Resolution 46/46 E, "Palestine refugees in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967," demanded Israel "desist from the removal and resettlement of Palestine refugees" and "destruction of their shelters." The resolution was adopted in plenary 143 to 2 (U.S.), with no abstentions. In opposing this resolution, the United States noted it referred to Palestinian refugees' "inalienable right of return,” while making no reference to negotiations for a comprehensive and lasting peace among concerned parties, necessary to resolve the underlying issues. The United States indicated it opposed the destruction of dwellings in the occupied territories but would not object in principle to voluntary relocation of refugees who seek new and better housing. Resolution 46/46 F proposing the "Resumption of the ration distribution to Palestine refugees" was adopted by a vote of 115 to 21 (U.S.), with 13 abstentions. The United States was opposed as in previous years, because the resolution attempted to usurp the authority of the UNRWA Commissioner General to decide how best to administer UNRWA programs. The United States respects the judgment of the Commissioner General that the real need for general ration distribution has ended, and that its continuation would adversely affect financing of other high-priority programs. Resolution 46/46 G on the "Return of population and refugees displaced since 1967" reaffirmed "the inalienable right of all displaced inhabitants to return to their homes or former places of residence" in the occupied territories and strongly deplored Israel's refusal to take steps to permit such a return. It was adopted by a vote of 115 to 2 (U.S.), with 32 abstentions. The United States objected to the reference to an inalienable right of return without any reference to necessary direct negotiations among all parties concerned. Resolution 46/46 H on "Revenues derived from Palestine refugees' properties" requested the Secretary General establish a fund for receipt of income, on behalf of displaced Arab owners, derived from their property and assets in Israel. The resolution passed by a vote of 114 to 2 (U.S.), with 33 abstentions. Again, the United States objected that it sought to prejudge the question of refugee compensation outside the context of necessary direct negotiations among all parties concerned. Resolution 46/46 I concerned the "Protection of Palestine refugees." It urged the Secretary General and the Commissioner General of UNRWA "to continue their efforts in support of the upholding of the safety and security and the legal and human rights" of Palestine refugees in the occupied territories. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 147 to 2 (U.S.), with 2 abstentions. In the U.S. view, this clearly exceeded UNRWA's mandate; Israel, as occupying power in the West Bank and Gaza, had the authority and responsibility to maintain security in those areas, as previously affirmed by UN Legal Counsel, and must carry out those obligations in strict accordance with provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1949. Resolution 46/46 J called for establishment of the "University of Jerusalem 'Al-Quds' for Palestine Refugees." The vote in favor was 146 to 2 (U.S.), with 2 abstentions. While affirming strong support for practical efforts to promote higher educational opportunities for Palestinian refugees, the United States opposed this proposal that represented an unreasonable and unworkable approach to the problem, and because it was neither practical nor appropriate for the General Assembly to involve itself in decision making concerning the establishment of such an institution. Resolution 46/46 K called for "Protection of Palestinian students and educational institutions and safeguarding of the security of the facilities of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East in the occupied Palestinian territory." It was adopted 151 to 2 (U.S.), with no abstentions. Despite U.S. concern over school closures and disruption of UNRWA's activities in the West Bank and Gaza, the United States objected to the unbalanced and harsh condemnation of Israel in the resolution. In a statement to the Special Political Committee prior to consideration of the resolutions concerning UNRWA, the U.S. Adviser emphasized our strong support for UNRWA's humanitarian programs. He commended UNRWA for its response to emergency needs of refugees affected by violence in Lebanon and continuing unrest in the occupied territories. He expressed regret that, as in previous years, many of the resolutions submitted were "highly politicized, containing sweeping, unbalanced criticism of Israel's treatment of refugees or make proposals that the United States considers financially unsound." In the U.S. view, such resolutions "make no practical contribution to UNRWA's objectives and only serve to exacerbate tensions." Cooperation with the League of Arab States A resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States was introduced in December. This year as in the past, efforts to delete language inimical to U.S. policies were unsuccessful. Resolution 46/24 was adopted by a vote of 140 to 2 (U.S.), with no abstentions. Explaining the U.S. vote, the U.S. Representative stated the United States sought "to support the work of the Arab League and does support increased cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States." He reaffirmed strong U.S. support for the work of the Arab League Tripartite High Committee in efforts to settle the conflict in Lebanon and acknowledged its positive role in the Gulf crisis. However, he said, the United States could not support the resolution, because it included language and references inconsistent with fundamental U.S. policies, including a request to the Secretary General to help implement General Assembly resolutions that the United States opposed as damaging to prospects for peace and security in the Middle East. Repeal of the Zionism is Racism Determination In 1991 the United Nations took a decisive step long sought by the United States and repealed the determination appearing in UN resolution 3379 (November 1975) that Zionism is a form of racism. The United States strongly opposed this resolution when it was adopted, by a vote of 72 to 35 (U.S.), with 32 abstentions. U.S. opposition was constant throughout the 16 years that followed. The United States stated consistently that the equation of Zionism with racism was wrong. The assertion challenged the right of Israel to exist and undermined the integrity and evenhandedness of the United Nations as an international organization. In 1987 Congress adopted a joint resolution calling on the United States to support efforts to rescind resolution 3379. In December 1989 Vice President Quayle made a public call for the repeal of the UN's Zionism is racism determination at Yeshiva University in New York City. He said, on behalf of the Government of the United States, I call on the Soviet Union, and other nations, to join us in cosponsoring a second resolution in the General Assembly . . . . This resolution would state that Zionism is not, and never has been, a form of racism, and would have Zionism-is-racism declared null and void. In June 1990 President Bush signed a further joint resolution of Congress "calling upon the United Nations to repeal General Assembly resolution 3379. In his statement, the President said, "It is long overdue that all of the member states of the United Nations join us in renouncing UN General Assembly resolution 3379." On September 23 in his address to the 46th General Assembly, President Bush addressed this issue again. He said: We should take seriously the Charter's pledge "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors." UN General Assembly resolution 3379, the so-called “Zionism is racism" resolution, mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the United Nations was founded. And I call now for its repeal. On December 3 Department of State spokesperson Margaret Tutwiler announced that Secretary Baker had instructed the Department of State to press actively for nullification of the "Zionism is racism" determination. The Department immediately increased its efforts with UN member states to revoke the determination. On December 12 a draft resolution was tabled with 69 cosponsors. It stated "The General Assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975." By December 16 the draft resolution had gained 86 cosponsors. That day, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger introduced it in plenary under item 92, "Elimination of racism and racial discrimination." In his statement, Eagleburger said that after a hopeful start the United Nations had seen confrontation instead of cooperation. He said that "ideological conflict eroded the UN's most precious asset-its claim to impartiality and moral honesty." Resolution 3379 was an example of this lack of moral purpose. He added, "We believe that with the world's and this body's passage into a new era, it is more than time to consign one of the last relics of the Cold War to the dustbin of history." His statement concluded: The resolution we introduce today would send a different message to the people of Israel from the one this body sent in 1975. But fundamentally it is not Israel which needs this action; it is the United Nations which requires it. Its passage will vindicate the universal principles upon which the United Nations was founded, and redeem the hopes which all mankind vested in the United Nations in 1945. A small number of states introduced a procedural motion to declare the repeal resolution "an important question," thus requiring a two-thirds majority. The procedural motion was defeated by a vote of 34 to 96 (U.S.), with 13 abstentions. The revocation resolution was adopted shortly thereafter by a vote of 111 (U.S.) to 25, with 13 abstentions and 15 absences. The White House released a statement December 16 welcoming the vote earlier that day, which included the following: The President is gratified that his call for repeal in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September has now received the overwhelming support of the international community. We commend those governments that cosponsored or supported this resolution and we salute the United Nations. Today's vote has enhanced the Afghanistan On December 5 the General Assembly adopted resolution 46/23 by consensus. The resolution identified the preservation of Afghanistan's sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and non-aligned and Islamic character as essential for a peaceful solution to its country's problems. The measure reaffirmed the right of the Afghan people to determine their own form of government and to choose their economic, political and social system free from outside intervention, subversion, coercion or constraint. Moreover, it called on all parties to work urgently for achievement of a comprehensive political solution, cessation of hostilities and creation of conditions enabling the return of Afghan refugees in safety and honor. The resolution emphasized early commencement of an intra-Afghan dialogue aimed at establishing a broad-based government through democratic procedures acceptable to the Afghan people. General Assembly action followed presentation on October 17 of a report by the Secretary General reviewing his efforts to achieve a political settlement in Afghanistan. Foremost among the achievements was issuance by the Secretary General on May 21 of a statement outlining elements to serve as the basis for a comprehensive settlement. The United States, the Soviet Union, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia welcomed this initiative and publicly declared their support of language subsequently incorporated into resolution 46/23. The Secretary General's call on interested parties to end their supply of arms to all Afghan factions was given impetus by agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union on September 13 to discontinue delivery of all weapons to Afghanistan beginning January 1, 1992. The Secretary General undertook to press other governments to follow this example and halt activities facilitating the acquisition of arms. Toward the end of 1991, the Secretary General's Special Representative in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Benon Sevan, intensified efforts to organize an Afghan gathering that—setting aside the question of personalities and their participation would define the structure and powers of a transition mechanism. That mechanism, in turn, would have powers and authority to guarantee the unity, safety and security of the Afghan people; ensure the territorial integrity of Afghanistan; and oversee the organization and conduct of free and fair elections. |