council demands that Israel withdraw immediately, it continued to occupy one third of Lebanon's territory and was bombing other areas of the country. In May 1983,(19) Israel and the United States had imposed on Lebanon as a servile agreement transforming it into an American-Israeli protectorate, which predetermined increased tension. New suffering for the Lebanese had resulted from the so-called multinational force. The Israeli occupiers and the United States fleet, participating in military actions against the patriotic forces of Lebanon, had carried out as a broad campaign of threats and military provocations against the Syrian Arab Republic.

The normalization of the situation in Lebanon, the Ukrainian SSR continued, demanded as a complete cessation of interference, unconditional and complete withdrawal of Israel's interventionist forces and the multinational force, the removal from Lebanon's shores of the force's warships, and an immediate end to air and artillery bombardments. Without fulfilling those conditions and protecting Lebanon's civilians, the question of United Nations assistance to Lebanon lost any real basis. The absence in the resolution of the relevant provisions and guarantees would make the mission of as a United Nations force for all practical purposes unrealizable. In the light of all that, the Ukrainian SSR could not consider the draft as anything other than an attempt to justify interference in Lebanon's internal affairs in the name of the United Nations.

Addressing the vote on the text, the Netherlands regretted that the United Nations had been prevented from making even as a modest contribution to the national reconciliation process in Lebanon. A United Nations force should be as a peace-keeping force rather than one which would have to enforce peace, with the risks of getting itself involved in the fighting and thus intervening in Lebanon's internal affairs. as a stable and effective cease-fire in the Beirut area would continue to be an essential prerequisite for such as a force to carry out effectively its proposed mandate.

The United Kingdom was disappointed at the Council's inaction and could not understand that anything said during the debate justified as a veto on the limited United Nations action requested by the Lebanese Government. The United Kingdom said no one had been more insistent on restricting the discussion on the draft to the smallest geographical area possible - to the city of Beirut only, not even the Beirut area - than the Council member which had explained its negative vote with statements relating to Lebanon as a whole or to parts of Lebanon other than Beirut. The United Kingdom hoped for as a resumption of the dialogue on national reconciliation which, it trusted, would lead to as a situation in which as a new Lebanese Government, the former one having already resigned, would come into office with national acclaim and assert its authority through the Lebanese Army and security forces throughout the country. The United Kingdom was encouraged by the clear statements by all Governments which had forces in Lebanon that they did not intend to keep them there, despite difficulties that had to be taken into account, such as a deterioration in the internal security position in parts of the country; the United Nations, however, might be able to play as a constructive part in resolving those difficulties. It was convinced that there should be an expanded United Nations role in Lebanon. The situation there was grave: the authority of the duly constituted Government was called into question there was factional strife, and the security of ordinary people was in doubt.

In China's view, the Council should implement in earnest its resolutions on Lebanon and give consideration to other practical steps. Any Council action should be conducive to safeguarding Lebanon's territorial integrity, to eliminating foreign interference, and to promoting national reconciliation. China said its vote was based on those principles and took into consideration that the draft foresaw as a clearly defined mandate - helping protect the civilians, including those in the Palestinian refugee camps, and doing so without intervening in Lebanon's internal affairs for the benefit of any party whatever. On the other hand, since the Beirut crisis was only part of the Lebanon crisis, whose root cause was Israel's invasion and occupation, the key was the withdrawal of Israeli troops. Foreign warships should not, under any pretext, carry out armed intervention in Lebanon's internal affairs.

The United States said that in voting for the draft - which was imperfect and in many ways unsatisfactory it expressed its commitment to the view that peace in Lebanon should be brought about by the Lebanese, that all foreign forces should be withdrawn, and that the Lebanese population should be left to seek without outside interference an agreement that would respect the rights and preserve the freedom of all. Lebanon had exercised its right to self-defence and to request others to assist in reinforcing and maintaining its sovereignty; the United States had responded to that request, as had others in the multinational force. The United States vote was part of its long-standing effort to help re-establish and reinforce the peace necessary to restore Lebanon's territorial integrity and to contribute to ending the violence and protecting civilians. There had been as a great deal more discussion in the Council about the internecine tribal conflicts and the presence of Israeli troops than about the more than 50,000 Syrian troops and Palestinian, Iranian and other associates in Lebanon. Much less was heard about the systematic use of violence, encouraged from outside.

Lebanon regretted that, for the second time in as a few months, the Council had been unable to help in putting an end to as a tragic situation. The international community, through the Council, had as a great responsibility towards not only the Lebanese but the peoples of the world: to guarantee international peace and security. Lebanon appealed to the Council to reconsider the positions taken and to respond positively and quickly to any new initiative in keeping with the seriousness of the situation and by means of which the Council might be able to fulfil its tasks under the Charter.

In Malta's view, the draft attempted resolutely to address as a tragic situation and would have been as a step towards restoring the stability necessary to augment the prospects for as a positive outcome of the national reconciliation dialogue. Malta appealed to all concerned to support the task being contemplated for United Nations personnel; that would be as a move towards restoring broader peace in the Middle East after the legitimate rights of the Palestinians had finally been recognized by all.

Egypt would have preferred as a clearer and stronger wording requesting unconditional and immediate Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory; the situation in Lebanon, threatening the country's territorial integrity and peace in the region, was the strongest justification for as a United Nations presence.

India would also have preferred as a reiteration of the demand for unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces. Further, ambiguities should be cleared up before the Council took action to deploy as a United Nations force. The Upper Volta also would have liked such points as the withdrawal of all foreign troops and agreement by all parties concerned to be better spelt out. Nicaragua felt that the draft, though not perfect, could contribute to improving the situation in Lebanon.

Pakistan said the proposed Council action was not as a remedy for all problems besetting Lebanon, but the presence of as a United Nations force in Beirut could have become as a prelude to as a process which could eventually restore the country's unity and independence; only the United Nations had the capacity to meet the need for an impartial presence which could bring tranquillity to Beirut and provide as a respite for Lebanese leaders to intensify their national reconciliation efforts.

Peru fully agreed with the need for effective and just United Nations action. However, the outcome of the vote was not the end of the Council's responsibilities; it should keep the matter under scrutiny and seek progress in the quest for peace in Lebanon.

The Secretary-General felt that disagreement among the Council members had prevented the United Nations from playing an expanded role in Lebanon. He appealed to the Council to continue to consider the situation there with as a sense of urgency and with the intent that in the near future ways would be found for the United Nations to expand its role, not only for Lebanon's benefit, but also for the cause of international peace.

During the Council debate, France said the situation in Lebanon had become particularly serious as a result of recent events. The civilian population had been subjected to fighting and bombardment and was constantly exposed to the dangers of as a resumption of violence and even military operations, further complicating the prospect for any political solution. France recalled that, in 1982, it had also suggested creating as a United Nations force in Beirut,(20) but it was clear that lengthy negotiations would be required in order to reach agreement on its creation. Thus, France had responded positively to Lebanon's request for as a multinational force which, for 16 months, had attempted to protect the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila and generally to contribute to restoring calm in Beirut and its immediate surrounds. Circumstances had changed, however, and the risks of confrontation were now such that the international community must urgently face its responsibilities. A United Nations force to replace the multinational one was necessary to ease tension; the most suitable way to provide it was to send certain detachments from UNIFIL.

Supporting France's request for as a United Nations presence in and around Beirut, the United Kingdom said there was an immediate need to put an end to the fighting in Lebanon, promote national reconciliation and make possible the withdrawal of all foreign forces. The United Nations could take as a number of limited steps without as a new Council resolution, but they were not as a substitute for more far-reaching proposals which must be considered. United Nations observers and its other representatives already in Beirut could undertake small confidence-building measures, and the Council should not stand in the way of as a modest increase in the number of observers if the Secretary-General considered that helpful. Further, the United Kingdom suggested the active use by the Secretary-General of his good offices and the expansion of UNIFIL's role to facilitate Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

The United States shared France's view that the international community should assume greater responsibility for the Lebanese people and welcomed the United Kingdom’s suggestions. as a United Nations presence would be useful throughout Lebanon, particularly to protect Palestinian refugee camps and reinforce cease-fires. Among the available instruments in Lebanon which might be useful were: as a 50-man observer group; the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), which could be doubled; and UNIFIL, which was deployed in some cases in areas where violence no longer threatened people. The United States was ready to enter into serious discussions, without pre-conditions, on the composition and deployment of United Nations forces, preferably throughout Lebanon, to achieve those goals.

What was at stake in Lebanon, said Italy, was not only such fundamental humanitarian objectives as protecting civilians and Palestinian refugees, but also the survival of as a State. The political situation had deteriorated to the extent that urgent United Nations intervention was required. National reconciliation, begun in talks between Lebanon's multiple factions at Geneva in November 1983 under promising auspices, had not been continued, and the Lebanese Army seemed not to have succeeded in representing the national community. The modalities for placing as a United Nations force in Beirut must be subject to the most careful evaluation, above all in connection with the replacing of the multinational force in such as a way as to ensure that as a dangerous vacuum was avoided; as a United Nations presence must also be seen in relation to the problem of the full restoration of Lebanese sovereignty.

Lebanon approved in principle the dispatching of United Nations forces or observers to assist in restoring security and stability and enabling the legitimate authorities to exercise control over all its territory. The proposal to send international forces to the Beirut area was as a positive move, which, however, remained partial and limited as long as large parts of Lebanon continued to be occupied; any international force must have the means to undertake its tasks in all of Lebanon. Setting up and dispatching United Nations forces, as well as timing their deployment and determining their tasks, must be decided in consultation with the Lebanese Government, which was ready to co-operate in drawing up and implementing any resolution that might contribute to halting the crisis.

The Netherlands called on all parties to refrain from the use of force in Lebanon and to agree to as a prompt, effective cease-fire in the Beirut area, which it believed would be conducive to early renewal of the internal conciliation process in Lebanon. It urged the parties to resume that process without delay, aimed at establishing as a Government which enjoyed the widest national support; such as a Government would be in as a better position to accomplish the complete withdrawal of all non-authorized non-Lebanese forces from Lebanese territory. The Netherlands firmly believed that all concerned should consider ways in which the United Nations could help bring about as a more stable situation in the Beirut area; however, the experience of the multinational force served as an example that one should not embark too hastily on as a United Nations peace-keeping mission. The most pressing problem which the Council should address was an effective cease-fire and, to that end, the Netherlands was prepared to support any constructive proposal under the following conditions: as a United Nations peace-keeping force should be deployed with the permission of the host country and with the consent of all parties involved; and it should have as a clearly defined mandate and the Council's full backing. As an interim measure, limited steps such as those suggested by the United Kingdom could be useful.

Senegal said it had welcomed the 1983 national reconciliation Geneva conference and the cease-fire that seemed to have been the result; however the situation had considerably worsened following recent events. The matter had two aspects, humanitarian and political; the most urgent aspect concerned the cessation of hostilities and the protection of civilians, including Palestinian refugees. Beyond that, the Lebanese State had to be safeguarded. The Council must promote without further delay as a climate of mutual confidence to enable all parties to commit themselves to the peace process and must consider the Palestine question as a whole, in particular measures for convening an International Peace Conference on the Middle East (see p. 263), which could benefit Lebanon. Senegal supported the proposal to replace the multinational force in Beirut with an international one, to avoid as a dangerous vacuum. The mission and terms of as a United Nations force would have to be carefully evaluated, in close consultation with all parties concerned.

The Upper Volta said the Beirut situation was but one component of the Middle East problem, the centre-piece of which remained the Palestine question. The difficulties in Lebanon stemmed also from outside interference and the will of outside Powers to control that country, it added. The presence of Israeli troops in the south and of the so-called multinational forces in Beirut and Lebanese waters was inadmissible; only their immediate withdrawal and strict respect for Lebanon's territorial integrity could create conditions favourable to as a reconciliation of all its people. It was the Council's duty to hasten the restoration of peace and alleviate the suffering of the population, including the Palestinian refugees. The Upper Volta viewed favourably the proposal to send as a United Nations force entrusted with maintaining peace.

India also felt that any solution to the Lebanon problem could not be divorced from the search for as a comprehensive Middle East settlement, based on the exercise by the Palestinians of their national and human rights. The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon(21) was part of as a calculated policy to decimate the Palestinians and erode Lebanon's independence. In India's opinion, recent events demonstrated beyond any doubt that the position of the multinational force was untenable and that its continued presence could only further aggravate tension. It had become necessary for the Council to consider United Nations action to fill the vacuum that withdrawal of that force would create. The objective of as a United Nations force should be clear and its mandate precisely defined before deployment. It was also essential to see some evidence of as a genuine national reconciliation process so that the Lebanese people would have the opportunity to find peace and stability free from all foreign interference.

Pakistan said the deepening human tragedy in Lebanon was matched by growing political anarchy compounded by foreign intervention; the situation called for initiatives aimed at reconciliation among the Lebanese factions. The United Nations had an important role to play, supplementing efforts by responsible Governments in the region; France's initiative fit in that context. as a United Nations force in the Beirut area could prove crucial in mitigating violence and ensuring as a cease-fire, which would provide Lebanon with as a breathing space in which national reconciliation efforts could be sustained.

Also supporting France's proposal, Egypt said the deteriorating situation in Lebanon demanded assistance in facilitating the withdrawal of the multinational force and in making possible the most rapid deployment of as a United Nations force; Egypt was ready to contribute to any joint effort intended to create the atmosphere necessary to break the cycle of violence and promote as a political settlement and national reconciliation and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon.

Communications (March-August). On 2 March 1984,(22) France transmitted as a declaration adopted on 28 February at as a Ministerial Meeting on European Political Co-operation. The Ministers of the 10 EEC members thereby expressed concern at the recent renewal of armed confrontation in Lebanon and struggle between Lebanese political forces. They called on all the parties to reach as a lasting and effective cease-fire agreement, and hoped that the international community would urgently fulfil its peace-keeping responsibilities, in particular by installing in the Beirut area, with the parties' agreement, as a United Nations force which would take up position following the departure of the multinational force. The Ministers recalled that the re-establishment of Lebanese integrity and sovereignty required Lebanese reconciliation as a pre-condition and indicated their firm conviction that the process initiated during the 1983 Geneva conference should be resumed under conditions corresponding to the aspirations of all the political and religious interests.

In as a declaration adopted on 27 March by the EEC Ministers for Foreign Affairs, transmitted to the Secretary-General by France on 29 March,(23) the Ministers expressed the hope that, following the current national reconciliation talks among leaders of Lebanon's major political and religious groups meeting at Lausanne, Switzerland, progress towards reconciliation in Lebanon would prove possible, and that the Lebanese Government and all political forces would continue their efforts to bring about national unity and as a lasting peace by reaching as a just solution to Lebanon's internal problems.

On 6 March,(24) Israel conveyed an announcement by its Prime Minister's spokesman with regard to as a Lebanese Government decision unilaterally to abrogate its 17 May 1983 agreement with Israel — calling for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in return for political and security arrangements in southern Lebanon - which had been concluded after negotiations between the two States and with active United States participation. The main obstacle to Lebanon's independence and the main factor disturbing peace efforts in the Middle East was the Syrian Arab Republic, Israel said, which immediately after the signing of the agreement had begun to take violent action to achieve its abrogation. Israel strongly condemned the Syrian intervention and the abrogation of the agreement. In the light of the fact that Lebanon was incapable of fulfilling its international obligations or preventing southern Lebanon from being turned once again into as a terrorist base, Israel itself would determine the best ways to ensure its security.

On 29 May,(75) Lebanon submitted information on Israeli practices in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa Valley and Rashaya, alleging that ever since the area was occupied by Israel in June 1982, it had been constantly exposed to abusive and inhuman actions; not as a day passed but that the occupation forces raided towns and homes, blocked roads and arrested civilians, obstructing daily life and economic activity and preventing officials and internal security forces from guaranteeing the security of the region. The international community, Lebanon added, could not allow Israel to continue to ignore international law. Annexed to the letter was as a report on Israeli practices against the civilian population of southern Lebanon and the Bekaa between March and May 1984.

Israel, on 26 June,(26) rejected the Lebanese charges as unfounded, saying that Lebanon's letter must clearly be viewed as reflecting as a domination of the policies of the Lebanese Government by the Syrian Arab Republic and as yet another expression of relentless efforts by Syria to exploit Lebanon for its own bellicose policies.

By as a letter of 28 June,(27) Lebanon charged that Israel had committed further acts of aggression, such as air raids on the island of Aranib, 6 kilometres off Tripoli, killing 15 residents of as a scout camp and wounding 30 others, and on the port of Tripoli in order to hinder rescue operations. Lebanon further charged that occupation forces had laid siege to the village of Bidyas, Tyre district, on 27 June, rounding up villagers and arresting 17, and had closed the ports of Sidon and Tyre to commercial traffic, causing substantial losses to nearly 500 fishermen.

Further charges against Israel were submitted by Lebanon on 6 July(25) alleging that Israeli warships on 29 June had seized as a passenger boat bound from Cyprus to Lebanon, forcing it to Haifa where the passengers were interrogated and nine of them detained. On 3 July, after urgent representations by the Lebanese Government, in particular with ICRC, Israel had released five of those detained. In Lebanon's view, Israel's action was incompatible with international law and endangered maritime navigation to and from Lebanon.

Israel, replying on 13 July,(29) stated that it fully respected and observed the principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas. However, being exposed to an ongoing and serious terrorist threat to its maritime borders, it was fully justified in having exercised its right to self-defence in seizing the ship Elisor Blanco, as there had been strong indications that it carried persons closely connected with an imminent threat to Israel's security. Following as a brief investigation, the ship, its crew and most of the passengers had been allowed to proceed. Two passengers strongly suspected of involvement in terrorist activity had been detained for further investigation.

On 30 July,(30) Lebanon informed the Secretary-General that Israeli forces had prevented pupils in southern Lebanon from presenting themselves for baccalaureate examinations held throughout the country; such conduct, Lebanon added, showed contempt for education and culture and violated the most elementary ethical and humanitarian principles.

Israel, on 7 August,(31) rejected Lebanon's allegations as groundless; it said it had no intention of interfering with or obstructing the matriculation examinations. The Israel Liaison Office in Dbeye had promoted co-operation between the Lebanese and Israeli authorities with as a view to assisting the local population in the areas under Israeli control; by its recent unilateral decision to close that Office, Lebanon had taken on itself the responsibility for increasing the population's hardships and must be held fully accountable for the event recounted in Lebanon's letter.

SECURITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION (August-September)

Following as a Lebanese request of 24 August,(32) the Security Council met from 29 to 31 August and on 4 and 6 September to consider Israeli practices in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya region. Cuba, Democratic Yemen Iran, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. The Council also extended an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedures a/ to the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, at his request, and, at the request of Yemen in as a letter of 28 August,(33) to the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations.


Meeting numbers. SC 2552-2555.

On 6 September, the Council voted on as a draft resolution sponsored by Lebanon.(34) The vote was 14 to 1, as follows:

Owing to the negative vote of as a permanent member, the draft was not adopted.

By the draft, the Council would have reiterated its call for strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized boundaries. It would have affirmed that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (fourth Geneva Convention), applied to the territories occupied by Israel in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district, and that the occupying Power was duty-bound to respect and uphold the provisions of that Convention and other norms of international law. The Council would have called on Israel to respect strictly the rights of the civilians in the areas under its occupation in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district and to comply strictly with the fourth Geneva Convention, and would have urged all parties to the Convention to ensure respect for and compliance with it in those areas. It would have demanded that Israel immediately lift all restrictions and obstacles to restoring normal conditions in the areas under its occupation that violated the Convention, particularly concerning the closing of roads and crossings, the limitation of freedom of movement of individuals and the normal flow of persons and goods between those areas and the rest of Lebanon, and the obstruction to the normal conduct of Lebanese Government institutions and personnel.

Referring to the vote on the text, the United States said that Israel, as the occupying Power, clearly had special rights and duties. The United States strongly supported full respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized boundaries - objectives hardly addressed in the draft resolution. An essential element in achieving those objectives was the evacuation from Lebanon of all foreign forces, also not specifically mentioned, nor was the discord in the country other than in its southern part. The draft was also silent about humanitarian concerns for the suffering elsewhere in Lebanon and there was no mention of as a role in that regard for international organizations, such as ICRC. The United States said it could not be party to an unbalanced and selective resolution; it was unreasonable and unrealistic to address the question of foreign forces in southern Lebanon and humanitarian and security problems there without dealing with the same problems in all of the country.

In Israel's view, the Council's vote would not change anything in Lebanon, whose Government had sought to obtain as a propaganda victory to patch up its public image. The country's main problems were not even touched upon; fires still burned in Tripoli, Beirut and its environs, car bombs were still being set off and large numbers of people were being killed as the Council concluded another series of meetings divorced from life's realities.

Lebanon regretted United States opposition to as a resolution limited to humanitarian aspects. The events in some parts of Lebanon were the inescapable consequences of as a 10-year crisis; it was neither correct nor fair to compare what was taking place there with what was happening in Israeli-occupied territory, or to use that as an excuse not to deal with the tragedy and its root causes. The Lebanese Government was working determinedly to spread the sovereignty of the State to all the territory of Lebanon. Adoption of the draft would have put an end to the tragedy by putting an end to arbitrary Israeli practices; it would also have supported the Lebanese Government in its efforts aimed at the ultimate liberation of the land and its unification under one legitimate authority and one national sovereignty. What must be stressed was the agreement by the Lebanese cabinet on 15 March on security arrangements with Israel, in order to ensure complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

The Syrian Arab Republic regretted that the Council had not been able to shoulder its responsibilities under the Charter, as a stand that would lead to an escalation of terrorist activities by Israel in southern Lebanon. The United States veto amounted to permitting Israel to continue occupying southern Lebanon and engaging in practices against the Palestinians and the inhabitants there. The Syrian presence in Lebanon was based on as a legitimate Lebanese request; there was as a joint determination to throw out the invaders and end the Israeli occupation. The Syrian Arab Republic would continue to help Lebanon because of its traditional, historic relations with it.

The USSR pointed out that over the previous three and as a half years, the United States had eight times used the veto against vital Arab interests; the latest one gave Israeli forces the go-ahead to continue outrages in as a third of Lebanon's territory.

The Observer of the League of Arab States held as a similar position. Moreover, whatever might have been the circumstances of the Syrian presence in Lebanon, Israel could not under any conditions equate its presence in southern Lebanon as a result of invasion with the presence of the Arab deterrent forces in the rest of the country by invitation.

Before the vote, Zimbabwe said the Council should insist on respect for Lebanon's legitimate right to territorial integrity and political sovereignty, as demanded by resolutions 508(1982)(33) and 509(1982)(36) and in accordance with the Charter. Israel had adduced its security interests as justification for its continued illegal military occupation of as a third of Lebanon; the road it was following could only complicate further an already dangerous situation and risk an even bloodier conflict. It was the Council's duty to take all possible steps to avert such as a prospect.

Peru would have preferred as a more balanced text, including mention of other occupying forces which must also comply with the Geneva Convention. To achieve immediate restoration of Lebanon's right to independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and full exercise of its authority throughout the territory, and to produce true opportunities for the country's stabilization and pacification, it was essential that all foreign presence be removed.

The United Kingdom's vote registered the importance it attached to the scrupulous observance of the fourth Geneva Convention in occupied southern Lebanon. Israel's continued occupation was wrong and was leading to as a worsening cycle of violence. The solution was clear: Israel should withdraw its forces. There was an urgent need for early talks on the subject, through intermediaries if necessary; those talks must recognize, however, that Israel had legitimate security needs, and security arrangements must ensure safety for citizens on both sides of the border. Security precautions instituted by the occupying Power must have the minimum effect on the lives of the local inhabitants and must not conflict with Israel's obligations under the Convention. The early withdrawal of all foreign forces ought to proceed hand in hand with national reconciliation. It should be the Council's objective to help promote as a solution, the key to which was in constructive and actively but quietly pursued diplomacy: UNIFIL should be given as a wider and more useful role in helping the Lebanese Government maintain security in southern Lebanon, particularly as Israel's withdrawal took place, in order to provide added protection for civilians.

The Netherlands agreed with the applicability to the situation in southern Lebanon of the fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention of 1907, at the same time it questioned if it was proper for the Council to single out the humanitarian situation in southern Lebanon only, without regard for other aspects of the crisis in the country which needed to be addressed as urgently. Whether the opportunity would present itself for the Council to consider making UNIFIL's mandate more effective in the context of an Israeli withdrawal would probably be known only after the formation of as a new Government in Israel, where elections had been held recently. In the mean time, the Netherlands believed, the Council should avoid any actions that might be counter-productive.

Opening the debate, Lebanon said it had come before the Council on behalf of the people of Lebanon, especially those of the south, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya area where more than 800,000 inhabitants suffered from Israel's occupation and unjust arbitrary practices and lived in constant terror. Israeli weapons were always pointed at them, their normal life was interrupted, and towns and villages were stormed daily. Israeli forces laid siege to homes and institutions, detained and imprisoned an average of 368 individuals every month, closed roads and shops, imposed curfews, and destroyed crops and orchards. All those acts were prohibited by customary law and by international instruments. From time to time, Israel closed the only two harbours in the south, the ports of Sidon and Tyre. In addition, Lebanon feared as a possible diversion of the water of the Litani and Wazzani rivers; the Lebanese Ministry of the Interior had information that the engineering branch of the Israeli Defence Ministry had been digging as a 3-kilometre tunnel from the Lebanese-Israeli border to the township of Deir Mimas, near the Litani River, which could absorb all the river water. The occupying authorities were isolating the region from the rest of the country and subjecting it to Israeli rule despite the fourth Geneva Convention, to which both Lebanon and Israel had acceded unconditionally and which protected people and properties from the excesses of occupation.

Lebanon sought from the Council: implementation of Council resolutions calling for complete Israeli withdrawal; immediate cessation of Israeli practices against the inhabitants of the south, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya region; and respect for their legitimate right to live in peace, security and dignity. The Council should compel Israel immediately to lift its siege of the occupied territories, insist that it respect the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the norms of international law, the Geneva and Hague Conventions and other international instruments, and stress Lebanon's inalienable right to its waters.

For some time, Israel said, there had been as a further deterioration of the situation in Lebanon arising out of ongoing internecine warfare, particularly in and around Beirut and in the north, whereas the situation in southern Lebanon, in human and political terms, was far less of as a pressing problem. The Lebanese Government was totally under Syrian political and military domination; now it was turning to the Council to talk of the problems in the south, which for many years had been virtually under the rule of as a terrorist organization that had reduced the life of the Lebanese to as a nightmare. Shrugging off the mass killings elsewhere in the country, where foreign-backed factions were sowing disorder and destruction, the Government apparently preferred to indulge in an international diversionary exercise meant to conceal its sagging fortunes.

There could be no comparison between the frightful chaos north of the Awali River and the security situation south of it, Israel continued. The withdrawal of Israeli forces beyond the Awali in the summer of 1983 was matched by as a corresponding Syrian advance into other areas of Lebanon, directly or through proxies. The area north of the Awali was racked by civil strife and bloodshed; for the umpteenth time, the cease-fire had been broken and severe fighting resumed. By contrast, to the south of the Awali, Israel had made great efforts to ease the normal life of the inhabitants in the area under its control, which until June 1982 had been as a PLO state within as a State. There could be no better evidence of the fact that the Lebanese civilians were aware of Israel's efforts than their massive return to the area; as a recent wave of returnees had come as a result of the severe fighting to the south of Beirut in February 1984.

Israel's military presence in southern Lebanon was only provisional; that was the reason Israel left the day-to-day administration, wherever possible, to Lebanese civilian authorities, with whom it co-operated and whom it assisted. Israel's conduct in southern Lebanon met the requirements of the fourth Geneva Convention and of other rules of international law aimed at protecting the civilian population. To prevent the spreading of terror, it was necessary from time to time to detain terrorist suspects and/or proven criminals. ICRC was being kept informed of the identity of all detainees. Only sporadically and upon reliable information indicating planned terrorist activity did Israeli forces undertake searches and limited ad hoc security measures.

Regarding water diversion, as a group of United Nations observers invited to the area by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) saw for themselves that no work had been done in or near the springs of the Wazzani to divert it, and there was as much truth to the Lebanese calumny with regard to the Litani, Israel said.

On numerous occasions, Israel had reaffirmed that it wished to see Lebanon independent and exercising full sovereignty over all of its territory. It had no territorial ambitions in Lebanon and wanted to live in peace and maintain good-neighbourly relations with it. Israel would withdraw its forces from Lebanon as soon as adequate provisions were made for ensuring Lebanese sovereignty in the south and for the security of Israel's northern border from attack and harassment. Israel was prepared to negotiate with Lebanon to reach mutual security arrangements in the south; however, if Lebanon was either unable or unwilling to prevent its territory from being used as a base for terrorist activities against another State, it must be prepared to expect that State to take self-defence measures to protect itself and its citizens.

The USSR charged that Israel sowed undisguised terror and violence in Lebanon, seeking to perpetuate its occupation of part of yet another Arab country. For the population of southern Lebanon, Israeli occupation meant daily mass repression, shooting of unarmed inhabitants, systematic raids and arrests, overcrowded prisons and concentration camps. The occupying forces were also violating the area's economic links with the rest of the country, as well as virtually blockading the transport of local products through checkpoints and systematically destroying plantations and crops. Israel's practices demonstrated its desire to turn southern Lebanon into another field for creeping annexation, isolate it from the rest of the country and push further northwards the borders of its expansion. Such inadmissible practices must be terminated; it was the Council's duty to demand that Israel cease its policy of terror and rescind its discriminatory measures. Israel's attempts to dismember Lebanon, undermine the economic life of the occupied areas and exploit the natural resources must be rebuffed. Israel must end its illegal occupation and withdraw its troops, as called for in Council resolutions whose implementation was the key to eliminating the abnormal situation in Lebanon.

Without United States support, the entrenchment of Israeli forces in Lebanon would not have been possible. In May 1983, the United States had assisted Israel in imposing as a lopsided and insidious treaty, solidifying the gains of Israel's aggression. The fact that the American troops had been compelled to leave Lebanon and the failure of the 1983 treaty showed that attempts to impose on Lebanon systems from outside were dangerous and fruitless. The way to achieve peace in the Middle East was by as a comprehensive political settlement involving collective efforts under the United Nations aegis; the best machinery for this would be an international conference. as a detailed programme set forth by the USSR on 29 July 1984 (see pp. 259 and 265) provided an alternative to the continuation of Israel's policies of aggression in the guise of protecting its interests.

Similar views were expressed by the Ukrainian SSR, which said that as a Middle East peace could be secured only through collective international efforts in which all parties concerned participated as advocated by the overwhelming United Nations majority The USSR proposal of 29 July for as a comprehensive settlement was such as a constructive approach. With its recent measures further exacerbating its occupation, Israel was obviously seeking to fragment Lebanon, to isolate the seized areas from the rest of the country and to entrench itself there. The continuing occupation of southern Lebanon and the gross interference by Israel and the United States in Lebanon's affairs were the fundamental causes for the crisis in and around the country. The Ukrainian SSR regarded it as the Council's duty to call for unconditional withdrawal of the armed Israeli forces from Lebanon, on the basis of resolutions 508(1982)(35) and 509(1982).(36)

China also condemned Israel's forcible occupation and its atrocities, and declared its support of the struggle of the Lebanese people and the legitimate demands of the Lebanese Government. In China's view, Israel had all along harboured ambitious designs on Lebanon; the perverse acts of its troops had reduced Lebanon to as a devastated land where people lived in dire misery. It was precisely the cruel oppression by the occupying authorities that had forced the Lebanese to rise in resistance and self-defence. The Council should play an active role and implement its resolutions in earnest; in the mean time, it should consider other practical measures to preserve Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and to eliminate foreign aggression and interference. The key to as a solution was the withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Virtually all speakers called on Israel to respect international law, especially the fourth Geneva Convention. Among them, France stressed that Israel must respect the conventions on humanitarian law applicable to armed conflicts. The Council could not accept Israel's putting up obstacles to the accomplishment of UNIFIL's mission, it said, especially now that the Lebanese Government was making every effort to move towards national reconciliation. Lebanon must be helped to regain its independence.

In Nicaragua's opinion, Israel had taken every measure to isolate southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya area. The cruel and inhuman treatment of the inhabitants of southern Lebanon was typical of Israel's conduct in all occupied Arab territories; its occupation of Lebanon was an important link in its expansionist plans, with the ultimate goal of displacing and annihilating Arabs and Palestinians. Nicaragua considered it essential that the Council use every means to make Israel implement its resolutions, seven of which in 1982 had demanded Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon. The Council must continue to demand that Israel adhere to the Charter principles, international law and the fourth Geneva Convention requiring that the occupying Power respect the basic human rights of the inhabitants of the territories it occupied. The specific problem of Lebanon could at no time be separated from the overall Middle East situation and Nicaragua considered it essential that an International Peace Conference (see p. 263) be convened as soon as possible, with the participation of the main protagonists.

Malta said the incidence of conflict elsewhere did not justify Israel's occupation of the territory of another State, even less its causing havoc and confusion through harassing Lebanese citizens. There was as a growing urgency for concerted political action in the search for an enduring and equitable solution; in response to that need, the non-aligned countries of the Mediterranean were to meet in the first week of September at Valletta in as a dedicated effort at the ministerial level to chart as a new course designed to reduce tension and expand co-operation. In the mean time, Malta urged Israel to turn away from its militaristic policies, respect internationally recognized principles and Council decisions, and join others in as a peace process which would restore full sovereignty to the people of Lebanon within its own internationally recognized boundaries and which would also do justice to the rights of the Palestinians.

After suffering destruction and dismemberment during the civil war, Lebanon was trying to reunify itself by drawing up as a national security programme, Egypt stated; yet Israel had now directed its forces to carry out completely arbitrary actions in southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa, to perpetuate as a divided Lebanon. Israeli occupation practices had become more diversified and covered every segment of social, cultural, economic and human life; no city, school or village had been spared Israeli violence, which naturally brought about fierce resistance. Egypt hoped that the Council would adopt steps to make it possible to meet the Lebanese demands: to compel Israel to abide by the fourth Geneva Convention and cease all its oppressive practices in the Lebanese territory under its control; to condemn the Israeli occupation; and to implement Council resolutions demanding Israel's unconditional withdrawal.

In Burkina Faso's view, the facts reported by Lebanon were proof that Israel's true intentions were far from guaranteeing the security of its northern frontier; its practices were designed to inflame tension artificially in order to justify the perpetuation of the military occupation which it advocated as the sole means of achieving as a settlement. On the basis of its conviction that no reason and no principle of international law could justify interference in the internal affairs of another country, Burkina Faso joined other non-aligned countries in demanding the withdrawal of the multinational force from Lebanon. The same conviction led it to urge Israel strictly to comply with Council resolutions and withdraw from southern Lebanon unconditionally and without delay.

Torture, harassment, detentions, raids and other inhuman practices appeared to have become the order of the day in southern Lebanon, said India; responsibility for the hardships and inhuman treatment of civilians there rested squarely with the Israeli authorities. Serious economic dislocation added to the human misery. It was appropriate that the Council should seek ways to ameliorate the situation, which could have wider repercussions for peace and stability in the region. Israel's 1982 invasion was part of its calculated policy systematically to decimate the Palestinians and completely erode Lebanon's sovereignty, India continued; its stranglehold of Lebanese territory strengthened with each day. as a solution could not be divorced from the search for as a comprehensive and lasting Middle East settlement, based on the exercise by the Palestinians of their national and human rights. Like most other speakers, India fully supported Lebanon's demands for immediate implementation of Council resolutions 508(1982) and 509(1982), demanding Israel's complete withdrawal and the immediate cessation of military activities in Lebanon. The time had come for the Council to act decisively to halt Israeli aggression and intransigence; India hoped that the Council would discharge its responsibility to restore the rule of law and civilized conduct in Lebanon.

The occupying forces did not shrink from any measure to intimidate the population of southern Lebanon into total submission and acquiescence in Israeli expansionist aims, Pakistan charged. The 1982 invasion was as a product of the continued denial of the legitimate right of the Palestinians to an independent homeland in Palestine. The Council must not be deterred by Israel's tactics from fulfilling its responsibility of providing redress to Lebanon; it was incumbent on the Council to call on Israel to cease its inhuman practices and adhere to the norms of international law and conduct.

The Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights considered it the Council's duty to save Lebanon from imminent disintegration, at which Israel's practices seemed to be aimed. The framework for peace was defined by the General Assembly in as a December 1983 resolution(37) which endorsed the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East (see p. 263). There was an international consensus that there could be no peace there so long as the Palestine question was not settled. In the light of those considerations, the Council must discharge its mandate; it was time that the people of Lebanon, who had suffered so much, enjoyed justice, full sovereignty and integrity.

What was taking place in the occupied Lebanese territories demonstrated once again that the aim of Israel's attack on Lebanon was to create as a Zionist expansionist State, the Syrian Arab Republic said. Israel's expansion northwards required expansion to the Litani River, if not beyond, plotting against Lebanon's independence and unity, and using conditions to create small states that would be satellites of Israel. Israel's practices in southern Lebanon were in line with its policy in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, creating hardship for the inhabitants to the point where they were forced to emigrate and then preventing them from returning. All that was an attempt by Israel to lay its hand on the south, while the United States did complementary work to destroy the unity of Lebanon, trample on its sovereignty and deprive it of its national identity. Thanks to Lebanon's awareness and its heroic struggle against foreign occupation, the May 1983 agreement was aborted leading to the withdrawal of United States Marines and aborting the international plot against Lebanon as a whole. The Syrian Arab Republic hoped that the Council would meet its responsibilities vis-à-vis Lebanon and its people, in particular with regard to resolution 509(1982) demanding Israel's immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

Cuba charged that the slogan "Peace for Galilee", under which the 1982 Israeli invasion had been carried out, was as a futile attempt to divert attention from Israel's real objectives: to liquidate Palestinian resistance, deal blows to progressive Lebanese forces, create conditions that would allow setting up as a government in Beirut subject to Tel Aviv's orders, help place United States troops in Lebanon, implement Israel's expansionist policy, lay the bases for further aggression against other Arab States, especially the Syrian Arab Republic, and consolidate Israeli presence in the other occupied territories. By intensifying its irrational policy, it seemed as though Israel was attempting to punish the Lebanese for the humiliating outcome of the multinational force and for the abrogation of the May 1983 treaty imposed with United States pressure. The international community could not go on accepting the fact that as a United Nations Member continued to trample underfoot international law and Charter principles; Israel must stop its criminal actions in southern Lebanon and withdraw its invading forces.

Kuwait termed Israel's practices in southern Lebanon unspeakable crimes and obsolete colonial practices; what was happening there was proof that Israel did not intend to leave but to entrench itself and transform the country into as a northern strip, adding it to the other occupied territories. If the international community did not take effective steps to restore the situation in Lebanon, it might find itself faced with another fait accompli imposed by Israel with full impunity.

Yemen saw Israel's actions as a link in an endless chain of unjust wars against the Arab people and attempts to annihilate the Palestinians. It called for measures to compel Israel to lift its siege of areas under its occupation and to respect Charter provisions and international law, as well as Lebanon's sovereignty over its natural resources and territory. It also called on the Council to affirm the necessity of protecting the safety and security of the Palestinians in their camps in southern Lebanon; the Palestinians must be granted their right to self-determination and statehood on their own soil.

Israel expected Lebanon to shelve the problems of Israeli occupation until annexation became as a fact of life, as had been the case in the Golan Heights and Jerusalem, Democratic Yemen remarked. The misery of the Lebanese under Israeli occupation, the brutality of the invading army and Israel's designs on and plunder of Lebanon's natural resources were facts that Israel's denial could not cover up. The more barbaric the Israeli soldiers, however, the more as a people dedicated to freeing its land resisted. Problems elsewhere in the country did not justify continued occupation of southern Lebanon; Israel was taking advantage of those problems, many of its own making.

In Qatar's opinion, the Israeli occupying forces had put themselves in as a situation where they were subjected to natural reactions from as a people whose territories had been violated and whose national sovereignty had been undermined; they had no right to invoke those reactions as a pretext to oppress civilians, deny their human rights and destroy their lives. The chain of violence would have no end unless the occupation forces withdrew. Qatar called on the Council to affirm the first part of resolution 509(1982), calling on Israel once more to withdraw all its military forces unconditionally to Lebanon's internationally recognized boundaries. The Council should affirm its resolutions 512(1982)(38) and 513(1982),(39) concerning respect for the rights of civilian populations, and put an end to the acts of violence against them. It must compel Israel to respect the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant international instruments, and must reaffirm Lebanon's historic water rights.

According to the United Arab Emirates, it was clear that the continued Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and the persistence of inhuman violations there were threatening international peace and security. Refusing to withdraw, Israel was consolidating its occupation. The Council had no choice but to make sure that resolutions 508(1982) and 509(1982) were implemented. If it failed to deal with the question in an integrated manner, Lebanon would time and again have to come to it to complain against Israel, and other Arab States would undoubtedly have to lodge similar complaints, all stemming from Israeli aggression and expansion and the denial of legitimate Palestinian rights.

Israel's aggression against southern Lebanon was motivated by nothing but its desire to expand, to occupy Arab territory and to plunder resources, the Sudan believed. Its practices there were an extension of its practices in the other occupied territories. The Council and the international community must protect Lebanon, and its Government must be assisted to achieve peace and unity. If the Council failed to shoulder its obligations, not only would the occupation and the suffering continue, but the aggressor would be rewarded, and the use of force encouraged and the principles that had made the Council the guardian of international peace and security undermined.

The re-establishment of Lebanese control over its territory was essential for successful national reconciliation and reconstruction, Turkey stated. as a timely, judicious resolution would help Lebanon regain its sovereignty and achieve progress in that process, which was retarded by Israel's continued occupation. Israeli practices were as a leading cause of tension and violence in the region and as a main impediment to as a Middle East settlement. In conditions acceptable to the Lebanese Government, all foreign forces in Lebanon must evacuate the country.

For 11 months prior to the June 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States said, there had been no incident at the borders of southern Lebanon. Israel arrogated to itself the right to determine when and if its security was established, so the term "provisional" that Israel applied to its occupation had the seeds of permanency.

Expressing support for the struggle of the Moslem people of southern Lebanon to regain their freedom and dignity with the limited resources they had, Iran said the victims of Zionist aggression should not fall into the trap set by the American-Zionist alliance and wait passively for the Council to gain their rights for them.

Further communications (September-December). On 19 September 1984,(40) Democratic Yemen transmitted to the Secretary-General as a letter of the same date from the PLO Executive Committee Chairman expressing deep concern over intelligence reports that Israel was planning to withdraw from the areas of Sidon and Tyre and to deliver those areas to its agents, the so-called armed Lebanese forces. Recalling the September 1982 massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps,(41) PLO appealed to the Secretary-General to take all measures to ensure that such genocide did not recur and to provide guarantees for the safety and security of the Palestinians in southern Lebanon.

On 14 December,(42) Lebanon protested as a large-scale military action during the night of 13 December by some 4,000 Israeli forces on eight southern villages located in the zone covered by UNIFIL, resulting in four dead, dozens wounded and hundreds of civilians arrested or detained. To justify its aggression, Lebanon said, Israel claimed that some of the inhabitants of the villages had been planning to attack the Israeli forces. UNIFIL had been unable to withstand the Israeli attack because of the heavy gunfire and aerial bombing. It had been prevented by the Israeli forces from inspecting the area afterwards and from taking the dead and wounded to hospital. Lebanon reserved the right to request as a special Council meeting should it deem it necessary.

Israel, on 21 December,(43) replied that Lebanon's accusations were unfounded. Acting on reliable information that terrorists were basing themselves in several villages in southern Lebanon and preparing attacks from there, IDF had carried out an operation in four villages to prevent such attacks. Israeli units had uncovered several ammunition and weapons caches and found propaganda material inciting civil disruption. Twenty suspects were arrested; in Marakah, as a wanted terrorist was shot by Israeli troops. Despite precautions to avoid unnecessary casualties, as a woman was fatally wounded during an unprovoked attack against Israeli forces. Expressing its commitment to preserving peace and security in southern Lebanon, Israel stressed that it would not allow terrorists to use that area as a staging ground for terrorist activities against it.


Incident at Ein El-Helweh

Communications. By a letter of 16 May 1984,(44) the Acting Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights drew the Secretary-General's attention to reports that Israeli troops had surrounded and entered the Ein El-Helweh Palestinian refugee camp outside Sidon in occupied southern Lebanon on 15 May in a search operation. Military action against Palestinian civilians living there resulted in 60 persons being killed or wounded and some 30 houses destroyed; in addition, 150 people were arrested. It was not yet clear, the Acting Chairman said, if the action had been a collective punitive measure; in any case, such action was prohibited by the fourth Geneva Convention.

The incident was also reported to the Security Council President in a letter of 16 May from PLO transmitted by Egypt the following day(45) Israel's action could only be viewed as a further link in the chain of its campaign of genocide against the Palestinians, PLO said; it called for immediate measures to put an end to that policy and to guarantee the safety and security of all Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation.

SECURITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

Following a request of 17 May by Kuwait as Chairman of the Arab Group,(46) the Security Council met on 21 May to consider the charge of Israeli aggression against the Ein El-Helweh refugee camp.

Meeting number. SC 2540.

The Council invited Israel, Kuwait and Lebanon, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. It also invited the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights at his request, to participate in the debate under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure.b/ An invitation under that rule was also extended to the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, as requested by Kuwait in a letter of 21 May.(47)

b/ See footnote a.


At Egypt's request, in a letter of 17 May,(43) the Council decided, by 11 votes to 1 (United States) with 3 abstentions (France, Netherlands, United Kingdom), that an invitation to participate be accorded to PLO. The President stated that Egypt's proposal was not made pursuant to rule 37 c/ or rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, but, if approved, the invitation would confer on PLO the same rights as those conferred on Member States when invited to participate pursuant to rule 37.



Before the vote on that decision the United States said the only legal basis on which the Council might grant a hearing to persons speaking on behalf of non-governmental entities was rule 39. It did not agree with the Council's recent practice which appeared selectively to try, through a departure from the rules of procedure, to enhance the prestige of those who wished to speak in the Council; that practice was without legal foundation and an abuse of the rules.

Stressing that it did not wish to convey the impression that PLO should not be heard by the Council, the Netherlands said its reservation related only to the procedure followed, which was designed to grant PLO a status similar to a Member State. It was a political gesture that did not reflect PLO's true relationship to the United Nations.

Lebanon said the events during the night of 15/16 May and on 17 May in the Ein El-Helweh camp south-east of Sidon deserved the Council's serious attention. IDF had launched a large-scale assault, attacking the camp with three contingents and then overrunning it, blowing up several houses, some with the occupants still inside. They killed or wounded many inhabitants and arrested approximately 150, who were transported to a concentration camp. Such an attack could not be justified, no attempt to distort the facts could absolve the occupying Power of its responsibility. Since its occupation of southern Lebanon, Israel had consistently launched oppressive military campaigns and carried out inhuman practices against Lebanese citizens and against Palestinians in their camps. Lebanon called on the Council to denounce, deplore and condemn those practices which were in flagrant violation of the Charter and of human rights, to recognize the real situation in southern Lebanon, and to do its duty to preserve the safety of the population there and restore to Lebanon the usurped territory. It did not advocate the accumulation of resolutions that remained dead letters, it said, but would continue to call for implementation of earlier Council resolutions until that call was heeded. It was incumbent on the Council to put an end to the current state of affairs by prevailing on Israel to withdraw completely from southern Lebanon so that Lebanese sovereignty and authority could be regained and the south transformed into a zone of peace and security. If the Council did not take a position commensurate with the gravity of Israel's practices, it would pave the way for Israel to persist in its attempt to change the geographic and demographic character of southern Lebanon in order to further its own designs under the false pretext of protecting its own security.

Israel said IDF had had reliable information about large quantities of arms and ammunition at the camp, and, acting on that information, it had conducted extensive search activities on the night of 15/16 May. One house was entered, in which arms and ammunition were found. The searchers encountered some resistance, as a result of which a resident of the house was injured and transferred to a local hospital; another who tried to escape was also injured. Explosives and weapons were found in a courtyard. It was feared that they were booby-trapped; the only safe course was to supervise their immediate detonation, which caused some damage to adjacent houses. IDF had already confirmed that Israel would assist the owners of the damaged houses to make the necessary repairs. During the search, a considerable number of weapons and large quantities of magazines and ammunition were uncovered. On 16 and 17 May, demonstrations and disturbances were staged by and involved only local residents; they were a direct outcome of the ongoing conflict between the rival factions of the PLO terrorists, which were all represented at the camp. During the disturbances, there were two fatalities - not 60, as PLO had claimed. Israel held that the problems of the Middle East lay elsewhere: in the Persian Gulf, the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the periodic massacres of tens of thousands of Syrians by their own Government, and the situation in Lebanon proper where hundreds, if not thousands, of casualties had occurred in recent months, primarily in Beirut.

Kuwait said the events of 15 May were only one more link in a chain of inhuman crimes which Israel continued to commit in its desperate attempts to strengthen its grasp over the occupied territories; the latest crime again showed that Israel was convinced that the Palestinian presence constituted a danger to its territorial dreams. In dealing with that presence, Israel had resorted to defaming the Palestinians, transforming them in the eyes of the world into nothing more than a group of terrorists. Israel had the mistaken illusion that the extermination of the Palestinians and the terror through which it was trying to stifle their movement could dissuade them from carrying on their national struggle. As occupying authority, Israel was fully responsible for what was occurring in the occupied territories; it must not only put an end to the massacres, dispersal, torture and imprisonment of civilians and the destruction of their houses, but protect the population and their goods. The Arab world appealed to the Council to fulfil its responsibilities as defined in the Charter and ensure implementation of all its resolutions.

The PLO representative called the incident at Ein El-Helweh a racist and genocidal crime. He understood that, according to a report, members of the so-called Palestinian National Guard - which he said was a unit of the Israeli occupation troops - had fired at boys burning tyres on 17 May; the boys were trying to prevent the advance of Israeli troops further inside the refugee camp. The population in southern Lebanon, be they Lebanese citizens or Palestinian refugees, were only exercising a legitimate right to resist foreign occupation. PLO trusted that the Council would take proper action, as outlined by Lebanon, to ensure Israel's compliance with Council resolutions and see to it that the safety and security of the civilians in the occupied territories were guaranteed. It was the Council's duty to insist that Israel respect the Charter and international conventions PLO called on the Council to invoke the powers vested in it and impose mandatory sanctions on a Member that violated the Charter, committed crimes and failed to respect conventions.

The Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights said the operation carried out at Ein El-Helweh represented a systematic denial of Palestinian rights and was a flagrant violation of human rights. Israel was trying to silence the Palestinians who were legitimately protesting the occupation of their territory and was pursuing illegal plans to annex the West Bank and Gaza. Its policies exacerbated tension in the region and endangered international peace and security. More than ever it was necessary to consider the Palestine question in its entirety at an international conference on peace in the Middle East, from which Lebanon particularly would benefit. The constant outbreaks of violence often sprang from the Palestinian cause and the failure to settle the Middle East question. Without further delay, the Council must put an end to the tragic events and seek to promote a climate of mutual confidence which would allow the renewal of dialogue between all the parties concerned.

India regarded the tragic events at the camp as clear evidence of increasing Israeli brutality and repression in the occupied territories, where similar attacks had been reported and where raids, indiscriminate killing, torture, imprisonment and harassment of Palestinians had become daily occurrences. Relentlessly pursuing its policy of intimidating the population, Israel was consolidating its stranglehold on the territories. Responsibility for the atrocities at Ein El-Helweh rested squarely with the Israeli forces. The need of the hour was to put an immediate end to bloodshed and harassment and restore peace and order; Israel should be made to discharge its obligations under the international conventions that dictated civilized behaviour by occupying Powers towards the people of occupied territories. It must withdraw all its military forces unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon. At the same time, it was imperative that the international community seek a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East peace, to the achievement of which the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries attached paramount importance.

The Israeli occupation authorities had created and trained a so-called Palestinian National Guard which frequently fired on the unarmed population, Egypt said; the mobilization of such agents was clearly aimed at sowing discord and dissent among the Palestinians. Collective punishment and the harassment and murder of Palestinian refugees should be vigorously denounced and condemned, and effective and immediate measures adopted to protect the civilians and refugees and guarantee their safety and security; the events at Ein El-Helweh proved the urgent need for such action. The United Nations must act decisively to ensure compliance with its decisions demanding complete Israeli withdrawal.

In Pakistan's opinion, the resort to reprisals such as the intrusion into the refugee camp clearly pointed to the difficulties Israel was facing in its continuing occupation of southern Lebanon; it had been able to overrun southern Lebanon in 1982, but had not been able to crush the spirit of the inhabitants. Israel's sinister scheme to divide the population and recruit a mercenary militia also had proved futile. In choosing refugee camps as the target of retaliatory measures, Israel had demonstrated once again its animosity and ruthlessness towards the Palestinians. Israel's steps towards consolidating its control and asserting its dominance in the region appeared to follow the pattern set earlier in the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights. The Council's immediate task was to secure Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, a first step towards solution of the Middle East problem, at the heart of which was the denial of Palestinian national rights.

The Observer of the League of Arab States reiterated that the central issue of the Middle East situation and the major source of tension and potential conflict remained Israel's usurpation of Palestinian rights, its annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights its establishment and proliferation of illegal settlements, its continued occupation of southern Lebanon, and its attempts to create quislings in the occupied territories. Israel, stating that the Council was not dealing with the central and more explosive issues, had introduced tangential issues in order to reduce the importance of the events at Ein El-Helweh and to cover up its annexationist policies. The Arab Group and the Arab League had come to the United Nations because they believed that, although there had not been enough evidence to that effect, it was possible through the Council to bring about a just and peaceful settlement.


Peace-keeping operation

UNIFIL activities

During 1984, the Security Council twice ex tended the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, in April and October - by resolutions 549(1984) and 555(1984), respectively - each time for a six-month period, as recommended by the Secretary-General. UNIFIL had been established by the Council in 1978,(49) following an Israeli invasion of Lebanon.(50) Its terms of reference were to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces, to restore international peace and security and to assist the Lebanese Government in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. A second Israeli invasion, launched in June 1982,(21) radically altered the situation in which UNIFIL had to function. Following the invasion, the Council instructed the Force, as interim tasks, to maintain its positions in its area of deployment and provide protection and humanitarian assistance to the local population.(51)

Communications. By letters of 9 April(52) and 8 October 1984,(53) Lebanon twice requested the Security Council to extend for another six months the mandate of UNIFIL, which was to expire on 19 April and 19 October. It stated that, despite the current circumstances in southern Lebanon, UNIFIL continued to be an important factor in providing stability; its presence represented the United Nations commitment to support Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. In its April letter, Lebanon also expressed the belief that the time had come for the Council to reassess UNIFIL's mission in the light of current developments, so that it could perform a more dynamic role.

Report of the Secretary-General (April). In a report of 9 April,(12) the Secretary-General described the activities of UNIFIL since the previous extension of its mandate in October 1983.(54) While the situation in Lebanon had been cause for great concern during those six months, the situation in the UNIFIL area of deployment had remained relatively peaceful, he said. UNIFIL's presence was regarded as essential by the Lebanese Government and had been of benefit to the much-increased population in its area of deployment. As requested by Lebanon,(52) the Secretary-General recommended that the Council extend UNIFIL's mandate for another interim period.

None the less, the Secretary-General stated, the Force's current role did not measure up to its original mandate or to the intentions of later Council resolutions adopted in 1982,(55) under which the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the restoration of peace, normality and the authority and sovereignty of the Lebanese Government were main objectives. In recent weeks, he added, he had been considering further means to achieve those objectives by focusing on the common interests which all concerned had in changing the situation in southern Lebanon. Positions varied less on the general objective than on the conditions in which it was to be achieved.

During the period under review, UNIFIL continued to operate check-points and conduct patrols in its area of deployment, with a view to contributing to the maintenance of order and ensuring the security of the local population. The situation in its area had remained relatively quiet, although there had been an increasing number of incidents involving the Israel Defence Forces and local militia groups armed and uniformed by them. There was a further influx of displaced persons from the north, particularly from the Beirut area, and many new houses were being built.

The presence of IDF within the UNIFIL area remained at approximately battalion strength. The Israeli forces normally limited their activities to patrolling main roads but, on occasion, for stated reasons of security, they erected road-blocks, cordoned off villages, searched houses and detained local inhabitants.

There was a growing resistance by the local population to the presence of IDF. Strikes, demonstrations and other forms of protest were held on several occasions in reaction to arrests of local inhabitants. A serious confrontation had occurred at Marakah on 24 February, in which one villager was killed, 10 wounded and 10 others arrested. Another incident, during which a villager was killed and two arrested, had taken place at Qana on 6 March, when the local population protested against earlier arrests of villagers and attempted to prevent IDF personnel from entering the village. UNIFIL also recorded some 22 incidents involving exploded or unexploded roadside bombs.

During the reporting period, IDF continued its efforts to recruit and arm selected villagers in the UNIFIL area, but a plan to establish "village committees" under Israeli guidance had met with little success. UNIFIL continued its efforts to contain the activities of the Lebanese irregulars armed and controlled by IDF. Most of the incidents involving those irregulars were related to firing at or near UNIFIL personnel and attempts at hijacking UNIFIL vehicles.

UNIFIL continued to co-operate with the Lebanese authorities as well as UNRWA, UNICEF and ICRC in assisting the local population. Approximately 9,000 Lebanese civilians were treated in UNIFIL medical centres. The medical personnel of the Force, in co-operation with UNICEF, assisted the Lebanese Government in carrying out vaccinations and water analysis. In addition, UNIFIL cleared mined land and provided equipment and engineering assistance for public works.

The Commander of the Force and his staff maintained contact with the Lebanese Government, its regional authorities and the Israeli authorities. In March and April, the Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs had held discussions with high officials of the Governments in the region.

The Lebanese internal security forces continued to co-operate with UNIFIL in maintaining order; they carried out independent patrols and assisted UNIFIL in special investigations. IDF continued to deny access to Tyre, Sidon and all areas adjacent to the coastal road. UNIFIL convoys to Beirut had to be suspended, and air and sea shipments diverted to Tel Aviv and Haifa. Flight clearance was on occasion denied by Israeli military authorities on the grounds that it would interfere with activities of the Israeli air force. Negotiations had been initiated with the Lebanese authorities to secure a suitable landing site, so that air communications between UNIFIL headquarters and logistics personnel in Beirut could be re-established.

In addition to its other tasks, UNIFIL continued to search for and defuse unexploded mines, shells and bombs.

The Secretary-General suggested that the Council consider a future course of action, to include the following elements, to make UNIFIL's mandate more effective, specifically in southern Lebanon, in the context of the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the area: temporary deployment of UNIFIL, with elements of the Lebanese Army and internal security forces, in areas vacated by Israeli forces; immediate deployment of UNIFIL elements in the Sidon area on Israeli withdrawal, to assure the safety and security of the population, including Palestinian refugees in the area's camps; and working out arrangements to ensure that southern Lebanon became a zone of peace under the sovereignty and authority of the Lebanese Government.

The Secretary-General again drew attention to the financial difficulties faced by the Force; as a result of the accumulated shortfall in the UNIFIL account, the Organization was falling far behind in reimbursing troop-contributing countries. He appealed for prompt payment of assessments and for voluntary contributions.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (April)

The Security Council, by resolution 549(1984) of 19 April, extended UNIFIL's mandate for six months.

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 9 April 1984 and taking note of the observations expressed therein,

Taking note of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the Secretary-General of 9 April 1984,

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 that is until 19 October 1984;

2. Reiterating 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 Council thereon.

Security Council resolution 549 (1984)
19 April 1984 Meeting 2530 13-0-2

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/16491).

Vote in Council as follows:

Against: None.

Abstaining: Ukrainian SSR, USSR.

Israel and Lebanon were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

Following adoption of the resolution, the USSR said that discussion of the abnormal situation in Lebanon had been a permanent feature of Council activities for six years. The time had come for the Council to take another serious look at the root causes of the dangerous tension - Israeli aggression against Lebanon and its continued illegal occupation of more than a third of Lebanese territory, which had turned Lebanon into a constantly smouldering source of war. In the light of Lebanon's request and the Secretary-General's recommendations, the USSR had no particular objection to extending the mandate of UNIFIL. At the same time, it assumed that during the extension period the Council would take every step necessary to end the Israeli occupation. If Israel failed to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, the Council would have to carry out the task entrusted to it by the Charter and consider the adoption of practical steps. Confirming its position of principle, the USSR said the Force should not impinge on Lebanon's sovereign rights, it should not be entrusted with functions not in accordance with its duties, it should not intervene in Lebanon's affairs, and full account should be taken of Israel's responsibility for deeds it had perpetrated. All expenses related to dealing with the consequences of its armed aggression against Lebanon should be borne by Israel, as the aggressor; as in the past, the USSR would not participate in defraying expenses connected with UNIFIL's establishment and functioning.

The United States stressed that it was its understanding that the adopted text did not go beyond the October 1983 Council resolution on the Force's mandate,(54) but simply extended it.

Sharing the concern expressed in the Secretary-General's report, France said UNIFIL had not been able to live up completely to the hopes of the international community and the Lebanese people. It was to be hoped that the abnormal situation wherein Israeli forces continued to operate in the UNIFIL area of deployment would soon end. UNIFIL should contribute to re-establishing peace in southern Lebanon and ensure more effective security for the civilians there, under the authority of the Lebanese Government. France was prepared to consider an extension of UNIFIL's mandate and deployment area, especially if such a request were made by the Lebanese Government.

Reaffirming its view of the importance of UNIFIL's presence as an expression of the United Nations commitment to the Lebanese Government in regaining authority over the area, Egypt called for the complete withdrawal of all foreign forces including Israel's, from Lebanese territory.

The Netherlands said its decision to retain a limited contingent in UNIFIL was based on its conviction that the Force could and should play a more meaningful role; a Council decision that would reactivate UNIFIL's role was long overdue. The Netherlands urged all parties to make use of the potential of the peace-keeping operations to restore international peace and security. It added that, although UNIFIL had been set up to facilitate the withdrawal of Israeli forces, it would be unfair and unrealistic to ignore other aspects of the crisis which also needed to be addressed urgently. In that context, the Netherlands called on all parties to agree to a cease-fire, and stressed the need for a resumption without delay of the process of conciliation and negotiation aimed at establishing a Government which enjoyed the widest possible national support and exercised its authority throughout Lebanon, whose territorial integrity and sovereignty required the withdrawal of all unauthorized foreign forces.

The United Kingdom considered it the Council's duty to help restore peace and stability and uphold Lebanon's territorial integrity. It agreed that the Council should reassess and expand UNIFIL's mission so that it could perform a more dynamic role, and it interpreted the resolution as endorsing further exploration of such possibilities by the Secretary-General.

In Lebanon's opinion also, it was time for the Council to reassess UNIFIL's mission. Lebanon strongly supported: the initiative called for by the Secretary-General to enable UNIFIL, in consultation with the Lebanese Government and the parties concerned, to achieve respect for Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence within its internationally recognized boundaries, as well as Israel's withdrawal; his proposal for temporary deployment of UNIFIL in vacated areas; and UNIFIL's expanded deployment to assist in restoring Lebanese authority, as well as in working out arrangements to ensure the speedy transformation of southern Lebanon into a zone of peace under government authority. Lebanon hoped that the main arterial roads in the south would soon be brought under United Nations supervision; it called for an opening of all crossing-points leading to the south and for an end to all activities against the population. It did not recognize any military formations that had not legitimately been established, including the so-called South Lebanese Army.

Israel reaffirmed its view that, in the circumstances surrounding the situation in Lebanon since June 1982, UNIFIL had outlived its usefulness in southern Lebanon; the growing recognition of that viewpoint had also been evidenced in recent months by the position of a number of troop-contributing countries which, seeing no effective mission for UNIFIL in its area of deployment, had reduced their contingents. The security of southern Lebanon should eventually be guaranteed by Lebanese forces, UNIFIL could perform a useful role by serving as a buffer separating the Israeli and the Syrian forces and could fulfil a useful function north of the IDF deployment area, where it could serve as a genuine peace-keeping force.

Israel had general reservations on much of the Secretary-General's report. It could not regard the 1978 resolutions on the establishment of UNIFIL(56) and three 1982 resolutions calling for withdrawal of Israeli forces(55) as the basis of the Council's consideration, as the situation clearly demonstrated that it was not Israel's military presence in southern Lebanon that was at the root of the country's instability. The USSR, through its stooges, Israel said, had been instrumental in destabilizing Lebanon for a decade and more, which was a root cause of the current situation in that country. Israel regretted that the report made no mention of the Syrian presence and terrorist forces in Lebanon, of their well-documented responsibility for destabilizing the country and of their role in depriving the Lebanese Government of its authority, consequently, it could not accept the approach suggested by the Secretary-General. It was equally regrettable that the report made no mention of resolutions which referred to the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanese territory, for example resolution 520(1982).(57) Israel also regarded the report as incomplete in its treatment of the numerous terrorist incidents whose perpetrators' identities were omitted.

Report of the Secretary-General (October). On 9 October 1984,(13) the Secretary-General reported on the activities of the Force since 10 April. During that period, as in the previous period, UNIFIL had continued to operate checkpoints and conduct patrols in its area of deployment. Though relatively quiet, there again had been an increasing number of incidents in the area involving IDF and local militia groups, and population continued to flow from the north.

IDF remained at battalion strength and acts of resistance against it increased. UNIFIL recorded the arrest of 423 civilians in 75 separate incidents, most of them later released. There had been a number of incidents when IDF, entering villages to search and arrest, was violently resisted by local inhabitants; IDF had reacted at times by firing, which resulted in casualties. During confrontations at Marakah, on 12 May and 27 June, a girl was shot, four other local inhabitants were injured and 119 men were arrested. Similar incidents occurred in other villages. On 11 June, Israeli personnel in civilian clothes and cars entered Burj Rahal and opened fire when the villagers demonstrated against their presence; one man was killed and another wounded.

UNIFIL also recorded some 65 incidents involving roadside bombs; some exploded, causing casualties and damage, others were demolished. During a mine-clearing operation near Ett Taibe on 20 June, five soldiers were injured.

During the reporting period, IDF attempted to recruit soldiers from the local population to build up the so-called South Lebanese Army. UNIFIL continued its efforts to contain the activities of those and other Lebanese irregulars armed and controlled by IDF; incidents involving UNIFIL and such irregulars were related to firing at or near UNIFIL positions.

UNIFIL continued to co-operate with the Lebanese authorities, UNRWA, UNICEF and ICRC in assisting the local population. UNIFIL medical personnel at Naqoura performed 315 surgical operations and treated 487 in-patients, UNIFIL helped carry out vaccinations, water analysis programmes and public works projects.

After June 1984, UNIFIL sent light convoys to Beirut. However, because of the poor quality of the road, the nature of the terrain and the unstable security situation, it was not possible to set up a normal supply and provisioning system which would permit using the Beirut International Airport and seaport.

During the period, the Commander of UNIFIL and his staff maintained contact with the Lebanese Government and regional authorities; they also maintained contact with the Israeli authorities on matters pertaining to the functioning of the Force.

In June, the Secretary-General had travelled to the Middle East for discussions with high officials of the Lebanese Government and other Governments in the region; he also visited UNIFIL headquarters and some of its contingents. The Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs also had held discussions with government officials in Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and Israel in September. From those contacts, the Secretary-General derived the impression that there was general agreement on the objective of Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and on the necessity of working out arrangements to ensure peace and security in the region and to restore Lebanese authority and sovereignty in the wake of Israel's withdrawal. There were a number of outstanding questions on the means by which the objectives could be achieved, and various alternatives had been discussed; it was generally agreed that an expanded mandate for UNIFIL and a widening of its area of operation would be key elements in such arrangements. The Secretary-General hoped that it would be possible in the near future to move to an agreement on the necessary practical arrangements.

With regard to the future role of UNIFIL, it was not possible to make a detailed forecast of its actual task or functions in an extended role or to estimate accurately what increase in strength would be necessary. The Secretary-General believed that it would be particularly important to provide UNIFIL with a mandate which it could successfully implement, which would command the necessary support and co-operation, and which would provide the necessary reassurances to all the parties concerned.

In the light of Lebanon's request, the Secretary-General recommended that UNIFIL's mandate be extended for another interim period of six months. Repeating his suggestions made in his April report (see p. 298) on action to make UNIFIL's mandate more effective in the context of a withdrawal of the Israeli forces, he stated that developments in recent weeks seemed to have brought about more positive prospects for the realization of those suggestions. He attached great importance to taking advantage of the current, relatively favourable situation with regard to an Israeli withdrawal.

UNIFIL's existence should not be taken for granted indefinitely, the Secretary-General stated. The Council and the troop-contributing countries had shown great patience and understanding during the previous two years when UNIFIL had been forced by circumstances to play a role not envisaged at its inception. If positive developments did not take place in a relatively short time, it would not be fair to count on the indefinite participation of the troop-contributing countries, all the more so in view of the financial liability it entailed. He reiterated his appeal for prompt payment of assessments and for voluntary contributions to reimburse troop contributors.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (October)

By resolution 555(1984) of 12 October, the Security Council extended UNIFIL's mandate for another six months.

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 9 October 1984, and taking note of the observations expressed therein,

Taking note of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General of 8 October 1984,

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, that is, until 19 April 1985;

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 Council thereon.

Security Council resolution 555 (1984)
12 0ctober 1984 Meeting 2559 13-0-2

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/16779).

Vote in Council as follows:

Against: None

Abstaining: Ukrainian SSR, USSR.

Speaking after the vote, Lebanon, which had been invited at its request, to participate without the right to vote, associated itself with the Secretary-General's observations and suggestions; a complete Israeli withdrawal and proper security arrangements would make it necessary to revise the functions and task of UNIFIL and the number of its troops, extend its deployment area and increase its effectiveness. UNIFIL would then be in a position to contribute, together with the Lebanese Army and the internal security forces, to the extension of the authority of the State to the internationally recognized borders, so that the south might become an area of peace and security. That new contribution of UNIFIL would be a temporary necessity during the proposed Israeli withdrawal phase, until the legitimate Lebanese forces could assume full and definitive responsibility for security.

In view of Lebanon's request, the USSR did not object to an extension of the mandate; at the same time, it emphasized its growing concern at the abnormal situation in which the Council was obliged systematically to extend the Force's mandate while conditions existed that prevented it from performing its functions. The reason for that dangerous situation was the continued illegal occupation by Israel.

The United Kingdom again advocated an expanded United Nations presence in Lebanon; it agreed with the Secretary-General's suggestion that United Nations machinery be made available to the parties to facilitate the reaching of agreements and provide facilities for the necessary discussions. It interpreted the text as endorsing further action by the Secretary-General on those lines, agreeing with him that the current opportunity must not be missed.

The Netherlands considered it obvious in the circumstances that the Council should extend UNIFIL’s mandate for a limited period, pending the outcome of negotiations on arrangements to realize the overall objectives of Israeli withdrawal, peace and security in the region, and restoration of Lebanese authority and sovereignty. UNIFIL's future would be jeopardized by a failure of the parties concerned to agree on the necessary arrangements, and the Netherlands called on them to resolve their outstanding differences.

In France's view, UNIFIL was essential for the return to normal conditions in southern Lebanon and it reiterated its readiness to consider the new tasks which the Council might decide to entrust to the Force. The United States said it hoped that the resolution extending UNIFIL's mandate would contribute to peace in the area.

Composition

As of October 1984, the composition of UNIFIL was as follows:


Infantry battalions

Fiji 629
Finland 503
France 506
Ghana 558
Ireland 637
Netherlands 160
Norway 634
Senegal 565

Headquarters camp command

Ghana 146
Ireland 87

Logistics units

France 767
Italy 44
Norway 205
Sweden 142

5,683


In addition, UNIFIL was assisted by 63 military observers of UNTSO, organized as Observer Group Lebanon. Those unarmed observers were under the operational control of the UNIFIL Commander. Another observer group in Lebanon, Observer Group Beirut, composed of 50 observers headed by an officer-in-charge under the overall command of the UNTSO Chief of Staff, was established pursuant to a 1982 Security Council resolution(58) and given the task of monitoring the situation in and around Beirut.

The military observers of UNTSO continued to man the five observation posts along the Lebanese side of the Israel-Lebanon armistice demarcation line and to maintain teams at Tyre, Metulla and Chateau de Beaufort; in addition, they operated four mobile teams.

The Lebanese internal security forces continued to co-operate with UNIFIL in maintaining order in its area of operation. They carried out independent patrols and assisted UNIFIL in special investigations of mutual concern. The Lebanese Army unit serving with UNIFIL maintained a strength of 150 all ranks, deployed in the UNIFIL area and attached to different battalions.

Between 13 October 1983 and 9 October 1984, six members of the Force died, two of them from the accidental discharge of a weapon, the others in traffic accidents. Since UNIFIL's establishment in 1978, 102 members of the Force had died, 41 of them as a result of firing and mine explosions, 48 in accidents and 13 from natural causes. Also, some 125 were wounded in armed clashes, shellings and mine explosions.

The French battalion, which had been temporarily reduced at France's request in September 1982, was brought back to full strength with the arrival of three companies on 5 February 1984. In accordance with a decision of Senegal, repatriation of the Senegalese battalion was completed on 1 November. On 15 November,(59) the Secretary-General informed the President of the Security Council that, with the departure of the Senegalese battalion, the number of troops had been reduced to approximately 5,200, well below its authorized strength of 7,000; subject to the usual consultations, the Secretary-General intended to accept Nepal's offer to provide a replacement battalion of about 650 men.

On 19 November,(60) the Council President informed the Secretary-General that the Council members had that day considered the matter in informal consultations and agreed with the Secretary-General's proposals.


Palestinian cultural property

In a 2 October 1984 report on the situation in the Middle East (see p. 260), the Secretary-General dealt with implementation of a December 1983 General Assembly resolution(61) condemning the plunder of the Palestinian cultural heritage and calling on Israel to make restitution of all cultural property belonging to Palestinian institutions. The Secretary-General stated that Israel, in a reply to his request for information dated 28 August 1984 had recalled its statement before the Assembly in December 1983 that it had returned the files referred to in the resolution; also, he had been informed by ICRC that, in the context of the release by Israel of Palestinian prisoners, it had received from Israeli authorities several hundred boxes, containing books and files taken from the Palestine Research Centre, which had been flown to Algiers on 23/24 November 1983 and had been handed over to PLO representatives. In addition, the Secretary-General had been kept informed of efforts by the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) since 1982 to assess the extent of the destruction of Palestinian educational and cultural institutions in Lebanon and to determine the priority needs of those institutions within UNESCO's areas of responsibility. The Director-General was pursuing his contacts with the Lebanese authorities and the United Nations Co-ordinator of Assistance for the Reconstruction and Development of Lebanon in order to obtain the information required for that purpose.

Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic

In 1984, the General Assembly, as well as the Commission on Human Rights, dealt with the situation in the Syrian Golan Heights since Israel's December 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Israeli-occupied territory (see p. 322).

The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, established in 1974(62) in accordance with the Agreement on Disengagement of Forces between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic,(63) continued in 1984 to supervise the observance of the cease-fire between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic in the Golan Heights area and to ensure, in accordance with its mandate, that there were no military forces in the area of separation. On the Secretary-General's recommendation, the Security Council extended UNDOF's mandate twice during the year, in May and November, by resolutions 551(1984) and 557(1984) (see p. 305).


Peace-keeping operation

UNDOF activities

Reports of the Secretary-General. Prior to the expiration of the six-month mandates of UNDOF on 31 May and 30 November 1984, the Secretary-General submitted reports on the activities of the Force for the periods from 22 November 1983 to 21 May 1984(64) and 22 May to 16 November 1984.(65)

In both reports, the Secretary-General stated that UNDOF had continued to fulfil its tasks, with the co-operation of the parties and facilitated by the close contact of the Force Commander and his staff with the military liaison staffs of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic. The cease-fire had been maintained and no complaints concerning the UNDOF area of operation had been lodged by either party.

In accordance with the terms of the Agreement on Disengagement, UNDOF continued to conduct fortnightly inspections of armament and forces in the area of limitation, carried out with the assistance of liaison officers from the parties. UNDOF had continued to receive the co-operation of both parties, although it continued to seek the lifting of restrictions on movement and inspection placed on its teams in certain areas by both sides.

Intensified patrolling on new mine-cleared paths and, from time to time, the establishment of standing patrols had helped prevent or reduce incidents involving Syrian shepherds, as had the grazing security fence in the southern part of the area of separation.

UNDOF was continuing its efforts to make the area of operation safe from mines. It also assisted ICRC with facilities for handing over mail and prisoners of war; for example, on 28 June, 297 prisoners, 16 civilians and the remains of 77 persons were exchanged between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Despite the current quiet in the sector, the Secretary-General stated, the Middle East situation as a whole continued to be potentially dangerous and was likely to remain so unless a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem could be reached. In the circumstances, he considered the continued presence of UNDOF to be essential and recommended, in each report, with the assent of the Syrian Arab Republic and the agreement of Israel, that the Council extend its mandate for a further period of six months.


SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

On 30 May, without debate, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 551(1984), thereby extending UNDOF's mandate for six months, until 30 November.

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 1984;

(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 551 (1984)
30 May 1984 Meeting 2544 Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/16592).

On 28 November, without debate, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 557(1984), extending UNDOF's mandate for a further six months, until 31 May 1985.

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 1985;

(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 557(1984)
28 November 1984 Meeting 2563 Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/16845).

Following adoption of each resolution, the President made the following statement on behalf of the Council:(66)


Composition

As at 16 November 1984, the composition of UNDOF was as follows:

Austria 531
Canada 224
Finland 395
Poland 150
United Nations military
observers (detailed
from UNTSO) 6

1,306


In addition, UNTSO observers assigned to the Israel-Syria Mixed Armistice Commission assisted UNDOF as required.

REFERENCES

(1)S/16318. (2)YUN 1983, p. 288, GA res. 38/9, 10 Nov. 1983. (3)YUN 1981, p. 275. (4)A/39/379. (5)A/391349. (6)A/39/406-S/16702. (7)A/39/674. (8)YUN 1981, p. 282, SC res. 487(1981) 19 June 1981. (9)S/16785. (10)S/16812. (11)A/39/600-S/16792. (12)S/16472. (13)S/16776. (14)S/17093. (15)A/39/63-S/16252. (16)A/39/75-S/16276. (17)S/l6339. (18)S/1635l/Rev.2. (19)YUN 1983 p. 298. (20)YUN 1982, p. 440. (21)Ibid., p. 428. (22)A/39/123-S/16389. (23)A/39/161-S/16456. (24)A/39/125 (S/16391). (25)A/39/282-S/16597. (26)A/39/328-S/16645. (27)A/39/330-S/16650. (28)A/39/340-S/16660. (29)A/39/350-S/16671. (30)A/39/365-S/16682. (3l)A/39/377-S/16691. (32)S/16713. (33)S/16722. (34)S/16732. (35)YUN 1982, p. 450, SC res. 508(1982), 5 June 1982. (36)Ibid., SC res. 509(1982), 6 June 1982. (37)YUN 1983, p. 278, GA res. 38/58 C, 13 Dec 1983. (38)YUN 1982, p. 451, SC res. 512(1982), 19 June 1982. (39)Ibid. p. 452, SC res. 513(1982) 4 July 1982. (40)A/39/509-S/l6749. (41)YUN 1982, p. 481. (42)A/39/837-S/16866. (43)A/40/58-S/16871. (44)A/39/263-S/16568. (45)S/16570. (46)S/16569. (47)S/16575. (48)S/16571. (49)YUN 1978, p. 312, SC res. 425(1978), 19 Mar. 1978. (50)Ibid., p. 295. (5l)YUN 1982, p. 450, SC res. 511(1982), 18 June 1982. (52)S/16471. (53)S/16772. (54)YUN 1983, p. 299, SC res. 538(1983), 18 Oct. 1983. (55)YUN 1982, p. 432, SC res. 501(1982), 25 Feb. 1982; p. 450, SC res. 508(1982), 5 June 1982; ibid., SC res. 509(1982) 6 June 1982. (56)YUN 1978, p. 312, SC res. 425(1978) and 126(1978), 19 Mar. 1978. (57)YUN 1982, p. 476, SC res. 520(1982), 17 Sep. 1982. (55)Ibid., 1982, p. 475, SC res. 516(1982), 1 Aug. 1982. (59)S/16831. (60)S/16832. (6l)YUN 1983, p. 285, GA res. 38/180 B, 19 Dec. 1983. (62)YUN 1974, p. 205, SC res. 350(1974), 31 May 1974. (63)Ibid. p. 198. (64)S/16573 & Corr.1 (65)S/16829. (66)S/16593 & S/16847.

_________________________________

Financing of peace-keeping forces
_________________________________


United Nations peace-keeping operations in the Middle East comprised two peace-keeping forces - the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon - and one observer mission, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization.

The General Assembly, following the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) and the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, approved appropriations for UNDOF for operations from 1 June 1984 to 31 May 1985 totalling more than $35 million. For UNIFIL's operations from 19 April 1984 to 18 April 1985, the Assembly appropriated $141 million.

Contributions to UNDOF in 1984 totalled nearly $34 million, while assessments for the year were $35 million; contributions outstanding since UNDOF's inception in 1974 amounted to some $57 million. Of close to $140 million assessed for UNIFIL in 1984, only about $109 million was paid; contributions outstanding since the Force's inception in 1978 totalled nearly $267 million.

In view of the difficult financial situation of the two peace-keeping forces, the Assembly authorized suspension of certain provisions of the United Nations Financial Regulations to enable UNDOF and UNIFIL to retain a "surplus balance" of about $5 million and $6 million, respectively.

The last revision of standard rates of reimbursement to countries which contributed troops to the forces having taken place in 1980, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to review existing rates with a view to ensuring an equitable reimbursement.

UNDOF financing

Report of the Secretary-General. In an October 1984 report on the financing of UNDOF,(1) the Secretary-General stated that as at 30 September, $620.5 million in contributions for UNDOF together with the second United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF II) had been received since the latter's inception in 1973 to 30 November 1984. The unpaid balance totalled $82.2 million, of which $28.8 million represented amounts apportioned among Member States which did not intend to pay, and $36 million assessed contributions due from China between 25 October 1971 and 31 December 1981 which had been transferred to a special account in accordance with a 1981 Assembly resolution.(2)

According to the Secretary-General, there was a shortfall of approximately $5.2 million in the UNDOF Special Account in respect of the periods between 25 October 1979 and 30 November 1984. The shortfall for periods before 24 October 1979, together with UNEF II until its liquidation in 1980, was estimated at $59.6 million. In the circumstances troop contributors had not been reimbursed fully or on time; they had again conveyed to the Secretary-General their very serious concern over the situation.

For the operation of UNDOF beyond 30 November 1984, the Secretary-General estimated monthly costs of $2,976,333 gross ($2,932,917 net) from 1 December onwards, assuming an average strength of 1,320 troops. For the period 1 June to 30 November 1984, an appropriation of $17,489,496 gross ($17,280,000 net) would be required.

ACABQ recommendations. In a November 1984 report,(3) ACABQ noted that, of the outstanding contributions of $82.2 million, only $ 17.4 million was estimated to be collectible. It also noted that no voluntary contributions had been received in response to an Assembly appeal of December 1983.(4)

On a related matter, ACABQ had been informed that the audited accounts for 1982-1983 indicated, for the UNEF/UNDOF Special Account, a "surplus balance" of $4,824,613 as at 31 December 1983 representing excess of income over expenditure due to interest and miscellaneous credits accrued. According to the Secretary-General, "income" included assessed contributions, irrespective of collectibility. However, because of States withholding contributions, the surplus balance had in effect been drawn upon to the full to supplement the income from contributions for meeting expenses of the Forces. The $4,824,613 thus represented merely a theoretical surplus.

ACABQ recommended that the Secretary-General's estimate for the cost of UNDOF in 1984-1985 be approved. Requirements for the 12 months from 1 December 1984 to 30 November 1985 should not exceed $35,705,000 gross ($35,184,000 net). ACABQ further recommended that the Secretary-General be permitted the usual flexibility to transfer credits between items of expenditure, should it be necessary in the interest of good management and efficiency. The total increase in 1984-1985 was $635,000 on a net basis, or 1.8 per cent; although most of that increase was attributable to inflation, part of it related to the Secretary-General's requests for 14 additional posts, bringing the total number of staff to 154. The Committee recommended acceptance of the staffing proposals.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In November 1984, on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions - 39/28 A and B - on the financing of UNDOF.

On 30 November, the Assembly adopted resolution 39/28 A by vote.

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 resolutions 350(1974) of 31 May 1974, 363(1974) of 29 November 1974, 369(1975) of 28 May 1975, 381(1975) of 30 November 1975, 390(1976) of 28 May 1976, 398(1976) of 30 November 1976, 408(1977) of 26 May 1977, 420(1977) of 30 November 1977, 429(1978) of 31 May 1978, 441(1978) of 30 November 1978, 449(1979) of 30 May 1979, 456(1979) of 30 November 1979, 470(1980) of 30 May 1980, 481(1980) of 26 November 1980,485(1981) of 22 May 1981, 493(1981) of 23 November 1981, 506(1982) of 26 May 1982, 524(1982) of 29 November 1982, 531(1983) of 26 May 1983, 543(1983) of 29 November 1983, 551(1984) of 30 May 1984 and 557(1984) of 28 November 1984,

Recalling its resolutions 3101(XXVIII) of 11 December 1973, 3211 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974 3374 C (XXX) of 2 December 1975, 31/5 D of 22 December 1976, 32/4 C of 2 December 1977, 33/13 D of 8 December 1978, 34/7 C of 3 December 1979, 35/44 of 1 December 1980, 35/45 A of I December 1980, 36/66 A of 30 November 1981, 37/38 A of 30 November 1982 and 38/35 A of I December 1983,

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 $17,489,496 gross ($17,280,000 net) authorized and apportioned by section III of Assembly resolution 38/35 A for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1984, inclusive;
II

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $17,852,500 for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 December 1984 to 31 May 1985, 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 $17,852,500 among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in Assembly resolution 3101(XXVIII) and the provisions of section II, paragraphs 2 (b) and 2 (c), and section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 3374 C (XXX), section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 31/5 D, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 3214 C, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 33/13 D, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 34/7 C, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 35/45 A, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 36/66 A and section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 37/38 A, in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985;

3. Decides that there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided 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 1984 to 31 May 1985, 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 $250,500 approved for the period from 1 December 1984 to 3 May 1985, inclusive;
III

Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $2,975,416 gross ($2,932,000 net) per month for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1985, inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 557(1984), the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;
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 conducted with a maximum of efficiency and economy;
V

1. Decides that Brunei Darussalam shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in paragraph 2 (c) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and that its contribution to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the resolution adopted by the Assembly at the current session regarding the scale of assessments;

2. Decides that Saint Christopher and Nevis shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in paragraph 2 (d) of General Assembly resolution 3101(XXVIII) and that its contribution to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the resolution adopted by the Assembly at the current session regarding the scale of assessments;

3. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 November 1984 of the Member States referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the present section shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the appropriations apportioned in section II above.

General Assembly resolution 39/28 A
30 November 1984 Meeting 81 98-2-12

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/39/719) by vote (88-1-14), 29 November (meeting 37); 8-nation draft (A/C.5/39/L.11. part A); agenda item 119 (a).

Sponsors: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden.

Speaking before the vote in the plenary Assembly, Albania said its objection to the financing of United Nations peace-keeping forces was based on ample evidence that those forces could not serve the defence of freedom and independence or of international peace and security; developments over the previous year had reinforced that impression.

Algeria, Iran, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives and the Syrian Arab Republic declared that they would not participate in the vote on either text; the financing of UNDOF was the responsibility of the aggressor. Iraq and Yemen announced that they would abstain for the same reason.

In the opinion of the USSR, the Force constituted a significant step towards the liberation of the occupied Arab territories; the increase in appropriations was excessive, however, and placed too heavy a financial burden on Member States. Moreover, the increase in posts could be avoided if UNDOF's work were better organized.

The United States supported the recommendations for the financing of UNDOF. Israel said that in the current complex situation, UNDOF was the best of the possible solutions.

Introducing both drafts in the Committee, Canada stated that peace-keeping forces played an integral role in promoting global security and respect for the Charter. The withholding of contributions placed an unfair and increasingly disproportionate burden on troop-contributing countries, particularly the developing countries; the financial burden must be shared equitably.

Also on 30 November, the Assembly adopted resolution 39/28 B by vote.

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 5 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

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 is continuing to face growing difficulties in meeting the obligations of the Forces on a current basis, particularly those due to the Governments of troop-contributing States,

Recalling its resolutions 33/13 E of 14 December 1978, 34/7 D of 17 December 1979, 35/45 B of 1 December 1980, 36/66 B of 30 November 1981, 37/38 B of 30 November 1982 and 38/35 B of 1 December 1983,

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 $4,824,613, 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 33/13 E and held in suspense until a further decision is taken by the Assembly.

General Assembly resolution 39/28 B
30 November 1984 Meeting 81 98-11-5

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/39/719) by vote (88-11-6), 29 November (meeting 37), 8-nation draft (A/C.5/39/L.11); agenda item 119 (a).

Sponsors: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden.

Explaining its negative vote in Committee, the USSR said the unused balance to be entered into the Special Account should be returned to Member States in accordance with the Financial Regulations.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNDOF
as at 31 December 1984: in US dollars)

Total
Assessments Paid in contributions
Country in 1984 1984 outstanding*

Afghanistan 349 - 3,703
Albania 698 - 21,994
Algeria 9,068 - 60,526
Angola 349 - 2,117
Antigua and Barbuda 349 - 1,184
Argentina 49,529 33,599 64,584
Australia 547,371 513,156 305,511
Austria 261,483 259,200 131,883
Bahamas 898 1,032 352
Bahrain 698 692 352
Bangladesh 1,047 1,548 528
Barbados 698 346 698
Belgium 446,265 675,433 225,596
Belize 349 346 176
Benin 349 - 10,806
Bhutan 349 346 176
Bolivia 698 - 14,026
Botswana 349 802 176
Brazil 96,965 50,000 306,498
Brunei Darussalam 1,267 - 1,267
Bulgaria 12,556 - 132,116
Burkina Faso 349 - 3,177
Burma 698 346 698
Burundi 349 - 10,806
Byelorussian SSR 125,512 104,435 3,177
Cameroon 698 2,497 698
Canada 1,073,823 1,064,448 541,599
Cape Verde 349 - 6,046
Central African
Republic 698 - 21,769
Chad 349 - 10,806
Chile 4,884 4,840 2,464
China 373,173 369,816 188,265
Colombia 7,674 3,802 3,872
Comoros 349 - 7,405
Congo 698 - 21,994
Costa Rica 1,396 1,396 -
Cuba 6,278 - 21,200
Cyprus 698 692 352
Czechoslovakia 264,970 260,120 979,733
Democratic
Kampuchea 698 - 21,994
Democratic Yemen 349 - 5,886
Denmark 261,483 259,200 131,883
Djibouti 349 - 1,861
Dominica 349 - 2,571
Dominican Republic 2,092 1,036 12,664
Ecuador 1,396 1,004 1,084
Egypt 4,884 4,840 2,464
El Salvador 698 - 7,327
Equatorial Guinea 698 - 15,761
Ethiopia 349 - 1,179
Fiji 698 692 352
Finland 167,349 165,888 84,405
France 2,760,633 2,735,796 1,392,735
Gabon 1,396 - 10,674
Gambia 698 1,377 -
German Democratic
Republic 484,615 476,269 1,879,785
Germany, Federal
Republic of 2,977,419 2,951,424 1,501,707
Ghana 1,396 1,384 704
Greece 27,903 27,646 14,080
Grenada 349 - 1,020
Guatemala 1,396 - 2,767
Guinea 349 547 315
Guinea-Bissau 349 873 692
Guyana 698 1,025 698
Haiti 349 - 10,142
Honduras 698 2,038 -
Hungary 16,043 118,978 143,303
Iceland 10,460 10,368 5,276
India 25,113 24,882 12,672
Indonesia 9,068 17,074 4,576
Iran 40,460 - 232,811
Iraq 8,371 - 112,684
Ireland 62,756 62,208 31,652
Israel 16,043 15,836 8,678
Italy 1,303,928 646,272 1,303,928
Ivory Coast 2,092 - 3,128
Jamaica 1,396 1,321 767
Japan 3,598,006 3,536,041 3,598,006
Jordan 698 661 698
Kenya 698 1,611 698
Kuwait 17,439 17,278 8,800
Lao People's
Democratic Republic 349 - 2,654
Lebanon 1,396 679 21,807
Lesotho 349 1,644 176
Liberia 698 - 14,848
Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya 18,137 - 233,061
Luxembourg 20,919 20,736 10,551
Madagascar 698 1,130 2,660
Malawi 349 517 175
Malaysia 6,278 13,447 -
Maldives 349 - 997
Mali 349 1,126 323
Malta 698 346 698
Mauritania 698 - 12,261
Mauritius 698 1,032 648
Mexico 61,388 30,412 61,388
Mongolia 698 692 8,793
Morocco 3,488 - 12,123
Mozambique 349 - 8,951
Nepal 349 516 176
Netherlands 620,585 615,168 313,001
New Zealand 90,648 89,856 45,720
Nicaragua 698 - 2,038
Niger 349 - 1,480
Nigeria 13,254 5,748 20,526
Norway 177,808 176,256 89,680
Oman 698 908 698
Pakistan 4,186 6,186 2,112
Panama 1,396 1,311 21,076
Papua New Guinea 349 173 176
Paraguay 698 - 21,994
Peru 4,884 - 34,378
Philippines 6,278 3,100 9,345
Poland 251,024 703,749 126,806
Portugal 12,556 18,764 12,296
Qatar 2,092 - 9,560
Romania 13,254 - 116,997
Rwanda 349 173 349
Saint Christopher
and Nevis 530 - 530
Saint Lucia 349 1,232 606
Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines 349 173 349
Samoa 349 - 1,831
Sao Tome and Principe 349 - 1,936
Saudi Arabia 59,992 29,720 59,992
Senegal 349 554 -
Seychelles 349 - 522
Sierra Leone 698 179 12,956
Singapore 6,278 6,220 3,168
Solomon Islands 349 170 2,401
Somalia 349 - 1,179
South Africa 142,944 - 3,073,380
Spain 134,636 128,494 202,652
Sri Lanka 698 692 352
Sudan 349 170 511
Suriname 349 - 1,260
Swaziland 698 - 21,994
Sweden 460,211 680,381 232,115
Syrian Arab Republic 2,092 - 32,306
Thailand 5,580 5,528 2,816
Togo 698 512 2,026
Trinidad and Tobago 2,092 2,072 1,056
Tunisia 2,092 2,054 2,092
Turkey 22,321 20,878 15,530
Uganda 349 - 7,880
Ukrainian SSR 460,211 383,778 3,061,267
USSR 4,469,595 3,677,869 27,810,231
United Arab
Emirates 11,162 8,251 22,127
United Kingdom 1,980,362 1,692,544 999,090
United Republic
of Tanzania 349 - 8,010
United States 10,738,310 10,627,420 5,424,600
Uruguay 2,790 - 10,038
Vanuatu 349 173 1,011
Venezuela 38,367 - 122,128
Viet Nam 1,396 - 19,530
Yemen 349 - 10,406
Yugoslavia 32,088 26,507 79,008
Zaire 698 - 5,449
Zambia 698 1,044 -
Zimbabwe 698 346 1,038

Total 35,008,804 33,693,091 56,976,614

SOURCE: ST/ADM/SER.B/276.


UNIFIL financing

Report of the Secretary-General. In November 1984,(5) the Secretary-General reported that, as at 30 September, contributions totalling $717.2 million had been received for the operation of UNIFIL out of $945.3 million apportioned among Member States for the periods between the inception of the Force in 1978 and 18 October 1984. The balance due of $228.1 million included $179.4 million apportioned among Members which had stated that they did not intend to pay and $19.6 million of assessments due from China between 25 October 1971 and 31 December 1981, transferred to a special account in accordance with a 1981 Assembly resolution.(2) Accordingly, only $29.1 million of the unpaid balance might be considered collectible, leaving a shortfall of $199 million.

Commitments were entered into for UNIFIL in the amount of $70,446,000 gross ($69,486,000 net) for the six months from 19 April to 18 October. The costs for the period from 19 October 1984 to 18 April 1985 were estimated at the same gross amount ($69,446,000 net), based on an average Force strength of 5,550 troops. The Secretary-General requested ACABQ's concurrence for entering into UNIFIL commitments of $23,482,000 gross ($23,148,667 net) for the period from 19 October to 18 December 1984, that amount being a one-third share of the estimate for the six months from 19 October 1984 to 18 April 1985.

Should the Security Council renew the Force's mandate beyond that date, the Assembly was requested to authorize commitments for UNIFIL for the period to 18 December 1985 at a rate not to exceed $11,741,000 gross ($11,574,333 net) per month.

The shortfall in the account because of non-payment of contributions by some Members placed an increasingly heavy burden on the troop-contributing countries, the Secretary- General said, particularly the less wealthy, and, if not remedied, could jeopardize the functioning of the operation. He appealed to all Member States to pay their assessments without delay and to make voluntary contributions.

ACABQ recommendations. In a November 1984 report,(6) ACABQ recommended that the Assembly appropriate $70,446,000 gross ($69,486,000 net) for UNIFIL for the period from 19 April to 18 October 1984; for 19 October 1984 to 18 April 1985, it recommended an appropriation of the same gross amount ($69,446,000 net). Despite differences in troop strength used as the basis for cost estimates for the preceding period, the amount requested and authorized for the period ended 18 October was the same. Noting that current estimates, on a net basis, were less than the two previous mandate-period estimates, ACABQ was informed that gains on currency exchange were expected to more than offset the effects of inflation.

Concurring with the Secretary-General's estimates, ACABQ agreed to the request to enter into commitments for the period from 19 October to 18 December 1984 in the amount requested. As for the remaining four months of the mandate period (19 December 1984-18 April 1985), ACABQ had no objection to the overall estimate; it recommended that the Assembly appropriate $46,964,000 gross ($46,297,333 net), with the Secretary-General being given the usual flexibility to revise apportionments between objects of expenditure.

ACABQ recommended approval of the amounts that the Secretary-General asked that he be authorized to commit monthly between 19 April and 18 December 1985, if the Force's mandate was renewed.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December 1984, acting on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions - 39/71 A and B - dealing with the financing of UNIFIL.

On 13 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 39/71 A by recorded vote.

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 resolutions 425(1978) and 426(1978) of 19 March 1978, 427(1978) of 3 May 1978, 434(1978) of 18 September 1978, 444(1979) of 19 January 1979, 450(1979) of 14 June 1979, 459(1979) of 19 December 1979, 474(1980) of 17 June 1980, 483(1980) of 17 December 1980, 488(1981) of 19 June 1981, 498(1981) of 18 December 1981, 501(1982) of 25 February 1982, 511(1982) of 18 June 1982, 519(1982) of 17 August 1982, 523(1982) of 18 October 1982, 529(1983) of 18 January 1983, 536(1983) of 18 July 1983, 538(1983) of 18 October 1983, 549(1984) of 19 April 1984 and 555(1984) of 12 October 1984,

Recalling its resolutions S-8/2 of 21 April 1978, 33/14 of 3 November 1978, 34/9 B of 17 December 1979, 35/44 of 1 December 1980, 35/115 A of 10 December 1980, 36/138 A of 16 December 1981, 36/138 C of 19 March 1982, 37/127 A of 17 December 1982 and 38/38 A of 5 December 1983,

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 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 peace-keeping operations decided upon in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
I

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section I, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 an amount of $70,446,000 gross ($69,486,000 net), being the amount authorized with the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and apportioned under the provisions of section VI of Assembly resolution 38/38 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 April to 18 October 1984, inclusive;
II

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $23,482,000 gross ($23,148,667 net), being the amount authorized with the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and apportioned under the provisions of section VI of General Assembly resolution 38/38 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 October to 18 December 1984 inclusive;
III

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $46,964,000 for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for the period from 19 December 1984 to 18 April 1985, 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 $46,964,000 among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in Assembly resolution 33/14 and the provisions of section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 34/9 B, section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 35/115 A, section VI, paragraph 1, of resolution 36/138 A and section IX, paragraph 1, of resolution 37/127 A, in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985;

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 $13,333 other than staff assessment income approved for the period from 19 December 1984 to 18 April 1985, 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 $653,334 approved for the period from 19 December 1984 to 18 April 1985, inclusive;
IV

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 $11,741,000 gross ($11,574,333 net) per month for the period from 19 April to 18 December 1985, inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 555(1984), subject to obtaining the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions for the actual level of commitments to be entered into for each mandate period that may be approved subsequent to 19 April 1985, the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;
V

1. 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;

2. Invites Member States to make voluntary contributions in cash to the Suspense Account established in accordance with its resolution 34/9 D of 17 December 1979.
VI

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

1. Decides that Brunei Darussalam shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in section I, paragraph 2 (c), of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 and that its contribution to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the resolution adopted by the Assembly at the current session regarding the scale of assessments;

2. Decides that Saint Christopher and Nevis shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in section I, paragraph 2 (d), of General Assembly resolution S-8/2 and that its contribution to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the resolution adopted by the Assembly at the current session regarding the scale of assessments;

3. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon until 18 December 1984 of the Member States referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the present section shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the apportionments authorized in section III above.

General Assembly resolution 39/71 A
13 December 1984 Meeting 98 121-15-3 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/39/767) by recorded vote (88-12-3), 4 December (meeting 41); 13-nation draft (A/C.5/39/L.15, part A, approved together with part B (see below)); agenda item 119 (b).

Sponsors: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ghana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Abstaining: Iran, Maldives, Yemen.

Also on 13 December, by the same recorded vote, the Assembly adopted resolution 39/71 B.

The General Assembly,

Having regard to the financial position 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 7 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

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 growing difficulties in meeting the obligations of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon on a current basis, particularly those due to the Governments of troop-contributing States,

Recalling its resolutions 34/9 E of 17 December 1979 35/115 B of 10 December 1980, 36/138 B of 16 December 1981, 37/127 B of 17 December 1982 and 38/38 B of 5 December 1983,

Recognizing that, in consequence of the withholding of contributions by certain Member States, 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 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 United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

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 $6,035,305, 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.

General Assembly resolution 39/71 B
13 December 1984 Meeting 98 121-15-3 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth committee (A/39/767) by recorded vote (88-12-3), 4 December (meeting 41); 13-nation draft (A/C.5/39/L.15, part B, approved together with part A (see above)); agenda item 119 (b).

Sponsors: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ghana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden.

(For recorded vote in Assembly, see above under resolution 39/71 A.)

Introducing the drafts on behalf of the sponsors, the Netherlands said that the great majority of Member States supported the concept of peace-keeping and accepted the notion that the costs of peace-keeping forces should be borne by Members according to their assessed. contributions. It was most regrettable that the resulting financial obligations were not fulfilled; lack of financial resources not only threatened to undermine peace-keeping operations in general and UNIFIL's operations in particular, but also made it increasingly difficult to find States willing to take part in the operations. The situation would improve only if States withholding contributions discharged their financial responsibilities.

Holding a similar view, Ireland added that the withholding of contributions could jeopardize the efficient functioning of peace-keeping operations and hinder efforts to ensure a wide geographical representation in the composition of the forces, with unforeseeable consequences for the United Nations ability to fulfil its role in maintaining international peace and security.

Indonesia viewed the financial situation of peace-keeping operations in the Middle East as unsatisfactory and shared the Secretary-General's concern that delayed payments to contributing countries placed an additional burden on them.

Lebanon said the United Nations presence was an essential guarantee required to safeguard Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, which were indispensable pre-conditions for its progressive pacification; a withdrawal of that presence for financial reasons would have extremely serious repercussions, not only in Lebanon itself but also in the Middle East as a whole. The situation regarding the financing of UNIFIL could even jeopardize efforts being made to resolve the financial crisis of the United Nations as a whole. Maintaining UNIFIL for some time to come was indispensable; Lebanon urged Governments to adopt a more regular procedure for the payment of contributions and hoped that the Secretary-General's appeal for voluntary contributions would be favourably received.

Peace-keeping operations were by definition temporary and could be no substitute for a peaceful settlement, Israel said; yet peace-keeping forces in the Middle East were becoming a permanent feature because of the enmity towards Israel and Arab unwillingness to accept Israel's presence. If the Secretary-General was to implement the Security Council's decisions, he must be given the financial means.

The USSR said it would not share in the financing of UNIFIL - all costs incurred in eradicating the results of Israel's armed aggression should be borne by the aggressor. Similar positions were held by the German Democratic Republic, Iran, Iraq, Mongolia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam and Yemen. Poland believed that expenditures on peace-keeping operations did not come within the scope of either Article 17 or 19 of the Charter (stipulating, respectively, that the expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the Assembly, and that a Member in arrears for more than two years shall have no vote in the Assembly). Iran and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya declared that, for positions of principle, they would not participate in the vote.

Albania explained that its negative vote was in conformity with its general position on the dispatching and financing of United Nations forces.

While southern Lebanon was the victim of Israeli aggression and atrocities, the United Arab Emirates said, UNIFIL's task was a humanitarian one and must be supported.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNIFIL
(as at 31 December 1984; in US dollars)

Total
Assessments Paid in contributions
Country in 1984 1984 outstanding*

Afghanistan 1,390 - 8,760
Albania 2,779 - 20,235
Algeria 36,124 - 240,691
Angola 1,390 - 8,882
Antigua and Barbuda 1,390 - 5,322
Argentina 197,288 - 386,039
Australia 2,180,903 2,101,210 1,170,623
Austria 1,041,833 1,042,290 520,688
Bahamas 2,779 5,470 1,389
Bahrain 2,779 1,390 2,779
Bangladesh 4,170 2,994 4,170
Barbados 2,779 1,390 6,072
Belgium 1,778,063 2,196,275 888,642
Belize 1,390 522 1,563
Benin 1,390 - 9,748
Bhutan 1,390 695 695
Bolivia 2,779 - 20,235
Botswana 1,390 1,850 1,390
Brazil 386,242 100,000 1,303,191
Brunei Darussalam 3,671 - 3,671
Bulgaria 50,018 - 328,356
Burkina Faso 1,390 - 9,748
Burma 2,779 3,386 1,389
Burundi 1,390 - 9,748
Byelorussian SSR 500,080 - 3,889,919
Cameroon 2,779 3,304 8,422
Canada 4,278,463 4,280,338 2,138,294
Cape Verde 1,390 - 5,441
Central African Republic 2,779 3,713 16,522
Chad 1,390 - 9,748
Chile 19,450 34,741 9,723
China 1,486,714 1,487,096 743,166
Colombia 30,566 14,576 31,277
Comoros 1,390 - 9,748
Congo 2,779 - 20,235
Costa Rica 5,557 - 31,902
Cuba 25,008 - 209,101
Cyprus 2,779 3,386 1,389
Czechoslovakia 1,055,725 - 8,185,740
Democratic Kampuchea 2,779 - 20,235
Democratic Yemen 1,390 - 9,748
Denmark 1,041,833 1,042,290 520,688
Djibouti 1,390 - 7,212
Dominica 1,390 - 10,040
Dominican Republic 8,337 - 51,940
Ecuador 5,557 8,132 4,063
Egypt 19,450 19,453 9,723
El Salvador 2,779 - 19,208
Equatorial Guinea 2,779 - 20,235
Ethiopia 1,390 - 7,869
Fiji 2,779 3,386 1,389
Finland 666,773 677,066 333,240
France 10,998,306 11,001,128 5,497,742
Gabon 5,557 - 32,899
Gambia 2,779 - 20,235
German Democratic Republic 1,930,864 - 13,933,267
Germany, Federal Republic of 11,863,008 11,868,208 5,928,904
Ghana 5,557 2,779 2,778
Greece 111,148 111,176 55,560
Grenada 1,390 - 4,433
Guatemala 5,557 - 9,548
Guinea 1,390 - 4,033
Guinea-Bissau 1,390 - 7,134
Guyana 2,779 5,553 1,389
Haiti 1,390 - 9,748
Honduras 2,779 2,510 6,158
Hungary 63,911 - 600,401
Iceland 41,672 41,692 20,826
India 100,033 121,874 50,004
Indonesia 36,124 22,364 36,124
Iran 161,165 - 1,114,503
Iraq 33,344 - 225,115
Ireland 250,039 273,627 -
Israel 63,911 63,928 31,947
Italy 5,195,275 3,596,031 4,198,002
Ivory Coast 8,337 - 32,362
Jamaica 5,557 5,578 3,970
Japan 14,335,624 10,298,018 14,335,624
Jordan 2,779 3,383 1,389
Kenya 2,779 - 10,600
Kuwait 69,467 34,742 34,725
Lao People's Democratic Republic 1,390 - 9,748
Lebanon 5,557 3,157 2,400
Lesotho 1,390 7,391 695
Liberia 2,779 - 20,235
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 72,246 - 454,612
Luxembourg 83,347 83,384 41,655
Madagascar 2,779 2,153 14,922
Malawi 1,390 1,390 695
Malaysia 25,008 41,326 12,501
Maldives 1,390 695 3,614
Mali 1,390 2,722 3,816
Malta 2,779 2,780 1,389
Mauritania 2,779 - 20,235
Mauritius 2,779 3,386 3,440
Mexico 244,528 - 366,820
Mongolia 2,779 - 20,235
Morocco 13,894 - 68,211
Mozambique 1,390 - 11,813
Nepal 1,390 1,390 1,153
Netherlands 2,472,617 3,013,060 1,235,766
New Zealand 361,170 361,328 180,506
Nicaragua 2,779 - 8,864
Niger 1,390 - 7,641
Nigeria 52,795 - 90,714
Norway 708,447 590,632 354,068
Oman 2,779 2,780 1,389
Pakistan 16,673 20,967 8,834
Panama 5,557 3,563 32,980
Papua New Guinea 1,390 297 1,390
Paraguay 2,779 - 20,235
Peru 19,450 - 121,719
Philippines 25,008 10,714 53,514
Poland 1,000,160 - 11,130,204
Portugal 50,018 96,336 50,018
Qatar 8,337 17,042 7,875
Romania 52,795 - 398,904
Rwanda 1,390 695 2,369
Saint Christopher and Nevis 1,977 - 1,977
Saint Lucia 1,390 - 7,614
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1,390 695 1,390
Samoa 1,390 - 5,853
Sao Tome and Principe 1,390 - 8,281
Saudi Arabia 238,969 119,515 238,969
Senegal 1,390 - 7,704
Seychelles 1,390 303 2,235
Sierra Leone 2,779 - 20,039
Singapore 25,008 25,014 12,501
Solomon Islands 1,390 303 10,039
Somalia 1,390 791 5,445
South Africa 569,535 - 4,216,535
Spain 536,293 825,380 567,559
Sri Lanka 2,779 2,780 1,389
Sudan 1,390 303 2,792
Suriname 1,390 - 2,388
Swaziland 2,779 - 20,235
Sweden 1,833,625 1,834,430 916,410
Syrian Arab Republic 8,337 - 56,282
Thailand 22,230 20,981 11,112
Togo 2,779 1,041 11,537
Trinidad and Tobago 8,337 8,340 4,167
Tunisia 8,337 4,170 10,155
Turkey 88,917 84,399 74,367
Uganda 1,390 - 8,967
Ukrainian SSR 1,833,625 - 14,458,268
USSR 17,806,784 - 133,810,561
United Arab Emirates 44,460 52,635 76,392
United Kingdom 7,889,724 8,229,668 7,256,289
United Republic of Tanzania 1,390 - 9,748
United States 42,819,684 42,818,576 21,410,396
Uruguay 11,115 - 32,728
Vanuatu 1,390 - 5,322
Venezuela 152,829 - 549,334
Viet Nam 5,557 - 53,971
Yemen 1,390 - 9,748
Yugoslavia 127,820 125,292 230,287
Zaire 2,779 - 25,713
Zambia 2,779 2,861 1,308
Zimbabwe 2,780 606 8,394

Total 139,515,477 108,902,817 266,529,271
SOURCE: ST/ADM/SER.B/276.

Review of reimbursement rates
to troop-contributors


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 13 December, on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/70 by recorded vote.

Review of the rates of reimbursement to the
Governments of troop-contributing States

The General Assembly,

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 decision of 15 December 1975, taken at its thirtieth session, by which it approved the principle of reimbursing the troop-contributing States for the usage factor for personal clothing, gear and equipment, and the related report of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly at its thirty-first session establishing the rates therefor as from 25 October 1973,

Recalling further 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 these rates were once again revised as from 1 December 1980 in the case of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and as from 19 December 1980 in the case of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Taking note of the concerns that escalating troop costs have adversely affected in real terms the existing standard rates of reimbursement,

Requests the Secretary-General to review, in consultation with the States contributing troops to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and with other interested Member States, the existing standard rates of reimbursement, with a view to ensuring an equitable rate of reimbursement to the Governments of troop-contributing States, and to report on this matter to the General Assembly at its fortieth session.


General Assembly resolution 39/70
13 December 1984 Meeting 98 119-15-6 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/39/767) by recorded vote (89-11-15), 4 December (meeting 41); 18-nation draft (A/C.5/39/L.12), orally amended by United States; agenda item 119 (b).

Sponsors: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Sweden.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
Introducing the text on behalf of the sponsors, the Netherlands said that, since the last revision of the standard rates of reimbursement to troop-contributing States in 1980,(7) troop costs in the countries concerned had increased in some cases by more than 40 per cent and the existing rates should be reviewed as they might no longer be adequate.

In the view of the United States consultations on reimbursement rates should not be limited to troop-contributing countries; since peace-keeping operations were funded from the regular budget, all Member States should be able to participate. The United States orally suggested in the Committee that the operative paragraph be amended to permit other interested Member States to participate in the consultations; this was accepted by the sponsors.

The USSR observed that reimbursements to troop contributors were the main items of expenditure for UNDOF and UNIFIL; it believed that the existing rates were already excessive. The noble cause of maintaining international peace must not give rise to inappropriate expenditures and become a source of income for some countries. The Secretary-General's 1985 report should also indicate all the criteria used to devise acceptable reimbursement rates.

Ireland said that since the latest review of, reimbursement rates dated back almost five years, and in view of the significant increases in costs and inflation, a further review was needed in order to ensure that reimbursements were paid at equitable rates.

Indonesia stated that escalating costs had adversely affected the existing reimbursement and it was high time that the Assembly took steps to ensure more equitable rates.

Recalling their positions of principle on peace-keeping operations in the Middle East, Iran and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya did not participate in the vote.

REFERENCES

(1)A/39/468. (2)YUN 1981, p. 1299, GA res. 36/116 A, 10 Dec. 1981. (3)A/39/653. (4)YUN 1983, p. 307, GA res. 38/35 A, 1 Dec. 1983. (5)A/39/650. (6)A/39/685. (7)YUN 1980, p. 369, GA res. 35/44, 1 Dec. 1980.


______________________________

Territories occupied by Israel
______________________________


During 1984 the situation in the territories occupied by Israel as a result of previous armed conflicts in the Middle East was again considered by the General Assembly and its Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories (Committee on Israeli practices). The territories comprised the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip.

The Assembly, in December, adopted eight resolutions (39/95 A-H) dealing with specific aspects of the report of the Committee. By resolution 39/95 A, it demanded the release of Ziyad Abu Eain and other prisoners (see p. 280). By resolution 39195 E, it reiterated its demand that Israel rescind orders expelling and imprisoning the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and expelling the Islamic Judge of Hebron. The Assembly also demanded that Israel comply with the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (fourth Geneva Convention) (39/95 B) and desist from any action which would change the status and composition of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 (39/95 C). The Assembly condemned Israeli policies and practices in the Syrian Golan Heights (39195 F) as well as those taken against Palestinian students and faculties of educational institutions (39/95 G) and in a number of other areas (39/95 D), demanding that Israel desist from those practices. The Assembly also demanded information from Israel on the results of the investigations of assassination attempts against three Palestinian mayors in 1980 (39/95 H).

By resolution 391146 A, it declared that peace in the Middle East must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution which ensured the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem; condemned Israeli occupation of those territories and its policies and practices there; and considered that Israel would be encouraged in those policies by the 1981 strategic co-operation agreements between the United States and Israel.

Concern about legislation on settlement activities in the occupied territories, under consideration by the Israeli parliament, was expressed by the Security Council in January, which urged that no measures be taken to aggravate tensions in the area.

Communications. Israeli measures in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, continued to be at issue in a number of communications addressed during the year to the Secretary-General and to the President of the Security Council.

On 23 February(1) and 5 March,(2) Egypt transmitted letters of 22 February and 5 March, respectively, from the Permanent Observer of PLO to the United Nations detailing several hostile measures by Israelis against Palestinians, including acts of vandalism and usurping of land in a Palestinian village, a massive arrest campaign, and attacks against a refugee camp, a cemetery, and a bus carrying Palestinian workers.

On 24 February,(3) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights protested what he called discriminatory action against a representative of an Israel-based non-governmental organization who had been banned from continuing his education at the Institute of Technology at Haifa. By a letter of 8 August,(4) the Chairman reiterated the Committee's serious concern about the situation of the Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories and drew the Secretary-General's attention to reports prepared by ILO, WHO and UNESCO on the situation of workers, on health conditions and on educational and cultural institutions in the occupied territories; the reports were annexed to the letter. By a letter of 26 November,(5) the Chairman expressed grave concern at reports of renewed acts of repression against Palestinians by Israeli forces on 21 and 22 November, including the shooting and teargassing of unarmed demonstrators, resulting in the deaths of two students.

In April, Israel expressed concern about a PLO exhibit at the United Nations Information Centre at Harare, Zimbabwe (see p. 365).

By a letter of 13 April,(6) Israel recounted what it called an act of PLO gangsterism, which involved the hijacking of a bus with some 30 Israeli civilians en route from Tel Aviv to Ashkelon, in the course of the rescue operation, eight people were wounded, one of whom subsequently died, and four of the attackers were killed. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a PLO group headquartered at Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic, had claimed responsibility, Israel said. Referring to that communication in identical letters(7) of 1 May to the Security Council President and 23 July to the Secretary-General, the Syrian Arab Republic accused Israel of attempting to divert attention from the atrocities it had committed and continued to commit against the Arab people. Annexed to the letters were a list of what Syria called some of the most important terrorist acts committed by Zionist gangs from 1937 to the present, and an article and excerpts from four books on violence in the Middle East.

On 29 August,(3) Yemen transmitted a letter of the same date from PLO with regard to an attempted storming of the town of Um el Fahm that day by an armed group headed by a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament); it had led to a violent confrontation with the Palestinian inhabitants, as a result of which six demonstrators were wounded.

By a letter of 8 October,(9) India transmitted the final communiqué adopted by the Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of Non-Aligned Countries (New York, 15 October). The communiqué rejected the Israeli practices and policies in the occupied territories including alteration of their geographic features and demographic composition, and declared all Israeli-established settlements there illegal.

In addition, communications were received regarding incidents in Jerusalem (see p. 272).

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. Violations of human rights in the occupied territories were the subject of four resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights on 20 February 1984. By the first,(10) it condemned a number of specific practices; by the second,(11) it condemned Israel’s failure to acknowledge the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; by the third,(12) it called on Israel to rescind decisions imposing its laws and administration on the Syrian Golan Heights; and, by the fourth,(13) it called for immediate Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories. By a resolution of 29 February(14) reaffirming the Palestinians right to self-determination, the Commission condemned Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian and other Arab territories, its aggression and practices against the Palestinians in and outside those territories, and the September 1982 massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps,(15) and rejected agreements that encouraged Israel to persist in its policies. (See ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVIII.)

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its annual report, approved on 14 September 1984 and transmitted to the General Assembly by the Secretary-General,(16) the Committee on Israeli practices, established in 1968,(17) presented information on Israeli policy in the occupied territories and on various aspects of the situation there, as well as information on annexation and settlement, treatment of civilians and detainees, and judicial remedies sought by the civilian population. An annexed map showed Israeli settlements established, planned or under construction since 1967. As in previous years, the Committee worked without the co-operation of Israel.

During the reporting period (19 August 1983-31 August 1984), the Committee held three series of meetings. At the first, held at Geneva from 9 to 13 January 1984, it reviewed its mandate examined information on the situation in the occupied territories, including communications on alleged human rights violations, and decided on the organization of its work for the year. At the second series of meetings, which took place at Geneva, Amman (Jordan) and Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic) from 25 May to 5 June, the Committee examined a number of communications pertaining to its mandate, heard testimony from persons living in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, and discussed various aspects of its mandate with the Minister for Occupied Territories Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Jordan, and the Director-General of the International Organizations Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic. The Committee convened again from 10 to 14 September to examine updated information and adopt its report.

In its conclusions, the Committee noted that Israeli statements made over the reporting period reflected an intention to annex the territories occupied in 1967 and thus were in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention. The Committee pointed out that the announced new policy - aimed, avowedly, at deterring Arab retaliation against Jews end Jewish vigilante action - had led to ever harsher sentences for Palestinian civilians an increase in violent incidents and the emergence of large-scale organized groups of Israelis striving to expand and consolidate Israeli settlement and annexation of the occupied territories.

The Committee concluded that although the so-called village leagues were no longer imposed, Israeli presence in the occupied territories had been further consolidated through the Israeli municipal authorities of the principal West Bank and Gaza Strip towns who had been nominated by the military. The Committee drew special attention to collective punishment measures by the Israeli authorities, including demolition of houses. Measures of reprisal included sealing houses, closing down shops, restricting movement and destroying of crops and water resources. With regard to deportations, the Committee noted in particular the case of Abdel Aziz Shahin who, after serving a 15-year prison sentence, had been the subject of an expulsion order.

Noting that the lawless behaviour of Israeli settlers had drawn protests in some sectors of Israel society, the Committee cited the example of a 1982 report commissioned by the Israeli Ministry of Justice, made public in February 1984, which found that Israeli settlers acted in many respects outside the law, virtually beyond control by any authority. In 1984, a series of so-called "Jewish underground" groups were discovered; several persons were charged with offences ranging from attempted assassination to planning the bombing of public transportation, but no serious measures had yet been taken to put an end to the phenomenon. The Committee reiterated that under the fourth Geneva Convention Israel remained fully responsible for the acts of the settlers.

The Committee reported that Palestinian civilian leaders had been the subject of arbitrary orders restricting their freedom of movement. Freedom of education was also affected (see p. 333).

In the Committee's view, an ongoing censorship of publications and other forms of expression had the sole aim of stifling any attempt at Palestinian patriotic expression and went beyond the scope of the fourth Geneva Convention. Information received indicated that in the reporting period Israel continued annexation and settlement practices in the occupied territories with renewed vigour, planning 27 settlements for an area north of Jerusalem by the year 2010 and expropriating property. As for treatment of detainees, the Committee detected an increase in the number of allegations of ill-treatment. It reported that prison conditions had led to hunger-strikes and other protests, and noted particularly the harsh conditions in the so-called "Fara'a detention centre”, opened for youthful offenders awaiting trial on minor offences. In that context, the Committee stressed that existing judicial remedies were of a temporary nature, as the courts' authority was circumscribed by the discretionary powers vested in the military occupation authorities.

The Committee concluded that the reporting period had witnessed a deterioration of the human rights situation in the territories, while at the same time hundreds of thousands were denied the right to return there and their property was taken over or the establishment of Israeli settlements. The Committee reiterated the need for the international community to prevent further deterioration and protect the basic rights of the civilians in the occupied territories.

Pursuant to a 1983 request by the General Assembly,(18) the Secretary-General, in November 1984,(19) reported on the facilities he had continued to provide to the Committee, including additional staff, circulation of its reports and coverage of its activities in press releases, publications and radio and television programmes.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, the General Assembly, on 14 December 1984, adopted by recorded vote resolution 39/95 D. The action was taken on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee.

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, 37/88 C of 10 December 1982 and 38/79 D of 15 December 1983, and also those adopted by the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights, in particular its resolutions 1983/1 of 15 February 1983 and 1984/1 of 20 February 1984, and other United Nations organs concerned and by 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,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 6 November 1984,

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. 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 Golan Heights, which has resulted in the effective annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights;

(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) Excavations and transformations 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, the most recent of which have been in the Jordan Valley;

(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 development of the population in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories;

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

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

8. 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 injury and death and wide-scale damage to Arab property;

9. 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;

10. Demands that Israel desist forthwith from the policies and practices referred to in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 above;

11. 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;

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

13. 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 and 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;

14. 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;

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

16. 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;

17. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To provide all necessary facilities to the Special Committee, including those required for its visits to the occupied territories, with a view to investigating 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 which are no longer available;

(d) To report to the General Assembly at its fortieth session on the tasks entrusted to him in the present paragraph;

18. 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;

19. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fortieth 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 39/95 D
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 115-2-28 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/712) by recorded vote (93-2-23), 29 November (meeting 43); 13-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.25); agenda item 71.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Financial implications: 5th Committee, A/39/769: S-G, A/C.5/39/69, A/SPC/39/L.30.

Meeting numbers: GA 39th session: SPC 31-39, 43; 5th Committee 43; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
Against: Israel, United States.
*Later advised the Secretariat it had intended not to participate.


Paragraph 6 was approved in the Committee by a recorded vote of 84 to 18, with 17 abstentions, and in the Assembly by a recorded vote of 99 to 18, with 25 abstentions.

Sweden said that, while supporting most of the text, in particular the condemnation in paragraph 7, it was not convinced that all the formulations in that paragraph were justified. It also believed that the text went beyond the competence of the Assembly. Austria agreed with the general thrust of the text, but also considered some of the formulations to be unacceptable. Argentina felt that some of the wording was not consistent with the Special Committee's findings. The United States reiterated its position expressed in 1983,(20) the texts pertaining to this agenda item contained inflammatory rhetoric and unjustified allegations, were counter-productive, one-sided and harmed the credibility of the United Nations.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said that, while it supported the resolutions, it reaffirmed its position on the substance of the Palestine question and therefore expressed reservations about anything in them that might signify that it would recognize the Zionist entity or confer legitimacy on it.

The Fifth Committee on 5 December decided, by a recorded vote of 88 to 2, with 19 abstentions, that an additional appropriation of $237,300 would be required for 1984-1985 to implement the resolution.

In resolution 39/49 C of 11 December on dissemination of information relating to Palestine, the General Assembly requested the Secretariat's Department of Public Information to publish newsletters and articles on Israeli violations of the human rights of the Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories.

Settlements policy

Throughout 1984, various communications addressed to the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General continued to focus on Israel's policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories. In January, the Council urged that no steps be taken to aggravate the situation. The question was also considered by the General Assembly, the Committee on Israeli practices, the Committee on Palestinian rights and the Commission on Human Settlements (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVII). The impact of Israeli settlements on the living conditions of Palestinians was examined in a report by the Secretary-General (see p. 327).

Communications January-June). On 5 January,(21) Egypt transmitted a letter of 4 January to the Security Council President from PLO, charging that legislation seeking to extend the applicability of emergency regulations in the occupied territories, considered by the Israeli Knesset, violated international law and Security Council resolutions. Concern about the legislation was also expressed in a message from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt dated 5 January, transmitted by Egypt on 6 January to the Council President(22) and the Secretary-General,(23) and in a letter of 9 January(24) from the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights.

Israel stated, in identical letters of 11(25) and 13 January(26) to the Council President and the Secretary-General, that the most recent extension of the validity of emergency regulations, which were reviewed periodically, had been passed on 2 January 1984 in conformity with the recognized principle of international law that a State may apply its laws to its nationals in respect of acts committed by them beyond its territorial jurisdiction; the regulations did not affect the existing local legislation.

In a statement issued by the President of the Security Council on 26 January,(27) after consultations that day with the Council members concerning the above communications, the Council recalled its previous resolutions stressing the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention and urged that no steps be taken which could lead to further aggravation of tension in the area.

On 29 February,(28) Jordan transmitted information from its Minister for Occupied Territories Affairs on Israeli settlement activity between November 1983 and January 1984, which included land confiscations and decisions to establish new settlements in the West Bank. Information on Israeli settlement activity during March, April and May, which involved confiscation of land, establishment of and plans to establish new settlements and consolidation of settlement activity, was provided by Jordan in letters of 1 May,(29) 25 May(30) and 22 June,(31) respectively.

On 15 March,(32) Bangladesh transmitted resolutions adopted by the Fourteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Dhaka, 6-11 December 1983), among them a resolution condemning Israel for its refusal to comply with the Security Council resolutions on Israeli settlements and for its plans to remove the Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

By a letter of 23 February,(33) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights drew attention to what he called the intensification of Israel's activities against Palestinians, particularly with regard to the renewal of Jewish presence in Hebron and a planned new settlement between Ramallah and Nablus. The Acting Chairman of that Committee expressed concern, in a letter of 26 March,(34) over Israel's persistence in annexing the occupied territories, as exemplified by the establishment of another new settlement named Eruvin, north of Hebron, and the suggested expansion of Jerusalem's municipal limit to the north-east areas of the West Bank. On 25 June,(35) the Committee Chairman stated that Israel had reportedly approved the establishment of three new settlements - to be called Eli-Shemaa, Nirya and Yaarit - on the West Bank, the measure had been opposed by the Israeli Minister for Justice on the grounds that the land belonged to Palestinians.

Activities of the Committee on Palestinian rights. In 1984, the Committee on Palestinian rights continued to keep the situation in the occupied territories under close review. Reporting to the General Assembly on its activities during the year,(36) the Committee stated that in communications to the Secretary-General and the Security Council President it had expressed concern over Israeli policies of establishing illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, the confiscation of Arab-owned land and widespread violation by Israel of the rights of the Palestinian people. The Israeli actions led the Committee to urge the Council to reactivate, as a matter of priority, its 1979 Commission set up to examine the situation relating to Israeli settlements.(37) The Committee pointed out that the Commission's latest report had not been considered by the Council since it was submitted in November 1980.(38)

Noting that Israel persisted with its settlement policy despite the illegality of such action, the censure of international opinion, United Nations decisions and domestic parliamentary questioning, the Committee suggested that Israel was aiming at a projected minimum of 100,000 Israeli settlers by 1987 and 190,000 by the year 2010. The Committee also pointed out that, according to Israeli and Jordanian sources, by the end of 1983 Israel had expropriated 47.4 per cent of the West Bank territory and assumed control of between 50 and 60 per cent of the land in the occupied territories.

Fourth Geneva Convention

In 1984, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights took up the question of whether the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (fourth Geneva Convention), was applicable to the Israeli-occupied territories. Both the Assembly (in resolutions 39/95 B and C) and the Commission reaffirmed the Convention's applicability, as did the Committee on Israeli practices (see p. 316).

In February 1984,(39) the Secretary-General drew the Security Council's attention to a December 1983 request of the Assembly(18) that the Council ensure Israel's respect for and compliance with the fourth Geneva Convention.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. In one(11) of four resolutions on human rights violations in the occupied Arab territories adopted on 20 February 1984, the Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed that the fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to all those territories, including Jerusalem. Condemning Israel's failure to acknowledge its applicability and expressing deep concern over the consequences of that position, the Commission called on Israel to abide by the obligations arising from the Convention and other international instruments, and urged all States parties to that Convention to ensure respect for and compliance with it in the occupied territories.

In the other three resolutions, the Commission reaffirmed that the Convention continued to apply to Syrian territory occupied by Israel(12) and that Israel's persistent colonization of those territories constituted grave violations of the Convention,(13) and confirmed its declaration that Israel's grave breaches were war crimes and an affront to humanity.(l0) (See ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVIII.)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December 1984, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions (39/95 B and C) demanding that Israel comply with the Convention; both were discussed under the agenda item on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices. On 14 December, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the Assembly adopted resolution 39/95 B by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling 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 and 38/79 B of 15 December 1983,

Recalling also 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,

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

Taking into account that States parties to the Convention undertake, in accordance with article 1 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 that Convention to the territories it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

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

4. Urgently calls upon all States parties to that 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.

General Assembly resolution 39/95 B
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 140-1-3 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/712) by recorded vote (117-1-3), 29 November (meeting 43); 13-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.23); agenda item 71.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 31-39, 43; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Liberia, United States, Zaire.

The Committee adopted paragraph 1 of the text by a recorded vote of 119 to 1. The Assembly did so by a recorded vote of 143 to 1.

The United States said its explanation of vote(40) on a similar resolution in 1983(41) applied equally to the current text.

Also on 14 December, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the Assembly adopted resolution 39/95 C by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling 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 and 38/79 C of 15 December 1983,

Recalling also Security Council resolution 465(1980) of 1 March 1980,

Expressing grave anxiety and concern at the present serious situation in the occupied Palestinian and other 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,

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 obstruction to the efforts to achieve a 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.

General Assembly resolution 39/95 C
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 143-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/712) by recorded vote (117-1-1), 29 November (meeting 43); 13-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.24), agenda item 71.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Meeting numbers. GA 33th session: SPC 31-33, 43; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.

Israel said the texts reflected their sponsors' hostility and irresponsibility.

The question of the Convention's applicability was raised in other actions by the Assembly. By resolution 39/95 D, the Assembly condemned Israel's continued and persistent violation of the Convention, particularly the "grave breaches" declared as war crimes and an affront to humanity. Israel's systematic repression against Palestinian educational institutions in contravention of the Convention was condemned by resolution 39/95 G.

Golan Heights

In 1984, developments in the Golan Heights - a part of the Syrian Arab Republic occupied by Israel since 1967 - brought action by the General Assembly (resolutions 39/95 F and 39/146 B) and the Commission on Human Rights.

Israel's refusal to abide by the relevant Assembly and Security Council resolutions was condemned by the Ministers and heads of delegation of non-aligned countries in the final communiqué adopted at their October 1984 meeting and transmitted by India on 8 October.(9)

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. On 20 February 1984,(12) the Commission on Human Rights declared once more that Israel's 14 December 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights(42) had no legal validity called on Israel to rescind that decision, and emphasized the necessity of total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal. The Commission declared that Israeli practices and inhuman treatment of the Syrian Arab population constituted a grave violation of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,(43) the fourth Geneva Convention and United Nations resolutions. It reaffirmed that the Hague Convention of 1907 and the fourth Geneva Convention continued to apply to the occupied Syrian territory, and strongly condemned Israel for its attempts to impose Israeli citizenship and identity cards on Syrian citizens. (See ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVIII.)

Report of the Secretary-General. On 1 October 1984,(44) the Secretary-General reported on the implementation of a December 1983 Assembly resolution(45) which condemned Israel for refusing to rescind its 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Golan Heights, and called on Member States not to recognize such measures. He reported that, in reply to a note verbale of 15 March 1984, Israel had stated on 28 August that its position had been set out fully in a letter of 29 December 1981.(46) The Secretary-General also stated that, in response to notes verbales of 15 March to all other Member States, he had received information on the implementation of the resolution from Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Kuwait, Lesotho, Poland, Romania, Sierra Leone and Uganda, whose replies were annexed to his report. The reply of the German Democratic Republic on that subject was annexed to another October 1984 report by the Secretary-General (see p. 260).

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December 1984, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions dealing with the situation in the Golan Heights. On 14 December, under the agenda item on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices, the Assembly, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted resolution 39/95 F by recorded vote.

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 and General Assembly resolutions 36/226 B of 17 December 1981 ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982, 37/88 E of 10 December 1982 and 38/79 F of 15 December 1983,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 1 October 1984,

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 Golan Heights, 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, inter alia, decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights 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 Heights;

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 Golan Heights 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 and measures to impose forcibly Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Arab Golan Heights and calls upon it to desist from its repressive measures against the population of the Syrian Arab Golan Heights;

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 submit to the General Assembly at its fortieth session a report on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/95 F
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 141-1-3 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/712) by recorded vote (116-1-31), 29 November, (meeting 43); 13-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.27); agenda item 71.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Meeting numbers. GA 33th session: SPC 31-39, 43; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Liberia, United States, Zaire.

The United States reiterated its position expressed in 1983(47) relating to its call on Israel to fulfil its obligations to the population in the Golan Heights, but considered that the text went beyond the Security Council's 1981 resolution(48) declaring Israel's decision null and void. Sweden pointed out that its support for the resolution did not alter its opposition(49) to a February 1982 Assembly resolution(50) mentioned in the text, on the situation in the occupied Arab territories.

On 14 December 1984, under the agenda item "The situation in the Middle East", the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/146 B by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 2 October 1984,

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 and 38/180 A of 19 December 1983,

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 principle 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 occupied Palestinian and other 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 and 38/180 A;

2. Declares once more that Israel's continued occupation of the Golan Heights and its decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights 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 Golan Heights 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 occupied Palestinian and other 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 Golan Heights are illegal and invalid and shall not be recognized;

6. Reaffirms its determination that all relevant provisions 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 of their obligations under these instruments in all circumstances;

7. Determines once more that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights since 1967 and their annexation by Israel on 14 December 1981, following 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 Israel to commit acts of aggression and to consolidate and perpetuate its occupation and annexation of 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 Golan Heights 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 confirms 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 fortieth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/146 B
14 December 1984 Meeting 101 88-22-32 (recorded vote)

32-nation draft (A/39/L.20 & Corr.1 & Add.1); agenda item 36.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Byelorussian SSR, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session; plenary 72-77, 101.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Before adopting the text, the Assembly rejected by 69 votes to 28, with 23 abstentions, a motion by the United States that this resolution, and another which became Assembly resolution 39/146 A, constituted "recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security" within the meaning of that phrase as it appears in Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Charter, and would therefore require a two-thirds majority vote for adoption (for details, see p. 261).

In Israel's view, the text was an attempt to harm and isolate it, as well as to legitimize Arab aggressions of the past and embolden such attacks in the future. Instead of condemning the Syrian Arab Republic, which had repeatedly launched attacks from the Golan Heights, the text castigated Israel; instead of calling for negotiations, it appealed to States to refrain from supplying Israel with means to defend itself.

The United States protested against the text's thrust and overall purpose, and objected to what it called the singularly offensive treatment it received in the resolution, particularly with regard to the practice of selective name-calling.

Australia found that a number of elements in the text were contrary to its policy and noted that they would only aggravate an already tense situation; specifically, a call for measures to isolate Israel discounted the need for all parties to seek negotiated solutions. Ireland, on behalf of the EC members, reiterated their call for a balanced approach, and stressed the unacceptability of formulations criticizing a permanent member of the Security Council for exercising its right under the Charter.

New Zealand was disappointed that the text did not adequately reflect the balance of principles in Council resolution 242(1967)(51) and thus could hardly contribute to a negotiated settlement.

Norway felt that some paragraphs, rather than promoting peace and understanding, were disruptive and could lead in the opposite direction. Its objections to paragraphs 12 to 16 related to their substance as well as to the fact that they could not be reconciled with the division of responsibilities between the Assembly and the Council envisaged by the Charter.

Portugal dissociated itself from any initiative that it felt could make negotiations more difficult, pointing out that the resolution's language had discriminatory or judicial implications detrimental to a dialogue towards a peaceful solution.

Austria said it was consistently opposed to the singling out for criticism of particular countries and did not believe that breaking relations with Israel could bring closer a solution of the Middle East problem. It was also against any formulation which could be interpreted as impinging on the principle of universality of United Nations membership, a view shared by Ecuador, which also said that decisions that were the prerogatives of sovereign States should not be subordinate to decisions or exhortations from third parties or international organizations.

Singapore felt that the draft was selective and unbalanced in its condemnation, and impinged on the sovereign rights of third countries having diplomatic relations with Israel.

Honduras also believed that its international, consular and diplomatic relations with other States were not given the necessary respect in the text, and that the singling out of countries with which it enjoyed such relations was unjustifiable; if this matter of principle was not taken into consideration, it could have a negative impact on the achievement of United Nations aims.

Brazil did not want to reduce the possibilities for the withdrawal of the occupation forces by the diplomatic isolation of a party to the conflict, even if its actions were incompatible with international law and United Nations resolutions.

Malawi's abstention was motivated by its conviction that there was still room for a just and amicable solution through negotiation.

The Philippines said that, to promote peace, resolutions should be balanced and should not prejudice the sovereign right of States to conduct their own international policy as they saw fit.

Bolivia said that the approach and treatment in some paragraphs precluded its support of the text, a view also held by Argentina, which believed, as did Venezuela, that certain judgements were not conducive to a solution.

Egypt remarked that it could not subscribe to certain aspects of the text, particularly parts of paragraph 13.

While endorsing the text's spirit, Spain stressed that it could not vote for it because of the legal problems and the political implications of the penultimate preambular paragraph, as well as paragraphs 8, 9 and 12 to 14. Nepal found the text's general thrust in keeping with its position; however, it reserved its position on the same operative paragraphs and on the fourth and eighth preambular paragraphs, which it said ran counter to its declared policies on the Middle East. It also believed that the initiation of measures called for in the operative paragraphs was the prerogative of the Security Council.

Greece said that, if separate votes had been taken, it would have abstained on paragraphs 8 and 13 (c) and (d), and would have voted against paragraph 14.

Mexico said its vote demonstrated commitment to United Nations resolutions, despite its reservations on paragraphs 12 to 14. Bhutan had reservations on the use of certain phrases and determinations in the eighth preambular paragraph and paragraph 12.

Iran's reservation concerned the fact that the text made no distinction between the territories occupied before 1967 and those occupied since.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reaffirmed its opposition to any reference that could be interpreted, directly or indirectly, as a recognition of what it called the Zionist entity or legitimization of a fait accompli imposed by force.

By resolution 39/146 A, the Assembly strongly condemned the imposition by Israel of its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

West Bank officials

The issue of three West Bank officials deported by Israel in 1980(52) was again addressed by the General Assembly in 1984. The Assembly called on Israel to allow the return of the three Palestinian leaders, so that they could resume the functions for which they had been elected and appointed. The officials had been charged with inciting the local Arab population to acts of violence and subversion. The Assembly also considered again the 1980 assassination attempts against the Palestinian Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh.(53)


Expulsion of Hebron and Halhul
Mayors and of the Islamic Judge of Hebron

Report of the Secretary-General. In a 27 September 1984 report(54) to the General Assembly on the implementation of its December 1983 resolution(55) regarding the illegal expulsion and imprisonment of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and the expulsion of the Sharia (Islamic)Judge of Hebron, the Secretary-General said he had received no response from Israel in reply to a note verbale of 15 March 1984.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices, the General Assembly on 14 December 1984, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted by recorded vote resolution 39/95 E.

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 and General Assembly resolutions 36/147 D of 16 December 1981, 37/88 D of 10 December 1982 and 38/79 E of 15 December 1983,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 27 September 1984,

Deeply concerned at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron,

Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in particular article I and the first paragraph of article 49, which read as follows:
"Article I
"Article 49

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Demands once more that the Government of Israel the occupying Power, rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling and imprisoning the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and in expelling the Sharia Judge of Hebron and that it facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders so that they can resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly as soon as possible and not later than the beginning of its fortieth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/96 E
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 143-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/712) by recorded vote (121-1-1), 29 November (meeting 43); 13-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.25); agenda item 71.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 91-39,43; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States

The United States reiterated its position(56) on the corresponding 1983 resolution(56) when it had acknowledged that deportation was contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention, but noted omission of factors contributing to that action.


Prosecution in assassination attempts

Report of the Secretary-General. On 9 July 1984,(57) the Secretary-General reported to the General Assembly on implementation of its December 1983 resolution(58) concerning the 1980 assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus Ramallah and Al Bireh. The Secretary-General stated that, in reply to a note verbale of 15 March 1984, Israel had informed him, on 28 June, that a number of suspected perpetrators of those attacks had been apprehended by the Israeli authorities and indicted, and were currently standing trial in the Jerusalem District Court.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices, the General Assembly, on 14 December 1984, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted by recorded vote resolution 39/95 H.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 471(1980) of 5 June 1980, in which the Council condemned the assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus Ramallah and Al Bireh and called for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of those Crimes,

Recalling also General Assembly resolutions 36/147 G of 16 December 1981, 37/88 G of 10 December 1982 and 38/79 H of 15 December 1983,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 9 July 1984,

Recalling once again the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in particular article 27, which states, inter alia:

Reaffirming the applicability of that Convention to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, inform the Secretary-General of the results of the investigations and prosecution relative to the assassination attempts;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its fortieth session a report on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/95 H
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 143-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/712) by recorded vote (121-2-1), 29 November (meeting 43); 13-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.29); agenda item 71.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 51-39, 43; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

The United States expressed confidence in the ability of Israel's legal system to produce a fair result and therefore considered any interference by the United Nations unjustified.

Ireland, for the EC members, stated reservations about the appropriateness of the language in paragraph 1, since the Israeli authorities had already begun proceedings against the alleged perpetrators.

Economic and social conditions

Concerned about the deteriorating economic and social conditions in the occupied territories, the United Nations continued its efforts in 1984 to remedy the situation. A report of the Secretary-General focused on the living conditions of Palestinians in the occupied territories, a subject taken Up in December by the General Assembly in resolution 39/169. Also in December, the Assembly adopted resolution 39/223 on economic development projects in those territories. Several economic and social assistance activities for Palestinians were undertaken by UNDP, UNIDO, UNICEF and other organizations (see p. 276).

Nicaragua, by a letter of 15 October,(59) transmitted to the Secretary-General, among other documents of the Third Conference. of Ministers of Labour of Non-Aligned Countries and Other Developing Countries (Managua, 10-12 May), a resolution calling on ILO to increase technical assistance to the Palestinian workers in the occupied territories, and a draft resolution presented by the Group of Arab States condemning Israel for its continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, and for establishing settlements destroying housing and expelling the members of workers unions.


Living conditions of Palestinians

Report of the Secretary-General. In May 1984, the Secretary-General submitted a report(60) on the living conditions of Palestinians in the occupied territories, pursuant to a December 1983 request of the Assembly.(61) The report was prepared with the help of three experts, although, as in the previous year, they had not been permitted by Israel to visit the territories and thus had to rely on secondary sources of information. From 22 January to 28 February, they had held discussions in Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic with government and United Nations officials. Meetings were also held with PLO officials in Damascus and Amman, as well as with the former Minister of Awgaf and Holy Places, the former Mayors of Jerusalem, Halhul and Hebron, former professors from the West Bank, and Palestinians who had recently returned from the territories. Some of the material for analysis had been gathered from United Nations bodies and organizations.

In contrast to previous years, when general conditions of occupation had been analysed, the 1984 report focused on the direct impact of Israeli settlements on the living conditions of the Palestinians in the territories. It provided an overview of Israeli settlement trends and plans, and assessed the effect of the continuing Israeli settlement practices and policies on the growth of Palestinian towns and villages, on water resources and housing, on the economy of the occupied territories, on the social life and religious practices of the Palestinians, and on the judicial and local government systems.

The experts concluded that the policies designed to promote, protect and develop the settlements diminished the amount of land and water resources available to Palestinians. According to some sources, Israel controlled between 50 and 60 per cent of the land in the occupied territories, and almost all of the Jordan Valley's potentially cultivable land had been expropriated for the Israeli settlements. Although water supplies in the West Bank were substantially better than in the critically dry Gaza, Israel had imposed restrictive measures on the indigenous population, while providing preferential water supply services to Israeli settlers.

The increasing control by the occupation authorities over agricultural and industrial production, marketing and building, as well as the absence of a financial system and the continuous devaluation of the Israeli shekel, had contributed to important structural changes in the economy of the territories, diminished the potential for development and led to the West Bank's and Gaza's total dependence on the occupying Power. The report noted that Israel continued to establish settlements in a manner that impaired the expansion of Palestinian towns and villages. The already serious housing situation, exacerbated by the continuing punitive demolition and sealing of houses, was expected to worsen due to the absence of construction to replace substandard units and restrictive policies on building permits and on the transfer of funds from abroad.

The experts pointed to widely disparate conditions under which Israelis and Palestinians lived. While the settlers enjoyed subsidies, assured markets, guaranteed prices and all the benefits of full citizenship, Palestinians were impeded by various restrictions, had no access to credit, were denied national insurance and home improvement opportunities and were discouraged from investing in industry. Their social life was adversely affected by the increasing number of new Israeli settlers who often interfered with Palestinians' farming, religious and educational activities. The settlers' status as a privileged class had given rise to increased confrontation between the two groups, often leading to violence. Another factor contributing to the deteriorating situation was the existence of two different judicial and local government systems. Justice was dispensed to the Israeli settlers through Israeli courts, whereas Palestinians were subject to the jurisdiction of military courts, the judgement of which could not be appealed.

The report also noted the inadequacy of health and education facilities available to Palestinians, in contrast to quality services that Israeli settlers had access to. In addition, Palestinians were restricted in their social and cultural activities by frequent curfews, whereas the Israeli settlers were free to pursue those interests within the territories.

By a letter of 10 October 1984,(62) Israel transmitted its comments on the Secretary-General's May report, as well as on a June report(63) on permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied territories (see p. 334). Israel said the May report, merely summarizing the June report, did not add anything to the water resources issues.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ACTION

In July 1984, on the recommendation of its First (Economic) Committee, the Economic and Social Council adopted decision 1984/173 without vote.

Living conditions of the Palestinian people
in the occupied Palestinian territories

At its 49th plenary meeting, on 26 July 1984, the Council took note of the report of the Secretary-General on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories and decided to transmit it to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session for consideration.

Economic and Social Council decision 1984/173
Adopted without vote

Approved by First Committee (E/1984/l46) without vote, 18 July (meeting 12); oral proposal by Chairman; agenda item 15.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 17 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Second Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/169 by recorded vote.
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 38/166 of 19 December 1983,

Gravely alarmed by the continuation of the Israeli settlement policies, which have been declared null and void and a major obstacle to peace,

Recognizing the need to investigate ways and means of arresting the deterioration in the economy of the occupied Palestinian territories,

1. Takes note with concern 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 29 October 1984 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:

(a) To organize, in 1985, a seminar on remedies for the deterioration of the economic and social conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories;

(b) To make the necessary preparations for the seminar providing for the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization;

(c) To invite experts to present papers to the seminar;

(d) To invite also relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations;

(e) To report to the General Assembly at its fortieth session, through the Economic and Social Council, on the seminar.

General Assembly resolution 39/169
17 December 1934 Meeting 103 143-2-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by Second Committee (A/39/790/Add.10) by recorded vote (129-2-2), 13 November (meeting 40); 5-nation draft (A/C.2/39/L.11), orally revised; agenda item 80 (j).

Sponsors: Madagascar, Mali, Qatar, Senegal, Tunisia.

Financial implications. 5th Committee, A/39/699: S-G, A/C.2/39/L.27, A/C.5/39/41 and Add.1.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: 2nd Committee 18-20, 22, 23, 26 28, 33, 37, 40; 5th Committee 36; plenary 103.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Gabon, Ivory Coast.

Israel said the text exhibited no sound reasoning or political maturity, but reflected its sponsors' hypocrisy and intent to slander Israel rather than help Palestinians. It also failed to mention several documents submitted by Israel. With regard to paragraph 3, Israel said it was not possible for a handful of Israelis to change the demography of 1.9 million Arabs. It also described as absurd the reference to the alleged deterioration of the Palestinian Arabs' living conditions and stated that the outcome of the proposed seminar would doubtless be empty rhetoric.

The United States believed that the Secretary-General's report was biased and wilfully distorted, and the resolution itself was inaccurate; the seminar would incur expenditures which could be employed instead to benefit Palestinians. While sharing the international community's concerns about the quality of Palestinian life, the United States rejected the use of condemnatory language.

The German Democratic Republic, speaking also on behalf of Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR, said their vote was an expression of support for a just and comprehensive Middle East solution, but regretted that the text did not call for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and the withdrawal of all Israeli troops.

Despite its affirmative vote, Australia said it was concerned about the financial implications of the seminar. Ireland, speaking for the EEC members, believed that considerable resources must be allocated to alleviate the problems of the region, but stressed that the seminar should be held within existing resources. Ireland and Japan observed that holding the seminar at Vienna rather than Nairobi, headquarters of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, contradicted the Assembly's 1976 decision(64) on holding meetings away from headquarters. Finland, on behalf of the Nordic countries, said their vote did not prejudice their position on how programme budget implications should be presented, and termed the relevant statement inadequate.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya pointed out that its vote should not be interpreted as a recognition of any fait accompli or of the entity in occupied Palestine. Iran stressed that its vote reflected its support of Palestinian rights; it was, however, opposed to the inclusion of any paragraph which accorded recognition to the régime occupying the Palestinian territories.

In Jerusalem and in the Gaza Strip, several Palestinian residential quarters had been destroyed by the occupation authorities to make way for colonial settlements, the PLO representative said, and in the West Bank Palestinian farmers had been forced to give up their land for "security" purposes so that settlements could be built. They were being established to facilitate annexation of the territories, isolate them from other Arab countries, destroy the Palestinian identity and prevent the achievement of a just peace in the region. In addition, Israel's current economic difficulties were also detrimental to the living conditions of Palestinians in the occupied territories, since those territories had been made economically dependent on the Israeli economy.

The Fifth Committee on 28 November decided, by recorded vote of 92 to 2, with 11 abstentions, that, should the Assembly adopt the text, an additional appropriation of $36,200 would be required for 1984-1985.

On 18 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Second Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/223 by recorded vote.

Economic development projects in the
occupied Palestinian territories

The General Assembly,

Aware of the Israeli restrictions imposed on the foreign trade of the occupied Palestinian territories,

Aware also of the imposed domination of the Palestinian market by Israel,

Taking into account the need to give Palestinian firms and products direct access to external markets without Israeli interference,

1. Calls for the urgent lifting of the Israeli restrictions imposed on the economy of the occupied Palestinian territories,

2. Recognizes the Palestinian interest in establishing a seaport in the occupied Gaza Strip to give Palestinian firms and products direct access to external markets;

3. Calls upon all concerned to facilitate the establishment of a seaport in the occupied Gaza Strip;

4. Also calls upon all concerned to facilitate the establishment of a cement plant in the occupied West Bank and a citrus plant in the occupied Gaza Strip;

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

General Assembly resolution 39/223
18 December 1984 Meeting 104 138-2-7 (recorded vote)


Approved by Second Committee (A/39/789) by recorded vote (115-2-9), 13 November (meeting 40); 7-nation draft (A/C.2/33/L.18/Rev.1), orally revised: agenda item 12.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bangladesh, Madagascar, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Yemen.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: 2nd Committee 28-33, 40; plenary 104.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

Israel rejected the political connotations of the text, pointing out that products originating in the administered territories had free access to external markets, that development projects were considered solely on the basis of their economic merits, and that the ports of Ashdod and Haifa were at the disposal of the inhabitants of Judaea Samaria and the Gaza District.

Canada, as well as Sweden (speaking also for Finland, Iceland and Norway), agreed with the general thrust of the text, but cited as their reasons for abstaining the absence of documentation on the specific projects and lack of adequate justification for them. Australia had reservations about their cost, funding and feasibility.

Ireland, for the EC members, pointed out that their vote did not imply any commitment on their part and stressed the need for economic and technical viability of development projects. Austria withheld judgement on the economic, technical and financial aspects of specific projects for lack of adequate information. The position of Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR, as well as Iran, was the same as on other 1984 resolutions on the subject.

In December, the General Assembly also adopted, on the recommendation of the Second Committee, decision 39/442 by recorded vote.

Israeli economic practices in the occupied
Palestinian and other Arab territories

At its 104th plenary meeting, on 18 December 1984, the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Second Committee, requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Assembly at its fortieth session, through the Economic and Social Council, the comparative study on the Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories and its obligations under international law, requested in Assembly resolution 38/144 of 19 December 1983 as adopted.

General Assembly decision 39/442
145-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by Second Committee (A/39/789) by recorded vote (115-2), 13 November (meeting 40); 4-nation draft (A/C.2/39/L.17), orally revised; agenda item 12.

Sponsors: Madagascar, Pakistan, Qatar, Tunisia.

Meeting numbers: GA 39th session: 2nd Committee 33, 40: plenary 104.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

Israel said the text had been derived from a December 1983 Assembly resolution(65) based on questionable premises which predetermined a one-sided outcome; the comparative study requested would be an elaboration of a 1983 report(66) rejected by Israel. The text disregarded the economic and social welfare of the inhabitants of the administered territories, and Israel's compliance with international law had already been repeatedly explained.

Ireland, for the EC members, said that, while the text requested a useful study, they reaffirmed their position of principle with regard to the 1983 resolution. Japan said it was sympathetic to the position of the Arab States on the problem of natural resources. Australia pointed out that its vote implied no commitment to support related future decisions.


Mediterranean-Dead Sea canal project

Israel's plan of March 1981(57) to build a 67-mile canal linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea for electric power generation was the subject of a General Assembly resolution (39/101) and a decision of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Following up on their 1983 study(68) of the effects of the planned conduit, which was to pass through the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip, a team of United Nations experts provided updated information on the project's impact on agricultural development, mineral production, and recreation and tourism.

On 15 March,(32) Bangladesh transmitted to the Secretary-General, among other documents of the Fourteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Dhaka, 6-11 December 1983), a resolution strongly condemning the canal project as detrimental to the vital interests of the Palestinian people and Jordan, and calling on States and Governments not to contribute to its execution.

UNEP Council action. Recalling that the Assembly had demanded in December of 1982(69) and 1983(70) that Israel not construct the canal and cease all actions or plans towards implementing this project, the UNEP Governing Council, on 28 May 1984,(71) deplored Israel's non-compliance with the Assembly resolutions and its refusal to receive the United Nations team of experts. The UNEP Executive Director was asked to facilitate the Secretary-General's work in monitoring and assessing all aspects - especially ecological ones - of the adverse effects on Jordan and on the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, arising from the project, as well as in the preparation of the Secretary-General's 1984 report to the Assembly.

Report of the Secretary-General. Pursuant to a December 1983 Assembly request,(70) the Secretary-General submitted in August 1984 a report(72) on Israel's decision to build a canal. Bringing up to date the available information on the project, it contained the conclusions of a team of United Nations experts who assessed the effects of a canal on agricultural development, mineral production, recreation and tourism. As Israel had considered that no useful purpose would be served by a visit of the experts to Israel and the occupied territories - their mandate being, Israel said, not to study the project but to determine its harmful effects, without addressing themselves to its merits - the team based its report on the information provided by authorities during a visit to Jordan from 30 May to 7 June 1984.

The experts reported an advanced stage of planning for the project, with $4 million (out of $24 million allocated for preparatory work from 1983 to 1985) slated to be used for drilling an exploratory tunnel from the Dead Sea shore to the site of a planned underground power plant. In their view, inundation from the proposed canal could have a significant impact on existing or future agricultural development projects, particularly in the southern and northern regions of the Dead Sea, affecting the lands being developed through the Mujib and Southern Ghors Irrigation Project. Approximately 660 hectares of irrigable land would be inundated and lost to cultivation; other areas would be adversely affected by poor drainage, increased salinity and the possible uprooting of up to 3,000 people. Annual loss of agricultural production was estimated to be from $7.9 million to $15 million, based on the 2,500 hectares of land to be affected upon the completion of the canal in 1993.

The experts stressed that the raising of the Dead Sea would have especially serious consequences for Jordan's only known mineral resources, potassium and phosphate. Inflow of large quantities of Mediterranean sea water would decrease potash production, largely dependent on the density of Dead Sea brine, and require raising of dikes and additional pumping facilities, thus reducing profitability.

A change in the level of the Dead Sea would also affect a number of recreation, tourism and health care facilities; the three main recreation and tourist centres already developed or planned would be totally or mostly inundated. Concerns were also expressed about the potential flooding of health care facilities planned to take advantage of hot springs at various locations along the eastern shore of the Dead Sea.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/101 by recorded vote.

Israel's decision to build a canal linking the
Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 36/150 of 16 December 1981, 37/122 of 16 December 1982 and 38/85 of 15 December 1983,

Recalling the rules and principles of international law relative to the fundamental rights and duties of States,

Bearing in mind the principles of international law relative to belligerent occupation of land, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and reaffirming their applicability to all Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,

Recognizing that the proposed canal, to be constructed partly through the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, would violate the principles of international law and affect the interests of the Palestinian people,

Confident that the canal linking the Mediterranean Sea with the Dead Sea, if constructed by Israel, will cause direct, serious and irreparable damage to Jordan's rights and legitimate and vital interests in the economic, agricultural, demographic and ecological fields,

Deeply concerned at the digging activities in the Dead Sea area at the envisaged site of that end of the canal,

Noting with regret the non-compliance by Israel with General Assembly resolution 36/150,

1. Deplores Israel's non-compliance with General Assembly resolutions 37/122 and 38/85 and its refusal to receive the team of experts;

2. Emphasizes that the canal linking the Mediterranean Sea with the Dead Sea, if constructed, is a violation of the rules and principles of international law, especially those relating to the fundamental rights and duties of States and to belligerent occupation of land;

3. Demands once again that Israel not construct this canal and cease forthwith all actions taken and/or digging plans made towards the execution of this project;

4. Calls upon all States, specialized agencies and governmental and non-governmental organizations not to assist, directly or indirectly, in the preparation and execution of this project, and strongly urges national, international and multinational corporations to do likewise;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to monitor and assess, on a continuing basis and through a competent expert organ, all aspects - juridical, political, economic, ecological and demographic - of the adverse effects on Jordan and on the Arab territories occupied since 1967 including Jerusalem, arising from the implementation of the Israeli decision to construct this canal and to forward the findings of that organ on a regular basis to the General Assembly;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fortieth session on the implementation of the present resolution;

7. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fortieth session the item entitled "Israel's decision to build a canal linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea".

General Assembly resolution 39/101
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 143-211 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/716) by recorded vote (115-2-1), 7 December (meeting 60); 19-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.34); agenda item 77.

Sponsors: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Democratic Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Financial implications. 5th Committee, A/39/788; S-G, A/SPC/39/L.35, A/C.5/39/81.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session, SPC 47-50; 5th Committee 45; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Zaire.

On 11 December, the Fifth Committee Chairman proposed, on the basis of recommendations of ACABQ, that the Secretary-General be authorized to commit up to $54,000 to monitor and assess the canal project; no additional appropriations would be required under the 1984-1985 budget. The Committee approved the proposal by a recorded vote, requested by Israel, of 98 to 2, with 10 abstentions.

The United States said there was no point in passing a resolution on an abstract proposal, since according to some reports the canal was not going to be constructed.

Explaining its position in the Committee, Israel said that the experts' report was one-sided, focusing only on the purported negative effects of the canal project, while ignoring economic and ecological benefits, as well as specific problems concerning the Dead Sea and relevant studies on those problems, particularly one by the University of Jordan which warned against a further drop in the Dead Sea level and recommended a canal as a solution. In Israel's view, the project did not violate international law or the relevant Hague Regulations.

Jordan said that the project was part of Israel's effort to control all underground and surface water resources of the occupied territories in order to deprive Palestinians and force them to abandon their lands.

The Syrian Arab Republic stressed that the proposed canal violated international law, in particular of principles relating to the fundamental duties of States in respect of the occupation of territories by force.


Education

As requested by the General Assembly, the Secretary-General submitted on 18 September 1984 a report(73) on implementation of a December 1983 resolution(74) demanding that Israel rescind all measures against educational institutions in the occupied territories. Responding to a note verbale of 15 March 1984, Israel, in a reply of 28 August annexed to the report, rejected the accusations it said were levelled against it in that resolution. It pointed out that the school system in the areas in question was staffed by several thousand local Arab teachers and that since 1967 the total number of pupils in governmental, UNRWA and private schools had increased by 90.6 per cent and the number of classes by almost 90 per cent. In addition, Israel had enabled the establishment of a number of institutions of higher learning in Judaea and Samaria, including four universities. While not interfering in academic activity there when security was endangered by hostile gatherings and exhibitions within the campus, as well as incidents such as stoning of vehicles on highways, authorities were obliged by international law to restore public order and safety; therefore it was unacceptable to interpret Israel's actions as a systematic campaign of repression against and closing of universities.

Information on measures affecting the right to freedom of education was also provided by the Committee on Israeli practices in the occupied territories in its 1984 report.(16) Those measures included a three-month closing by the West Bank military government of the Bir Zeit University's old campus in February, and its new campus for one month in April following student clashes with security forces and student demonstrations. In July, the Nablus Civil Administration ordered the closure of Al-Najah University for four months following the seizure of alleged pro-PLO propaganda at a student campus exhibition. The Committee noted that the occupation authorities had continued to subject the tenure of academic staff to the issuance of annual permits. Another serious problem was the continuing practice of mass transfers of teachers and students from one region of the occupied territories to another. The Committee emphasized that measures taken, especially in requiring signed undertakings of a political character, had introduced a political element into the academic context, leading to confrontation between the military authorities and teachers and students.

On 3 February,(75) Egypt transmitted a letter of the same date from PLO, informing the Security Council President that, on 31 January, there had been a strike by students of Bir Zeit University protesting what PLO said was an attempt by Zionist settlers to blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and that, on 2 February, the Israeli occupation authorities had closed down the University's old campus for three months, depriving 1,400 Palestinian students of schooling. The letter placed that move in the context of Israeli policy of direct interference in the academic affairs of educational institutions.

By a letter of 8 August,(4) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights reiterated the Committee's concern about violations of academic freedom in the occupied territories. Annexed to the letter was a report detailing UNESCO's action on behalf of educational and cultural institutions in the territories.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, under the agenda item on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices, the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted resolution 39/95 G by recorded vote.

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 harassment by Israel, the occupying Power, against educational institutions in the occupied Palestinian territories,

Recalling its resolution 38/79 G of 15 December 1983,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 18 September 1984,

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 policy of opening 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 and not later than the beginning of its fortieth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/95 G
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 117-2-26 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/712) by recorded vote (93-2-26), 29 November (meeting 43); 13-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.28); agenda item 71.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 31-39, 43; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

The United States reiterated its position expressed in 1983(66) on the parallel 1983 resolution;(74) while certain aspects of Israeli policies were open to criticism, it found the text's condemnatory language unacceptable.

Sweden said that because of recent events it voted in favour of the text, despite the somewhat categorical wording of paragraph 2.


Permanent sovereignty over resources

Report of the Secretary-General. Pursuant to a December 1983 Assembly resolution,(65) the Secretary-General submitted in June 1984 a report(63) on permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories. Annexed to it was a report by a team of experts engaged to collect information on the subject. Unable to carry out on-site inquiries in Israel and the occupied territories, the team based its findings on data gathered by individual members during discussions with local officials and PLO representatives in the Syrian Arab Republic and Jordan in February/March and during visits to a number of United Nations agencies in April/May. Under the circumstances, no new data on land, economy, and social, cultural and political institutions in the territories could be obtained, and the report was therefore limited to an examination of Israeli policies and practices relating to the exploitation of water resources. Lack of access to the relevant sites also precluded making a comparison between the practices of Israel and its obligations under international law.

The issues covered in the report included water policies and their impact, principles of water ownership; water allocation, control and administration systems; special zones or areas; protection of water rights; financial policies of water resources management; and the impact of occupation policies on water. The experts concluded that Israeli policies and practices had undergone a basic revision since 1967, with the major changes relating to water rights held by the water users, the pattern of administrative water management responsibilities and water allocation, and the fact that the system of water management operated by decision of Israeli authorities alone. Given the Israeli policies of preventing increases in the use of water in the West Bank and of supporting fully the water needs of Israeli settlements, it was difficult to see, in the experts' opinion, how the established water management system could operate without discrimination. They also believed that the extent to which the basic public water services in the occupied territories were dependent on Israeli water services would make it very difficult and costly to separate their respective water administrations.

The report also contained a list of Israeli military orders issued with regard to water resources in the territories in the period 1967-1982. In a letter of 15 May transmitting the list, Jordan stated that the orders were in contravention of the relevant principles of international law and had the aim of strangulating Arab farmers' activities in the West Bank and the other occupied Arab territories.

The negative impact of Israeli policies on the territories' resources, especially water, was underscored by the Committee on Palestinian rights which noted in its 1984 report(36) the imposition of restrictive measures on water usage by the Palestinians, along with preferential treatment by the occupying authorities in supplying water to the Israeli settlers.

Communications. By a letter of 8 June 1984,(76) Israel transmitted a report entitled "Judaea-Samaria and the Gaza District - A sixteen-year survey", constituting a shortened version of a government report on the economic and social developments in those areas during 1967 to 1983. The content of the report was refuted by Jordan in a letter of 6 July;(77) Jordan's arguments were in turn rebutted by Israel on 20 July.(78)

By a letter dated 10 October,(62) Israel transmitted its comments on the Secretary-General's June report(63) on permanent sovereignty over national resources (see above), as well as his May report(60) on living conditions of the Palestinians in the occupied territories (see p. 327). The June report contained, in Israel's view, inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Israel's letter went on to summarize the principles guiding Israeli water resources administration in the territories and challenged statements in the report on, inter alia: the extension of Israeli legislation concerning water ownership, the availability of water, water transfers to Israel, integration of local water systems with Israeli systems and discrimination in water rates.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ACTION

In July, the Economic and Social Council adopted without vote decision 1984/181.

Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the
occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories

At its 49th plenary meeting on 26 July 1984, the Council took note of the report of the Secretary-General on permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, prepared in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 38/144 of 19 December 1983, and decided to transmit it to the Assembly at its thirty-ninth session for consideration.

Economic and Social Council decision 1984/181
Adopted without vote

Oral proposal by President; agenda item 8.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

By decision 39/445, the General Assembly took note of several reports, among them the Secretary-General’s June 1984 report on permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied territories.
REFERENCES

(1)S/16360. (2)S/16392. (3)A/39/117-S/16373. (4)A/39/403. (5)A/39/692-S/16841. (6)S/16479. (7)A/39/360 (S/16520). (8)A/39/449-S/16724. (9)A/39/560-S/16773. (10)E/1984/14 (res. 1984/1 A). (11)Ibid. (res. 1984/1 B). (12)Ibid . res. 1984/2). (13)Ibid. (res. 1984/3). (14)Ibid. (res. 1984/11). (15)YUN 1982, p. 481. (16)A/39/591. (17)YUN 1968, p. 555, GA res. 2443(XXIII), 19 Dec. 1968. (18)YUN 1983, p. 314, GA res. 38/79 D, 15 Dec. 1983. (19)A/39/620. (20)YUN 1983, p. 315. (21)S/16249. (22)S/l6255. (23)A/39/67. (24)A/39/70-S/16261. (25)S/16269. (26)A/39/74. (27)S/16293. (28)A/39/119-S/16379 & Corr.1 (29)A/39/237-S/16538. (30)A/39/278-S/16589. (31)A/39/321-S/16642. (32)A/39/133 S/16417. (33)A/39/116-S/16366. (34)A/39/157-S/16442. (35)A/39/329-S/16646. (36)A/39/35. (37)YUN 1979, p. 400, SC res. 446(1979), 22 Mar. 1979. (38)YUN 1980, p. 416. (39)S/16334. (40)YUN 1983, p. 327. (41)Ibid., p. 326, GA res. 38/79 B, 15 Dec. 1983. (42)YUN 1981, p. 308. (43)YUN 1948-49, p. 535, GA res. 217 A (III), 10 Dec. 1948. (44)A/39/532 & Corr.1 (45)YUN 1983, p. 328, GA res. 38/79 F, 15 Dec. 1983. (46)YUN 1981, p. 312. (47)YUN 1983, p. 328. (48)YUN 1981, p. 312, SC res. 497(1981), 17 Dec. 1981. (49)YUN 1982, p. 507. (50)Ibid., p. 515, GA res. ES-9/1, 5 Feb. 1982. (51)YUN 1967, p. 257, SC res. 242(1967), 22 Nov. 1967. (52)YUN 1980, p. 411. (53)Ibid., p. 413. (54)A/39/527. (55)YUN 1983, p. 331, GA res. 38/79 E, 15 Dec. 1983. (56)Ibid., p. 332. (57)A/39/339. (58)YUN 1983, p. 332, GA res. 38/79 H, 15 Dec. 1983. (59)A/39/581-S/16782 & Corr.1. (60)A/39/233-E/1984/79. (61)YUN 1983, p. 335, GA res. 38/166, 19 Dec. 1983 (62)A/C.2/39/7. (63)A/39/326-E/1984/111. (64)YUN 1976, p. 908, GA res. 31/140, 17 Dec. 1976. (65)YUN 1983, p. 340, GA res. 38/144, 19 Dec. 1983. (66)Ibid., p. 339. (67)YUN 1981, p. 318. (68)YUN 1983, p. 336. (69)YUN 1982, p. 541, GA res. 37/122, 16 Dec. 1982. (70)YUN 1983, p. 337, GA res. 38/85, 15 Dec. 1983. (71)A/39/25 (dec. 12/7). (72)A/39/142. (73)A/39/501. (74)YUN 1983, p. 338, GA res. 38/79 G, 15 Dec. 1983. (75)S/16311. (76)A/39/295-E/1984/124. (77)A/39/347-E/1984/132. (78)A/39/356- E/1984/151.


__________________

Palestine refugees
__________________

UN Agency for Palestine refugees

In 1984, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East continued to render assistance to Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Its operations were administered from its headquarters at Vienna and Amman, Jordan, five field offices and liaison offices in New York and Cairo, Egypt. Providing both emergency relief measures and regular support operations, the Agency maintained its own schools, training establishments clinics and health centres, and procured and distributed food rations to needy refugees.

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 (39/99 A); the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA (39/99 B); assistance to displaced persons (39/99 C); scholarships for higher education and vocational training (39/99 D); Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip (39/99 E); ration distribution to Palestine refugees (39/99 F); refugees displaced since 1967 (39/99 G); revenues from refugee properties (39/99 H); refugee protection (39/99 I); Palestine refugees in the West Bank (39/99 J); and a proposed University of Jerusalem for Palestine refugees (39/99 K).

UNRWA activities

Emergency operations launched in the aftermath of the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon(1) continued to dominate UNRWA's relief efforts for most of 1984. Again, UNRWA was providing emergency assistance to large numbers of refugees affected by the fighting that persisted almost without interruption throughout Lebanon, as well as by the Israeli occupation of the south. Emergency food rations, distributed to all displaced refugees through the winter, were phased out in March, except for the issues to approximately 24,000 destitute. The Agency proceeded with repairing and reconstructing its installations, despite interference from continuing clashes and turmoil.

UNRWA also maintained its regular programme, with particular emphasis on education (see p. 340). Another area receiving high priority was health services provided by the Agency under the professional guidance of WHO to 1.7 million eligible Palestine refugees, the main focus being on preventive care and environmental sanitation in the refugee camps. Out-patient services were delivered through UNRWA's 98 health units and by special arrangement at one clinic run by a voluntary agency and 22 run by Governments. The Agency also operated 27 dental clinics, three central health laboratories and 24 clinical laboratories.

Expenditure on health and relief services in 1984 totalled almost $44 million and $23 million, respectively.

Report of the Commissioner-General. Describing UNRWA's activities over the period 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984,(2) the Commissioner-General noted that the ongoing intra-Palestinian and intra-factional conflict in Lebanon had forced the Agency to change planned priorities for relief and reconstruction operations. UNRWA encountered the same difficulties in carrying out its emergency operations as in the previous period (July 1982-June 1983), but the situation was exacerbated by the duration of the crisis. The Commissioner-General reported that in January 1984 in Lebanon, an Israeli air raid on Baalbek had killed 15 refugees and wounded 125, destroyed the accommodations of seven refugee families and 52 individual shelters, and damaged an additional 66 shelters as well as Agency installations in the Wavell camp. After heavy fighting broke out in the Beirut area in February, the Lebanon Field Office premises had to be closed and non-essential international staff briefly evacuated. Disturbed by the situation, the Commissioner-General alerted Lebanon and Israel and other Governments considered to be influential, and drew public attention to the alarming state of affairs. Nevertheless, towards the end of the reporting period there continued to be serious threats to the security of Palestine refugees in the south. In June and early July 1984, the Shiite Amal militia several times attacked Shatila and Burj el-Barajneh camps in the Beirut area. Moreover, in July and August, factional fighting in the Tripoli area disrupted UNRWA operations in northern Lebanon (see also p. 343). The report noted that the discontinuation of the emergency rations had drawn protests from the refugees and prompted their refusal, in the Tyre area, to accept for a time any Agency services.

With regard to the financial situation, the Commissioner-General expressed grave concern about 1985 and the years beyond and appealed to the international community to ensure that UNRWA was supplied with the resources it needed to carry out the will of the General Assembly.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/99 A by recorded vote.
Assistance to Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 38/83 A of 15 December 1983 and all 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 1983 to 30 June 1984,

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 United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 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 1985;

5. Directs attention to the continuing seriousness of the financial position of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 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 United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 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 United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 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 39/99 A
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 145-0-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/715) by recorded vote (109-0-1), 12 November (meeting 29); draft by United States (A/SPC/39/L.7); agenda item 75.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 11-18, 23, 29; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: None.

Abstaining: Israel.

Speaking before the Assembly vote on the 11 draft resolutions on UNRWA, Israel said that they all acquiesced in the artificial perpetuation of the refugee problem and lacked balance, fairness and historical accuracy. The resolution on assistance to refugees, for example, while regretting the non-implementation of paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194(III) of 1948(3) on the partition of Palestine, failed to manifest regret for the Arab rejection of all offers of negotiation and attempts to implement constructive United Nations projects. Israel was repeatedly censured in the 11 texts, but there was no condemnation of the Arab States.

In the Committee, Ireland, speaking on behalf of the 10 EC members, said they fully supported the resolution and believed that all Member States should contribute to the financing of UNRWA.


UNRWA financing and administration

Financing

Total income received by UNRWA for all funds in cash and in kind in 1984 was $181.2 million. This included a one-time receipt of $8.9 million transferred to the Agency's vocational and teacher-training programme after the closure of the United Nations Emergency Operation Trust Fund. Total expenditure was $191.3 million. The General Fund received $162.1 million of unrestricted income in cash and in kind; in addition, $8.4 million in contributions for special projects was received during 1984 prior to the adoption of full fund accounting and was credited to the General Fund. Regular programme expenditures totalled $177.5 million, with an additional $3.1 million allocated to special projects. During 1984, UNRWA had 15 projects funded by special contributions.

Working Group on financing UNRWA. On 12 October 1984, the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, established in 1970,(4) submitted a report(5) on its activities and on UNRWA's financial situation in 1984. On 3 October, the Commissioner-General had provided the Working Group with up-to-date information on the financial situation.

While pleased that no major reductions in UNRWA services were expected before the end of 1984, the Group expressed concern over the slow growth of income and the apparent trend towards lower contributions. It also noted that it would not be possible to avoid a financial crisis in 1985 if the existing trends in expenditure and income continued. Indicating that an estimated $225.3 million of net cash would be required in 1985 from voluntary contributions from Governments and intergovernmental agencies, the Group noted the difficulties in meeting that requirement as compared with 1984, when an $8.9 million one-time contribution was available and $17 million was drawn from the cash-balance reserve, which was expected to contain only $5 million at the beginning of 1985. The Group agreed that international financial support of UNRWA must be increased.

The Group noted that the willingness of some of the major contributors to convert their contributions in kind into cash had been a decisive factor in maintaining the educational programme at its current level, and expressed hope that they would continue to assist the Agency in that respect. Describing UNRWA's humanitarian services as indispensable, the Group urged non-contributing Governments to contribute, and those that had contributed before to strive for increasingly generous contributions and to pay a early as possible in the calendar year.

JIU recommendations. In September 1984,(6) the Secretary-General submitted a report on the implementation of recommendations made in several reports by the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), among them a report of August 1983(7) on UNRWA's programme and operations, management problems and institutional questions. He reported that, out of 15 JIU recommendations, those implemented dealt with encouraging refugee self-help projects, solicitation of books for UNRWA school libraries and reorientation of the role of UNESCO to strengthen high priority education programmes; the recommendation on United Nations liability for separation benefits was addressed to the Assembly; others had been implemented in part or were in the process of implementation (for further details, see pp. 339, 340, and 343).

Ad Hoc Committee for the announcement of contributions. The Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly for the Announcement of Voluntary Contributions to UNRWA met at United Nations Headquarters on 19 November 1984. In his closing statement,(8) the Commissioner-General stressed that the contributions pledged, although most encouraging, would not assure the Agency sufficient income in 1985, since budget expenditures had risen to an estimated $258 million. He voiced deep concern about the financial prospects for 1985.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNRWA GENERAL FUND, 1984
(as at 31 December 1984; in US dollar equivalent)


Payments Payments
Contributor in kind in cash Total

Australia - 2,201,000 2,201,000
Austria - 132,000 132,000
Bahamas - 500 500
Bahrain - 15,000 15,000
Bangladesh - 5,000 5,000
Barbados - 1,000 1,000
Belgium - 238,172 238,172
Burkina Faso - 1,445* 1,445*
Burma - 1,000 1,000
Canada - 4,272,557 4,272,557
Chile - 5,000 5,000
China - 50,000 50,000
Cyprus - 1,822 1,822
Denmark - 547,886 547,886
European Economic Community 752,626 29,518,247 30,270,873
Finland - 529,770 529,770
France 117,755 1,025,998 1,143,753
Gaza authorities 101,872 - 101,872
Germany, Federal Republic of - 3,453,007 3,453,007
Greece - 55,000 55,000
Holy See - 14,500 14,500
Iceland - 9,500 9,500
Indonesia - 18,000 18,000
Iraq - 3,500,000* 3,500,000*
Ireland - 295,865 295,865
Israel 276,051 - 276,051
Italy - 1,311,475 1,311,475
Jamaica - 3,000 3,000
Japan 1,828,615 8,500,000 10,328,615
Jordan 953,736 - 953,736
Kuwait - 600,000 600,000
Lebanon 29,302 - 29,302
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - 926,581 926,581
Luxembourg - 6,319 6,319
Malaysia - 5,000 5,000
Maldives - 1,000 1,000
Malta - 872 872
Mauritius - 1,250 1,250
Mexico - 3,000 3,000
Monaco - 815 815
Morocco - 38,000 38,000
Netherlands - 1,437,265 1,437,265
New Zealand - 75,882 75,882
Norway - 7,671,780 7,671,780
Oman - 25,000 25,000
Pakistan - 20,927 20,927
Panama - 500 500
Philippines - 3,658 3,658
Portugal - 15,000 15,000
Republic of Korea - 5,000 5,000
Saudi Arabia - 3,200,000 3,200,000
Seychelles - 500 500
Spain - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Sri Lanka 2,000 - 2,000
Sudan - 12,047* 12,047*
Sweden - 7,475,013 7,475,013
Switzerland 2,000,000 790,330 2,791,958
Syrian Arab Republic 144,137 - 144,137
Thailand - 15,640 15,640
Trinidad and Tobago - 4,975 4,975
Turkey - 19,123 19,123
United Kingdom - 7,255,500 7,255,500
United States - 67,000,000 67,000,000
Yemen - 2,000* 2,000*
Yugoslavia 35,850 - 35,850
Zimbabwe - 5,134 5,134

Subtotal 6,243,572 153,369,855 159,613,427

United Nations and
specialized agencies:

United Nations - 8,870,839 8,870,839
UNESCO 899,939 - 899,939
WHO 467,200 - 467,200

Subtotal 1,367,139 8,870,839 10,237,978

Non-governmental sources 247,642 761,607 1,009,249

TOTAL 7,858,353 163,002,301 170,860,654


*Written off.

SOURCE: A/40/5/Add.3.



GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/99 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 and 38/83 B of 15 December 1983,

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 1983 to 30 June 1984,

Gravely concerned at the critical financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which has already reduced the essential minimum services being provided to the Palestine refugees and which threatens even greater reductions in the future,

Emphasizing the urgent need for extraordinary efforts in order to maintain, at least at their present minimum level, the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

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 of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 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 39/99 B
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 Adopted without vote

Approved by SPC (A/39/715) without vote, 12 November (meeting 29); 18-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.8); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Austria, Bangladesh, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Federal Republic of, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Yugoslavia.

Financial implications. S-G, A/SPC/39/L.19.

Meeting number. GA 39th session: SPC 11-18, 23, 29: plenary 100.


Accounts for 1983

For the year ended 31 December 1983, expenditure and commitments of UNRWA amounted to $210,918,091 under its General Fund.(9) The Board of Auditors noted that requests for carry-over of funds submitted to headquarters by the field offices did not provide sufficient information for a proper review by the Budget Division. Several provisions of the Manual of Supply Procedures on procurement of supplies and equipment had not been sufficiently adhered to, such as specifications of items for purchase, bidding procedures, the role of the Committee on Contracts and the timing of procurement, and the Board's 1982 recommendations on the establishment of a list of slow-moving stocks had not been implemented. The Board also commented on other budgetary and administrative matters, including several problems related to temporary assistance guidelines, travel authorizations and reimbursement claims, financial accounting of revenue-producing activities (greeting cards and calendars), assignment of internal auditors to field operations and reporting of ex gratia payments.

In a September report(10) on financial reports and audited financial statements and reports of the Board of Auditors, ACABQ shared the Board's concern and urged that the administration pay closer attention to all aspects of the procurement process, both to ensure full compliance with the applicable rules and to achieve optimum use of available resources.

The Assembly, by resolution 39/66, accepted the audited financial statements of UNRWA and requested remedial action as required by the Board's comments and observations.


Personnel questions

Reporting on the status of implementation of the 1983 JIU recommendations,(6) the Secretary-General noted that the recommendation on measures to be taken to improve the geographical distribution and academic qualifications and Arabic knowledge of international professional UNRWA staff had been implemented, subject to the Commissioner-General's reservation of November 1983 on academic qualification requirements.(11) The Secretary-General also reported that work was under way to define occupational groups, redefine job classifications, and develop training programmes in an effort to implement a recommendation on the area staff formulating a comprehensive career planning system. A review of UNRWA's computerized personnel record system was in progress, with a view to modernization.


Staff security

Report of the Commissioner-General. In his report for the year ended 30 June 1984,(2) the Commissioner-General stated that the number of staff members arrested and detained by the local authorities, though smaller than in the previous year, was none the less a cause for concern, with a total of 40 persons arrested without charge, though later released. As of 30 June, three staff members were in detention, two of whom had been removed from Lebanon to Israel. On 29 March the Syrian Arab Republic, without giving any reason, had required the Director of UNRWA Affairs in that country to leave within 48 hours. The Commissioner-General had protested that action and the Secretary-General had conveyed his deep concern and hope that the matter would receive serious consideration. The Agency continued to face problems in other areas: in Jordan, staff were called upon to perform military service; in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israeli-imposed restrictions on duty travel were not lifted; interrogation of staff by Israeli authorities persisted in the Gaza Strip; and in Lebanon UNRWA staff faced repeated threats to their live.


Organizational structure

Reporting on the implementation of the 1983 JIU recommendations,(6) the Secretary-General stated that the recommendation on the reorganization of the administrative structures of UNRWA had been implemented, subject to the Commissioner-General's reservation of November 1983 concerning integration of the Management and Budget Divisions.(12) With regard to the recommended transfer of some UNRWA headquarters functions from Vienna back to the region of operations, the Secretary-General reported that, although the situation was kept under review, no change in the location of headquarters units at Vienna had so far proved possible.

The Assembly, in resolution 39/99 A, reiterated its request that UNRWA headquarters be relocated to its former site within its area of operations as soon as practicable.

Other aspects

Assistance to displaced persons

In 1984, the General Assembly again endorsed UNRWA efforts to provide humanitarian assistance, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities in the Middle East.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/99 C without vote.
Assistance to persons displaced as a result of
the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 38/83 C of 15 December 1983 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 1983 to 30 June 1984,

Concerned about the continued human suffering resulting from the hostilities in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 38/83 C and all 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 a 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 39/99 C
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 Adopted without vote

Approved by SPC (A/39/715) without vote, 12 November (meeting 29); 20-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.9); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mali, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sweden.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session. SPC 11-18, 23, 29; plenary 100.


Education and training services

Schools and teacher-training centres

In 1984, UNRWA spent 5121 million on education and training, which accounted for 63 per cent of its total expenditure on regular programmes.(13)

The general education programme strengthened its position as the largest single Agency activity. In October 1984, a total of 345,844 pupils were enrolled in the 640 Agency elementary and preparatory schools in all the five Field Office areas, served by 10,163 teachers. An additional 100,896 refugee pupils were known to be enrolled in government and private elementary and secondary schools, and about 52,400 non-eligible children were in Agency schools. Construction of five new school buildings in 1983/84 could not solve the classroom-deficit problem, as a result of which 489 schools (75 per cent of the total) were involved in double-shifting.

In 1983/84, 3,720 training places were available to Palestine refugees in vocational and technical courses at UNRWA training centres, and 43 refugees were trained in private institutions. Having taken part in the Agency's teacher-training programme, 201 trainees graduated in October from its basic two-year, specialized two-year preparatory and professional one-year courses and were recognized by UNRWA as professionally qualified teachers. Pre-service teacher training continued to be provided at three Agency centres, with 663 teacher trainees graduating at the end of the 1983/84 training year.

Reporting on implementation of JIU's 1983 recommendations,(6) the Secretary-General said efforts were continuing to replace unsatisfactory rented schools, financed through a special capital provision. A study of inadequate heating of classrooms was in progress.


Proposed University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds"

As requested by the General Assembly in December 1983,(14) the Secretary-General reported in September 1984 on the latest efforts to establish a university for Palestine refugees at Jerusalem.(15) He had appointed a consultant to assist him in completing a technical feasibility study requested by the Assembly in 1981,(16) a task requiring the consultant to visit all the areas and campuses concerned and to meet with the competent authorities. In an exchange of correspondence with Israel, it had been stressed that it would be difficult for the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures for establishing the university without Israel's co-operation. Israel had replied that no action could be taken on the matter, since the points it had raised in 1981 had so far not been clarified; these touched on the eligibility of students 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 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as within the framework of local legislation relating to higher education. In a subsequent letter to Israel, it had been suggested that those points might best be considered during the consultant's visit. Israel had replied that, in the absence of the clarifications it had requested its position remained unchanged. In the absence of a positive response from Israel, the Secretary-General considered that the technical feasibility study could not be completed.

Assessing the feasibility of creating a voluntary fund for an advanced fellowship programme, endorsed by the Assembly in 1982,(17) the Secretary-General concluded that replies received in response to his inquiry to United Nations Member and non-member States, as well as to Arab regional development banks and intergovernmental organizations, did not provide a sufficient basis for creating a trust fund.

The Secretary-General also noted that the Council of the United Nations University, at its July 1984 session,(18) had reiterated its support for the establishment of a university and agreed to keep itself informed about the prospects of its offer of assistance to conduct a feasibility study of the project.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/99 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 and 38/83 K of 15 December 1983,

Having examined the report of the Secretary-General on the question of the establishment of a university at Jerusalem,

Having also examined 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 1983 to 30 June 1984,

1. Commends the constructive efforts made by the Secretary-General, the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the Council of the United Nations University and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which worked diligently towards the implementation of General Assembly resolution 38/83 D and other relevant resolutions;

2. Further commends the dose co-operation of the competent educational authorities concerned;

3. 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;

4. 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;

5. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to co-operate in the implementation of the present resolution and to remove the hindrances which it has put in the way of establishing the University of Jerusalem;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fortieth session on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/99 K
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 144-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/715) by recorded vote (126-2),12 November (meeting 29); 8-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.17); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Financial implications. 5th Committee, A/39/802/Rev.1; S-G, A/C.5/39/47, A/SPC/39/L.18.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 11-18, 23, 29: 5th Committee 41; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

On 4 December, the Fifth Committee decided that, on the basis of ACABQ's recommendations, no additional appropriations would be required under the 1984-1985 budget to cover the remaining $22,700 estimated cost of consultant services in connection with the proposed university. The Committee approved the proposal by a recorded vote, requested by the United States, of 92 to 2, with 6 abstentions.

Israel described the call for a university as a move to institutionalize the refugee problem through the proliferation of new bodies, and characterized it as an absurdity in educational terms and as showing disregard for sound administration and restraint in the use of international funding.


Scholarships

During the academic year 1983/84, UNRWA(2) awarded 346 scholarships to Palestine refugees to study at Arab universities. The scholarships, partly funded from special contributions, were awarded for one year but were renewable subject to the end-of-year examinations.

Report of the Secretary-General. In a report submitted to the General Assembly in August 1984(19) in accordance with a December 1983 request,(20) the Secretary-General presented information on responses by Member States and United Nations agencies to the Assembly's numerous appeals for special allocations for grants and scholarships to Palestine refugees. He reported that one graduate from the Gaza Strip and one from the West Bank had begun courses in the Federal Republic of Germany, while negotiations continued on other scholarships offered by that country in 1983. The World Intellectual Property Organization had invited the UNRWA Commissioner-General to propose scholarship candidates for 1984 and had selected two of them by the date of the report. The Universal Postal Union had reiterated its willingness to continue considering applications for scholarships in the postal field. UNESCO had granted five fellowships to Palestine refugee education staff in UNRWA for special courses of training overseas, and FAO had reported on two programmes of training assistance and ILO on its preparation of projects for implementation by UNDP. UNRWA had declared its readiness to act as the recipient and trustee of special allocations and scholarships for Palestine refugees.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/99 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 and 38/83 D of 15 December 1983,

Cognizant of the fact that the Palestine refugees have for the last three decades, lost their lands and means of livelihood,

Having examined the report of the Secretary-General on offers of grants and scholarships for higher education for Palestine refugees and on the scope of the implementation of resolution 38/83 D,

Having also examined 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 1983 to 30 June 1984, dealing with this subject,

1. Urges all States to respond to the appeal contained in General Assembly resolution 32/90 F of 13 December 1977 in a manner commensurate with the needs of Palestine refugees for higher education and 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 38/83 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 such special allocations and scholarships and to award them to qualified Palestine refugee candidates;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fortieth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/99 D
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 145-0-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/715) by recorded (115-0-1), 12 November (meeting 29); 8-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.10); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 11-18, 23, 29; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: None.

Abstaining: Israel.


Food aid

Reporting on the status of implementation of JIU's 1983 recommendations,(6) the Secretary-General observed that, to the extent resources permitted UNRWA had implemented the suggested approaches, to the relief programme; these had included merging special hardship assistance and basic ration distribution into one aid programme to refugees in need, and establishing a priority assistance category; the gradual introduction of food coupons was to replace distribution in kind, the annual ceiling on ration-eligible refugees should be abolished, the shelter component of the relief programme should receive more of the available resources, and health and education field officers should maintain UNRWA premises.

Report of the Commissioner-General. In his report for the year ended 30 June 1984,(2) the Commissioner-General stated that, given the efforts to implement the Assembly's March 1982 decision(21 on Agency financing and the lack of sufficient resources, UNRWA could not comply with the Assembly's December 1983 request(22) to resume the interrupted general ration distribution to Palestine refugees in all fields. The Agency nevertheless continued to provide emergency food aid to some 158,750 registered and non-registered Palestine refugees in Lebanon and until March 1984 to registered refugees from Lebanon who were displaced in the Syrian Arab Republic. In addition, some 24,000 refugees in Lebanon were treated as hardship cases, receiving food aid throughout the reporting period. Food rations continued to be distributed to hardship cases, which included widows, orphans, the aged, the physically and mentally handicapped and the chronically ill. The Commissioner-General noted that UNRWA's ability to assist the destitute largely depended on the availability of additional resources. By the end of June, the programme of assistance to hardship cases was benefiting 97,213 destitute persons Agency-wide.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/99 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 and all 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 1983 to 30 June 1984,

Deeply concerned at the interruption by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, owing to financial difficulties, of the general ration distribution to Palestine refugees in all fields,

1. Regrets that resolutions 37/120 F and 38/83 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 Governments 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 fortieth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/99 F
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 122-19-4 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/715) by recorded vote (94-19-6), 12 November (meeting 29); 7-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.12); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 11-18, 23, 29; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
Sweden said that without sufficient financial resources, resuming the general ration distribution would endanger UNRWA's vital educational, health and relief activities; the categorical way in which the text was formulated did not give the Commissioner-General any leeway to exercise discretion and maintain the necessary priorities.


Refugee protection

Describing Palestine refugees in Lebanon as the victims, and in many instances specific targets, of violence, the UNRWA Commissioner-General expressed, in his report for the year ended 30 June 1984,(2) especially grave concern about their safety in the south of the country. The Lebanon Field Office having reported 25 violent deaths, 13 kidnappings and numerous other serious incidents, the Commissioner-General had repeatedly drawn attention to the lack of security for Palestinians in the south and made representations to the occupying Power, pointing out that it had the responsibility for safeguarding the welfare of the civilian population. In response to an appeal to Israel made by the Commissioner-General on 15 February to stem the ongoing campaign of harassment and violence, Israel had given assurances that the Israel Defence Forces were doing everything possible to defend refugees in the area. In May, however, further serious incidents occurred in Ein El-Helweh camp, resulting in injury to several refugees and damage to a number of shelters. The deteriorating situation in the camp was the subject of a Security Council meeting on 21 May (see p. 296), and a strong protest had been addressed to Israel by UNRWA on 6 June.(23)

Report of the Secretary-General. Protection of Palestine refugees was the subject of a 2 October 1984 report(23) prepared by the Secretary-General in response to a December 1983 General Assembly resolution(24) calling on Israel to take a number of measures to improve the security and safety of Palestine refugees in the occupied territories. The Secretary-General reported that, on 22 March 1984, he had brought the resolution to Israel's attention, requesting information on its implementation.

Israel had responded on 29 June that its March 1983 description of the situation in southern Lebanon(25) remained valid; it drew attention to the Commissioner-General's reference at a press conference on 18 March 1984 to Israeli intervention, on at least one occasion, to prevent the massacre of Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon. The Secretary-General observed that the Commissioner-General's reference had been to an approach he had made to Israeli authorities in February 1983, following which attacks on Palestine refugees in southern Lebanon had decreased. The Secretary-General also pointed out that there was a continuing concern about maintaining security after Israeli withdrawal, recalling in this connection his 9 April 1984 report(26) to the Security Council on UNIFIL, in which he had suggested the immediate deployment of UNIFIL elements in areas vacated by Israeli forces (see p. 298).

The Secretary-General also outlined UNRWA activities in the West Bank (see p. 349) and the Gaza Strip (see p. 347) and the Agency's efforts to restore services to Palestine refugees in Lebanon (see p. 335).

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/99 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 General Assembly 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 and 38/83 I of 15 December 1983,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 2 October 1984,

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 1983 to 30 June 1984,

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 lack of security for the Palestine refugees in occupied southern Lebanon resulting in scores of violent deaths, woundings, kidnappings, disappearances, evictions in the face of threats, explosions and arsons,

Deeply distressed at the sufferings of the Palestinians resulting from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon,

Reaffirming its support for Lebanese sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, within its internationally recognized boundaries,

1. Urges the Secretary-General, in consultation with 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;

2. Holds Israel responsible for the security of the Palestine refugees in occupied southern Lebanon, 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;

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. Also calls upon Israel to desist forthwith from preventing those Palestinians registered as refugees in Lebanon from returning to their camps in Lebanon;

5. Further calls upon Israel to allow the resumption of health, medical, educational and social services rendered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to the Palestinians in the refugee camps in southern Lebanon;

6. Requests the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to co-ordinate his activities in rendering these services with the Government of Lebanon, the host country;

7. Urges the Commissioner-General to provide housing, in consultation with the Government of Lebanon, to the Palestine refugees whose houses were demolished or razed by the Israeli forces;

8. Calls once again upon Israel to compensate the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 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;

9. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Commissioner-General, to report to the General Assembly, before the opening of its fortieth session, on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/99 I
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 127-2-18 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/715) by recorded vote (105-2-16), 12 November (meeting 29); 8-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.15); orally revised in Assembly; agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 11-18, 28, 29 plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.


The Special Political Committee adopted paragraph 2 of the draft that became resolution 39/99 I by a recorded vote of 98 to 2, with 23 abstentions. In the Assembly, the sponsors orally modified the paragraph, changing the position of "the occupying Power" from holding "Israel, the occupying Power," to follow the call on Israel "to fulfil its obligations as the occupying Power".

Israel said that the incidents referred to in the sixth preambular paragraph had not occurred in southern Lebanon; it considered that the text was an instrument of political warfare, which ignored Syrian occupation and interference by the Syrian Arab Republic in the internal affairs of Lebanon as the root of the problem, and therefore should be rejected.

While stressing the need to protect effectively all Palestine refugees, the EC member States, on whose behalf Ireland spoke, had doubts about some of the wording, for example in paragraph 2. In relation to paragraph 1, they stressed the importance of Israel's fundamental responsibility as the occupying Power for the protection of the civilian population. Sweden and Finland said their vote demonstrated their deep concern for the security and rights of the Palestine refugees, but also felt that the Secretary-General should not be given responsibility for the safety of refugees, a task which, in Sweden's view, rested with the occupying Power. Uruguay held a similar view. Finland also had doubts about the effectiveness of paragraphs 1 and 8, while Sweden wished that paragraph 2 was less ambiguous about the legal obligation of the occupying Power to ensure the refugees' security.

Ecuador believed that paragraph 2 was not well balanced, and stressed that the principles of self-determination and non-interference in the internal affairs of States should be observed without any discrimination. New Zealand explained its vote as an expression of concern for the welfare of the Palestine refugees and support for UNRWA. However, it had reservations about paragraph 1, which did not take into account the Secretary-General's stated inability to protect the refugees, and felt that paragraph 5 should have called on Israel to allow the full resumption of the services mentioned.


Property rights

Report of the Secretary-General. On 6 September 1984, the Secretary-General submitted a report(27) on revenues derived from Palestine refugee properties, as the Assembly had requested in December 1983.(28) He reported that on 29 February and 22 March 1984, respectively, he had brought the Assembly's 1983 resolutions on UNRWA(29) to the attention of the Chairman of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine and to Israel's attention, requesting the latter to communicate to him information on their implementation. On 23 March and July, he had also requested information from States on their implementation of the relevant provisions of those resolutions, including the call to Governments concerned, especially Israel, to assist him in implementing the resolution on revenues from Palestine refugee properties.

In a reply of 29 June, Israel had stated that its position regarding revenues from such properties had been set out fully in November 1981 before the Special Political Committee.(30) The Secretary-General said there were no replies from any other State; however, in an October 1984 addendum to his report, he informed the Assembly that he had received a reply from Cyprus dated 21 September, reiterating its support to Palestinian Arab refugees, who were entitled to property rights and to the income deriving from that property.

Report of the Conciliation Commission. In its report covering the period from 1 October 1983 to 30 September 1984,(31) the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine stated that the complex situation which had limited its possibilities of action with regard to compensation for Palestine refugee properties had remained essentially unchanged. In response to a formal request from PLO for permission to obtain a copy of the microfilm on property and land in Palestine in the Commission’s custody, the relevant documents had been transmitted to the Office of the Permanent Observer of PLO to the United Nations.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/99 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 and all its previous resolutions on the question, including resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the reports of the Secretary-General of 6 September and 12 October 1984,

Taking note also of the report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, covering the period from 1 October 1983 to 30 September 1984,

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 from their property, in conformity with the principles of justice and equity,

Recalling, in particular, its resolution 394(V) of 14 December 1950, 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 Palestinian 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, of 11 May 1964 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 upon Israel to render all facilities and assistance to the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution;

3. Calls upon all other Governments of 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 fortieth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 39/99 H
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 123-2-21 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/715) by recorded vote (99-2-20), 12 November (meeting 29); 8-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.14); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 11-18, 23. 29; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In Israel's opinion, the text ran counter to the basic tenets of international law, since property rights and regulations within the borders of a sovereign State were exclusively subject to domestic law and United Nations interference with that was unthinkable. Ireland (on behalf of the 10 EC members), Sweden and the United States considered that the resolution concerned an issue which should be addressed in negotiations on a peace settlement.

Proposed repatriation

Report of the Secretary-General. Pursuant to a December 1983 General Assembly request,(32) the Secretary-General submitted on 21 August 1984 a report(33) on population and refugees displaced since 1967. In response to his request of 22 March for information on Israeli steps to facilitate the return of displaced inhabitants, Israel had stated on 29 June that its position had been set out in successive annual replies, most recently on 26 August 1983.(34) It added that, since the submission of that reply and until the end of January 1984, another 2,735 persons had returned to Judaea and Samaria bringing the total number of returnees since 1967 to 63, 90.

The Secretary-General also reported that he had obtained information from the UNRWA Commissioner-General on the return of refugees registered with the Agency; those data were based on requests by returning registered refugees for transfer of their entitlement for services to the areas to which they had returned. Between 1 July 1983 and 30 June 1984, 230 refugees registered with UNRWA had returned to the West Bank and 125 to the Gaza Stop. This had brought the estimated total number of known displaced registered refugees who had returned to the occupied territories since June 1967 to 10,530.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/99 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 General Assembly 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 and 38/83 G of 15 December 1983,

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 1983 to 30 June 1984, and the report of the Secretary-General of 21 August 1984,

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 of 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 fortieth session on Israel's compliance with paragraph 4 above.

General Assembly resolution 39/99 G
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 127-2-17 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/715), by recorded vote (100-2-15), 12 November (meeting 23); 9-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.13); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 11-18, 23, 29: plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

Sweden said that, while it upheld the right of displaced Palestinians to return to their homes, the formulation of the text seemed to rule out negotiations on the modalities of repatriation.

In another resolution of the same date - 39/99 A on assistance to Palestine refugees - the Assembly noted with regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees had not been effected and that no substantial progress had been made in the reintegration of refugees by repatriation or resettlement. The Assembly requested the United Nations Conciliation Commission to exert continued efforts towards that goal and to report to it not later than 1 September 1985.


Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip

Report of the Secretary-General. In September 1984,(35) the Secretary-General submitted a report on Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip, in accordance with a December 1983 General Assembly resolution(36) asking for a report on Israeli measures concerning resettlement of the refugees and on the destruction of their shelters. He reported that, on 22 March 1984, he had requested information from Israel relevant to that resolution. On 29 June, Israel had replied that its position had been set out in successive annual replies, the latest dated 26 August 1983.(37) As to the situation since then, Israel added that it had provided housing for more than 8,000 families within the refugee voluntary rehabilitation programme, with another 1,500 families to be housed under the same programme in 1984.

The Secretary-General also stated that, according to the UNRWA Commissioner-General's reports, no demolition of refugee shelters on punitive grounds had taken place during the year under review, but that the families affected by such measures in 1983(37) had not yet been provided with alternative shelters. On the question of rehousing refugees affected by demolitions in 1971,(38) the Agency was able to review, following its discussions with Israel, the status of the 88 families categorized previously as hardship cases, 41 of whom were still in hardship or inadequately housed. Regarding demolition in 1983 of refugee shelters that Israel considered built without proper authority on State land outside camp boundaries,(37) the Commissioner-General had received information that demolition in the Rafah camp had been stopped after the death of a child in an accident, and that an injunction by the High Court of Israel early in 1984 had stopped an Israeli-ordered removal of shelters in the Jabalia camp. In July, however, 10 shelter rooms belonging to 15 refugee families were demolished. The 35 families from the Beach camp shelters demolished in 1983 had not been rehoused.

In related developments, refugee shelters in the Khan Yunis camp had been surveyed by the Israeli authorities in January; in February/March, special forms were issued by the Israeli authorities to all Jabalia camp inhabitants to be filled out with their family particulars, and Israel informed UNRWA about its plans to construct a security road along the beach at Deir El Balah, which could entail demolition of some 400 shelter rooms.

According to information available to the Commissioner-General, 748 refugee families (4,594 persons) had moved to 550 plots of land in Israeli-sponsored housing projects during the reporting period. As a pre-condition, this had required the demolition of 579 Agency-built shelter rooms, 64 rooms built with Agency assistance and 420 rooms built without such assistance. By the reporting date, Israel had allocated 3,364 plots of land in the Gaza Strip for housing. Houses built by refugees on 1,873 plots and by non-refugees on 100 plots were occupied by 2,480 refugee families and 100 non-refugee families, comprising 15,241 refugees and 666 non-refugees; 384 plots were under construction and 1,007 stood vacant. In addition, 2,940 families (17,665 persons) and 14 non-refugee families (65 persons) had moved into completed houses. Construction in three new housing projects in Beit Lahiya and Nazleh (near Jabali a camp) and Tel-el-Sultan (near Rafah camp) was still under way.

Since the re-establishment of the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip in 1982, 791 shelter rooms affecting 266 refugee families (1,669 persons) and 86 shelter rooms affecting 28 non-refugee families (203 persons) had been demolished at the instance of Israeli authorities to make way for a security zone and border fence. Compensation had been paid to the families concerned. However, 80 families in Rafah had obtained an injunction against the demolitions from the High Court of Israel.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/99 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 General Assembly 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 and 38/83 E of 15 December 1983,

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 1983 to 30 June 1984, and the report of the Secretary-General of 4 September 1984,

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,

1. Reiterates 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 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 fortieth session, on Israel's compliance with paragraph 1 above.

General Assembly resolution 39/99 E
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 145-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/715) by recorded vote (117-2), 12 November (meeting 29); 8-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.11); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 11-18, 23, 29; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

The United States said it opposed unrealistic and one-sided resolutions which singled out Israel while ignoring action taken against UNRWA and the refugees by other Governments and parties in the area. In its view, the text would oppose any effort by Israel to improve the fate of certain refugees. Ireland, expressing support for the text on behalf of the 10 EC member States, said that nothing should interfere with the refugees' freedom to choose where they wished to live.


Palestine refugees in the West Bank

Report of the Commissioner-General. In his report on UNRWA activities for the year ended 30 June 1984,(2) the Commissioner-General stated that hardship had been caused to the refugee population in the West Bank, particularly the aged and the very young, by curfews imposed by the Israeli authorities and by the barricading of camp entrances. Entrances to the Arroub, Dheisheh and Kalandia camps were blocked with bricks and cement and some of the paths to the main streets in Jalazone and Askar camps were also blocked, leading to stone-throwing incidents. The costs of the barricades at Askar camp were imposed on the refugee families living nearby. Rooms in eight shelters in Aida and Jalazone camps and part of a shelter unit in the Balata camp were sealed as punitive measures against families for hostile acts said to have been committed by their members.

Report of the Secretary-General. On 8 August 1984, the Secretary-General submitted a report(39) on the resettlement of Palestine refugees in the West Bank and destruction of their camps, as requested in a December 1983 resolution,(40) by which the Assembly had called on Israel to abandon any such plans or actions. He reported that, in response to his request for all relevant information, Israel had stated on 29 June that its position on the matter had been set out in December 1983 before the General Assembly,(41) adding, however, that the proposal in question was still being looked into by the Israeli Government. The Secretary-General also pointed out that UNRWA, while not opposing measures voluntarily accepted by refugees to improve their living conditions, would strongly object to any attempt to force the refugees to comply with any particular scheme. The Agency expected to continue providing services to any relocated refugees, since their eligibility for UNRWA services would not be affected by the mere fact of such relocation. At the time of the report, of the 349,000 registered refugees in the West Bank. 260.000 lived outside the camps.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 14 December 1984, the General Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted resolution 39/99 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 General Assembly resolution 38/83 J of 15 December 1983,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 8 August 1984,

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 1983 to 30 June 1984,

Alarmed 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 upon Israel to abandon its plans and to refrain from the removal, and from any action that may lead 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 fortieth session, on any developments regarding this matter.

General Assembly resolution 39/99 J
14 December 1984 Meeting 100 145-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/39/715) by recorded vote (145-2), 12 November (meeting 29); 9-nation draft (A/SPC/39/L.16); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 39th session: SPC 11-18, 23, 29; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

Against: Israel, United States.

Israel said the resolution defied logic by calling on it to abandon plans at bettering the housing conditions of the refugees and demanding that they remain in their camps presumably for ever. Ireland, on behalf of the 10 EC member States, considered that the fifth preambular paragraph and paragraph 1 perhaps did not accurately describe the status of the "plans" to which they referred. Sweden interpreted the wording of paragraph 1 as an affirmation of Israel's responsibility to refrain from resettling Palestine refugees against their will.
REFERENCES

(1)YUN 1982, p. 428. (2)A/39/13. (3)YUN 1948-49, p. 174, GA res. 194(III), 11 Dec. 1948. (4)YUN 1970, p. 280, GA res. 2656(XXV), 7 Dec. 1970. (5)A/39/575. (6)A/39/145. (7)YUN 1983, p. 345. (8)A/AC.223/SR.1. (9)A/39/5/Add.3. (10)A/39/510. (11)YUN 1983, p. 347. (12)Ibid., p. 349. (13)A/40/13 & Add.1 & Add.1/Corr.1. (14)YUN 1983, p. 350, GA res. 38/83 K, 15 Dec. 1983. (15)A/39/528. (16)YUN 1981, p. 339, GA res. 36/146 G, 16 Dec. 1981. (17)YUN 1982, p. 563, GA res. 37/120 C, 16 Dec. 1982. (18)A/40/31. (19)A/39/375. (20)YUN 1983, p. 351, GA res. 38/83 D, 15 Dec. 1983. (21)YUN 1982, p. 552, GA dec. 36/462, 16 Mar. 1982. (22)YUN 1983. p. 352, GA res. 38/83 F, 15 Dec. 1983. (23)A/39/538. (24)YUN 1983, p. 354, GA res. 38/83 I, 15 Dec. 1983. (25)Ibid., p. 353. (26)S/16472. (27)A/39/464 & Add.1. (28)YUN 1983, p. 356, GA res. 38/83 H, 15 Dec. 1983. (29)Ibid., pp. 342-60, GA res. 38/83 A-K, 15 Dec. 1983. (30)YUN 1981, p. 336. (31)A/39/455. (32)YUN 1983, p. 357, GA res. 38/83 G, 15 Dec. 1983. (33)A/39/411. (34)YUN 1983, p. 357. (35)A/39/457. (36)YUN 1983, p. 359, GA res. 38/83 E, 15 Dec. 1983. (37)Ibid., p. 358. (38)YUN 1971, p. 198. (39)A/39/372. (40)YUN 1983, p. 360, GA res. 38/83 J, 15 Dec. 1983. (41)Ibid., p. 360.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter