UNISPAL Home





31 December 1986
YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED NATIONS
1986


Volume 40


Department of Public Information
United Nations, New York


Middle East

The conflict in the Middle East, including the problem of Palestine - viewed as a principal element - occupied much United Nations attention throughout 1986. The quest for a peaceful settlement was pursued in the General Assembly, the Security Council and other bodies, which considered various aspects of the situation, such as 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 its 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). The latter had pursued its duties under constant and growing danger, the Secretary-General said in his annual report on the work of the Organization (see p. 3). Paying tribute to the peace-keeping forces, he added that they served the vital purpose to reduce and mitigate violence and to create, or preserve, conditions in which peace might be sought; their sacrifices posed an obligation on all to work constructively for stability and peace in the region.

Despite efforts from many sides to advance the search for a just and lasting settlement, the Secretary-General reported, there was an alarming absence of a generally acceptable and active negotiating process and a way must be found to initiate that as soon as possible with the participation of all concerned. The call for an International Peace Conference on the Middle East was again endorsed by the Assembly, which stressed the need to convene it without delay.

The Palestine question continued to be a concern of the Assembly and its Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (Committee on Palestinian rights). There was a wide measure of agreement, the Secretary-General stated, that peace in the Middle East could best be achieved through a comprehensive settlement to cover all aspects, including the Palestine question.

Following consideration of the annual report of the Committee on Palestinian rights, the Assembly requested the Committee to continue reviewing the situation, 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, invited co-operation with the Committee and the Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights, and asked the Department of Public Information to continue its information programme on the question.

The Assembly also dealt with the status of Jerusalem, again determining that Israel's 1980 decision to impose its laws and administration on the city was null and void. The Security Council in January 1986 considered two incidents that took place at the Haram al-Sharif (Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock) in Jerusalem. A draft resolution by which the Council would have strongly deplored the provocative acts was not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of the Council.

In July, the Secretary-General convened a meeting of United Nations programmes, organizations, agencies, funds and organs, also attended by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Arab host countries and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to assess progress towards a co-ordinate programme of assistance for Palestinians. Both the Economic and Social Council and the Assembly asked for increased assistance; the Assembly also welcomed the Secretary-General's decision to send a mission to prepare the programme and, like the Council, urged that assistance to the occupied Palestinian territories be disbursed only for the benefit of Palestinians and in a manner that would not serve to prolong the Israeli occupation.

The Security Council considered the situation in Lebanon on various occasions and, in January, voted on a draft to have the Council strongly demand that Israel desist from its measures against the civilian population and reaffirm the urgent need for Israel's withdrawal. Because of the negative vote of a permanent member, the text was not adopted.

In June, the Council expressed grave concern at the intensified fighting in Beirut, especially at Palestinian refugee camps, and appealed for it to end. In December, Council members voiced serious concern at the escalating violence particularly affecting the population of the camps. They appealed for restraint in order to end those acts and alleviate the suffering.

Following violent incidents in the UNIFIL zone in mid-August, and another in early September when three UNIFIL soldiers were killed, the Council issued a statement expressing indignation and calling for reinforced security measures. The Council also expressed appreciation for the immediate dispatch of a mission to look at measures to enable the Force to carry out its mandate; the second part of the mission's task was to consult with the parties on how progress could be made towards implementing the Council's 1978 resolution calling for strict respect for Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence, and for Israel's withdrawal, and establishing UNIFIL for the purpose of confirming that withdrawal, restoring peace and security, and assisting the Lebanese Government in ensuring the return of its effective authority.

Following another attack against UNIFIL personnel in mid-September 1986 and an increase of violence in UNIFIL's area of deployment, the Council strongly condemned the attacks, urged all parties to co-operate and asked the Secretary-General to arrange for the Force's deployment to the southern border of Lebanon. In October, the Council expressed regret that the consultations on implementing its 1978 resolution had failed to yield results and called on the Secretary-General to intensify his efforts towards that end; the Council again urged the parties concerned to support UNIFIL fully and called for an end to any military presence in southern Lebanon not accepted by the Lebanese authorities.

The Council also called on all countries to assume their financial responsibilities towards UNIFIL, since the shortfall of $242.6 million continued to pose a very serious problem for the financial management of the Force. Calling again for voluntary contributions, the Assembly appropriated about $112 million for UNIFIL operations from 19 April 1986 to 18 January 1987 and authorized commitments of $145 million for the following 12 months.

For the first time since UNIFIL's inception in 1978, the Security Council unanimously extended the Force's mandate. In 1986, the mandate was extended twice, for three and then six months. The mandate of UNDOF was also renewed twice during the year. The Assembly appropriated $35.7 million for UNDOF's operation from 1 June 1986 to 31 May 1987 and authorized commitments of up to $17.4 million for the following six months. UNDOF continued to supervise the cease-fire between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic in the Golan Heights area and to ensure that there were no military forces in the area of separation. The Assembly, as well as the Commission on Human Rights, dealt with the situation in the Golan Heights since Israel's 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration there. The Assembly again declared that decision illegal and null and void.

The 1981 bombing by Israeli aircraft of a nuclear research centre near Baghdad was again the subject of an Assembly resolution. Considering that Israel had not committed itself not to attack or threaten nuclear facilities in Iraq or elsewhere, the Assembly called on Israel urgently to place all its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It reaffirmed that Iraq was entitled to compensation for damages and requested the Conference on Disarmament to continue negotiations on an agreement prohibiting military attacks on nuclear facilities.

The interception in early February by Israeli fighter planes of a Libyan civilian aircraft with a Syrian delegation on board was considered by the Security Council. The Council voted on a draft resolution by which it would have condemned Israel for the act and would have warned that, if such acts were repeated, it would consider adequate measures. The text was not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member.

The situation in the territories occupied by Israel as a result of previous armed Middle East 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 (Committee on Israeli practices). Israel's policy in the territories resulted in an escalation of violence, the Committee concluded, following which Israel adopted its so-called iron-fist policy marked by new security arrangements, which again led to an aggravation of tension between the Israel Defense Forces and the population.

The Assembly dealt with specific aspects of the Committee's report. It demanded that Israel desist from certain policies and practices, that it comply with the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (fourth Geneva Convention), that it desist from changing the territories' legal status or composition, that it rescind its action against Palestinian detainees and release them immediately, that it rescind the expulsion of Palestinian leaders and that it ensure the freedom of educational institutions.

The Security Council met in December to consider the worsening situation in the territories. It deplored the Israeli army's firing on students, called on Israel to abide by the fourth Geneva Convention and release any persons detained as a result of events at Bir Zeit University, and called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and avoid violence.

Relief operations in Lebanon again dominated the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in 1986. In addition, UNRWA continued assisting those refugees in Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, providing education, health and relief services.


__________________________

Middle East situation
_____________________


Attaining a just and lasting peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict continued to be elusive, the Secretary-General observed in October 1986,(1) and no agreement had been reached on convening an International Peace Conference on the Middle East as recommended by the General Assembly. There had been bilateral contacts between leaders of the various interested parties, but there was an alarming absence of a generally accepted and active negotiating process, he said.

The highly volatile situation continued and a general sense of insecurity persisted which, combined with heavy military expenditures, hindered economic and social progress. Tension continued and violent incidents frequently occurred in the territories occupied by Israel and beyond. The United Nations endeavoured to provide a measure of relief to the local populations, especially Palestinian refugees, and through peace-keeping operations exerted its best efforts, sometimes in difficult circumstances, to help maintain quiet in sensitive areas such as the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon. However, those were essentially temporary arrangements. For as long as a peaceful settlement was not reached, the situation would remain unstable. There was a grave danger that if the deadlock was allowed to persist, major hostilities would break out again as had happened several times in the past.

In December, the General Assembly, by resolution 41/162 A, dealt with the wider aspects of the Middle East situation. Reaffirming its conviction that the question of Palestine was the core of the conflict in the region, it declared again that peace in the Middle East was indivisible and must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution under United Nations auspices and on the basis of United Nations resolutions.

Under the agenda item on the Palestine question (see p. 269), the Assembly reaffirmed its endorsement of the call for an international peace conference (resolution 41/43 D).

Communications. In connection with the Middle East situation, a number of communications were addressed during the year to the General Assembly and Security Council Presidents and to the Secretary-General. A variety of aspects were covered in the following documents adopted by intergovernmental bodies, usually forwarded by the host countries: the final communiqué and resolutions adopted by the Sixteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Fez, Morocco, 6-10 January 1986);(2) the Political Declaration adopted by the Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (New Delhi, India, 16-19 April);(3) a resolution adopted by the Seventy-fifth Inter-Parliamentary Conference (Mexico City, 7-12 April);(4) the Political Declaration of the Eighth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries (Harare, Zimbabwe, 1-6 September);(5) and the final communiqué of the Co-ordination Meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (New York, 2 October).(6)

Among the points made by these bodies on the Middle East situation in general were the following. The Sixteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers reaffirmed that the Palestine question and the Middle East problem must be treated and solved as an indivisible whole, and any solution involving only some of the parties to the conflict or limited to only some of its causes was not acceptable. The Co-ordinating Bureau of the non-aligned countries reaffirmed its solidarity with the Arab countries which were victims of Israeli aggression and condemned any treaty that violated or infringed on the rights of the Arab nation and the Palestinians; it called for effective measures, including sanctions, by the Security Council to oblige Israel to end its occupation of Arab and Palestinian territories. The Inter-Parliamentary Conference considered that a just and lasting Middle East peace should be pursued through implementation of United Nations resolutions and called on parliaments and Governments to support the early convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East; it affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and demanded Israel's withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories. The heads of State or Government of non-aligned countries expressed concern over the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East as a result of continued Israeli occupation of Palestine, and reaffirmed their support to the Arab States and PLO; they requested effective steps by the United Nations, including sanctions, to force Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. The Co-ordination Meeting of Foreign Ministers emphasized the importance of holding a Middle East peace conference and stressed that efforts must be made for the conference to be held in 1987.

A number of letters were received from Israel. On 25 February,(7) it reported what it called defamatory attacks against it and the Jewish people during the 1985 General Assembly session when, it alleged, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel slander had reached new levels. On 4 June 1986,(8) Israel complained about Iran referring in the Security Council on 23 May to the "Zionist base" as a cancer to be eradicated, thus descending to genocidal incitement.

On 15 April,(9) Israel submitted what it said was a calendar of Middle East violence, listing bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, explosions, coups, hijackings and other incidents from December 1985 to March 1986, which in Israel's view continued to characterize the region's politics. On 11 July,(10) it updated that list from 1 April to 30 June, reiterating that the hostility towards Israel was merely a specific product of generic intolerance.

Israel charged, on 18 April,(11) that the previous day security guards at London's Heathrow airport had discovered a bomb carried by a woman about to board an El Al flight to Tel Aviv; had the device exploded, approximately 340 passengers would have been killed. Israel called on the international community to condemn that outrage and act immediately to prevent its recurrence. That call was repeated on 30 May(12) when Israel highlighted further terrorist incidents including two bombs on planes: one on a Trans World Airlines plane en route from Rome to Athens, killing four persons (2 April), and another in Sri Lanka, when a bomb exploded on an Air Lanka plane, killing 16 people (3 May). On 17 September,(13) Israel charged that Arab terrorists had entered a synagogue at Istanbul, Turkey, and fired at worshippers, slaughtering 21, thereby laying bare the anti-Semitic nature of Arab terrorism.

On 13 October,(14) Oman transmitted a letter from the Arab Group refuting Israel's remarks as misleading and concealing the criminal acts of Zionist terror; Israel was seeking to lay responsibility for its terrorist actions, several of which were cited, on the Arab people.

Reports of the Secretary-General. It was vitally important that the international community not lose sight of the inherent dangers, the Secretary-General stressed in his October report on the Middle East situation;(1) it should intensify its search for a negotiated settlement. Given the complexity of the conflict and its many interrelated aspects, a just and lasting peace could best be achieved through a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects and involving all concerned, including PLO, he believed. There was wide agreement within the world community that a settlement should be based on three considerations: withdrawal of Israeli forces from Arab territories occupied since 1967; acknowledgement of and respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in the region and their right to peace within secure and recognized boundaries, and a satisfactory solution of the Palestinian problem based on the recognition of the Palestinian people's legitimate rights, including self-determination, and a solution of the question of Jerusalem.

The positions of the parties directly concerned were still far apart, the Secretary-General noted and the major Powers, whose support was essential for setting up any lasting peace, were also divided. It was urgently necessary to find a negotiating procedure acceptable to all. Meanwhile, it was of great importance that the parties avoid any actions that could increase tension. Despite the absence of a consensus on the convening of an international peace conference in accordance with the Assembly's guidelines, the idea of a conference appeared to be gaining wider support.

The Security Council could be used to further the search for a settlement, the Secretary-General suggested. It had a universally recognized responsibility for the Middle East problem and had under the United Nations Charter, the authority to take decisive measures, while its procedures enabled all the parties concerned to participate in any consideration. The Council's effectiveness, however, depended largely on the agreement and co-operation of the major Powers.

Few international issues were as complex and potentially dangerous, or involved so directly the United Nations relevance and credibility, as the Arab-Israel conflict, whose persistence underscored the need and urgency for a comprehensive settlement, the Secretary-General concluded.

Annexed to a July report, with a later addendum, by the Secretary-General(15) were the replies from nine countries, received by 19 September 1986, on their implementation of three 1985 Assembly resolutions on various aspects of the Middle East situation: in two of them,(16) the Assembly had called on States to adopt a number of measures concerning military, economic, diplomatic and cultural relations with Israel; by the third,(17) it had called again on States which had transferred their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem to abide by United Nations resolutions.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 4 December 1986, the General Assembly adopted, by recorded vote, resolution 41/162 A on the situation in the Middle East.

The General Assembly

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

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

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 14 March 1986, 16 July 1986 and 29 October 1986,

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

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

Welcoming the worldwide 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 Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Declares once more that peace in the Middle East is indivisible and must be based on a comprehensive just and lasting solution of the Middle East problem, under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of its relevant resolutions, which ensures the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and which enables the Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to exercise its inalienable rights, including the right to return and the right to self-determination, national independence and the establishment of its independent sovereign State in Palestine, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations relating to the question of Palestine, in particular General Assembly resolutions ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 36/120 A to F of 10 December 1981, 37/86 A to D of 10 December 1982, 37/86 E of 20 December 1982, 38/58 A to E of 13 December 1983, 39/49 A to D of 11 December 1984 and 40/96 A to D of 12 December 1985;

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

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

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

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

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

9. Strongly condemns the imposition by Israel of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian 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, and the continued supply of modern arms and matériel to Israel, augmented by substantial economic aid, including the recently concluded Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area between the two Governments, have encouraged Israel to pursue its aggressive and expansionist policies and practices in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and have had adverse effects on efforts for the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and pose a threat to the security of the region;

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

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

13. Reaffirms its call for the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of its relevant resolutions, as specified in paragraph 5 of the Geneva Declaration on Palestine and endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 38/58 C of 13 December 1983;

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

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


General Assembly resolution 41/162 A
4 December 1986 Meeting 97 104-19-32 (recorded vote)
24-nation draft (A/41/L.43 & Add.1); agenda item 37.

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

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: plenary 87-89, 97.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

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

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

Before voting on the text as a whole, the Assembly adopted paragraph 10 by a recorded vote of 66 to 38, with 41 abstentions.

The United States, explaining its vote, said the text was polemic and condemnatory; it found paragraph 10 particularly unacceptable and had difficulties with paragraphs 13 and 14. The United Kingdom had reservations about the text and its lack of balance, saying that it did not reflect basic principles essential for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Spain felt that paragraphs 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 and the eighth preambular paragraph did not contribute to creating a climate for a solution. Zaire disagreed with paragraphs 8 to 11. Sweden had especially strong reservations on paragraphs 10 and 11. Ecuador also did not agree with the wording of some paragraphs.

Albania had reservations, particularly on paragraphs 13 and 14 and the second and fifth preambular paragraphs. Reservations on some provisions were also voiced by the Philippines. Peru reiterated those it had expressed about the corresponding provisions of the 1985 resolution.(18) Greece was unable to go along with certain paragraphs, especially paragraph 10. Mexico said the judgements contained therein undermined the Assembly's jurisdiction; it also disagreed with paragraph 6, as the partial agreements were an important step towards a final Middle East settlement.

Austria could not support wording which, it felt, would not only aggravate the situation but impede the search for peace, or any formulation which could be interpreted as impinging on United Nations universality; isolating Israel would not bring a solution closer. Sharing that point, Brazil felt Israel should not be provided, under the pretext of its isolation, with justification for further acts in disregard of international law.

Belize believed that it was important to recognize the Palestinians' right to a homeland as well as to accept Israel's right to a peaceful and secure coexistence.

The Syrian Arab Republic stressed that it had not participated in the 1985 Arab Summit Conference, reiterating its 1985 position.(18) On an international peace conference and the 1981/1982 Arab Summit Conference,(19) Iran stated that it did not agree to Palestinians negotiating with the Zionists occupying Palestine, nor did it support versions of the 1978 Camp David accords, such as the Fez plan; it also had reservations about all terms implying any recognition of what it termed the Zionist base of terror occupying Palestine, as did the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which recalled its reservations on any reference that could be construed as recognition of the fait accompli imposed by force.

Related resolutions: GA 41/35 C, 41/101.

Proposed peace conference

In 1986, the General Assembly again stressed the urgent need for constructive efforts by all Governments for the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East, as called for by the 1983 International Conference on the Question of Palestine.(20) The Secretary-General continued his consultations on the convening of a conference with the Security Council and pursued contacts with the parties to the Middle East conflict, reporting that difficulties remained.(1) Support for the conference was expressed by a number of States following adoption in December of a Security Council resolution on the situation in the occupied territories (see p. 324), and by the Meeting of Ministers and Heads of Delegation of the Non-Aligned Countries to the Forty-first Session of the General Assembly (New York, 2 October), which reaffirmed that the conference would greatly contribute to a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and would help restore stability in the region.(21)

Report of the Secretary-General. In March 1986,(22) the Secretary-General reported on his continued efforts, in consultation with the Security Council, with a view to convening a conference as the Assembly had requested in 1985.(23) He said that in January he had asked the Council President again to consult the members on the matter; in February, the President had replied that they remained concerned about the Middle East Situation and almost all were in favour of the principle of such a conference. The majority felt that it should be held as early as possible, while others considered that conditions for its success did not exist and new efforts should be made in that respect. The members invited the Secretary-General to continue his efforts and consultations. In accordance with those views and the 1985 Assembly resolution, the Secretary-General intended to pursue his efforts, keeping the Council and Assembly informed.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. In March 1986,(24) the Commission on Human Rights affirmed its support for a conference and appealed for further constructive efforts by all States towards its convening without delay. It regretted the negative reaction of the United States and Israel towards such a conference, calling on them to reconsider.

Recommendations of the Committee on Palestinian rights. In its annual report to the Assembly,(25) the Committee on Palestinian rights (see p. 270) again stressed that the conference was an essential element in progress towards solving the Palestine question. Noting that there was overwhelming support for it, the Committee intended to continue to make the subject the focal point of its work programme and to help increase awareness of the conference's importance through contacts with Governments and NGOs. The Committee recommended that the Assembly call again on Israel and the United States to reconsider their positions and renew the Secretary-General's mandate to continue his contacts.

At the fourteenth and fifteenth United Nations seminars on the question of Palestine, organized by the Committee, the need for a conference was also reaffirmed, and support for it was expressed at regional NGO symposia.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the question of Palestine, the General Assembly on 2 December 1986 adopted resolution 41/43 D by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

Recalling also the relevant resolutions of the Security Council,

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

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 14 March 1986, in which he, inter alia, stated that "the obstacles which have so far prevented the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East as called for by the General Assembly still exist", and his report of 29 October 1986,

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

Having heard the constructive statements made by numerous representatives, including that of the Palestine Liberation Organization,

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

Recognizing that the persistence of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East constitutes a threat to security and stability in the region and to world peace, and therefore directly involves the responsibility of the United Nations,

Stressing its conviction that the convening of the Conference will constitute a major contribution by the United Nations towards the realization of a just solution to the question of Palestine conducive to the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict,

Appreciating the concern about the exacerbating situation in the Middle East as voiced in a great many statements during the general debate at the current session and at previous sessions,

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

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

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

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

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

6. 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 May 1987;

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

General Assembly resolution 41/43 D
2 December 1986 Meeting 93 123-3-19 (recorded vote)
13-nation draft (A/41/L.41 & Add.1); agenda item 35.

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

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: plenary 8O, 81, 83, 85, 88, 93.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Antigua and Barbuda, Israel, United States.

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

The United States said the terms of reference set forth for the conference in reality sought to determine its outcome; the conference envisaged in the text would not allow for a constructive examination of the Middle East question nor would it provide a supportive international context for direct negotiations between the parties.

Speaking on behalf of the 12 member States of the European Community (EC), the United Kingdom said the principle and nature of such a conference needed first to be agreed on by the parties concerned, for negotiations to have any chance of success, it was essential to avoid prejudging the form in which they might be held. Canada believed that recent events, notably summit meetings of the former Israeli Prime Minister with the President of Egypt, the King of Morocco and other world leaders, gave modest hope that an international conference might, if properly prepared, be a mechanism by which concrete progress in the peace process could be realized; however, if there was to be an international framework, it must be accepted by all concerned, including Israel. In addition, Canada voiced reservations about certain provisions of the 1983 resolution referred to in paragraph 3,(26) and had practical concerns about the impartiality and effectiveness of a preparatory committee to be negotiated within the framework of the Security Council while two of its permanent members had no diplomatic relations with one of the States directly involved. Although, like all the above speakers, Norway noted improvements in the text's wording as compared with the corresponding 1985 resolution,(23) it said there were elements which still caused it difficulties.

Finland referred to its reservations made when joining the consensus on the final documents of the 1983 Conference on Palestine;(20) reservations about those documents were also voiced by Peru.

United Nations Truce
Supervision Organization

In his October report(1) on the Middle East situation, the Secretary-General provided an overview of the three peace-keeping operations in the region: the two peace-keeping forces - UNDOF and UNIFIL (see pp. 313 and 291) - and one observer mission, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). Apart from assisting UNDOF and UNIFIL in their tasks, UNTSO maintained two observation groups of its own, the Observer Group in Beirut (see p. 283) and the Observer Group in Egypt, where about 50 observers had remained since 1979 with the agreement of the Government. In addition to liaison offices in Cairo and Ismailia, the Observer Group in Egypt maintained six observation posts in the Sinai.

Credentials of Israel

In a 7 October 1986 letter to the President of the General Assembly,(27) 20 States, members of the Arab Group at the United Nations, and PLO objected to the credentials of the delegation of Israel to the Assembly's 1986 regular session on the grounds that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council and Assembly resolutions on Palestine, the Middle East and other related issues; that it continued its annexation of Palestinian and other Arab territories and violated human rights in the occupied territories; that it continued its aggression against the Arab States and expanded the area of its aggression to Lebanon, Iraq and Tunisia; and that it continued to co-operate with the racist régime in South Africa.

On 27 October,(23) Israel responded that the Arab Group, whose letter contained unfounded, extraneous allegations, had abused the credentials procedure and sought to undermine the broad consensus on the principle of United Nations universality. Israel was pleased that in 1986, as in each of the previous four years, additional States had joined in rejecting that irresponsible action.

Before adopting resolution 41/7 A, approving the first report of the Credentials Committee,(29) the Assembly, by a recorded vote of 77 to 40, with 16 abstentions, decided not to act on an amendment to that report by Algeria, Bahrain, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen(30) to reject Israel's credentials. The motion to take no action was tabled by Iceland on behalf also of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (see p. 380).
REFERENCES

(1)A/41/768-S/18427. (2)A/41/326-S/18049. (3)A/41/341-S/18065 & Corr.1. (4)A/41/435. (5)A/41/697-S/18392. (6)A/41/740-/18418. (7)A/41/183. (8)A/41/398-S/18131. (9)A/41/290-S/18002. (10)A/41/458-S/18220. (11)A/41/302-S/18020. (12)A/41/386- S/18118. (13)A/41/626- S/18352. (14)A/41/704-S/18398. (15)A/41/453 & Add.1. (16)YUN 1985, pp. 264 & 341, GA res. 40/168 A & B, 16 Dec. 1985. (17)Ibid, p. 280, GA res. 40/168 C, 16 Dec. 1985. (18)Ibid. p. 267. (19)YUN 1982, p.387. (20)YUN 1983, p. 274. (21)A/41/703-S/18395. (22)A/41/2l5-S/17916. (23)YUN 1985, p. 268, GA res. 40/96 D, 12 Dec. 1985. (24)E/1986/22 (res. 1986/22). (25)A/41/35. (26)YUN 1983, p. 278, GA res. 38/58 C, 13 Dec. 1983. (27)A/41/689. (28)A/41/766. (29)A/41/727. (30)A/41/L.8.

_______________________

Palestine question
_______________________

The question of Palestine continued in 1986 to be a concern of the General Assembly and its Committee on Palestinian rights. In its annual report to the Assembly,(1) the Committee stressed that the question, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, had reached a critical phase and it urged a renewed, concentrated and collective effort to find a just solution under United Nations auspices, based on United Nations resolutions, and to end the Palestinians' plight. The Committee contended that action by the Security Council was required to take into account its 1976 recommendations(2) and those adopted by the 1983 International Conference on the Question of Palestine,(3) recommendations which the Committee said were founded on fundamental and internationally recognized principles.

The Assembly, in December 1986, adopted four resolutions on the subject. It requested the Committee to keep the situation under review as well as the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights adopted by the 1983 Conference(3) (resolution 41/43 A). The Assembly invited co-operation with the Committee and the United Nations Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights (41/43 B). It asked the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI) to continue its special information programme on Palestine (41/43 C) and reaffirmed its endorsement of the call for an International Peace Conference on the Middle East (41/43 D) (see p. 267).

The plight of the Palestinians, most of whom were living under occupation or in exile, remained a matter of international concern, the Secretary-General stated in his October report on the Middle East.(4) The situation would remain unstable so long as a peaceful settlement - including a satisfactory solution to the Palestinian problem based on the recognition of the people's legitimate rights - was not reached. In that context, he added, the question of Jerusalem also remained of primary importance. The status of Jerusalem was again the subject of an Assembly resolution (41/162 C), by which the Assembly determined that Israel's 1980 decision to impose its laws and administration on the city was null and void.

Various United Nations bodies continued to provide assistance to Palestinians. The Economic and Social Council (resolution 1986/49) and the Assembly (41/181) urged the international community to disburse aid only for the benefit of the Palestinians and in a manner that would not prolong the Israeli occupation.

Communications. Throughout the year, Israel, in letters to the Secretary-General, accused PLO of attacks against its citizens and against Jews around the world (see also p. 273). On 9 January 1986,(5) Israel listed 27 attacks between March 1968 and November 1985 allegedly carried out by PLO, in which children were the victims, and said that in the most recent attacks, at the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985,(6) children had been intentionally chosen. On 5 January,(7) Israel's Minister for Transportation had called on the International Civil Aviation Organization to adopt more stringent measures to prevent such bloodshed and to convene an international conference on the safety of civilian air traffic.

On 2 January,(8) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reiterated that it condemned such terrorism and that it had not been involved in the Rome and Vienna airport outrages as had been stated by Israel and the United States (see p. 247). On 31 January,(9) the Jamahiriya stated that the United States President's having received the head of a band of Angolan rebels opposed to Angola's legitimate régime contrasted strangely with his refusal to recognize PLO or to receive any of its representatives.

On 8 May,(10) Israel charged PLO with attempted attacks between 31 March and 4 May on a kibbutz and two civilian settlements in northern Israel, and with infiltration through the eastern sector of its so-called security zone in Lebanon (see p. 283).

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. By a resolution adopted on 10 March by a roll-call vote of 28 to 8, with 7 abstentions,(11) the Commission on Human Rights condemned Israel for non-compliance with United Nations resolutions, for its continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and for its practices against Palestinians living there. The Commission expressed concern that, until there was a just and equitable solution to the problem, the Palestinians would be exposed to grave dangers. It reaffirmed their rights to self-determination and to return to their homes and property, and affirmed their right to regain those rights by all means in accordance with Charter principles and United Nations resolutions.

The Commission reaffirmed its rejection of any "autonomy" plan, which would constitute disregard for the Palestinians' right to self-determination without external interference. It further reaffirmed that the Palestinians' future could only be decided with their full participation, through PLO as their legitimate and sole representative, in all efforts and international conferences. It reaffirmed its rejection of all partial agreements and separate treaties and its support for the convening of a Middle East peace conference (see p. 267) and called for support to PLO.

Activities of the Committee on Palestinian rights. The Committee on Palestinian rights continued in 1986 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 Israeli exploitation of Arab-owned lands and other matters affecting Palestinian rights (for details, see below, under "Territories occupied by Israel") - to the attention of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Activities were undertaken by the Committee and, under its guidance, the Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights to expand co-operation with NGOs in order to heighten awareness of the facts relating to the Palestine question and to create conditions favourable for full implementation of the Committee's recommendations. In accordance with its mandate, the Committee had decided to hold in 1986 regional symposia for NGOs in Latin America, North America and Europe, and an international NGO meeting; in view of the United Nations financial crisis, however, the Committee deferred to 1987 the Latin American symposium and combined the European and international meetings.

The North American NGO symposium, with 44 participants and six observers from NGOs in the United States and Canada, was held in New York (11-13 June 1986). The European symposium, with 33 participants and 13 observers, was held at Vienna (30 June and 1 July), immediately followed by the international meeting (2-4 July), which was attended by 66 participants and 16 observers from NGOs as well as observers from Governments and intergovernmental organizations. In addition, the Committee held a regional seminar for Europe (Istanbul, Turkey, 7-11 April) (the thirteenth United Nations Seminar on the Question of Palestine). The fourteenth and fifteenth seminars were held in New York (9 and 10 June) and Nairobi, Kenya (18-22 August).

The Committee was also represented at international conferences and meetings.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Following consideration of the report of the Committee on Palestinian rights, the General Assembly, in December, adopted four resolutions on the Palestine question, dealing with the Committee and its recommendations, the Division for Palestinian Rights, public information and the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East (see p. 267).

Resolution 41/43 A was adopted on 2 December by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

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 112 to 120 of its report and draws the attention of the Security Council to the fact that action on the Committee's recommendations, as repeatedly endorsed by the General Assembly at its thirty-first session and subsequently, is still awaited;

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

4. Authorizes the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the implementation of its recommendations, including representation at conferences and meetings and the sending of delegations where such activities would be considered by it to be appropriate, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its forty-second session and thereafter;

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

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

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

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

General Assembly resolution 41/43 A
2 December 1986 Meeting 93 121-2-21 (recorded vote)
14-nation draft (A/41/L.38 & Add.1); agenda item 35.

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

Meeting numbers: GA 41st session: plenary 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 93.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

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

Also on 2 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 41/43 B by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

Taking note, in particular, of relevant information contained in paragraphs 73 to 101 of that report,

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

1. Takes note with appreciation of the action taken by the Secretary-General in compliance with General Assembly resolution 40/96 B;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat with the necessary resources and to ensure that it continues to discharge the tasks detailed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of General Assembly resolution 40/96 B in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and under its guidance;

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

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

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

General Assembly resolution 41/43 B
2 December 1986 Meeting 93 125-3-18 (recorded vote)
14-nation draft (A/41/L.39 & Add.1); agenda item 35.

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

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: plenary 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 93.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Canada, Israel, United States.

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

A number of delegations explained in single statements their positions on resolutions 41/43 A-C. The United States said the texts endorsed the work of two biased organs, the Committee on Palestinian rights and the Division for Palestinian Rights; the partisan view of the Palestinian issue which they propagated served only those who benefited from continuation of the Middle East dispute and from imposing even greater suffering on the Palestinians.

Speaking for the EC members, the United Kingdom said they had made their positions known previously; they also would prefer that due account be taken of the financial difficulties facing the United Nations in determining the tasks of the bodies concerned. Canada said its votes were similar to those on previous corresponding resolutions. In Finland's view, the texts failed to represent the balance necessary for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement.

Singapore appealed to Israel and PLO to recognize each other's legitimate rights and to the international community to urge them to pursue a course of compromise.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had reservations about references which could be interpreted as implying that it supported the de facto situation in Palestine.

Public information activities

The Committee on Palestinian rights, in its 1986 report,(1) looked at the implementation of a 1985 Assembly resolution(12) requesting DPI, in co-operation with the Committee, to continue its special information programme on the Palestine question.

The information programme included publications, audio-visual coverage, a fact-finding mission for journalists and national and regional journalists' encounters. United Nations information centres around the world continued to carry out information activities in connection with the Palestine question and made available United Nations publications on the subject. They also organized a world-wide observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on 29 November 1986 (see also p. 320).

A team of seven prominent journalists and media representatives from various parts of the world visited Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic from 27 April to 15 May; visits to Israel and the West Bank were not possible since no response had been received from Israel to an official request for such visits. After the fact-finding mission had met with high-level officials and Palestinian leaders, the participants published numerous articles on returning to their home countries.

DPI again organized two regional encounters, bringing 15 high-level journalists together with experts on Palestine. The first was held at Vienna, for Europe, from 25 to 28 February, and the second took place at Lusaka, Zambia, from 12 to 15 August. DPI also held a series of national encounters in which a team of expert panelists held meetings, in the form of in-depth press conferences, with national journalists and foreign correspondents in various countries. European national encounters were held in Denmark, Greece and Hungary between 24 February and 6 March, and another national encounter was held at Nairobi on 18 August.

United Nations public information activities, particularly coverage of the work of the Committee on Israeli practices, were summarized in an October report of the Secretary-General (see p. 320).

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 2 December, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/43 C by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

Taking note, in particular, of the information contained in paragraphs 102 to 111 of that report,

Recalling its resolution 40/96 C of 12 December 1985,

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

1. Takes note with appreciation of the action taken by the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat in compliance with General Assembly resolution 40/96 C,

2. Requests the Department of Public Information, in full co-operation and co-ordination with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to continue its special information programme on the question of Palestine for the biennium 1986-1987 and, in particular:

(a) To disseminate information on all the activities of the United Nations system relating to the question of Palestine;

(b) To continue to update publications on the facts and developments pertaining to the question of Palestine;

(c) To publish brochures and booklets on the various aspects of the question of Palestine, including Israeli violations of the human rights of the Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories;

(d) To expand its audio-visual material on the question of Palestine, including the production of a new film in 1987 and special series of radio programmes and television broadcasts;

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

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

General Assembly resolution 41/43 C
2 December 1986 Meeting 93 124-3-19 (recorded vote)
14-nation draft (A/41/L.40 & Add.1); agenda item 35.

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

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session plenary 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 93.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Canada, Israel, United States.

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

Those States which explained their votes on resolution 41/43 C did SO when they explained their positions on resolutions 41/43 A and B (see p. 272).

Jerusalem

In 1986, the status of Jerusalem was again the subject of a General Assembly resolution (41/162 C), by which the Assembly determined that Israel's 1980 decision(13) to impose its laws and administration on the City was null and void. In January, the Security Council considered two incidents that took place at the Haram al-Sharif (Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock) in Jerusalem, one of the world's three principal Islamic Holy Places.

Communications. On 17 October,(14) Israel charged that on 15 October PLO terrorists had lobbed handgrenades at Israeli families near the most sacred site of Judaism, the Western Wall, killing one civilian and wounding 66 people - one in a series of PLO attacks on Jewish places of worship; PLO offices around the world that directed and co-ordinate international terror should be shut down, Israel said. On 21 October,(15) Israel stated that it had apprehended the three individuals responsible, they had been recruited by PLO's Fatah wing, trained in Jordan and instructed to carry out a mass killing in a crowded holy site.

On 25 November,(16) Qatar, Chairman of the Arab Group, transmitted a 24 November letter from PLO, stating that in Jerusalem Jewish settlers had attacked and beaten Palestinians and had fire-bombed houses and vehicles belonging to them; it asked that the United Nations act immediately to end the rampage.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

Under the agenda item on the Middle East situation, the General Assembly adopted on 4 December 1986 resolution 41/162 C by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 36/120 E of 10 December 1981, 37/123 C of 16 December 1982, 38/180 C of 19 December 1983, 39/146 C of 14 December 1984 and 40/168 C of 16 December 1985, 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 29 October 1986,

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

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

3. Calls once 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 forty-second session on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 41/162 C
4 December 1986 Meeting 97 141-3-11 (recorded vote)
32-nation draft (A/41/L.45 & Add.1); agenda item 37.

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

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: plenary 87-89, 97.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Israel.

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Cameroon, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Liberia, Malawi, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, United States.

The United States believed that the status of Jerusalem should be determined by negotiations among the concerned parties and as part of an overall peace settlement. The United Kingdom recalled the importance it attached to the 1980 Council resolution(17) mentioned in the text. Iran reiterated its reservations on all terms implying recognition of what it called the Zionist terror base occupying Palestine.

Incidents at Haram al-Sharif

Under the agenda item on the situation in the occupied Arab territories, the Security Council held eight meetings in January 1986 to consider two incidents that took place at the Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, one of the three principal Islamic Holy Places in the world. The Council voted on a draft resolution by which it would have strongly deplored the provocative acts as violations of the sanctity of Haram al-Sharif and affirmed that they were a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive Middle East peace. The draft was not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent Council member.

Communications. The Secretary-General received several communications concerning incidents in and around Holy Places in Jerusalem.

On 9 January 1986,(18) Jordan said a blatant desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque had taken place the day before by some 20 members of the Israeli Knesset who had entered intending to establish a Jewish place of prayer; after being driven out, the intruders called the Israeli police who attacked the Muslims present and the civilian guards.

On 10 January,(19) the United Arab Emirates transmitted a letter from PLO which held Israel responsible for the consequences resulting from that and other acts of terrorism committed by Knesset members or the Israeli police. Among those acts, PLO cited the entry into the holy sanctuary by Cabinet member Ariel Sharon on 9 January.

Israel, on 15 January,(20)called Jordan's claims distortions, saying that the Knesset members had paid two peaceful routine visits to the Holy Places of the Temple Mount; during both, co-ordinate in advance with Muslim religious authorities, extremists had incited a near-riot and threatened religious confrontation; Israeli authorities had acted with restraint and had prevented bloodshed and the spread of violence.

On 20 January,(21) Jordan charged that the previous day individuals of the terrorist organization "Kach" had stormed the Haram al-Sharif which had already been attacked on many occasions by fanatical Jews, encouraged and protected by the Israeli authorities. The attempt to profane the Haram al-Sharif, repeated attempts to enter and pray in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, statements by Israeli leaders to the effect that Israel comprised all of Palestine, including the Haram, and the attempt by the Knesset members and by Ariel Sharon to enter the Haram confirmed Israel's designs on Muslim sanctuaries.

In connection with the incidents, Morocco transmitted three communications. A 17 January message(22) from the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference called attention to a resolution adopted by the Sixteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Fez, 6-10 January) condemning the incidents as heinous attacks and warning Israel of the consequences; it placed on the international community the responsibility for preventing such crimes. In its final communiqué, the tenth session of the Al-Quds Committee (Marrakesh, 21 and 22 January)(23) considered the alleged dangers facing the Al-Aqsa Mosque in view of the intrusion by Knesset members. In a 24 January letter,(24) King Hassan II, Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and of the Al-Quds Committee, stated that the Islamic countries had brought a complaint to the Security Council against Israel because of desecrations of the Mosque; the world expected from the Council decisions dictated by the gravity of the situation.

SECURITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

The Security Council held eight meetings between 21 and 30 January to consider the incidents at the sanctuary, as requested on 16 January by Morocco, as Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,(25) and the United Arab Emirates, as Chairman of the Group of Arab States at the United Nations.(26)

Meeting numbers. SC 2643-2650.

The Council invited Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Egypt, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Yemen and Yugoslavia, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. The Council also invited the Acting Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations, at the request of the Arab Group,(27) to participate under rule 39 a/ of its provisional rules of procedure. Under the same rule, it invited the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, following a request by Morocco.(28)


Following a request by the United Arab Emirates,(29) the Council decided on 21 January, by 10 votes to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, United Kingdom), that an invitation to participate be accorded to PLO. The President stated that the proposal was not made pursuant to rule 37 b/ or rule 39 of the provisional rules, 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.

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


Before this action, the United States, which asked for a vote on the request, remarked that for 40 years it had supported a generous interpretation of rule 39 and would not object had the matter been raised under that rule; it opposed, however, special ad hoc departures from orderly procedure and opposed extending to PLO the same rights to participate as a Member State.

At its final meeting, on 30 January, the Council voted on a revised draft resolution, sponsored by the Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United Arab Emirates,(30) by which it would have: strongly deplored the provocative acts which had violated the sanctity of Haram al-Sharif; affirmed that such acts constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East peace; determined once more that all Israeli measures to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and Other occupied Arab territories, as well as Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories, were a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention and seriously obstructed the achievement of a Middle East peace; reiterated that all legislative and administrative measures by Israel which had altered or purported to after Jerusalem's character and status, in particular the "Basic Law", were null and void and must be rescinded; called on Israel to observe scrupulously the norms of international law governing military occupation, in particular the fourth Geneva Convention, and to prevent any hindrance to the discharge of the established functions of the Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem, including any co-operation that Council might desire from countries with predominantly Muslim populations and from Muslim communities in relation to its plans for maintaining Islamic Holy Places; urgently called on Israel to implement the resolution; and requested the Secretary-General to report on its implementation before 1 May 1986. The voting was as follows:

In favour: Australia, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Denmark, France, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Against: United States.

Abstaining: Thailand.

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

The United States said it had no choice but to vote against a text which it considered inappropriate, which gave the impression that Israel was to blame for the provocation of a few individuals and which was designed to use the incidents as a pretext for addressing larger issues of the status of Jerusalem and Israel's stewardship as occupying Power.

Thailand stated that its abstention reflected a wait-and-see attitude and a challenge to the Israeli authorities to make good their commitment to religious tolerance. It was essential that Israel desist from anything that would lead to a recurrence of such provocation.

The incidents seemed to be the work of a limited number of persons acting on their own initiative and it was regrettable that Knesset members were among them, France said, stressing at the same time that it accepted no unilateral initiative to change the status of Jerusalem; any agreement on that status should guarantee the right of access by all to the Holy Places whose sacred nature must be protected, be they Muslim, Jewish or Christian.

In most circumstances, the incidents would be regarded as minor, the United Kingdom believed, but the fact that they took place in Jerusalem automatically put them in a class by themselves.

China said Israel could not shirk its responsibility for the recent profanation, which was neither accidental nor an isolated incident, but part of a series of continuing acts of sabotage and provocation over nearly 20 years.

What had happened had aroused deep religious concerns throughout the Islamic world and again focused attention on the political sensitivities surrounding the status of Jerusalem, Australia remarked. Israel had a responsibility to preserve the unique cultural and religious character of the Holy City and to ensure that its Holy Places were respected; it had largely fulfilled its obligations, but the recent incidents could not be overlooked. Australia was glad that the sponsors had removed from the earlier draft tendentious references which implied Israel's connivance.

All efforts must be exerted to prevent further provocation and violence and to avoid further tension, Denmark said; it was necessary to protect and preserve Jerusalem's unique character so that peoples of all faiths had unrestricted access.

By not adopting the text, the United Arab Emirates said, the Council sent a clear message to Israel that it would cover any Israeli military action. The incidents clearly violated the fourth Geneva Convention which called for respect by the occupying State for the performance by the people of their religious beliefs.

The draft at least affirmed the just demands of Muslim Palestinians and of all Islam concerning strict respect for Holy Places, Madagascar stated. Israel's claim that the incidents were minor and had occurred during a routine visit were invalid; it must cease practices counter to international law and to human rights.

The USSR believed that Israel's actions in Jerusalem warranted categorical condemnation and that the Council should take all necessary measures to prevent a repetition.

Ghana was convinced that Israel meant purposely to establish legal and administrative sovereignty over the Holy Places in the face of mounting Arab disagreement and resentment; Israel had no legal entitlement to the area it claimed to be inspecting, and these so-called routine visits harboured in their very nature seeds of conflict.

Giving its account of the incident, Israel said the visit - not the first of its kind - was a normal function of Knesset members belonging to the Interior Committee responsible for legislation involving all the Holy Places. During the visit, the group arrived at Solomon's Stables, a site with no religious significance, at the south-east corner of the Temple Mount. A photographer accompany ing the group wished to photograph some Knesset members; that served as a pretext for a pre-arranged incitement by a small group of agitators. A mob quickly heeded those incitements, surrounded the members, roughed them up and threatened them. A handful of Israeli police, acting with utmost restraint, intervened; no one was hurt, no shrine was desecrated and no property was damaged. The only assault had in fact been on the Israeli representatives.

Following the incident, Israel added, the Speaker of the Knesset and the Mayor of Jerusalem met with the Mufti of Jerusalem and set a date for another visit by the Knesset members, which took place on 14 January. Despite that prior co-ordination, there were again attempts to disrupt the visit; since then, due to Israel's policy and the actions of its law enforcement agencies, quiet had prevailed on the Temple Mount. Since the city's reunification in 1967, the holy sites had been rebuilt, rehabilitated, developed and enriched and enjoyed a steady stream of tourists; a law enacted a few days after reunification guaranteed protection of the Holy Places from violation, as well as freedom of access by members of different religions to their sacred places.

Opening the debate, Morocco, as Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the recent events fell within the framework of the escalation of illegality and violence which was part of Israel's plan to Judaize the occupied territories and deny millions of Muslims and Christians the right to their Holy Places; the international community must respond to those acts with increased firmness in order to stem that escalation and make the occupation authorities respect mankind's most sacred values.

Many speakers made similar statements, adding that those actions were a part of Israel's plan aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem. These speakers included Afghanistan, Algeria, Guinea, Jordan, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Senegal, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United Arab Emirates.

Several States felt that the incidents should not be seen in isolation, but were part of the framework of Israel's occupation of Palestine and the occupied territories. They included Cuba, India, Indonesia, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Thailand and Yemen. Cuba said the recent act showed how far the Israeli authorities were willing to go in order to obtain by might what was not theirs by right. India added that the injustice which the Arabs and Palestinians had suffered at the hands of the Israelis in the territories over the years offered the only explanation for the widespread reaction the incident at the Mosque had evoked in many countries.

Jordan said the Israeli occupation denied millions of Arab Christians and about a billion Arab and non-Arab Muslims access to their places of worship in Jerusalem; it was urgent to seek the termination of Israeli occupation of all the Arab territories, including Jerusalem.

Algeria regarded the incidents as a pretext for intensifying repression and for expropriating and expelling citizens from East Jerusalem.

Accusing Israel of having changed the Holy City into a city of cheap, dirty, overcrowded housing, destroying its physical and stifling its spiritual character, the Syrian Arab Republic called on the Council to impose mandatory sanctions on Israel - a position shared by Mauritania and Yemen - and deprive it of United Nations membership.

The incidents at the Mosque carried grave implications for peace in the Middle East and had the potential of sparking a wider confrontation affecting the entire Muslim world, Pakistan warned; any act of sacrilege against the Mosque constituted a threat to peace. Other speakers, including Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Indonesia and Senegal, were also concerned that such acts could threaten international peace and security.

Guinea felt that Israel's depriving millions of believers of their right to their Holy Places could only do disservice to the search for a just and lasting Middle East peace.

In the view of Senegal, speaking also as the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights the religious provocation had compounded the political conflict, with unforeseeable and perhaps disastrous consequences for international peace and security. Those actions were aimed at establishing permanent Israeli domination over all of Jerusalem and the occupied territories and creating a fait accompli by encouraging Arabs to emigrate.

Iraq regarded the incidents as a new link in the lengthening chain of Israeli aggression and expansion. The problem was not the problem of the Holy Places, PLO said after the vote; Israel was striking against the Palestinians and the Council was obliged to take urgent concrete measures conducive to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace and no Council member should be enabled to obstruct the road to peace.

The Zionists attempted to set the region on fire through their aggression against the Mosque, said Saudi Arabia, calling for a clear and decisive stand by the Council.

Afghanistan believed that the main factor responsible for the acts of desecration and similar actions was the Israeli occupation of the territories belonging to Palestinians and other Arabs.

Developments in Jerusalem had taken a turn for the worse, as had the situation in other parts of occupied Palestinian and Arab land, Yugoslavia noted; the status of Jerusalem had become a symbol of the struggle against alien power and will.

Israel had gone beyond occupation to violating the occupied territories' culture, values and religion, Mauritania said; Israel's withdrawal from all occupied territories and the exercise of Palestinian rights would provide true guarantees of respect for the Holy Places. Speaking in like manner, Indonesia called on the Council not to shirk its responsibilities; the recent acts of sacrilege must be viewed as part of Israel's actions in contravention of international law.

Brunei Darussalam called on the Council to take effective and urgent measures to prevent Israel from committing recurring acts of desecration. The Sudan believed that the incidents demolished Israel's claim that the Islamic Holy Places enjoyed protection; the Council should prevent a repetition and guarantee the preservation of the status and integrity of the Holy Places.

Malaysia urged the Council to ensure through decisive action that such events, which constituted a clear pattern and flowed from Israel's attitude towards Palestinian self-determination and independence, did not recur.

Qatar hoped the Council would deal with the issue in a manner commensurate with its gravity. Nicaragua also hoped the Council would act firmly in the face of the new threat by Israel to international peace and security. In Egypt's opinion, the international community was again called upon to reaffirm its position on the status of East Jerusalem and Arab rights there, namely, to reaffirm: the inadmissibility of the occupation of land through military force; the sanctity of the Haram al-Sharif and an immediate end to any provocative acts or acts that violated inherent, inalienable Arab and Islamic rights in the Haram area; the necessity of Israel's adherence to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and to international law which governed and defined the responsibilities of the occupying Power, as well as acceptance of the fact that Israel should not hamper the work of the Supreme Muslim Council responsible for Haram's affairs; and the illegitimacy of all Israeli practices aimed at changing the nature, status or demographic composition of the occupied territories, including Arab East Jerusalem.

Turkey strongly deplored the incidents; the principles enunciated by the Council in its resolutions on Jerusalem should be reconfirmed and Israel invited to comply strictly with them.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya believed that as long as the international community supported Israel, there would be more violations of the sanctity of the Holy Places. The Council had the responsibility to protect Jerusalem's unique character, Bangladesh felt, and acts of desecration and profanation must be categorically deplored. The events at the Mosque were in flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention, Tunisia said, and the international community was entitled to demand that Israel respect the Council's decisions.

In Iran's view the desecration of Islamic sanctuaries should be discussed in the right religious context, not in a secular forum by a secular body.

The representative of the League of Arab States also believed that the criminal act in the Haram al-Sharif was a step within a plot aimed at seizing the Islamic sacred sites. He urged that Israel be forced to abide by Council resolutions, particularly those concerning Jerusalem. The Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference stated that the Islamic world would not tolerate the profanation end Judaization of Islamic Holy Places and would not accept repeated affronts to its religious beliefs; Jerusalem had to be returned to Arab and Islamic sovereignty.

Assistance to Palestinians

As requested by the General Assembly in 1985,(31) the Secretary-General convened a meeting of United Nations programmes, organizations, agencies, funds and organs (Geneva, 2 July 1986) to consider economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people. The meeting was also attended by representatives of PLO and Arab host countries, as well as intergovernmental organizations and NGOs. The meeting recognized the serious situation of the Palestinians and the urgency of providing increased economic and social assistance to them, as well as the important role the United Nations could play in that regard. Aid channelled through United Nations organizations should be in accordance with their various mandates. The meeting noted the concerns of PLO about the development of the programme of economic and social assistance and recognized at the same time that there were special circumstances which impeded progress. It considered that emphasis should be on developing a more systematic programme framework within which new projects and activities could be developed in the light of a better knowledge of the Palestinians' needs and requirements. It was expected that United Nations activities would be further expanded and diversified; it was also recognized that co-ordination and self-evaluation should be improved. The meeting urged that a mission to promote the development of the programme should be launched as expeditiously as possible, with its terms of reference to be carefully considered in consultation with the host Governments and PLO.

Concluding his 1986 report giving an overview of assistance to the Palestinians by various United Nations bodies,(32) the Secretary-General observed that while some identification of the needs of the Palestinians had been carried out, further information on those needs was required and resources needed to be mobilized to support proposed project activities. To facilitate the finalization of the programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinians, the feasibility of fielding a mission could be explored in consultation with the relevant United Nations entities and other parties concerned.

UNDP action. The programme of assistance to the Palestinians of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) had become operational in 1980. Since then, nine projects costing over $2.5 million had been completed, the Secretary-General stated in his report on assistance to the Palestinian people.(32) By the end of 1986, 14 projects at a total cost of about $7 million were to be completed and a total of $9.5 million authorized by the UNDP Governing Council was to be fully committed to specific projects. A new initial group of projects costing $17.3 million was contemplated for implementation during the 1987-1991 programming cycle. The Governing Council, in February 1986, approved $8 million for that cycle from Special Programme Resources.

Also in February, the UNDP Administrator visited the area and confirmed to his satisfaction that all parties directly concerned, including particularly the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, viewed UNDP's programme of assistance as increasingly important in efforts for development and self-sufficiency. In a March report to the Governing Council,(33) the Administrator proposed that the programme be recognized as a continuing activity to be supported primarily from Special Programme Resources; supplementary special contributions should continue to be sought but should not be viewed as essential. The Council in June,(34) authorized the Administrator to allocate an additional amount of up to $4 million from Special Programme Resources for assistance to Palestinians, on the understanding that any funds allocated would be budgeted before the end of 1986.

UNICEF activities. During 1986, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) continued to support activities of UNRWA in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, largely through the provision of vaccines, supplies and equipment. Considerable progress was made in respect of the UNICEF programme of co-operation in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, which consisted of three elements: primary health care, pre-school stimulation and promotion of child development centres.

Other activities. Among other United Nations bodies, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) was carrying out a study on the establishment of an industrial development bank for the purpose of providing capital and technical assistance to industrial enterprises. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), under its terms of co-operation with UNRWA, was granting fellowships to UNRWA educational personnel. Under UNESCO's 1986-1987 programme budget, provision was made for further training fellowships for the teaching staff of the universities in the occupied territories, and a special scholarship fund for students from the territories was under examination by the Director-General.

The Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) was undertaking several studies on the economic and social conditions of the Palestinians under occupation. It was planning the execution of three surveys related to the Palestinian people, on income and expenditure of households, a fertility survey and migration. Those surveys were to be conducted first in the Palestine refugee camps in the Syrian Arab Republic, with a mission to that country starting its work in January 1986.

In February, ESCWA, in co-operation with the Arab Labour Organization/Arab Employment Institutions (ALO/AEI), initiated a study to identify the needs with regard to technical and vocational educational institutions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. During the second quarter of 1986 ESCWA undertook jointly with ALO/AEI a study on labour market developments there. Another study on marketing of agricultural outputs in the occupied territories was undertaken by an ESCWA consultant in May 1986. ESCWA was also participating, jointly with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in the preparation of a study on the development of financial structures and activities in the territories.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ACTION

On 22 July, acting on the recommendation of its Third (Programme and Co-ordination) Committee, the Economic and Social Council adopted resolution 1986/49 by roll-call vote.

Assistance to the Palestinian people

The Economic and Social Council,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 40/170 of 17 December 1985,

Recalling also Economic and Social Council resolution 1985/57 of 27 July 1985,

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

Noting that the programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people requested in General Assembly resolution 38/145 of 19 December 1983 has not been prepared,

Noting the increasing 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. Notes the meeting on assistance to the Palestinian people held at Geneva on 2 July 1986 in response to General Assembly resolution 40/170;

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

6. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To prepare without further delay the programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people requested in General Assembly resolution 38/145;

(b) To convene in 1987 a meeting of the relevant programmes, organizations, agencies, funds and organs of the United Nations system to consider economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people;

(c) To invite the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Arab host countries and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to participate in the meeting;

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

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 forty-second session, through the Economic and Social Council, on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.

Economic and Social Council resolution 1986/49
22 July 1986 Meeting 38 51-1 (roll-call vote)

Approved by Third Committee (E/1986/120) by vote 141-11, 14 July (meeting 12); 12-nation draft (E/1986/C.3/L.4), orally revised, agenda item 22.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia.

Roll-call vote in Council as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Egypt, Finland, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of Guinea, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, USSR, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

The United States regretted that the Council had unnecessarily politicized the debate on the legitimate need to assist the Palestinians and challenged others to match its own efforts and funds.

Speaking on behalf of the EC member States, the United Kingdom said they would continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians bilaterally and through EC, as well as through United Nations bodies.

Israel, stating that attempts had been made to represent it as systematically opposing assistance to the Palestinians and as hindering the flow of world aid, welcomed any assistance that could be extended for constructive purposes through proper and legitimate channels.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 8 December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Second (Economic and Financial) Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/181 by recorded vote.

Assistance to the Palestinian people

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 40/170 of 17 December 1985,

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

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

Noting that the programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people requested in General Assembly resolution 38/145 of 19 December 1983 has not been prepared,

Noting the increasing 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. Welcomes the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to prepare the programme of economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people requested in General Assembly resolution 38/145;

3. Notes the meeting on assistance to the Palestinian people held at Geneva on 2 July 1986 in response to General Assembly resolution 40/170;

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

5. 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;

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

7. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To convene in 1987 a meeting of the relevant programmes, organizations, agencies, funds and bodies of the United Nations system to consider economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people;

(b) To invite the Palestine Liberation Organization the Arab host countries and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to participate in the meeting;

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

9. 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;

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

General Assembly resolution 41/181
8 December 1986 Meeting 100 142-2-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by Second Committee (A/41/930/Add.1) by vote (137-2), 4 November (meeting 27); 10-nation draft (A/C.2/41/L.21); agenda item 12.

Sponsors: Algeria, Bangladesh, Democratic Yemen, Madagascar, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Yemen.

Meeting numbers: GA 41st session, 2nd Committee 19, 23-25, 27; plenary 100.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Costa Rica.

Israel said the main purpose of the text should be to encourage countries that claimed to want to help the Palestinians to provide additional resources, plans already existed to spend more than had been contributed to date and it would have been natural for the text to include a specific call on countries to contribute more. The text also wrongly implied that the situation of the Palestinians had deteriorated, and the reference in paragraph 6 to the Israeli occupation was gratuitous and out of order. Instead of calling for negotiations that might lead to positive changes, the text was trying to encourage confrontation and might create serious obstacles to progress on the Palestinian problem.

The United States and the United Kingdom, the latter speaking for the European Economic Community, expressed positions similar to those made in the Economic and Social Council (see above).

Jordan, supporting the provision of all aid to ease the sufferings of the Palestinians, pointed out that, with regard to paragraph 9, all United Nations assistance to the Palestinians in Jordan must be carried out with prior cognizance of the Jordanian Government.
REFERENCES

(1)A/41/35. (2)YUN 1976, p. 235. (3)YUN 1983, p. 274. (4)A/41/768-S/18427. (5)A/41/84-S/17728 & Corr.1. (6)YUN 1985, p. 292. (7)A/41/81-S/17723. (8)A/41/73- S/17710. (9)A/41/127-S/17781. (10)A/41/333-S/18056. (11)E/1986/22 (res. 1986/22). (12)YUN 1985, p. 279, GA res. 40/96 C, 12 Dec. 1985. (13)YUN 1980 p. 399. (14)A/41/724-S/18413. (15)A/41/736-S/18417. (16)A/41/900-S/18483. (17)YUN 1980, p. 426, SC res. 478(1980), 20 Aug. 1980. (18)A/41/82-S/17727. {19)A/41/85-S/17729. (20)A/41/91-S/17739. (21)A/41/94-S/17749. (22)A/41/109-S/17757. (23)A/41/113- S/17760. (24)A/41/117-S/17765. (25)S/17740. (26)S/17741. (27)S/17750. (28)S/17758. (29)S/17748. (30)S/17769/Rev.1. (31)YUN 1985, p. 284, GA res. 40/170, 17 Dec. 1985. (32)A/41/319-E/1986/72 & Corr.1 & Add.1, 2. (33)DP/1986/22. (34)E/1986/29 (dec. 86/30).

_________________________________

Incidents and disputes
between Arab countries and Israel
_________________________________

The 1981 bombing by Israeli aircraft of a nuclear research centre near Baghdad(1) was in 1986 again the subject of a resolution adopted by the General Assembly (41/12).

The fighting in Lebanon continued and intensified, leading to further deterioration of the situation, especially in the south. In January, the Security Council considered the situation there and voted on a draft resolution, by which it would have demanded that Israel desist from its measures against the civilian population and reaffirmed the urgent need for Israeli withdrawal. Owing to a permanent member's negative vote, the text was not adopted.

During 1986, the Council twice extended the mandate of UNIFIL - in April for three months (resolution 583(1986)) and in July for six months (586(1986)). For the first time, the vote on the extension of the mandate was unanimous.

Following a series of attacks against French UNIFIL personnel, the Council in September, by resolution 587(1986), strongly condemned those attacks and called for an end to any military presence in southern Lebanon not accepted by the Lebanese authorities. In an October statement, the Council urged full support to the Force and repeated the call for an end to any military presence in southern Lebanon.

A shortfall of $242.6 million, mainly due to a withholding of contributions, posed a very serious problem for UNIFIL operations. The General Assembly, by resolution 41/179 A, called again for voluntary contributions, and appropriated $112 million for UNIFIL from 19 April 1986 to 18 January 1987 and authorized commitments not to exceed $12 million per month for the year after that period. By resolution 41/179 B, the Assembly authorized suspension of the United Nations Financial Regulations so that UNIFIL could retain a "surplus balance" of about $4.8 million.

Assistance for the reconstruction and development of Lebanon was the subject of Assembly resolution 41/196.

The Security Council in February, considered an incident in which Israeli fighter planes intercepted a Libyan civilian aircraft with a political delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic on board. The Council voted on a draft, by which it would have condemned Israel for the action and warned that it would consider taking adequate measures if such acts were repeated. The text was not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member.

On the Syrian Golan Heights, UNDOF continued to supervise the cease-fire between the Israeli and Syrian forces and ensure that there were no military forces in the area of separation. The Security Council extended UNDOF's mandate twice during the year, each time for six months, by resolutions 584(1986) and 590(1986). The General Assembly, by resolution 41/44 A, appropriated $35.7 million for the operation of UNDOF from 1 June 1986 to 31 May 1987 and authorized commitments not to exceed $2 million per month for the following six months. By resolution 41/44 B, the Assembly suspended the United Nations Financial Regulations to enable UNDOF to retain a "surplus" of $1.5 million which would otherwise have to be surrendered.

Iraq and Israel

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 29 October, the Assembly adopted resolution 41/12 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 Security Council resolution 487(1981) of 19 June 1981,

Concerned that armed attacks on nuclear facilities raise fears about the safety of present and future nuclear installations,

Aware that all States developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes need assurances against armed attacks on nuclear facilities,

1. Calls upon Israel urgently to place all its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in accordance with resolution 487(1981) adopted unanimously by the Security Council;

2. Considers that Israel has not yet committed itself not to attack or threaten to attack nuclear facilities in Iraq or elsewhere, including facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards;

3. Reaffirms that Iraq is entitled to compensation for the damage it has suffered as a result of the Israeli armed attack on 7 June 1981;

4. Requests the Conference on Disarmament to continue negotiations with a view to reaching an immediate conclusion of the agreement on the prohibition of military attacks on nuclear facilities as a contribution to promoting and ensuring the safe development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes;

5. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its forty-second 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 41/12
29 October 1986 Meeting 51 86-5-55 (recorded vote)
26-nation draft (A/41/L.14 & Add.1); agenda item 24.

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

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: El Salvador, Honduras, Israel, Saint Christopher and Nevis, United States.

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire.

Before the text as a whole was adopted, the Assembly adopted, by a recorded vote of 37 to 2, with 90 abstentions, a motion by Iraq that no amendment be accepted, and paragraph 2 was adopted by a recorded vote of 63 to 41, with 33 abstentions.

The Assembly had before it an amendment by Iran(2) that would have added a paragraph strongly condemning all military attacks on all nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful purposes including the military attacks by Israel on the Iraqi facilities. Jordan proposed replacing that paragraph by one reiterating strong condemnation of the military attack by Israel on the Iraqi facilities, as well as any future attack on peaceful nuclear installations.(3) Iran then proposed to have the Assembly reiterate its strong condemnation of the military attack by Israel on the Iraqi facilities and condemn all military attacks, both of the past and of the future, on all peaceful nuclear installations.(4)

Introducing the draft on behalf of its sponsors Iraq said they were convinced that Israel intended to repeat its aggression, having made that clear through constant threats. By slipping a refurbished model of previous resolutions into the Assembly said Israel, Iraq attempted to bypass a decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to delete the subject from its agenda after Israel had given solid assurances of not making any attack on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes, while Iraq refused to do likewise.

The United States said that, in neglecting the action by the 1985 IAEA General Conference(5) during which Israel had provided the assurances called for in paragraph 2, the text called into question the judgement of a substantial number of IAEA member States; the sole intent of the text, reinforced by paragraph 5, was to arouse hostility.

Speaking for the 12 EC member States, the United Kingdom also questioned whether there was need to include the item in any future Assembly agenda after IAEA had concluded its consideration of the subject.

Norway shared that opinion, adding that paragraph 2 was inconsistent with the IAEA resolution. That paragraph obviously contradicted IAEA's text, Sweden said. Argentina found it difficult to reconcile the third preambular paragraph with paragraph 2. Israel had offered acceptable guarantees to IAEA, Uruguay believed. Mexico abstained for the same reasons as in 1985.(6)

Australia considered Israel's commitment was made in good faith, and for the matter to reappear would not serve to achieve productive results. Canada also felt that IAEA's action should have closed the discussion. In view of the time that had elapsed since the 1981 attack and the Assembly's repeated unequivocal condemnation of it, Peru believed that the text gave rise to procedural problems and was untimely.

Believing that the text's main thrust deserved an affirmative vote, Brazil intended to reassess its future position if it became clear that the item was being used to increase tensions unduly; that IAEA had accepted Israel's assurances also deserved mention.

India, stating that the text clearly expressed the international community's views, reaffirmed its position on issues such as the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons(7) and full scope safeguards.

The Syrian Arab Republic would have preferred that the text embody an unequivocal condemnation of Israel's aggression against Iraq.

Iran found the adopted text on the whole satisfactory, adding that it would vote for any resolution in favour of the Iraqi people, in defense of their property and against Zionist interventions; it regretted, however, that its amendment had not been acceptable to Iraq.

Lebanon situation

The situation in Lebanon in 1986 deteriorated further, due to continued and intensified fighting. In January, the Security Council considered the situation in southern Lebanon which witnessed according to Lebanon, an escalation of Israeli aggression. Israel, on the other hand, held the position that southern Lebanon was used especially by Syrian forces for terrorist attacks against it. The Council voted on a draft resolution by which it would have strongly demanded that Israel desist from its measures against the civilian population and reaffirmed the urgent need for Israeli withdrawal. Owing to a permanent Council member's negative vote, the text was not adopted.

During 1986, the Security Council unanimously extended the mandate of UNIFIL - in April for three months and in July for six months. The situation was generally quiet in UNIFIL's area of operation, the Secretary-General stated in his report on UNIFIL covering the period 11 October 1985 to 9 April 1986.(8) However, in the so-called security zone - a strip of land extending into part of the UNIFIL area - there had been an increase in attacks against the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and their local allies, the South Lebanon Army (SLA). There had also been several rocket attacks against targets in northern Israel. These incidents led to counteractions by IDF and SLA, including a major incursion into the UNIFIL area by IDF in brigade strength from 17 to 22 February, the taking and interrogation of prisoners and the indiscriminate shelling of villages in the security zone. Those counter-actions resulted in further resentment by the population leading to a further increase in violence.

The situation in and around Beirut, with particular emphasis on developments involving Israeli forces and Palestinians, was monitored by the Observer Group in Beirut, with observers from UNTSO, set up in 1982(9) following the first incursion of Israeli troops into West Beirut. The Secretary-General reported in October 1986(10) that, since the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the Beirut area in September 1983, the Group's activities had been reduced and its total strength brought down from 50 to 18.

The Security Council, in a June statement, expressed grave concern at the continuing intensification of the fighting in Beirut, especially in and around the Palestinian refugee camps, and appealed for a cessation of the fighting. In December, it expressed serious concern at the escalation of violence, particularly affecting the population of the camps. It appealed for restraint in order to end those acts of violence and for measures to alleviate the suffering.

During and immediately after the heavy fighting in Beirut between May and July, UNRWA provided emergency assistance to some 48,000 refugees, in addition to its regular operations which already imposed enormous demands on the Agency in trying to meet the refugees' needs.

Following a series of violent incidents in the UNIFIL zone between 11 and 22 August, during which two Lebanese and one member of the Irish contingent were killed and several French soldiers were wounded, and another incident on 4 September when three French soldiers were killed by a remote-controlled bomb in the sector of the French contingent, the Security Council met on 5 September. On the morning of that day, Israeli soldiers carried out a helicopter raid in the village of Zibqin in the sector of the Nepalese contingent. The Council issued a statement expressing deep sorrow and indignation at such deliberate violence the Council members considered it essential to adopt with all urgency reinforced security measures and asked the Secretary-General to act to that effect. They also thanked the Secretary-General for immediately dispatching a mission led by the Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs in order to examine, in consultation with the Lebanese Government, measures to enable the Force to carry out its mandate.

Another attack against French personnel by a remote-controlled roadside bomb was carried out on 13 September. In an 18 September report,(11) the Secretary-General stated that recent weeks had witnessed a dangerously high level of violence in UNIFIL's area of deployment; Israel's continuing occupation and the behaviour of its allies in SLA had increasingly provoked armed resistance by various groups, and UNIFIL personnel risked being caught in such retaliatory fire, as had happened at the Nepalese position on 11 September. Because of all those incidents, various measures were taken to improve the security of the troops and certain redeployments took place within the UNIFIL area.

The second part of the mission's task was to pursue consultations with the parties on how progress could be made towards implementing the 1978 Security Council resolution(12) calling for strict respect for Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence, and for Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory, and establishing UNIFIL for the purpose of confirming that withdrawal, restoring peace and security, and assisting the Lebanese Government in ensuring the return of its effective authority. The Lebanese leaders and the Syrian Government expressed unequivocal support for continued UNIFIL presence and urgent implementation of the 1978 resolution, while Israel reiterated that the only reason for its continuing military presence in Lebanon was to ensure the security of northern Israel. Given those conditions and the financial situation of the Force, which cost the international community about $140 million annually, the Secretary-General said that UNIFIL faced a major crisis. If progress in implementing the 1978 resolution was not achieved soon, the Council might be compelled to give serious consideration to the Force's withdrawal, despite the consequences. Accordingly, the Secretary-General recommended that the Council take urgent action to unblock the current impasse.

The Council met on 19, 22 and 23 September and adopted a resolution by which it strongly condemned the attacks against UNIFIL, urged all parties to co-operate with it, again called for an end in southern Lebanon to any military presence not accepted by the Lebanese authorities, and requested the Secretary-General to arrange for a deployment of the Force to the southern border of Lebanon. Reporting again on 13 October,(13) the Secretary-General stated that there had been a marked reduction in attacks against the Force since 18 September and no further lives had been lost. As requested by the Council, further measures had been taken to enhance the security of UNIFIL personnel. Following consultations on the Secretary-General's report, the Council issued on 31 October a statement expressing regret that the consultations aimed at implementing the 1978 resolution had failed to yield results and called on him to intensify his efforts towards that end. Council members again urged full support for the Force and repeated their call regarding an end to the military presence in southern Lebanon.

The Council also called on all countries to assume their financial responsibilities towards UNIFIL. The shortfall of $242.6 million continued to pose a very serious problem for the financial management of the Force, the Secretary-General stated in an October report on UNIFIL financing.(14) Calling again for voluntary contributions the General Assembly appropriated $112,238,500 for UNIFIL operations from 19 April 1986 to 18 January 1987, and authorized commitments not to exceed $12,125,000 per month for the 12 months after that period. In view of the difficult financial situation of the Force, the Assembly authorized suspension of the United Nations Financial Regulations to enable UNIFIL to retain a "surplus balance" of about $4.8 million.

The Assembly invited the Secretary-General to consider the urgent need to nominate a United Nations Co-ordinator of Assistance for the Reconstruction and Development of Lebanon, and requested that the United Nations system expand its programme of assistance to Lebanon.

Communications. Referring to a December 1985 letter by the Syrian Arab Republic,(15) Israel stressed in a communication of 2 January 1986(16) that Lebanon was dominated by the Syrian Arab Republic, as recently reaffirmed by negotiations at Damascus with various Lebanese factions and militias, that domination was exploited to wage terrorist attacks against Israel. Together with the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Syrian Arab Republic assisted terrorists who attacked innocent people all over the world; the Abu Nidal gang which had taken the responsibility for the December 1985 attacks at the Rome and Vienna airports,(17) had bases in the Republic and, with its approval, in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Various official sources confirmed that those who had committed the Rome airport murders had entered Italy via the Syrian Arab Republic. Under those circumstances, Israel said, it had no choice but to take all necessary measures to defend itself and its population against terrorism.

On 11 January 1986,(18) the Syrian Arab Republic reaffirmed that its forces were in Lebanon legitimately, having been requested by the Lebanese Government and by virtue of a decision of the League of Arab States. Israel characterized the Syrian presence as occupation and domination in order to justify its own occupation of parts of southern Lebanon, which it used as a base for oppression, persecution and displacement of the inhabitants and as a staging point for its aggression against Lebanon. Israel's allegations were attempts to justify those acts aimed at thwarting the Republic's efforts to restore security and peace to Lebanese territory, efforts which had been conducive to the parties to the conflict in Lebanon reaching agreement on a national accord for a solution to the Lebanese crisis, signed at Damascus on 28 December 1985. The Syrian Arab Republic would continue supporting Arab resistance, based on its commitment to the Arab people, particularly to those of Palestine and Lebanon.

On 23 January,(19) Israel stressed that recent events in Damascus, Beirut and other areas in Lebanon reconfirmed the points it had made on 2 January, adding that the so-called spokesman for the Abu Nidal gang had made a recent statement issued from Damascus, in which he threatened further murder attacks in Europe.

Lebanon, on 18 February,(20) called to the Secretary-General's attention recent Israeli actions in southern Lebanon, among them alteration of international boundaries by moving a barbed-wire strip; building a new road to facilitate surveillance of infiltration into Israel; and erection of buildings used for military purposes. There had also been an increase in aggressive acts against areas adjacent to the "security zone", the most serious being the expulsion of people from the town of Kounin on 30 December 1985. Israel's actions were part of continuing preparations to pump water from the Litani River to Israel through underground pipelines. Should the Council fail to adopt a decisive resolution on such actions, they were likely to continue and be repeated in other parts of southern Lebanon.

In another letter of the same date,(21) Lebanon charged that Israel, using the pretext of the disappearance of two of its soldiers, had carried out on 17 February large-scale military operations in southern Lebanon; more than 600 troops, supported by large numbers of tanks, personnel carriers and helicopters and aircraft, had attacked 15 Lebanese villages and reached the vicinity of the town of Tyre. Reinforcements brought the troops to over 1,000 and the number of vehicles to hundreds. Operations continued on 18 February, with the forces setting up road blocks, raiding houses and interrogating the inhabitants after assembling them in public squares. Israeli forces still occupied Shaqra, Sultaniya, Qa'qa'iyat, Haris, Kafra and Haddathah. Helicopters and aircraft were terrorizing the populations of Tyre, Marjayoun, Bint Jubayl and Nabatiyah. Lebanon called for an end to Israel's actions and reserved its right to call for a Security Council meeting.

On 21 February,(22) Lebanon complained of further aggression by Israel and what it called its client forces which, Lebanon charged, had extended their operations from the so-called security zone to more than 15 kilometres inside the area of deployment of the international forces in Lebanon. From 19 to 21 February, Israel had bombarded and besieged dozens of Lebanese towns and villages to detain their inhabitants. Israeli gunboats were also taking part and dozens of civilians had been killed. Lebanon called for a rapid move by the Council to end those practices immediately and bring about an Israeli withdrawal up to internationally recognized boundaries.

Rejecting Lebanon's allegations as unfounded, Israel said on 5 March(23) that in the absence of an effective central authority in Lebanon, it had to ensure its citizens' safety. The sole purpose of the fence which extended a few hundred metres beyond the international border was not to alter the border's status but to provide security. Israel was not interested in Lebanon's territory or its water; however, security problems occasionally necessitated implementation of certain measures and a return to normalcy in the area would bring an effective end to that problem.

On 6 March,(24) Israel, again rejecting what it called misrepresentations by Lebanon, stated that IDF had merely carried out search operations for two Israeli soldiers abducted on 17 February in a security zone established in southern Lebanon; after six days of searching, the IDF units had returned, having uncovered large quantities of military supplies to be used for terrorist strikes against Israel. Israel's sole concern was that Lebanon should not be used for that purpose.

On 5 March,(25) Israel charged that terrorist killers freely operating in Lebanon had recently begun striking with particular cruelty against Lebanon's Jewish community, kidnapping nine, four of whom had been tortured and murdered. Lebanon had not taken any measures to protect its citizens, as its leadership and the many terrorist gangs were dominated by the Syrian Arab Republic which bore responsibility for the anti-Semitic outrages. Israel called on the international community to join it in holding the Lebanese Government accountable for protecting all its citizens, regardless of religion or ethnic origin; immediate action was required to prevent the remaining hostages from being murdered and to stop further kidnappings of Jews. Israel reserved its right to seek out the perpetrators.

On the morning of 27 March, Katyusha rockets had been fired at the town of Qiryat Shemona, Israel stated on 1 April,(26) one hitting an elementary school, wounding six, among them a teacher and four children. Broadcasting from Baghdad, PLO's Fatah faction had claimed responsibility for the attack, the latest in a series aimed at civilians in northern Israel. The rockets had been fired from near Shaqra, in an area over which UNIFIL had assumed control in July 1985; as the attacks from that area demonstrated, preventing PLO and Hezbollah terrorism required forces committed to and organize for the defence of the area against terrorism.

The Secretary-General replied on 11 April(27) that UNIFIL's Commander had informed him that, after a thorough search, no evidence had been found to confirm that Katyushas were fired from the vicinity of Shaqra; the Commander also indicated that, after the reported explosion in Qiryat Shemona, UNIFIL observed that IDF/SLA personnel had searched inside the enclave south of Shaqra and that the IDF liaison officer made no accusation to UNIFIL that the firing had taken place from inside the UNIFIL area.

On 26 September,(28) Lebanon charged Israel with acts of aggression against areas in Mount Lebanon, south Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, and with continuing its military buildup along the borders with Lebanon, thereby contributing to an already explosive situation. On the same date,(29) Lebanon reported that that day an IDF/SLA unit had attacked the village of Yatar in the UNIFIL area, blowing up houses and intimidating the population.

On 29 September,(30) the United Arab Emirates transmitted a 26 September letter from PLO, charging Israel with raiding the Palestinian refugee camp at Mieh Mieh (see also p. 290). Israel planned military action along its northern border, with troops to be deployed by land, sea and air and with the Sidon area as the main target; an armoured division and a mechanized infantry battalion were already in the so-called security zone.

On 17 October,(31) Lebanon reported that on 16 October Israeli fighter aircraft had bombed Sidon and the neighbouring area four times; the Israeli navy had participated and troops were landed in Lebanese territory, while helicopters fired randomly. This act resulted in heavy human and material losses. Lebanon called on the Security Council to assume its responsibilities and end the aggression and Israel's intervention in Lebanon's internal affairs.

A 16 November Israeli air raid was reported by Lebanon the following day;(32) six Israeli warplanes bombed the eastern outskirts of Sidon causing a number of wounded and leaving serious material damage. On 17 November, Lebanon charged, three military helicopters carried out a second raid at the same area, firing seven missiles which destroyed a two-storey building. Lebanon requested speedy action by the Secretary-General to halt Israel's aggression in order to preserve international peace and security.

On 11 December,(33) Lebanon charged Israel with another act of airborne aggression, the second against northern Lebanon and the nineteenth against Lebanese territory during one year; the air attacks alone had killed more than 35 people and injured 130, apart from causing extensive property damage (see also p. 290).

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. By a resolution adopted on 12 March(34) by a roll-call vote of 25 to 1, with 17 abstentions, the Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned Israel for its human rights violations, aggression and arbitrary practices against civilians in southern Lebanon, including assassinations, detentions, abductions, demolition of houses, desecration of places of worship and other inhuman acts. It called on Israel immediately to end such practices and demanded its immediate, total and unconditional withdrawal from Lebanese territory, and called on Governments which continued to aid Israel to refrain from providing it with support which encouraged it to persevere with its aggression and expansion policy. The Commission asked the Secretary-General to monitor implementation of its resolution and to report to the General Assembly.

In a 10 March resolution dealing with various aspects of the Palestine question (see p. 270), the Commission condemned Israel's aggression and practices against the Palestinians in and outside the occupied territories, particularly against those in Lebanon.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

On 6 January,(35) Lebanon asked for an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider what it said were Israel's continuing acts of aggression and abusive practices in southern Lebanon. The Council held three meetings - two on 13 January and one on 17 January.

Meeting numbers. SC 2640-2642.

The Council invited Israel, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Syrian Arab Republic, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

On 17 January, the Council voted on a draft resolution by Lebanon.(36) The vote was 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Bulgaria, China, Congo, France, Ghana, Madagascar, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, USSR, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela.

Against: United States.

Abstaining Australia, Denmark, United Kingdom.

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

By the text, twice revised, the Council, reaffirming the urgent need to implement its 1978(12) and 1982(37) resolutions demanding Israel's military withdrawal, would have strongly deplored Israel's acts of violence and abusive measures against southern Lebanon's civilian population, reiterated its call for strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity; demanded that Israel desist from measures against civilians in southern Lebanon which impeded restoration of normal conditions in the area and threatened reconciliation efforts towards restoring peace and security in the whole country, and decided to keep the situation under review, with the Secretary-General reporting to the Council.

The United States considered the text negative and one-sided and believed that it would not bring closer peace in Lebanon or relief to the suffering. The immediate motive for Lebanon's complaint - the situation in the village of Kounin (see below) - appeared to be nearing resolution through the constructive efforts of UNIFIL, supported by the parties interested in south Lebanon's security. The text failed to deal in a fair and balanced manner with southern Lebanon's security problems, including security of the Lebanon-Israel border, and ignored the fact that there had been rocket attacks on Israeli territory launched from Lebanese soil, as well as violence in southern Lebanon.

While the text had been improved considerably through the revisions, said Australia, it lacked certain elements from earlier Council resolutions and did not take full account of all recent acts on the Lebanon-Israel border.

In Denmark's opinion, the draft did not fully guarantee effective implementation of the Council's peace-keeping undertakings; the Council must ponder on what action might be taken to further implementation of its resolutions on UNIFIL and to bring peace and normality to southern Lebanon.

The United Kingdom believed that the Council should not restrict itself to condemning those at fault on both sides of the frontier, but should try to take a constructive view of the situation through the use of the Force already in existence; it was up to the Council to support the Force.

France said the text basically met its concerns, since it reaffirmed the basic Council resolutions and reiterated the importance of respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity.

The USSR felt that the text did not put enough pressure on Israel, particularly in that there was no call for sanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter; it was the Council's duty to ensure implementation of its decisions demanding Israel's withdrawal, which was the only key to the solution of the Lebanese problem.

Bulgaria spoke similarly, adding that the solution of Lebanon's problems was possible only on the basis of respecting its unity, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In Saudi Arabia's opinion, the draft represented the minimum called for by the situation and less than the minimum in the light of the commitments that all had assumed and the positions they had reiterated. Lebanon was the victim of aggression that was not even denied by the aggressor; if the Council failed to shoulder its responsibilities, it must bear responsibility for the consequent deterioration of the situation.

Lebanon, responding to the objection that the draft was not balanced, explained that to condemn or deplore all acts of violence would put the aggressor on an equal footing with the national resistance movement.

In addition to the calls in the draft, China said, the Council should demand the dismantling of "security zones" and the dissolution of SLA. As a victim of aggression and a small State, Lebanon could resort only to the Council, said the United Arab Emirates; the text reflected the reality in southern Lebanon stemming from repeated Israeli acts of aggression.

It was not Lebanon's internal tragedy that was its concern, Israel stressed, but that no one in Lebanon was able to control cross-border violence launched at Israel for over a decade.

Opening the debate, Lebanon gave its account of incidents between 29 December 1985 and 7 January 1986 which, it said, illustrated a deliberate escalation of Israeli aggression. On 30 December 1985, an SLA/IDF force had entered the village of Kounin, destroying several houses and commercial stores and burning a number of vehicles. Several hundred people fled their homes and some 30 people were detained. If the Council did not act, Lebanon warned, that inability would be used as a direct reason by Israel for continuing to ignore the Council and its resolutions and for persisting in its policy and practices.

Like the rest of south Lebanon, Kounin had been turned into a battle zone by terrorists, Israel said; reports that IDF or SLA had expelled the villagers were fabrication. On 30 December, an SLA patrol composed of villagers in that area had been ambushed near Kounin; two of its members were killed. The attackers were traced to Kounin, where it was found that the men of the village had fled, fearing they would be held responsible for the killings. Not one of them had been expelled, hurt or killed, and they were free to return to the village any time they wished. Preventing the use of the south as a base for attacks against it remained Israel's sole interest. A serious dialogue between the parties was needed to enable the people on both sides of the border to live in peace; until Lebanon freed itself from Syrian shackles, Israel would continue to do what was necessary to protect its security and the lives of its citizens.

Israel's recent aggression against Lebanon, alleged the Syrian Arab Republic, coincided with the signing of the 28 December 1985 Damascus agreement containing a draft national solution for the Lebanese crisis; Israel regarded that agreement as a great defeat because it undermined its policy designed to continue fragmenting Lebanon by fanning the flames of civil war. Israel was trying to create another West Bank in order to pursue its expansionist policies and create small sectarian States, in addition to diverting the waters in south Lebanon for the use of Israeli settlements; it tried to entrench and perpetuate its military presence in Lebanon and the myth of the security belt was only a means to increase tension, in particular in the southern part. The Council must adopt the necessary measures for implementing its earlier resolutions calling for immediate cessation of all military activities in Lebanon and withdrawal of Israeli forces to the internationally recognized boundaries. Also, the Council could impose sanctions. As long as United Nations forces could not fulfil their role of helping extend Lebanon's sovereignty up to the international border, its people had no choice but to carry on the struggle against foreign occupation.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said the "Zionist entity" wanted to strip Lebanon of its Arab character and force it to abandon all Arab commitments; it had established Lebanese militias subservient to it to destabilize Lebanon and foment sedition and was deliberately precipitating clashes among members of the same people to impede the comprehensive national reconciliation achieved by the parties concerned.

Israel's "iron-fist" policy announced in March 1985 had turned into a systematic mass repression of the population of southern Lebanon, the USSR thought. With regard to the UNIFIL forces, they were not only subjected to systematic armed provocations, but had recently become the object of a vicious campaign with the purpose of disorganizing them and compelling them to leave Lebanon.

The acts attributable to Israel represented obstacles to peace and contributed to the worsening of an already tense situation not only in southern Lebanon but in the entire Middle East, the Congo felt; in order to reduce the tension, the Council must adopt a firm position, the only possible position compatible with strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, integrity and unity.

Speaking in like manner, Madagascar believed that it was no accident that Israel had decided to fan the flames of tension and support an element of agitation and disturbance intended to thwart re-establishment of the Lebanese State in its full sovereignty and unity.

Qatar hoped that the Council would respond unanimously to Lebanon's modest requests which, it felt, merely reaffirmed former Council resolutions and provisions of international law; in addition, Qatar believed, new elements should be included that would ensure the effectiveness of the resolution to be adopted.

There was only one road to peace in Lebanon, Bulgaria believed, as outlined in the Council's 1982 resolutions.(37)

The United States emphasized anew its commitment to Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, although, it said, it might differ from other Members on how best to bring about those goals.

Recent developments demonstrated that the so-called security zone and the continued presence of IDF, which were contrary to Council resolutions, did not provide Israel with the security it sought for its northern settlements, Denmark felt: the best option available continued to be the effective implementation of the mandate of UNIFIL.

A full solution to border violence between the two countries was going to require mutual respect for the security of each country within its internationally recognized borders, the United Kingdom said; both sides must act sternly against terrorists and desist from practices which adversely affected the population on either side. To achieve that, Israel should withdraw totally and cease supporting the irregular forces, while at the same time UNIFIL would be able to fulfil its mandate through effective deployment.

Morocco, too, called for Israel to withdraw. The reason for the deteriorating situation in southern Lebanon was Israel's refusal to do so, its insistence on its "security zone", its refusal to allow UNIFIL's deployment and the arming of illegitimate collaborators. By escalating terror, Israel was trying to entrench instability in Lebanon so that later it might justify its occupation and have the last word in any initiative aimed at rapprochement between the parties to the conflict.

The Council should truly discharge its responsibilities for maintaining international peace and security and adopt the following measures, China said: condemn the Israeli invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon and its bullying of civilians; insist on immediate implementation of the Council's resolutions; demand Israel's immediate and unconditional withdrawal; demand the dismantling of the "security zone", which was in fact a State within a State, and the dissolution of SLA, and ask Israel strictly to respect Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.


Palestinian refugees in Lebanon

Communications (April-June). From April to June, several communications were sent to the Secretary-General, urging him to try to protect the Palestinian refugees living in camps in Lebanon. PLO's communications were transmitted either by the respective monthly Chairman of the Arab Group or by other Arab States.

On 7 April,(38) PLO stated that, for the twelfth consecutive day, armed militias had attacked the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila and Burj el-Barajneh in Beirut; during the previous nine months, hundreds of Palestinians had been killed or wounded in such attacks. Also on 7 April,(39) PLO charged that, for the second time in 10 days, Israeli aircraft had attacked civilian targets in Lebanon. On that day, they attacked the Sidon area and bombed the camps of Ein el-Helweh, Mieh Mieh and the surrounding area. A large number of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed or wounded; among them were three little children in serious condition. Under the pretext of seeking out PLO fighters returning to Lebanon, Israel had embarked again on its plan for a final solution to the Palestinian problem through genocide.

Attacks on camps in Beirut by Amal militia and the sixth brigade of the Lebanese army were reported in a 2 June PLO letter.(40) The attacks had intensified since 16 May, PLO charged, and on 23 May the camps were surrounded and heavily bombarded with all kinds of weapons, including tanks. On 30 May, the attacks became so severe that the camps were totally isolated, with the Palestinians unable to evacuate the wounded or to receive food or medical supplies. The camps were attacked again on 2 June. All institutions and schools in the camps were shut down, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was unable to enter to evacuate the wounded and provide medical help. Palestinian casualties were 25 killed and more than 200 wounded. There were 1,000 displaced Palestinians from the Shatila camp, they had temporarily sought refuge in the Mar Elias camp.

On 5 June,(41) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights expressed grave concern over the renewed attacks. The Committee was particularly distressed to learn that, although UNRWA had provided some emergency relief to those who had fled the camps, neither it nor ICRC had been permitted to enter them to evacuate the wounded and provide medical help. Continued failure to arrive at a just solution to the Palestine question could only lead to spiralling violence, with unforeseeable consequences for international peace and security.

SECURIT COUNCIL ACTION (June)

Following consultations, the President of the Security Council issued on 6 June the following statement on behalf of the Council members:(42)

"The members of the Security Council are gravely concerned at the continuing intensification of the fighting in Beirut, especially in and around the Palestinian refugee camps, with its high toll of casualties and material destruction.

"The members of the Security Council appeal to all concerned to use their influence in bringing about the cessation of the fighting in order to enable the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East as well as other humanitarian organizations to mount emergency Operations for the benefit of the populations concerned, including the Palestinian refugees towards whom the international community has a particular responsibility.

"They reaffirm that the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon must be respected.

"The members of the Security Council endorse the Secretary-General's appeal to all parties concerned to exercise utmost restraint and to renew their efforts to end the present bloodshed."

Further communications (June-December). Further charges of attacks on the refugee camps were received by the Secretary-General or the President of the Security Council. Most asked for United Nations assistance to end the attacks and protect the camps' occupants.

On 11 June,(43) PLO thanked the Council President for his statement. As a result of the efforts of the Special Envoy of the President of Algeria of Lebanese religious authorities and national leaders, and of the endeavours of Iran, PLO said, a cease-fire agreement had been reached, but Amal gangs and the Lebanese army continued indiscriminate shelling of the camps in an attempt to break into them, resulting in the death of many innocent people. PLO again requested that the United Nations use the Observer Group in Lebanon and deploy UNIFIL to protect the Group.

On a 13 June,(44) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights again expressed the Committee's grave concern at the persistence and intensification of the attacks against Palestinians in the Sabra, Shatila and Burj el-Barajneh camps despite the 6 June appeal. He reaffirmed that the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, had the responsibility to guarantee the refugees' safety and he requested the Secretary-General to take urgent action.

On 30 June,(45) the Netherlands forwarded a declaration adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the 12 EC members at The Hague on 27 June, expressing deep concern about the situation and endorsing the appeals by the Council and the Secretary-General to all concerned to exercise restraint, end the bloodshed and facilitate the work of ICRC and UNRWA.

On 16 July,(46) PLO stated that on 10 July Israel's air force had carried out several sorties against the Ein el-Helweh camp in southern Lebanon, resulting in several children and adults being killed or injured. It charged that, for the previous two weeks, Sidon and Tyre had been besieged by Israeli naval vessels and that an Israeli attack by sea and by land against refugee camps in the area was imminent. On 14 July, Palestinians near Beirut had come under attack from the Israeli air force and civilians were killed or injured. In both attacks, there had been massive property damage.

On 13 August,(47) PLO said that, for the second time in two days and the fourth time in a month, Israel's air force had attacked the refugee camps, killing and wounding many civilians, including children, and causing extensive material damage.

On 11 September,(48) PLO charged that on 10 September Israeli gunships escorted by F15 and F16 aircraft and naval destroyers had attacked Palestinian camps in southern Lebanon, firing barrages of rockets, particularly on Mieh Mieh, leaving three dead and several wounded, the casualties being mostly children and the elderly.

On 24 September,(49) PLO alleged that Israel had commenced massing huge military forces in southern Lebanon, with two army battalions equipped with tanks and heavy artillery being newly deployed in addition to the so-called SLA; the Israeli plan was aimed against Palestinian camps as well as Lebanese civilians.

In another letter, dated 26 September,(30) PLO charged that Israel had carried out on 25 September an act of State terrorism, when six Israeli warplanes raided the Mieh Mieh refugee camp, an attack that resulted in the death and injuries of a number of refugees and massive destruction of residences.

On 16 October,(50) PLO said that on that day Israeli jets had bombed the camps of Mieh Mieh, Ein el-Helweh and Al-Fawwar, causing heavy casualties.

On 10 November,(51) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights expressed the Committee's grave concern at the persistence and intensification of fighting in and around Palestinian camps at Tyre, Beirut and Sidon. According to reports by UNRWA and the media, fighting had broken out on 30 September at El-Buss, Burj el-Shemali and Rashadieh, near Tyre; the last two had remained under siege for two weeks and Rashadieh had again been under attack since 20 October. Refugees were unable to leave or enter and all, except El-Buss, remained inaccessible to UNRWA staff. At Rashadieh, UNRWA had been unable to deliver food or medicines since the beginning of the fighting and thousands of women, children and old people were trapped in the cross-fire. Fighting had also been reported at Burj el-Barajneh in Beirut, as well as around the Ein el-Helweh and Mieh Mieh camps near Sidon; Burj el-Barajneh had been surrounded and remained inaccessible. Reiterating the Organization's responsibility to ensure the safety of those in the camps, the Chairman urged speedy action to end the suffering and hardships.

The non-aligned countries, at an urgent plenary meeting held on 8 December in New York,(52) also expressed grave concern at the escalation of fighting, called for an immediate cease-fire and appealed to all concerned and to influential parties to exercise utmost restraint and make all efforts to end the violence; it also urged them to facilitate the provision of prompt medical care to the sick and wounded (see also p. 324).

Lebanon charged Israel on 11 December(33) with further airborne aggression, this time against the Nahr el-Bared camp in the northern suburbs of the city of Tripoli, which it said left five people dead and more than 12 wounded.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (December)

Following consultations, the President of the Security Council issued on 2 December the following statement on behalf of the Council members:(53)

"The members of the Security Council, mindful of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon, express their serious concern at the current escalation of violence there, affecting the civilian population in and around the Palestinian refugee camps. The members of the Council appeal to all concerned to exercise restraint in order to end these acts of violence. They also appeal to all concerned to take necessary measures to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population. They urge all concerned to facilitate the efforts of various United Nations agencies, particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as well as non-governmental organizations, to provide humanitarian assistance."

Related resolution: GA 41/69 I.


UNRWA activities

The situation in Lebanon remained the most serious operational problem facing UNRWA, the Commissioner-General stated in his annual report to the General Assembly.(54) Since July 1985, Palestine refugees had been affected by the continuing deterioration of the security situation, with many casualties. Hardly an area of Lebanon where refugees lived escaped the effects of fighting; those who remained in the besieged camps faced death injury and shortages of food, water and medical supplies, and most suffered the loss of their homes and property. Sporadic Israeli air raids also caused death and destruction among refugees.

Agency operations in Lebanon were seriously affected and the safety of staff was a constant source of concern. UNRWA was prevented from bringing supplies into the camps or transporting them along the roads and was advised that those operations would be permitted only if it delivered equal amounts of food and supplies for distribution to the non-refugee population also affected by the fighting. The difficulties faced in maintaining services were at times almost insurmountable and threatened to bring operations to a halt.

In spite of that, however, UNRWA in Lebanon succeeded in keeping most of its installations open and normal services running, except when installations were under fire, had been destroyed or when access to them was prevented by battle. Once an installation was damaged, UNRWA sought other accommodation or repaired the damage while, whenever possible, continuing to provide services through alternative facilities.

In addition to regular operations, UNRWA provided emergency assistance to some 48,000 refugees displaced during and immediately after periods of heavy fighting; it also helped refugees living in camps to repair their battle-damaged shelters. By the end of September 1986, the emergency operation that had begun as a result of the fighting in Beirut between May and July could be said to be over; UNRWA began to restore its normal health services and made good progress in repairing its damaged buildings and equipment. Schools opened on time, although attendance was low for the first few weeks at Burj el-Barajneh and Shatila.

Soon, however, UNRWA was faced with the need to mount another emergency relief operation, this time in the Tyre area; tension between local militia forces and Palestinians around the Rashadieh camp led on 30 September to the outbreak of full-scale fighting and the siege of the camp. Other camps in the area - Burj el-Shemali and El-Buss - also came under siege for a short time. As in earlier operations, the immediate need was to provide essential food and medicines to the besieged civilians and food and other assistance to families that had fled to places of refuge elsewhere (Sidon, Beirut, Tripoli and the Beqaa Valley). Representations were made repeatedly to those in positions of authority in order to gain access to refugees remaining in the Tyre camps. The siege of the Rashadieh camp, however, continued and UNRWA was denied access; only occasionally, a few staff members on foot were admitted. The sieges of the two smaller camps, Burj el-Shemali and El-Buss, were soon lifted, but the camps remained surrounded by armed militia which discouraged any but the most essential movements out of the camps by the refugees. Women and children were able to bring in some supplies and most of UNRWA'S services (schools, health clinics and supplementary feeding centres) functioned more or less normally. Nevertheless, the dangers the refugees faced in procuring supplies and their inability to move out of those two camps for employment convinced UNRWA that they were in need of emergency relief; supplies were therefore taken in from time to time, although not without difficulty. UNRWA also provided emergency assistance to the thousands of displaced refugees who fled the Tyre camps.

One of the main problems hampering the emergency relief operation in the south of Lebanon was that of transporting supplies from Beirut, as movement between east and west Beirut and , within west Beirut was difficult and dangerous. With the outbreak of fighting around the camps in the Tyre area, movement of staff and supplies along the coastal road through Sidon to Tyre also became subject to checks, attacks and hijacking and soon became impossible. The result was that the operation in the south was limited to the supplies already in place until special measures, made possible with the arrival of additional international staff, were instituted.

Sporadic fighting around the Beirut camps intensified after the siege of the camps in the south began and by mid-November both main camps in west Beirut were again the scenes of heavy fighting and were under siege. The situation was complicated by fighting involving Palestinians in the Sidon area, which not only further interfered with regular services but also put the refugee population increasingly in need of assistance. Those developments made it necessary for UNRWA to extend its emergency relief operation to the growing number of displaced refugees.


Peace-keeping operation

UNIFIL activities

During 1986, the Security Council twice extended the mandate of UNIFIL, in April and July for a three-month and a six-month period. For the first time since its inception, the votes to extend the mandate were unanimous. In his report on the work of the Organization (see p. 3), the Secretary-General said it was particularly important that, at such a difficult time, the peace-keeping operations continued to receive the support of the Council, particularly of all its permanent members.

Established by the Council in 1978,(12) following an Israeli invasion of Lebanon,(55) UNIFIL's 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,(56) 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.

The authorized strength of UNIFIL was 7,000 but because of its reduced activities, it had some 5,800 troops as of October 1986, provided by Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Ireland, Nepal, Norway and Sweden. A group of observers from UNTSO assisted the Force in the performance of its tasks. The Force was pursuing its duties under constant and growing danger, the Secretary-General stated.

On 1 April 1986,(57) Lebanon requested the Security Council to extend UNIFIL's mandate, due to expire on 19 April, for a further six months. Despite the current situation, Lebanon was convinced that the Force continued to be an important factor for stability and the best available option for ensuring peace and security in the region.

Report of the Secretary-General (April). The Secretary-General reported on UNIFIL's activities and on the situation in the UNIFIL area for the period 11 October 1985 to 9 April 1986.(8) He stated that Israel had continued to maintain in southern Lebanon a "security zone", which was manned by the so-called SLA with the assistance of elements of IDF. Its boundaries had not been defined but were in effect determined by the positions and the patrols of IDF and SLA. It embraced all the area adjacent to the international border in which UNIFIL had previously been unable fully to exercise its functions (the "enclave"), parts of the areas of deployment of the Nepalese, Irish, Ghanaian and Finnish battalions, the whole of the area of deployment of the Norwegian battalion and extensive areas to the north of the UNIFIL area of deployment. Within the UNIFIL area, IDF and SLA currently maintained 15 positions and, where the UNIFIL area overlapped the security zone, IDF/SLA personnel imposed restrictions on the Force's movement and deployment similar to those in the enclave.

During the review period, the Secretary-General stated, the UNIFIL area outside the security zone remained relatively quiet, but within that zone the situation continued to be very tense. Armed resistance groups continued to launch frequent attacks against IDF and SLA, which carried out a number of search operations. Since the end of 1985, the situation had deteriorated further, with more violent incidents and more casualties. One major incident occurred on 17 February 1986, when two vehicles transporting IDF/SLA personnel were ambushed by unidentified armed elements near the village of Kounin in the border area between the Irish battalion sector and the enclave, two persons believed to be Lebanese were killed and two Israeli soldiers were abducted. Following the incident, an Israeli force of about three mechanized battalions accompanied by SLA members and supported by tanks and helicopter troop-carriers and gunships carried out cordon and search operations in the UNIFIL area from 17 to 22 February. UNIFIL reported that six persons, including one IDF soldier, were killed in the operations, 10 were wounded and about 140 others were taken prisoner by IDF/SLA; approximately 60 of them remained under detention.

During the operation, UNIFIL monitored the situation as closely as possible and tried to prevent violence against the local population; it observed some cases of what appeared to be unacceptable treatment of prisoners by IDF/SLA. The UNIFIL reports of those incidents were transmitted immediately to the Israeli authorities; in its reply, Israel stated that IDF had received clear instructions on how to behave towards the local civilian population and follow-up investigations had found no deviation from those instructions. UNIFIL also protested to the Israeli authorities all incidents of indiscriminate firing; in several cases, it searched houses and shops at the request of their owners who feared that explosives might have been placed in them by IDF/SLA. The Force further provided food and water and other assistance to the local population.

Throughout the operation, UNIFIL maintained close contact with the Lebanese authorities in Beirut and Lebanese local leaders in the south; it was also in touch with the Israeli military authorities and, on 18 February, the UNIFIL Commander met the Israeli Chief of Staff and asked him to call off the operation. Israeli officials stated that their sole aim was to find the captured soldiers and that they had no intention of expanding IDF deployment in Lebanon or using the operation for other purposes.

On 20 February, the Secretary-General, after summoning Israel's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, issued a statement saying that he understood Israel's concern about the two soldiers but that such incidents were bound to occur as long as Israel maintained a security zone and a military presence in Lebanon. The Secretary-General urged Israel to withdraw its forces and exercise maximum restraint vis-à-vis the civilian population. IDF called off its operation on 22 February and withdrew its forces from the UNIFIL area of deployment, leaving one armoured company near Kounin.

Following the operation, UNIFIL received reports of an increase in incidents in the border area. On 26 February, an IDF patrol was ambushed by unidentified armed elements south of Jabal Basil and an Israeli soldier was reportedly killed. On 1 March, armed elements were intercepted by IDF after crossing the border into Israel. On 6 March, two explosions near Bint Jubayl reportedly killed an SLA member and injured several others. In the afternoon, some 160 artillery, tank and mortar rounds were fired from positions in the security zone at 14 villages in the UNIFIL area and at Tyre, one person was killed and several others injured, and two schools and 29 houses were damaged. The indiscriminate shelling was strongly protested by UNIFIL to the Israeli authorities. On the night of 8/9 March, a confrontation took place between IDF and armed elements south of Zibqin, and an Israeli soldier was reported killed and several others wounded. On 27 March, Katyusha rockets were fired across the border at the town of Qiryat Shemona, reportedly injuring six people. Later that day and again on 7 April, Israeli aircraft bombed areas inhabited by Palestinians near Sidon. On 8 April, a car bomb detonated in the Norwegian battalion sector reportedly killed the driver and two local civilians and injured four SLA personnel and two other civilians.

UNIFIL continued trying to control movement in its area and to prevent persons carrying arms from entering; attempts by armed elements to do so increased during periods of tension and were particularly frequent during the IDF operation in February. Confrontations also occurred when UNIFIL denied passage to armed personnel through its checkpoints; a serious incident happened on 28 January when four men in a car were stopped at a checkpoint east of Jwayya, after trying to force their way through. Within minutes, some 40 armed men arrived and one placed his gun against the head of the soldier in charge of the checkpoint, in defence of his comrade, another soldier fired one shot, wounding the gunman in the leg. Subsequently, more than 100 armed men threatened UNIFIL personnel in Jwayya, and in another village some 40 armed men tried to take a UNIFIL platoon leader hostage. The situation was defused after contacts with local Amal leaders. Incidents at UNIFIL checkpoints also increased after the February IDF operation and, on 23 March, an Irish soldier was wounded north of Tibnin.

Further serious incidents occurred in the Fijian and Ghanaian battalion sectors. On 28 March, a temporary Fijian checkpoint near the village of As Siddiqin was attacked by elements using rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire. A Fijian soldier was injured and died the following day. Earlier on 28 March, in an unrelated incident, armed elements had established a checkpoint near the village of Kafr Dunin in the Ghanaian battalion sector and an attempt to have it removed resulted in an exchange of fire, during which one armed element was shot and a Ghanaian soldier was injured. Early on 29 March, two civilian cars with eight armed elements were denied passage through a Ghanaian checkpoint near Majdal Silm. An hour later, those in one of the cars came to another Ghanaian checkpoint and threatened its personnel; shots were fired by both sides and one Ghanaian soldier was hit and died later. At about the same time, three other Ghanaian positions were fired upon and a Nepalese vehicle, which happened to be passing near one position, was caught in the fire and two Nepalese soldiers were wounded. The same morning, a Ghanaian battalion supply vehicle with three soldiers was fired on at the village of Khirbat Silm, and one soldier was wounded.

Following those incidents, the UNIFIL Commander and his senior staff contacted the Amal leadership both at Beirut and in the south to defuse the situation, which to date remained calm. UNIFIL also continued its efforts to contain SLA activities in its area; SLA movement within the area was largely confined to participation in IDF-led operations, although SLA continued to man a number of fixed positions. Incidents of firing close to UNIFIL positions by SLA increased again in January and occurred frequently in February; all such incidents were protested to the Israeli authorities.

Over the years, IDF had built a number of fortified positions on the Lebanese side of the border and continued to improve them, building connecting roads protected by fences and in some areas also by minefields. UNIFIL reported that development to the Lebanese authorities and also raised it with Israel.

In extending assistance to the local population, UNIFIL continued to co-operate with the Lebanese authorities, as well as with UNRWA, UNICEF and ICRC. In some locations, UNIFIL escorted farmers so that they could tend their fields without being fired at from nearby security zone positions. A significant number of Lebanese were treated at UNIFIL medical centres.

In January, Brian E. Urquhart, Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs visited UNIFIL headquarters and held discussions with government officials in the region. After his retirement in February, his successor, Marrack I. Goulding, visited the Middle East in March, touring UNIFIL's area of deployment and holding extensive talks with Lebanese and Israeli officials, as well as with other interested parties.

The Secretary-General stated that UNIFIL casualties from gunfire during the mandate period up to 7 April had been three dead and 15 wounded, compared with one dead and three wounded in the preceding mandate period. That deterioration was accompanied by a severe financial crisis which, in his view, could itself threaten the Force's future.

One of the tasks laid upon UNIFIL by the Council in 1978(12) was the restoration of international peace and security, the Secretary-General said. That mandate would not be fulfilled unless the security of both Lebanon and Israel was assured. Israel had a legitimate concern over the security of its northern border, across which it had been and still was being subjected to attack. The security zone, however, was neither a legitimate nor an effective means of meeting Israel's concerns. It was not legitimate because it contravened the Council's 1978 resolution(12) and it was not effective because the continuing occupation by IDF of Lebanese territory and the often brutal behaviour of SLA built up resentment of Israel among the local population and encouraged use of the area as a base for attacking Israel.

The Secretary-General believed that Israel's interests would be advanced if it completed the withdrawal of its forces and allowed UNIFIL to deploy to the international frontier, thus permitting the Lebanese Government to begin re-establishing its authority in the area, with UNIFIL assistance. The restoration of international peace and security would also be facilitated by discussions, under United Nations auspices, between Israel and Lebanon concerning problems that might arise on their common border. If the parties were not prepared to discuss those problems based on the 1949 Israel-Lebanon General Armistice Agreement(58) or to resume the Naqoura talks adjourned in January 1985 (56) the Secretary-General declared his readiness to assist in setting up acceptable arrangements.

He had repeatedly made those arguments to Israel, but it had argued that currently the Lebanese Government did not exercise effective political and military authority in the area and that UNIFIL, being a peace-keeping force, was not mandated to assume the functions of a central government and take the forceful action necessary to control cross-border attacks. Israel stated that it was neither for nor against UNIFIL's presence, but it would not agree to its deployment to the international frontier in the prevailing circumstances. The Secretary-General nevertheless continued to hope that Israel would eventually see the virtues of allowing UNIFIL to carry out its mandate.

Meanwhile, those Member States contributing troops to UNIFIL had become increasingly worried about its being prevented from fully carrying out its mandate and about the security of their personnel who ran the risk of becoming involved in the increasing hostilities. The troop contributors also had to bear the consequences of UNIFIL's financial crisis. If the recent decision of the United States to withhold its contribution after the end of the current mandate period was implemented, there would be a further drastic cut in reimbursements to troop contributors.

The Secretary-General stated that UNIFIL's future had been called into question by the recent developments, causing him to consider carefully whether - in view of the Force being prevented from fulfilling its mandate and the lack of adequate financing - he should recommend that UNIFIL be withdrawn. However, he had concluded that such a recommendation would be a mistake and that the maintenance of international peace and security required that its mandate be extended. If UNIFIL were withdrawn, there would be an immediate escalation of fighting in southern Lebanon, including fighting for control of positions currently occupied by UNIFIL, which would probably lead to an increase in attacks against Israel and to an escalation of Israeli military action against Lebanon, resulting in a further major crisis. More positively, the Secretary-General believed that UNIFIL's mandate remained fulfillable and that deployment of the Force to the international frontier was the best available way of restoring international peace and security and of ensuring the Lebanese Government's effective authority in the area. As long as that possibility existed, he concluded that it would be wrong for the Council to withdraw the Force; such withdrawal would also remove the humanitarian help UNIFIL gave to the area's inhabitants by protecting them from the worst consequences of the hostilities. Therefore he recommended that the Council extend UNIFIL's mandate for another six months.

The Secretary-General stressed that it would not be enough simply to renew the mandate. The Council and all its members must make a determined effort to fulfil a condition identified in 1978 as being essential for the Force to be effective - that UNIFIL must have at all times the Council's full confidence and backing. In this regard, the Secretary-General appealed to all Member States to give the Force full political backing and meet their assessed share of its cost.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (April)

The Security Council met on 18 April 1986 to consider the Secretary-General's report. At its request, Lebanon was invited to participate without the right to vote.

The Council adopted resolution 583(1986) unanimously.

The Security Council,

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

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon of 9 April 1986, 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 1 April 1986,

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 three months, that is, until 19 July 1986;

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 by 19 June 1986.

Security Council resolution 583 (1986)
18 April 1986 Meeting 2681 Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/18019).

The USSR shared Lebanon's opinion about the need to retain UNIFIL's presence which, it said, acted as a decisive factor impeding implementation of Israel's aggressive plans in respect of southern Lebanon. The USSR also declared it would henceforth take part in the Force's financing, but that decision should not be regarded as having retroactive effect as recognition of indebtedness for past years; further, UNIFIL's presence was temporary and should in no way be used as a means of freezing the situation in the interests of the Israeli aggressor.

In the opinion of the United States, UNIFIL had made an important contribution to efforts to bring stability to southern Lebanon and its disbandment would be imprudent; progress towards achieving agreed - on security arrangements could be enhanced by continuing its mission.

Although stressing its commitment to UNIFIL, France could no longer accept a virtually automatic renewal of the mandate for six months, believing that the Council should see to it that all the countries concerned shouldered their responsibilities, in order to induce them to do so, it had proposed a shorter mandate.

The United Kingdom agreed that the extension should not be automatic, although it had been ready to support Lebanon's request for a six-month extension. It did not accept, however, that the presence of the Force should be only temporary, if that meant that it might be withdrawn before its mandate had been achieved.

Australia, also acknowledging that UNIFIL's mandate should not be renewed automatically, said the interests of regional peace would be better served by UNIFIL'S deployment in accordance with its mandate; there was a need to end the difficulties complicating the Force's task - if they were simply side-stepped, troop contributors could conclude that international support was not fully forthcoming and the Force's future would be in further jeopardy.

For Denmark, UNIFIL's current situation was not acceptable; unless a solution was found quickly, the cycle of violence was likely to intensify.

Bulgaria believed that Israel should immediately discontinue its occupation of southern Lebanon and comply with the Council's resolutions, since only then would it be possible for UNIFIL to implement its mandate unimpeded. At the same time, Bulgaria affirmed its position that UNIFIL's presence was only temporary and should not be used to perpetuate the occupation of southern Lebanon by Israel.

Despite the numerous problems facing the Force, Ghana thought it would be ill-advised at the time to do anything to withdraw it, as the alternative to its presence would be chaos and escalated violence.

Lebanon, recalling the Secretary-General's support for a six-month extension, said it had no desire to make the mandate permanent or routinely prolong it, but six months was essential for the Council to be able to consider the measures necessary to implement its 1978 resolutions.(59) The Council must act seriously and swiftly in the extension period, since UNIFIL's success would benefit the Council and peace-keeping efforts. UNIFIL's failure would be a disaster for southern Lebanon and the whole region.

Report of the Secretary-General (June). On 17 June 1986,(60) the Secretary-General reported on the situation in the UNIFIL area from 10 April. In some parts of that area and of the security zone maintained by Israel the number of violent incidents had declined, while in others the level of hostilities had stayed the same or increased. During the reporting period, there were 61 attacks by armed resistance groups against IDF and SLA personnel and positions. Attacks were also reported in parts of the security zone outside the UNIFIL area. IDF and SLA personnel fired frequently from positions in the security zone, directing fire from a number of cases at civilians travelling along roads or working in fields. Between 10 May and 9 June, five civilians were killed and four were wounded during such incidents.

A major trouble spot was the SLA position northeast of Yatar; because of frequent firing from that position, villagers travelling to and from Yatar could move only under UNIFIL escort, and farmers were often harassed when working in the fields. One woman was wounded on 21 April and another on 24 May. On 25 May, SLA fired eight tank rounds from that position towards Yatar and Kafra; one man was killed in the mosque at Yatar and six others were wounded. On 15 June, three more civilians were wounded at Haris and Haddathah. The SLA position near Yatar was attacked by armed elements on 12 occasions during the reporting period, and on 14 and 15 June bombs exploded on the track leading to the position, killing one SLA member and wounding three others.

UNIFIL continued its efforts to control movement by armed persons in its area of deployment and to prevent such persons from entering it. The population in the area largely co-operated with the Force; however, on 24 May, armed elements attacked a UNIFIL night patrol travelling in an armoured personnel-carrier between Abbasiyah and Dayr Qanun An Nahr. UNIFIL also continued trying to contain SLA activities in its area and, during the reporting period, attempts by SLA to enter decreased - except in the Kafra-Yatar area - and there were frequent incidents of firing close to UNIFIL positions and vehicles by SLA.

A UNIFIL helicopter was hit on 20 May by a rifle round fired by an unidentified person northeast of Tyre, damaging a fuel tank which forced it to make an emergency landing.

On 14 April, France informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its logistic component and offer in its place a second infantry battalion; following further consultations, France decided to withdraw only the supply, transport and engineer companies (less the bomb disposal element) from its logistic component, a total of 334 men. The Secretary-General said he was seeking to obtain replacements and to ensure that the hand-over was completed in accordance with France's wish that the withdrawal be completed by the beginning of October.

In addition to its other tasks, the French engineer company demolished 11 roadside bombs, 20 Katyusha rockets and a number of other explosives discovered by UNIFIL patrols or local inhabitants.

What remained clear, the Secretary-General stated, was that the continuing IDF presence was not the answer to the problem of peace and security in the area, but on the contrary escalated the level of violence. According to IDF figures issued on 9 June, there had been over 1,100 attacks against IDF and SLA during the past 12 months; over 500 rocket attacks had been launched, 46 of which had reached Israel; and numerous attempts had been made to infiltrate into Israel, three of which succeeded in reaching the international frontier. Those figures, he added, confirmed his judgement expressed in earlier reports that Israel's continuing military presence in southern Lebanon was self-defeating and that the right way to restore peace and security was for IDF to withdraw and for UNIFIL to be allowed to carry out its mandate as set out in resolution 425(1978).(12)

The Secretary-General said he had redoubled his efforts to achieve progress towards full implementation of that resolution and had twice sent Under-Secretary-General Goulding and the Director in that Office to the area, from 25 April to 1 May and again from 25 May to 3 June; they had discussions with government leaders in Israel and Lebanon, and visited the Syrian Arab Republic during their second mission. Their instructions were to convey to Israel the insistent wish of the Security Council that resolution 425(1978) be implemented without further delay, and to explore with those Governments how in practice progress could be made towards that end.

The Lebanese authorities said they continued to attach great importance to implementing the resolution and maintaining UNIFIL. They insisted that Israel withdraw its remaining forces immediately, that it abandon its security zone and that SLA be disbanded. They stated that the 1949 General Armistice Agreement(58) was adequate to ensure security between Israel and Lebanon. They added that those forces in Lebanon which were combating Israel's continuing military presence there would achieve their objective once that presence was ended and that they strongly opposed a return to the situation that had existed in the area before 1982. The Syrian authorities told the mission that they supported this latter view.

Israel, for its part, reaffirmed that it was not its intention to maintain a military presence in Lebanon indefinitely, that it had no territorial designs there and that its only concern was the security of northern Israel. In its view, UNIFIL under its current mandate did not have the capability to prevent hostile acts against northern Israel and, given the lack of the Lebanese Government's authority in the southern part of the country, Israel had no alternative but to make its own security arrangements by means of the security zone and its alliance with SLA. In those circumstances, Israel was not prepared to allow UNIFIL to deploy to the border; nevertheless, it was willing to consider alternative arrangements if those would be at least as effective as the security zone in protecting northern Israel. Israel also said that IDF activity north of the international frontier would be reduced in response to any reduction in hostile activities against Israel.

The positions of the parties were far apart, the Secretary-General concluded, with Lebanon demanding Israel's immediate withdrawal and stating that it would not permit a return to the situation before 1982 when Lebanese territory was used for attacks against Israel, and Israel demanding a cessation of attacks against its forces in Lebanon before it would withdraw them. There were also wide divergences of view between all concerned about what would happen to SLA after Israel's withdrawal. The task of trying to bridge that very wide gap between the parties was further complicated by Lebanon's current tragic difficulties and by the declared intention of some armed groups operating in Lebanon to use Lebanese territory as a basis for pursuing hostilities against Israel.

The Secretary-General felt that prospects for rapid progress towards implementation of resolution 425(1978) were not good, but that it was essential for the international community to continue working towards that end. The three elements in UNIFIL's mandate - withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoration of international peace and security, and return of the Lebanese Government's effective authority in the area - were so obviously in the interests of both countries that all concerned should continue to work for a solution on that basis. UNIFIL would be an essential part of any such solution; moreover, it continued to be critical for stability in southern Lebanon, where it was seen as a symbol] of the legitimacy of the Lebanese Government. If it were to be withdrawn, a vacuum would be created and the ensuing competition to fill that vacuum would inevitably lead to uncontrolled violence, the Secretary-General warned, with great detriment to the welfare of the civilian inhabitants.

As a result of the consultations held during the previous two months with Lebanon and Israel, the Secretary-General concluded that, subject to the Council s deciding to renew UNIFIL's mandate, the United Nations should pursue negotiations with them in order to establish agreement on practical measures for UNIFIL to fulfil its mandate. There would be a need for sustained United Nations effort and the full co-operation of the parties concerned, as well as for the full confidence and backing of the Security Council and the troop-contributing countries; those remained the essential conditions for UNIFIL to be able to fulfil its mandate and achieve the objectives set in 1978.

As before, UNIFIL continued to co-operate with the Lebanese authorities and relief agencies and to assist the local population.

Report of the Secretary-General (July). On 10 July,(61) the Secretary-General reported that the situation in the UNIFIL area had remained essentially unchanged. Tension persisted in the security zone as Lebanese resistance groups continued attacks against IDF and SLA, UNIFIL recording 27 such attacks since mid-June. There were also reports of attacks in those parts of the zone where UNIFIL was not fully deployed. In its area, the Force continued its efforts to prevent incidents and reduce the level of violence and to protect and assist civilian inhabitants. The SLA position east of Yatar remained a major trouble spot and was attacked five times during the reporting period by armed elements. Firing from the position repeatedly forced the closure of the east-west road through Haris, an important line of communication for UNIFIL.

On 21 June, an unidentified person shot a Nepalese sentry at a UNIFIL post in Yatar, wounding him seriously in the chest. On 23 June, two UNTSO military observers received light injuries when their vehicle set off a mine on the track leading to the SLA position east of Yatar. During the night of 9/10 July, in the vicinity of the UNIFIL headquarters at Naqoura, an exchange of fire took place near the border crossing at Rosh Haniqra, involving an Israeli patrol boat, IDF personnel stationed on shore and a group of armed infiltrators reported to have come ashore in a rubber dinghy. t was reported that all four infiltrators were killed and that two IDF members were killed and nine others wounded.

The Secretary-General voiced agreement with Lebanon's view - communicated to him on 7 July,(62) together with a request that the Force again be extended for six months - that UNIFIL remained indispensable for stability in southern Lebanon; he continued to believe that the international community must maintain the effort to put into effect the solution decided on in resolution 425(1978). Therefore he recommended a further six-month extension of the mandate, taking into account the administrative difficulties resulting from a mandate period of less than six months.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (July)

On 18 July 1986, the Security Council met to consider the Secretary-General's June and July reports, inviting Israel and Lebanon, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

The Council adopted resolution 586(1986) unanimously.

The Security Council,

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

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon of 17 June and 10 July 1986 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 7 July 1986,

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 January 1987;

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

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

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

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

Security Council resolution 586 (1986)
18 July 1986 Meeting 2699 Adopted unanimously
Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/18226).

France noted with satisfaction the Secretary-General's renewed efforts and urged him to pursue them, also noting that UNIFIL's financing, while still a matter of concern, was now assured on a broader basis. In the more positive context created, it added, it was clear that the extension of the mandate could not be a mere matter of routine. Sharing that view, the United Kingdom felt that the Council had responded positively to the Secretary-General's call for a sustained United Nations effort and looked to Israel to take full account of the Council's unanimous wish to secure a rapid end to the unsatisfactory situation. It urged States, particularly permanent Council members, to meet their financial obligations to the Force.

In the view of the USSR, the Council's demands, clearly formulated in UNIFIL's mandate, remained unfulfilled because of Israel's refusal to withdraw, and UNIFIL had been deprived of any opportunity to carry out its functions; its presence should promote the speedy implementation of the essential goal - to ensure Israel's unconditional withdrawal.

The best means to bring permanent stability to southern Lebanon would be agreement on long-term security arrangements relating to the Israel-Lebanon border, the United States said; in the interim, there appeared to be no real alternative to UNIFIL.

Israel viewed UNIFIL as a positive force because it introduced a measure of stability into a very unstable area with a power vacuum in terms of a central authority, by the same token, it was not within UNIFIL's capacity to carry out the policing action that would normally be expected of the Lebanese Government. Israel would welcome the opportunity to discuss with Lebanon, and with any element in Lebanon, the possibility of making security arrangements which would ensure the safety of Israeli citizens in northern Israel but until the Lebanese Government was able to discharge that responsibility, Israel would continue to defend its citizens.

Lebanon urged Israel to implement resolution 425(1978), assuring it that the Lebanese Government would then be fully able to extend its authority and sovereignty and ensure regional security, it considered the Council's unanimous decision a positive indication of its wish to shoulder its responsibilities.


SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (5 September)

On 5 September 1986, the Security Council met at France's request, made the previous day,(53) to consider the situation of UNIFIL. The Council invited Lebanon, at its request, to take part in the discussion without the right to vote.

Meeting number: SC 2705.

The Secretary-General said he had informed the Council through its President of violent incidents in the UNIFIL zone between 11 and 22 August, during which two Lebanese and one member of the Irish contingent were killed and several French soldiers were wounded. After 22 August there was quiet, and UNIFIL tried, with the co-operation of the Lebanese authorities and leaders of the Amal movement, to reduce tension and re-establish calm. Despite those efforts, three French soldiers were killed on 4 September by a remote-controlled bomb near the village of Joya in the sector of the French contingent. In a 4 September press communiqué, he had vigorously condemned that attack.

The Secretary-General also informed the Council that, on the morning of 5 September, some 30 Israeli soldiers had carried out a helicopter raid in the village of Zibqin in the sector of the Nepalese contingent; according to the Force Commander's preliminary report, an Israeli soldier was killed during the operation and four Lebanese villagers were taken away by the Israelis.

Those incidents, the Secretary-General continued, stressed the extremely difficult conditions in which UNIFIL soldiers must work. He had previously decided to send a mission of inquiry to consider, together with the Lebanese Government, measures to ensure that the Force was able to carry out effectively, in the required secure conditions, the mandate entrusted to it by the Council; because of the 4 September incident, he had moved up the departure of that mission and Under-Secretary-General Goulding had left New York on the same day.

The Secretary-General, stressing that he would do everything possible to avoid a recurrence of such incidents, recalled that UNIFIL soldiers were allowed to use force only in self-defence, and that the Force could carry out its mandate only if all the parties involved extended it the required co-operation and if it had the Council's unreserved support.

Following consultations among the Council members, the President made a statement on their behalf:(64)

"The members of the Security Council express their deep sorrow at the grave and distressing attacks which killed several members of the Irish and French contingents of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. These attacks come after various serious incidents in the recent past, in particular those of 11 and 12 August 1986, in the course of which a number of members of the Force were injured. The members of the Council express their indignation at such resort to deliberate violence, which places in jeopardy the safety of the members of the Force.

"They convey their sympathy to the afflicted families and pay tribute to the qualities of composure, courage and self-sacrifice manifested collectively by all the members of the Force, in service of the ideals of peace of the Organization.

"Given the worsening of the situation in the zone in which the Force operates, the members of the Council consider it essential to adopt with all urgency measures aimed at the effective reinforcement of the security of the members of the Force and request the Secretary-General to undertake all necessary steps to that effect.

"The members of the Council express their appreciation to the Secretary-General for his immediate dispatch of a mission led by the Under-Secretary-General which is to carry out, in consultation with the Lebanese Government, an in-depth examination of the measures to be taken to enable the Force to carry out its mandate, as laid down in Council resolution 425(1978), effectively in the necessary conditions of security.

"They invite the Secretary-General to submit to the Council, as soon as possible, a report which he will prepare following the mission.

"The members of the Council unanimously express their confidence in the Secretary-General and the Commander of the Force in the current difficult circumstances."

Although it would have preferred a more balanced text, Ghana supported the statement's general objective, but believed that the major causes of the cycle of violence were the so-called security zone and the presence of Israeli forces and Israeli-sponsored armed groups, all the incidents originated principally from the population's resentment of Israel's presence.

France said the current situation, in which soldiers of an international force serving peace were cut down in a cowardly manner, had become intolerable. UNIFIL was still not in a position to carry out its mission in the essential conditions of security and effectiveness. As the most recent attacks had made the situation even more precarious and dangerous, France was pressing for the urgent adoption of measures to strengthen the security of all UNIFIL members and it expected that the Under-Secretary-General would without delay take all the necessary practical measures and that the Secretary-General would submit appropriate recommendations. It was also important, however, to undertake a general review dealing with all the substantive problems in the way of the accomplishment of the Force's mission.

The USSR stated that the tragic events again emphasized the dangerous and abnormal conditions in which UNIFIL had to operate, owing to the fact that for a long time it had been deprived of the possibility of carrying out unhampered the duties entrusted to it by the Council. It was necessary once again to state that it was the Council's duty to work for implementation as soon as possible of resolution 425(1978).

Lebanon stated that it condemned all such incidents and stressed its complete support for UNIFIL's presence and its desire to ensure the Force's safety.

Special report of the Secretary-General (18 September). On 18 September 1986,(11) the Secretary-General reported on the findings of the mission, headed by Under-Secretary-General Goulding, which had visited the area from 5 to 15 September and held extensive discussions with the UNIFIL Commander, his staff and the various parties concerned.

The Secretary-General also gave further details of recent incidents. On 11 August, two men, one a local Amal movement leader, were shot and killed by a French contingent sentry who had been threatened. That same night and the next day, Amal and other armed elements attacked French battalion positions and the UNIFIL transit base at Tyre. Sporadic attacks continued in the French sector, as well as in those of Fiji, Finland, Ireland and Nepal, until 22 August. On 21 August, an Irish lieutenant was killed by a remote-controlled bomb.

Further incidents had also occurred. On 11 September, unidentified armed elements killed two SLA personnel and wounded three others near the village of Kafra. Four SLA positions maintained by Israel then fired on the villages of Yatar, Kafra, Haris and Haddathah, hitting a UNIFIL position and injuring five Nepalese soldiers. On 13 September, a roadside remote-controlled bomb killed a French soldier and wounded three others patrolling near the village of Bafliyah.

The mission reported that many of the dangers to which UNIFIL was currently exposed resulted from a discrepancy between its terms of reference and the situation on the ground. The terms of reference included the requirement that it use its best efforts to prevent recurrence of fighting and ensure that its area of operation was not utilized for hostile activities; that requirement was based on the assumption that Israel would withdraw its forces and UNIFIL would operate with the full co-operation of all the parties. Israel's refusal to withdraw had invalidated that assumption ever since UNIFIL came into being.

A new and very disturbing development in recent weeks, the Secretary-General continued, was the series of premeditated attacks against the French contingent. No one had claimed responsibility for those crimes and the mission was unable to establish whether they represented a continuing reaction to the 11 August incident or whether they were the work of an armed group opposed either to French participation in UNIFIL or to UNIFIL as a whole and to resolution 425(1978).

The conflict between IDF/SLA and armed groups attacking the security zone, which overlapped a sizeable part of UNIFIL's area, had intensified. Such attacks almost always resulted in retaliatory action by IDF and SLA, which often included indiscriminate shelling of villages near where the attack had occurred. UNIFIL personnel risked being caught in that retaliatory fire, as had happened to the Nepalese position on 11 September.

After the mid-August clashes, the Secretary-General reported, the UNIFIL Commander had taken measures to improve the security of his troops, especially those of the French contingent. After the 21 August murder of the Irish officer, the Commander was instructed by Headquarters to alert all units of the possibility that the attack might portend a general campaign against UNIFIL and to take the necessary precautions. Further measures were implemented following the mission's discussions with the Commander and his staff. On his recommendation and that of the mission, the Secretary-General then authorized certain redeployment within the UNIFIL area to improve the security of the French contingent. It had to be recognized, however, the Secretary-General stated, that UNIFIL was widely dispersed in some 214 positions and that the measures taken could provide only partial protection. The mission urged all concerned within the area both to make every effort to identify and apprehend those responsible for the recent attacks and to intervene with those who might have influence on those responsible in order to get the attacks stopped. All the leaders to whom the mission had spoken condemned the attacks and undertook to make every effort to ensure that there was no repetition.

The second part of the mission's task was to pursue consultations with the parties on how progress could be made towards implementing resolution 425(1978). In Lebanon, all the leaders to whom the mission spoke expressed unequivocal support for continued UNIFIL presence and urgent implementation of the resolution. They insisted on the need for Israel to withdraw its forces and dismantle the security zone if the deterioration of the situation in southern Lebanon was to be arrested. They also urged that the Council assume its responsibilities in that regard. The mission suggested that, if the leaders succeeded in their current efforts at national reconciliation, the Lebanese Government might wish to deploy a small unit of the Lebanese army to the northwestern part of the UNIFIL area as a first step towards the return of its effective authority in the area; that suggestion was noted, although concern was expressed at the risk that Lebanese units deployed in the south might be attacked by IDF or its allies as had happened in 1978.

The Syrian Government also expressed unequivocal support for the 1978 resolution and for UNIFIL, blaming the current state of affairs on Israel's refusal to withdraw. Syrian leaders urged that the Council assume its responsibilities and repeated their support for the position of those in Lebanon who had expressed their determination that, if Israel withdrew and dismantled the security zone, there should be no return to the situation that had existed in the area before 1982. With regard to Israel's position, there was no indication of an early change, the Secretary-General added.

Given UNIFIL's inability to fulfil its original mandate, he said, it had been suggested that changes be made in that mandate and/or in the means provided to the Force to carry it out. The mission had discussed the question with the Force Commander. UNIFIL could not use force except in self-defence and was therefore not in a position to enforce the Council's will. Like all peace-keeping operations, its effectiveness depended on the co-operation of the conflicting parties, as well as of the troop contributors. If that co-operation was not forthcoming, the Council could in theory revise the Force's mandate or its terms of reference in a manner that would win the co-operation of all; in practice, however, the possibilities were very limited. Concerning UNIFIL's mandate, the 1978 resolution had been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Council and its provisions remained of fundamental importance to the Government of Lebanon. With regard to UNIFIL's terms of reference, as set out in a 1978 report of the Secretary-General(65) and approved by the Council,(66) he had considered various possibilities. One would be to require UNIFIL to control the movement of heavy weapons only, i.e., artillery and armour, which might reduce the risks of confrontation with armed elements but would greatly reduce the ability of UNIFIL to exercise some control over the level of hostilities in its area. The same objection, the Secretary-General said, would apply to converting the Force into an observer group. A third possibility would be to revise the Force's area of operation in order to eliminate the overlap with the security zone, which would involve a major contraction of UNIFIL'S area, including complete withdrawal from the Norwegian battalion sector, and would run counter to the thrust of resolution 425(1978), thus making it unacceptable to many, including the Lebanese authorities, nor would it seem likely to reduce the risk of UNIFIL casualties, of which all but one during recent weeks had occurred outside the security zone. The Secretary-General concluded that changes in UNIFIL's mandate or terms of reference would be unlikely to resolve its current difficulties.

Concerning the means available to the Force, he believed that useful changes could be made, assuming the Council decided to maintain it and that it had the necessary resources. The Force Commander had advised that many UNIFIL check-points and positions, having been established some years earlier in different circumstances, were currently of limited operational value and in some cases difficult to defend; he had recommended that UNIFIL's deployment be consolidated by having fewer, stronger and better-located positions. He further recommended strengthening the defences of UNIFIL's positions and that the two battalions which currently did not have armoured personnel-carriers be supplied with them for their better protection.

With regard to armament, the Commander took the view that, given the need for co-operation of the local population, UNIFIL should not be provided with heavier weapons; the armament available to it should be revised to ensure greater accuracy of fire and to keep casualties to the minimum in any confrontations that might occur. UNIFIL's tactical concept should be to avoid violence by being able to deploy superior force quickly if threatened; increased holdings of armoured vehicles would provide the desired mobility, flexibility and protection.

Those recommendations, the Secretary-General believed, responded well to the situation of the Force, but as a preliminary estimate of their cost was some $30 million, it would be essential that extra finances be provided so that they could be implemented without further detriment to the already reduced reimbursement which troop contributors received.

Summing up, the Secretary-General said that UNIFIL faced a major crisis. Recent violent incidents had brought to a head difficulties which from the beginning had been inherent in its situation due to the failure of various of the parties at various times to give it full co-operation. In particular, Israel's refusal to withdraw completely from territory occupied during its 1982 invasion had led to steadily growing military activity against IDF and SLA. In spite of the international community's desire, expressed unanimously in Council resolution 586(1986) (see p. 297), that UNIFIL be permitted to implement its mandate, it had not so far proved possible to persuade Israel to withdraw; in those circumstances, it had been impossible for UNIFIL to prevent its area of deployment from being used for hostile activities and some parts had become the scene of almost continuous hostilities, with consequent dangers to the Force's personnel.

That, the Secretary-General continued, was an intolerable situation for a United Nations peace-keeping force which cost the international community some $140 million annually. Especially since the security zone was set up early in 1985,(6) the Secretary-General had repeatedly expressed the gravest concern that the situation of UNIFIL would become untenable unless early progress was made towards implementation of resolution 425(1978).

But, uncomfortable and dangerous though its position might be, the Force continued to make an important contribution to such peace and stability as existed in southern Lebanon; if it were withdrawn, there would be, the Secretary-General believed, an immediate intensification of hostilities between IDF/SLA and the various armed groups which wished to drive Israeli forces out of Lebanon and, in some cases, to attack Israel itself. The mission was left in no doubt by Israel that in that event its reaction would be severe and expansion of the security zone would not be excluded; there would thus be a grave risk of the conflict spreading and the main sufferers would be the population of southern Lebanon who would again be forced to flee.

For those reasons, the Secretary-General could not recommend the Force's withdrawal. However, if progress was not achieved soon, the Council might be compelled to consider such a withdrawal, despite the consequences. The solution was complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory and the deployment of UNIFIL to the international frontier. The only hope of progress lay in a determined effort by the Council and he recommended that its members act urgently to unblock the current impasse.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (23 September)

The Security Council met again on 19, 22 and 23 September 1986 to consider the Secretary-General's special report, in the light of which an urgent meeting had been requested by France.(67)

The Council invited Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic, at their request, to participate without the right to vote. The Council also invited the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, at the request of the United Arab Emirates,(68) to participate under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure.c/

c/ See footnote a on p. 275.

In a 23 September telegram,(69) the Lebanese Prime Minister stated that his Government had that day decided to draw the Council's attention to the need to reaffirm its resolution 425(1978) in particular, and to the need to implement its provisions in order to ensure Lebanon's national sovereignty and the security of its citizens, who continued to be subjected to the most offensive practices at the hands of both the Israeli occupation army and the so-called "Lahad" client forces carrying out Israel's orders; the difficulties being faced by the international forces in southern Lebanon were a result of the continued presence of the occupiers.

On 23 September, the Council adopted resolution 587(1986).

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 425(1978) and 426(1978), as well as its resolutions 511(1982), 519(1982) and 523(1982) and all the resolutions relating to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

Recalling the mandate entrusted to the Force by resolution 425(1978) and the guidelines of the Force set forth in the report of the Secretary-General dated 19 March 1978 and approved in resolution 426(1978),

Further recalling its resolutions 508(1982), 509(1982) and 520(1982), as well as all its other resolutions relating to the situation in Lebanon,

Solemnly reaffirming that it firmly supports the unity, territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries,

Deeply grieved over the tragic loss of human life and indignant at the harassment and attacks to which the soldiers of the Force are being subjected,

Recalling in this connection the statement made on 5 September 1986 by the President of the Council on its behalf,

Expressing its concern at the new obstacles to the freedom of movement of the Force and at the threats to its security,

Noting with regret that the Force, whose mandate has been renewed for the twenty-first time, has so far been prevented from fulfilling the task entrusted to it,

Recalling its resolutions 444(1979), 450(1979), 459(1979), 474(1980), 483(1980) and 488(1981), in which it expressed its determination, in the event of continuing obstruction of the mandate of the Force, to examine practical ways and means to secure full and unconditional implementation of resolution 425(1978),

Emphasizing its conviction that this deterioration of the situation constitutes a challenge to its authority and its resolutions,

1. Condemns in the strongest terras the attacks committed against the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon;

2. Expresses indignation at the support which such criminal actions may receive;

3. Pays homage to the courage, spirit of discipline and composure of the soldiers of the Force;

4. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General prepared after the recent mission by his representative in the region, particularly the paragraphs relating to the security of the Force and the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from southern Lebanon;

5. Takes note of the preliminary security measures decided on by the Secretary-General and requests him to take any further measures needed to enhance the security of the men of the Force in their peace mission;

6. Urges all the parties concerned to co-operate unreservedly with the Force in the fulfilment of its mandate;

7. Again calls for an end in southern Lebanon to any military presence which is not accepted by the Lebanese authorities;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to make the necessary arrangements for a deployment of the Force to the southern border of Lebanon, and solemnly calls on all the parties concerned to co-operate in the achievement of that objective;

9. Requests the Secretary-General to report to it within twenty-one days on the application of this resolution.

Security Council resolution 587 (1986)
23 September 1986 Meeting 2708 140-1

Draft by France (S/18356).

Meeting numbers. SC 2706-2708.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: Australia, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Denmark, France, Ghana, Madagascar, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Against: None.

Abstaining: United States.

Stressing its support for UNIFIL, the United States said it was clear that it was not Israel that killed and wounded UNIFIL soldiers. The text did not support the objective of Lebanon's sovereignty, unity and independence, and, by focusing exclusively on redeployment of the Force, it ignored the critical factor that had prevented the fulfilment of UNIFIL's mandate: absence of agreement among the parties on security arrangements to protect their respective interests. If the problem of restoring the Lebanese Government's authority in which UNIFIL was to assist, could not be solved in a short time-frame, attention must be directed to ameliorating the dangers to UNIFIL that flowed from the lack of effective authority in southern Lebanon. Attacks against UNIFIL would not cease by changing its area of deployment. They occurred because of absence of Lebanese Government authority.

Stating that mere Israeli withdrawal and ending its control of a part of Lebanon was not the full answer, since other measures might be needed, the United Kingdom believed that there was no possibility of any solution without that withdrawal and UNIFIL's deployment to the international border. Sharing the latter view, Denmark said it was essential that all efforts be exerted to ensure substantial progress towards implementation of resolution 425(1978). Similarly, Australia hoped that, despite obvious difficulties, the text would go some way towards enabling the Force to fulfil its mandate. Ghana could not accept Israel's continued illegal presence. China, too, urged Israel's withdrawal and UNIFIL's deployment to the border, adding that the costs incurred in implementing the current resolution should be covered by the regular UNIFIL budget.

Bulgaria would have preferred a more explicit mention of the withdrawal of Israeli forces to internationally recognized borders; it was also not satisfied with other aspects of the text and reserved its views on the financial implications until they were known.

The representative of the League of Arab States said the cause of much of the tragedy in southern Lebanon was the fact that there was no hope of implementing resolution 425(1978); the current text was a serious attempt to rectify that imbalance.

Lebanon, which was disappointed at the lack of unanimity on the text even though it stressed resolution 425(1978) which had been submitted by the United States, noted that the Council's vote coincided with intensified Israeli aerial aggression against Lebanese mountain villages and shelling of southern villages by SLA.

Opening the debate, the Secretary-General expressed deep concern at the intolerable situation confronting UNIFIL, the seriousness of which, he said, had again been underlined some three hours earlier by a further rocket attack by unidentified armed elements against a position of the French battalion, with preliminary reports of five French soldiers wounded. Stressing that time was of the essence, he urged that effective measures be taken to enable UNIFIL to fulfil its mandate, ensure the security of its personnel and resolve its financial difficulties.

In France's view, a new phase had begun with the further deteriorating situation; the recent attacks, accompanied by demands and threats, were particularly alarming because they expressed the determination of some to call into question UNIFIL's very existence. The United Nations could not remain indifferent in the face of that tragic turn of events, when UNIFIL was pinned to the ground and condemned to retrenchment; the time had come for the Council to shoulder its responsibilities. The security measures taken or suggested were inadequate, as almost all were in effect n passive defence measures. UNIFIL was prevented by criminal means from pursuing its activities; it could not act without unanimous Lebanese support, and the Council must call on all parties to offer their co-operation. That support could be mobilized only around the sovereignty and integrity of the country, which meant that no foreign armed element not accepted by the Lebanese authorities could continue to exist in southern Lebanon. If UNIFIL should again enjoy the full support of the Lebanese population, it must be able to be deployed as quickly as possible, as was envisaged in 1978, along the international border; that would effectively restore the conditions necessary to enable the United Nations to bring about respect for its entire mission of peace and humanitarian objectives. France felt that the United Nations should reconsider its mission in southern Lebanon if so essential an objective as the return of civil peace to the region was not speedily achieved.

Israel characterized the report as unbalanced, distorting the true situation, and suffering from a major omission in that it did not fully represent Israelis position or assessment of the southern Lebanon situation. It was Hezbollah, the Shiite terrorist offspring of the Khomeini revolution, which had been imported into Lebanon as a co-production of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic, that had targeted UNIFIL, in line with Iran's policy of driving out from Lebanon all alien forces as a prelude to establishing an Islamic Republic. If the French contingent could be weakened and driven out, the whole Force would collapse which would help Hezbollah in establishing complete predominance in southern Lebanon. The central point was clear: UNIFIL's precise deployment was irrelevant to that objective. Since Hezbollah saw UNIFIL as a buffer against Israel, the attacks against the Force would increase if UNIFIL were deployed to the international border and the security zone were abandoned. Israel expected of the Council unambiguous condemnation of Hezbollah and its Syrian and Iranian patrons. Blaming Israel instead and asking it to dismantle its only viable defence against those killers would be cowering before terrorism and ensuring its expansion, Israel added.

In the view of the USSR, the withdrawal of Israeli troops to the international border would create favourable conditions so that UNIFIL could finally discharge its tasks; the alternative would be merely a further escalation of tension, fraught with serious consequences for international peace and security in the region.

Full and complete Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory and deployment of UNIFIL up to the international border were the solution, the Syrian Arab Republic said, calling on the Council to force Israel fully to implement resolution 425(1978) and withdraw its forces.

Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon contributed to complicating Lebanon's internal affairs and, in particular, to subjecting UNIFIL to clashes and confrontation with some local forces, the United Arab Emirates charged. Such clashes were only natural, as local militias were trying to respond to Israeli acts of aggression against civilians; in trying to prevent such incidents, as was within its mandate, UNIFIL was suffering casualties.

Report of the Secretary-General (October). As requested by the Council (see above), the Secretary-General reported again on 13 October.(13) There had been a marked reduction in attacks against the Force since 18 September, he stated, and no further lives had been lost. There had been three attacks, all directed against French positions or French UNIFIL personnel, occurring during the first 10 days of the reporting period.

During that period, UNIFIL reported three serious incidents affecting the local population in its area. Information available indicated that a number of similar serious incidents took place between armed elements and IDF/SLA personnel in the security zone outside the UNIFIL area. UNIFIL was indirectly affected by fighting which began on 30 September between Amal and Palestinians in the Rashadieh refugee camp south of Tyre; while the camp was outside the UNIFIL area, intermittent firing interrupted traffic on the coastal road - an important supply route for UNIFIL.

As requested by the Council, further measures were taken to enhance the security of UNIFIL personnel, among them adding reinforced shelters and improving the defences of all positions. To consolidate the Force's deployment, as suggested in a previous report, the UNIFIL Commander identified 49 positions (of a total of 169 permanent positions) that were vulnerable and/or of limited operational value; those located in the French battalion sector were already closed and the others were to be closed as soon as possible.

Precautions against attacks were taken, as well as measures to secure the areas surrounding UNIFIL positions; procedures at road-blocks were being revised to improve security and liaison at the local level was being intensified to ensure understanding of UNIFIL's role and to avoid incidents. Patrolling procedures were revised and additional measures taken to secure roads and guard against roadside bombs. Maximum use was made of armoured vehicles.

Redeployment of the French infantry battalion was completed on 26 September and a little more than half was currently stationed in Naqoura, while the remainder was deployed in the Jwayya area. Nepalese troops took over positions in the western part of the former French sector, and Ghanaian and Finnish troops in the central and eastern parts, respectively.

The Secretary-General concluded that, if better protection was to be achieved and if the Force was to carry out fully the consolidation and rationalization of its deployment, additional funds would be required; the Commander had been instructed, in consultation with the Secretary-General's Military Adviser, to study the matter bearing in mind that the preliminary estimate of $30 million should be reduced substantially.

The Force Commander had recommended acquiring 29 armoured cars which, he believed, would help to protect UNIFIL personnel on mobile duties. In addition, he suggested that three new positions be opened, 14 further positions reinforced and one battalion headquarters relocated. Endorsing those recommendations, the Secretary-General said their estimated cost of $10.5 million was a non-recurrent expenditure; if the Council had no objection, he would seek the General Assembly's approval for the necessary budgetary appropriations.

In addition to improving the physical security of UNIFIL personnel, the Secretary-General also pursued diplomatic efforts to get the attacks stopped. It had still proved impossible to establish with certainty the identity or political affiliation of those responsible, although it had been widely alleged that they were the work of armed elements of Hezbollah. In recent weeks, he had discussed UNIFIL with senior representatives of the Lebanese Government and a wide range of other Governments, including Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic, both of which had stated their readiness to use their good offices to improve the security of UNIFIL personnel.

Efforts also continued to enable the Force to be deployed to the international border. Following the Council's 23 September request to that effect discussions were resumed with Israel in a further attempt to achieve its withdrawal and its abandonment of the so-called security zone. Israel reaffirmed its previous position: it had no territorial ambitions; it was only protecting northern Israel and until Lebanon had an effective Government with which it could agree on permanent security arrangements, Israel would continue working with any Lebanese party genuinely interested in preventing "terror" in southern Lebanon and northern Israel. Although recognizing UNIFIL's useful role and that it had tried to stabilize the area, peace-keeping forces were most effective in Israel's view when they served as buffers between two States sharing a commitment to pacify their common border; but that was not the case with Lebanon and peace-keepers could not be asked to combat what Israel called terrorists. Israel would continue co-operating with UNIFIL but would maintain its own security arrangements. Currently, Israel could not agree to complete withdrawal of its forces, but it remained ready to consider seriously concrete proposals by the United Nations which took account of Israel's concerns. It could not be held responsible for the current state of affairs which, Israel said, lay with Hezbollah and Governments supporting it.

Representatives of the Secretary-General also discussed deploying UNIFIL to the border with Lebanese authorities, who reaffirmed their insistence on immediate Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory; if that were achieved, they would ensure that there would be no return to the situation before 1982.

In a related effort towards implementing the Force's mandate, the Secretary-General had also pursued the idea that a Lebanese army unit might be deployed to the north-western part of UNIFIL's area, as a first step towards the return of Lebanon's effective authority in southern Lebanon. Lebanese authorities had accepted in principle that elements of its army should be deployed to southern Lebanon to co-operate with UNIFIL in implementing its mandate, and details were being discussed between the Force Commander and the Lebanese Military Council.

The Secretary-General said he had instructed the UNIFIL Commander to continue examining any possibilities for further varying the size and deployment of the contingents, if that would enhance the Force's security without impairing efficiency UNIFIL's position would, however, remain precarious as long as it was prevented from carrying out its original mandate. Efforts of the previous three weeks to achieve progress towards implementing resolution 425(1978), including deployment of UNIFIL to the international border had been inconclusive. The situation remained exceptionally complicated and determination was required to achieve the Council's objectives.

The Secretary-General again acknowledged Israel's legitimate concern about its northern border, across which it was still subjected to attack. UNIFIL's task to restore international peace and security would not, however, be fulfilled unless the security of both Lebanon and Israel along the international border was assured. Israel's withdrawal was not only in accordance with the Council's repeated call, but also offered the best prospect of restoring security to the benefit of both.

The Secretary-General had repeatedly expressed to Israel the view that its continued military presence, combined with the behaviour of SLA, would inevitably provoke a reaction from the inhabitants of southern Lebanon, and the resulting violence would be exploited by those armed groups who, unlike the Lebanese Government and the vast majority of the inhabitants, wanted southern Lebanon to be used for attacks against Israel itself. That process had already begun and could, if not rectified, lead to a level of violence that could grow beyond UNIFIL's ability to control and of which UNIFIL itself could even become a victim.

Deploying to the border might not end all violence instantly, the Secretary-General stated, but once deployed UNIFIL would be in a position to fulfil its mandate, which would require an end to all cross-border hostility. Although UNIFIL might incur the hostility of those wanting to carry out such acts it would be supported by almost all inhabitants and the Lebanese Government, whose authority would gradually be restored in the area. The dangerous ambiguity in UNIFIL's current situation would be removed. More than ever, the Secretary-General was convinced that that was the only way to stop the steady deterioration in southern Lebanon.

The Council continued to face the same dilemma, he continued. On the one hand, withdrawal of UNIFIL would be disastrous for international peace and security and for the inhabitants of southern Lebanon; on the other, Israel's continuing military presence prevented the Force from carrying out its original mandate and created tensions that resulted in its personnel being exposed to serious dangers. It remained the Secretary-General's view that every effort should continue to be made to persuade Israel to withdraw its forces completely, he and his staff remained ready to discuss with Israel and Lebanon how to achieve that. Although that would be difficult and complicated, he stressed that it was important that substantial progress should be made before the current UNIFIL mandate expired on 19 January 1987.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION (October)

On 31 October 1986, the Security Council met to consider the Secretary-General's report. After consultations among Council members, the President made the following statement on their behalf:(70)

Meeting number. SC 2719.

"The members of the Security Council have noted with appreciation the report submitted by the Secretary-General in conformity with Security Council resolution 587(1986) requesting him to take any further measures needed to enhance the security of the men of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, and to make the necessary arrangements for a deployment of the Force to the southern border of Lebanon.

"They express their gravest concern that the basic objectives of Council resolution 425(1978) have not yet been achieved.

"The members of the Council take note of the consultations initiated by the Secretary-General with the parties concerned and others with a view to the implementation of the mandate of the Force. While they regret that the consultations aimed at implementing resolution 425(1978) have thus far failed to yield practical results, the members of the Council request the Secretary-General actively to pursue his contacts.

"They note the new security measures decided upon since the adoption of the resolution. They request the Secretary-General to suggest any other steps he may deem necessary for increased security in connection with the movements of the Force indispensable for the fulfilment of its mandate. They approve the proposals submitted by the Secretary-General in his report and his intention to seek the approval of the General Assembly for necessary budgetary appropriation. In that connection, they call on all countries to assume their financial responsibilities towards the Force and on the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to expedite the reimbursement of the advances of funds made by the contributing countries.

"They note with interest the instructions given by the Secretary-General to the Commander of the Force to keep under continuous review all the possibilities of varying the size and deployment of contingents if that would strengthen their security without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the Force. They request the Secretary-General to study these possibilities in consultation with the contributing countries and to put appropriate measures into effect.

"In that regard, they have noted with satisfaction the intention expressed by the Lebanese authorities to deploy a regular unit of their army in the zone of the Force to work in close liaison with it in accordance with the provisions of resolution 425(1978).

"Once again, the members of the Security Council urge all the parties concerned to give full support to the Force in the fulfilment of its mandate and also call for an end to any military presence in southern Lebanon which is not accepted by the Lebanese authorities. They call on the Secretary-General to intensify his efforts to secure the full and effective implementation of resolution 425(1978)."


UNIFIL financing

Report of the Secretary-General. In an October 1986 report on UNIFIL financing,(14) the Secretary-General stated that, as at 30 September, he had received $935.8 million for the operation of UNIFIL, out of $1,250.3 million apportioned among Member States for the periods from the inception of the Force in March 1978 to 18 December 1986. The balance due - $314.5 million - included $223 million that Member States had said they did not intend to pay and $19.6 million due from China, transferred to a special account in accordance with a 1981 General Assembly resolution.(71) Only $71.9 million of the unpaid amount was considered collectable, leaving a shortfall of $242.6 million.

This continued to be a serious problem, he said. Current obligations could not be met, particularly those due to the troop-contributing countries which had never been paid on a current and full basis in accordance with agreed rates, payments were falling even farther behind. Voluntary contributions to a Suspense Account set up in 1979(72) to alleviate the financial burden on troop contributors amounted to only $34,356. If not remedied, the Secretary-General warned, the operation's functioning might be jeopardized. He appealed to all Member States to pay their assessments without delay and to consider contributing voluntarily to the Suspense Account.

For UNIFIL operations from 19 April to 18 December 1986, commitments amounted to $95,660,000 gross ($94,100,000 net) as authorized in 1985;(73) costs from 19 December 1986 to 18 January 1987 were estimated at $16,579,000 gross ($16,384,000 net), based on an average Force strength of 5,860. Those costs included $4.6 million for security measures for the areas surrounding UNIFIL positions.

For the 12-month period beginning on 19 January 1987, the Secretary-General estimated costs at $145,500,000 gross ($143,064,000 net), based on an average Force strength of 6,000. In the event that future Council decisions on UNIFIL's status would entail additional costs over the limit authorized by the Assembly, he stated the Assembly's commitment authorization would be sought at that time if it was then in regular session; otherwise, by initial recourse to the 1985 Assembly resolution on unforeseen and extraordinary expenses for 1986-1987,(74) with the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). In the latter case, should the amounts required exceed the financial limit stipulated under that resolution, it would be necessary to convene a special Assembly session to consider the matter.

ACABQ recommendations. In November 1986,(75) ACABQ recommended approval of the Secretary-General's estimate. In a departure from past practice, the Advisory Committee noted, there was no mention in his report that its prior concurrence would be obtained for actual commitments to be entered into for each mandate period that might be approved after 18 January 1987.

Taking into account recent experience, ACABQ had no objection to allowing the Secretary-General to commit funds for UNIFIL up to the limit approved by the Assembly without the Committee's prior concurrence. It believed, however, that such commitment authority should continue to be expressed as a monthly amount rather than a lump sum for an entire 12-month period. On that basis ACABQ recommended that the Assembly approve commitment authority up to $12,125,000 gross ($11,922,000) per month for the 12-month period beginning 19 January 1987.

The Advisory Committee noted the Secretary-General's intended procedures should future Council decisions entail costs exceeding limits authorized by the Assembly.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions on the financing of UNIFIL. It adopted resolution 41/179 A by recorded vote on 5 December.

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, 555(1984) of 12 October 1984, 561(1985) of 17 April 1985, 575(1985) of 17 October 1985, 583(1986) of 18 April 1986 and 586(1986) of 18 July 1986,

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, 38/38 A of 5 December 1983, 39/71 A of 13 December 1984 and 40/246 A of 18 December 1985,

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 $35,872,000 gross ($35,287,000 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 IV of Assembly resolution 40/246 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 April to 18 July 1986, inclusive;
II

Decides ro appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $59,787,500 gross ($58,812,500 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 IV of Assembly resolution 40/246 A for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon from 19 July to 18 December 1986, inclusive;
III

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $16,579,000 for the operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for the period from 19 December 1986 to 18 January 1987, 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 $16,579,000 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, section IX, paragraph 1, of resolution 37/127 A and section VII, paragraphs 1 and 2, of resolution 39/71 A, in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988;

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 $3,000 other than staff assessment income approved for the period from 19 December 1986 to 18 January 1987, 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 $192,000 approved for the period from 19 December 1986 to 18 January 1987, 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 $12,125,000 gross ($11,922,000 net) per month for the 12-month period beginning 19 January 1987, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 586(1986), 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.

General Assembly resolution 41/179 A
5 December 1986 Meeting 99 125-2-9 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/41/913) by recorded vote (94-2-8), 25 November (meeting 35); 22-nation draft (A/C.5/41/L.7, part A); agenda item 120 (b).

Sponsors: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Sweden, Thailand.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Albania, Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Angola, Cuba, Iraq, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Poland, Viet Nam, Yemen.

As UNIFIL's budget was being considered only because Israel was occupying southern Lebanon the Syrian Arab Republic said, Israel should assume full responsibility for the costs. Iraq believed that the aggressor should bear the cost of its own expansionism. Expressing a similar view, Cuba could not support an enterprise of dubious military value, adding that the fact that Israel did not acknowledge the authority of UNIFIL made its activities useless.

While it supported the text, the USSR stressed that the provisions would have no retroactive effect and would result in no obligation in respect of previous years; the text had major financial implications and the Secretariat's attention should be drawn to the request to administer UNIFIL with maximum efficiency and economy.

Despite its view that those responsible for the aggression should bear the cost, the German Democratic Republic said it had decided to con tribute to the financing of UNIFIL in the hope of a return to normality, which would necessarily involve the withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Israel regretted that some delegations had chosen to introduce political considerations into financial debate.

Introducing the text in the Fifth Committee on behalf of the sponsors, Ireland said they considered withholding mandatory contributions for peace-keeping operations a breach of obligations under the United Nations Charter.

Also on 5 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 41/179 B by recorded vote.

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 18 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,

Recognizing that, in consequence of the shortfall of financial contributions, troop-contributing States are not being reimbursed to the full extent of the established rates, thus bearing considerably larger portions of the costs for their troops serving in the United Nations peace-keeping forces than those indicated by the Secretary-General in his report on the review of the rates of reimbursement to the Governments of troop-contributing States, submitted to the General Assembly at its fortieth session,

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, 38/38 B of 5 December 1983, 39/71 B of 13 December 1984 and 40/246 B of 18 December 1985,

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 $4,763,620, 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 41/179 B
5 December 1986 Meeting 99 116-2-19 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/41/913) by recorded vote (88-2-16), 25 November (meeting 35); 22-nation draft (A/C.5/41/L.7, part B); agenda item 120 (b).

Sponsors: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany Federal Republic of, Ghana, Iceland, Iceland, Italy, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Sweden, Thailand.

Recorded vote in Assembly as fellows:

In favour: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Aus~tria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Afghanistan, Angola, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam, Yemen.

The USSR felt, however laudable the intent, it was never financially wise to suspend the regulations.

Ireland explained that suspending them in respect of the surplus balance of $4,763,620 in the UNIFIL Special Account would prevent that amount - calculated on the basis of assessed contributions irrespective of collectability, an amount which had in fact been used fully to meet the expenses of the Force - from reducing the assessments of Member States, including those withholding contributions, the fourth preambular paragraph had been added to highlight the consequences of the shortfall.

Concern over the Force's financing was also voiced in the Security Council during 1986 (see pp. 297 and 302).


Change of Commander

Lieutenant-General William Callaghan, of Ireland, who had been the Commander of UNIFIL since February 1981,(76) relinquished his command in May 1986. On 17 April (77) the Secretary-General informed the Security Council President that, subject to the usual consultations he intended to appoint Major-General Gustav Hägglund, of Finland, who was serving as Commander of UNDOF, as UNIFIL Commander. On 24 April,(78) the President replied that the Council's members had, that day, considered the matter and agreed to the proposal.
Major-General Hägglund assumed command on 1 June.

Israel and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

The interception on 4 February 1986 by Israeli fighter planes of a Libyan civilian aircraft with a political delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic on board was considered by the Security Council. On 6 February, the Council voted on a draft resolution by which it would have condemned Israel for intercepting and diverting the aircraft in international airspace, and subsequently detaining it, and warned Israel that, if such acts were repeated, it would consider taking adequate measures. The text was not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent Council member.

The subject was also taken up by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in February.

Communications. On 4 February,(79) the Syrian Arab Republic charged that, at 1101 hours Greenwich mean time (GMT) on that day, in international airspace over the Mediterranean, two Israeli fighter aircraft, in a terrorist act, had intercepted a Libyan civilian aircraft carrying a Syrian delegation returning from an official visit to the Jamahiriya.

On the same date,(80) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, characterizing the incident as air piracy and State terrorism, said that United States naval units stationed off the Libyan coast, which had participated in provocative exercises against the Jamahiriya (see p. 247), had provided full information on the Libyan aircraft to the Zionist enemy.

Also on 4 February,(81) the Syrian Arab Republic requested an immediate Security Council meeting to consider the incident. The Jamahiriya, on 5 February,(82) associated itself with that call.

A number of other communications were received condemning the interception as a violation of international law and calling for deterrent measures. Tunisia, on 5 February,(83) said it was a violation of international law and a grave attack on the freedom of civil aviation. Also on 5 February,(84) King Hassan II of Morocco asked the United Nations to act so that legality might be strictly observed. If Israel's action remained without appropriate Arab and international reaction, Iraq warned on 4 February,(85) the criminal act against the Libyan airliner and its passengers would not be the last. Yugoslavia, on 4 February,(86) said that Israel's announced intention to continue such actions bore out the continuity of the policy of aggression and of State terrorism to which it kept resorting, despite the most severe opposition of the international community. Czechoslovakia, on 6 February,(87) termed Israel's act an aggressive provocation and a dangerous precedent seriously threatening the freedom and safety of international air transport.

A similar position was taken by the non-aligned countries which, in a communiqué of 6 February,(88) also called on ICAO to respond appropriately and consider adequate measures to safeguard international civil aviation. A TASS statement, transmitted by the USSR on 7 February,(89) said the interception had been carried out under the hypocritical pretext of the "struggle against terrorism".

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

Following the request by the Syrian Arab Republic (see above), the Security Council considered the incident at three meetings from 4 to 6 February.

Meeting numbers. SC 2651, 2653, 2655.

The Council invited Algeria, the German Democratic Republic, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yugoslavia, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. The Council also invited the Deputy Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, at the request of the United Arab Emirates,(90) to participate under rule 39 d/ of its provisional rules of procedure.

d/ See footnote a on p. 275.

Also at the request of the United Arab Emirates,(91) the Council decided on 6 February, by 10 votes to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, United Kingdom), that an invitation to participate be accorded to PLO. The President stated that the proposal was not made pursuant to rule 37 e/ or rule 39 of the 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.

e/ See footnote b on p. 275.


Before that vote, the United States, which had requested it, reiterated its opposition to what it called special ad hoc departures from orderly procedure and to extending to PLO the same rights to participate as if it represented a Member State; the United States did not agree with recent practice which appeared selectively to try to enhance through a departure from the rules the prestige of those who wished to speak in the Council.

Also on 6 February, the Council voted on a revised draft resolution by the Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United Arab Emirates.(92) The vote was 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Bulgaria, China, Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, USSR, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela.

Against: United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Denmark, France, United Kingdom.

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

By the draft, the Council would have: condemned Israel for its forcible interception and diversion of the Libyan civilian aircraft in international airspace and its subsequent detention of the aircraft; considered that Israel's act constituted a serious violation of the principles of international law, in particular international conventions on civil aviation; called on ICAO to take due account of the Council's resolution when considering measures to safeguard international civil aviation against such acts; and called on Israel to desist from all acts endangering the safety of international civil aviation, warning that, if such acts were repeated, the Council would consider taking adequate measures to enforce its resolution.

Although opposing Israel's action, the United States said the text was unacceptable as it did not take into sufficient account the need to address practically and appropriately the overriding issue of terrorism. As a general principle, the United States opposed the interception of civilian aircraft, but believed that there might arise exceptional circumstances in which an interception might be justified; it strongly supported the principle that a State whose territory or citizens were subjected to continuing terrorist attacks might respond with force to defend itself against further attacks. A State should intercept a civilian aircraft only on the basis of the clearest evidence that terrorists were aboard, however, and the United States did not believe that Israel had demonstrated that its action met that rigorous standard. Nevertheless, because it believed that the ability to take such action in carefully defined and limited circumstances was an aspect of the inherent right of self-defence recognized in the United Nations Charter, the United States could not accept a text which implied that interception of an aircraft was wrongful per se, without regard to the possibility that the action might be justified.

Denmark regretted that a consensus had not been reached and pointed out that the text did not adequately reflect its position. Israel's act was in clear contravention of international law and constituted a serious infringement of the freedom of civil aviation, jeopardizing the lives and safety of passengers and crew; Denmark called on Israel to desist from such actions.

There was much in the text which Australia said it could support, but some references, such as that in the preamble to piracy, did not accord with its position.

In the United Kingdom's view, the interception was without justification, set a dangerous precedent, apparently in contravention of international law, and was an act endangering innocent lives - a point acknowledged in one of the text's preambular paragraphs. That applied just as much to the kinds of incidents that had taken place at the Rome and Vienna airports;(17) equally abhorrent were actions against innocents at sea. The Council should affirm that all States, including Israel, and all individuals should desist from such acts.

Although sharing the sponsors' concerns France was unable to support formulations not reflecting the precise facts. Israel's action contravened international law and could only exacerbate existing Middle East tensions, but was taken in the particular context of serious terrorist acts recently perpetrated in several European countries and, in those circumstances, could not be assessed in the usual manner.

The USSR supported demands of the Syrian Arab Republic that the Council condemn Israel make it bear the entire responsibility and take measures to rule out any recurrence; the act was premeditated, an open breach of the conventions on civil aviation and threatened the principle of unimpeded use of international airspace for overflights by civil aircraft.

Israel's acts of hegemonism under the pretext of retaliation against terrorism must be resolutely stopped and strongly condemned, China said; the international community and the Council in particular should adopt forceful measures to prevent any such recurrence of interception or hijacking.

In Bulgaria's view, the text contained a precise description of what took place and it felt that no argument by Israel invoking its right of self-defence could alter the nature of its act, which trampled on international law.

The Congo, stating that Israel's arguments were more embarrassing than convincing, did not agree with a theory that would make official terrorism a rule of conduct for States in their relations; the Council was faced with either strengthening the Charter and international conventions or allowing them to be violated with impunity.

The Council would put an end to such acts if it lived up to its responsibilities through unanimous agreement, the United Arab Emirates believed; the alternative to that was more dangerous than what many could conceive.

Israel's acts of aggression jeopardizing civil aircraft and innocent lives would not stop unless the Council fully assumed its responsibilities, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya remarked. The Council was called on to take firm steps to deter any further terrorist deeds; it could achieve that only if it resorted to the means provided for in the Charter - principally, depriving Israel of United Nations membership and imposing deterrent economic sanctions against it to make it heed the will of the international community and comply with the Council's resolutions.

The situation could not be addressed by the Council save through a firm resolution condemning Israel's acts, the Syrian Arab Republic said; it must proclaim that Israel bore sole responsibility for that act of international air piracy and then it must oblige Israel to cease all acts of piracy and terrorism everywhere. If the Council did not act strongly, including imposing sanctions, Israel would continue its terrorism against the Arabs; the aggression against the airliner was just the beginning of a new terrorism that could destroy the freedom and safety of international aviation.

Jordan hoped that the Council would condemn the violation by Israel of the most elementary rules and principles promulgated by the United Nations and the international community for the safety and lives of civilian passengers, and would dissuade Israel from repeating such terrorist deeds.

The States pushing for the text, Israel remarked, were those sponsoring terrorism, especially the Syrian Arab Republic and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; to adopt the text would signal to them that they could go on with their campaign of bombing, murder, hijacking, assassination and hostage-taking. Having had clear indications that a terrorist commute from Tripoli to the Syrian Arab Republic was in process, Israel said, it had decided to act. States using their planes to ferry terrorists could not expect them to be allowed to fly uninterdicted all the time. Rather than condemning victims of terrorism who did take action against terrorists, the Council must adopt a responsible approach to combating both international terrorism and States that supported terrorists.

Israel had no right to speak of terrorism or of innocent lives, as its own record was replete with terrorist acts, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya remarked, going back to 1973, when it downed a Libyan airliner, causing the death of 106 civilians;(93) the interception was but one of Israel's terrorist actions planned by its politicians. Israel might well consider Libyan support of the Palestinian revolution to be terrorism and each Palestinian camp to be a terrorist base, but the Jamahiriya did not hide its support of the Palestinians from anyone.

At the opening of the discussion, the Syrian Arab Republic explained that at 0854 hours (GMT) on 4 February a private Libyan civilian G-2 type aircraft had left Tripoli International Airport, with an official Syrian delegation, headed by the Assistant Secretary-General of the Arab Baath Socialist Party, on board. While flying in international airspace over the Mediterranean Sea, the pilot informed the Cyprus airport control centre, at 1101 hours, that two Israeli fighter aircraft were intercepting him and demanding that he accompany them; at 1103 hours, the aircraft's contact with Cyprus airport was broken off. The Syrian Arab Republic requested that measures be taken to discover the fate of the aircraft and its passengers and crew and to ensure their safety It also asked the Council to hold Israel fully responsible and condemn it, and to demand that Israel end such acts and heed international agreements.

Israel responded that its pilots had intercepted the aircraft and brought it down to an Israeli airfield where the passengers were examined but there were no terrorists aboard. The passengers and crew were no longer in Israel. Its suspicion that there were terrorists on board had grown out of a Tripoli meeting of 20 terrorist organizations that had just ended, and at which there had been clear declarations about continuing terrorist attacks against Israel. A nation attacked by terrorists was permitted to use force to prevent or pre-empt future attacks.

Iraq pointed out that the Council had unanimously condemned Israel for similar air piracy in 1973(94) when it had intercepted a Lebanese aircraft travelling to Baghdad.

Israel was the first to use its air force to hijack a civilian airliner when, in 1954, its fighter planes hijacked a Syrian airliner, forcing it to land at Lod Airport, the United Arab Emirates added, and when the Lebanese aircraft was hijacked in 1973, the Israeli Chief of Staff said more such operations might be expected. The Council had warned Israel that if such acts were repeated, it would consider enforcement measures, the USSR recalled. Despite that warning, China said, the recent incident showed that Israel was bent on deliberate violations in disregard of the Council's resolutions and authority. Israel's acts showed that it did not feel bound by the Council's 1973 resolution,(94) Algeria said. In Bulgaria's view, the recent interception - the latest in a long series of attacks against sovereign Arab countries - was an act of war, an insolent challenge to the Arab and international communities, and a threat to international peace and security. Jordan also cited and condemned various acts of Israel endangering civil aviation, as did Morocco, which added that the most recent hijacking was further proof of Israel's determination to extend the scope of aggression to all Arab States.

Israel pointed to what it called the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya's record towards terrorism and support of all known terrorist groups, charging in particular that the December 1985 attacks at the Rome and Vienna airports had been carried out with Libyan and possibly also Syrian support; the Jamahiriya used private jets to ferry terrorists and then claimed inviolability of its right to fly the international airways.

Ghana stressed that the Council should not even remotely sanction Israel's act, which potentially threatened international peace and security; however justified Israel's grievance might be, it was obliged under the Charter to abjure force and turn to the Council for assistance in seeking redress. The Council should support the many conventions protecting civil aviation and should not undermine them.

Israel openly confessed to having carried out an act of air piracy in defiance of international law and agreements, the League of Arab States noted.

The Council must impose adequate punishments to deter Israel from carrying out further criminal acts likely to endanger international peace and security, Morocco said. Similarly, Algeria felt the Council must reject Israel's attempts to spread chaos and insecurity in international airspace, act to thwart the guilty party, restore international law and revive confidence in the Council.

Israel's act contradicted all norms of peaceful coexistence of peoples and endangered the international civil aviation system, the German Democratic Republic said, underlining the urgent necessity of increased collective efforts to bring about a comprehensive, just and lasting peace. The act was further proof of Israel's policy of expansion and domination which employed State terrorism, Yugoslavia stated; urgent and decisive measures by the international community were needed in order to eliminate terrorism as a phenomenon threatening peace and security and international relations. India regarded Israel's act as yet another instance in a lengthy catalogue of aggressive policies designed to intimidate its Arab neighbours. Either the Council joined the globe's entire population against State hijacking and State air piracy, or many more incidents would inevitably take place, Iran warned.

Other action. In February 1986, the Council of ICAO (see PART II, Chapter X) considered a request from the Syrian Arab Republic related to the interception of the Libyan aircraft and adopted a resolution by which it condemned Israel's action. The Council also considered a request from Israel related to alleged Libyan threats against the safety of civil aviation.

Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic

In 1986, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights again dealt with the situation in the Syrian Golan Heights in the light of Israel's 1981 decision(95) to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Israeli-occupied territories (see p. 317).

The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), with some 1,300 troops as of 1 November 1986, provided by Austria, Canada, Finland and Poland, was deployed between the Israeli and Syrian forces on the Golan Heights in accordance with the Agreement on Disengagement of Forces between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic concluded in 1974.(96) A group of observers from UNTSO assisted UNDOF.

UNDOF's main functions continued to be supervising the observance of the cease-fire in the Golan Heights area and ensuring that there were no military forces in the area of separation. The Security Council extended UNDOF's mandate twice during the year, each time for six months.

Communications. On 12 March 1986,(97) Israel charged the Syrian Arab Republic with expanding its armed services to unprecedented levels, saying that its vast arsenal already included ground-to-ground and surface-to-air missiles which could easily reach Israel's major cities, and that SAM-5 missiles had been moved close to Israel's border as well as across the Syrian border with Lebanon. In addition, the Syrian arsenal currently included over 4,000 tanks, 2,500 pieces of artillery and over 600 combat aircraft, while its standing army had increased from five divisions in 1982 to nine in 1986. Further, the Syrian Arab Republic continued supporting and promoting international terrorism, with terrorists headquartered at Damascus recently increasing their activities. In the light of these developments, immediate action by the international community was necessary.

Responding on 18 March,(98) the Syrian Arab Republic said that, to achieve a strategic balance and in accordance with its right of self-defence, it had endeavoured to build up its own military strength. In reiterating its condemnation of international terrorism, particularly Zionist terrorism, the Syrian Arab Republic declared that it would continue to be keenly concerned about the distinction between terrorism and national resistance. It was determined to continue its support of the Arab resistance based on its commitment towards the Arab people in general and the people of Palestine and Lebanon in particular.

On 18 July,(99) Israel reiterated that the Syrian Arab Republic supported PLO terrorists, particularly factions based at Damascus and in Syrian-dominated areas of Lebanon. Among acts committed by those factions, Israel cited an attempt on 10 July by Palestinians to infiltrate its northern coast in a rubber dinghy, which was intercepted by an Israeli naval vessel and forced to land off Israel's border coast with Lebanon; all four Palestinians were killed in the ensuing battle. Earlier, on 26 June, at an El Al check-in counter at Barajas Airport at Madrid, Spain, 14 people were injured, two seriously, when a suitcase exploded; it could have exploded in mid-flight killing all 100 passengers aboard. Spanish investigators had uncovered important links between the person involved and the Syrian Arab Republic, Israel said, calling on the international community to condemn and prevent such acts.

Israel had attempted to use an isolated incident to divert attention from terrorism committed by its occupation forces against the Arab people of Palestine and the inhabitants of the occupied territories in the Golan Heights and in southern Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic alleged on 4 August.(100) The Syrian Government had strongly condemned the Madrid attack on 9 July and had always made a distinction between national liberation movements, which it supported, and terrorism.


Peace-keeping operation

UNDOF activities

Reports of the Secretary-General. Prior to the expiration of the six-month extensions of the mandate of UNDOF, on 31 May and 30 November 1986, the Secretary-General submitted reports on the activities of the Force for the periods from 14 November 1985 to 14 May 1986(101) and from 15 May to 12 November 1986.(102)

In both reports, the Secretary-General stated that UNDOF had continued to perform its functions effectively, with the co-operation of the parties. The cease-fire had been maintained and the situation in the Israel-Syria sector had remained quiet without serious incidents.

Supervision of the area of separation was carried out through static positions and observation posts manned 24 hours a day, patrols operating at irregular intervals on predetermined routes, and temporary outposts and patrols. Under a programme undertaken by the Syrian authorities, civilians continued returning to the area of separation; UNDOF adjusted its operations accordingly so as to carry out effectively its supervisory tasks under the Agreement on Disengagement.

In accordance with that Agreement, UNDOF also continued fortnightly inspections of armament and forces in the area of limitation, assisted by liaison officers from the parties. It continued to receive the co-operation of both parties, although restricted in movement and inspection in certain areas by both sides. There had, however, been a decrease in such restrictions in recent weeks, the Secretary-General reported in November, and UNDOF continued to seek the lifting of the remaining restrictions so as to guarantee its freedom of access to all locations on both sides.

Mines continued to pose a threat to UNDOF members and to the growing population in the area of separation. UNDOF was continuing its efforts, in consultation with the parties, to make the area of operation safe. The safety of Syrian shepherds who grazed their flocks close to the separation line continued to be of concern; intensified patrolling of new mine-cleared paths and the establishment of standing patrols helped to prevent incidents. The security fence in the southern part of the area of separation also continued to be effective in reducing the number of incidents. New patrol paths were under construction in the area of separation.

Despite the quiet, the Secretary-General stated, the Middle East situation as a whole continued to be potentially dangerous. He hoped that determined efforts would be made to tackle the problem in all its aspects, with a view to arriving at a just and durable peace settlement, as called for by the Security Council in 1973.(103)

He considered UNDOF's continued presence essential and recommended - the Syrian Arab Republic having given its assent and Israel having expressed agreement - in each report that the Council extend the mandate for a further six months.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

On 29 May 1986, without debate, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 584 (1986), extending UNDOF's mandate 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 1986;

(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 584 (1986)
29 May 1986 Meeting 2687 Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/18109).

On 26 November, again without debate, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 590(1986), extending UNDOF's mandate until 31 May 1987.

The Security Council,

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

Decides:

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

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is until 31 May 1987;

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

Security Council resolution 590 (1986)
26 November 1986 Meeting 2722 Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/18481).

Following adoption of each resolution, the President made the following statement on behalf of the Council:(104)

"As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force states, in paragraph 25 [of the May report; 24 of the November report]: 'Despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, the situation in the Middle East as a whole continues to be potentially dangerous and is likely to remain so, unless and until a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem can be reached.' That statement of the Secretary-General reflects the view of the Security Council."


Composition

As of 1 November 1986, the number of troops comprising UNDOF was: Austria 540, Canada 226, Finland 405, Poland 155 and United Nations military observers detailed from UNTSO 7, making a total of 1,333. UNTSO observers assigned to the Israel-Syria Mixed Armistice Commission also assisted as required.


UNDOF financing

Report of the Secretary-General. In October 1986,(105) the Secretary-General reported that, as at 30 September, he had received $699.6 million in contributions for UNDOF together with the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) for the period from inception to 30 November 1986. The unpaid balance totalled $74.5 million, of which $31.3 million represented amounts apportioned among Member States which had stated that they did not intend to pay, and $36 million represented amounts transferred to a Special Account in accordance with a 1981 General Assembly resolution.(71)

There was a shortfall of approximately $7.7 million in the UNDOF Special Account in respect of the periods from 25 October 1979 to 30 November 1986; the shortfall arising from the previous periods of UNDOF up to 24 October 1979 together with UNEF until its liquidation in 1980 was estimated at $59.6 million. In the circumstances, troop contributors had not been paid on time and had not been reimbursed fully in accordance with agreed rates; they had continued, the Secretary-General said, to convey to him their serious concern over the situation which placed a heavy burden on them.

For UNDOF operations from 1 June to 30 November 1986, commitments amounted to $18,282,000 gross ($17,934,498 net), as authorized in 1985.(106) For operations from 1 December 1986 on, the Secretary-General estimated monthly costs of $2,900,000 gross ($2,850,000 net).

ACABQ recommendations. In November 1986,(75) ACABQ recommended approval of the Secretary-General's estimates for the cost of UNDOF in 1986/87. Requirements for UNDOF for the 12 months from 1 December 1986 to 30 November 1987 should not exceed $34,800,000 gross ($34,200,000 net), it stated. It recommended further that the Secretary-General be permitted the usual flexibility to transfer credits between items of expenditure, should that be necessary in the interest of good management and efficiency.

On a related matter, ACABQ said it had been informed that the 1984-1985 interim accounts indicated for the Special Account for UNEF and UNDOF a "surplus" balance of $1,496,703 for 1985, representing excess of income over expenditures due to interest and miscellaneous credits accrued. However, "income" included assessed contributions irrespective of collectability Because of the withholding of contributions by certain States, the "surplus" had in effect been drawn on to its full extent.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

In December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions - 41/44 A and B - on the financing of UNDOF.

On 3 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 41/44 A by recorded 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, 557(1984) of 28 November 1984, 563(1985) of 21 May 1985, 576(1985) of 21 November 1985, 584(1986) of 29 May 1986 and 590(1986) of 26 November 1986,

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 1 December 1980, 36/66 A of 30 November 1981, 37/38 A of 30 November 1982, 38/35 A of 1 December 1983, 39/28 A of 30 November 1984 and 40/59 A of 2 December 1985,

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 $18,282,000 gross ($17,934,498 net) authorized and apportioned by section III of Assembly resolution 40/59 A for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1986, inclusive;
II

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $17,400,000 for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 December 1986 to 31 May 1987, 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 $17,400,000 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 32/4 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, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 37/38 A and section V, paragraphs 1 and 2, of resolution 39/28 A, in the proportions determined by the scale of assessments for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988;

3. Decides that there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraph 2 above, their respective share in the estimated income of $10,000 other than staff assessment income approved for the period from 1 December 1986 to 31 May 1987, 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 $90,000 approved for the period from I December 1986 to 31 May 1987, inclusive;
III

Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $2,900,000 gross ($2,850,000 net) per month for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1987, inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 590 (1986) 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.

General Assembly resolution 41/44 A
3 December 1986 Meeting 94 110-3-21 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/41/919) by recorded vote (82-1-17), 28 November (meeting 38); 10-nation draft (A/C.5/41/L.11, part A); agenda item 120 (a).

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

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Albania, Comoros,a/ Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Mali, Mongolia, Seychelles, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam, Yemen.

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


The Syrian Arab Republic insisted that the expenses of Middle East peace-keeping forces should be borne by Israel, the aggressor. A similar view was expressed by Iraq, while, for the same reason, Iran did not participate in the vote.

The USSR said there was no justification for the level of the UNDOF budget and the appropriations for certain items seemed inflated.

Also on 3 December, the Assembly adopted resolution 41/44 B by recorded 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 6 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, 38/35 B of 1 December 1983, 39/28 B of 30 November 1984 and 40/59 B of 2 December 1985,

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

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

Decides that the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations shall be suspended in respect of the amount of $1,496,703, which otherwise would have to be surrendered pursuant to those provisions, this amount to be entered into the account referred to in the operative part of General Assembly resolution 33/13 E and held in suspense until a further decision is taken by the Assembly.

General Assembly resolution 41/44 B
3 December 1986 Meeting 94 115-1-22 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/41/919) by recorded vote (84-1-18), 28 November (meeting 38); 10-nation draft (A/C.5/41/L.11, part B), agenda item 120 (a).

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

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Albania.

Abstaining: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Mali, Mongolia, Poland, Seychelles, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam, Yemen.

a/ Later advised the Secretariat it had intended to vote against.


The financing of UNDOF should be borne entirely by the Zionist entity, Iraq said.


Change of Commander

On 2 June 1986,(107) the Secretary-General informed the Security Council that, subject to the usual consultations, he intended to appoint Major-General Gustaf Welin, of Sweden, to replace Major-General Gustav Hägglund, of Finland, as Commander of UNDOF, since the latter had relinquished his post on 31 May to assume command of UNIFIL (see p. 308).

The Council President replied on 5 June(108) that the Council had that day considered the matter in informal consultations and agreed with the proposal.

Major-General Welin assumed command on 1 July.

Israel and Tunisia

On 13 January 1986,(109) Tunisia commented on Israel's November 1985 letter,(110) which had rejected the Security Council resolution condemning the October 1985 Israeli air raid on a Tunis suburb.(111) Israel's accusation that Tunisia had failed to live up to its commitment to keep the peace and was a base for terrorist operations distorted the facts, Tunisia said. The threat hanging over its own security and over that of other countries accused by Israel of harbouring PLO structures and missions could not be ignored. Israel's reply had ignored its obligation; by refusing to comply with and by excluding itself from the obligations involved in the Council's decisions, Israel was excluding itself from the Organization. The Council should not tolerate the situation and must impose its decision on Israel or else apply sanctions. Tunisia reserved the right to take any necessary action required by the situation.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. In a March 1986 resolution on Palestine (see p. 270), the Commission on Human Rights condemned Israel's 1985 armed aggression against Tunisia and the PLO offices there.

REFERENCES

(1)YUN 1981, p. 275. (2)A/41/L.16 (3)A/41/L.17. (4)A/41/L.18. (5)YUN 1985, p. 293. (6)Ibid., p. 295. (7)YUN 1968, p. 17, GA res. 2373(XXII), annex, 12 June 1968. (8)S/17965. (9)YUN 1982, p. 475, SC res. 516(1982), 1 Aug. 1982. (10)A/41/768-S/18427. (11)S/18348. (12)YUN 1978, p. 312, SC res. 425(1978), 19 Mar. 1978. (13)S/18396 & Corr.1. (14)A/41/783 & Corr.1. (15)YUN 1985, p. 305. (16)A/41/74-S/17711. (17)YUN 1985, p. 292. (18)A/41/86-S/17731. (19)A/41/115- S/17761. (20)A/41/169-S/17839. (21)A/41/170-S/17840. (22)A/41/174-S/17860. (23)A/41/203-S/17901. (24)A/41/204-S/17902. (25)A/41/188-S/17898. (26)A/41/259- S/17963. (27)A/41/286-S/17998. (28)A/41/646-S/18363. (29)A/41/647-S/18364. (30)S/18368. (31)A/41/725-S/18414. (32)A/41/847-S/18461. (33)A/41/966-S/18520. (34)E/1986/22 (res. 1986/43). (35)S/17717. (36)S/17730/Rev.2. (37)YUN 1982, p. 450, SC res. 508(1982) & 509(1982), 5 & 6 June 1982. (38)S/17976. (39)A/41/269-S/17977. (40)A/41/394-S/18128. (41)A/41/399-S/18133 & Corr.1 (42)S/18138. (43)S/18153. (44)A/41/413-S/18159. (45)A/41/441-S/18197. (46)A/41/475. (47)S/18287. (48)A/41/603- S/18338. (49)S/18370. (50)A/41/721-S/18411. (51)A/41/811 S/18452. (52)A/42/79- S/18569. (53)S/18492. (54)A/41/13. (55)YUN 1978, p. 296. (56)YUN 1982, p. 428. (57)S/17968. (53)YUN 1948-49, p. 185. (59)YUN 1978, p. 312, SC res. 425(1978) & 426(1978), 19 Mar. 1978. (60)S/18164. (61)S/18164/Add.1 & Corr.1. (62)S/18202. (63)S/18318. (64)S/18320. (65)YUN 1978, p. 301. (66)Ibid., p. 312, SC res. 426(1978), 19 Mar. 1978. (67)S/18353. (68)S/18358. (69)A/41/642-S/18362. (70)S/18439. (71)YUN 1981, p. 1299, GA res. 36/116 A, 10 Dec. 1981. (72)YUN 1979, p. 352, GA res. 34/9 D, 17 Dec. 1979. (73)YUN 1985, p. 321, GA res. 40/246 A, 18 Dec. 1985. (74)Ibid., p. 1212, GA res. 40/254, 18 Dec. 1985. (75)A/41/820. (76)YUN 1981, p. 285. (77)S/18032. (78)S/18033. (79)A/41/132-S/17785. (80)A/41/135-S/17792. (81)S/17787. (82)S/17798. (83)S/17801. (84)A/41/138-S/17797. (85)S/17795. (86)A/41/139-S/17799. (87)S/17805. (88)A/41/155-S/17810. (89)S/17807. (90)S/17791. (91)S/17802. (92)S/17796/Rev.1. (93)YUN 1973, p. 249. (94)Ibid., p. 253, SC res. 337(1973), 15 Aug. 1973. (95)YUN 1981, p. 308. (96)YUN 1974, p. 198. (97)A/41/232-S/17913. (98)A/41/220-S/17923. (99)A/41/476-S/18229. (100)A/41/500- S/18260. (101)S/18061. (102)S/18453. (103)YUN 1973, p. 213, SC res. 338(1973), 22 Oct. 1973. (104)S/18111, S/18487. (105)A/41/705. (106)YUN 1985, p. 317, GA res. 40/59 A, 2 Dec. 1985. (107)S/18135. (108)S/18136. (109)S/17735. (110)YUN 1985, p. 290. (111)Ibid., p. 287, SC res. 573(1985), 4 Oct. 1985.

______________________________

Territories occupied by Israel
______________________________

During 1986, 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 Committee reviewed information gathered from a variety of sources, including oral testimony and written communications, about developments in the territories, and assessed the human rights situation with a view to deciding whether any action was required. The territories comprised the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip.

The General Assembly, in December, adopted seven resolutions dealing with specific aspects of the Committee's report: it demanded that Israel desist from certain policies and practices in the territories (41/63 D); that it comply with the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (fourth Geneva Convention) (41/63 B); that it desist from any action which would change the legal status and composition of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 (41/63 C), including the Golan Heights (41/63 F); that it rescind its action against Palestinian detainees and release them immediately (41/63 A); that it rescind the expulsion of Palestinian leaders, some of whom had been in public office (41/63 E); and that it ensure the freedom of educational institutions (41/63 G).

The Commission on Human Rights, in February, also condemned Israeli policies and practices in the territories and declared once more that Israel's 1981 decision to impose its laws, Jurisdiction and administration on the Syrian Golan Heights was null and void and without legal validity,

In October 1986, the Secretary-General noted that there was a wide measure of agreement within the international community that a negotiated settlement of the Middle East conflict included withdrawal of Israeli forces from Arab territories occupied since dune 1967. Until such a settlement was reached, it was of great importance that the parties should avoid any actions that could increase tension.

The Security Council met in December to consider the worsening situation in the occupied territories and adopted resolution 592(1986), by which it strongly deplored the firing by the Israeli army on students and called on Israel to abide by the fourth Geneva Convention and to release any persons detained as a result of events at Bir Zeit University in the occupied West Bank. The Council further called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and avoid violent acts.

Earlier, in January, the Council also considered the situation in the territories, when it met following two incidents at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (see p. 274).

Communications (March-November). The Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, on 24 March 1986,(1) informed the Secretary-General of the Committee's concern over Israel's having again refused travel permits to Palestinians living in the territories to attend a United Nations-sponsored meeting, in this case permits for representatives of the Family Welfare Society in the West Bank and the Palestine Red Crescent Society in the Gaza Strip to attend the preparatory meeting for the International Meeting on the Question of Palestine for Non-Governmental Organizations (Geneva, 6 and 7 March). In the Committee's opinion, those measures were not based on security considerations but rather aimed at barring international exposure of conditions in the territories and at preventing a meaningful dialogue among the various forces devoted to a peaceful solution, including the Palestinians themselves; such discriminatory measures violated the right to freedom of movement and could only make the search for a peaceful solution ever more difficult. On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman appealed to the Secretary-General to do all in his power to ensure that in future Israel would not prevent Palestinians from participating in meetings organized by the Committee.

On 23 June,(2)Jordan transmitted information alleging attacks and violations by Israeli occupying authorities and settlers against the area of Tel Al-Ramida and its mosque in the occupied town of Al-Khalil (Hebron), which, Jordan said, were part of a series of operations directed against Holy Places in the Arab territories, in violation of international law governing foreign occupation and in disregard of human rights, freedom of religion and the principle of the inviolability of places of worship.

By a letter of 24 June,(3)Jordan transmitted information on what it said were Israeli colonization activities in the occupied Arab territories (see p. 329) during May, pointing out that such a policy ran counter to international efforts aimed at bringing about a just and comprehensive Middle East solution.

On 17 September,(4) Iraq transmitted a PLO letter of the previous day, charging Israel with planning to confiscate 4,000 dunums of Palestinian land to add to the Israeli settlement of Ariel which, PLO said, was built on 30,000 dunums confiscated from Palestinian villages. Most of the 4,000 dunums were currently used as olive groves and wheat fields and their confiscation would mean the end of the livelihood of the villages of Salfit and Iskaka. With 3,000 dunums being confiscated from three other villages, land confiscated in the Nablus area during the summer of 1986 would amount to 7,000 dunums. PLO urged the Secretary-General and the Security Council to end Israel's latest offensive against Palestinians.

By a 9 October letter, forwarded by Oman on 10 OCTOBER,(5) PLO alleged that Israeli authorities were covering up the death of a 30-year-old Palestinian, who had been found dead near the Israeli settlement of Ramat Rahel on 15 August; Israel had refused to release the coroner's report and claimed that he had blown himself up while preparing an explosive device. This was the fifth time in the past one and a half years, PLO continued, that Israel had attributed mysterious Palestinian deaths to such a cause and in each case there had not been any clear evidence. PLO called on the Secretary-General to try to end summary executions of Palestinians.

On 12 November,(6) Qatar transmitted seven letters from PLO, charging Israel with increasingly repressive measures against the Palestinians in the territories. On 3 November, PLO called on the Secretary-General to intervene to stop the deportation of the editor-in-chief of the Arab daily Al-Shaab. On 4 November, PL0 charged that, during the previous evening, 50 armed Israeli soldiers had broken into the home of the Vice-President of Bir Zeit University and attacked student residences, arresting scores of Palestinian students whose whereabouts were unknown, at the same time soldiers had attacked student residences of Bethlehem University, arresting 30 students and taking them to Al-Fara'a prison. In addition, the home of the President of the Student Council was broken into those attacks, PLO said, came in the wake of an Israeli military order that Bethlehem University be closed for a week after students had held a memorial service commemorating the 1956 massacre of 47 Palestinian villagers from Kafr Kassem by Israeli soldiers. On the same date, PLO reported knife attacks by Israelis on three Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, which were said to have taken place on 19 and 20 October. On 5 November, PLO alleged that Israel had decided to move a potentially hazardous butane-gas storage plant in West Jerusalem to a Palestinian neighbourhood north of the city because of pressure from Jewish residents; the proposed plant could well be a potential target for Zionist settler terrorists, PLO said. On the same date, PLO charged that, on 25 October, 30 Israeli settlers had stormed the yard of a Palestinian high school in Jerusalem's Old City, claiming that Palestinian students had thrown stones at them. Also on 5 November, PLO charged Israel with harassing a Palestinian from the Ramallah area who refused to have his land and home illegally confiscated. Similar harassment of a 70-year-old resident of the village of Sharafat whose home was demolished by Israeli authorities was reported in a letter dated 6 November.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. By a 20 February resolution, adopted by a roll-call vote of 29 to 7, with 6 abstentions,(7) the Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed that occupation itself constituted a fundamental violation of the rights of the population of the occupied territories and denounced Israel's continued refusal to allow the Committee on Israeli practices access. It reiterated that Committee's deep concern that Israel's policy was based on the so-called "Homeland" doctrine which envisaged a monoreligious (Jewish) State that included territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, and the Committee's affirmation that that policy not only denied the population their right to self-determination but was also a source of continuing and systematic human rights violations.

The Commission reaffirmed that Israel's continuous breaches of the fourth Geneva Convention and of the Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions were war crimes and an affront to humanity. It rejected and reiterated its condemnation of Israel's decision to annex Jerusalem and to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the territories, including Jerusalem, and considered all those measures and their consequences null and void. It condemned Israel's attempts to subject the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Israeli laws, as well as all terrorist actions against the Palestinian inhabitants of the territories by Jewish gangs and other racist Zionists. It condemned Israeli policies and practices, administrative and legislative measures to promote and expand the establishment of settler colonies in the territories, and a number of other specific practices.

The Commission called on Israel to return immediately the displaced Arab inhabitants to their property in Palestine and other occupied territories, and the municipal chiefs to their municipalities so that they could resume the functions for which they had been elected. It called on Israel to release all Arabs detained as a result of their struggle for self-determination and, pending release, to accord them protection as prisoners of war, demanding that it cease all acts of ill-treatment of Arab detainees.

The Commission urged Israel to refrain from policies in the territories that violated human rights and reiterated its call to States and international bodies not to recognize the changes carried out by Israel in the territories, including Jerusalem, and to avoid any action aiding Israel in its annexation and colonization. The Commission requested the Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, to recommend to the Security Council the adoption of measures against Israel under Chapter VII of the Charter for its persistent human rights violations. The Secretary-General was requested to give the Commission's resolution the widest possible publicity.

By another resolution of the same date, the Commission reaffirmed the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories (see p. 326). Also on 20 February, the Commission adopted a resolution on human rights in occupied Syrian territory (see p. 335).

In a 10 March resolution dealing with various aspects of the Palestine question (see p. 270), the Commission condemned Israel's continued occupation of the Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, in violation of the United Nations Charter, international law and United Nations resolutions, and demanded Israel's immediate withdrawal, adding that Israeli occupation of the territories constituted the major obstacle hindering the Palestinians' right to self-determination. The Commission condemned Israel's aggression and practices against Palestinians in and outside the territories.

By another resolution, adopted on 11 March by a roll-call vote of 28 to 6, with 5 abstentions,(8) the Commission similarly condemned Israel and its policies which, in the Commission's view, constituted grave violations of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations resolutions, it also condemned Israel for its persistence in colonizing the territories.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its annual report to the General Assembly,(9) adopted on 10 September 1986, the Committee on Israeli practices presented information on Israeli policy in the occupied territories and on aspects of the situation there, including information on annexation and settlements, treatment of civilians and detainees, and measures affecting fundamental freedoms.

To examine information on the situation since its previous report of August 1985,(10) the Committee held three series of meetings: from 2 to 6 December 1985 in New York, to examine communications concerning individual cases of alleged human rights violations and hear testimonies of witnesses who had just returned from the territories where they had looked into cases of expulsion orders against a number of civilians; and from 21 April to 1 May 1986 at Geneva and Amman Jordan, to examine information on further developments and hear testimonies of persons living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Following an exchange of correspondence between the Committee Chairman and the Secretary-General (letters of 27 April and 8 May), a procedure was agreed to permit consultations among the Committee members in order to enable them to consider, complete and approve the report without the formal two-week session originally scheduled for August; accordingly, they met at Geneva from 8 to 10 September when they adopted the report.

The Committee agreed to address itself to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic and PLO, to seek their co-operation. While Israel continued to withhold its co-operation and the Committee was precluded from visiting the occupied territories, the Committee followed the situation there on a day-to-day basis through reports appearing in the Israeli and Palestinian press; in addition, it examined several communications and reports from Governments, organizations and individuals in the territories.

At Amman, the Committee was received by Jordan's Minister of Occupied Territories Affairs and was presented with reports prepared by the Ministry. It also received from PLO a series of reports and statistics.

On 17 June, the Syrian Arab Republic expressed regret that the Committee's meetings were being shortened and that the Committee had not visited the Republic as scheduled, which prevented it from hearing first-hand witnesses from the Golan Heights where Israeli occupation authorities had intensified their repressive practices. On 7 August, the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted a report on Israeli practices against the Syrian population of the Heights, prepared by its Foreign Ministry.

Israel's policy resulted in escalating violence, upon which Israel adopted its so-called iron-fist policy marked by new security arrangements in the territories, which again led to an aggravation of tension between IDF and the population, leading in some instances to complaints and strikes by the latter. Among Israel's repressive measures were various forms of harassment which provoked serious injuries or death to civilians, an extension of the practice of reprisal and collective punishment, and the demolition or sealing off of houses of suspects. Other measures included a further upsurge of house and town arrests, seriously hindering freedom of movement, as well as increases in expulsions and deportations. The deportation procedure implemented by the authorities left no opportunity for the deportees to examine allegations presented against them. Freedom of expression was curtailed by censorship, closure of newspapers and restriction of movement of Palestinian journalists. Freedom of education was restricted through arbitrary dismissal or deportation of school and university teachers, repression campaigns and arrests of teachers and students, as well as closing of schools and universities.

The period covered by the report had been marked by increases in arrests and administrative detention orders (see p. 328). The report also contained information on Israel's policy purporting to return municipalities in the territories to their local leaders (see p. 331).

The overall picture drawn from the information examined by the Committee revealed a further deterioration of the situation as regards the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention, the main international instrument applying to the occupied territories, continued to be disregarded. As annexation continued without respite, repressive measures and harassment imposed an increasingly heavy burden on the population, whereas arbitrary expulsion of Palestinians was swelling the hundreds of thousands still outside the territories who were denied the right to return.

The Committee again stressed the international community's responsibility to reverse that situation and appealed to the parties concerned to prevent further deterioration and to ensure an effective protection of the basic rights of the civilians in the territories.

Reports of the Secretary-General. In an October 1986 report on various aspects of the Middle East situation,(11) the Secretary-General stated that there was continued tension in the Israeli-occupied territories, with frequent violent incidents in varying form and degree. As long as a settlement was not reached, the situation would remain unstable and, if the deadlock in the peace process was allowed to persist, there was a grave danger that major hostilities would break out again.

There was a wide measure of agreement within the international community that a comprehensive Middle East settlement should include Israeli withdrawal from the territories, the Secretary-General noted; in the mean time, it was of great importance that the parties should avoid any actions that could increase tension. The Secretary-General expressed particular concern about the consequences that would flow from the establishment by Israel of additional settlements in the territories which, more than any other single factor contributed to doubts in the minds of many about its readiness to negotiate a peace settlement that would require its withdrawal. At the same time the Secretary-General added, peace efforts would be enhanced if there was a lessening of violent incidents, which all too frequently involved innocent lives and of which there had been some particularly terrible examples during the period under review.

In another October report,(12) submitted in response to a 1985 General Assembly resolution,(13) the Secretary-General stated that he had continued to provide the Committee on Israeli practices with facilities it required and that an additional staff member and temporary assistance staff had been made available to it. To ensure the widest circulation of the Committee's 1985 report, 10 press releases had been issued while it was being considered by the Assembly. The Committee's work had been given radio news coverage in a variety of languages, which had had to be reduced, however, owing to the suspension of short-wave broadcasts resulting from the United Nations financial emergency; references to its work were also contained in the tenth edition of Everyone's United Nations, published in June 1986, and in the Yearbook of the United Nations. In connection with the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on 29 November, issues covered in the Committee's report were widely disseminated through a DPI pamphlet, a Committee representative participated in a commemorative meeting organized by the Information Service at Geneva, the Service provided coverage of the Committee's work, and United Nations information centres highlighted the Palestine question in their newsletters, often specifying the Committee's activities.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted, by recorded vote, resolution 41/63 D on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Strongly condemns the following Israeli policies and practices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h) Pillaging of archaeological and cultural property;

(i) Destruction and demolition of Arab houses;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. Requests the Secretary-General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

23. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its forty-second 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 41/63 D
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 114-2-36 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/750) by recorded vote (93-2-25) 20 November (meeting 32); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar for the Arab Group, Senegal (A/SPC/41/L.23); agenda item 71.

Financial implications. 5th Committee, A/41/920: S-G, AC.5/41/55, A/SPC/41/L.27.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: 5th Committee 38; SPC 27-32, plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Zaire.

Paragraph 6 was adopted by a separate recorded vote both in plenary (86 to 22, with 40 abstentions) and in Committee (73 to 18, with 25 abstentions). The Committee also approved paragraph 22 by a recorded vote of 117 to 2.

Israel regarded the text as the summum attainable in cynicism and hypocrisy, pointing out that the Arabs in the territories were becoming one of the most advanced ethnic groups in the Middle East with high living standards attained with Israeli help; while life in the territories was far from ideal, problems arising from the conflict should not be exaggerated. Even in the most tense security situations, Israel constantly monitored itself and remedied whatever infringements it found. Speaking on all seven texts adopted under the agenda item, Israel rejected them as yet another political exercise in propaganda and warmongering, carried out in disregard of the facts, justice and common sense. Israel could not receive any committee whose mandate was based on resolutions which ultimately called for the elimination of Israel.

The United States, believing that the text was one-sided and polemical and could inflame an already embittered situation, particularly regretted charges such as the ill-treatment of children and minors under detention and objected to the expense the Special Committee imposed on the United Nations budget.

Sweden, although supporting most of the substantive provisions, in particular the condemnation of the various Israeli policies and practices in paragraphs 8 and 9, was not convinced that all their formulations were fully justified by proven facts; as the text also went beyond the Assembly's competence, it was unable to support it. Austria, despite supporting paragraph 22, abstained on the text as a whole because of certain formulations.

Peru had reservations about paragraph 9 (b). Speaking on all seven texts adopted under the agenda item, Argentina expressed reser vations to certain formulations that, it felt, were in no relation to the substance of those texts and might lead to misinterpretations.

Communication (4 December). The United Arab Emirates forwarded a 4 December letter to the President of the Security Council,(14) in which PLO charged that Israel had fired on students from Bir Zeit University, killing three and wounding one critically; 15 others had been transferred to hospitals where several were kidnapped by Israeli troops and taken to unknown destinations. Ramallah and Bir Zeit had been declared military zones, out of bounds to the press, and 500 Israeli troops were roaming the streets; at Bir Zeit University, 200 students remained under siege by Israeli troops. In view of those measures, PLO sought immediate action.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Security Council held one meeting on 5 December and three more on 8 December to consider the situation in the occupied territories, as requested on 4 December by Zimbabwe on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.(15) The Council invited Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait Morocco, the Syrian Arab Republic and Zimbabwe, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. Also invited to participate, under rule 39 f/ of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, were the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights and the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, the latter at the request of the United Arab Emirates.(16)

f/ See footnote a on p. 275.


Also at the request of the United Arab Emirates,(17) the Council decided, by 10 votes to 1 (United States), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, United Kingdom), that an invitation to participate be accorded to a representative of PLO. The invitation, though not made pursuant to rule 37 g/ or rule 39 of the rules of procedure, conferred on PLO the same rights as those conferred on Member States when invited pursuant to rule 37.

g/ See footnote b on p. 275.


Before the vote, the United States reiterated its opposition to the granting of hearings to persons speaking on behalf of non-governmental entities, except on the basis of rule 39 (see p. 275).

On 8 December the Council adopted resolution 592 (1986).

The Security Council,

Having considered the letter dated 4 December 1986 from the permanent Representative of Zimbabwe to the United Nations, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Coordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, contained in document S/18501,

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

Seriously concerned about the situation in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem,

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

2. Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenceless students;

3. Calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War;

4. Further calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University in violation of the above-mentioned Geneva Convention;

5. Also calls on all concerned parties to exercise maximum restraint, to avoid violent acts and to contribute towards the establishment of peace;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the implementation of the present resolution not later than 20 December 1986.

Security Council resolution 592(1986)
8 December 1986 Meeting 2727 14-0-1
5-nation draft (S/18506/Rev.1).

Sponsors: Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates.

Meeting numbers. SC 2724-2727.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: Australia, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Denmark, France, Ghana, Madagascar, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Against: None.

Abstaining: United States.

Speaking on behalf of the non-aligned countries, Zimbabwe said that at a time when maximum restraint and care were demanded - to avoid unnecessary spread of violence and death - the Israeli response had been to provoke more violence and inflict more death on Palestinians. The students had been demonstrating against occupation and oppressive Israeli practice, Jordan stated; Israel was attempting to disrupt and undermine academic life at Bir Zeit University because it considered education to be one element preserving the national identity of the Arabs under occupation. Continued Israeli occupation and its accompanying policies were the reasons for the increased violence and tension.

According to PLO, the Israeli army had erected some checkpoints outside the Bir Zeit University campus and a faculty member had been stopped for almost 90 minutes; he had insisted on his right to enter the campus. Some of his students had come to inquire about the situation. An argument had ensued which resulted in the death of two people and the wounding of a third who was still in very critical condition. The faculty member had been arrested and was being held at an unknown destination; his safety and return should also be one of the Council's responsibilities. Israeli troops had broken into the hospitals and arrested students wounded in the incident. Israel planned both to evacuate and to eliminate the Arab population of Palestine.

On 4 December, several hundred students rioted outside the old campus of Bir Zeit University, Israel said. Simultaneously, other students blocked off all traffic on several roads, including the central artery leading from the Judaean mountains to the coastal plain. There were other orchestrated disruptions in the Ramallah area, timed to begin at the same moment. A small IDF contingent, which rushed to the scene, was greatly outnumbered by hundreds of rioters who attacked it with rocks, metal rods and flying objects. IDF tried without success to disperse the mob with tear-gas shots in the air and rubber bullets. The soldiers, in danger of being killed, directed fire at the rioters; regrettably, several of them were injured, two fatally. The rioters attempted to prevent ambulances and medical aid rushed in by the authorities from reaching the wounded, who were evacuated subsequently to the Ramallah hospital. Academic freedom, Israel stressed, was not a licence to riot and did not include the disruption of public order, the threats that were issued or the violence. Over the years, PLO had mounted an all-out effort to subvert the academic purpose of the universities and to turn them into centres of incitement, extremism and terror. Israel had acted at Bir Zeit to pacify a situation deliberately provoked by PLO. The 4 December incident was part of a larger effort by PLO - which had been rapidly losing ground everywhere - to restore its position; the well-orchestrated incitement had been intended to re-establish Fatah's dominance over its rival factions within PLO.

Israel's action must be condemned in the strongest possible terms and its arrogance curbed by measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, Zimbabwe said.

China believed that the Council should take urgent measures to check Israel's atrocities and demand that Israel immediately implement the, fourth Geneva Convention. In the opinion of the USSR, Israel's actions called for firm condemnation and for adoption of measures necessary to prevent their recurrence.

Ghana called for a resolution which would condemn the shooting, request the release of detainees, and call for respect by Israel of the fourth Geneva Convention, for its withdrawal from the territories and for respect of the international character of Jerusalem. In Egypt's view, the Council must reaffirm Israel's responsibility to ensure the protection of the inhabitants and their interests. Speaking for the Arab Group, Kuwait expected the Council to discharge its duties in accordance with the Charter; the time had come for the international community to put an end to Israel's expansionist policies.

The tragic developments of 4 December and the acts of violence drew attention to the urgent need to bring about a comprehensive, lasting and just Middle East settlement, said France, expressing a view shared by many speakers during the debate Among them, Bulgaria said the very dangerous turn of events required the Organization to take urgent and effective measures to bring about a Middle East peace. Several countries, among them Bulgaria and the USSR, believed that an international conference was the best or only means to arrive at a comprehensive settlement. The Council could help calm the situation by reaching agreement on the convening of an international peace conference, Jordan stated; until that was achieved the Council must deal with Israel's practices.

The only ones to benefit from a worsening of the current tense atmosphere on the West Bank would be extremists on both sides, the United Kingdom believed; it was incumbent on Israel to ensure that its administration was indeed as benign as it claimed.

As long as Israel did not withdraw from the territories, similar events would occur, the Syrian Arab Republic warned. The recent events contributed to an escalation of violence which was part of Israel's plan to Judaize the territories, Morocco said; more than ever, it was necessary for the international community to halt that escalation. Similarly, the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States believed that the various incidents were a pattern flowing from a policy designed to establish the ultimate Israel, which incorporated the occupied territories.

Communications (8-16 December). Meeting urgently to consider developments in the territories and the situation at the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon (see p. 290), the non-aligned countries issued a communiqué on 8 December(18) in which they condemned Israel for its murder of defenceless students and its brutality against the population of Ramallah, Bir Zeit and other areas, and reiterated their call for United Nations action, including sanctions against Israel, so as to end its occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories.

The Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, in a statement made on 7 December at Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, and transmitted by Morocco the following day,(19) strongly protested the shooting and wounding of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University and expressed support for the call of the non-aligned and other countries for urgent Security Council action to end the repression.

The Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, in a 16 December letter,(20) reported further incidents in the territories from 8 to 14 December, including shooting at Palestinian students, arrests of demonstrators, closing of the old campus of Bir Zeit University, curfews and even the storming of hospitals to arrest wounded Palestinians since 5 December, Israeli forces were said to have arrested 580 Palestinians. In the light of those grave developments, the Chairman appealed to the Secretary-General to do all in his power to ensure that Israel implemented the Council's 8 December resolution.

Report of the Secretary-General. As requested by the Council, the Secretary-General reported on 20 December on the implementation of its resolution,(21) which had been cabled to Israel immediately after adoption.

On 18 December, Israel orally informed him that it regarded the resolution as negative and one-sided, and that it considered it absurd that PLO, which had provoked the disturbances, should have caused the matter to be brought before the Council. With reference to paragraph 3, Israel stated that its continuing policy was to implement all the humanitarian principles embodied in the 1949 Geneva Conventions on a de facto basis, but it did not consider those Conventions legally applicable to the territories in question. With regard to paragraph 4, Israel stated that all those who had been arrested would be brought to trial under due process of law; figures for the numbers arrested or still in detention were not available.

Israel further informed the Secretary-General that in the week beginning 8 December further disturbances had taken place in "Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district" resulting from "PLO elements" trying to disrupt normal civil life. IDF had exercised restraint, but had been obliged to intervene, especially to keep communications open. In some cases, rubber bullets had been used and only in the most severe cases when IDF lives had been at risk had live bullets been fired. All suspected law-breakers had been arrested; some had since been freed, others had been tried and still others were under investigation The main trouble centres had been the universities where "PLO elements" had been particularly active; those of Bir Zeit and An Najah had been closed for one week. "Masked terrorists" had tried to disrupt normal life by forcing shopowners to close their shops and IDF had intervened to open them at the owners' request, when "terror elements" had tried to enter Gaza schools, IDF had stopped them at the parents' request. An Israeli civilian had been stabbed in Jerusalem on 11 December, the mayor of Qabatiyeh on 14 December and an Israeli soldier in Ramallah on 18 December; in the last case, the assailants had been arrested. Investigations into other casualties caused by the disturbances were continuing. In the week starting 15 December, calm had been restored as a result of co-operation between the Israeli authorities and the local population.

The Secretary-General had received letters from other concerned parties.

On 17 December, Jordan conveyed its opinion of the resolution, saying that it approved the preambular part and paragraphs 1 to 4 and 6. Concerning paragraph 5, it felt that by calling on all parties to exercise restraint, no distinction was made between victim and aggressor or between legitimate resistance and repressive acts of violence by the occupation authorities; neither was there distinction between occupation authorities, who were responsible for protecting the civilian population under the fourth Geneva Convention, and the population subjected to attacks by Israeli religious fanatics, armed residents of Israeli settlements and Israeli military forces. Before and after the 5 December Council meeting, Israeli residents of West Jerusalem had attacked individuals and the property of Arab residents in occupied Arab Jerusalem without any serious or decisive steps being taken by Israel to halt those attacks which, as a result, became increasingly widespread and serious, putting additional pressure on the Arab population. The events at Jerusalem Nablus, Bir Zeit, Gaza, Khan Yunis, the refugee camps and other parts of the territories demonstrated unequivocally the use of live ammunition by the occupation authorities against defenceless Arab citizens and the arbitrary behaviour of the authorities in their intention to terrorize and subjugate the population.

The disavowal by the authorities of any responsibility for protecting the population and their property should not obscure the fact that occupation itself and the population's refusal to accept it were the heart of the problem. In view of that, Jordan was of the opinion that the Council should convene an international peace conference on the Middle East with a view to achieving a just and durable settlement through implementation of the Council's resolutions and realization of the Palestinians' legitimate rights.

In two letters of 11 December, PLO charged Israel with a number of violations of the resolution and of the Convention, saying that Israel had intensified its repression, killing four Palestinians, wounding scores of others and arresting a great number. PLO called on the Secretary-General and the Council to pressure Israel to ensure its respect for the Convention and to end its repressive measures.

Fourth Geneva Convention

The General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed again in 1986 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 Israeli-occupied territories. The Convention, which remained the main international instrument in humanitarian law that applied to the occupied territories, continued to be disregarded, the Committee on Israeli practices concluded in its annual report.(9) Israel's policy of annexation and establishment of settlements was a flagrant violation of its obligations under the Convention. The Committee's report also contained information from former prisoners who alleged that the treatment of detainees continued to contradict the Convention.

During the year, communications were sent to the Secretary-General or the President of the Security Council charging Israel with infringing various aspects of the Convention.

Communications. In a 5 February letter(22) charging Israel with deporting three Palestinians from the territories to Israel (see p. 330), the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights said the three Palestinians could not expect to get a fair trial, as the Israeli High Court had decided to disallow defence arguments based on the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories.

Charges of Israeli practices violating the Convention were, among others, made by PLO in a 3 November letter,(6) according to which the editor-in-chief of the Arabic daily Al-Shaab had been arrested and was to be deported. A number of incidents which had occurred in the territories during December - including the shooting at Palestinian demonstrators, the closing of the old campus of Bir Zeit University and schools, and arrests of hospitalized Palestinians - were cited by the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights on 16 December(20) as violations of the Convention.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. By a resolution adopted on 20 February 1986 by a roll-call vote of 32 to 1, with 9 abstentions,(25) the Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed that the fundamental human rights as established by international law and set forth in international instruments remained applicable in cases of armed conflict, and that the fourth Geneva Convention applied to all the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. It condemned Israel's failure to acknowledge that applicability and expressed concern at the consequences, and called on Israel to abide by the United Nations Charter and the Convention. Other provisions of the resolution dealt with Palestinian detainees and prisoners (see p. 327).

In another resolution of the same date,(7) the Commission reaffirmed that Israel's continuous grave breaches of the Convention and the 1977 Additional Protocols(24) were war crimes and an affront to humanity. It reiterated its call to States, particularly those party to the Convention, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the territories, including Jerusalem.

In a third resolution,(25) the Commission deplored Israeli practices in the occupied Golan Heights (see p. 335), stating that they also violated the Convention.

Report of the Secretary-General. In October 1986,(26) the Secretary-General informed the Assembly that no reply had been received from Israel in response to his February request that Israel inform him of steps taken or envisaged to implement the 1985 resolution in which the Assembly strongly demanded that Israel acknowledge and comply with the fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied territories.(27)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 41/63 B on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

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

Recalling also its resolutions 3092 A (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973,3240 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, 3525 B (XXX) of 15 December 1975, 31/106 B of 16 December 1976, 32/91 A of 13 December 1977,331113 A of 18 December 1978, 34/90 B of 12 December 1979, 35/122 A of 11 December 1980, 36/147 A of 16 December 1981, 37/88 A of 10 December 1982, 38/79 B of 15 December 1983, 39/95 B of 14 December 1984 and 40/161 B of 16 December 1985,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 7 October 1986,

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

Bearing in mind the provisions of the Geneva Convention,

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

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

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

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

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

General Assembly resolution 41/63 B
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 145-1-6 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/750) by recorded vote (113-1-5), 20 November (meeting 32); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar for the Arab Group, Senegal (A/SPC/41/L.21) agenda item 71.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 27-32; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, United States.

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


Before Voting on the text as a whole, both the Assembly and the Committee adopted paragraph 1 by separate recorded votes, of 148 to 1, with 1 abstention, and 117 to 1, respectively.

The United States said it firmly supported application of the Convention to the occupied territories and had therefore requested the vote on paragraph 1; it abstained, however, on the text as a whole because it retarded a solution of the very problems it claimed to address. Moreover, it regarded the phrase "Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem" as being merely demographically and geographically descriptive but not indicative of sovereignty.

Although it refused to recognize non-existent soovereignties, Israel said, it would continue to apply all the humanitarian provisions of the Convention, as well as other relevant aspects of humanitarian laws and norms, on a de facto basis.

Palestinian detainees

The General Assembly in 1986 again demanded that Israel release immediately all Palestinians detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle for self-determination. A similar request was made by the Commission on Human Rights.

Communication. Oman, as Chairman of the Arab Group, transmitted a 6 October letter from PLO,(28) charging Israel with subjecting Palestinian political prisoners to inhuman practices and unhealthy conditions. At the beginning of the month, PLO said, Palestinian political prisoners in Kfar Yona prison (Beit Lydd) had gone on a hunger-strike in protest against those practices and conditions, which included daily beatings, physical and verbal abuse, and the spraying of cells with tear-gas. The intentional neglect of prison conditions had caused the spread of various contagious skin diseases which posed a serious health hazard but Israel refused to respond to requests for improved conditions and medical treatment. Other requests from detainees included a decrease in cell occupancy, the removal of sheet iron from doors and windows to allow better air circulation, the removal of metal nets in visiting areas and access to newspapers and books. To protest those conditions, the prisoners had gone on a hunger-strike which in Hebron had started on 26 September in Ramallah on 20 September and in Nablus on 11 September.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. In its 20 February resolution,(23) by which it reaffirmed the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories, the Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned Israel for its ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian detainees and prisoners and urged it to grant prisoner-of-war status to all captured Palestinian fighters. It requested Israel to release all Arabs detained as a result of their struggle for self-determination and to accord them the protection envisaged in the international instruments concerning the treatment of prisoners of war, and demanded that it cease torture and ill-treatment of Arab detainees and prisoners. The Commission strongly condemned Israel for deporting liberated Palestinian prisoners in contravention of the agreement for the exchange of prisoners, and called on it to refrain from doing so and to enable those who had been deported to return to their homeland and property. It urged Israel to co-operate with ICRC and allow it to visit Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.

In a resolution of 11 March,(8) the Commission again condemned Israel for its detention of Palestinians in the territories.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its annual report to the General Assembly(9) the Committee on Israeli practices considered information concerning arrests, trials and sentences. It noted that, during the period covered by its report, there had been a marked increase in arrests and administrative detention orders. Many Palestinian civilians, including minors, had been the subject of sentences passed by military courts on security charges; in contrast, members of the Jewish underground and other Israelis charged with murder or mistreatment of Arab civilians had been treated with relative leniency. The report also contained information given to it by former prisoners who alleged that the treatment of detainees continued to contradict the Geneva Convention. Particularly preoccupying was the problem of detained minors submitted to humiliating practices in detention camps; other problems included overcrowding of cells, physical and psychological mistreatment and lack of adequate health services. Such bad conditions, the Committee stated, constantly gave rise to hunger-strikes.

Report of the Secretary-General. In July 1986,(29) the Secretary-General reported on implementation of the 1985 resolution by which the General Assembly had demanded the release of Ziyad Abu Eain and other Palestinians.(30) In reply to his February 1986 request that Israel inform him of steps taken or envisaged to implement the resolution, Israel stated on 2 July that its position had been set out during the debate on it.(31) Paragraph 1 in which the Assembly called for a release of all Arabs detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle for self-determination and liberation of their territories, was illogical and contradicted the rule of law, it would have Israel release murderers such as Samir Candor, a Palestinian terrorist who in 1979 had burst into an apartment at Nahariya and murdered a five-year-old girl by smashing her head with a rock. Rejecting that paragraph, Israel said all people imprisoned by it underwent a fair trial and had been proved to be criminals through a court of law. Equating them with those seeking political redress not only emphasized the extent to which the Assembly had fallen victim to the contorted language of extremists, but also undermined the rule of law and justice.

With regard to Ziyad Abu Eain, Israel said he was a convicted murderer who had planted a bomb in the town square of Tiberias which killed two children and wounded many others. On 20 May 1985, Abu Eain had been released from jail as a result of a prisoner exchange; instead of pursuing a peaceful way of life, however, he almost immediately engaged in preparing new criminal acts and was arrested and indicted. On 24 July 1986 (32) Israel reported that on 21 July he had been found guilty of the following: organization of and participation in subversive activities organization of hostile propaganda and incitement to violence; conspiracy with the intent to commit a felony (hijacking of a bus); and attempts to solicit and engage others in criminal acts. Abu Eain's guilt had been established in due process of law Israel continued and he was sentenced to 33 months in jail with an additional 21-month conditional sentence. Therefore, Israel rejected the 1985 Assembly resolution and continued to believe that the item should be dropped from the Assembly's agenda.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 41/63 A on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 38/79 A of 15 December 1983, 39/95 A of 14 December 1984 and 40/161 A of 16 December 1985,

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

Taking note also of the report of the Secretary-General of 21 July 1986,

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

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

3. Deplores the Israeli subsequent arbitrary detention or imprisonment of hundreds of Palestinians;

4. Demands that the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, rescind its action against the detainees and imprisoned Palestinians and release them immediately;

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

General Assembly resolution 41/63 A
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 108-2-34 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/750) by recorded vote (83-2-29), 20 November (meeting 32); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar for the Arab Group, Senegal (A/SPC/41/L.20) agenda item 71.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 27-32; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peopie's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Israel remarked that the text would give terrorists even more rights than were provided for in the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War by simply calling for their automatic release, regardless of charges against them. Year after year the sponsors had been endeavouring to bring the international community to condone implicitly blind terrorism by upgrading the status of terrorists from common criminals to that of regular combatants and by granting them more rights than uniformed military personnel; such measures were intended to support terrorism.

Although opposing the practice of administrative detention, the United States voted against the text, saying it gave the unacceptable appearance of condoning acts of terrorism.

Sweden was unable to support the text because of what it considered the sweeping formulation in paragraph 1, which it felt left the field open for potentially dubious interpretations. Austria also had reservations regarding that paragraph's wording.

Related resolution: GA 41/69 I.

Israeli settlements

Israel's practice of establishing or expanding settlements in the occupied territories was again the subject of a 1986 resolution, in which the General Assembly repeated its demand that Israel desist from measures designed to change the status and composition of the territories.

Communications. In several letters during 1986, Jordan informed the Secretary-General of Israel; settlement activity in the occupied territories. On 11 February,(33) it detailed such activity during the final four months of 1985, stressing the danger of the continuation of such a policy for peace and security and for regional peace prospects. On 24 June,(3) the Secretary-General's attention was drawn to Israeli practices during May, which included the expulsion of Arab inhabitants and confiscation of their lands; that policy, Jordan added, ran counter to international peace efforts. Similar activities during July, August and September were reported in letters of 17 September(34) and 15 October.(35)

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. In a 20 February resolution on human rights in the territories,(7) the Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned Israel's measures to promote and expand the establishment of settler colonies there. In a resolution of 11 March,(8) it condemned Israel for persisting in its colonization of the territories.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its October 1986 report to the General Assembly,(9) the Committee on Israeli practices concluded that Israel's policy continued to be based on the principle that the territories occupied in 1967 were part of the State of Israel; this was at the source of Israel's annexation and settlements policy which constituted a flagrant violation of Israel's international obligations. Israel had pursued its annexation policy, continuing with the same determination as in previous years to establish and extend its settlements in the territories. The implementation of the so-called Major Jerusalem Project, aiming at annexation and Judaization of an area representing 8 per cent of the occupied West Bank, the allocation by the Knesset of substantial sums for the expansion of settlements, the inauguration of new ones, and the illegal expropriation and seizure of Arab land which had given rise in the West Bank to a vast network of fraudulent land deals all illustrated the importance Israel attached to that policy, the Committee added. The Committee's report also contained information on settlers' activities affecting the civilian population.

Reports of the Secretary-General. In October 1986,(36) the Secretary-General reported that no reply had been received from Israel with regard to his February request that it inform him of steps taken or envisaged to implement the General Assembly's 1985 demand that it desist from taking any action which would result in changing the status or composition of the territories.(37)

Also in October,(11) the Secretary-General expressed particular concern about the consequences that would flow from the establishment by Israel of additional settlements which, he believed, contributed to doubts in the minds of many about Israel's readiness to negotiate a peace settlement that would require its withdrawal from the territories.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 41/63 C on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

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

Recalling also its resolutions 32/5 of 28 October 1977, 33/113 B of 18 December 1978, 34/90 C of 12 December 1979, 35/122 B of 11 December 1980, 36/147 B of 16 December 1981, 37/88 B of 10 December 1982, 38/79 C of 15 December 1983, 39/95 C of 14 December 1984 and 40/161 C of 16 December 1985,

Expressing grave anxiety and concern at the present serious situation in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, as a result of the continued Israeli occupation and the measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of those territories,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 7 October 1986,

Confirming that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to all Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that all such measures and actions taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, are in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and constitute a serious obstacle to the efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and therefore have no legal validity,

2. Strongly deplores the persistence of Israel in carrying out such measures, in particular the establishment of settlements in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem;

3. Demands that Israel comply strictly with its international obligations in accordance with the principles of international law and the provisions of the Geneva Convention;

4. Demands once more thatIsrael, 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 GenevaConvention to respect and to exert all efforts in order to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

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

General Assembly resolution 41/63 C
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 145-1-5 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/750) by recorded vote (115-1-3), 20 November (meeting 32); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar for the Arab Group, Senegal (A/SPC/41/L.22); agenda item 71.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 27-32; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Saint Lucia, United States.

Israel did not consider the establishment of Jewish villages to be an impediment to peace, but on the contrary as conducive to mutually beneficial coexistence between Arabs and Jews. Although the 1986, United States did not favour increased Israeli settlements in the territories, it said it abstained because the text diverted efforts into unproductive legal debate and away from the real task of promoting peace through negotiations.


Expulsion of Palestinians

In 1986, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights again called on Israel to allow Palestinian officials to return, in particular the Mayor of Halhul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron, so that they could resume their functions. Israel had deported the Judge and the Mayors of Halhul and Hebron, the latter having since died, in 1980 on the ground that they had and systematically engaged in inciting the local Arab population to acts of violence and subversion, abusing their public offices.

Communications. On 6 February 1986,(39) the United Arab Emirates transmitted a letter of 4 February from PrO, bringing to the Security Council President's attention the expulsion by Israel of three Palestinian detainees, thereby contravening the fourth Geneva Convention which did not allow deportations from occupied territory.

The Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, in a 5 February letter,(22) conveyed further information concerning the deportation orders against the three Palestinians - Ali Abu Hilal, member of the Executive Committee of the General Confederation of Palestinian Trade Unions; Azmi Al-Shuaibi, elected member of the El-Bireh Municipal Council (dissolved by the Israeli occupation authorities in 1982); and Hassan Abdul Jawad Farrajeh, journalist and head of the Dheisheh refugee camp youth centre (closed by Israeli in 1983). The three had withdrawn their High Court appeals against their deportation orders, the letter stated, as they felt they could not expect a fair trial in Israel; under Israeli law, defence lawyers were not allowed to view evidence against their clients which judges believed would harm Israeli intelligence networks in the territories. Moreover, the High Court had decided to disallow defence arguments that were based on the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention in the territories. According to The Jerusalem Post of 26 January, the military government had served deportation orders on four other West Bank Palestinians; if implemented, the number of Palestinians expelled from the territories since the summer of 1985 would amount to 29. Reiterating its deep concern at those measures, the Committee said they only heightened tension and presented a serious obstacle to international action for a just and lasting Middle East solution.

Report of the Secretary-General. In July 1986,(40) the Secretary-General reported on implementation of a 1985 General Assembly resolution(41) demanding that Israel rescind the expulsion of the Mayor of Halhul, the Sharia Judge of Hebron and other Palestinian leaders. In February 1986, he said, he had requested Israel to inform him of any steps it had taken or envisaged to implement that resolution and, on 2 July, Israel had reiterated its previous position.(42) It charged that Muhammed Milhem, one of the expelled Mayors, currently residing in Jordan, continued to supply arms and explosives to PLO terrorists; in March 1985, he had taken part in planning attacks in the Jenin area of Samaria and, in April of that year, a special PLO terrorist unit had been sent from Yemen to the Wahdat refugee camp at Amman and placed at Milhem's disposal. A few days later, after a meeting of the PLO military council in Tunisia, Milhem and two notorious PLO terrorists, Abu Tayeb and Abu Muatassem, had met at Amman to plan an attack in Tel Aviv. The 1985 resolution, Israel added, displayed a biased and distorted picture of the events surrounding the expulsions; in the light of the described developments, it proved to be even more preposterous in its assertions and, as it was based on erroneous assumptions, it should be dropped from the Assembly's agenda.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. During its April/May visit to Amman, the Committee on Israeli practices was presented with a memorandum prepared by the Jordanian Ministry of Occupied Territories Affairs, concerning the expulsion and deportation of civilians from the territories. The arbitrary nature of the expulsion measures was emphasized, as well as the off-hand and brutal manner in which the expulsion procedure was applied to the persons concerned. The memorandum noted that 2,061 persons had been expelled by the Israeli authorities between 1967 and February 1986, 34 of them between 1985 and February 1986.

The Committee's 1986 report(9) also contained information on Israel's policy purporting to return municipalities of the territories to their local leaders; such a policy, the Committee felt, had to be viewed in the general context of the historical evolution of those municipalities, whose duly elected councils had in most cases been dissolved and replaced by members of the Israeli civilian administration. Israel's appeal for the appointment of new Arab mayors, received with suspicion by the civilian population as to the real motives behind it, and followed by the killing on 2 March of the appointed Mayor of Nablus, had not resulted in any significant move.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 41/63 E on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 468(1980) of 8 May 1980, 469(1980) of 20 May 1980 and 484(1980) of 19 December 1980,

Recalling also its resolutions 36/147 D of 16 December 1981, 37/88 D of 10 December 1982, 38/79 E of 15 December 1983, 39/95 E of 14 December 1984 and 40/161 E of 16 December 1985,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 16 July 1986,

Deeply concerned at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayor of Halhul, the Mayor of Hebron who has since died, the Sharia Judge of Hebron and, in 1985 and 1986, other Palestinians,

Alarmed by the expulsion of many Palestinian leaders from the occupied Palestinian territories by the Israeli military occupation authorities in 1985 and 1986,

Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in particular article 1 and the first paragraph of article 49, which read as follows:
"Article 1

"The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."
"Article 49

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive . . .",

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

1. Strongly condemns Israel, the occupying Power, for its persistent refusal to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

2. Demands that the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayor of Halhul, the Sharia Judge of Hebron and, in 1985 and 1986, other Palestinian leaders and that it facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinians so that they can, inter alia, resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed;

3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease forthwith the expulsion of Palestinians and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;

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

General Assembly resolution 41/63 E
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 131-1-21 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/750) by recorded vote (105-1-15), 20 November (meeting 32); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar for the Arab Group, Senegal (A/SPC/41/L.24), agenda item 71.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session; SPC 27-32; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland, United Kingdom, United States.

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


Recorded votes were taken on paragraph 1 in the Assembly and the Committee, resulting in its adoption by 115 votes to 2, with 34 abstentions, and 94 votes to 2, with 22 abstentions, respectively.

Israel stated that only a few individuals were affected by expulsions which were due to security imperatives, and legal processes were duly respected; the authority for expulsion orders derived from article 112 of the 1945 Defence (Emergency) Regulations in force under the British and Jordanian administrations. The Israeli High Court had ruled that expulsion orders issued to protect public order had nothing to do with deportations for forced labour and extermination which had occurred during the Second World War and which had motivated the inclusion of article 49 in the Convention, Israel added.

Although it believed that the deportations were contrary to the Convention and that the deportees should be allowed to return, the United States abstained on the text, saying it presented an unbalanced picture by not mentioning factors that contributed to such deportations.

Israeli measures against
educational institutions

Both the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights condemned what they called systematic Israeli repression against Palestinian educational and cultural institutions in the occupied territories, which included the closing of universities and restrictions on academic activities. The Assembly demanded that Israel rescind such actions. The shooting of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank on 4 December when three students were killed, led to the convening of the Security Council (see p. 323)

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. In a 20 February resolution on human rights violations in the territories,(7) the Commission on Human Rights condemned what it called systematic Israeli repression of Palestinian cultural and educational institutions, closing them or restricting and impeding their academic activities by subjecting the selection of courses, textbooks and educational programmes, the admission of students and the appointment of faculty members to the control of the military occupation authorities and by expelling numerous faculty members of several universities for refusing to sign statements containing political positions, in defiance of their right to academic freedom.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. In its annual report,(9) the Committee on Israeli practices noted that freedom of education had been restricted in many ways. The information it had received denoted various violations of that freedom, such as the arbitrary dismissal or deportation of school and university teachers, repression campaigns and arrests of teachers and students and the closing down of schools and universities. Further documentation stressed the deterioration of the educational system in the territories due to various factors, such as modification of textbooks and programmes, inadequacy of school material and buildings, overcrowding of classes and lack of teachers.

Report of the Secretary-General. In July 1986,(43) the Secretary-General submitted information concerning implementation of the Assembly's demand made in a 1985 resolution(44) that Israel rescind all actions against educational institutions in the territories, ensure their freedom and refrain from hindering their operations. By a 2 July 1986 reply to the Secretary-General's February request for such information, Israel said it rejected the accusations in the resolution as baseless and contradicting the truth; since 1967, the school system in the territories had experienced unprecedented growth. While the population in those areas had increased by about 28 per cent, the total number of pupils receiving schooling, in governmental, UNRWA and private educational networks, had increased by 105 per cent, and the number of classes run solely by the Government had increased by over 100 per cent. That remarkable growth was due mainly to the development in the governmental education network during the years of Israeli administration. Illiteracy showed a remarkable decline; since 1985, the illiteracy rate had dropped to 26.6 per cent from 47.0 per cent in 1970 in Judaea and Samaria, and to 26.5 per cent from 51.1 per cent in 1970 in Gaza.

While there had been no university facilities in Judaea and Samaria in June 1967, there were close to 10,000 students currently enrolled in the five major universities established in those areas since then (Al Najah University at Nablus, Bir Zeit University, Bethlehem University, College of Islamic Studies at Hebron and College of Science at Abu Deis). An additional 5,000 students were enrolled in colleges, teacher training schools and agricultural, technical and paramedical institutions which were staffed by several thousand local Arab teachers, inspectors and administrative personnel. In the Gaza district, 4,000 students attended Al-Azhar Islamic College.

Academic activity on the university campuses was conducted without interference by the Israeli administration. In Judaea and Samaria, the curricula were those of the Jordanian educational system, and, in the Gaza district, those of the Egyptian system, matters concerning curricula were directly handled by the Jordanian and Egyptian authorities, without interference by Israel. Academic freedom, however, did not include disruption of public order by incitement, threats or violence, Israel added. Recognizing that fact, over the past year whenever such activity surfaced at several campuses, university administrators themselves had forced the closure of their own schools for limited periods; those decisions had been taken solely by university personnel and had no connection to Israel's administrative authorities. Nevertheless, when security and public order were endangered, the authorities were permitted by international law to restore and maintain public order and safety, in the event such action was taken, it was done without any relation to academic consideration.

Those facts and figures, Israel stressed, amply demonstrated its long-standing commitment and dedication to improving the educational standards of the territories' inhabitants; when compared to the dismal educational situation in surrounding countries, the distortions and misrepresentations contained in the 1985 resolution became even more apparent. In the light of those facts, the item should be dropped from the Assembly's agenda.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 41/63 G on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

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

Deeply concerned at the continued harassment by Israel, the occupying Power, against educational institutions in the occupied Palestinian territories,

Recalling its resolutions 38/79 G of 15 December 1983, 39/95 G of 14 December 1984 and 40/161 G of 16 December 1985,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 8 July 1986,

Taking note of the relevant decisions adopted by the Executive Board of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization concerning the educational and cultural situation in the occupied territories,

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

2. Condemns Israeli policies and practices against Palestinian students and faculties in schools, universities and other educational institutions in the occupied Palestinian territories, especially the 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 but not later than the beginning of its forty-second session on the im-plementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 41/63 G
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 119-2-32 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/750) by recorded vote (94 2-24), 20 November (meeting 32), draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar for the Arab Group, Senegal (A/SPC/41/L.26), agenda item 71.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 27- 32; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Portugal, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, United Kingdom.

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


Before voting on the text as a whole, the Assembly and the Committee adopted paragraph 2 by recorded vote, of 102 to 2, with 45 abstentions, and 82 to 2, with 33 abstentions, respectively.

Abstaining on that paragraph, Sweden said its categorical and sweeping formulations were not totally borne out by the facts; however, it supported the text as a whole, although with some hesitation.

Israel said the text was divorced from reality all the educational institutions mentioned had been established during the Israeli administration. In some cases, the authorities had had to act to maintain law and order; in many others, the initiative had come from the local academic authorities and had been intended only to avoid internal disturbances and violent clashes between various political factions. The United States felt that the text indiscriminately condemned alleged Israeli actions without regard to facts or policies.

Living conditions of Palestinians

As requested by the General Assembly in 1985,(45) the Secretary-General reported in June 1986(46) on the preparations for a seminar on priority development projects for improving the living conditions of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, including a comprehensive general housing programme. Pursuant to the Assembly's request, he had invited a selected group of experts to prepare and present to the seminar specific project proposals. Invitations to participate in the seminar had been sent to relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, appropriate United Nations bodies and agencies, and PLO. The seminar was tentatively scheduled to be held at Vienna from 9 to 13 March 1987.

The Assembly took note of the report by decision 41/453 of 8 December 1986.


Israeli financial and trade practices

In June 1986,(47) the Secretary-General submitted a note to the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly concerning a report on Israeli financial and trade practices in the occupied territories, requested of him by those bodies in 1985.(48) He stated that, as part of its 1986-1987 work programme, UNCTAD was preparing a study of the financial sector in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The study, which dealt with the financial and fiscal systems in the territories, with particular reference to Israeli policies affecting them, was being carried out in association with ESCWA. It was expected to be completed by the end of 1986 and to be reported in 1987 to the Trade and Development Board. As the study would cover much of the subject-matter of the report requested of the Secretary-General he suggested that the Council and the Assembly might wish to defer consideration of that request until the UNCTAD/ESCWA study was available and had been considered by the Board.

On 18 July 1986, the Council decided (decision 1986/155) that the report on the financial and trade practices of the Israeli occupation authorities in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories should be submitted for consideration to the Assembly, through the Council, in 1987.

The Assembly, by decision 41/453, of 8 December 1986, took note of the Secretary-General's note.


Economic development projects

In May 1986, the Secretary-General reported on economic development projects in the occupied territories.(49) In 1985, both the Economic and Social Council and the Assembly(50) had called for the urgent lifting of Israeli restrictions imposed on the territories' economy and had requested him to continue his efforts to facilitate the establishment of projects, which included a seaport and a citrus plant in the Gaza Strip and a cement plant in the West Bank.

In March 1986, the Secretary-General said, he had requested Israel's view and relevant information on the projects. By a 7 May letter, annexed to the Secretary-General's report, Israel replied that the 1985 Assembly resolution was biased and politically motivated, its sponsors falsely accused Israel of imposing arbitrary economic restrictions, while completely disregarding the improved economic and social conditions in the territories. Israel had undertaken numerous actions to foster economic growth there; since 1967, approximately 1,600 new industrial plants and workshops had been established in Judaea and Samaria by local entrepreneurs with the financial assistance of the Israeli Government, and many additional plants had been established without governmental financial aid. During the same period, Israel added, 870 new factories had been established in Gaza with official Israeli financial assistance. Furthermore, it said, its economic policies had facilitated the opening of new markets for industrial exports manufactured in the territories, the ports of Ashdod and Haifa remained fully open and the products of the territories continued to have free access to external markets. That had led to an accelerated development of their industrial base manifested by the growth of industrial exports from $20 million in 1968 to approximately $270 million in 1982. Since then, the industrial development rate had continued to grow and expand to unprecedented levels.

By decision 1986/167 of 22 July 1986, the Economic and Social Council took note of the Secretary-General's report. The General Assembly took note of it by decision 41/453 of 8 December.

Golan Heights

Again in 1986, developments in the Golan Heights - part of the Syrian Arab Republic occupied by Israel since 1967 - brought action by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

Communications. By letters of 3 March 1986 to the Security Council President(51) and the Secretary-General,(52) the Syrian Arab Republic charged Israel with stepping up during the preceding week its repressive operations in the Golan Heights, with the aim of destroying their Syrian Arab identity and expelling the Syrian in-habitants from their land and property, replacing them with foreign settlers and settlements. Most recently, the Israeli authorities had arrested 45 Syrian citizens of the Golan Heights, which underscored Israel's aggressive and racist nature and its determination to defy the international community. Drawing attention to the dangerous situation resulting from Israel's violation of international law, United Nations resolutions and its Charter and the consequent threat to regional and international peace and security, the Syrian Arab Republic reserved its right to request a Security Council meeting so that necessary steps could be taken.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. By a resolution of 20 February (25) adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 to 1, with 10 abstentions, the Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned Israel for its persistent defiance of United Nations resolutions relating to the occupied Syrian territory and deprecated Israel's failure to end its occupation and cease its repressive measures and human rights violations. It deplored the inhuman treatment, terror and practices Israel continued to apply against the inhabitants of the Golan Heights by reason of their refusal of Israeli nationality and in order to force them to carry Israeli identity cards.

The Commission declared once more that Israel's 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Heights,(53) resulting in effective annexation, was null and void, and called on Israel to rescind that decision. It again requested Member States not to recognize any such measures, and strongly deplored the negative vote and pro-Israeli position of a permanent Security Council member which had prevented the Council from adopting appropriate measures against Israel.

The Commission emphasized that Israel must allow all evacuees from the Golan Heights to return and recover their property and residences and that total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal was a prerequisite for a just and comprehensive Middle East peace.

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices. Information about the situation in the Golan Heights supplied by the Syrian Arab Republic was contained in the report of the Committee on Israeli practices;(9) according to that information, practices by the occupying authorities included restrictions imposed on villagers with regard to cultivating their land or taking their herd to pasture, confiscation of agricultural land, interference in educational curricula, collective punishment and arbitrary detention.

Report of the Secretary-General. In July 1986,(54) the Secretary-General reported on action taken pursuant to a 1985 Assembly resolution(55) calling on Israel to desist from repressive measures against the population of the Golan Heights. In a 2 July 1986 reply to his February request to Israel for information on what steps it had taken or en-visaged to implement the resolution, Israel referred to its position as set out in 1981.(56) Replies from other Member States regarding measures they might have taken to implement the 1985 resolution had been received from Botswana Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Iraq and the Sudan, and were annexed to the Secretary-General's report. Replies from the Byelorussian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR were issued in September 1986.(57)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted by recorded vote resolution 41/63 F on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices.

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned that the Arab territories occupied since 1967 have been under continued Israeli military occupation,

Recalling Security Council resolution 497(1981) of 17 December 1981,

Recalling also its resolutions 36/226 B of 17 December 1981, ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982, 37/88 E of 10 December 1982, 38/79 F of 15 December 1983, 39/95 F of 14 December 1984 and 40/161 F of 16 December 1985,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 16 July 1986,

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 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 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 forty-second session a report on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 41/63 F
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 142-1-11 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/750) by recorded vote (114-1-6), 20 November (meeting 32); draft by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar for the Arab Group, Senegal (A/SPC/41/L.25); agenda item 71.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 27-32: plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Cameroon, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, El Salvador, Grenada, Liberia, Malawi, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, United States.

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

Under Syrian administration, Israel pointed out, the Golan region had been a peripheral one Israeli laws had since endowed the area with normal legal guarantees and due processes, thus favouring its development. The United States could not support any text that went beyond the unanimous 1981 Security Council resolution,(58) which had declared the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Golan Heights null and void and without international legal effect, and which remained the authoritative United Nations action, nevertheless the Golan Heights was occupied territory, the fourth Geneva Convention applied there and Israel must meet its obligations thereunder.

Sweden stressed that its support of the text did not alter its opposition to the 1982 Assembly resolution adopted during the emergency special session on the Golan Heights.(59)

On 4 December, under the agenda item on the Middle East situation, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/162 B by recorded vote.

The General Assembly,

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

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 29 October 1986,

Recalling Security Council resolution 497(1981) of 17 December 1981,

Reaffirming its resolutions 36/226 B of 17 December 1981, ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982, 37/123 A of 16 December 1982, 38/180 A of 19 December 1983, 39/146 B of 14 December 1984 and 40/168 B of 16 December 1985,

Recalling its resolution 3314(XXIX) of 14 December 1974, in which it defined an act of aggression, inter alia, as "the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,' and provided that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression",

Reaffirming the fundamental principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

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

Noting that Israel's record, policies and actions establish conclusively that it is not a peace-loving Member State and that it has not carried out its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations,

Noting further that Israel has refused, in violation of Article 25 of the Charter, to accept and carry out the numerous relevant decisions of the Security Council, in particular resolution 497(1981), thus failing to carry out its obligations under the Charter,

1. Strongly condemns Israel for its failure to comply with Security Council resolution 497(1981) and General Assembly resolutions 36/226 B, ES-9/1, 37/123 A, 38/180 A, 39/146 B and 40/168 B;

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 ad-ministration 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 Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, to be illegal and in violation of international law and of the relevant United Nations resolutions;

5. Determines once more that all actions taken by Israel to give effect to its decision relating to the occupied Syrian 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 for 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 confirm that it is not a peace-loving Member State, that it has persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter and that it has carried out neither its obligations under the Charter nor its commitment under General Assembly resolution 273(III) of 11 May 1949;

13. Calls once more upon all Member States to apply the following measures:

(a) To refrain from supplying Israel with any weapons and related equipment and to suspend any military assistance that Israel receives from them;

(b) To refrain from acquiring any weapons or military equipment from Israel;

(c) To suspend economic, financial and technological assistance to and co-operation with Israel;

(d) To sever diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with Israel;

14. Reiterates its call to all Member States to cease forthwith, individually and collectively, all dealings with Israel in order totally to isolate it in all fields;

15. Urges non-member States to act in accordance with the provisions of the present resolution;

16. Calls upon the specialized agencies and other international organizations to conform their relations with Israel to the terms of the present resolution;

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

General Assembly resolution 41/162 B
4 December 1986 Meeting 97 90-29-34 (recorded vote)

30-nation draft (A/41/L.44); agenda item 37.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: plenary 87-89, 97.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorus-sian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru,a/ Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cameroon, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Jamaica, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Nepal, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire.

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


The United States felt that the text did not advance the cause of peace; its language was unbalanced and harmful and, by declaring that Israel was not a peace-loving Member State, it violated the spirit of Security Council resolutions 242(1967)(60) and 338(1973).(61) The United Kingdom, speaking for the EC members, expressed concern about the text's lack of balance and said it did not reflect the basic principles they considered essential for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, they also could not accept language criticizing a permanent Council member for having exercised its rights in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Sweden, despite support-ing the text's central theme, had strong objections in particular to paragraphs 12 to 16, which, it felt, could not be reconciled with the division of responsibilities between the Assembly and the Council.

The Philippines said the sovereign right of States to conduct their own international affairs in accordance with the Charter should be upheld. Egypt found it difficult to agree with some elements in the text which, it believed, did not en-courage the continuance of the peace process. Belize would have welcomed a text calling for the necessary action without the accompanying condemnation; paragraphs 13 and 14 sought the complete isolation of Israel, a situation which could only hurt the cause of peace. Austria did not believe that measures aimed at breaking relations with Israel and leading to its isolation would bring a Middle East solution closer, it could not support any formulation which could be interpreted as impinging on the principle of universality of United Nations membership.

Brazil considered that efforts to achieve a Middle East solution should not imply diplomatic isolation of one of the parties to the conflict, although that party had been acting in a manner incompatible with international law and the Charter; Israel should not be provided, under the pretext of its isolation from the international community, with justification for further acts in disregard of international law and accepted principles of peaceful coexistence. Ecuador believed that the text contained criteria which violated the universality principle and sought to impose decisions contravening the sovereignty of States. Bolivia was unable to support the text because of the approach reflected in certain paragraphs. Argentina regretted that the text contained - in particular in paragraphs 9, 12, 13 and 14, and in the eighth preambular paragraph - certain propositions incompatible with its own position on substantive issues of foreign policy. In Zaire's view, the language of paragraphs 13 and 14 was not likely to lead to any rapprochement among the parties to the conflict.

Greece said that, if separate votes had been taken, it would have voted against paragraph 14 and would have abstained on paragraphs 8, 13 (c) and 13 (d). Mexico would have abstained on paragraphs 12 to 14 on the grounds that they related to matters within the Council's jurisdiction. In Turkey's opinion, paragraphs 13 and 14 were difficult to reconcile with efforts to initiate a negotiating process; with regard to paragraph 8, it felt that no United Nations organ should pass a value judgement on votes cast by Member States Peru recalled its statement in explanation of vote on the related 1985 resolution.(62)

Iran reiterated its reservations on all terms and provisions which implied any recognition of the Zionist base of terror occupying Palestine.

REFERENCES

(1)A/41/229-S/17935. (2)A/41/426-S/18177. (3)A/41/427-S/18178. (4)A/41/620-S/18349. (5)A/41/700. (6)A/41/821-S/18454. (7)E/1986/22 (res. 1986/1 A). (8)Ibid. (res. 1986/33). (9)A/41/680. (10)YUN 1985, p. 329. (11)A/41/768-S/18428. (12)A/41/677. (13)YUN 1985, p. 332, GA res. 40/161 D, 16 Dec. 1985. (14)S/18502. (15)S/18501. (16)S/18505. (17)S/18504. (18)A/42/79-S/18569. (19)S/18509. (20)A/41/970-S/18525. (21)S/18532. (22)A/41/140-S/17800. (23)E/1986/22 (res. 1986/1 B). (24)YUN 1977, p. 706. (25)E/1986/22 (res. 1986/2). (26)A/41/681. (27)YUN 1985, p. 335, GA res. 40/161 B, 16 Dec. 1985. (28)A/41/691. (29)A/41/469. (30)YUN 1985, p. 337 GA res. 40/161 A, 16 Dec. 1985. (31)Ibid., p. 337. (32)A/41/469/Add.1. (33)A/41/l61 -S/1782 3. (34)A/41/63 5-S/1836 1. (35)A/41/716-S/18405. (36)A/41/682. (37)YUN 1985, p. 339, GA res. 40/161 C, 16 Dec. 1985. (38)YUN 1980, p. 411. (39)S/17803. (40)A/41/454. (41)YUN 1985, p. 343, GA res. 40/161 E, 16 Dec. 1985. (42)YUN 1981, p. 313, YUN 1982, p. 538; YUN 1985, p. 344. (43)A/41/456. (44)YUN 1985, p. 351, GA res. 40/161 G, 16 Dec. 1985. (45)Ibid., p. 344, GA res. 40/201, 17 Dec. 1985. (46)A/41/415-E/1986/104. (47)A/41/410-E/1986/97. (48)YUN 1985, p. 346, ESC dec. 1985/177, 25 July 1985; ibid, p. 347, GA dec. 40/432, 17 Dec. 1985. (49)A/41/342-E/1986/88. (50)YUN 1985, p. 348, ESC res. 1985/58, 25 July 1985; ibid, p. 349, GA res. 40/169, 17 Dec. 1985. (51)S/17889. (52)A/41/184. (53)YUN 1981, p. 308. (54)A/41/455. (55)YUN 1985, p. 340, GA res. 40/161 F, 16 Dec. 1985. (56)YUN 1981, p. 312. (57)A/41/455/Add.1. (58)YUN 1981, p. 312, SC res. 497(1981), 17 Dec. 1981. (59)YUN 1982 p. 515, GA res. ES-9/1, 5 Feb. 1982. (60)YUN 1967, p. 257, SC res. 242(1967), 22 Nov. 1967. (61)YUN 1973, p. 213, SC res. 338(1973), 22 Oct. 1973. (62)YUN 1985, p. 342.

__________________

Palestine refugees
__________________

In 1986, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continued to assist more than 2.1 million refugees in Jordan, Lebanon (see p. 288), the Syrian Arab Republic and the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

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 (41/69 A) and to displaced persons (41/69 C); the Working Group on the financing of UNRWA (41/69 B); scholarships for higher education and vocational training (41/69 D); Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip (41/69 E) and in the West Bank (41/69 J); ration distribution to Palestine refugees (41/69 F); refugees displaced since 1967 (41/69 G); revenues from refugee properties (41/69 H); refugee protection (41/69 I); and a proposed University of Jerusalem for Palestine refugees (41/69 K).

UN Agency for Palestine refugees

UNRWA continued to provide education, health and relief services to Palestinian refugees living in and outside camps. Among them, 1,812,127 were eligible for all Agency services, while the remainder were eligible for limited services only. In addition, the Agency distributed food rations provided by Jordan to some 193,000 persons displaced as the result of the 1967 hostilities and the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Less than one third of the refugees were registered as living in camps; persons displaced as a result of hostilities in 1967 and a small number of other unregistered persons also resided in camps. The Agency maintained its own schools, training institutions, clinics and health centres, and procured and distributed food rations to needy refugees. Its operations were administered from its headquarters at Vienna and Amman and from five field offices in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with liaison offices in New York and Cairo.

During its years of operation, the focus of UNRWA's activities had gradually changed from relief assistance to education, including vocational training, public health care and basic welfare service. In 1986, education accounted for the largest part of UNRWA'S expenditure ($116.3 million under the General Fund, and $57 million under project funds); the corresponding figures for health services were $28.3 million and $8.9 million, and for relief services, $22.4 million and $1.1 million. Direct relief assistance was provided in 1986/87 to only some 5 per cent of the refugee population.

The situation of the refugees in the occupied territories remained a matter of concern, the UNRWA Commissioner-General stated in his report covering the Agency's activities from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987;(1) in all the territories there was still heavy pressure on UNRWA services, with more refugees using its health services and an increasing number claiming assistance as special hardship cases, a demand UNRWA was unable to meet. The most serious operational problem facing UNRWA remained the situation in Lebanon, which imposed enormous demands on it in trying to meet the needs of the refugees (see p. 290).

The safety of UNRWA staff in the areas of Lebanon where UNRWA operated was a constant Source of concern; staff trying to bring services and supplies to refugees in the camps and in their places of refuge were the most exposed, but even those working in the main offices were frequently in danger. For those reasons, it was necessary not only to maintain the sub-office at Larnaca, Cyprus, but also to make other temporary arrangements for office accommodation from time to time. From 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986, five UNRWA employees were killed in Lebanon, bringing the total since the 1982 Israeli invasion to 22 staff members killed, 17 wounded and 8 missing among them Alec Collett, a British journalist working under contract with UNRWA, kidnapped in 1985,(2) whose fate remained unknown.

There was no improvement with regard to access to UNRWA staff in detention; the Agency continued to have access to them in the West Bank but not in the other areas of its operations. From July 1985 to June 1986, there was a marked increase in the number of staff arrested and detained without charge or trial and UNRWA remained unable to obtain adequate and timely information on the reasons; in the absence of such information, it was unable to ascertain whether the staff members' official functions were involved or to ensure that their rights were observed.

Conditions in the Gaza Strip also deteriorated, the UNRWA Commissioner-General stated, urging the international community to give serious consideration to what could be done to ease conditions, which included serious shortages of adequate housing, growing unemployment and the increasing salinity of water supplies.

Co-operation with other United Nations bodies, particularly UNDP, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF and ILO, as well as with UNTSO and UNIFIL, greatly facilitated UNRWA's tasks. Co-operation with NGOs was furthered through consultations held at Amman in February 1986, under the joint sponsorship of UNRWA and the International Council of Voluntary Agencies. The meeting, the third of its kind, took place for the first time in UNRWA's area of operations, giving the 70 participants an opportunity to visit some of the Agency's installations and have a first-hand look at its operations. Discussions focused on health, education, training and employment, income-generating projects and ways UNRWA and individual NGOs could expand co-operation to improve services available to refugees. During informal consultations with donor and other Governments in May 1986, a number of participants urged UNRWA to explore broader co-operation with NGOs, both those able to contribute funds for certain programmes and those interested in a more active role in the region.

UNRWA activities and its financial situation in 1986 were described in the Commissioner-General's reports covering the periods 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986(3) and 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987.(1) The Advisory Commission of UNRWA met at Vienna on 28 August 1986 to consider the draft 1985/86 report.

Introducing the 1985/86 report in the General Assembly's Special Political Committee, the Commissioner-General said that UNRWA should do much more to assist the refugees but its resources were limited. That the refugee problem remained unsolved might be sufficient reason to extend the Agency's mandate - due to expire on 30 June 1987 - further. Other compelling considerations included the stabilizing role UNRWA fulfilled in one of the world's most turbulent regions and the humanitarian aspect exemplified by the 350,000 children in UNRWA schools, the 4,500 young men and women in training institutes, the thousands of mothers and children attending health clinics every day and the more than 100,000 refugees unable to provide for themselves; all relied on UNRWA.

UNRWA's vital work, the Secretary-General said in his report on the work of the Organization (see p. 3), had to be carried out under extremely difficult circumstances and continued to merit and need the financial support of all States.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommen-dation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 A by recorded vote.

Assistance to Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 40/165 A of 16 December 1985 and all its previous resolutions on the question, including resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986,

1. Notes with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194(III) has not been effected, that no substantial progress has been made in the programme endorsed by the Assembly in paragraph 2 of its resolution 513(VI) of 26 January 1952 for the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continues to be a matter of serious concern;

2. Expresses its thanks to the Commissioner-General and to all the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East recognizing that the Agency is doing all it can within the limits of available resources, and also expresses its thanks to the specialized agencies and private organizations for their valuable work in assisting the refugees;

3. Reiterates its request that the headquarters of the Agency should be relocated to its former site within its area of operations as soon as practicable;

4. Notes with regret that the United Nations Concilia-tion 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 1987;

5. Directs attention to the continuing seriousness of the financial position of the Agency, as outlined in the report of the Commissioner-General;

6. Notes with profound concern that, despite the commendable and successful efforts of the Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions, this increased level of income to the Agency is still insufficient to cover essential budget requirements in the present year and that, at currently foreseen levels of giving, deficits will recur each year;

7. Calls upon al1 Governments, as a matter of urgency, to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the Agency, particularly in the light of the budgetary deficit projected in the report of the Commissioner-General, and therefore urges non-contributing Governments to contribute regularly and contributing Governments to consider increasing their regular contributions;

8. Decides to extend until 30 June 1990, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194(III), the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

General Assembly resolution 41/69 A
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 150-0-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/754) by recorded vote (119-0-1), 4 November (meeting 19); draft by United States (A/SPC/41/L.7), orally revised, agenda item 75.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 13-19; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: None.

Abstaining: Israel.

Israel said that, far from being opposed to the extension of international assistance to Palestinian Arabs - whether registered with UNRWA or not - it welcomed any increase in financial, technical, cultural and economic assistance, with the sole requirement that it be channelled through the proper and legitimate organs and be used for constructive purposes. Israel rejected however slanderous propaganda on the false presence of assessing the living conditions of the Palestinian Arabs and granting them protection and assistance; it also opposed the political connotations and implications given to the item at the prompting of countries actively engaged in a military and diplomatic war against it. It could not condone the different criteria applied to various refugee situations, the rewriting of history and ar-tificial perpetuation of refugee status and camps for exclusively political aims. Those most vociferous on that matter were the countries directly responsible for the plight of the Palestinians and which for years had been impeding world efforts to promote constructive and lasting solutions; among the staunchest supporters of texts adopted under the agenda item were countries which gave little to the Palestinians or which refused to increase their contributions. Behind the careful diplomatic wording was the intention to induce the world community to condone blind ter-rorism and relentless warfare, block the way to peace and stability and actively help extremists seeking to destroy two United Nations Members - Israel and Jordan - without any concern for the fate of the Palestinians who were still being kept in refugee camps. The Palestinians should be protected and assisted in rejecting ter-ror and bloodshed and should be persuaded to seek a constructive, peaceful and lasting settlement that would allow them to work hand in hand with their natural neighbours for the development and welfare of the region and all the peoples involved.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya pointed out that it voted for the text for purely humanitarian reasons, but had always considered the United States responsible for prolonging the situation because it aided the occupiers who had usurped Palestinian lands.


UNRWA financing

As at 1 January 1986,(4) total regular contribu-tions pledged to UNRWA were $175.8 million, while estimated expenditures in the 1986 budget (less the construction part) amounted to $183.6 million. The gap between expected income and expenditure was closed during the year partly by a number of Governments responding favourably to the Agency's appeals and partly through exchange rate movements that reduced costs in United States dollar terms in some parts of the area of operation. UNRWA managed for the first time in several years to balance its income with expenditure and, at the end of 1986, had a small excess of income over expenditure, which enabled it to begin to restore its working capital that had been severely reduced by the 1984 and 1985 financial crisis. The Agency's budget for capital construction, however, which amounted to $7.6 million in 1986, was largely unfunded and several construction projects had to be postponed.

Total income received by UNRWA for all funds, in cash and in kind, in 1986 was $189.9 million, which included a $6.5 million allocation from the United Nations. Expenditure by all funds was $186.5 million, $0.9 million less than in 1985, leaving an excess of income over expenditure of $3.4 million which helped to offset the shortfall in previous years. This was mainly due to increased contributions from donors, mostly Governments, which had responded generously and in a timely fashion to UNRWA's appeals; of primary importance also were the austerity measures introduced by UNRWA in 1985 which for the most part had been maintained or even extended. The informal meeting of donors with UNRWA and the Working Group on financing (see below), held for the first time on 22 and 23 May 1986 at Vienna, proved an effective means of involving donor and host Governments more closely with UNRWA and of increasing their participation in and understanding of its activities.

According to the Commissioner-General, prospects for sufficient income to cover the 1987 budget were quite good, a trend which was apparent at the pledging conference held in New York in November 1986 when, for the first time, the amount of cash pledged for the coming year came close to equalling the Agency's planned cash expenditure for the regular programme.

UNRWA's financial position was very sensitive to changes in exchange rates, due to the fact that its budget was prepared in United States dollars, while many contributions were paid in Western European and other currencies; expenditures, however, were made mainly in currencies of the Near East and, to a much lesser extent, in Austrian schillings and other Western currencies. Increases in prices and salary levels in the Agency's areas of operation also had their impact on expenditures. As salary levels for government employees rose, UNRWA reviewed the pay of its area staff to keep it in line.

A breakdown of contributions in cash and kind to the UNRWA General Fund in 1986 was set out in the audited financial statements for the year.(5)


Working Group on UNRWA financing

Report of the Working Group. In 1986, the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA held three meetings, on 17 September and 3 and 13 October, to consider recent developments in the Agency's financial situation.(6) The Group noted the Commissioner-General's special efforts to secure the level of contributions required and that the Vienna May meeting (see above) had led to greater understanding.

In order to provide a more rational longer-term approach to the planning and execution of the UNRWA programme, the Agency introduced a three-year medium-term plan covering 1987-1989, which would be revised annually and would be the basis for preparing each year's annual budget; it would also provide for better programme monitoring and evaluation.

For 1987, it was expected that expenditure would increase by not more than 5 per cent, an increase due almost entirely to a projected increase in school population. Even without a precise figure, the Group said, it was clear that, if UNRWA was not to slip back into deep financial difficulties, the funds provided for 1987 would have to be increased.

In concluding remarks, the Working Group noted that the financial situation in 1986 was less critical than in 1985 and the Commissioner-General expected to be able to maintain services to refugees without interruption; it congratulated him on his successful efforts and expressed appreciation to donors, especially those that increased their 1986 contributions.

The fact that little much-needed construction was undertaken in 1986 was, however, a matter of concern; many of UNRWA's facilities were in need of replacement and in recent years work had had to be postponed for lack of funds. The Group recognized that priority must be given to maintaining services and that funds could only be allocated to construction when services were assured; it endorsed the Commissioner-General's efforts to seek funding for construction from non-governmental sources as well as his efforts to persuade Governments to make special contributions for construction.

The Group welcomed the introduction of a three-year medium-term plan as being of great assistance to donor countries, by giving them advance guidance on future financial needs, and as providing opportunities to improve programme development and evaluation.

Noting that expenditure in 1987 was expected to be some 5 per cent higher than in 1986, the Group urged all Governments to recognize that UNRWA would need additional financial support.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 B without vote.

Working Group on the Financing of the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency
for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2656(XXV) of 7 December 1970 2728(XXV) of 15 December 1970, 2791(XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2964(XXVII) of 13 December 1972 3090(XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3330(XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 D (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 C of 23 November 1976, 32/90 D of 13 December 1977, 33/112 D of 18 December 1978, 34/52 D of 23 November 1979, 35/13 D of 3 November 1980, 36/146 X of 16 December 1981, 37/120 A of 16 December 1982, 38/83 B of 15 December 1983, 39/99 B of 14 December 1984 and 40/165 B of 16 December 1985,

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 1985 to 30 June 1986,

Gravely concerned at the critical financial situation of the Agency, 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 Agency,

1. Commends the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for its efforts to assist in ensuring the Agency's financial security;

2. Takes note with approval of the report of the Working Group;

3. Requests the Working Group to continue its efforts in co-operation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, for the financing of the Agency for a further period of one year;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary services and assistance to the Working Group for the conduct of its work.

General Assembly resolution 41/69 B
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 Adopted without vote

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/754) without vote November (meeting 19); 17-nation draft (A/SPC/41/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, Sweden, Yugoslavia.

Financial implications: S-G, A/SPC/41/L.18.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 13-19; plenary 95.


Accounts for 1985

Following the audit of the UNRWA financial statements for the year ended 31 December 1985, the Board of Auditors made its recommendations.(7) ACABQ, in September 1986,(8) commented on the Board's report.

The General Assembly, in resolution 41/176 accepted the audited financial statements and requested remedial action as required by the Board's and the Advisory Committee's comments and observations.


Claims for compensation

According to the Commissioner-General, UNRWA had received no response to a 1984 claim against Israel for $4,381,867 as compensation for loss and damage caused to Agency property and facilities as a result of the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The General Assembly had called for such compensation in 1983,(9) 1984(10) and 1985.(11) A separate claim had been made for $194,901 for loss and damage caused by Israeli military action in Lebanon before June 1982. There had also been no response from Israel to UNRWA'S claim, lodged in 1969, for damage arising out of the 1967 hostilities.

No progress had been made over claims against the Syrian Arab Republic, relating mainly to the levy of certain taxes from which UNRWA believed it was exempt under existing agreements. Likewise, there had been no progress with regard to the establishment of a joint committee of the Jordanian Government and UNRWA to discuss the Agency's claims against the former, which included those arising out of the 1967 hostilities and the disturbances of 1970 and 1971, despite an understanding reached in 1984 that Jordan would nominate representatives to the joint committee. The Syrian Government, however, responded in June 1986 to UNRWA'S requests for a more favourable exchange rate, advising that henceforth the tourist rate of exchange would apply to United Nations transactions; in doing so, it helped reduce the projected shortfall in UNRWA's 1986 income and made it easier for donors to fund much needed construction of new school and other facilities in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Related resolution: GA 41/69 I.

Other aspects

Displaced persons

Humanitarian assistance

In addition to relief services, which included the provision of basic food commodities, blankets, clothing, shelter repair and cash grants, UNRWA continued to provide in 1986 a small measure of humanitarian assistance to persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities in the Middle East but who were not registered with UNRWA as refugees. In Jordan, UNRWA continued to distribute rations on the Government's behalf to some 193,000 persons. Also in Jordan UNRWA administered jointly with OXFAM (United Kingdom) two day-care centres for mentally disabled children at Suf and Jerash camps; a third centre, scheduled to open in 1987, had been constructed.

In 1986 after prolonged negotiations, Egypt and Israel agreed on a solution to the problem of 4,600 refugees left on the Egyptian side of the international boundary at Rafah when Israel withdrew from the Sinai in April 1982. The solution provided for a phased return of the refugees to the Gaza Strip for settlement in the Tel al-Sultan housing project near Rafah. Financial help would be given to the refugees by Egypt, while Israel offered to provide land and other facilities. The plan's first phase was implemented in the summer of 1986 when heads of families in groups of 25 visited plots assigned to them in the housing project and registered their belongings with the Israeli authorities. The second phase - the construction of their homes by the heads of family - was temporarily delayed. UNRWA had made provision within its regular programmes for education and health care for the refugees upon their return; in the mean time, it continued to provide them with services including elementary and preparatory education for some 1,200 refugee children and basic health care focusing mainly on mother and child health services. Rations, blankets and clothing were distributed to the majority of those refugees, most of whom were unemployed and lived in hardship.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 C without vote.

Assistance to persons displaced as a result of
the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 40/165 C of 16 December 1985 and all its 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 1985 to 30 June 1986,

Concerned about the continued human suffering resulting from the hostilities in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 40/165 C and all its previous resolutions on the question;

2. Endorses, bearing in mind the objectives of those resolutions, the efforts of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to continue to provide humanitarian assistance as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who are at present displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities;

3. Strongly appeals to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously for the above purposes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and to the other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

General Assembly resolution 41/69 C
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 Adopted without vote

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/754) without vote, 4 November (meeting 19); 22-nation draft (A/SPC/41/L.9); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mali, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sweden.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 13-19; plenary 95.


Repatriation of refugees

Report of the Secretary-General. In accordance with a 1985 General Assembly resolution,(12) the Secretary-General submitted in September 1986 a report(13) on population and refugees displaced since 1967. In response to his February 1986 request to Israel for information on its steps to facilitate the return of displaced inhabitants, Israel on 16 July had referred to its position as set out in successive annual replies, the most recent in September 1985.(14) Contrary to claims in the 1985 resolution, Israel said, it had made every effort to review individual cases of resettlement based on the merits of each case, as a result, the total number of persons that had returned since 1967 was approximately 72,000.

The Secretary-General also obtained information from the Commissioner-General on the return of refugees registered with UNRWA. Since UNRWA was not involved in arrangements for return, the data were based on requests by returning registered refugees for transfer of their entitlement for services to the areas to which they had returned; UNRWA would not necessarily be aware of the return of any registered refugees who did not request the provision of services. So far as was known to UNRWA, 150 refugees registered with the Agency returned to the West Bank between 1 July 1985 and 30 June 1986, and 23 to the Gaza Strip some of those might not themselves have been displaced in 1967, UNRWA noted, but might be members of the family of a displaced registered refugee whom they had accompanied on return or joined afterwards. The number of displaced registered refugees known by UNRWA to have returned to the occupied territories since June 1967 was about 10,900. The Agency was unable to estimate the total number of displaced inhabitants who had returned, as it kept records only of registered refugees and even those records, particularly with respect to the location of refugees, might be incomplete.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 G by recorded vote.
Population and refugees displaced since 1967

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237(1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 2252(ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2452 A (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, 2672 D (XXV) of 8 December 1970, 2792 E (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 C and D (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3089 C (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3331 D (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 C (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 D of 23 November 1976, 32/90 E of 13 December 1977, 33/112 F of 18 December 1978, 34/52 E of 23 November 1979, ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 35/13 E of 3 November 1980, 36/146 B of 16 December 1981, 37/120 G of 16 December 1982, 38/83 G of 15 December 1983, 39/99 G of 14 December 1984 and 40/165 G of 16 December 1985,

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 1985 to 30 June 1986, and the report of the Secretary-General,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of all displaced inhabitants to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and declares once more that any attempt to restrict or to attach conditions to, the free exercise of the right; to return by any displaced person is inconsistent with that inalienable right and inadmissible;

2. Considers any and all agreements embodying any restriction on, or condition for, the return of the displaced inhabitants as null and void;

3. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of the Israeli authorities to take steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants;

4. Calls once more upon Israel:

(a) To take immediate steps for the return of all displaced inhabitants;

(b) To desist from all measures that obstruct the return of the displaced inhabitants, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories;

5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report to the General Assembly, before the opening of its forty-second session, on Israel's compliance with paragraph 4 above.

General Assembly resolution 41/69 G
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 126-2-25 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/754) by recorded vote (97-2-23), 4 November (meeting 19); 9-nation draft (A/SPC/41/L.13); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 415 session: SPC 13-19; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Saint Lucia, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Zaire.

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

The United States considered the text highly controversial and biased. In Sweden's view, it seemed to rule out negotiations on the modalities that would enable Palestinians displaced as a result of the 1967 war to return to their homes.


Food aid

The General Assembly, in December 1986 again called for resumption of the general ration distribution to Palestine refugees which had been suspended in September 1982,(15) except in Lebanon where it had ceased in March 1984.(16) In September 1986,(17) the Secretary-General reported that response to the Assembly's 1985 call(18) for generous contributions had not been forthcoming, the annual cost of reinstating the basic ration for 1,606,000 eligible refugees would be $66.7 million, including $6.1 million in cash. Since the required additional resources had not been at UNRWA's disposal in 1986, it had had to use the available income to maintain its education, health and welfare programmes at the 1985 level and it had not been possible to consider resuming the ration distribution.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 F by recorded vote.
Resumption of the ration distribution
to Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 36/146 F of 16 December 1981, 37/120 F of 16 December 1982, 38/83 F of 15 December 1983, 39/99 F of 14 December 1984 and 40/165 F of 16 December 1985 and all its previous resolutions on the question, including resolution 302(IV) of 8 December 1949,

Having considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986 and the report of the Secretary-General,

Deeply concerned at the interruption by the Agency, owing to financial difficulties, of the general ration distribution to Palestine refugees in all fields,

1. Regrets that its resolutions 37/120 F, 38/83 F, 39/99 F and 40/165 F have not been implemented;

2. Calls once again upon all Governments, as a mat-ter 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 to resume on a continuing basis the interrupted general ration distribution to Palestine refugees in all fields;

4. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Commissioner-General, to report to the General Assembly at its forty-second session on the implementation of the present resolution.


General Assembly resolution 41/69 F
3 December 1996 Meeting 95 130-20-4 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/411754) by recorded vote (98-20-4), 4 November (meeting 19); 8-nation draft (A/SPC/41/L.12); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 13-19; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Austria, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Spain.

The United States, stressing support for the Commissioner-General's efforts to make best possible use of UNRWA's scarce resources, felt that the text was aimed at restricting his discretionary powers. Without sufficient financial resources, Sweden stated, the resumption of the ration distribution as requested would endanger the vitally important educational and health care activities which must be given highest priority.


Education and training services

Schools and teacher training centres

The aim of the UNRWA education programme was to provide, within the framework of the curricula prescribed by the host countries, general education, teacher and higher education, and vocational and technical training for Palestine refugees in accordance with their educational needs, identity and cultural heritage. In 1986, UNRWA spent $116.3 million on its education programme under the General Fund and $5.7 million under project funds.

Under an agreement between UNRWA and UNESCO, the latter continued to provide technical and professional advice to the Commissioner-General on aspects of the UNRWA education programme, which included schooling for some 350,000 Palestine refugee children through nine grades of elementary and preparatory education in 635 schools. In Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, schools operated normally throughout the year. In Lebanon, the disturbed situation seriously affected school operations; schools in certain areas, however, notably in the Bekaa Valley and Tripoli, operated normally with only minor, short-lived interruptions of services. In the Beirut area all schools were inoperative from November 1986 on.

Pre-service and in-service teacher training was offered; pre-service training was given to some 1,000 trainees at three training centres, one in Jordan and two at Ramallah in the West Bank, and a variety of in-service training courses were con-ducted through education development centres located in the five fields of operation.

Some 4,000 young men and women received vocational and technical education in eight training centres located throughout UNRWA's areas of operation; the trend was to increase the number of trainees in that area and to reduce teacher training to reflect market trends in employment possibilities.

Thanks to an increase in financial contributions to the Agency's construction programme, UNRWA was able to build or renovate several educational facilities.


Proposed University of Jerusalem "Al Quds"

Report of the Secretary-General. As requested by the General Assembly in 1985,(19) the Secretary-General reported in July 1986(20) on efforts to establish a university for Palestine refugees at Jerusalem, first considered by the Assembly in 1980.(21) Since then, he had submitted four annual reports on measures he had taken, including the preparation of a functional feasibility study concerning the proposed university which he considered necessary to that end, after adoption of the 1985 resolution, he had contacted the Rector of the United Nations University who had designated Federico Mayor, of the Universidad Autonoma in Madrid, a qualified expert to assist in the study's preparation.

In order to carry out his task, the expert would be expected to visit the area and meet with the competent Israeli officials, the Secretary-General informed Israel on 12 March 1986. Replying on 10 June, Israel referred to its previous statements,(22) adding that the sponsors of the annual resolution were exploiting higher education to politicize extraneous issues. The higher academic institutions in Judaea and Samaria were successfully meeting all the requirements of the area's inhabitants, Israel pointed out, adding that it had enabled the establishment of five universities there, as well as other colleges and teacher training schools. Until clarifications to questions it had raised were provided, Israel was unable to take the matter further. In view of Israel's position, the Secretary-General said, it had not been possible to complete the feasibility study.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 K by recorded vote.

University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds"
for Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 36/146 G of 16 December 1981, 37/120 C of 16 December 1982,38/83 K of 15 December 1983,39/99 K of 14 December 1984 and 40/165 D and K of 16 December 1985,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,

Having also considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986,

1. Emphasizes the need for strengthening the educational system in the Arab territories occupied since 5 June 1967, including Jerusalem, and specifically the need for the establishment of the proposed university;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to take all necessary measures for establishing the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds", in accordance with General Assembly resolution 35/13 B of 3 November 1980, giving due consideration to the recommendations consistent with the provisions of that resolution;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power to co-operate in the implementation of the present resolution and to remove the hindrances that it has put in the way of establishing the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds";

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-second session on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 41/69 K
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 152-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political committee (A/41/754) by recorded vote (120-2), 4 November (meeting 19); 10-nation draft (A/SPC/41/L.17); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Jordan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 13-19; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

In the view of the United States, the text was purely political and did not satisfy the educational requirements of the refugees.

Related resolution: GA 41/69 D.


Scholarships

Report of the Secretary-General. In September 1986 report,(23) submitted in accord ance with a 1985 General Assembly resort tion,(24) the Secretary-General provided information on responses to the Assembly's annual appeals beginning in 1977(25) for special allocations for grants and scholarships to Palestine refugees, for which UNRWA acted as recipient and trustee.

In 1986, the Federal Republic of Germany offered three fellowships to Palestine refuge graduates of UNRWA vocational training centres Japan offered 15 training scholarships for voca tional training instructors; as at 29 August, eight candidates had been proposed for the scholarship which were tenable in Japan under the guidance of the Japan International Co-operation Agency in addition, Japan proposed in 1986 sending up to three specialists to the Wadi Seer Training Centre in Jordan to give on-the-job training to UNRWA instructors in automobile mechanics and diesel engine courses.

Among United Nations agencies and organizations, the Universal Postal Union resumed assistance by granting scholarships for further training in the postal field to two Palestinian students; the first scholarship was to be applied to the study cycle from October 1986 to September 1990. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) indicated that scholarships for training in hygiene and safety would be granted in 1986; an ILO expert continued to assist a UNDP project to help Palestinian women's institutions promote vocational training. UNIDO provided a six-week course in industrial co-operation to 12 Palestinians from the territories, which was held at ILO's International Centre for Advanced Technical and Vocational Training at Turin, Italy.

As part of a long-standing agreement with UNRWA, UNESCO awarded five scholarships to UNRWA education staff, in addition to a number of fellowships to students from the occupied territories and to teaching staff of educational institutions in those territories. The World Health Organization awarded five regional and international fellowships in post-graduate training, aimed at developing the technical and managerial skills Of UNRWA health staff and at meeting future replacement needs under various health disciplines. A scholarship was also granted by the World Intellectual Property Organization.

Fellowships granted by NGOs to Palestine refugees included two 10-month fellowships for Study of community nursing by the Australian People for Health, Education and Development; a one-year fellowship for post-graduate study in water and waste engineering by the British Council; a 27-month fellowship in midwifery by Medical Aid for Palestinians; and a one-year a scholarship in public health nursing by the British Save the Children Fund.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 D by recorded vote.

Offers by Member States of grants and scholarships
for higher education, including
vocational training, for Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 212(III) of 19 November 1948 on assistance to Palestine refugees,

Recalling also its resolutions 35/13 B of 3 November 1980, 36/146 H of 16 December 1981, 37/120 D of 16 December 1982, 38/83 D of 15 December 1983, 39/99 D of 14 December 1984 and 40/165 D of 16 December 1985,

Cognizant of the fact that the Palestine refugees have for the last three decades, lost their lands and means of livelihood,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,

Having also considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986,

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, including vocational training;

2. Strongly appeals to all States, specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations to augment the special allocations for grants and scholarships to Palestine refugees in addition to their contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East;

3. Expresses its appreciation to all Governments, specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations that responded favourably to General Assembly resolution 40/165 D;

4. Invites the relevant specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system to continue, within their respective spheres of competence, to extend assistance for higher education to Palestine refugee students;

5. Appeals to all States, specialized agencies and the United Nations University to contribute generously to the Palestinian universities in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including, in due course, the proposed University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds" for Palestine refugees;

6. Also appeals to all States, specialized agencies and other international bodies to contribute towards the establishment of vocational training centres for Palestine refugees;

7. Requests the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to act as the recipient and trustee for the special allocations for grants and scholarships and to award them to qualified Palestine refugee candidates;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-second session on the im-plementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 41/69 D
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 153-0-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/754) by recorded vote (121-0-1), 4 November (meeting 19); 9-nation draft (A/SPC/41/L.10); agenda Item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 13-19; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: None.

Abstaining: Israel.

The United States believed that the text provided for some of the needs of the refugees in a tangible manner, but it disapproved of the reference in paragraph 5 to the proposed university at Jerusalem for Palestine refugees.


Property rights

Report of the Secretary-General. In September 1986,(26) the Secretary-General submitted a report on revenues derived from Palestine refugee properties, as requested in a 1985 General Assembly resolution,(27) which in February 1986 he had brought to Israel's attention asking for information regarding its implementation. Replying on 16 July, Israel stated that its position had been set out previously, most recently in 1985.(23) With regard to the Assembly's request for information from other States on Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel, no replies had been received.

Report of the Conciliation Commission. In its report covering the period from 1 September 1985 to 31 August 1986,(29) the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine stated that the circumstances which had limited its possibilities of action regarding compensation for Palestine refugee properties remained unchanged. The Commission hoped, however, that the situation in the region would improve, thus enabling it to carry forward its work in accordance with its mandate. (30)


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommend cation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 H by recorded vote.
Revenues derived from Palestine refugee properties

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 35/13 A to F of 3 November 1980, 36/146 C of 16 December 1981, 37/120 H of 16 December 1982, 38/83 H of 15 December 1983, 39/99 H of 14 December 1984, 40/165 H of 16 December 1985, and all its previous resolutions on the question, including resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General,

Taking note also of the report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, covering the period from 1 September 1985 to 31 August 1986,

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 en-titled 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, in which it directed the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, in consultation with the parties concerned, to prescribe measures for the protection of the rights, property and interests of the Palestine Arab refugees,

Taking note of the completion of the programme of identification and evaluation of Arab property, as announced by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine in its twenty-second progress report and of the fact that the Land Office had a schedule of Arab owners and file of documents defining the location, area and other particulars of Arab property,

1. Requests the Secretary-General to take all appropriate steps, in consultation with the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, for the protection and administration of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel, and to establish a fund for the receipt of income derived therefrom, on behalf of the rightful owners;

2. Calls once more upon Israel to render all facilities and assistance to the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution;

3. Calls upon the Governments of all the other Member States concerned to provide the Secretary-General with any pertinent information in their possession concerning Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel, which would assist the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution;

4. Deplores Israel's refusal to co-operate with the Secretary-General in the implementation of the resolutions on the question;

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

General Assembly resolution 41/69 H
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 124-2-28 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/754) by recorded vote (97-2-24), 4 November (meeting 19); 8-nation draft (A/SPC/41/L.14); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session; SPC 13-19; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Sweden, United Kingdom, Zaire.

The United States felt that the questions of repatriation and compensation could be settled more satisfactorily within the framework of negotiations. The right of Palestine refugees to recover property or be compensated should be dealt with in the context of a comprehensive Middle East solution, said Sweden.


Refugee protection

Protection of Palestine refugees, especially those in Lebanon, was again in 1986 the subject of a General Assembly resolution. The Secretary-General reported on steps taken to ensure their protection, as did the UNRWA Commissioner-General in his annual report.(3)

Report of the Secretary-General. In September 1986,(31) the Secretary-General reported on the implementation of a 1985 resolution,(32) in which the General Assembly held Israel responsible for the security of the Palestine refugees in the occupied territories and called on it for compensation for the damage resulting from its invasion of Lebanon. Responding on 16 July 1986 to the Secretary-General's February request for information on steps taken or envisaged in compliance with the resolution, Israel stated that its position had been fully set out in 1985;(33) it rejected the resolution, which brushed aside realities and was particularly abhorrent as it omitted mention of the death and destruction in certain Arab countries. Since April 1985, Syrian and Lebanese forces had killed over 2,500 Palestinians and wounded over 6,300 in refugee camps in Lebanon; likewise, Palestinian camps in the Syrian Arab Republic and Jordan were the scenes of death, destruction and misery. In May 1985, Shiite forces in Lebanon had slaughtered hundreds of Palestinians in the camps around Beirut, and heavy fighting in Tripoli resulted in the death and injury of hundreds more. Intensified fighting in the camps around Beirut had prompted Democratic Yemen to transmit an urgent plea of 2 June from PLO to the Secretary-General to end the fighting,(34) and the United Arab Emirates had transmitted an 11 June letter from PLO, which charged that Amal gangs and the sixth brigade of the Lebanese army continued shelling the camps in an attempt to break into them.(35)

The UNRWA Commissioner-General continued his efforts in consultation with the Secretary-General to contribute to the safety and security of the refugees in all the occupied territories. Following the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the Sidon and Tyre areas in Lebanon, the Secretary-General stated that there was nothing further to report regarding the Palestine refugees in Lebanon in the context of refugee protection.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 I by recorded vote.
Protection of Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 508(1982) of 5 June 1982, 509(1982) of 6 June 1982, 511(1982) of 18 June 1982, 512(1982) of 19 June 1982, 513(1982) of 4 July 1982, 515(1982) of 29 July 1982, 517(1982) of 4 August 1982, 518(1982) of 12 August 1982, 519(1982) of 17 August 1982, 520(1982) of 17 September 1982 and 523(1982) of 18 October 1982,

Recalling its resolutions ES-7/5 of 26 June 1982, ES-7/6 and ES-7/8 of 19 August 1982, ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982, 37/120 J of 16 December 1982, 38/83 I of 15 December 1983, 39/99 I of 14 December 1984 and 40/165 I of 16 December 1985,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,

Having also considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986,

Referring to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and to the obligations arising from the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907,

Deeply concerned at the marked deterioration in the security situation experienced by the Palestine refugees as stated by the Commissioner-General in his report,

Deeply distressed at the continuous suffering of the Palestinians resulting from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its consequences,

Reaffirming its support for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon, within its internationally recognized boundaries,

1. Urges the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Commissioner- General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to undertake effective measures to guarantee the safety and security and the legal and human rights of the Palestine refugees in all the territories under Israeli occupation in 1967 and thereafter;

2. Holds Israel responsible for the security of the Palestine refugees in the Palestinian and other Arab ter-ritories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and calls upon it to fulfil its obligations as the occupying Power in this regard, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;

3. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to release forthwith all detained Palestine refugees, including the employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East;

4. Urges the Commissioner-General, in consultation with the Government of Lebanon, to provide housing to the Palestine refugees whose houses were demolished or razed by the Israeli forces;

5. Calls once again upon Israel to compensate the Agency for the damage to its property and facilities resulting from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, without prejudice to Israel's responsibility for all damages resulting from that invasion;

6. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Commissioner- General, to report to the General Assembly before the opening of its forty-second session, on the implementation of the present resolution.

General Assembly resolution 41/69 I
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 121-2-29 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/754) by recorded vote (95-2-24), 4 November (meeting 19); 8-nation draft (A/SPC/41/L.15) agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 13-19; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway Panama, Portugal, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Spain, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zaire.

For the United States, the text contained an unacceptable and unilateral condemnation of Israel, disregarding the truth; making the Secretary-General responsible for the safety, security and rights of the Palestine refugees in the territories would pose legal and practical problems because it would be conducive to jurisdictional clashes.

Explaining its vote on all texts under the agenda item, Israel rejected what it called the slanderous propaganda onslaught against it on the false presence of granting the Palestinian Arabs protection and assistance; it could not condone the different criteria applied to various refugee situations.

Speaking for the 12 EC member States, the United Kingdom, reaffirming their concern for the safety and rights of all Palestine refugees, regretted that the text, which traditionally had addressed the problems of Palestine refugees in Lebanon, did not reflect fully their current difficult circumstances. The text also lacked cohesion, and with regard to paragraph 1, the EC members considered it important to avoid bringing into question Israel's responsibility as an occupying Power for protecting the civilian population; it was for Israel to respect its obligations, whatever the circumstances.

In Sweden's opinion, the preamble was an improvement over that of 1985;(32) however, it continued to regard as inappropriate that the Secretary-General should guarantee the safety of the refugees in situations where he had no means of so doing. Furthermore, paragraph 3 was too general, while the sixth preambular paragraph, which had been taken from the Commissioner-General's report,(3) referred specifically to the situation in Lebanon.

Finland supported all measures which might improve the refugees' protection and, although it appreciated the new preambular wording, particularly in the sixth paragraph, it regretted the lack of balance in the text, which, it felt, ignored the serious security problems of Palestine refugees in Lebanon. It also had reservations on paragraphs 1 and 3 on the grounds that it was not the Secretary-General's task to guarantee security and because paragraph 3 was inaccurate and too general.

Austria also considered that there were positive changes over the 1985 wording; it could, however, be improved, particularly in paragraph 3 where it would be better to speak of Palestine refugees detained for political reasons.


Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip

The situation in the Gaza Strip was less dramatic than that in Lebanon, the UNRWA Commissioner-General stated when introducing his 1985/86 annual report(3) in the General Assembly's Special Political Committee, but developments were building towards a serious crisis. The area was one of the most densely populated in the world and pressure on human and physical resources was mounting. Local employment opportunities were diminishing and fresh water supplies were being consumed at nearly twice the replenishment rate. Residents were evincing a growing sense of desperation and despair and there had been increasing demands on UNRWA for additional services, which limited resources had made impossible to meet. The time had come for the Assembly to look carefully at the emerging situation and to attend to the need for co-ordinated action to ease the situation there.

Report of the Secretary-General. In September 1986,(36) the Secretary-General reported on Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip, in accordance with a 1985 resolution,(37) in which the General Assembly again demanded that Israel desist from removing and resettling them and from demolishing their shelters. In reply to the Secretary-General's February 1986 request for information regarding implementation of the resolution, Israel stated on 16 July that its position had been set out in successive annual replies the latest in August 1985.(38) In addition, Israel had addressed several points raised in the resolution in its 1985 statement before the Special Political Committee.(39) The annual adoption of that resolution reflected the refusal to acknowledge the improved living conditions in the Gaza district Israel added. No mention was made of the 120 per cent increase since 1967 of pupils attending school there, of the 25 per cent drop in illiteracy, or of the extensive development of medical care or the improvement of environmental services, including water supply, sewage and refuse disposal. Moreover, the demand that Israel desist from removing and resettling refugees and from destroying shelters was based on groundless accusation. Since 1967, Israel had initiated community development projects, enabling some 80,000 people to leave refugee camps and relocate to new residential areas; the occupants of old shelters had been moved to new, better-quality homes and vacant, dilapidated shelters had been demolished because of the threat they posed to the camps' sanitary conditions. As a result, the level of housing in the area had improved significantly and the projects were becoming increasingly popular among the refugees because they improved their living conditions.

The Secretary-General reported that, from September 1985 until the end of June 1986, Israel had demolished 13 shelter rooms constructed by the families, affecting seven refugee families comprising 66 persons. In September 1985, two rooms tn the Rafah camp and one in a housing project nearby had been demolished on the grounds that they had been occupied by persons alleged to have stabbed an Israeli in Gaza town; UNRWA had protested to the authorities that the demolitions had also rendered homeless other members of the families against whom no allegations had been made and constituted punitive action. Similarly, UNRWA Protested the June 1986 demolition of a room in a Gaza town shelter, occupied by a family of nine, while two other rooms in that shelter were locked on punitive grounds because of an alleged security offence by the shelter's owner. Also in June, nine rooms in Gaza town, occupied by four refugee families comprising 27 persons, were demolished on the grounds that the construction contravened building regulations.

UNRWA was following up with the Israeli authorities the rehousing of refugees who remained affected by the 1971 demolitions.(40) Of 87 families previously categorized as living in hardship conditions, 19 were in hardship, 18 were inadequately and 37 were adequately housed, and 13 had previously purchased houses in Israeli-sponsored projects. The position of the 19 families living in hardship had been checked several times during the reporting period; despite repeated assurances by Israel that they would be rehoused little progress had been made. The authorities had assured UNRWA, however, that a solution had been developed and would be implemented as soon as possible.

During the reporting period, the Commissioner-General had received the following information relating to demolition of refugee shelters by Israel on the grounds that they had been built without proper authority on State land outside camp boundaries. Previously, it was stated that the Israeli authorities had told several families living on the northern perimeter of Jabalia camp to remove some of their shelter extensions and that those families had taken the matter to the High Court of Israel,(38) which had ruled against them; no demolitions had taken place so far, although the shelters had been isolated by bulldozing sand around their premises and the authorities had had discussions with some members of the group. The 35 families whose shelters on the perimeter of Beach camp had been demolished in 1983(41) had still not been rehoused - 28 were living in self-built temporary shelters on or near the same site and 7 had left the site. Recently, Israel had stated that it might be willing to consider allocating land to these families in a housing project, although not in Sheikh Radwan, the nearest project. Some refugee families at Rafah camp had, at the instance of the Israeli authorities, arranged to construct new houses on sites which would form part of the Tel el-Sultan housing project. Unfortunately, some families lacked the ability to undertake such work; they remained in their original shelters but had sand bulldozed around, sometimes as high as the shelter itself, on the grounds that the development of the area for future housing must continue. The Agency had urged the authorities to take a more humanitarian approach towards those remaining.

In the year under review, according to available information, 381 refugee families, comprising 2,366 persons, moved to 236 plots of land in Israeli-sponsored housing projects; in addition, three families, comprising 20 persons, moved to three completed housing units of nine rooms in all at the Sheikh Radwan project. As a precondition, demolition of 627 shelter rooms had been required, of which 310 had been built by UNRWA, 7 with UNRWA assistance and 310 without. Not only did that cause practical complications in cases of extended families sharing the same shelters, where one family wished to move but another, usually the older, wanted to remain, it also prevented UNRWA from using vacated shelters to help relieve the situation of other families living in poor, overcrowded conditions.

Israel had to date allocated approximately 3,714 plots of land in the Gaza Strip for housing projects. A total of 2,303 plots had been built on by 3,187 refugee families comprising 19,682 persons, 261 plots were under construction, 1,036 were vacant and 114 had been built on by non-refugees. In addition, 2,915 families, consisting of 17,972 persons, had moved into 2,649 completed housing units, consisting of 5,837 rooms.

Refugee families continued to purchase plots at subsidized rates for constructing houses in projects developed by the Israeli authorities in the Beit Lahiya, Nazleh and Tel el-Sultan areas. A new de-velopment was the construction of multi-storey apartment blocks in Sheikh Radwan, sponsored by the Israeli authorities; the apartments were offered for sale upon completion.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommen-dation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 E by recorded vote.
Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237(1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 2792 C (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 C (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3089 C (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3331 D (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 C (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 E of 23 November 1976, 32/90 C of 13 December 1977, 33/112 E of 18 December 1978, 34/52 F of 23 November 1979, 35/13 F of 3 November 1980, 36/146 A of 16 December 1981, 37/120 E of 16 December 1982, 38/83 E of 15 December 1983, 39/99 E of 14 December 1984 and 40/165 E of 16 December 1985,

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 1985 to 30 June 1986, and the report of the Secretary-General,

Recalling the provisions of paragraph 11 of its resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948 and considering that measures to resettle Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip away from the homes and property from which they were displaced constitute a violation of their inalienable right of return,

Alarmed by the reports received from the Commissioner-General that the Israeli occupying authorities, in contravention of Israel's obligation under international law, persist in their policy of demolishing shelters occupied by refugee families,

Emphasizing the statement contained in paragraph 16 of the report of the Commissioner-General, which reads as follows:

"I believe I have a duty to draw the attention of Member States to the deteriorating conditions in the Gaza Strip and urge that the international community give serious consideration to what can be done to ease conditions there. This problem warrants immediate attention",

1. Reiterates strongly its demand that Israel desist from the removal and resettlement of Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip and from the destruction of their shelters;

2. Requests the Commissioner-General to extend all the services of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip;

3. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report to the General Assembly, before the opening of its forty-second session, on Israel's compliance with paragraph 1 above.


General Assembly resolution 41/69 E
3 December 1986 Meeting 95 146-2-5 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/754) by recorded vote (117-2-3), 4 November (meeting 19): 9-nation draft (A/SPC/41/L.11); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 13-19: plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Cameroon, Costa Rica, Liberia, Malawi, Zaire.

According to the United States, the text was controversial, was biased and condemned Israel severely.

Although firmly supporting efforts to improve the conditions of refugees in the Gaza Strip, the United Kingdom said it was the 12 EC members' understanding of the request in paragraph 2 that the Commissioner-General's efforts depended on the resources available. Similarly, Austria found that wording unsatisfactory; the request to extend all UNRWA services to the refugees was meant to take into account available means. Finland considered that all services should be extended, it being understood that resource limits would not be exceeded.


Palestine refugees in the West Bank

Report of the Secretary-General. Of the 365,315 refugees in the West Bank registered with UNRWA, 772,870 lived outside camps, the Secretary-General noted in a September 1986 re-port.(42) He also reported that, in reply to his February request to Israel to inform him of any steps taken to implement the General Assembly's 1985 resolution,(43) in which it again called on Israel to refrain from removing and resettling refugees in the West Bank, Israel had stated on 16 July that its position had been set out previously, in 1984(44) and 1985.(45)

The Secretary-General added that, while there had been occasional press reports concerning the possible voluntary movement of Palestine refugees in the West Bank into new housing outside of camps, no such development had taken place. The UNRWA Commissioner-General's position continued to be that, while he would hardly object if refugees voluntarily sought better housing outside a camp, he would strongly do so if any pressure or coercion were used to make them move. The mere fact of relocation outside the camps did not affect eligibility for UNRWA services.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 3 December 1986, acting on the recommen-dation of the Special Political Committee, the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/69 J by recorded vote.
Palestine refugees in the West Bank

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237(1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 38/83 J of 15 December 1983, 39/99 J of 14 December 1984 and 40/165 J of 16 December 1985,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,

Having also considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986,

Alarmed by Israel's demolition of Palestine refugee camps in the West Bank,

Alarmed also by Israel's plans to remove and resettle the Palestine refugees of the West Bank and to destroy their camps,

Recalling the provisions of paragraph 11 of its resolution 194(III) of 11 December 1948 and considering that measures to resettle Palestine refugees in the West Bank away from the homes and property from which they were displaced constitute a violation of their inalienable right of return,

1. Calls once again upon Israel to abandon those plans and to refrain from any action that leads to the removal and resettlement of Palestine refugees in the West Bank and from the destruction of their camps;

2. Requests the Secretary-General, in co-operation with the Commissioner- General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to keep the matter under close supervision and to report to the General Assembly, before the open-ing of its forty-second session, on any developments re-garding this matter.

General Assembly resolution 41/69 J
3 December 1936 Meeting 95 145-2-6 (recorded vote)

Approved by Special Political Committee (A/41/754) by recorded vote (115-2-5), 4 November (meeting 19); 9-nation draft (A/SPC/41/L.16); agenda item 75.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Meeting numbers. GA 41st session: SPC 13-19; plenary 95.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

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

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, El Salvador, Liberia, Malawi, Zaire.

The United States was unable to support paragraph 1 because it would preclude programmes aimed at improving the refugees' living conditions pending the achievement of a comprehensive political settlement; it would therefore also preclude programmes for constructing new housing for those outside the camps, undertaken on a voluntary basis by the refugees themselves in co-ordination with UNRWA.

Speaking for the EC members, the United Kingdom said the reference in the fifth preambular paragraph to Israel's demolition of the camps was contrary to the facts. Sweden interpreted the wording of paragraph 1 as a statement of Israel's responsibility for refraining from displacing and relocating the refugees against their will, and it added that the use of the definite article in the sixth preambular paragraph was misleading.
REFERENCES

(1)A/42/13. (2)YUN 1985, p. 353. (3)A/41/13. (4)A/42/13/Add.1. (5)A/42/5/Add.3. (6)A/41/702. (7)A/41/5/Add.3 & Corr.1. (8)A/41/632. (9)YUN 1983, p. 354, GA res. 38/831, 15 Dec. 1983. (10)YUN 1984, p. 344, GA res. 39/99 I, 14 Dec. 1984. (11)YUN 1985, p. 364, GA res. 40/165 I, 16 Dec. 1985. (12)Ibid., p. 358, GA res. 40/165 G, 16 Dec. 1985. (13)A/41/566. (14)YUN 1985, p. 358. (15)YUN 1982, p. 560. (16)YUN 1984, p. 335. (17)A/41/565. (18)YUN 1985, p. 360, GA res. 40/165 F, 16 Dec. 1985. (19)Ibid., p. 361, GA res. 40/165 K, 16 Dec. 1985. (20)A/41/457. (21)YUN 1980, p. 443, GA res. 35/13 B, 3 Nov. 1980. (22)YUN 1983, p. 351; YUN 1984, p. 340, YUN 1985, p. 361. (23)A/41/563. (24)YUN 1985, p. 362, GA res. 40/165 D, 16 Dec. 1985. (25)YUN 1977, p. 340, GA res. 32/90 F, 13 Dec. 1977. (26)A/41/543. (27)YUN 1985, p. 363, GA res. 40/165 H, 16 Dec. 1985. (28)Ibid., p. 364. (29)A/41/555. (30)YUN 1948-49, p. 174, GA res. 194(III), 11 Dec. 1948. (31)A/41/567. (32)YUN 1985, p. 364, GA res. 40/165 I, 16 Dec. 1985. (33)Ibid., p. 365. (34)A/41/394-S/18128. (35)S/18153. (36)A/41/564. (37)YUN 1985 p. 367, GA res. 40/165 E, 16 Dec. 1985. (38)Ibid., p. 366. (39)Ibid., p. 367. (40)YUN 1971, p. 198. (41)YUN 1983, p. 358. (42)A/41/568. (43)YUN 1985, p. 368, GA res. 40/165 J, 16 Dec. 1985. (44)YUN 1984, p. 350. (45)YUN 1985, p. 368.