Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT

MIDDLE EAST

Security Council Consideration

During 1975 the UN peacekeeping forces in the Middle East continued to play an important role in maintaining the atmosphere of calm and confidence necessary for further negotiations toward an overall peace settlement. Their mandates were not allowed to expire in spite of the fact that the renewal process had become a political issue in itself and was used to exert pressure for other ends.

UNEF Renewal

In April, after the breakdown of the U.S. efforts to negotiate an expansion of the 1974 agreement on disengagement between Israel and Egypt in Sinai, Egypt let it be known that it would only agree to a 3-month extension of UNEF (UN Emergency Force) when its current mandate expired on April 24. Israel preferred that the extension be for the usual 6-month period. Egypt also sought during the negotiations on the wording of the renewal resolution to make only selective references to former Security Council resolutions on the Middle East rather than listing them all, as was usually done, but this move did not succeed. The resolution ultimately adopted on April 17, by a vote of 13 to 0, with China and Iraq not participating, included preambular references to all resolutions on UNEF that had been adopted since the October 1973 war and, besides renewing the force for 3 months, called on all parties to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338.1/

In his explanation of vote, the U.S. Representative, Ambassador John Scali, said:

"These UN peacekeeping troops are essential not only in maintaining the lines of separation between Egypt and Israel and providing a deterrent to renewed hostilities but also in creating a climate of trust and confidence upon which the

1/ Resolution 338 of Oct. 22, 1973, established the ceasefire, called for implementation of resolution 242 of Nov. 22, 1967, in all its parts, and called for negotiations between the parties aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East. This resolution led to the opening of the Middle East Peace Conference at Geneva in December 1973 under the cochairmenship of the U.S. and U.S.S.R.

success of further negotiations depends. The UN Emergency Force and the disengagement agreement between Egypt and Israel are both means to an end, not settlements themselves. They are part of the process toward an overall peaceful solution through negotiations as envisaged in Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

"As a matter of principle, we would have preferred an extension for a longer period of time. But whether the mandate is extended for 3 or 6 months or even longer, we believe there is an urgent need to move ahead in achieving a negotiated settlement.

[ocr errors]

The atmosphere was tenser in July when the mandate had to be renewed again, for the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs had sent a letter on July 14 to the Secretary General saying, "While Egypt does not consent to further renew the mandate of UNEF, she is not against the proper use of the Force."

This ambiguous position resulted, apparently, from Egypt's desire that UNEF not become a force to maintain the status quo and that greater urgency be given to further progress toward a settlement in the Middle

East.

On July 21 the Security Council decided, by a vote of 13 to 0, with China and Iraq not participating, to send an appeal to President Anwar Sadat to reconsider the Egyptian position. On July 23 the President of the Council received a positive response from the Egyptian Foreign Minister, affirming that his government would accept a further renewal for 3 months. A resolution to this effect was adopted on July 24 by a vote of 13 to 0, with China and Iraq not participating. The U.S. Representative, Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan, concluded his statement after the vote by saying:

"It remains to be noted that the finest leadership and the most selfless willingness to serve, as important as these are, require at the same time positive attitudes on the part of the parties in seeking peace. My government wishes to express its appreciation to President Sadat and Prime Minister Rabin [of Israel] for the affirmative actions which have made possible the renewal of the mandate of UNEF-a force which serves the mutual interests of both sides."

On September 4 Egypt and Israel signed a new agreement relating to the disengagement of their forces in Sinai. Article V of the agreement said, "The United Nations Emergency Force is essential and shall continue

its functions and its mandate shall be extended annually." This simplified the renewal of UNEF in October.

In informal consultations the U.S.S.R. proposed two additions to the draft resolution put forward by the Security Council President (Sweden). The first concerned the need for UNEF to operate with maximum efficiency and economy, and the second borrowed language from the Secretary General's October 17 report on UNEF, citing the urgency for further progress for an overall settlement in the Middle East since any relaxation of the search "could be especially dangerous in the months to come." These amendments were accepted and the resolution was adopted on October 23 by a vote of 13 to 0, with China and Iraq not participating.

At the beginning of the Council meeting, the President read a letter from the Egyptian Foreign Minister expressing Egypt's consent to UNEF's renewal for 1 year, but neither Israel nor Egypt spoke during the meeting. In a statement after the vote, Ambassador Moynihan said:

"The renewal today of the UN Emergency Force for a period of one year and the continuing role as envisaged in the Secretary General's report is an essential part of the process leading toward a viable solution to the conflict in the Middle East. Together with the agreement signed by Egypt and Israel on September 4, it presents us with an opportunity that we must not miss. This is the opportunity to move forward, to continue the process, to maintain the momentum. We therefore welcome the extension of UNEF with a sense of dedication and determination to continue in our efforts for a negotiated settlement in the Middle East that will ensure a just and lasting peace."

UNDOF Renewal

On May 28 the Security Council, by a vote of 13 to 0, with China and Iraq not participating, renewed for 6 months the mandate of UNDOF (UN Disengagement Observer Force), which had been established as part of the May 31, 1974, agreement to disengage the Israeli and Syrian forces that were on the Golan Heights. It had been commonly believed in advance of the Council action that Syria would only agree to a 2-month extension. However, Syria announced shortly before the end of May that it would agree to the more usual 6-month period. The Council meeting was brief and noncontentious, with Ambassador Scali's remarks after the vote generally reaffirming the importance of UNDOF to the maintenance of the disengagement agreements between Syria and Israel.

The situation was far different at the end of November, however, when the Security Council only after long and difficult negotiations renewed UNDOF's mandate in the evening of November 30. The mandate would have expired at midnight, and world attention had been focused on the renewal negotiations. The vote again was 13 to 0, with China and Iraq not participating.

In order to clarify the positions of Israel and Syria, the UN Secretary General, Kurt Waldheim, had gone to the Middle East from November 22 to 27. On November 28 he gave Council members a report of his consultations in Syria, Israel, Egypt, and Lebanon and urged that UNDOF's mandate be extended, on the assumption that the Council would reach agreement on a lution taking due account of the positions put to him by the two parties.

The same day Guyana, Cameroon, Tanzania, and Mauritania circulated a draft resolution that, besides renewing UNDOF's mandate, called for the Security Council to reconvene on January 12, 1976, to continue the debate on the Middle East including the Palestine question, taking into consideration General Assembly resolution 3375 of November 10. (The United States and some other Council members had voted against this Assembly resolution which called for participation by the Palestine Liberation Organization in all further Middle East peace efforts "on an equal footing with other parties." See below, p. 10.) The draft was later modified to read, "taking into consideration the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions as well as the statement of the Security Council President on this subject." Since the proposed statement by the President would also have specifically mentioned Assembly resolution 3375, it was unacceptable to the United States, and informal consultations continued late on November 29.

In the afternoon of November 30 it became apparent that a compromise could be reached, and the resolution in its final form was adopted that evening. It included a paragraph stating that the Security Council would "reconvene on 12 January 1976, to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question, taking into account all relevant United Nations resolutions." The Council President (U.S.S.R.) made a statement that it was the understanding of the majority of the Security Council that when it reconvened on January 12 the representatives of the PLO would be invited to participate in the debate.

The U.S. Representative, Ambassador Moynihan, in statements before and after the vote made it clear that the United States considered only Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 to be relevant to the discussions, and that the United States did not support the statement

on PLO participation. In an explanation before the vote Ambassador Moynihan said:

"Mr. President, with respect to the resolution before us, the United States wishes to make clear that we are not agreeing to this resolution, which includes a provision calling for a Security Council debate on the situation in the Middle East, out of any desire for such a debate in this setting--much less out of any intention, howsoever remote, of seeing a transfer of the negotiations between the two parties to the UNDOF arrangements to the Security Council.

"We have agreed, we are agreeing, solely out of deference to the right of the Security Council to take up any matter it desires to take up. We consider that this resolution is taken without prejudice whatsoever to the Geneva formula or to the negotiations by the parties through inter

mediaries."

Reaction to the resolution was immediate and intense. The Syrians claimed that the resolution constituted a victory for the PLO. The Israeli Cabinet issued a communique on December 1 which rejected the Council's linkage of renewal of UNDOF with "alien elements which have nothing to do with the disengagement agreement," and stated that Israel would not participate in the January debate.

Israeli Attack on Palestinian Camps in Lebanon

On the morning of December 2, 30 Israeli airplanes bombed five targets in or near Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. On December 3 the Egyptian and Lebanese Ambassadors asked the Security Council President for an urgent meeting of the Council, with the participation of the PLO.

World opinion was that the Israeli air raids had been a reaction to the Council's November 30 resolution, but the Israelis said they were directed against terrorist bases. They further said they would not participate in the Security Council debate if the PLO were invited.

In the course of the informal consultations prior to the opening of the December 4 meeting, Cameroon, Guyana, Iraq, Mauritania, and Tanzania proposed to the President of the Council (U.K.) that the PLO be invited to participate in the debate with the same prerogatives as member states. The normal procedure would have been under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, which provides for individuals to be invited to make statements and then withdraw.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »