Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

ian people" were virtually identical to those of previous UN General Assemblies.

The first, resolution 46/74 A, endorsed the efforts of the General Assembly's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, a body the United States has consistently opposed as serving only the partisan political aims of the PLO while ignoring or suppressing opposing points of view. The Assembly voted 121 to 2 (U.S.), with 28 abstentions. The second resolution, 46/74 B, concerned the UN Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights, another body opposed by the United States on grounds of bias toward the PLO. It was adopted 121 to 2 (U.S.), with 28 abstentions. The third resolution, 46/74 C, called on the Secretariat's Department of Public Information, in cooperation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to continue its special information program on the Question of Palestine, with particular emphasis on public opinion in Europe and North America. It was adopted by a vote of 125 to 2 (U.S.), with 23 abstentions.

Resolution 46/75, "International Peace Conference on the Middle East," called for convening such a conference under UN auspices "with the participation of all parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, on an equal footing, and the five Permanent Members of the Security Council." This conference would be based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and "the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination.” The resolution affirmed several principles required for the achievement of peace, including withdrawal of Israel from the territories occupied in 1967 and dismantling of Israeli settlements in these territories. It further noted the "desire and endeavors to place the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, under the supervision of the United Nations for a limited period." The resolution did welcome the convening of the Madrid Peace Conference. Iran called for a separate vote on that paragraph, which was approved for inclusion in the resolution, 145 (U.S.) to 2, with no abstentions. Overall resolution was adopted by a vote of 104 to 2 (U.S.), with 43 abstentions.

Resolution 46/76, on the uprising (Intifadah) of the Palestinian people, condemned "those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people," and strongly deplored Israel's continuing dis

regard of relevant decisions of the Security Council. It further demanded Israel abide by provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and requested the Security Council examine with urgency the situation in the occupied territories regarding measures needed to provide international protection to the Palestinian civilians. The resolution was approved 142 to 2 (U.S.), with 5 abstentions.

In his statement to the Assembly, the U.S. Representative emphasized that the convening in Madrid of direct and bilateral negotiations under the cosponsorship of the United States and the Soviet Union was an "important and unprecedented development" to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive Middle East peace settlement. He acknowledged the draft resolutions "take some note of the process that began in Madrid."

He explained, however, that resolution 46/74 was flawed in two important respects. First, it contained language that "seeks to determine in advance the outcome of those very issues which are now before the parties to the peace conference and which must be resolved through direct negotiation between them.” Second, it considered convening an international peace conference on the Middle East, spelling out that a peace conference should be under UN auspices, with the participation of all parties to the conflict, including the PLO on "an equal footing." Moreover, the resolution failed "to affirm the guiding principle of this peace process—that it must be up to the governments and the peoples of the region to shape the future of the Middle East," and it ignored

.. major events which have taken place and in which the parties to peace are all present-Arabs, Israelis, Palestinians, and even seems to be an effort at complication that could jeopardize the prospects for success of the current talks.

The United States opposed resolution 46/75,because it dictated a prescribed solution prior to the necessary direct negotiations between the parties.

The U.S. Representative stated that the plight of the Palestinian people is of the highest concern to the United States, but in resolution 46/76 the United States objected to a one-sided view of the difficult situation in the occupied territories, which neither helped alleviate conditions, nor made a practical contribution to resolving underlying problems.

Israeli Practices in the Occupied Territories

In November the Special Political Committee considered Israeli practices in the occupied territories. There were seven res

olutions, all of which were adopted by the plenary on December 11. The United States voted against three of them and abstained on the other four.

Speaking in the Special Political Committee prior to the vote on these draft resolutions, the U.S. Representative reaffirmed that the United States had a strong interest in the human rights situation in the occupied territories and that it maintained an ongoing dialogue with the Government of Israel on the subject. She regretted, however, that the resolutions made "no practical contribution to safeguarding the human rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories or to the search for a just and lasting peace in the region." She called on members of the Committee to desist from outmoded rhetoric and "adopt a more constructive approach concentrating on reconciliation and dialogue between the parties."

Resolution 46/47 A strongly condemned a long list of alleged Israeli practices in the occupied territories, e.g., "ill-treatment and torture of children and minors under detention." It was approved by a vote of 96 to 5 (U.S.), with 52 abstentions. In an explanation of vote in Committee, the U.S. Representative expressed strong U.S. objection to the resolution's sweeping condemnation of a long list of unsubstantiated allegations about Israeli practices. On another subject, she objected to the expense the Special Political Committee imposed on the UN budget, particularly when its financial resources were so scarce.

Resolution 46/47 B reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories, condemned Israel's failure to acknowledge the convention as it applied, and demanded Israel accept and comply with its provisions. The vote was 153 to 1, with 3 abstentions (U.S.). The United States supported operative paragraph 1 reaffirming the Geneva Convention, but abstained, because the resolution's strident rhetoric did nothing to resolve the problems it sought to address.

Resolution 46/47 C deplored measures taken by Israel to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the occupied territories, citing in particular the establishment of settlements. It was approved 153 to 1, with 3 abstentions (U.S.). The U.S. abstention reflected the U.S. view that debate over legalities of Israeli settlements "only diverts attention from the real task of promoting peace through direct negotiations." At the same time, the United States reaffirmed its opposition to further settlement activity in the territories as an obstacle to peace.

Resolution 46/47 D deplored Israel's arbitrary detention or imprisonment of Palestinians and called on Israel to "release all Palestinians and Arabs arbitrarily detained and imprisoned as a result of their resistance against occupation in order to attain self-determination." It was approved 153 to 2 (U.S.), with 2 abstentions. The U.S. Representative noted the consistent opposition of the United States to the practice of widespread administrative detention. Nevertheless, the United States voted against the text because it did not address legitimate security problems in the occupied territories.

Resolution 46/47 E focused on deportations. It strongly deplored Israel's continuing disregard for relevant UN decisions concerning applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits deportations of protected persons from occupied territories. The resolution demanded Israel rescind deportation orders previously carried out, facilitate the return of those deported, and desist from future deportations. The resolution was approved by a vote of 153 to 1, with 3 abstentions (U.S.). The United States reaffirmed its position that Israel's deportation of Palestinian residents is inconsistent with provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that those deported should be permitted to return. Nevertheless, the United States abstained because the resolution's harsh polemical tone offered no realistic solution.

Resolution 46/47 F determined Israel's decision to extend its laws to the occupied Golan Heights "null and void and without international legal effect," and demanded Israel rescind the decision. The resolution also condemned Israel's persistence in "changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status" of the Golan Heights. The vote was 152 to 1, with 4 abstentions (U.S.). Despite the U.S. position that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory and that the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, therefore, apply to it, the United States abstained because the resolution contained harsh and unbalanced rhetoric. The United States reiterated its view that the Golan problem must be resolved through negotiations in accordance with Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

Finally, resolution 46/47 G condemned Israeli policies and practices directed against students and faculty in the occupied territories, "especially the opening of fire on defenseless students, causing many casualties." It further condemned the "systematic Israeli campaign of repression against and closing of universities, schools and other educational institutions." The resolution was approved by a vote of 150 to 2 (U.S.), with 4

abstentions. The United States opposed this resolution because its sweeping condemnations of Israeli policies and practices were unjustified and counterproductive.

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
Near East

The Special Political Committee annually considers draft resolutions related to activities of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). UNRWA is mandated by the General Assembly to provide education, health and relief services to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. The United States is the largest single contributor to UNRWA; our contributions since UNRWA's inception in 1949 exceed $1 billion.

During Committee debate, 11 draft resolutions were submitted, similar to those of previous years. All were approved by Committee in November and referred to plenary where they were adopted in December. The United States supported four and voted against the other seven.

As in previous years, the United States sponsored resolution 46/46 A, on "Assistance to Palestine refugees," as a reaffirmation of our continued commitment to UNRWA and its vital humanitarian programs. The resolution, which urged governments to contribute generously, was adopted in plenary by a vote of 137 (U.S.) to 0, with 1 abstention.

Two draft resolutions-"Working group on the financing of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East," and "Assistance to persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities"-were adopted by consensus as resolutions 46/46 B and 46/46 C, respectively. They also expressed general support for UNRWA's humanitarian efforts.

Resolution 46/46 D, "Offers by member states of member states of grants and scholarships for higher education, including vocational training, for Palestine refugees," appealed to governments and organizations to contribute generously to educational institutions providing instruction to Palestinian refugees. It was adopted 147 (U.S.) to 0, with 1 abstention. The United States supported this measure that provided in a practical way to assist in meeting refugee higher education needs, but expressed reservation regarding operative paragraph 5 concerning a proposed Jerusalem university, "Al-Quds," which the United States did not support.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »