Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS
67. It is strange that the delegation which has cast by far the largest number of vetoes in the young history of the Organization should now be casting stones at another delegation. It ill becomes it. It is strange that a delegation which calls so vehemently for the withdrawal of forces from southern Lebanon has failed to heed the call of the General Assembly and the Security Council for the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. I believed we had finished our debate. I hoped we had done it, as I had tried to do, on a note of co-operation in future. I regret the statement of the representative of the Soviet Union.
68. Mr. OVINNIKOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) [interpretation from Russian]: The statement made today by the representative of the United Kingdom confirms the view stated by the Soviet delegation at the last meeting that the United Kingdom acts as a junior partner of the United States. I hope the interpreters will render this notion clearly, because last time it was rendered as "younger brother" instead of "junior partner". I hope the representative of the United Kingdom will not deny that in the United States-United Kingdom partnership the United Kingdom is a junior partner. This is truly so, because the United Kingdom is very ready to turn its own side to face the blows in order to spare the flanks of its senior partner.
69. In my statement there was not a word about the position of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I was surprised when the representative of the United Kingdom singled out my delegation and made it the subject of his statement. It would have been more logical if he had said something about the country which, in total isolation, has used the veto against a quite minimal draft resolution proposed by Lebanon. But clearly the representative of the United Kingdom has his own distorted perception of reality.
70. I shall not respond to the attacks of the representative of the United Kingdom against my country, on the understanding that this is my last warning to him.
71. The PRESIDENT: The representative of Israel has asked to speak, and I now call on him.
72. Mr. LEVIN (Israel): Allow me to return to the subject we are discussing, Mr. President. But let me first congratulate you on your accession to the presidency of the Council and say that I am certain that your rich experience and knowledge will help guide the Council's work.
73. I should also like to express our appreciation of the exemplary manner in which Ambassador Bassole of Burkina Faso discharged his duties during the month of August.
74. The vote that was taken just a few minutes ago appears to have been the second time a vote has been taken during the debate on Lebanon requested by the Permanent Representative of that country and prompted largely by internal constraints. The first vote took place at the very start of deliberations. It was a decision taken by some members of the Council, but it did not go by a show of hands. The decision was to treat Lebanon as if the majority of its burdens-its lack of independence, its civil war, its subjugation by Syria-were all irrelevant to the south and somehow outside the pale. The decision was to ignore the north and the east and the centre. It was decided to heap abuse on Israel because apparently Israel has succeeded in keeping the south free of the bloody turmoil and upheavals plaguing the rest of the country.
75. Syria, the tormentor of Lebanon over this past decade, was absolved of any mention by the Arabs and many of the other speakers. As a consequence of all that, the irrelevance of this debate to the situation in Lebanon as a whole is a fact. The south, after all, is an integral part of the whole of Lebanon.
76. Israel's position on the question of the south has been made abundantly clear by my delegation. Everyone here knows why we were compelled to go in and destroy the terroris state-within-the-State that menaced our lives from just across the border-the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] state-within-the-State. The countries represented around this table would not have done less; some have done a great deal more. But whereas Israel and Lebanon came to an agreement on 17 May 1983 to provide for the withdrawal of Israel's forces from the south, no parallel agreement has been drawn up or indeed contemplated with Syria. Syria has, on the contrary, made every effort to perpetuate its stranglehold over Lebanon and forced that country to relinquish its hope of establishing good-neighbourly relations with Israel, a development that Syria interprets as contrary to its selfish interests.
77. We have pointed out the glaring differences between the degree of security prevailing in the south and the situation to the north of the Awali River. In the month of August, for instance, not one Lebanese citizen was killed in the south, but according to Lebanese police sources some 215 were killed elsewhere in Lebanon, half of this number in Tripoli. More are being killed there every day.
78. Sadly, but predictably, the results of today's meeting and vote will not change anything in Lebanon. This the Lebanese knew well enough. The Karame Government sought to obtain a propaganda victory to patch up its public image. The Lebanese public will know better.
79. The allegations brought here against Israel can be characterized by the patent nonsense about the waters of the Litani and the Wazzani. In fact, recent objective evidence, as for instance a United observers' report on their visit to the site of the Wazzani, was studiously ignored by the Lebanese delegation and those who took up this strident falsehood. One of the speakers here charged that Israel had claimed to have made southern Lebanon into a paradise-a ridiculous statement, never made by my country. Nevertheless, it will not be denied that tens of thousands of displaced Lebanese have returned to their villages in the south, abandoned during the PLO terrorist misrule. Since we are in the south, however, temporarily and largely as a result of the Syrian-inspired abrogation of the 17 May 1983 Agreement, we shall not and cannot sit idly by and see the security of that area reduced to the hellish conditions prevailing under Syrian control. The gross abuse of Lebanon's sovereignty and of human rights under Syrian domination, in the present as in the past, are common knowledge everywhere save in the deliberations of the Council. Tel-el-Za'atar, Zahle and Tripoli stand out among others. But no investigation was requested here into the depredations of the Syrian Army in Lebanon, the Army which the Arabs still call a "deterrent force"-to deter the Lebanese from regaining their independence, no doubt.
80. This has been a contrived, counter-productive and unnecessary exercise. The main problems of Lebanon were not even touched upon and have been left where they were. The fires still burn in Tripoli, in Beirut and its environs; car bombs are still being set off and large numbers of people killed as the Council concludes another series of meetings divorced from the realities of life outside.
81. The PRESIDENT: The representative of Lebanon has asked to speak and I call on him.
82, Mr. FAKHOURY (Lebanon) [interpretation from Arabic]: Sir, please accept the sincere congratulations of the delegation of Lebanon on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for September. You have clearly shown your skill, wisdom and experience in expediting the Council's work and in directing its consultations. You have exerted your good offices on many occasions in order to allow the Council to fulfil its tasks.
83. I also wish to express our thanks to Mr. Bassole, the representative of Burkina Faso, for his continued efforts and for the wisdom and skill he showed during his presidency of the Council in August.
84. Following the vote on the draft resolution submitted by Lebanon, I cannot but thank the members who voted in favour of it for responding to the human tragedy which is being experienced daily by 800,000 Lebanese citizens in the south, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district and to the suffering caused by Israel's occupation and inhuman practices. I further thank them for having taken a clear stand on those practices and the need to put an end to them forthwith.
85. Lebanon, which came to the Council with a purely humanitarian issue, deeply regrets the opposition of a friendly super-Power, the United States, to a draft resolution limited purely to humanitarian aspects. Until the very last moment the Lebanese delegation had hoped for a unanimous, positive response to the Lebanese demands to be enshrined in a resolution adopted by the Council so that Israel would not feel itself freed from its international commitments and so that the continued helplessness of the Council could not become an incentive for Israel's practices in contravention of the Articles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international conventions and, more particularly, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. 3/
86. Whatever has been said here to belittle the scope of the humanitarian tragedy or to distract attention from it, or to deny the existence of such practices by Israel or to justify them, has been countered by the painful reality which I presented to the Council in my statement on Wednesday, 29 August [2552nd meting]. May I refer members of the Council to articles published in the press, more particularly to one published by The New York Times on 2 September and written by its correspondent in Jezzin, in the occupied south. I refer members to this article so that they themselves may check the accuracy of the information we have provided and make their own judgements on the credibility of the claims of the representative of Israel.
87. May the representative of Israel allow me to speak on behalf of Lebanon and for Lebanon. He does not have the right-nor does anyone else-to speak for me.
88. The events that have taken place from time to time in some parts of Lebanon are the inescapable consequences of a 10-year-long crisis. It is neither correct nor fair to compare what is taking place there with what is taking place on territory occupied by Israeli forces. Neither is it fair to use this as an excuse not do deal with the tragedy and its root causes.
89. The Lebanese Government of National Unity is working seriously and with determination to spread the sovereignty of the State to all the territory of Lebanon. Unanimous adoption by the Council of the Lebanese draft resolution would have put an end to the tragedy by putting an end to arbitrary Israeli practices. It would also have helped to support the Lebanese Government and to assist it in its efforts aimed at the ultimate liberation of the land and its unification under one legitimate authority and one national sovereignty.
90. On 15 March last, the Lebanese cabinet adopted a resolution in which it accepted security arrangements with Israel in order to ensure complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. Since that time Lebanese officials have reiterated that it is that decision which must be stressed. I say this so that no one will think that it is Israel alone that wishes peace.
91. In conclusion, I wish again to express our deepest regret that again today the Council was unable to respond to our rightful demands and to do its duty regarding Lebanon, a Founding Member of the United Nations. Lebanon, which believes in the principles of the Organization, is committed to the Charter and respects the resolutions and decisions adopted by its organs.
92. The PRESIDENT: The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic has asked to make a statement in exercise of the right of reply. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.
93. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic]: Allow me at the outset to convey to you, Sir, our sincere congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic has on many occasions expressed its appreciation to you, to your Government and to your people, which has waged a valiant struggle for freedom and independence and against colonialism and hegemony.
94. I wish also to take this opportunity, Sir, to express to your predecessor, the representative of Burkina Faso, our sincere thanks for the efforts he undertook at a time when the Council was adopting an extremely important resolution.
95. The previous statement, by my brother the representative of Lebanon, has almost made it unnecessary for me to speak in response to the blatant lies spoken in the Council, as is his custom, by the representative of international zionism. He spreads his lies near and far, as if to throw sand in the eyes of representatives, in an attempt to distract attention from what is actually taking place in the occupied Arab territories of Palestine, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon.
96. I wish to express my deepest regret that, owing to the United States veto, the Council has not been able to shoulder its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations. But, in fact, a decision was taken in the Council: it was a condemnation by the United States of the United States. I think that no State in the world could cast a vote against the 1949 Geneva Conventions,' particularly the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 19493-no State but the United States. What is strange is that the United States knows full well that the 1949 Geneva Conventions were drafted in order to prevent practices which are very similar to the practices of nazism. By having voted against the draft resolution which was before the Council today, the United States has said to Israel, "Yes, stay in southern Lebanon; destroy southern Lebanon; escalate your operations against civilians; separate the south from the north; but do not take any account of the representative of Lebanon when he comes to the Council and say,
98. Lebanon lodged a complaint with the Council about what has been taking place in its country at the hands of the Israeli authorities. It appealed to the Council and expressed the hope that all the members of the Council would fully understand the depth of the tragedy and take the necessary measures.
99. The United States has clearly contravened here the Charter. The United States has not lived up to its responsibilities to a State a part of whose territory is occupied. I do not believe that this stand will serve the cause of peace in our region. On the contrary, it will lead to an escalation of terrorist activities by Zionist Israel in southern Lebanon. There will be more arbitrary measures, more repression, more killing, more theft of water and more of the many other practices that have been clearly described in the documented statement by the representative of Lebanon to the Council.
100. I really cannot see any explanation for the negative vote cast by the United States on the draft resolution. How can one explain the failure by the United States to live up to its responsibilities in connection with a purely humanitarian issue? It is said that there are American elections in the offing. Yes, indeed, there are American elections. But are the American elections in contradiction with the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention? Is Lebanon to be deprived of the rights enshrined in the fourth Geneva Convention because there are to be American elections? Moreover, the candidates for the presidency of the United States agree that Israel's hegemony over the region should be extended. So what is the United States delegation afraid of?
101. We have been told that this question was presented at a difficult time because of the American elections. But are we the Arabs in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria to pay the price every four years for contradictory American interests? Are we to pay the price because there are American elections? Why should we pay the price for the so-called democracy practiced every four years in the American elections? In any case we regard them as a farce, so evident from what we see every day on the television screens.
102. Of what has Lebanon been deprived? It has been deprived of the support of the international community and the protection of the fourth Geneva Convention by the action of a permanent member of the Council. That is what the United States has done today. By its opposition to the draft resolution, which is completely in accordance with the fourth Geneva Convention-a Convention that is applicable to all of occupied Lebanon's territory-the United States has said to Israel: do exactly what you wish in southern Lebanon. Of course, the agent of the United States in the region is Israel. Israel has become a burden to the American taxpayer; it is obvious that the representative of the United States is not Iistening to what the American people are saying about what Israel is costing the United States.
103. The Zionist representative says that the Council met in order to divert attention from the events taking place in Lebanon to the occupied southern part of the country. We all know that the Syrian presence in Lebanon was based on a legitimate Lebanese request. That situation has not changed. We have helped Lebanon and we shall continue to help Lebanon because of our traditional, historic relations with it. We have a joint determination to throw out the invaders and to end the Israeli occupation of the southern part of Lebanon as soon as possible.
104. The vote by the United States in the Council, on the other hand, amounts to permission to Israel to remain in southern Lebanon, to continue occupying it, to continue engaging in the practices to which we have now become accustomed. These practices are engaged in every day against the people of Palestine, against the inhabitants of the Syrian occupied territory, the Golan Heights, and against the inhabitants of the occupied southern part of Lebanon.
105. It is not only the pretext of American elections that is cited: we are told also that there are elections in Israel-as though we are supposed to wait for the results of the Israeli elections before the inhabitants of southern Lebanon can get rid of Israeli control. But all that is a lie. The Israeli elections have no connection whatsoever with the work of the Council. The Israeli elections are an internal struggle of the Zionist movement between those in power and those out of power. Zionism is one; the Zionist movement is one. It had 16 parties; I think it now has 24. But they are all Zionists. They all believe in Judaization. They all believe iii the acquisition of territory and in ejecting the original inhabitants. Therefore, it would indeed be strange to expect the Israeli elections to liberate Lebanon, to liberate Palestine, to liberate the Golan Heights. Only a simple-minded person could believe that such a thing could happen.
106. We believe that the United States veto will convince the Arab peoples, wherever they may be, to trust sincerely in their own forces to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon. We shall not be able to regain our rights so long as the United States displays such clear hostility. No delegation in the whole world other than the United States delegation would vote against the fourth Geneva Convention.
107. The PRESIDENT: The representative of Israel has asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply, and I now call on him.
108. Mr. LEVIN (Israel): The representative of the subjugators of Lebanon-I refer to Syria-said a few words about the position of his Government, about its policy on Lebanon. Allow me, for his edification, to read out a short excerpt from the Monday morning interview with no less an authority on the subject than the former representative of Lebanon, Ghassan Tueni, He said the following:
109. The PRESIDENT: The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic wishes to speak in exercise of the right of reply. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.
110. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Syrian Arab Republic) [interpretation from Arabic]: I am not speaking to respond to the representative of the Zionist enemy that is occupying Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese territories.
111, Mr. President, the occupier always has a pretext, and I think your experience with South Africa is quite sufficient to make that clear. There is a similarity, if not complete identity, given the sacred alliance between Tel Aviv and Pretoria.
112. I have not come here to exchange words with the representative of Israel. I have come here to say one thing, and that is that the United States has prevented the Council from adopting a draft resolution that merely stresses the fourth Geneva Convention and has thus failed to live up to its responsibilities vis-d-vis fraternal Lebanon. Therefore there is no need for an exchange of words between us and the Zionists here in the Council.
113, We cannot expect our enemies to behave appropriately. Those enemies know full well the aspirations of the Arab nations and their feelings regarding their acts against Palestine, against Lebanon, against Syria.
114. I believe it to be truly regrettable that the representative of zionism should here quote the words of a previous Ambassador to the United Nations. It is truly regrettable that he does not quote the words of the present representative of Lebanon here in the Council. This is clear proof of the moral values of the so-called State of Israel.
115. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is Mr. Clovis Maksoud, Permanent Observer for the League of Arab States, to whom, at its 2552nd meeting, the Council extended an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.
116. Mr. MAKSOUD: I should like to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council, which is a testimony to your country's great struggle against colonialism and racism and to your personal record of distinguished service and leadership in this august body.
117. I was reluctant to address the Council again since we had spelt out our position at earlier meetings of the Council, As a matter of fact, the statement of the representative of Lebanon has dispelled the repeated attempts at distortion by the representative of Israel. I remained reluctant to address the Council again despite the deep hurt I am sure every Arab feels concerning the exercise by the United States of its veto power in the voting on a draft resolution in which the Lebanese delegation has sought to focus attention on a limited subject in a limited area-namely, the southern part of Lebanon and the Bekaa. As a matter of fact, much of the evidence regarding the practices of the Israeli occupation authorities in the south of Lebanon is drawn from documentation and reports that people in the United States Government, the United States Congress and the United States press and other media have confirmed. Therefore the hurt comes not so much from a super-Power exercising the right of veto.
118. The representative of the United Kingdom has mentioned other countries that have exercised the right of veto. The issue is not who exercises the right of veto more than others. The test is on what kind of issues the right of veto is exercised. It is in this respect that a wound has been inflicted on peoples throughout the Arab world today. Despite the fact that the Arab peoples and the Arab States had perhaps expected this veto, there is yet a level of innocence throughout the Arab world and among the Arab peoples: they hoped that perhaps at the last moment the United States might abstain. There is so much residual good will throughout Lebanon and the Arab world towards the people and the intellectual and political heritage of the United States that, despite pragmatic and realistic assessments, there was hope that, since many countries-of Western Europe particularly, whose relations with the United States are of paramount strategic, ideological and political importance-had sought to modify some of the legitimate imperatives in the draft resolution submitted by Lebanon and to confine it to the very elementary imperatives of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949' perhaps at the last moment a change of mind in tune with the value system the United States has always advocated would enable it, if not to join in the unanimity, at least to refrain from disrupting it. That is why, as we said earlier, there has been a breach of an intellectual contract between the United States and the Arab people.
119. Maybe in some of our most romantic moments we could say that tonight there was a breach in the spiritual bond between the United States Government and many, many millions of the Arab people. It is unfortunate, because several of us have been eager throughout that our differences and some of our divergences of opinion and policies with the United States should not culminate in a situation of either conflict or confrontation. And, in spite of the veto, we still entertain the possibility of a corrective process, because we consider the United States to be a persuadable constituency. However, at the moment we are sufficiently hurt and wounded that the option of anger cannot be totally ruled out.
120. It is the level of permissiveness this veto exercise confers that allows Israel to pursue its policies uninterrupted and the Israeli representative, without hesitation or forethought and in the typically mindless Israeli form, to deflect attention from the focus of Lebanon's complaint by attempting to verbalize and cover up the various violations Israel commits in the south of Lebanon through a technique which has the elements of filibuster, diversionary tactics and analogies that are not within the Council's purview or germane to the debate. Yet the Israeli technique is well known: it has been uncovered repeatedly and it has been isolated and pinpointed repeatedly.
121. What is more surprising and more hurtful is that some of the Israeli assumptions should be accepted and acquiesced in by the United States, which definitely knows better. For example, the United States knows that Lebanon's complaint to the Council which is under consideration today and since 1982 and the discussion of the practices in occupied southern Lebanon stem from Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
122. What is in fact mind-boggling is to reward the invasion of Lebanon, which has lasted for more than two years now, with the diplomatic shield that this veto has provided, thereby enabling Israel to project itself as almost a determining factor in Lebanon's internal development and the dynamics of its search for political stability and the exercise of its sovereignty. Whatever might have been the circumstances of the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon, Israel cannot under any circumstance or condition equate its presence in southern Lebanon as a result of invasion with the presence by invitation of the Arab deterrent forces in the rest of Lebanon. To allow Israel even to recharge the batteries
/..... Original text not complete..... will be continued