UN Disengagement Observer Force

The Council also met twice during the year to renew the 6-month mandate of the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) operating on the Golan Heights between Israeli and Syrian forces. Resolution 633, adopted May 30, extended UNDOF's mandate through November 30. The Council voted again on November 29 (Resolution 645) to renew the mandate through May 31, 1990. Both votes were unanimous. The resolutions called on the concerned parties to implement immediately UN Security Council resolution 338 (1973). In his May and November reports to the Council on UNDOF, the Secretary General noted:

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.

On both occasions the President of the Security Council issued a brief statement indicating that this observation by the Secretary General also reflected the view of the Council.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERATION

Israeli Credentials

As in previous years, the 44th General Assembly witnessed an Arabsponsored challenge to Israel's credentials. During the plenary consideration of the first report of the Credentials Committee on October 17, the Arab group presented a motion that the recommendations of the Committee be accepted, except for those regarding the Delegation of Israel. Acting on behalf of the five Nordic countries, the Danish Representative moved formally under Rule 74 of the General Assembly's rules of procedure that action be deferred on the Arab amendment. (This was the eighth consecutive year that the Nordic group had initiated such action.) The Nordic motion was approved 95 (U.S.) to 37 with 15 abstentions, representing a record margin of victory, and with the Soviet Union abstaining for the first time instead of voting against the deferral motion. Having thus disposed of the challenge to Israeli credentials, the Assembly proceeded to adopt the first report of the Credentials Committee without a vote. (Resolution 44/5 A.)

Situation in the Middle East

The General Assembly debated the annual agenda item the "Situation in the Middle East" in two plenary sessions, November 27-28. On December 4 the three draft resolutions submitted under this item were adopted. Each was sponsored by Bahrain, Cuba and Mauritania. The United States voted against two of the resolutions and abstained on one.

The first draft resolution, A/44/L. 47, dealt with the occupied territories. Its 15 operative paragraphs differed little from the text adopted the previous year.

The resolution reaffirmed that just and lasting peace in the region could not be achieved without "the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem." It endorsed the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including "the right to return and the right to selfdetermination, national independence and the establishment of its independent sovereign state in Palestine." Deploring Israel's failure to comply with earlier resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the resolution declared Israel's annexation of Jerusalem null and void. It further condemned Israel's policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the territories, including expropriation and establishment of settlements. The text strongly condemned imposition of Israeli law in the Golan Heights. It called on all states to end any military, economic, financial and technical aid to Israel, and specifially condemned "increasing collaboration between Israel and the racist regime of South Africa."

The resolution again called for the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East, under UN auspices, with the participation of the Permanent Members of the Security Council and all parties to the conflict, including the PLO as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," on an equal footing. According to the text, this conference would have "full authority" to achieve a solution in accordance with relevant UN resolutions. The resolution called for setting up a preparatory committee of the Permanent Members of the Security Council to help convene such a conference.

The resolution, 44/40 A, was adopted by a vote of 109 to 18 (U.S.) with 31 abstentions. Many of our allies joined the United States in voting against the measure. The United States requested a separate vote on operative paragraph 10, which mentioned the United States by name and denounced various cooperative agreements between the United States and Israel. The assembly voted to retain the paragraph by a vote of 63 to 35 (U.S.) with 47 abstentions.

The second draft resolution, A/44/L. 48, specifically addressed the Golan Heights. Strongly condemning Israel for its failure to comply with relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, the text declared that Israel's continuing occupation of the Golan constitutes "an act of aggression" under the provisions of the UN Charter and a continuing threat to international peace and security. The resolution determined that "Israel's record, policies and actions confirm that it is not a peace-loving member state." It further called on all member states to suspend all military, economic, financial and technical assistance to Israel and to sever all diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with Israel. This resolution, 44/40 B, was approved by a vote of 84 to 22 (U.S.) with 49 abstentions. Again, many Western countries opposed the resolution.

The third draft, A/44/L. 49, concerned the status of Jerusalem. Its operative paragraphs declared Israel's annexation of the city "illegal and therefore null and void" and deplored the transfer of diplomatic missions to Jerusalem by some states in violation of Security Council resolution 378 (1980). The resolution, 44/40 C, was adopted by a vote of 147 to 2 with 7 abstentions (U.S.). Only Costa Rica and Israel voted no.

In his explanation of vote, Ambassador Pickering emphasized that for over 40 years the United States has been in the forefront of efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. He noted that the United States believes the only realistic means of achieving a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict is through direct negotiations between the concerned parties based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. He expressed U.S. regret that the draft resolutions-almost parallel renditions of those adopted in earlier years-offered only more rhetoric and accusations. Ambassador Pickering explained that the United States could not support resolutions 44/40 A and 44/40 B because they were "objectionable in tone and contained unbalanced, harsh condemnation of Israel." He added that 44/40 A "endorses an international peace conference on the Middle East, a concept we cannot support." Regarding resolution 44/40 C, Pickering explained that the United States abstained because "we believe that the status of Jerusalem should be determined by means of negotiations among the parties concerned and as part of an overall peace settlement."

Question of Palestine

On April 18 the General Assembly held a special resumed session to consider this item. The meeting was held at the request of the Arab group regarding an incident April 13 when Palestinians were killed and wounded by Israeli Armed Forces. Prior to the plenary meeting the Arab group tabled a draft resolution, A/43/L. 55, expressing shock at action by Israeli Armed Forces which resulted in killing and wounding Palestinian civilians in the town of Nahalin and condemning those policies and practices of Israel which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. It further demanded that Israel abide by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and requested the Security Council to consider measures to protect Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. The resolution was approved by a vote of 129 to 2 (U.S.) with 1 abstention. (Resolution 43/233.)

Ambassador Pickering explained that the United States would vote against the resolution because "one-sided, confrontational rhetoric" in the draft resolution "does not improve the situation on the ground or advance the prospects for peace in the region." Pickering emphasized, however, that the United States is saddened by the loss of life and injuries suffered on a daily basis in the occupied territories. He said that the Nahalin incident is a "particularly serious tragedy," and urged that "Israel make every effort to

avoid the unwarranted use of lethal force in the West Bank and Gaza." Pickering noted that such incidents "set back efforts to create a positive atmosphere for dialogue and undermine the confidence needed to build toward peace."

On October 6 the General Assembly held a special plenary meeting to consider the uprising (intifada) of the Palestinian people. This meeting was held, at the request of the Arab group, in addition to the regularly scheduled debate on this item later in the General Assembly session. Prior to the plenary meeting the Arab group tabled a draft resolution condemning "Israel's persistent policies and practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people" in the occupied territories and strongly deploring Israel's continued disregard of relevant decisions of the Security Council. It further demanded that Israel abide by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and requested the Security Council to consider with urgency the situation in the occupied territories with a view to considering measures needed to provide international protection to the Palestinian civilians. The resolution was approved 140 to 2 (U.S.) with 6 abstentions. (Resolution 44/2.)

Ambassador Watson explained that the United States objected to the resolution because it presented "only a one-sided view of the difficult situation in the occupied territories," and that resolutions incorporating "unbalanced rhetoric do not help alleviate the conditions they purport to describe, nor do they make a practical contribution to resolving the underlying problems." Watson emphasized that U.S. opposition to the resolution should not be construed as indifference to the plight of the Palestinian people or the current situation in the territories. He noted that the United States firmly supported the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories and that we had criticized Israeli actions inconsistent with that Convention. He underscored that the end of conflict and bloodshed in the occupied territories can only be achieved through dialogue leading to a negotiated comprehensive peace settlement agreed to by all the parties on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

The General Assembly debated the annual agenda item the "Question of Palestine" November 29 to December 1. On December 6 the three draft resolutions submitted under this item were adopted. Each was sponsored by Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal and the Ukrainian S.S.R.

The first draft resolution, A/44/L. 43, endorsed the efforts of the General Assembly's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, a body that the United States has consistently opposed as serving the partisan political aims of the PLO. The Assembly voted 133 to 3 (U.S.) with 21 abstentions to adopt this measure as resolution 44/41 A.

The next draft, A/44/L. 44, dealt mainly with the UN Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights, another body opposed by the United States on grounds of partisanship toward the PLO. This text, expressing appreciation and support for the Division's work, was adopted (Resolution 44/41 B) by a vote of 133 to 3 (U.S.) with 20 abstentions.

Draft resolution A/44/L. 45 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 136 to 3 (U.S.) with 17 abstentions. (Resolution 44/41 C.)

A fourth draft resolution tabled under this item, A/44/L. 51, called for the convening of an international conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations, "with the participation of all parties to the conflict, including the PLO, on an equal footing, and the five Permanent Members of the Security Council." According to the text, 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 selfdetermination." 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." This resolution, 44/42 A, was adopted by a vote of 152 to 3 (U.S.) with 1 abstention.

In explanation of vote, Ambassador Pickering expressed regret that the draft resolutions being considered failed to address the issues in a constructive manner and thus did nothing to advance the prospects for achieving a settlement. Rather, such resolutions "will only make it more difficult to bring the concerned parties together at the negotiating table." He noted that the resolution on convening an international conference, which purported to resolve in advance issues that must be resolved in negotiations, failed to address the centrality of direct negotiations between the parties. He reiterated U.S. opposition to any conference having the authority to impose a prescribed solution or overturn agreements reached between the parties.

Another draft resolution under this item, A/44/L. 50, addressed the status of the PLO in reference to the adoption of resolution 43/177 A (1988), which the United States had opposed, declared the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the UN system, without prejudice to the PLO's observer status. The draft proposed that the designation "Palestine" would be construed within the United Nations as the "State of Palestine." In light of strong opposition led by the United States to the United Nations recognizing Palestine as a state, the General