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

About the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS


3 August 1981

Committee on Rights of
Palestinian People
67th Meeting (PM)


The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People met briefly in open session this afternoon, but recessed following a statement by Niaz A. Naik (Pakistan) that his delegation could not accept the holding of a meeting presided over by "a representative of a regime" that his country did not recognize. Following the 15-minute recess, the Committee decided to continue today's meeting in closed session.

The acting Chairman at today's meeting was Mohammad Farid Zarif (Afghanistan), a Vice-Chairman of the Committee.

In his statement after the opening of this afternoon's meeting, Mr. RAIK (Pakistan) said that at the beginning of this year, there had been considerable consultations about the election of the bureau of the Committee, before an agreement was reached that the Committee's meetings and communications would be presided over by the Chairman, the representative of Senegal, or by the first Vice-Chairman, the representative of Cuba. His delegation could not accept a meeting preided over by a representative of a regime that Pakistan did not recognize.

He proposed that the meeting be cancelled and reconvened later when either the Chairman or the first Vice-Chairman was available.

HASAN A. ABDEL RAHMAN, observer for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), said he regretted that he had to intervene on a matter of procedure. The nature of the agenda item for today's meeting was so urgent that it could not wait until either the Chairman or the first Vice-Chairman returned to New York. He proposed that the meeting be adjourned for 15 minutes for consultations.

VLADIMIR A. KRAVETS (Ukraine) said he had no objection to a recess, but he was both surprised and puzzled by the position of Pakistan. It was difficult for him to say what kind of gentleman's agreement may have been reached during negotiations, but the present situation had no precedent. The powers of a Vice-Chairman were being called into question. He failed to understand how such a question could be raised.

* *** *

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter