UN Secretariat Item Scan - Barcode - Record Title Page 93 Date 16/05/2006 Time 4:44:21 PM

S-0861-0006-02-00001

Expanded Number S-0861 -0006-02-00001

Title items-in-Peace-keeping operations - Middle East - Security Council documents

Date Created 14/06/1973

Record Type Archival Item

Container S-0861-0006: Peace-Keeping Operations Files of the Secretary-General: U Thant: Middle East

Print Name of Person Submit Image Signature of Person Submit UNITED NATIONS PROVISIONAL S/PV.1725 ]A June 1973

ENGLISH

PROVISIONAL VERBATIM RECORD OF THE SEVENTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIFTH MEETING

Held at Headquarters,, New York, on Thursday, lU June 1973s at 10.30 a.m.

President: Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Members: Australia Sir Laurence McINTYRE Austria Mr. JANKOWITSCH China Mr. HUANG France Mr. de GUIRINGAUD Guinea Mrs. Jeanne Martin CISSE India Mr. SEN Indonesia Mr. ANWAR SANI Kenya Mr. ODERO-JOWI Panama Mr. BOYD Peru Mr. PEREZ DE CUELLAR Sudan Mr. ABDULLA United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Mr. JAMIESON United States of America Mr. SCALI Yugoslavia Mr. MOJSOV

This record contains the original text of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches in other languages. The final text will be distributed as soon as possible. Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only. They should be sent in quadruplicate vithin three days to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, Office of Conference Services, Room LX-2332, and incorporated in a copy of the record. AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 15 JUNE 1973, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS WILL BE 20 JUNE 1973. The co-operation of delegations in strictly observing this time-limit would be greatly appreciated.

73-82206/A AW/em S/PV.1725 2

Themeeting was called to order at 11 a.m.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda was adopted.

EmiliTATION OF THE SITUATION IM THE MIDDLE EAST: (a) SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 331 (1973) (b) REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL UNDER SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 331 (1973) of 20 APRIL 1973 (S/10929)

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): In accordance with decisions taken by the Security Council at earlier meetings^ it is my intention. with the Council's consent., to invite the representatives of Egypt} Israel, Jordan, the United Republic of Tanzania5 Chad., the Syrian Arab Republic, Nigeria., Algeria.,

Morocco.., the United Arab Emirates3 Somalia., Guyana., Mauritania,, Kuwait, Qatar.,

Saudi Arabia3 Lebanon, Iran and Bahrain to take parts without the right to vote, in the Council's consideration of the situation in the Middle East. At the invitation of the President, Mr. El-Zayyat, representative of .Upypt:,

Mr. Tekoah3 representative of Israel, and Mr. Sharaf, representative of Jordan, took places at the Council table; and I4r. Salim, representative of the United Republic of Tanzania; Mr. Ouangmotchins.., representative of Chad Mr.-Kelani,, representative of the Syrian Arab Republic: Mr. Offou, representative of Nigeria.'; i-Ir. Bouteflika3 representative of Algeria: Mr. Zentar^ representative of Morocco, f ir._ Al-Pachachi, representative of the United Arab Emirates:, Mr. Nur Elmi, representative of Somalia; Mr. Jackson, representative of Guyana;, Mr. El Hassan., representative of Mauritania; Mr. Bishara, representative of Kuwait-; Mr. Jamal , representative of Qatar.- I"Ir. Sakliaf, representative of Saudi Arabia: Mr. Ghprra, representative of Lebanon- Mr. Hoveyda, representative of Iran: and Mr. Al Saffara representative of Bahrain, took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber. AW/em S/PV.1725 3-5

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): As we begin the work of this meeting I should like to inform members of the Security Council that I have received, as President of the Council, a telegram from the President of the Republic of Chad,, His Excellency Mr. Tomb alb aye, containing the following: !I have the honour to request a 2^-hour suspension of the Security Council debate on the situation in the Middle East to permit Mr. Baba Hassane, the .Minister for Foreign Affairs of my Government, to take an active part in the discussion. The Minister will be leaving Fort Lamy on 1^ June and will arrive in New York on 15 June. He will speak at the afternoon meeting. In giving my country this opportunity to comply with the mandate entrusted to it by the most recent Summit Meeting of the Organization of African Unity your Council will be making yet another contribution to the search for a peaceful solution and lasting peace in the area under discussion." AP/cc S/PV.1725 6 (The President)

Bearing in mind, this request of the President of Chad and also the fact that, in accordance with the decision of the Security Council of 6 June to invite Chad to participate in the discussion of the situation in the Middle East without the right to vote, I intend, if there is no objection from any member of the Council, to coranly with this request and to call on the Foreign Minister of Chad to make his statement on the.question of the situation in the Middle East tomorrow, 15 June, after the conclusion of the Council's consideration of the question of Cyprus, as an exception, since we are scheduled to suspend the discussion of the question of the Middle East today in principle. As I hear no objection, we shall proceed accordingly. Before giving the floor to the first sneaker for this morning's meeting, I call on the Secretary-General.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL: At the Council's meeting on 11 June the Foreign Minister of E^ypt addressed three questions to me. I now wish to reply to those questions. In reply to the first question I want to state that Ambassador Jarrine; informed the representatives of the parties at the time of his intention to submit an aide-memoire relating to Israel and Jordan. In reply to a question from the Egyptian representative whether Ambassador Jarring intended to submit an aide-memoire relating to Syria, Ambassador Jarring stated that Syria had not so far accepted Security Council resolution 2^2 (196?) and had not agreed to enter into contact with him. If it were to do so, an aide-memoire relating to Syria might have been submitted-. As noted in the aide-memoire addressed to Israel and the United Arab Republic, its aim was to break the deadlock between the parties and thus to enable discussions to proceed on the provisions of peace agreements, including in particular a just settlement of the refugee -problem. Ambassador Jarring recognized that the question would be most complicated and. difficult and would involve the formulation of a detailed plan. , . AP/cc S/PV.1725 X 7 (The Secretary-General)

In reply to the second question, I wish to recall that, under the Egyptian- Israeli Armistice Agreement of 19^9, Gaza., which is not Egyptian territory, is put under Egyptian administration pending the conclusion of a peace settlement. It was for this reason that Gaza was not covered in the aide-memoire, as was explained at the time by Ambassador Jarring to the United Arab Republic representative. The statement of the Foreign Minister of Egypt is therefore in essence correct. As regards the third question, the Council will recall that the Secretary- General was not x^esent at the four-Power meetings', nor was he associated with those meetings. The practice at the time was for the representative of the permanent member who had presided over a particular meeting to brief the Secretary-General informally and for his own information about matters discussed, during that meeting. , I can confirm that a note on the oral report to my predecessor on the meeting of four of the permanent members of the Council on 2U June 19T1 covers the general sense of that meeting as stated on 11 June by the Foreign Minister of Egypt. Obviously, detailed information can be provided only by the representatives of those Powers which participated in the atalks.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): As we know, at the meeting held on 11 June the Foreign Minister of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Mr'. El-Zayyat, pointed out that, as the Security Council knew, there were three questions which he had asked earlier to which he would like to receive answers. I would, remind the Council of those questions of Mr. El-Zayyat: "One, does the principle of non-acquisition of territories by force or by war, or the necessity that the weight of military victory should not be reflected. — to use an American expression •— mean that no territory at all can be thus acquired, or does it mean that the acquisition of small choice morsels of territory is permissible while the acquisition of unreasonably big territories'is not? AP/cc S/PV.1725 8-10 (The President)

"Two 3 is the principle of territorial integrity that everyone here upholds and! defends — including the United States of America, whose last five Presidents have asserted their conviction that this principle should, tie inviolable in the Middle East — applicable to all the nations or to all the nations except the Arab nations? RH/5/JPM S/PV.1725 11

(The President) "Three, Is.the principle of self-determination acclaimed by all the United Nations members, including Israel, valid vis-a-vis the hundreds of thousands,, the millions, of Arab Palestinians, or is it valid for everyone except for the Palestinians? "Could your Council — our Council -- have adopted or could it adopt now, any decisions or resolutions that would allow or can be interpreted to allow the breach of these three principles?" (l?21st meeting, page 2t) As President, I intend to answer those questions by Mr. El-Zayyat in the following way. A basis for an answer is provided by the appropriate provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and also the decisions of the major organs of the United Nations: the General Assembly and the Security Council. First in regard to the principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force or war and the closely allied principle of the territorial integrity of States, the Charter of the United Nations contains clear and precise provisions. Article 2 (U) states: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations". Secondly, this question has a direct relation to a number of fundamental documents of a general nature adopted by the United Nations — for example, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,which was adopted by the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth session as resolution 2625 (XXV). The first of the principles proclaimed in that Declaration is: "The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations'', (General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), Annex) As a concrete justification for this principle, the Declaration contains the following provision: RH/5/JPM S/PV.1725 12 (The President^

"The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal." (ibid.) A similar provision is contained in paragraph 5 of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security, adopted by the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth session as resolution 273*1 (XXV). Thirdly, there are other relevant decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, relating in particular to the situation in the Middle East. Apart from Security Council resolution 2k2 (1967) of 22 November 1967, which stresses the principle of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by •war" that principle was also confirmed in subsequent resolutions of the Security Council — 252 (1968).of 21'May 1968; 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971. During the discussion of'the question of the situation in the Middle East the General Assembly, in --its turn, in its resolutions 2628 (XXV) of k November 1970, 2799 (XXVI) of 13 December 1971 and 29^9 (XXVII) of 8 December 1972, confirmed the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and the inadmissibility of the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity of States. Thus, under the Charter the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations consider the principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force and .the principle of the territorial integrity of States to be commonly acknowledged norms of international law, violations of which are inadmissible in any circumstances whatsoever and; which are applicable in all cases including this case of the situation in the Middle East. , In connexion with the question whether the principle of self-determination is applicable with regard to the Palestinian Arabs, I should like to say the following. First, on this score there are quite clear provisions of the Charter. For example. Article 1 (2) states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is RH/5/JPM S/PV.1725 13

(The President)

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples'1. Article 55 speaks of "peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the • principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". From those and other relevant provisions of the Charter it follows that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples is one of the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Secondly, it is also well known that the Declaration on Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, which I have already mentioned, sets apart as a special principle that of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples. In relevant provisions of the Declaration which give concrete form to this principle the following is stated: "all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status". (General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), Annex) It is also stated that: "Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of .equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter." (ibid.) It is emphasized that: "Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action "" which deprives peoples... of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence." (ibid.) Thirdly, there are also a number of concrete resolutions of the United Rations which are applicable to the Palestinian Arabs. Operative paragraph 11 of resolution 19^ (ill), adopted on 11 December 19^8, states that the General Assembly: "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours shall be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible". (General Assembly resolution 19^ (ill), paragraph 11) Also relevant are General Assembly resolutions 2672 (XXV) of 8 December 1970, 2792 D (XXVI) of 6 December 1971 and 2963 E (XXVII) of 13 December 1972. The operative part of resolution 2963 E (XXVII) reads as follows: EH/5/ls S/PV.1T25

(The President)

"The General .Assembly „.„ "Affirms that the people of Palestine are entitled to equal rights and. self -deter:-illation., in accordance T/ith the Charter of the United -*atior>£ "2. Expresses once v.ore its '-rave concern that the people of Palestine have not been -permitted to enjoy their inalienable rights and to exercise their ripht to self-determination- "3. iteco,"p.izes that full respect for and realization of the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine are indispensable for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the lidclle East." P. 2963 Thus, accordin to the Charter of the United TJations and decisions of

United Nations organs, every peouLea without exception., has t^e riffit to self-deternination. Such a ri Jht is confiriifed in concrete fori.i in decisions of the United rations, inter_ ali^a Trith regard to the Arab people of Palestine. I call on the representative of the United States on a point of order.

:'r. SCALI (United States of America): iir. President, I have listened carefully to your statement, and I shall read it \7ith even greater care. T!ut since there have been no consultations on the three questions 3,

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I call on the representative of Israel.

Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): At the 1723rd meet in.a; of the Security Council., on 12 June 1973, I stated: "If there were any doubts that debates in the Security Council can serve no useful purpose because they inevitably lead to polemics and recrimination, the statement by the Soviet representative has removed them. If there were need to convince anyone that, as declared by Israel's Foreign Minister, debates in the Security Council cannot contribute to harmony and understanding but generally widen and deepen the differences, the Soviet representative's statement has been a most convincing factor." (1723rd meeting, -page Ul) Today, in the light of the faqt that it was possible for the representative of the USSR to usurp the right to speak for the entire Security Council and in view of the fact that it was possible for him to misuse his office of President of the Security Council to present unilateral, selective and distorted interpretations of the United Nations Charter and resolutions of organs of the Organization, I should like to emphasize that there can be no more doubt about the fact that the Security Council is not a forum which offers the possibility of examining seriously and on its merits the situation in the Middle East. The representative of the USSR in the statement which we just heard mentioned f a series of documents, Articles and provisions. He omitted, however, the crucial one which applies in this situation and which overshadows all the others — and that is Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..." Israel has been subjected to armed aggression on the part of the Arab States since 19^8. Nothing that has been stated by the representative of the Soviet Union can derogate from Israel's inherent right to continue to defend itself, to protect its territory and its population. BHS/gm S/PV.1725 17

The _PRE_SIDMT_ (interpretation from Russian): I call on the representative of Egypt.

' Mr._ EL~ZAYYAT_ (Egypt): I take note of Article 51= just cited.

The PRES_IDEKT_ (interpretation from Russian): I confined myself to mentioning the provisions of the Charter and the decisions of organs of the United Nations directly related to the problem touched upon in the questions of the representative of Egypt. I take note of the statement of the representative of the United States that he will attentively read the statement and I express the hope that he will change his view. With regard to the statement of the representative of Israel, no one expected any different reaction to these decisions of the United Nations. I added nothing; I just mentioned the United Nations resolutions related to the questions raised "by the representative of Egypt. References to Article 51 of the Charter are well known to us, but Article 51 speaks of the right to self-defence, not of the right to violate international law and the Charter or to acquire •territory by force.

Sir Laurence McIHTYRE_ (Australia): Mr. President, let me first of all join other speakers in this debate in welcoming you to the Presidency of this Council for the month of June. I think it is not exactly a new experience for you. I asked you a few days ago if you could remember how many times you had occupied this presidential chair, and you said you could not remember, but I think we worked out that it must be approaching 10 times. You have now confirmed that it is nine times, which must be a record that will be difficult for anybody to surpass. ¥e need clearly have no misgivings about your capacity to conduct the

Council's business confidently and decisively, and I would also suggest3 if I may, that the tact., courtesy and patience with which you have directed our present debate have contributed in no small degree to the relatively restrained key in which it has so far pursued its course. I do not forget either the very able, unruffled and genial fashion in which your predecessor. Ambassador Abdulla of Sudan, performed his functions as President during the month of May. BHS/gm S/PV.1725 18-20 (Sir Laurence Mclntyre, Australia)

I should like also to add my own words of welcome to the Foreign Ministers who have come here from Africa and the Ara"b countries to make their views known on the subject that is now before us. The Foreign Minister of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Mr. El--Zayyat, is of course an (old friend and colleague,, and it is always a pleasure for us to welcome him back here. As regards the other African Foreign Ministers, we will • all of us recall the imaginative and constructive initiative that was taken by the Committee of Ten of the Organization of African Unity in 1971 and carried into effect by the mission of four Heads of State in an attempt to find a way towards a breakthrough in the Middle East dispute - an initiative which; if I may say so, deserved more success than it was able to achieve. I have read with particular care the report that the Secretary--General has made for us in response to the Council's resolution 331 (1973)3 and I have found it to be a model of objectivity and a very comprehensive summary of developments in the Middle East since the events of the middle of 1967. If I had had any intention of recapitulating and analysing those developments in this statement, the report in document S/10929 has absolved me from the need to do SOD and I have no impulse at this time to go further back and explore the origins of this intractable and grievous situation. As has already been said in the course of this

debate., it is a history of missed opportunities and untimely setbacks3 brought about partly by failure to establish communication on a common wavelength and partly by the concatenation of acts of violence, from all of which it is not difficult to ascribe blame on both sides. There is bound to be a temptation in a situation of this kind to dwell on the past,x and the Middle East offers countless opportunities for rumination and recrimination about what should have been done or not done and about whose behaviour was honourable, or intransigent, or simply equivocal. DR/sg S/PV.1725 21 (Sir Laurence Mclntyre., Australia)

We can at any rate agree that there have been injustices and excesses which have all formed part of the vicious circle of violence and reprisal referred to by the Secretary-General in his introductory statement and which have effectively contaminated any atmosphere that might have been conducive to rational discussion and reasoned consideration and decision by the parties directly concerned. Nobody could have done more to help the parties to create such an atmosphere than Ambassador Jarring., whose enormous patience and dedication to the fulfilment of his mandate as the Secretary- General's Special Representative can only remain a matter of admiration to all of us. But while we cannot escape from the past , it is the present and the future that we must concentrate on, and the paramount need not to miss but to seize this current opportunity to help the Arab States and Israel in the direction of the kind of settlement that they must ultimately reach between themselves. If we sit by and allow attitudes and confrontations to harden to the point of petrifaction we may find ourselves stuck with a mountain of stones all set up, as it were, for a disastrous landslide at the first disturbance of any of them. Without wishing to be thought unduly optimistic it seems to me that there are some signs, however faint, that this debate has taken at times a somewhat different and perhaps more hopeful course , at least in its early stages3 than have previous debates in this Council and the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies. It is naturally to be expected that in any debate on the Middle East there is bound to be dissension and recrimination over the past. We have heard recriminations in this debate, and we have become accustomed to hearing them before. But it seems to me that there is an undertone — and call it no more than an undertone — of conscious restraint3 of attentive listening, and of probing for answers to questions asked with a deliberate purpose and in a genuine search for information. The Secretary-General has reminded us that the Security Council is the only forum where all the parties to the conflict have been able to meet together in the same room. Both Foreign Minister El-Zayyat and Ambassador Tekoah have denied that they are here just to score points off each other, and I want to believe them. Accordingly, I like to think that they have DR/sg S/PV.1725 22 (Sir Laurence MeIntyre,Australia)

been conducting, across those few yards "between their seats, and however tentatively, the beginning of a kind of dialogue which could conceivably open a small door towards negotiation. If I am right, this would be an augury for which we ought to be grateful and also encouraged. At this point I should like to indicate the attitude of my own Government towards the Middle East dispute. I shall first of all quote an extract from an address given by the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Gough Whitlam,, who is also Foreign Minister, on 6 May on the occasion of the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the foundation of Israel. After recalling Australia's traditional friendship with both sides in the dispute and emphasizing Australian support for the sovereignty of Israel, Mr. Whitlam concluded in the following words, addressing himself I - might note primarily to the Jewish community in Australia: :'I am not in the business of telling Israel what is for her own good. I know that such advice from me would be gratuitous and superfluous. I can only speak about the most useful course, for Australia cannot take the same pessimistic view of the United Nations as I think Israel tends to do ... There is no more certain way to ensure the continued ineffectiveness of the United Nations than that the smaller nations of peace and freedom should despair absolutely of that one world body of which they form a majority. The greatest * victims of the breakdown through despair of the League of Nations were the Jewish people. No nation would have more to lose than Israel by a breakdown of the United Nations. "We have affirmed, and we continue to believe, that the best prospect for an enduring peace in the Middle East will flow from an agreement freely arrived at between the parties. My Government will work to secure support for negotiations towards such an agreement, both in the United Nations and in all our diplomatic endeavours." On 6 June, in a communique issued at the conclusion of his visit to India, Mr. Whitlam joined with the Indian Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, in expressing concern at the grave situation in the Middle East and reaffirming their belief that Security Council resolution 2h2 (1967) provided the basis for a just and durable settlement of this serious and long outstanding problem. PR/sg ' S/PV.1T25 23-25 . (Sir Laurence Mclntyre, Australia) This then sums up the attitude of my Government towards a settlement of the Middle East dispute — that the test prospect for an enduring peace will flow from an agreement freely arrived at between the parties and growing out of the full implementation of resolution 2^2 (1967). The importance of resolution 2^2 (1967) needs no emphasis; we have been constantly reminded of it throughout this debate, and of the fact that it 'is the only resolution to which Israel, Egypt and Jordan are fully committed. As has been stressed more than once, we must be careful not to jeopardize the full support that it enjoys, but must instead ensure that it is respected and implemented as a whole and in all its parts. We have heard it said by both Egypt and Israel — and let us for the moment ignore any qualifications or glosses that may be put on it — that they are ready to enter into talks without preconditions. If this reflects a genuine and sincere desire on both sides — and this is of course a sine qua non — it should surely not be beyond the ingenuity of talented people, of whom there are many, both Arab and Israeli, to approach a negotiating table, or if necessary separate tables, or separate tables in distant rooms, with at least some common purposes in mind. One broad common objective might be to rid themselves of the siege mentality, if I may call it that,which has for so long afflicted the whole of the'Middle East, and to try to envisage the benefits of a condition of peace in which all States of the region, living within secure and recognized boundaries and with their sovereignty and territorial integrity fully respected, could look ahead to the ultimate prospect of mutual co-operation for their common good. Another and perhaps more difficult objective might be to devise an acceptable balance between safeguarding the vital principles laid down in the Charter and in resolution 2^2 (1967) and reconciling the practical realities of the existing situation with the likely consequences of a continued stalemate. HR/lc S./PV.1725 26 (Sir Laurence Mclntyre, Australia)

Another and equally difficult ain would be to "bring about a territorial settlement or series of settlenents to replace on a pernanent basis the temporary ,arrangenents arrived at as long ago as 19^9 under the various Armistice Agreements, starting fron the precise that those agreements contained, in one forn or another, an injunction that their provisions were without prejudice to existing rights and claims or to future territorial settlements or boundary lines. A fourth aim night be to devise a solution to the plight of the Palestine refugees under which these unfortunate people could be assured of a pernanent hone or homes and given hope in place of despair for the future and perhaps even some kind of national identity of their own. All this nay sound altogether premature, presumptuous and Utopian at this stage; but we cannot allow ourselves to lapse into a state of congenital pessimism and frustration. We must continue to draw hope from any sign, however faint, of a desire on both sides to begin a search for a basis of understanding and mutual accommodation. If we in this Council see any such nipns — and I am still convinced that some hints have appeared in the course of "this debate — there must be a heavy obligation on all of us, in any action we may take, in the framework of resolution 2h2 (1967), to help and not to hinder any tentative step towards conciliation. We can be sure that the Secretary- General will continue to do everything within the terms of his authority to get the parties into a dialogue — whether direct, indirect, "proximity" or even remote perhaps should not greatly matter — and, of course, Ambassador Jarring still retains his mandate from resolution 2^2 (1967). We can certainly expect no miracles. Any final settlement is obviously going to be long in coning. There will need to be a mixture of carrot and stick, but sympathetic and patient encouragement is likely to be more helpful to the parties concerned than criticism of past failures and excesses. It may be that the parties will find it possible to advance step by step; it may be that they will take a long time over delivering a complete package or set of packages. But a final and lasting settlenent must ultimately arrive; the alternative is surely too unthinkable to contemplate. HR/lc S/PV.1T25 27

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I thank Ambassador Mclntyre of Australia for his kind words to ne and his reference to my distant past. I now call on the representative of Jordan.

Mr. SHARAF (Jordan): This statement is not made in the spirit of the right of reply. It is an attempt at the positive clarification of issues before the Council. In the course of the debate in the Security Council a number of issues were raised, prinarily by the representative of Israel, which require some connent. The history and the roots of the problen aside, there are inaediate issues and concepts pertaining to the efforts to establish a just and lasting peace, in the area, which must be analysed and fronwhich the proper conclusions must be drawn. Jordan has been in the midst of the sufferings of the past six years and of the international attempts to establish a just peace. Jordan participated in the consultations and activities which led to the adoption in November 1967 of resolution 2h2 (1967). It cannot watch passively the relentless efforts made to empty that resolution of its contents, isolate it fron the context in which it was adopted, and attribute alien and subversive meanings to it. We have heard a number of contentions which reflect this attack on the content of the United Nations effort to bring peace and justice to the Middle East. The first contention is that Security Council resolution 2k2 (1967) did not provide for Israel's return to the lines which existed before the outbreak of hostilities on 5 June 1967. Sometimes this contention is based on an interpretation attributed to the semantic construction of the provision for the withdrawal. On other occasions this is based on the claim that return to the lines of 5 June conflicts with the provision for secure and recognized borders. The interpretation derived from the semantic construction-of the provision for withdrawal is totally invalid. The operative paragraph in resolution 2k2 (1967) providing for Israeli withdrawal is governed by a clearly stated principle at the very outset of the resolution, the principle of the NR/lc S/PV.1725 28-30 (Mr. Sharaf, Jordan)

inadnissibility of acquisition of territoiy by war. It is also governed by the broader and nore basic principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. The Charter is based on respect for the territorial integrity of States and on the undertaking by Members not to use force against the territorial integrity and political independence of States. The provision for withdrawal by-the Israeli arned forces fron the occupied territories is, therefore, inseparable from this broad and basic foundation of contemporary international order. That is what common sense dictates. In any case when we, the Arab parties, accepted resolution 2^2 (1967), that is what it obviously meant. The semantic construction of the provision for withdrawal was rightly subordinated to the logical and contextual significance of that provision in the light of international law, the law of the United Nations and the modern concept of international relations. Not long before

the adoption of resolution 2^2 (1967)5 during the special session of the General Assembly, the Latin American group had presented to the General Assembly a draft resolution which contained the following operative paragraph: "Urgently requests Israel to withdraw all its forces from all the, territories of Jordan, Syria and the United Arab Republic occupied as a result of the recent conflict." Israel voted for that draft resolution. The more recent arguments for changed borders and partial withdrawal were not introduced then. Total Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied territories was considered as the natural state of things. So the semantic argument for incomplete withdrawal and for acquisition of territory is absurd and meaningless. But the Israeli spokesmen have advanced another argument, the argument that total withdrawal conflicts with the provision for the establishment of "secure borders". How are borders made "secure"? Neither comnon sense nor the honest interpretation of Security Council resolution 2k2 (1967) could lead to the conclusion that "secure" borders means "expanded" borders. First of all, security is not a one-sided concept. Security among nations is by definition riutual. It certainly can have no other meaning in a resolution on peace in the Middle East. MP/ad S/PV.1725 31 (Mr. Sharaf, Jordan)

If "secure "borders" were to mean expanded borders, why should It not mean "borders expanded at the expense of Israel, rather than at the expense of the Arab States neighbouring israel? In fact, it would "be more logical, in view of the situation on the ground, to argue for expanded — meaning secure -— borders for the Arab countries now under Israeli occupation after the withdrawal of Israeli forces, if this notion were to be accepted. But secure "borders are not borders based.on forcible expansion. Secure borders are made so by other elements: a major element is the absence of mutual grievance; a major element is the solution of the explosive outstanding problems between the countries sharing the borders. There are also other, more concrete measures States can take to make their borders physically secure, such as the establishment of areas of mutual demilitarization, and international guarantees. Surely it was these elements of security that resolution 2^2 (1967) envisaged. Secure borders are inviolable borders; they are not borders made deceptively secure by the acquisition by one State of a hill or a river belonging to the neighbouring State —-still less by the planting of military settlements in the heart of the neighbouring country. Jordan maintains that this is the only way in which the concept could be understood. The Israeli claim that the return to the lines which existed before the outbreak of hostilities is a return to a situation which caused war in 1967 is a distortion of the issues of peace and security in the area. What caused the war of 1967 was not the faulty demarcation of armistice lines: what caused it was the existence of an explosive political situation. It was explosive because Israel had allowed the grievance of its Arab neighbours to compound, while it closed itself completely to any constructive solutions to the problems which caused these grievances. Then3 the issue was the problem of the Palestinian people rendered refugees and denied the choice of the repatriation by Israel. The nexus of Arab- Israeli conflicts later derived from this major problem. MP/ad S/PV.1725 32 (Mr. Sharaf, Jordan)

But "be that as it may, the important thing is that Israeli withdrawal in accordance with resolution 2k2. (1967) is to take place in a changed political and psychological context: it is to take place in the framework of a comprehensive solution to the main problems which obtain at present. That is the essence of resolution 2^2 (1967). It is a resolution based on the idea of withdrawal in a peaceful framework. The argument that in addition to Arab acceptance of and commitment to a lasting and guaranteed Peace the Arabs should also cede most or some of their national territories is certainly a distorted and destructive interpretation of a balanced and realistic resolution. Jordan., like its Arab neighbours, will not give up any part of its occupied territory to the occupying Power. The second major contention which underlies Israel's position is the claim that the only way to a settlement is direct negotiation and that the Arabs reject this course and therefore reject peace. This exercise in distortion cannot withstand any deep examination. Negotiation, like mediations arbitration, adjudication or resort to United Nations; organs, is one of several methods or procedures for solving an international dispute: it is not a solution in itself. When we object to direct negotiations it is not because we do not want peace or a peaceful solution. We have repeatedly said we need and want peace. It is because we regard this procedure for solving the substantive problems as no guarantee of our rights and claims. We find in the machinery of the United Nations a more equitable forum and procedure that could effect a settlement without prejudice to our rights and interests. The situation before us is one' where there are two parties making two distinct claims against each other. Regardless of the substance of those claims, while the Arab side is the aggrieved party historically and on the ground today, the parallel claims exist. The Arab parties demand that the occupation of their national soil be ended and the Israeli occupation forces completely withdrawn. MP/ad S/PV.1T25 33 (Mr. Sharaf, Jordan)

Israel claims, at least ostensibly, that what it wants is peace with its neighbours, and guarantees for its continuance. But Israel occupies the territories of Arab States, and its leaders have repeatedly expressed the intention of their Government to annex substantial slices — perhaps all — of the occupied territories. The actions of Israel in the occupied territories support such Arab fears and forebodings. The Arab States directly concerned;, which accepted resolution 2U2 (1967);, accepted it as a United Nations guarantee and framework of action for the parallel fulfilment of the mutual claims. They accepted the obligation for future peace and coexistence. They want a guarantee of the integrity of their national soil and of the effective and speedy evacuation of the occupying forces. Israel's words and actions give no such assurance. So the only way to a just and balanced settlement is practical insurance of the parallel implementation of these mutual claims through an objective procedure. We brought our case to the United Nations to ensure that. We welcomed the advent, as a result of resolution 21*2 (1967)5 of the role of an impartial United Nations representative working for a balanced fulfilment of the parallel obligations. By insistence on direct negotiations Israel is not pointing to the road of an equitable settlement: it is excluding the more guaranteed procedure for an equitable settlement. It is inviting the Arab countries which are under occupation to give up any objective guarantee or guarantees for an equitable outcome and to deliver their rights and interests to the full weight of the Israeli conquest. Jordan believes that the road to peace is not through surrender to the demands of the forces of conquest. Peace can be achieved only, and can last onlyr if it is based on equity and a.free undertaking. That is why we welcomed and co-operated to the utmost with the impartial representative of the United Nations working within the framework of a balanced resolution. We shall continue to do so and maintain a positive attitude towards his mandate and initiatives. MP/ad . S/PV.1725 3U-35 (Mr._ Sharaf., Jordan)

There is a final point I wish to make. It pertains to the often- mentioned concept of an imposed solution. The concept has been repeatedly rejected with indignation by the representatives of Israel. A number of . delegations have taken great pains to dissociate their proposals and intentions from it. Well, we are all agreed on that. Jordan and its fellow Arab States reject the idea of an imposed settlement. We do not accept a settlement imposed on us by coercion. When the Israeli spokesmen insist that they do not accept an imposed solution we find ourselves in agreement with them. It is obvious that the days of big Powers imposing their will on small nations and forcing them to conform to their view of things are ended. The same applies to imposition by smaller Powers. The age of the Charter does not

permit it.; it does not allow the coercive imposition of inequitable and unjust settlements by the stronger party on the momentarily weaker party in a dispute. ¥e reject this concept sincerely and consistently. Israel claims to oppose it as vehemently. But how consistently?" When the United Nations steps into a situation to prevent the prejudicial imposition of will by the conqueror on the conquered it is fulfilling its duty. It is preventing an unjust imposed settlements not performing one. AW/cc S/PV.1T25 36 (Mr. Sharaf, Jordan)

We agree with Israel in rejecting an imposed settlement. We are asking the United Nations to protect us against an imposed settlement by Israel. Having made our position clear on these major points, I wish to reiterate our basic goals. Jordan believes in peace. It believes in a lasting peace in the Middle East. The peace must be just and realistic. Jordan wants a constructive resolution of the present conflict. It believes that this can best, in fact only, be achieved through the insurance of territorial integrity,, justice to the people who suffered mainly and most as a result of the conflict, and, perhaps above all, the preservation of the honour and dignity of the people and countries on whom the conflict has been imposed.

Mr. ANWAR SMI (Indonesia): Mr. President, on behalf of my delegation, allow me to join previous distinguished speakers in congratulating you,, Sir, upon your accession to the presidency of the Council. It gives me particular pleasure to see the chair occupied by so distinguished and experienced a diplomat 3 one whose previous record -of accomplishment in many fields of international relations and especially in the work of the United Nations assures us that.the conduct of our deliberations is in most competent hands. My delegation also wishes to express its thanks to the outgoing President for guiding our work during the month of May, and to assure my distinguished colleague and good friend Ambassador Rahmatalla Abdulla of the Sudan of our highest appreciation for the excellent manner in which he has acquitted himself of his duties during his term of office. My delegation wouljS. also like to thank the Secretary-General for the report he has prepared in such a short time, and for the efforts he and his Special Representative .have made to implement Security Council resolution 2k2 (1967). I would like to express the high appreciation of my delegation to Ambassador Jarring for the initiative, patience and perseverance which mark his endeavour as Sjsecial Representative of'the Secretary-General to help bring the problem of the Middle East towards a solution, as the report' clearly shows. AW/cc S/PV.1725 37 (Mr. Anvar Sani, Indonesia)

Although the Council has met many times during these years to consider specific aspects of the Middle East problem, usually upon a complaint by one of the narties, this is the first time in six years that the Security Council has had the opportunity to review the whole -Droblem of the Middle East, in particular the implementation of resolution 2^2 (1967). The position of Indonesia with regard to the Middle East conflict is well known and has been clearly set forth in the statements of the Indonesian delegation both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. It is unnecessary for me to restate this position at length. There are, however, two "basic elements which I would like to reiterate also in view of the relevant'questions put to the Council by the Foreign Minister of Egypt. The first element is that my country supports the struggle of the Palestinian people to secure their just and lawful rights which have been recognized many times by the General Assembly and the Security Council. No settlement can be achieved without accommodation of the just rights of the Palestinian •people. The second element is Indonesia's firm support for the Arab countries to bring about Israeli withdrawal from all the territories it is now occupying as a result of the 1967 war. Indonesia's support has become itself firmly rooted in the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. It is in these resolutions that the essential principles for a just solution have been formulated, and it is to those principles that we must turn in our search for such a solution. The rights of the Palestinians were first set forth 25 yea,rs ago in General Assembly resolution 19*t (ill). Those rights were reaffirmed by the Security Council and the General Assembly in subsequent resolutions. In this connexion my delegation would like to remind the Council of its resolution 237 (1967) which called upon the Government of Israel to "ensure the safety,, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place" and recommended "scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of AW/cc S/PV.1725 38 (Mr. Anwar Sani, Indonesia)

12 August 19^9". Security Council resolution 2^2 (1967) does not forget the refugees when it affirms in its operative paragraph 2 (b) the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem". These resolutions, taken together, leave no doubt that it is the considered opinion of this body and of the General Assembly that the rights of the Palestinians, whether living as refugees or under Israeli occupation, must be respected and that accommodation of those rights is essential to the settlement of the present conflict. If there are people who demand that the rights of Israelis should be respected, there is all the more reason to claim the same respect for the rights of the Palestinians who are the original inhabitants of the territory, but who now have to live on international charity under most difficult conditions, to say the least, in the refugee camps. If justice is claimed for the people of Israel, the same justice, for more valid reasons, should be demanded for the people of Palestine. The inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war is made equally clear in the resolutions of the Security Council. Resolution 2^2 (1967) establishes this inadmissibility in its second preambular paragraph, while in subparagraph (i) of operative paragraph 1 it clearly mentions "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" as one of the principles essential to the attainment of a just and lasting peace. In its answer to the initiative of Ambassador Jarring of 8 February 1971> Israel stated in its aide-memoire of 2.6 February 1971 that Israel "will not

withdraw to the pre-June 5S 19&7 lines". Israel's intention has become quite clear. Israel intends to integrate parts of the occupied territories into | its national territory in order to establish what it considers "secure and recognized boundaries". This is,'in our opinion, clearly acquisition of territory as the result of war, which is in flagrant contravention of the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force established by the Security Council and by the General Assembly. My delegation of course appreciates the need for secure and recognized boundaries. But this cannot be interpreted to mean that they should be imposed by military means, or that they should be the result of a change by force of internationally recognized frontiers. That would be clearly against the AW/cc S/RT.1725 39-HO (Mr. Anwar Sani, Indonesia) principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war itself and against the principle of respect of territorial integrity, and consequently the inviolability of international frontiers, to which we all adhere. My delegation is of the view that the security of boundaries depends not so much on military strategic considerations, important though they are, as, in the first place on the atmosphere of pea,ce and mutual good will that exists between neighbouring countries, it is, in the opinion of my delegation, much more important to create this atmosphere of peace and mutual good will rather than to aim at the occupation by•force of other people's territory in order to secure boundaries. My delegation is of the view that really secure borders can in the long run only be effectively guaranteed not in the first place by soldiers and guns but by peace and mutual good will. In the case of the Middle East the return by Israel of all Arab occupied territories to their rightful owners will pave the way toward such a situation where boundaries will be secure because there is peace. After reading the report of the Secretary-General, one unfortunately must conclude that the most earnest efforts of the Secretary-General and of his Special Representative, Ambassador Jarring, have not succeeded in bringing about the implementation of resolution 2^2 (1967). AP/em S/PV.1725 in (Mr. Anwar Sani, Indonesia)

Israel continues to occupy the Arab territories which it initially seized in 1967- More than that, it has in the interim begun to take steps to integrate those territories into Israel', in clear defiance of a series of resolutions "by the General Assembly and by the Security Council. Although those resolutions have repeatedly condemned those practices and have declared the results of such practices null, and void, Israel has not been dissuaded from continuing them. Indeed, it has accelerated,them,as we can conclude from what is happening in Jerusalem, in the Golan Heights, on the West Bank of the Jordan, in the Sinai, apparently in an attempt to present the world with a fait accompli. In addition,, no attempt has been made by Israel to comply with Security Council resolution 237 (1967),, paragraph 1 of which strictly enjoined it "... to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas" ••- where -military operations had taken place — "since the outbreak of hostilities". The Government of Israel has time and again ignored the resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly. Security Council resolution 259 (1968) clearly requires that Israel assist the Special

Representative in the implementation of resolution 237 (1967)a but Israel has not done so.. The General Assembly has adopted many resolutions which call upon Israel to respect the rights of the inhabitants of the occupied territories., yet none has been heeded. I will refrain from elaborating on the development of the Middle East problem since 1967. Suffice it to refer to the report of the Secretary-General. It is clear to my delegation., however, from that report that Egypt reacted positively to Ambassador Jarring's initiative of 8 February 1971 which would have enabled the parties to move towards a.solution- while Israel by its reaction scuttled the initiative. As to the situation now prevailing in the Middle East, the Foreign Minister of Egypt., His Excellency Mr. El-Zayyat, has analysed it in a clear and sober manner. His colleagues from other Arab and African countries while conveying to the Council the resolution of the Organization of African Unity on the Middle East have also elaborated on practically all important aspects of the present situation and how it has developed. I need not repeat their observations. AP'/em S/PV.1725 te (Mr. Anwar Sard., Indonesia)

In the face of what realistically can only be considered a failure of the efforts to implement the relevant resolutions, it is incumbent on the Security Council to go beyond the ritual of making statements followed by rights of reply; the Council should make a serious effort and take concrete steps to overcome the present impasse and move towards a settlement of the problem. Wy delegation agrees with the observation of the Secretary-General which appears in paragraph 116 of his report (S/10929) to the effect that the Security Council is the only forum in which all parties to the conflict have been able

to meet together in the same room. Of course9 to arrive at a definitive solution the voice of the Palestinians as one of the most directly interested parties should be heard. My delegation also shares the hope expressed by the Secretary-General that this unique circumstance may indeed be utilized for constructive moves towards a settlement. The Security Council, should make every effort to ascertain what those constructive moves towards a settlement can be. It will be most helpful if the Secretary-General on the basis of his and his Special Representative's experience in trying to implement resolution 2^2 (196?) could share with the Council his thoughts about the nature of those constructive moves in informal exchanges of views. It is incumbent on the Council to determine what further steps may be taken, with a realistic t chance of success to overcome .the present impasse and to attain that general settlement towards which the efforts of so many., over so long a period of time, ^ have been bent, so far unsuccessfully. My delegation agrees with the view that resolution 2k2 (1967) should remain the basis for a solution of the Middle East problem. Hew guidelines could be formulated in order that continued efforts by the Secretary-General and his Special Representative to implement resolution 2k2 (1967) will have a better chance of achieving concrete Results. It seems to my delegation rather unfair to request the Secretary-General and his ] Special Representative on the basis of operative paragraph 3 of resolution 2k2. (1967) to continue their efforts in the same manner, while we have the AP/em S/PV.1725 ItS

(Mr. Anwar Sani 0 Indonesia,) discouraging results of the last six years spelt out "before us in the report of the Secretary-General. To refresh the Council's memory, allow me to quote operative paragraph 3 of resolution 2^2 (1967) which contains the terms of reference of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General: "Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;" I repeat,; "in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution.1' I can imagine the difficulty if not. the impossibility of the task of the Special Representative if the provisions and principles referred to in his terms of reference are being interpreted in several ways, if there does not exist one clear and agreed interpretation of those provisions and principles by which he is supposed to "be guided. I suppose that I am not out of order, if I think aloud and wonder, whether the members assisted by the Secretary-General should not try to search for those constructive moves mentioned by the Secretary-General in his report and for the steps to be taken to overcome the present impasse in closed, session or through informal consultations rather than through debating the issue in open session. One can imagine that Israel and its supporters would very much like to maintain the status quo, as in a short-sighted manner they may consider it to be to the advantage of Israel, particularly in view of Israel's efforts to consolidate its hold upon the occupied territories. It might very well be that Israel's thinking is dominated by its present powerful military machinery,, and by the assurance of political., military, economic and financial support from certain quarters. It is not easy to escape entirely the impression that Israel is actually seeking to perpetuate the status quo and deliberately acts to create an impasse whenever that status quo appears to be threatened, by the Council's action or any other diplomatic move so as to confront the world with the de facto integration of part or of the whole of the Arab occupied territories into Israel. The Council should make it irrevocably clear that acquisition of territory even of "small choice morsels' to use the words of the Foreign Minister of Egypt S/PV.1725 W-k5 Sani , Indonesi a )

(1721st meeting, parse 2^), by force is a flagrant violation of one of the most fundamental principles of the Charter, reaffirmed in the Council's resolution 2^2 (1967) when it established the inadmissibility of such acquisition. It is not impossible that the world is gradually becoming used to living with this unsolved problem. It may well be that, although people continue to pay lip service to the warning that the situation in the Lliddle East is a danger to regional as well as world peace, some of them, do not in fact believe this to be really the case, perhaps because of the atmosphere of detente that is permeating the world. Having lived so long with a .dormant volcano they may imagine that it will not again erupt. It could also be that a so- -called realistic evaluation of so- -called facts has led some people to the conclusion that in reality the danger of an explosion does not exist a because of their estimate , based upon what they thought to be the Arab response to the continuing crisis in the Middle Hast, that the Arab countries do not possess the capability and sense of unity and purpose to really start a new war. The dangers of such a line of thinking must be obvious to any impartial observer, and certainly to the members of this Council. Ho one with a sense of justice or a knowledge of history can expect that the Arab countries will acquiesce in the loss of their territories . Ho one can imagine that the Palestinians will be content to remain refugees forever, living miserably on the far from adequate charity of the international community. If other means fail., inevitably there will be a determined effort to redress injustice and humiliation inflicted by force also by the use of force. If the United ilations and its Security Council -are not capable of restoring to the Palestinians their just rights j if we cannot prevail upon Israel to vacate all those Arab territories it occupies as the result of its aggression, then we must expect that the Arabs will endeavour to redress the situation by the only means left to them^ and that is by force . RE/12 ' S/PV.1T25 h6 (Mr. Anwar Sard, Indonesia)

If the Israelies were capable of waiting for centuries for the right moment to act,, I cannot see how the Arabs can "be expected, under much better odds, to give up in despair after 25 years. The failure to act of the international community, represented by this Council, and the Council's impotence to implement its own decisions may eventually force the Arab peoples to choose the way of force, as we cannot expect them to follow the alternative of capitulating to Israel's demands as they now stand. With the resources, manpower and determination they possess, the Arab capability- to use force is not as illus.ory as perhaps some may think. The danger to peace in the Middle East is real, very real. The Security Council, as the guardian of international peace and security, must be able to avoid the outbreak of a new Arab-Israeli armed confrontation ; it must be able to contribute effectively to a solution of the Middle East problem; it must be able to create conditions which are conducive to the establishment of a lasting peace in the Middle East. It must be said at this point that my delegation is especially looking to all the permanent members of this Council, and in particular to the two super-Powers,whose highest leaders are going to meet each other shortly, for their positive contribution to.the solution of the problem. ¥e are looking to them because of the special position accorded them by the Charter as permanent members of the. Security Council with the right of veto, which gives them special responsibilities. While some, perhaps, may be tired of this plea for the unrestrained co-operation of the permanent members in the search for a solution, it remains a reality that because of their power, their prestige and their right of veto their positive contributions will constitute a decisive -factor for the success of any attempt which the Council may contemplate to move the Middle East problem towards a peaceful end accepted ^ settlement.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I thank the representative of Indonesia for the words of friendship he has addressed to me. RH/12 S/PV.1725 -1*7

Mr. PEREZ DE CUELLAB (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): Mr. President, I cannot initiate my participation in this debate without conveying to you my satisfaction at seeing you preside over our work in this month of June. In that task, you have placed at our service your well-known talent, experience and authority. At the same time I should like to express my delegation's gratitude to the representative of Sudan, Mr.. Rahiuatalla Abdulla., for the extraordinary efficiency and dignity with which he presided over the Council last month. It is the feeling of my delegation that when the Council by consensus decided last April to take up the situation in the Middle East as a whole, and since it was the first time it had decided to do so since 196?, it undertook the clear responsibility to reactivate the highest level of diplomatic machinery available to the international community in order to search for a solution to the dangerous situation that has come to be called a situation of r'no peace and no war''. The Secretary-General has made our task much easier with his excellent report, which is orderly, objective and realistic. In that report he reminds us of the important task carried out by the various instruments established by the General Assembly and the Security Council, and he rightly informs us that this Council is the only forum which can bring together in one and the same room all those who are parties to the conflict. The reactivation of the diplomatic machinery to which I have referred is •r necessary and cannot be postponed because the United Nations cannot by an act of omission indicate that it favours the consolidation of a status quo which is legally untenable and undermines peace and security both in the region and throughout the world. When it unanimously adopted its resolution 2k2 (1967), the Security Council fulfilled its obligation under the Charter. That resolution is the legal ^ framework for a solution, and at the same time it is the point of departure for negotiations. We all know it was the result of compromises worked out'painfully, and that had a great impact upon its text. But it is — and how could anybody question it ? — the best instrument or tool we have available. In this debate it has repeatedly been stated that we must protect that resolution because it is a document worked out on the basis of RI-I/12 S/PV.1725 U8-50 (Mr. Perez de Cuellar, Peru) a delicate balance. We agree with that. But unless it is our intention to preserve it solely for archaeological purooses5resolution 2^2 (196?) can be preserved only through proper application, Accordingly, our first loyalty is owed to the principles contained in that resolution — that is, the concepts of international law included in Article 2 of the Charter, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by conquest, territorial integrity and the political independence of all States in the region. Arising from those -principles and in accordance with them, resolution 2U2 (1967) enumerates the obligations devolving upon the parties,, which should discharge those obligations in application of Articles 2.h and 25 of the Charter. Peru, together with the broad majority of Members of the United Hations which supported the most recent resolutions of the General Assembly on this point, considers that Ambassador-Jarrinr,.. the Special Representative of the Secretary-General«, was quite right in trying to put an end to the impasse through his initiative of 8 February 1971- In our opinion, in the aide-memoire prepared by Ambassador Jarring were raised the basic questions flowing from operative paragraph 1 of resolution 2^2 (1967). Positive replies from both parties would have prepared the scene for the quid pro quo which would allow the process of consultation to continue. Therefore' we find it necessary to state -that the positive answer of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the aide-memoire of 8 February is a step forward and constitutes a substantial concession and that, unfortunately, the key phrase in the reply of Israeli •— "Israel will not withdraw to the pre-5 June 1967 lines" —- is an obstacle to the continuation of the Jarring mission and a step backward in the application of resolution 2U2 (1967). I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to pay a tribute to the work which has in the course of five years been done by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, who by his ability, discretion,, impartiality and patience, is an admirable example of service to the cause of peace. BHS/sg S/PV.1T25 51 (Mr. Perez de Guellar, Peru)

Whatever might "be the solution of the gramatic'al problem which arose, as far as I know, from one of the official languages of our Organization,, I do not see how the Council could agree that under its auspices any acquisition of territory by force could be sanctioned, because by acting in that fashion it would be violating its own constitutent Charter. True security cannot be based on buffer territories nor on the maintenance of an occupation situation which is always precarious. The key to security Is in the observance of principles of coexistence which permit the development of all the peoples of the region. In the Near East this implies the recognition on the part of the neighbouring Arab countries of the State of Israel with all the attributes inherent in that status under international law, and those, of course, are reaffirmed in resolution 2U2 (1967). But, by the same token, in turn it implies the withdrawal of forces by Israel frora the occupied territories, and, what is equally important, a solution to the problem of the Palestine people, which has been living for so many years uprooted and in a state of despair. The task which devolves upon the Security Council, after having laid down the guidelines for a just and lasting peace in the region, is now to ensure compliance with its decision taken six years ago. That is the purpose which brings us together now, with the presence of the parties to the dispute and their representatives present here, among whom I should like to mention in particular my friend Mr. Mohamed El-Zayyat, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt. We have listened with the greatest Interest to the appeals made by the spokesmen of the Organization of African Unity, represented here by eight States. The recent decision of the Organization of African Unity, which met In Addis Ababa, is an important and authoritative contribution which goes along with that of the group of non-aligned countries, whose statement on this particular question was made in the Georgetown Declaration. Both statements reflect the concern of a broad sector of the international community at the danger which is inherent in the situation in the Middle East. The Georgetown Declaration, for that matter, has special significance for Peru, since the the President of our Republic, General Velasco Alvarado, announced our desire to become members of the group of non-aligned countries at that time. BHS/sg S/PV.1725 52 (Mr. Perez de Cuellar, Peru)

We are approaching the end of the initial stage of our debate. We consider that we have already embarked upon reactivating the diplomatic process to which I referred at the beginning of my statement. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Peru, General de la Flor, stated at the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly: "We repeat to this Assembly our conviction that any solution that we attempt to provide to the conflict in the Middle East must be fitted into the framework of that resolution /Security Council resolution 2^2 (l967_)_/ if guarantiees for lasting peace are to be achieved." (A/PV.205^, page 66) Therefore, we have all the necessary elements so that in the forthcoming stages of our consideration of the situation in the Middle East, we can make progress towards that peace to which we all aspire, and, in particular, to which those States that are partially occupied aspire, that is, Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I thank the representative of Peru for the kind words that he addressed to me.

Mr. JAITKOWITSCH (Austria): Mr. President, it is a pleasure and a privilege to present to you the congratulations and good wishes of my delegation on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of June 1973. In the person of Ambassador Malik we greet not only a most distinguished United Nations diplomat but also a representative of a country with which Austria maintains close and friendly relations. The statement with which yqu, Mr. President, opened our debate last week was a valuable word of guidance and reflected the wisdom and experience which have marked your many years of. work in the United Nations. Incidentally, as to the length and extent of that experience, I have found this morning that my colleague, the Permanent Representative of Australia, Sir Laurence Mclntyre, had engaged in research similar to my own. In supplementing that research, which testifies to the seniority and experience of our President, I was much impressed to learn that that experience spans, a period of 25 years and that you presided over the Council for the first time in August BHS/sg S/PV.1725 53 (Mr. Jankowitsch, Austria)

Your reference to the wide-ranging changes which have occurred in the international situation, the turn from the times of dangerous tension of the cold war towards detente and peaceful coexistence that you gave us at the "beginning of this debate, was a message of hope and promise. May I also take this opportunity to thank Ambassador Abdulla of Sudan most sincerely for the expeditious and skilful way in which he conducted our work as President of the Council during the month of May. The particular relevance of the subject matter under discussion by this Council is demonstrated by a number of facts. It was only a short time ago that a body as prestigious as the Summit Conference of the Heads of State .of the Organization of African Unity assembled in Addis Ababa addressed itself to this very same topic. The interest shown by the recent Organization of African Unity Summit Conference to the question of the Middle East was already,, and constructively, expressed in the Mission of Enquiry conducted by African Heads of State under the chairmanship of President Senghor in 1971° The importance of the question has been brought out furthermore by the presence .of a number of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of African countries at this Council. We have listened to their statements with utmost attention. In the company of Foreign Ministers whose participation in our debate is a tribute to the work of the Council, we welcome the presence of His Excellency Mr. Mohamed El--Zayyat, whose initiative two months ago was at the origin of our debate.

In accordance with the Security Council's request in resolution 331 (1973).} the Secretary-General has submitted a report which has justly been qualified as comprehensive, objective, and most readable. In studying this report, we feel a deep debt of gratitude to the untiring, loyal and impartial services which the Special Representative of the past and present x Secretaries-General, Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, has p;iven to the United Nations. We welcome his presence here during our debate. BHS/sg S/PV.1725

(Mr. Jankowitsch., Austria)

In his report, the Secretary-General refers to the "extremely complex and difficult" nature of the problem "which no Government or group of Governments has been able to solve outside the framework of the United. Nations". (3/10929.. para. 116) The report makes it clear in this context that if the United Nations has so far not succeeded in bringing peace to the region^ it played the decisive role in bringing about the cease-fire arrangement in 1967 and has contributed in no small measure to prevent the outbreak of a further armed conflict. There can be no doubt,, therefore, that, as in the past3 the United Nations will be called upon to play a major part and that in conformity with the Charter the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security remains with the Security Council. The statements that have been made so far have highlighted once again a crisis fraught with danger, with human suffering and despair3 with violence and fear. If the debate of a question that has defied a solution for nearly three decades has, at times, vividly reflected the political reality of the situation, we should be careful to label it harmful or negative because it did just that. DR/gm S/PV.1725 56 (Mr. Jankowitsch, Austria)

In trying to understand the situation in the Middle East.; it'must be a deep cause of concern that a region so rich in cultural and economic achievements , with a history that has profoundly influenced the course of human events, which has given "birth to three great religions ; that a region of such spiritual and material wealth should be torn apart by.hatred and strife. And it is understandable.that Europe» a neighbouring region, has a special interest in a peaceful settlement. Austria shares the feelings of concern so often and emphatically voiced by the international community at the tragic conflict besetting the countries of the Middle East. Past and present history as well as geography have provided a wide variety of human, .cultural, economic and political links between my country and the countries and .peoples of that area. ¥e treasure these relations and we are most'anxious to see them further developed in the future. It is then in this spirit of friendship and respect that my delegation wishes to offer some observations on the problem. In doing so, we are fully and painfully aware of how little we can say that has not been said before and how modest, consequently»our contribution to this debate must be. However, it may be sufficient at this stage to point out and underline some of the elements on which; in our view,, any new attempt'to make progress must be based. In addressing itself to the problem of the Middle East at this time, the Security Council,as the report of the Secretary-General points out, is not V considering individual aspects but "the problem as a whole':. /Much has been said in this context and at many previous occasions about the fundamental importance of resolution 2k2 (1967) of 22 November 196?, as the guideline, the framework and basis for a solution in the Middle East and although the resolution may be subject to different interpretations, its basic contents, its message is clear. The wide acceptance which this document has received results, to a large measure, from the fact that several provisions of the resolution represent principles on which the orderly conduct of international relations must rest. The inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, the emphasis on the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, Israel and its Arab neighbours, their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of war, are some of these principles as enumerated in the resolution. DR/gm S/PV.1T25 57 (Mr. Jankowitsch,, _Austria)

If such basic validity and relevance is attributed to the provisions of the resolution, it follows that all of them must be fulfilled so as to permit the resolution to achieve its objectives. This includes the just settlement of the problem of the Palestinian refugees. Having ]mown the grave political> social and humanitarian implications of the existence of a large number of refugees „ a phenomenon all too common in Europe over decades „„ my country has never been insensitive to the plight and frustration of the Palestinians. Already prior to the adoption of resolution 2U2 (196?) the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs taking part in the debate of the twenty-second Assembly in October 1967 said the following:

''Any such settlement3 we believe, will have to be based on the recognition of certain fundamental principles. Among these will have to be the respect for, the territorial integrity of all nations of the area, and of the right of all peoples to live in peace and security. Recognition of this principle,which forms an integral part of the Charter of the United Nations 3 is indispensable within the community of nations. From this, it follows that all States must settle their international disputes by peaceful means,, and refrain from the threat of force or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other States... "Of equal importance, and as a logical consequence of the first principle,, there will have to be recognition of the fact that military occupation of the territory of other States as a result of war or hostilities can be no title to territorial gains, and that occupation forces will have to be withdrawn.;? (A/PV.15T8, paras. k$, k6) After the unanimous adoption of resolution 2^2 (19&7) by the Security Council, my country consistently supported not only the resolution itself but all

efforts based upon it directed towards the establishment Of a just and lasting peace. DR/gm S/PV.1725 58

(Mr. Jankowitsch 0 Austria)

It was thus only natural for my country? as a member of the Security Council, to find out whatever contribution could be made in the common search for peace in the Middle East. Like other Governments, we have, as best as we could.,

examined the various aspects of the problem. In doing so5 we have endeavoured to determine where progress has been made,, where it could be made in the future •and what ingredients would have to go into any attempt to make a new start. Two common denominators readily emerge: The acceptance by the parties of resolution 2k2 (1967) and their declared willingness to seek a resolution by peaceful means.

Consequently3 to maintain and strengthen this basis of agreement between the parties, to develop to the fullest extent possible the constructive potential contained therein should be the main•preoccupation of the Council in its current debate. This would be a forward-looking strategy, holding as its main concern the fulfilment of the provisions of resolution 2^2 (1967) "to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution:'. In appraising the possibilities for progress, account will have to be taken not only of the basis established by the Security Council in 1967 but also of the experience gathered in the six years that have since elapsed. This experience is exhaustively and objectively, depicted in the report of the Secretary-General. V Our debate has centered on the evaluation of this experience to a great extent., focusing on the continued existence of an anomalous situation., characterized by tension, military occupation and a persistent threat of the outbreak of hostilities. From all that I have said before it would seem self-evident that the long

experience and skill invested in this Organization5 the United Nations,, over many years should be taken advantage of to the highest degree possible.

In renewing our belief in the role of the United Nations 5 we are fully aware of other constructive efforts which serve the same goal and as such deserve our appreciation and support. Several of these efforts have been mentioned in the report of the Secretary-General and referred to by previous speakers. In the search for a'solution however the primary role of the parties is obvious., DR/gm S/PV.1725 59-60 (Mr_._ Jankowitsch, Austria)

As to the method in which the parties may wish to establish and pursue these efforts, no avenue should be left untried. At the same time it would hardly be conducive to the opening of a new trail towards peace if one and only one approach would be. declared acceptable by one or the other party. If,, as I have indicated before, a basis for agreement between the parties exists, the principal objective would be to set in motion a process which builds on agreed elements„ advancing step by step , combining political realism and strict respect for principles, creating confidence as it continues, and., ultimately, resulting in an over-all settlement. It was with such considerations in mind that my Government, particularly during the period preceding this debate3 has maintained close contact with members of this Council and especially with the parties to see what might be done in a common effort to this effect. At the same time, my Government is fully ;aware of the complexity of the problem and of the need for caution in any efforts designed to assist the parties and promote agreement. It is in a spirit of friendship and respecjb, as I said before5 for the parties who deserve our understanding in the pursuit of objectives vital to them but also vital to peace in their region and to peace in the last decades of the century that, with an open mind, we shall be ready to join with other members of this Council in any further future constructive efforts to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. MR/ad S/PV.1725 61

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I thank the representative of Austria for his friendly -words about me and my country and also about the relations between Austria and the Soviet Union. I for my part would like to express my deep satisfaction at the friendly -relations between our countries and the fact that they are developing,, and also my conviction that they will continue to develop in just such a friendly fashion in the future. A number of the members of the Council have expressed the wish that the morning meeting be concluded by 1 p.m. The representative of Qatar has been

kind enough to agree to postpone his statement and wills accordingly, be the first speaker this afternoon. "We intend to enable all those whose names are on \ the list to speak at this afternoon's meeting to do so. Thereafter we shall settle the question of our further work. Before adjourning this meeting I should like to state that, following consultations with members of the Security Council, the next meeting of the Council for further consideration of the question of the situation in the Middle East will be held at 3 p.m. today.

The jneeting rose atL 12.50. p.m. PROVISIONAL

S/PV.1726 lU June 1973

ENGLISH

PROVISIONAL VERBATIM RECORD OF THE SEVENTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING

Held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, lU June 1973, at 3 p.m.

President: Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Members: Australia Sir Laurence McINTYRE Austria Mr. JANKOWITSCH China Mr. HUANG France Mr. de GUIRINGAUD Guinea Mrs. Jeanne Martin CISSE India Mr. SEN Indonesia Mr. ANWAR SMI Kenya Mr. ODERO-JOWI Panama Mr. BOYD Peru Mr. PEREZ DE CUELLAR Sudan Mr. ABDULLA United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Mr. JAMIESON United States of America Mr. SCALI Yugoslavia Mr. MOJSOV

This record contains the original text of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches in other languages. The final text will be distributed as soon as possible. Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only. They should be sent in quadruplicate within three days to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, Office of Conference Services, Room LX-2332, and incorporated in a copy of the record. AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 15 JUNE 1973, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS WILL BE 20 JUNE 1973. The co-operation of delegations in strictly observing this time-limit would be greatly appreciated.

73-82211/A AP/lc S/PV.1726 2-5

The neetinr was called to order at 3.25 p.n.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda was adopted. '

EXAMINATION OF THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST: (a) SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 331 (1973) ' (b) REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL UNDER SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 331 (1973) OF 20 APRIL 1973 (S/10929)

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): In accordance with decisions taken by the Security Council at earlier neetinfs, it is ny intention, with the Council's consent, to invite the representatives of E;;ypt, Israel, Jordan, the United Republic of Tanzania, Chad, the Syrian Arab Republic, Niferia, Alperia, Morocco, the United Arab Enirates, Somlia, Guyana, Mauritania, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran and Bahrain to take part, without the ri-r;ht to vote, in the Council's consideration of the situation in the Middle East. Atjt he invitation of the President, Mr. El-Zayyat, representative of Erypt; Mr. Tekoah., representative of Israel; and Mr. Sharaf, r er> resent at ive of Jordan, took places at the Council table; and Mr. Saliri., representative of the United Republic of Tanzania; Mr. OuanrTiotchinrf., representative of Chad; Mr. Kelsni, representative of the Syrian Arab Republic; .Mr. Q.^bu, representative of Ni-eria- Mr. Bouteflika, representative of Alreria; Mr. Zentar, represent at ive of Morocco: Mr. Al-Pachachi ., representative of the United Arab Emirates ; Mr. Nur Elm., representative of Spnalia; Mr. Jackson, representative of Guyana; Mr. El Hassan, rep resent at ive of Mauritania;'Mr. Bishara, representative of Kuwait;, Mr. Jaiual, representative of Q.atar; Mr. Sakkaf., representative of Saudi Arabia:. Mr. Ghorra, representative of Lebanon; Mr. Hoveyda, representative of Iran; and Mr. Al Saffar, representative of Bahrain., took the places reserved for theu at the side of the Council Chariber.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): In accordance with the a^reenent ar:on~ those representatives who have expressed the wish to speak at this afternoon's neetin^;, I call upon the representative of the United States. RHA ' S/PV.1726 6

Mr. SCALI (United States of America): My Government views this meeting of the Council as a challenge and an opportunity. It is a challenge to deal responsibly with one of the most important — and one of the most difficult -- of the problems facing the world community. It is an opportunity of a kind we have not had since November 1967, when the Council last met to review the whole problem of the Middle East. It is thus more than just an occasion to hear the complaints of one side against.the other. It is an opportunity to create circumstances in which, at long last, Arab and Israeli might engage in a genuine negotiating process. In the more than five and one-half years since the Council last dealt with the issue in a comprehensive manner many, many words have been spoken and many resolutions have been passed. In some ways the problem is more difficult today than it was five and one-half years ago. Time has a way of giving an aura of permanence to what once seemed transitory. This meeting should be first of all, therefore, an opportunity to reaffirm that we do not consider the present situation in the Middle East either natural or permanent. We should leave no doubt that it is neither natural nor permanent. Time also has a way of subtly altering how we perceive problems and their solutions. This meeting is therefore an opportunity as well to review our perceptions, to ^ee whether they have changed over the past five and one half years. This meeting should be an opportunity, in short, to recapture the hope and to reaffirm the resolve which inspired the Council on 22 November 1967 to give its unanimous approval to resolution. 2^2 (1967). That decision was recognized at the time as a landmark in the long history of this problem in the United Nations. It remains a landmark today. Resolution 2^2 (1967) reflected the Council's view that the time had come to move expeditiously toward a just and lasting peace in the Middle East after three wars with their great toll of human tragedy and devastation and their threat to world peace. The resolution recognized that such a peace must be based on a just settlement not only of the problems arising out of the hostilities of June 1967 but also of the underlying causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict as they have existed now for over a quarter-century. ¥hat were the essential elements with which we began the search for peace in 1967? RH/U . S/PV.1T26 7 (Mr. Scali, United States)

First, it is important to remember that in calling for a cease-fire to end the fighting in June 1967 "t^16 Council did not address the question of who was responsible for the outbreak of that fighting. Efor did it call for unconditional Israeli withdrawal. Secondly, it is important to remember the nature and essential elements of resolution 2^2 (1967) as they were generally understood at the time. The resolution was the result of compromise by all concerned, and that means that any settlement based upon it must reflect that spirit of compromise. Resolution 2^2 (1967) did not define the terms of settlement. In the language of the resolution itself, it defined a set of "provisions and principles" which constitute a framework for the terms of a final settlement. It is only fair to note that the terms to be negotiated must therefore be consistent with those provisions and principles -— not with just some of them, but with all of them taken together. If the terms of a settlement do not meet that test they cannot, in our view, form part of the just and lasting peace we seek. Too often one side or the other has sought to emphasize certain elements of resolution 2U2 (1967) while ignoring others. T-Jhat are the main provisions and principles of resolution 2^2 (1967)? First, it includes in its preamble the words "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security". We accept that principle as important and significant. Secondly, resolution 2^2 (1967) affirms that peace should include the application of two co-equal principles. One is "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied" in the 1967 conflict. My Government endorses that principle in the context of the resolution as a whole. But the principle of withdrawal cannot be separated from the next, balancing, paragraph, which affirms the principle of "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live

in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats Or acts of force". RHA S/PV.1726 8-10 (Mr. Scali, United States)

Thirdly, resolution 2h2 (1967) affirms the necessity for guaranteeing freedom of navigation and for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area. Clearly, the specific measures by which these important interests of the parties are to be guaranteed must be part of the detailed terms of a final settlement. They must be part of the structure of peace. Fourthly,, resolution 2k2 (1967) affirms the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem". That too must clearly be part of the structure of peace. My Government has on a number of occasions made clear our view that no structure of peace in the Middle East can be just and lasting if it does not make provision for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians. In our view it is for the parties to work out what that means in specific terms. BKS/era S/PV.1726 11 (Mr. Scali , JJnited States )

Finally- resolution 2^2 (19&7) calls for agreement. In the context of the resolution this clearly means agreement between the parties concerned. Ambassador Jarring, to whom I wish to pay a special tribute today, was subsequently selected to assist the parties to this end. J

¥e note, as other speakers before us have noted, that in today's vorld security means more than territory, more than the stockpiling of armaments and more than merely the absence of belligerency. ' Security -••- real security for all the parties • depends on willingness to put aside bitter quarrels, prejudices, fears and misapprehensions of the past and to look ahead positively to developing a broad range of mutual interests which gives each party a vested interest in preserving peace. T./hat are the key issues with which such negotiations Must come to grips? In simplest terms they are the issues of sovereignty and security. The parties mist find a way to reconcile the two. One aspect of this problem is the question of boundaries. There are many strongly held views about where the final boundaries between Israel and its neighbours should be drawn. Resolution 2^2 (1967) has often been cited to support one view or another. But the fact is that resolution 2^2 (1967) is silent on the specific question of where the final border should be located. It neither endorses nor precludes •••• let me

repeatrj neither endorse nor precludes •-- the armistice lines which existed between Israel.,, L'gypt, Jordan and Syria on h June 19^73 as the final secure and recognized boundaries. Everyone knew when resolution 2^2 (1967) was approved that this was an area of ambiguity. This was part of the compromise to which I have referred. The central message of resolution 2^2 (1967) is that there should be a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship of the parties with each other: & change from belligerency to peace, fron insecurity to security,, from dispossession and despair to hope and dignity for the Palestinians. Let me say

again: it seems clear to us -- logically3 politically, historically., realistically -that the question of agreement of final boundaries must be viewed in the context of the total thrust and intent of resolution 2^2 (1957). This question must therefore be resolved as part of the process of reaching agreement on all the complex factors governing a new relationship among the parties which would replace that defined in the 19^-9 Armistice Agreements. BHS/ehi S/PV.1726 13-15 (' >r_. Seal! . United States )

I have recalled, the history of our efforts in 19^7 not to argue the past but because I believe we need to restore our perspective as we look to the future, i'any sincere efforts have been made,, by Ambassador Jarring and by Governments including ruy own,, to help the parties find a way to negotiate the detailed terms

of a final peace agreement. Whatever may have been their merits .} none succeeded, Me are therefore left with resolution 2^2 (196?) as the only basis thus far accepted by both sid.es with regard both to substance and to procedure. The principal parties concerned have accepted, that basis, each in its own way, and this is what makes it uniquely important. The Council faces a great responsibility. We can by our actions wreck the basis for agreement which now exists with all its conscious ambiguities. or we can preserve that basis and try to move forward with renewed energy, i'y Government strongly believes that we must take the latter course. We are prepared, to support a fresh attempt by Ambassador Jarring based on his mandate in Security Council resolution 2^-2 (196?). We shall be guided by this approach in judging whatever proposals may ultimately be placed before us. Ue agree with those who have argued that the Council has a responsibility to help bring about the implementation of resolution 2U2 (196?). Implementation requires agreement5 and agreement requires a process of negotiations. This is what the Council must encourage and facilitate. Such a process, in our view, must involve a patient, practical step-by' step approach. It could begin., as we have long favoured, with an agreement on some Israeli withdrawal in the Sinai and a reopening of the Suez Canal within the context of an extended cease- 'fire, as the first stage on the road to a final settlement. HR/sg S/PV.1726 16 (i-lr. Scali, United States)

Such a first step would be firmly linked to a final agreed settlement. But whether a beginning is made in this or some other way is less important than that such a process be started without delay. I assure you that my Government is fully prepared to do its part to facilitate and sustain objectively and fairly any such process of negotiation until the goal the Council set for itself more than five and one-half years ago is achieved. This we will do in the interests of true and lasting peace in the Middle East for all concerned in this and future generations.

Mr. BOYD (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish): Mr. President, allow me to congratulate you on presiding over the Security Council during the month of June. Knowing full well your parliamentary ability, your wide experience in the work of this Organization and the respect felt for you by all those sitting around this table, I am convinced that you will discharge successfully the very heavy historic responsibility that has fallen on your shoulders. The delegation of Panama, which every day enjoys more cordial relations with the delegation of the Soviet Union, is moved to offer you all its co-operation in the fulfilment of your duties -- among other reasons, as proof of our appreciation for the outstanding assistance that the Soviet Union gave us and your brilliant participation in the memorable series of meetings that the Council held in Panama in March of this year. We should like also to express our appreciation to the outgoing President, Mr. Abdulla of Sudan»for the very wise and correct way in which he presided over our meetings last month. From the sixth of this month the Security Council has been holding special meetings to examine the situation in the Middle East. The

Secretary-General3 Mr. Waldheim, has submitted and very satisfactorily presented a very detailed report on the efforts made by the United Nations since 1967 to deal with the difficult situation confronting that region of the world. In that report very justifiable stress was laid on the outstanding role played by Mr. Jarring as Special Representative of the Secretary-General, in the fulfilment of the mission entrusted to him to ensure that the existing tension in the Middle 'East is ended — a region where we can safely say that the people are living in a situation that is neither peace nor war. S/PV. 1726 IT (Mr. Boyd, Panama)

After having listened very carefully to the very complete statement of the Foreign Minister of Egypt, Mr. El-Zayyat, who on behalf of his country asked for this series of meetings, we have heard one after the other in the Council the Foreign Ministers of Nigeria, Tanzania, Guinea, Algeria and Sudan, who on the nomination of the Organization of African Unity have spoken out on "behalf of that continent in very moving and well- founded statements. We have also listened with great interest to the important statements made daily "by Mr. Tekoah, representing Israel. The members of the Council that have participated in our deliberations on the Middle East have spoken with great erudition, as have also the representatives of the Members of the United Nations that have been invited to participate in the debate. We are very happy to express the view that this debate has been so constructive and that the parties to the conflict, without ceasing to defend their interests, have nevertheless attested to the sincere desire of the inhabitants of the region to arrive at a just and equitable solution that will allow them to live in peace. On 30 June 19^7 the Latin American Group of the United Nations presented to the General Assembly at the fifth special emergency session a draft resolution dealing with the situation in the Middle East on which the Assembly was called upon to vote. The operative part of that draft resolution read as follows: "1. Urgently requests: (a) Israel to withdraw all its forces from all the territories of Jordan, Syria and the United Arab Republic :occupied as a result of the recent conflict; (b) The parties in conflict to end the state of belligerency, to endeavour to establish conditions of coexistence based on good neighbourliness and to have recourse in all cases to the procedures for peaceful settlement indicated in the Charter of the United Nations^ "2. Reaffirms its conviction that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and declares that the validity of the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should -not be recognized. NR/sg S/PV.1726 18-20

(Mr. Boyds Panama)

"3. Requests the Security Council to continue examining the situation in the Middle East with a sense of urgency, working directly with the parties and relying on the presence of the United Nations to: (a) Carry out the provisions of operative paragraph 1 (a) above; ("b) Guarantee freedom of transit on the international waterways in the region; (c) Achieve an appropriate and full solution of the problem of the refugees and guarantee the territorial inviolability and political independence of the States of the region, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; "h. Reaffirms, as in earlier recommendations., the desirability of establishing an international regime for the city of Jerusalem, to be considered by the General Assembly at its twenty-second session." (A/L.523) By one of those ironies of fate, this draft resolution was not supported by the Arabs but Israel voted in favour of it. Panama formed part of the working group that prepared the rough draft of the Latin American draft

resolution (A/L.523) of 30 June 19673 which, unfortunately, was not approved by the emergency session of the General Assembly. However, as far as my country was concerned, the fact that the draft resolution was rejected did not leave us in a political vacuum. In the years that have elapsed since June 1967 we have always defended the basic principles underlying that original Latin American draft. Now that the problem of the Middle East is once again being considered by the Security Council, since in the past six years no adequate solution has been found to it, the Government of Panama wishes to state that in all this time it has spared no effort to help to find a solution that will stabilize the situation in the region as one of peace, so that all the members of the region will be able to enjoy the benefits of co-operation and understanding in peace. Without setting aside any of the fundamental principles expressed in the Latin American draft resolution (A/L.523) of 30 June 1967, we should like the Security Council to explore all avenues that might lead us to the establishment of the conditions necessary for peace in the Middle East. :T/CC S/PV.1726 21 (Mr. Boyd, Panama)

He believe that resolution 2k2 (1967), adopted on 22 November 1967 by the Security Council possesses the elements so that through negotiations and agreements the parties ni^ht be able to reach an acceptable solution in the search for peace. And if we have in regard to a number of aspects stressed the existence of the Latin American draft submitted to the emergency session of the General Assembly, it has been primarily to make clear Panama's position regarding our interpretation of resolution 2^2 (1967). Through its most important organ the United Nations must prove itself capable of playing an effective role in the search for peaceful solutions. The Palestine probleri is an explosive situation that could threaten the peace ami security of the world,, and is one of the most difficult situations that has confronted the United Nations since its very foundation, both in the General Assembly am1, in the Security Council, as well as in a nuriber of subsidiary bodies„ Panama considers itself linked by special ties of friendship to both parties to the conflict, and it is for that reason that we shall always endeavour calnly to find just and equitable solutions within the framework of the principles and tenets of the United Nations Charter and in keeping with the norms of international law. The persons of Jewish faith in Panama have contributed significantly to the nation's economic development and to its social and cultural progress; they constitute a highly respected community in our country, and one that exerts consilerable influence on important facets of the life of the country. The Arabs of Panama,, because of their own attributes, because of the many customs they have inherited from Spain, and because they are hard-working and industrious and have mixed with the other people of the coimtry, have earned the affection of the Panamanians. The nationalist policy of that p;reat leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, with regard to the Suez Canal, and also his ideas regarding the permanent sovereignty which our peoples have a ri.^ht to exercise OA^er their natural resources ,, captured the imagination of the majority of Panamanians, primarily because of the -;reat similarity that exists between his country and my own in the form of the Panama Canal, which bisects our nation. IDP/cc S/PV.1726 22 (Mr. Eoyd, Panama)

We know that in natters of peace and war it is very difficult to avoid an exacerbation of passions, so we must prudently try to find acceptable solutions. But the Government of Panama, imbued with the fundamental principles that have always dictated our behaviour in the international field., principles such as that of the non-use of force and the refusal to accept the negative results that such use night produce3 and as a. good friend of the parties in conflict, is desirous that a solution be reached that will avoid future explosions of violence in the Middle East. That is why we repeat that the Latin American draft in document A/L.523 of 19ST seems to us to contain the necessary ingredients and constructive suggestions which might, in our opinion, help us to interpret resolution 2^2 (1967) in a clear and balanced way so that a just and equitable solution can be found to the problems confronting the Middle East. We are in favour of the Arab thesis, and thus in 1973 as in 1967 Panama "believes that it is prudent to reiterate that we support the principle of the inadmissibility of the annexation of territories by force or military conquest. We are in favour of Israel's claim to the right to live, and we do not wish to lay down conditions, but Panama believes that the Arab States, simultaneously with the troop withdrawal, should reach agreement with Israel on the way in which to guarantee to Israel not only recognition as a free and sovereign State, but its right to live in peace behind secure and recognized boundaries„ The refugee problem should be approached by Israel with its Arab neighbours with all the special interest that is owed to a situation in which more than 2 million human beings are clamoring for an equitable and permanent solution. This is not only a political problem, but also one of human rights. As you all know, the overwhelming majority of the Panamanian people is of the an< Catholic religion, ^ it is for that reason that my Government feels obliged to concern itself over the fate of the Holy Places « Thus we are at one with the aspirations and appeals of the Holy See for the necessary guarantees of freedom of access to the Holy Places of Jerusalem, not for devout catholics alone but also for the believers of all the three greatest religions in the world. IIP/cc S/PV.1726 23-25 (Mr. Boyd, Panama)

My delegation, believes that solutions to the Middle East situation must be based on general rather than partia.1 agreements. Therefore the spirit of belligerence existing in Israel and the Arab States must come to an end. Surely sufficient time has already elapsed for us to feel deeply concerned over the fact that this objective has still eluded peaceful achievement, and Panama firmly believes that a just settlement of controversies of this nature must be achieved without resort to the threat or use of force a.'/ainst the territorial integrity or political independence of any State whatever.' Ue would not want this series of meetings of the Security Council, which has been called to examine the situation in the Middle tfast, to end without a practical conclusion, since we believe it our bounden duty to prove to the world that the United "Nations -- specifically through the efforts of the Security Council — can play an effective role in the search for peaceful solutions. I sincerely believe that, little by little, the appeals for'the elimination from the hearts of Arabs and Jews of the hatred and belligerency that have caused so much pain and suffering and mourning the Middle East are reaching- their targets. With the industrial energy crisis which is besetting the modern world, and in the light of the enormous oil resources possessed by the Arab np,tions, surely the most intelligent and human things would be for us to help in finding permanent peace3 which will allow the full social and economic development of the countries of the region. Mankind cannot complacently stand aside while these resources are beinr; squandered on arms expenditures which can only result in pain and death, when we know that, pronerly exploited, they mi^ht well serve the Arabs and Jews alike, helping them fulfil their creative purposes, living as :°;ood neighbours in a new era for civilization. With affection, understanding and friendship -for both Arabs and Jews, the delegation of Panama would like to serve as a bridge so that those friendly delegations mi^ht enjoy a more direct contact with one another and thus start towards the permanent solution to the Middle East crisis. We a/pree with the Secretary-General when in paragraph Il6 of his report he states that: ''The Security Council is, as far as I know, the only forum where all the parties to the conflict have been able to meet together in the same room. In the forthcoming debate it is to be hoped that this advantage may be used for constructive moves towards a settlement." (S/10929, para. Il6) AW/gm S/PV.1726 26

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I thank the representative of Panama for the kind words that he was good enough to say about my country. I also note with happiness the development in the relations between the Soviet Union and Panama and I trust that those relations will continue to develop along the same lines. The next speaker is the representative of Qatar, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and*to make a statement.

Mr. JAMAL (Qatar): Mr. President., allow me to extend to you,, Sir and to the distinguished members of this august body my thanks and appreciation for permitting my delegation to participate in the discussion concerning the situation in the Middle East. I would, furthermore; like to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. I am sure that^ with your able guidance and wide experience, you will successfully lead the Council's deliberations to the right path of finding a just solution to the complex issue of which the Council is now seized. I should also like to extend a warm and sincere welcome to Their Excellencies, the distinguished African Ministers of Foreign Affairs, who have eloquently pronounced the African solidarity with the just cause of the Arab people. Mr. President,, turning now to the Secretary General:s report (S/10929K I should like, with your permission, to voice my Government's views on the subject of the report. At the outset I wish to extend to the Secretary-General our sincere thanks and appreciation for his efforts to secure a just and meaningful settlement to the situation in the Middle East. His comprehensive report bears witness to his concern over the gravity of the situation and his to the continuing search for a lasting peace in that troubled area of the world. My delegation has carefully examined this report in an attempt to appraise the progress achieved so far towards reaching a peaceful settlement. It is regrettable to note that after years of negotiations and tireless mediation carried on by the various instrumentalities of the United Nations;. the Secretary- report reveals the discouraging and disturbing fact that the negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East question have reached a dead end. ¥e_, however, wish to express in this connexion our appreciation for AW/gni S/PV.1726 27 (Mr. Jamal, Qatar) the admirable and tireless efforts of Ambassador Jarring, the Special Representative of the Secretary General,, for his attempts to fulfil the difficult task with which he was entrusted. In pondering the various chapters of the report, the Council can easily indicate which party has failed to co-operate with Ambassador Jarring or has put obstacles in his way to the reaching of a suitable solution. The Arab Governments, on their part,, have always demonstrated a keen interest in a peaceful settlement. They have responded in a positive and co -operative manner with Ambassador Jarring. They have shown in their replies to the Special Representative's memoranda proof of a genuine and constructive attitude and a sincere search for peaceful settlement. At its twenty sixth session, the General Assembly, in resolution 2799 (XXVI), noted with appreciation ;?... the positive reply given by Egypt to the Special Representative's initiative for establishing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East •. The Arab people, over the long history of mankind, have always maintained the best relations with other nations, and have always been known as peace--loving people. Nations with a long history of civilization, from Ancient Greece to the Roman Empire,witnessed the great and leading role of the Arabs in promoting culture and science for the benefit of mankind. This role has established a firm basis on which science and technology presently stand. The Arabs have continued to contribute to the world development in different fields. The Arab countries entertain the most cordial and close ties with the greater number of countries all over the world.: in Africa, Asia and Latin America and in Eastern and -Western Europe. These are clear indications that the Arab people are peace-loving .: people, and that their search for a peaceful settlement is not unfounded. These are the Arab people, and this is their attitude towards a peaceful settlement. But let us for a moment consider the stand of the other party to the conflict. Israel's evasive replies to Ambassador Jarring1s memoranda and its negative attitude needs no evidence. The Secretary General's report, now before this Council., is a clear testimony to this fact. But what is more disturbing is the negative attitud.e which Israel has consistently taken towards the United Nations and its various bodies. The General Assembly., expressing its anxiety over Israel's attitude towards peaceful negotiations, deplored, in resolution 29^9 (XXVII), the non-compliance of Israel with General Assembly resolution AW/gm S/PV.1726 28-30 (Mr. Jamal, Qatar)

2799 (XXVI)j which in particular called, upon Israel to respond favourably to the peace initiative of the Special Representative of the Secretary-GEneral to the Middle East. I do not think I need to elaborate on the miserable and inhuman conditions which the Palestine refugees are experiencing. This has become a matter of common knowledge and the subject of countless United Nations resolutions. The Arab people who live in their own homes in the occupied Arab territories are in no better a condition. The' Israeli authorities have consistently denied them their basic human rights. The United Nations Special Committee which was established to investigate the Israeli practices violating the human rights of the Arab population in the occupied Arab territories,, in the letter transmitting its report dated 26 October 1970, stated: DR/ad S/PV.1726 31 (Mr. Jamal, Qatar)

"The evidence given before the Special Committee has revealed the grim situation of the refugees living inside the occupied territories. The Special Committee visited some of the refugee camps outside the occupied territories and was deeply moved by the unhappy plight of their occupants." (A/8089, page 5) By what standards can we tolerate such inhuman conditions: and by what scale of justice can we justify 'the right of a certain people gathered from all over the world to create the so-called "Jewish Home" in Palestine while denying such a right to the Palestinian people? My Government believes'that there will be no peace in the Middle East as long as Israel is arrogantly occupying Arab territories and denying the Arab people their fundamental right to freedom and self-determination. It is not the intention of my delegation to cite all the resolutions passed by various bodies of the United Nations condemning Israel for its continued aggression against the Arab countries and its flagrant violations of the basic principles of the Charter and the fundamental norms of international law. This has become a matter of common knowledge. I should only like., in this context, to point out that the United Nations is not the only forum in which Israel has been constantly condemned for its continued occupation of Arab territories. A resolution adopted by the Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non-Aligned Countries held in Georgetown, Guyana, last August expressed, inter alia, the solidarity of non-aligned countries with Egypt3 Jordan and Syria in their legitimate struggle to recover by every means their territorial integrity. The Conference furthermore acknowledged that the acquisition of territory through force is wholly impermissible. In the last few weeks the Heads of State and Government of 4l independent African States who met in Addis Ababa unanimously adopted a resolution which, y^JL^iP-Jb strongly condemned the negative attitude of Israel, its acts of intimidation and its obstruction of all efforts aimed at a just and equitable solution of the problem. The African countries further called upon Israel to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from all occupied African and Arab territories. They drew the attention of Israel to DR/ad S/PV.1726 32 (Mr. Jamal, Qatar) "... the danger threatening the security and unity of the African \ continent as a result of its continued aggression and refusal to evacuate the territories of the States victims of that aggression • The African countries declared in this regard — and I quote from the same resolution — "that the attitude of Israel might lead OAU Member States to take, at the African level, individually or collectively, political and economic measures against it, in conformity with the principles contained in the OAU and the United Nations Charters." (3/109^3, page 3) The time has now come for the world family to proceed in a more effective and positive manner in working out a formula whereby a meaningful result could be achieved. Such a formula should take into account the diverse and complex issues that have various historical, humanitarian and political dimensions. I can find no better expression of the complexity of these issues and the diversity of their dimensions than the words of the Secretary-General in presenting his report: "In the Middle East we see in an acute form the interaction of historical developments and situations of various kinds giving rise to emotion and

resentment, to fear and conflict, to a vicious circle of action and reaction3 violence and reprisal, and to a series of seemingly insurmountable obstacles to the process of conciliation and settlement." (iflTth meeting, page 12) The gravity of the situation in the Middle East not only threatens peace and security in that area but contains a far-reaching threat to the peace and security of the whole world which is attaching many hopes and aspirations to the efforts of this august body whose main task is the maintenance of international peace and security. Let us not fail to live up to these hopes and aspirations. Let us make the year 1973 a year of peace and development. During this year the world has witnessed an important encouraging achievement in which peace has been restored in one troubled area of the world.

Viet-Nam3 which has for decades experienced the ugliest scourge of war, has now approached a happy settlement. Let us add another achievement by restoring peace in the Middle East. In doing so, the United Nations, DR/ad S/PV.1T26 33-35 (Mr. Jamal, Qatar) whose involvement in the Middle East dates back more than a quarter of a century, should not forget its special commitment to finding suitable terms for a lasting peace in the Middle East. This involvement started with the General Assembly's famous resolution which partitioned Palestine and resulted in the illegitimate birth'of Israel. Since then, the United Nations has adopted numerous resolutions in an attempt to find a just and lasting peace for the Middle East. The fact that these resolutions have not as yet borne their fruits should not discourage us from continuing our search for a lasting peace. AP/lc S/PV.1T26 36 (Mr. Janal, Qat ar)

In considering a just and equitable formula due regard nust be riven to the right of the Palestinian people to return to their homeland In a revealing remark the Chairman of the United Nations Special Committee entrusted with the task of investigating Israel's practices affecting human rights in the occupied Arab territories stated: "The plight of the refugees — persons who have been deprived of their . hones and denied the right to return to then and who are, therefore, victims of the violation of the nost fundamental of human rights — and the tone of bitterness and despair which narked every reference of theirs to the United Nations' failure to protect their human rights, have created a profound and disturbing impression on the Special Committee." (A/8389, page 5) In considering alternative solutions to the refugees' plight we should not be misled by the erroneous and naive thinking once expressed by the representative of Israel before the Council that if 1 per cent of the Arab resources are utilized for the settlement of the Palestinian refugees, the Middle East problen will come to an end. Let us make it clear that the Palestinian people will not accept anything less than their own homes and the return to their country, Palestine. Those people can no longer tolerate living on international charity, whatever its source may be. Let us now move in a more positive way to alleviate the miseries and injustice suffered by the Arab people. Let us avoid disappointing those people, or forr that matter the whole world, by living up to their expectations and aspirations for a just and meaningful solution to the Middle East problem. Finally, we sincerely hope that the United Nations will spare no effort in reaching a peaceful settlement lest the whole world might witness another catastrophe.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I thank the Ambassador of Qatar for his words of welcome. AP/lc S/PV.1726 37

Mr. SEN (India): Mr. President 9 we offer you our warmest congratulations on and our best wishes for your Presidency of the Council for June this year. For you, with your long years at the United Nations, this responsibility can be taken as a matter of course, but for us it is most fortunate that during the debate of one of the most important subjects before the Council we shall have the fullest benefit of your experience and knowledge. In paying you compliments several speakers have mentioned bilateral relations with your country. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on Indo-Soviet relations, for they are some of the best. We assure you of our fullest co-operation. We should also like to express our appreciation for the calm and competent manner in which our outgoing President, Ambassador Abdulle, conducted our proceedings in May. We are grateful. We welcome the presence of so many Foreign Ministers from African and Arab countries; this is indeed a measure of the interest and concern with which the tense situation in the Middle East is viewed in various parts of the world. In consonance with that outlook, the Council decided on 20 April, on a suggestion by the Foreign Minister of Egypt, that it should review comprehensively the situation in the Middle East since June 196? on the basis of a report to be prepared by the Secretary-General and in the presence of his Special Representative, Ambassador Jarring. We now have before us the excellent, clear and astute, if indeed depressing, report of the Secretary-General. We congratulate the Secretary- General on it. We are fortunate also to have the benefit of Ambassador Jarring"s being with us, both inside and outside the Council Chamber. We welcome and wish to record our appreciation of the determination, objectivity and devotion with which he has tried to carry out his most complex and difficult mission. If success has eluded him, and many other men of goodwill, in the effort to bring to an end this nearly insoluble and dangerous problem of the Middle East, the responsibility for such a lack of success is certainly not that of Mr. Jarring or of other people who have also tried, but tried unsuccessfully. But we cannot relax our efforts, and must continue to hope that, given the good intention of the main parties, this Council must still find a solution. This task is urgent, as indeed the situation is critical. The Secretary-General has AP/lc S/PV.1726 38 (Mr. Sen, India) reported that IT complaints were taken up by the Security Council since July 1967 — 16" from the Arabs and 1 from the Israelis — and yet he states that most important violations of the cease-fire did not come before the Council. One needs little imagination to realize what the situation will be, if the cease-fire becomes untenable in the absence of any prospects of a solution without much delay. The Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 stands by itself and was the basis of action during the last six years. It contains two basic principles which were accepted, so at leas't it would seem, by the principal parties. But when it comes to implementation, we are confronted with an Israeli interpretation which makes further progress impossible. Ambassador Jarring, after most careful study and detailed discussion with the parties, formulated his aide-memoire of 8 February 1971 to which the Israelis objected as, in their view, it went beyond the mandate given to the Special Representative, and as also, again in their view, it was counter to the interpretation Israel had given "to resolution 2^2 (1967). Ambassador Jarring's initiative was therefore unacceptable to Israel. Israel later went to the extent of suggesting that this aide-memoire of 8 February 1971 should be withdrawn. Those developments require closer scrutiny. We have heard much about the omission of the definite article "the" and of the adjective "all" or of the mention of any date regarding the line to which Israeli troops should be withdrawn. I may add in parenthesis that at least one of those omissions is not noticeable in the French text, which is equally authentic. But, apart from those technicalities, let us take the words as they are, as indeed Israel would wish us to do. The text reads: "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." (resolution 2^2 (1967), paragraph 1 (i)) What territories could have been meant except the Arab territories? No one has suggested that Israeli armed forces occupied lands in other territories. AP/lc . S/PV.1T26 39-^0 (Mr. Sen, India)

What could be meant by "the recent conflict"? If it were not the conflict of six days in June 1967a could it be interpreted to refer to conflicts which might have occurred even before 5 June? Even if such an interpretation were most welcome to the Arabs, neither the records of the Council of 19&7 nor the present membership would give resolution 2^2 (1967) this interpretation. So, the "recent conflict" in this resolution could only refer to the conflict of the six days in June 19&7- Then we are given a second line of argument which maintains that all the boundaries of Israel since its establishment inside the mandated territory of Palestine had been in the nature of military lines — cease-fire line, armistice line and truce line. This would seem to us a dangerous argument, even from Israel's point of view. EH/11/ad S/PV.1726 111 (Mr. Sen, India)

But I suppose it is so strong militarily that it finds no danger to its negotiating position vith a completely undetermined border. However, this argument of Israel's that no "boundary for it has ever been worked out is not valid. First, the boundaries of Israel were defined by the United Nations with precision when Palestine was partitioned. That was accepted by Israel. Secondly, the international frontiers between the old Mandated Territory of Palestine and the neighbouring territories of Syria', Lebanon, TransJordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were never in question or doubt. Israel was to be carved out of the Mandated Territory of Palestine and at no point — at no point, I repeat —- were its boundaries to be outside the old frontiers of the Mandated Territory of Palestine. Conscious of that fact, and without apparently commenting on the Israeli claim that the political borders of Israel have never been defined, Ambassador Jarring carefully drafted .his aide-memoire of 8 February 1971 and asked Israel to "give a commitment to withdraw its forces 'from occupied United Arab Republic territory to the former international boundary between Egypt and the British Mandate of Palestine". (S/I0929, annex II, page 2) Israel's reply was a blunt

"Israel will not withdraw to the pre-5 June 19&7 lines". (ibid., annex IV3 page l) Thus, Israel told the Special Represntative that it would no longer respect the international boundaries either in Egypt or in Syria, or anywhere else where it had occupied territories beyond the old Mandated Territory. That attitude, taken together with Israel's refusal to confirm the principle of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war is inconsistent with the Israeli claim that it has accepted resolution 2U2 (1967). It is also inconsistent with the present Israeli assertion that all claims of either side are open to negotiations — at least, that is the impression we received from the Israeli statements of 6 and 7 June to the effect that everything is negotiable. That is perhaps what led the representative of France yesterday to state the following in the Council: "That is why the Israeli response to Mr. Jarring"s memorandum dated 8 February 1971 constitutes a prior condition which nothing can justify. RH/11 S/PV.1726

(Mr. Sen, India)

The dialogue should be started on a footing of equality and not on a footing of relations of force. In stating that it will not withdraw to the lint ; obtaining prior to 5 June 1967 Israel is undermining the balance in resolution 2^2 (1967)." (l72Hh meeting, p. 36) Much was also said about this resolution providing for negotiations between the parties. Since we are examining the resolution as it stands, without any additions or subtractions even of a dot or a comma, it is worthwhile to point out that the word "negotiations" does not occur in the resolution at all. The relevant paragraph simply requests the Secretary-General "to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution", (resolution 2Ug_ (1967).., paragraph 3) That was Ambassador Jarring"s task, and he set about it assiduously and delicately to bend all his efforts to carry out his most explicit mandate. He failed because Of the Israeli attitude. Perhaps contacts have been maintained all through these ye|.rs, but very little progress could be made beyond clearing up the isSi^sif . During these J^.rs many attempts were nevertheless made to have indirect negotiations, but 88^J. of those failed too, because of Israel's refusal to vacate the Arab territories acquired as the result of the 1967 conflict. I need mention only three such attempts: the good offices of certain Heads of State or Government, of African countries; the suggestion of "proximity" talks i and what has come to/be known as the Rogers Plan. These days, Ambassador Jarring is being ctfUiicized for having interpreted resolution 2h2 (1967) in the only possible Wa^r, and yet the Rogers Plan was essentially based on the same interpretation.: $f this resolution. All the four great Powers supported Ambassador Jarring^p. his interpretation of resolution 2^2 (1967) and on the nature of his mandate. Only this morning, the Secretary-General once again BH/ll/sg S/PV.1T26

(Mr. Sen, India) confirmed that attitude of the four great Powers. Thus, so far as is known, Israel alone, among all 132 Members of the United Nations, interpreted Ambassador Jarring's activities in a different way. Meanwhile, the four great Powers were making their own efforts, and many of us had hoped that at least one of them would be able to persuade Israel to be more reasonable. That was not an idle hope. When a country has so many special ties with a great Power there are many ways of persuasion. That has happened in the past elsewhere3 and even in the Middle East — for example, the abandonment of the River Jordan scheme - and therefore it was reasonable to expect that if, on whatever grounds, sense of justice, national interests or the wider cause of international peace and security, a change of course was decided upon, Israel could be expected to co-operate, not as a matter of coercion or imposition but as a result of persuasion that Israel's interests too were best served by such a change. We still hope for such a change in attitudes and policies. We are always in favour of negotiations, and we were pleased to hear from the Egyptian Foreign Minister, to whom a special word of welcome is due, that his country would be ready and willing to negotiate, provided there were no preconditions. But, preconditions apart, the objective circumstances are as follows: First, Israel's refusal to implement resolution 2^2 (1967). Second, Israel's assertion that it must have Jerusalem; a good part if not the whole of the West Bank; the Golan Heights; Sharm-el-Sheikh and many other selected Arab lands. It gives the impression that its full hand will be shown only at the negotiating table, but Israel's intention has been made clear through many authoritative statements. Third, its settling of Jewish populations in the captured lands at the cost of the Arabs, with many fundamental changes, of which the United Nations has disapproved, in the texture of life and economy of these territories. Fourth, its importation of more Jews — will that lead to the doctrine of Lebensraum being put into effect? Fifth, its policy of having more Arab lands with as few Arabs as possible coming with them. RH/ll/sg S/PV.1T26 hk (Mr. Sen, India)

Sixth, its refusal to recognize Palestinian rights. Without a settlement of this problem, a permanent solution of the crisis in the Middle East will not be available. Rhetor. .: will not disperse this issue. It is immaterial whether these people are called Palestinians or by any other name. The fact is that this is where they have lived for untold centuries, and unless their fundamental civil,, religious and political rights are -protected, and unless every effort is made to facilitate their return home in full dignity, the problem will not be solved and the troubles will continue. Seventh, Israel's refusal to .settle the refugee problems in accordance with United Nations resolutions it has accepted. The resolutions of the General Assembly may not be binding, but no country can say that some of those resolutions are binding and the others are not. If Israel claims that the resolution on the refugees is not binding, it must concede that the resolution on the admission of Israel is also subject to challenge by the Arabs. But we do not wish to enter into these legalistic arguments. Eighth, Israel's increase in military strength and its capacity to strike at will anywhere it likes in the Arab world. Ninth, its desire for time, which allows it to consolidate its hold and to plan further ahead. It has already had six years. Tenth, its refusal to abide by innumerable United Nation's resolutions. Eleventh, its desire to treat the Jews everywhere as its responsibiltty in spite of what Mr. Sharett had to say on this subject at the time of Israel's admission to the United Nations, Twelfth, Israel's policy of retaliation and reprisal, and its failure to punish the guilty. Thirteenth, Israel's ideology, about which we have heard so much. In these prevailing circumstances, therefore, the call for negotiations rightly appears to the Arabs as a call for surrender, or at least as a call for more time to continue with the present stalemate, which inevitably brings advantage to Israel. On the other hand, we believe that the present policy of laissez faire- laissez passer is of the utmost danger. Some may calculate that, given time, Israel will settle down in its newly annexed lands and, with the Arabs RH/11 S/PV.1T26 ^5 (Mr. Sen, India) admittedly weaker and seemingly divided,a stage will come when they will accept Israel in its present grandeur. Fortunately, we do not share that view, and if any one of us feels that the present situation is moving towards some form of stability, the statements made before the Council by a succession of Arab representatives must have dispelled such feelings and theories. BHS/sg S/PV.1726

(Mr. Sen, India) f • What then can be done? We believe that in spite of Israel's reservation, if not rejection, of resolution 2^2 (1967), it can still serve as a basis for progress. We should therefore suggest a few immediate measures. First, we would recommend'a declaration., in formal and unequivocal terms, by Israel, accepting the principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force, and, as a consequence,committing itself to withdraw from all Arab lands it occupied as a result of the June 1967 conflict. Secondly, we would suggest that the Arab countries concerned make a declaration, again in formal and unequivocal terms, committing themselves to respect and acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. i Thirdly, both Israel and the Arab countries concerned should, simultaneously but separately, declare that all of them would respect the rights of the Palestinian people in every field. It is both unjust and unacceptable to expect non-Jewish people to live with any degree of security or peace of mind in a Jewish State that affords them no legal or constitutional protection from the arbitrary exercise of power. As for the Palestinians living in exile, there is simply no incentive for them to return, which sadly confirms the hope of the Israeli authorities that they will, in fact, not return home, and that others, who remained in both Israel and the occupied areas, will follow them into exile. Israel must be fully aware that constant postponement of the Palestine problem is no solution at all. Inevitably, Israel, if it intends to be a democratic State, will have to accommodate these Palestinians by guaranteeing them basic civil liberties and political rights. By simply placing non-Jews under their arbitrary authority, Israel is bound to exacerbate the situation and hasten those very problems which it surely wishes to avoid. For years now Israel has been claiming that those Arabs living in Israel or Israeli-occupied territories are economically better off than at any time previously. This statement or this argument is as relevant as BHS/sg S/PV.1726

(Mr. Sen, India) the South African claim that the blacks in South Africa are better off than the blacks in the neighbouring independent countries. Such an attitude reflects a simple-minded approach and fails to recognize the tragedy of these people and the agony of their plight. They., and we, are interested in their rights, their human values, and not merely in their creature comforts, however welcome and useful they may be. i Since so much has been made of it, I should like to draw the attention of the members to a full account of the conditions of the Arabs in the occupied lands , published in the Daily Telegraph magazine of London on 1 June 1973. This article, with several pictures and a good map, is described by the journal, as a part of its advertisement, no doubt, as "The first detailed story of the disputed areas". The author is Mr. John Bulloch, -who observes: "The Israeli occupation of the Arab lands is no better and no worse than any other occupation. Sympathizers who believe that the Israelis are more benevolent than other countries are wrong; detractors who believe them more ruthless are equally wrong*" All this simply means that these unfortunate Palestinians are under military occupation, have no rights and can only receive what treatment the conquerors may decide to give them in their homeland. There must be an accommodation between the Arab rights and the Israeli rights, whereby they live together. Wo one is suggesting that the Israeli rights should be unilaterally sacrificed in order to safeguard Arab rights or vice-versa. Just as the Israelis have their homeland, as defined in the United Nations decision, in part of the old mandated territories, the Palestinians have a right to their homeland and self-determination in the rest of the mandated territory partitioned in 19VT. Fourthly, the Secretary-General or his Special Representative could publish a document containing the points on which both sides have agreed in response to Ambassador Jarring 's aide-memoire of 8 Fbbruary 1971- Such a document .should specifically over the solution of the problem of refugees as decided by the United Nations resolution, the opening of the Suez Canal, transit facilities and demilitarized zones. BHS/sg S/PV.1T26 48 (Mr. Sen, India)

As soon as these declarations have been made, particularly the first and the second, indirect negotiations can "begin, as a first step, between the interested parties with the help of the Special Representative. Once an agreement has been reached, the Palestinians should be brought into the negotiations, so that any final settlement may be satisfactory to all the parties concerned. We are not making any formal proposals but would hope that between now and our next meeting, which I believe will be no later than 16 July and presumably still in Hew York, some progress along these lines may still be possible. Many speakers have referred bo the concept or the principle of a secure and recognized boundary. This is mainly a political concept and only secondarily a military affair. In the geographical position of Israel and in the context of modern arms, a secure boundary is only feasible for all the States of the Middle East, and not merely of Israel, by mutual respect3 friendship, co-operation and understanding. In the absence of such a development, the military aspects, however insignificant in themselves, are bound to be exaggerated, particularly in the eyes of the military men. Possibly because of its armed victory, Israel expects some return from the Arabs. But the Israelis have already obtained it — perhaps the most glittering prize of any military action —- that is, the possibility of living in peace with one's neighbours. In the Tel Aviv museum hall, Mr. David Ben Gurion read on lU May 19^8 the Proclamation on the Rise of the State of Israel and said: "Accordingly we, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world, met together in solemn assembly today, the day of the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine; by virtue of the national and historic right of the Jewish people and of the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations; hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine —• to be called Israel." BHS/sg S/PV.1726 ^9-50 (Mr. Sen, India) I have many other clearer and stronger statements on the subject from other Israeli sources, but I thought I should quote from the most ceremonial document adopted at the birth of the State of Israel. Nonetheless, Israel often states that if it has been condemned or its actions deplored or criticized in the United Nations, it is partly because of the structure of the United Nations, especially of the Security Council, and partly because of the influence the large number of Arab States and their friends have in this Organization — because of what it calls a mechanical majority. Apart from the pertinent question why so many States — non-aligned countries, .Socialist, practically all Asian, all ^1 African, several European and Latin American States and several others besides — support and sympathize with the Arabs in varying degrees, the fact remains that when Israel was established by the United Nations and admitted to this Organization, there was considerable sympathy for it, as is evident from the voting figures, but it has forfeited that sympathy by its own actions and attitudes. Many of the resolutions critical of Israel were passed at a time when even Israel could not complain, and did not in fact complain, of Arab influence and of a mechanical majority. And yet Israel failed to carry out several decisions taken in good faith and in a friendly atmosphere by the United Nations in order to render easier its continued and assured existence in the middle of Arab lands, and in conditions of peace and security of all the States in the Middle East. But Israel does not draw any particular lesson from this experience. It falls back on the racial pride of suffering through the ages, of struggling as a minority, surrounded by a vast hostile majority. "This condition is not new. We have lived with it throughout the ages. We have always been small in number. That has never weakened our determination to survive. There is no solitude when justice and history are with us." The Jewish people are not alone in believing that, with justice and history beside them,, irrespective naturally of what conception of justice and history one may have, they can ignore solitude and struggle on. But this sentiment, which we must all admire, loses some of its romance when we recall that Israel has, at least in recent years, received the unquestioned support of the most powerful country in the world today. In the circumstances, solitude may not be all that unbearable. Besides, this rugged determination to fight on, even in isolation, has always the danger of being perverted. NR/em S/PV.1726 51 (Mr. Sen, India)

Starting off with the doctrine that nothing good can be achieved without sacrifice, we are apt to delude ourselves that sacrifice itself means achievement. But Israel does not have to be in such a self-lacerating mood. It has won a spectacular armed victory and obtained most remarkable prizes -— the most important of which is that the Arab States have now solemnly offered to live in peace and harmony with it, as soon as it has withdrawn from its territory, which it must do by all rules of law. liust Israel throw away this golden opportunity and relapse into a sullen posture of denouncing everyone else for its misfortunes? Or will it allow its appetite to grow with what it feeds on? The answer is for Israel to give. For us, we should not like General Burns's gloomy analysis to come true. General Burns, who was Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization'in the Middle East from August 195^ to Nov.

19569 says at page 68 of the paperback edition of his book, Between Arab and Israeli: "It is not unreasonable to deduce chat a society whose young elements have passed their most formative years in an atmosphere in which the military virtues and especially aggressiveness are given the highest values, and where the Arab is, always the enemy, to be made to submit to Israel's demands by ruthless force, will grow increasingly militaristic and less inclined to the solving by negotiation of external problems. The Sabra, or the Israeli who has come to the country as a young child, shut in as he is on all his borders by hostility,, and precluded from travel abroad by lack of money,, does not know much of the world beyond the bounds of Israel and does not at all care about its opinion. And so, born of the success of the campaigns of 19^8 and 1956, there is a certain arrogance, an inability to see that Israel should yield anything for peace, an inability to compromise. Such an attitude in what will soon be the majority of the population does not promise a peaceful solution of Israel's problems, or a peaceful future for the Middle East." The victories of 19&7 strengthened these attitudes. Unless this process of continuous generation of hate, this ignorance and this arrogance is reversed and replaced by healthier trends, our efforts, however made, will make no headway. Many speakers have mentioned the duties and responsibilities of the Security HR/em S/PV.1726 52 (Hr. Sen., India)

Council, as also of its permanent members, Tie "believe that the world has a right to expect fair and timely decisions from the Council,, "but it cannot "be unaware that these decisions are not possible,because of the Charter provisions9 and also that,, even when such decisions are taken, they cannot be implemented in the absence of great-Power agreement. Because of the daily awareness of these circumstances 9 the Council entrusted, to the great Powers some informal tasks of negotiation to supplement and complement the efforts of Mr. Jarring., "out these Powers failed to achieve any results., for reasons well known to us, and for nearly two years now they have not met at all — not even the four of them --• and a mentality of "time alone will solve the problem" has developed. In our view., this is a most dangerous trend. We have heard much about history. History has been pushed and prodded here, there and everywhere,, and she has spoken to her votaries in voices they wished to hear. The other deities who are re so served and who were equally accommodating were Truth and Justice. The debate provided the protagonists with an opportunity to recount historical events which cannot be attributed to the present generation and which find their roots in a rather vague and distant antiquity. All these expensive historical lessons may have a purpose and some of them may even be interesting, but our work is much more urgent, for we are dealing with a grave situation in which the safety and welfare of unknown millions is involved. Unless we proceed with a sense of fairness and practical

senseu we shall only contribute to tension and despair.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I thank the representative of India for his kind words to me. I entirely share his high appraisal of the state of friendly relations between the Soviet Union and India and sincerely hope that the relationship of co-operation and friendship will continue to grow between our two countries. Iffi/em S/PV.1726 53

Hr._JlUA_IG_ (China) (interpretation from Chinese): The Chinese delegation has studied the Secretary-General's report submitted in pursuance of the Security Council resolution of 20 April 1973 and has listened attentively to the statements made by the Foreign Ministers and representatives of a number of Arab and African countries as well as other members of the Security Council. We nov would like to state our views and position on the Middle East question. For many years ., people have set forth one argument or another on the Middle East question,, However, anyone facing up to the reality cannot but admit that the history of the Middle East over the past two decades and more since the Second World War is one of repeated aggression and expansion carried out by Israeli Zionism with imperialist support and of resistance to aggression and expansion put up by the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. The reactionary Zionist movement was a product of the imperialist policy of aggression in the Middle East. The large-scale immigration to Palestine has long been carried out by the Zionists with the support and abetment of imperialism. In 19^7 the United Nations General Assembly,, under the manipulation of imperialism., rejected the Arab countries' demand for terminating the British Mandate and declaring the independence of Palestine and adopted the plan on "the partition of Palestine . Since the establishment of the State of Israel, Israeli Zionism, with the support of the United States Government 3 has carried out repeated aggression and expansion and within the short space of two decades unleashed three large-scale wars of aggression0 occupying large tracts of Arab territories anct driving the Palestinian and other Arab peoples who had lived there for generations out of their homeland. Displaced and homeless 5 they have been leading a most miserable life. In their speeches quite a few Arab representatives gave a true picture of the suffering and misery of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. While maintaining in their speeches that Israel must withdraw from all the Arab territories it has occupied, quite a few representatives have strongly held that the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to national existence must be restored. This is perfectly just. IIR/eni ' S/PV.1726 5U-55 (i- 'r. Kuan p:., Chi n a)

Since the 196? war, the Israeli Zionists have hung on to the large tracts of occupied Arab territories, where they have been energetically pushing their plan of Zionization. Truculent and unreasonable,, they have incessantly perpetrated fresh military provocations and armed aggression against the neighbouring Arab States under this or that pretext,, in an attempt to stamp out by armed force the just struggle of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples against aggression and to create a fait accompli so as to perpetuate their occupation of the Arab territories and realize their ambition for further expansion. The theory of so-called "secure boundaries ' they have been advertising so vigorously is a typical theory for expansion. HP/cc S/PV.1726 56 (Mr. Huang, China)

In fact, this theory of "secure "boundaries" of the Israeli Zionists is not their creation. Did not the Hitlerite Nazis put forth the notorious theory of what they called "Lebensraum" — living space — long ago? And even today are there not people who clamour for extending their so-called "secure boundaries" to this or that ocean? In order to realize their wild designs, all aggressors

and expansionists3 whether in the past or at present, invariably pick up similar gangster's logic of jungle law to serve their aggression and expansion. To accept the argument of the so-called "secure boundaries" is tantamount to recognizing the Israeli Zionist aggression and expansion as totally legal and recognizing all aggressors as having the right to the acquisition of others' territories by force at any time. This, of course, is absolutely intolerable. The facts are clear: .The essence of the Middle East question is aggression versus anti-aggression and a question of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples fighting for national liberation. There is certainly no room for compromise on this question. The restoration of the Palestinian people's right to national existence and the Arab countries' struggle to recover their lost territories constitute an integral whole. As long as the lost territories of the Arab States are not recovered and the Palestinian people's national right is not restored, there can be no true settlement of the so-called Middle East question. For centuries , the Middle East has been a place of rivalry between the imperialist Powers. Today imperialist rivalry in the Middle East has taken a new form, in which new tactics have been employed. As pointed out by the just Arab public opinion, today the two super-Powers have taken the place of former imperialist Powers as the principal rivals for hegemony in the Middle East. The 196? war of aggression was launched by the Israeli Zionists with the support, connivance and acquiescence of one or two super-Powers. Thereafter, echoing each other, they have been spreading the idea that the Palestinian and other Arab peoples must not wage armed struggles against Israeli aggression, that resistance would immediately lead to a world war, and that whoever supports such armed struggle against aggression is provoking confrontation between the two super-Powers. In other words, only the aggressors are allowed to commit i wanton expansion, while the victims of aggression are not allowed to resist. The Palestinian and other Arab peoples, as well as all the people who support MP/cc S/PV.1726 57 (Mr. Huang, China) the struggle against aggression, are to be bound, hand and foot, so that the two super-Powers can do whatever they please to manipulate and dominate the situation. In recent years, the two super-Powers have been both contending and colluding with each other, taking advantage of the temporary difficulties facing the Palestinian and other Arab peoples to make dirty political deals at the expense of their right to national existence and their territories and sovereignty. Thus the two super-Powers are deliberately creating and maintaining a situation of "no war, no peace" in the Middle East so as to facilitate their contention for important strategic points and oil resources and the division of spheres of influence there. Everyone can see that herein lies the crux of the prolonged non-settlement of the Middle East question. However, the time has gone when imperialism could run amuck and rule the fate of other peoples at will. The Palestinian and other Arab peoples have taken up arms in face of the armed aggression by the Israeli Zionists, determined to fight to the finish against aggression and for their national liberation. The Palestinian and other Arab peoples persevering in struggle will surely take their destiny into their own hands. Is not the history of the two decades and more after the Second World War replete with brilliant events in which the Asian3 African and Latin American peoples took up arms, persevered in struggle and eventually won their national liberation after defeating imperialist and super-Power aggression and interference? The Chinese Government and people have always firmly opposed and strongly condemned the Israeli Zionist aggression and expansion against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. We are not opposed to the Jewish nation and the people of Israel-, but we are firmly opposed to the Israeli Zionist policies of . aggression and expansion. We have cherished profound sympathy for the Palestinian and other Arab peoples who are subjected to aggression and bullying. We resolutely support their just struggle to resist aggression, recover their lost territories and restore their right to national existence. This position of ours is firm and unshakable. MP/cc . S/PV.1726 58-60 (Mr. Huang, China)

The United Nations has been discussing the Middle East question for more than 20 years. Regrettably, however, under the manipulation and domination of the super-Powers 9 the United Nations has failed to adhere to principles and uphold justice and failed to fulfil its duties under the Charter. It has failed strongly to condemn and firmly to put an end to the Israeli Zionist expansion and aggression, nor has it given its due support to the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. Evidently, this is unfair to the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. Today,when the Middle East situation is being reviewed in its totality, the Security Council should truly act upon the principles of the Charter, draw a clear distinction between the right and the wrong, uphold justice and speak up for the right. The Chinese delegation firmly holds that: The Israeli Zionists must be strongly condemned for their prolonged aggression against the Palestinian people and other Arab countries and peoples• The Israeli authorities must be asked to withdraw immediately from the Egyptian, Syrian and all the other Arab territories they have occupied; The right of the Palestinian people to national existence must be restored; All Governments and peoples should be called upon to give firm support to the Palestinian and other Arab peoples in their just struggle to resist aggression, recover their lost territories and restore their national rights. We firmly maintain that the destiny of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples can only be decided by themselves, and we are firmly opposed to anyone making political deals behind the backs of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples at the expense of their territories and sovereignty and their right to national existence. In our opinion, the adoption of any resolution which in effect shields the Israeli Zionists and encourages aggression in the name of "maintaining peace" is in violation of the United Nations Charter and. will bring new disgrace upon the United Nations and the Security Council and is, therefore, impermissible. The Arab nation is a great nation; the Arab and Palestinian -peoples are heroic peoples. For many years, they have waged heroic and tenacious struggles for their national liberation. Neither the military suppression, nor the political deception by the enemies could subdue them. AW'/gm S/PV.1726 61 (i-?r. Huang, China)

On the contrary., their just struggle is developing in depth. Through their struggles they have made important contributions to the Asian, African and Latin American peoples' cause of unity against imperialism., and they have gained increasingly wide sympathy and support from the revolutionary people all over the world. Although the Palestinian and other Arab peoples are facing protracted and arduous struggles _, and there might be twists and turns and even reversals of this or that kind on their road of advance, yet so long as they rely on and mobilize the broad masses of the people,, strengthen their anti-imperialist unity and persevere in protracted struggle, they -will, with the sympathy and support of all the justice-upholding countries and peoples of the world, surely defeat the Israeli aggressors, restore their national rights, recover their lost territories and win complete victory in their struggle for national liberation.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): The next name on my list of speakers is that of the representative of Bahrain, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement.

Mr_.__AL__SAFFAR_ (Bahrain) (interpretation from French) : Mr. President, first of all I should like to thank you and the other members of the Security Council for having given me the opportunity to take part in this discussion. It is an honour and a great pleasure for my delegation to participate in the discussions on the subject of the Middle East under your Presidency. My delegation has listened attentively to the voice of Africa as reflected in the speeches made by several Ministers from African countries. We have also been listening to the voice of the third world. All these countries have called for the evacuation of all the Arab territories occupied by Israeli force • Is the Israeli Government going to heed these appeals and put into effect the resolutions adopted by the United Nations on this subject? Previous speakers have dwelt at length on the problem of the Middle East. I would like to simply to submit the opinion of my Government on this problem. I shall therefore be brief. My country has much confidence in the Security Council, whose role is to strengthen international peace and security in spite of all the obstacles it meets in the performance of its task. If Bahrain has AW/gm S/PV.1T26 62 (Mr. Al Saffar, Bahrain)

"become independent and a Member of the United Nations, it is thanks to the efforts of the Secretary General of this Organization, for in March 1970, under the aegis of the special envoy of the Secretary-General, the people of Bahrain were able to exercise their right to self determination and decide in favour of a sovereign and independent State. In this way, the historic dispute with Iran was settled, a dispute which had lasted for so long. By this solution., foreign influence, which had lasted a century and a half in Bahrain, also ended. I should like now to say that your great country, Mr. President, was one of the first to recognize our independence and congratulate us upon it. The Government and people of Bahrain are grateful to your country. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of the Secretary-'General of our Organization in his search for international peace and security. Of course, if the parties concerned had not demonstrated their good will in the search for a solution, such a settlement would not have be'en possible. Today, we are faced with a dangerous situation in which the mission of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General bo the Middle East has been blocked by the intransigence of a party to the conflict, Egypt and Jordan have demonstrated their good will in applying resolution 2^2 (196?) adopted by the Security Council in November 1967. That resolution, as is well known, affirms, among other things , the need for bringing about a settlement of the problem of the refugees and the withdrawal of the armed forces of Israel from the Arab territories occupied during the 1967 conflict. While the Government of Israel, states that it accepts this resolution, it nevertheless gives a different interpretation to the last paragraph to enable itself to amputate some of the territories which it had acquired during the six-day war. The Government of Israel would like to have it believed that resolution 2^2 (1967) is in favour of the definitive occupation of part of the territory of its Arab neighbours — • Egypt, Jordan and Syria •— in order to resolve the problem peacefully. To the Israeli authorities, the pre-June 1967 frontiers no longer exist. They want to draw new frontiers which will promote their policy of expansion. They even go so far as to call for the legalization of the occupation of the territories they invaded. We hope that the Security Council will assume its responsibilities and bring about respect for and the application of the resolutions adopted on this problem so as to bring about the reign of peace and stability in the area. AW/gm S/PV.1T26 63-65 (Mr. Al Saffar, Bahrain)

Indeed.; there is nothing to show that Israel intends to apply those resolutions. It has even opened the territories to foreign investors , to exploit natural resources and to make use of the labour of their inhabitants. In this way the Israelis are proposing to develop the occupied territories and raise the standard of living of the inhabitants. Even if one accepts this argument as valid, this can never justify the occupation of the territory of others. Otherwise, colonized peoples would owe thanks to their colonizers. By refusing to evacuate the occupied Arab territories Israeli leaders seem to prefer territory to peace, because no people can consent to the occupation of its territory. Many Israelis are today asking whether their leaders do not prefer, in the final analysis, territories to peace. Professor Annon Rubinstein, Dean of the Law Faculty in the University of Tel-Aviv., has written in the important independent daily Haaretz_ the following: "Instead of taking the path, doubtless arduous and hazardous, which may lead to peace, the Government of Israel is making a fetish of territory. We should not be surprised that many people are convinced today that the policy of Israel is pursuing a very well-defined objective: to cling

to the occupied territories5 play for time and accustom the world to our domination of these territories." DR/lc S/PV.1T26 66 (Mr. Al Saffar, Bahrain)

Indeed, for six years the Government of Israel has tried to win tine in order to consolidate its position in the occupied territory. In our view to defend the present policy of Israel is to defend all its conquests; and the countries which encourage this policy are, practically speaking, making of it an anti-Arab policy. The Israeli Government., is always claiming the right of the Jewish people to live in peace and security. Has it recognized the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace and security? It completely disregards their existence. Throughout this debate the representative of Israel has never mentioned this people. For him, perhaps, only the Jewish people has the right to live in peace. Only yesterday again, the representative of Israel developed a new argument by which he attempted to deny the right of the Palestinians to their land where they have lived for centuries , recognized by all international co muni ties. As the debate continues the expansionist intentions of the Israeli authorities become clearer. The systematic raids of the Israeli forces into the Palestinian refugee camps in neighbouring countries are designed to terrorize and eliminate the Palestinian people. Repeatedly this Council has net to hear complaints with regard to Israeli aggression. The people of Palestine have the same right as all other peoples of the world to live on their soil in peace. The Israelis must recognize the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to a national life, like all other peoples. No solution of the problem in the Middle East is possible without the recognition of the fundamental and undeniable rights of the Arab people of Palestine, and consequently its right to return to the land of its brith. On 7 May last Israel celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of its creation in the Middle East; in spite of all the protests of the inhabitants on the West side of the Jordan and the resolutions of the Security Council adopted in previous years the Israeli authorities organized a military parade in the Arab part of Jerusalem. At that time hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, driven from their homes, were crouching in their tents, in misery, bitterness, despair and frustration. DR/lc B/PV.1T26 67 (Mr. Al Saffar, Bahrain)

This should prompt the Members of our Organization, particularly those States which defend the policy of Israel,to take some thought about the lot of this people and to do something positive to relieve their wretched and inhuman plight. In our view the situation in the Middle East is a single problem. The basis of this problem is the question of the Palestinian people driven from its homeland. The war of June 1967 was only on aggravation of the situation through the occupation of the territories of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. In 19^7 "the United Nations adopted the resolution to partition Palestine between Palestinian Arabs and Jews. Well, where is this Palestinian State? The Israelis have not only usurped the land of the Palestinian people but also occupied other territories in neighbouring countries. Have the Member States of the United Nations which recognize the State of Israel asked themselves what are the limits of this State? ¥e wonder whether the Israelis themselves have ever made them clear. Without any doubt the limits of the State of Israel do exist in the minds of the Zionist leaders 5 just as, in April last, the Israeli representative stated in this sane room that the State of Israel has existed in the minds of Israelis for 2,000 years. Now the Government of Israel seeks to impose on the neinhbcuring Arab countries acceptance of the frontiers of this State. We hope that the members of the Security Council will bring the Israeli authorities to declare unequivocably their support of the principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations, to withdraw their troops from all the Arab territories occupied during the six-day war and to recognize the right of the people of Palestine to self-determination. Without that peace will not be established in the Middle East.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian) : I thank the representative of Bahrain for the kind words he addressed to the Soviet Union. I call on the representative of Israel, Mr. Tekoah. DR/lc S/PV.1726 68-70

Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): I have asked to be allowed, to speak in order to make a brief statement and I shall not therefore use this opportunity to exercise my right of reply to the speeches • delivered by the Chinese and Indian representatives. Their views of fact and logic, of history and of law contained in these two statements is enough to leave them in shambles. To both of them I would simply recall an old Chinese proverb: "Slander cannot destroy an honest man; When the flood recedes the rock is there." It was Egypt's initiative that brought about this debate. Israel has always held the view that public polemics cannot contribute to the solution of the complex Middle East situation. In fact, despite the effort made by my delegation to channel the discussion into meaningful exchanges we were soon confronted by the usual vituperation, calumny and one-sidedness, The debate has made it clear once more that serious, constructive examination of the situation must be conducted through quiet diplomacy and not in public arenas of recrimination. Nevertheless, the debate has thrown light on a number of important questions. Egypt has charged that Israel undermined the peace-making efforts of the last six years. The Egyptian Foreign Minister had undertaken to reveal Israel's responsibility for the failure of these efforts. However, the analysis of developments since 1967 presented in my delegation's opening statement on 6 June and corroborated by the Secretary-General's report demonstrated that it was Egypt that, at one stage after another, prevented progress toward peace. Egypt brushed aside all Israeli peace proposals. It resorted to violence and force„ AP/ad S/PV.1726 71 (Mr_. Tekpahj, Israel)

It rejected Ambassador Jarring's invitation in 1968 to hold conferences in Cyprus., thus "blocking the initiation of negotiations and thereby dooming the Special Representative's mission.. Egypt's only counter argument was that Israel refused to accept the Egyptian position on withdrawal transmitted in the 8 February 1971 memorandum., a position which had been rejected by the Security Council repeatedly in 1967- Neither Egypt's Minister for Foreign Affairs nor any other representative found it possible to seriously challenge this analysis and its central theme that had Egypt responded favourably to the many opportunities offered it by Israel and by the Secretary-General's Special Representative, peace might have already been attained in the Middle East. Minister Zayyat set out to prove that under resolution 2h2 (1967) Israel was to withdraw to the old line of 1967 and to accept that line as the secure and recognized boundary between the two States. The Security Council records will show that a thorough examination of this question was made in the course .of this debate and that nothing that transpired in it has cast doubt on the fact that resolution 2k2 (1967) had left the secure and recognized boundaries undefined so that they could be determined, for the first time, through agreement between the parties. Even the Minister of State of the United Arab Emirates, who was present at the Security Council deliberations in November 19673 confirmed that the Arab delegations had in fact been informed at the time that -the purpose of the omission, in the resolution^ of the words "all1' and "the" before the term "occupied territories" was to leave the possibility of frontier rectifications. This understanding was confirmed also on 22 November 19&7 by India's representative on the Security Council, when he voted for resolution 2h2 (1967), though his successor today, for obvious reasons, chose not to mention it in his somewhat surrealistic interpretation of truth and history. The extent of the border changes will l>e} of course., determined through agreement between the parties. Thus the Egyptian thesis on the alleged immutability of the old line has crumbled, and Egypt's demand that the Security Council call specifically for Israeli withdrawal to that line was shown to be nothing but a demand for a basic change in resolution 2k2 (1967). AP/ad S/PV.1726 72 (Mr. Tekoah, Israel)

Egypt's Foreign Minister put forward another demand to change resolution (1967). He asked for the introduction into the resolution of what he called the problem of inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to live in secure and recognized boundaries. The true nature of this demand became evident when it was shown to imply the dismemberment of Jordan and the protests this demand has provoked in Jordan speak for themselves. Egypt's Minister claimed that it was incumbent on the Security Council to impose on Israel the Egyptian diktat. Soon it became apparent that our deliberations focussed not on the question of imposition from the outside, an idea that faded out, but on negotiations between the parties. Egypt alleged that Israel's refusal to restore the old vulnerable line and Israel's insistence on establishing secure and recognized boundaries constituted a prior condition preventing negotiations. Israel made it clear, however, and I reiterate2 that it desires free negotiations without pre-conditions and that it does not ask of Egypt to accept in advance any Israeli view or position. Egypt further claimed that negotiations were impossible because Israel remained in the territories held by it since 19&7 an

These are the salient facts and conclusions which emerge from the debate. In furtherance of its case Egypt can point only to statements of political support. These statements, however, do not add any new element to the situation. I repeat, for this is the crux of the reality with which we are dealing: all are aware that Israel is permanently outnumbered by the Arab States. This does not affect the merits of Israel's position or our determination to safeguard Israel's fundamental rights and legitimate interests. Such statements cannot alter the situation. The only way to bring about a transition from the present impasse to an accepted peaceful settlement is by negotiations between the parties. I understand that the debate is about to be adjourned as the eyes of the world turn to a meeting between the leaders of "two Great Powers. Their example is one of resolving differences and achieving understanding by means of constructive dialogue. In the forthcoming weeks let us all ponder the question whether the Middle East conflict can remain the only one in the entire world in which a process of negotiation has not yet been initiated. Let us give thought to the fact's highlighted by this debate and to the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from them, namely, that negotiations between Israel and the Arab States are long overdue and are essential to end the present deadlock, as has been pointed out by several members of the Council. RH/18 S/PV.1T26 76 (Mr. Tekoah., Israel)

Israel again calls on the Arab Governments to join it in building peace, for that is the only way in which peace in the region can be achieved. At this stage I should like to express appreciation for the opportunity that has been given my delegation to present to the Security Council a full view of the situation and to indicate the road that would lead to peace, Israel's most cherished hope and objective. I should like to thank also those members of the Security Council who have, each in his own way, contributed to a deeper understanding of the crucial fact that peace between the parties can be attained only by agreement between them on all the outstanding questions and that the central aspect of the settlement — the establishment of secure and recognized boundaries — cannot be artificially excluded from the process of agreement. I should also like to address a word of gratitude to the representatives of the international media of information who have accompanied our deliberations and have made it possible for world public opinion, reflecting the true conscience of mankind, to realize that peace is within the reach of the nations of the Middle East if they free themselves of the errors, obstacles and failures of the past and join hands to construct peace through respect for each other, through mutual understanding and accommodation.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): The last name on the list of speakers for this meeting is that of the representative of Saudi Arabia, who wishes to speak in exercise of his right of reply. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement.

Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia): As usual, after listening to Ambassador Tekoah very carefully and intently, I find myself constrained to set the record straight — be it the historical record, the political record or even the religious record, I do not say Mr. Tekoah wilfully distorts the truth. He may do so inadvertently, because I have no doubt that since youth he has been indoctrinated with the Zionist ideology. Therefore I do not take exception to what he says in the sense that he wilfully distorts the truth. RH/18 S/PV.1726 77-80

(Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

But since Ambassador Tekoah in the last part of his speech said that he should thank the mass media of information for having covered this dispute,, I should like to draw his attention and the attention of the members of the Council to the fact that to a large extent the mass media of information in the Western world are manipulated by the Zionists, and many newspapers are owned by them. Nowadays we find scarcely any reference to what Arab representatives say on this subject. In fact, the press has engaged in what, at Lake Success in 1952? when we were engaged in writing the draft convention on freedom of information* I once referred to as the three "S's": slanting the news; scissors — in other words, cutting out what does not suit certain parties; and the conspiracy of silence. Of course Mr. Tekoah had to thank the international press, the mass media, including radio, television and other mechanical media for transmitting news. As I have mentioned, 10 or 15 per cent, and sometimes perhaps 20 per cent, of news space in this host country is allocated to the question of Israel or related subjects. Yesterday I asked to "be allowed to speak today in order to correct certain statements made by Mr. Tekoah — especially when he delved into the historical background of Palestine. I shall not proceed chronologically because my intervention might become tedious were I to do so. But if I remember correctly, and I am paraphrasing, Mr. Tekoah said that Palestine had been barren. He mentioned something about a land without a people — meaning that the Zionists came to occupy a land without a people. BHS/em/shg S/PV.1T26 81 (Mr. Baroody , Saudi Arabia)

I need not at this stage go into the genesis of the presence of Jews — or call them Hebrews — in Palestine. I shall do that later. Suffice it for me to mention that in 1839 Sir Moses Montefiore, a well-known British Jew, wrote: "In the Holy Land the Jewish settlers would find a greater certainty of success. Here they will find wells already dug, olives and vines already planted and a land so rich as to require little manure.'1 The well-known Zionist writer Ahad Hahn, who later changed his views about

Zionism, wrote on this subject in l891D before Theodore Hertzl wrote his Zionist manifesto in 1896 in Paris. At that time the Dreyfus affair had divided France in two and there was a lot of anti-Semitism. That is what drove Hertzl to write his Zionist manifesto. That was in 1896 and the well-known writer Ahad Hahn wrote the following in 1891: "We abroad have a way of thinking that Palestine today is almost desert, an uncultivated wilderness, arid that anyone who wishes to buy land there can do so to his heart 's content. But that is in fact not the case. It is difficult to find any uncultivated land anywhere in the country. We abroad have a way of thinking that,the Arabs are all savages on a level with the animals and blind to what goes on around them. But that is quite mistaken. The Arabs, especially the townsmen, see through our activities in their country and our aims, but they keep silent and make no sign because, for the present, they anticipate no danger to their own future from what we are about. But if the time should ever come when our people have so far developed their life in Palestine that the indigenous population should feel more or less cramped,, then they will not readily make way for us." Since we are in the host country, my good friend Mr. Scali, I shall tell you what someone said in 1911, when I was six years old. You were not born then. The famous American geographer, Ellsworth Huntington, described Palestine as follows in Palestine and its Transformation: "The fertile well-watered strip of the Philistine coastal plain." He also said: "The modern Arab fellah" — meaning peasant — "like the peasant of the past, raises his grains and figs with no water except that furnished by rains, but for oranges, lemons and other more valuable crops he must have moisture during the long dry summer. Accordingly, he digs numerous wells and from them obtains a continuous supply by means of pumps.;1 BHS/em/cc S/PV.1726 82-85 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

I shall not go beyond 19119 but the first time I personally visited. Palestine was in 1925. I was told that 85 per cent, if not more, of the famous orange orchards belonged to the indigenous people of Palestine. Mr. Tekoah says, "It is a desolate land, desert". Now we come to ancient history. Ambassador Tekoah mentioned that

Jerusalem was called El Quds 3 which was from the Hebrew word Hamikdash3 meaning the Holy Temple. "Whose Holy Teirrole? The Jewish Temple.", he said. (I72^th meeting, page 92) Mr. Tekoah should know that when our Jews came to Jericho and Jerusalem there was a city, one of the most ancient in the world, called Uru Salim. "Uru" is a Semitic word, like Ur of the Chaldees —• Uru Salim, the land of peace. Egyptian sources dating from 1^00 BC speak of that city of Uru Salim, or City of Peace, that existed before our Jews — not the Khazar Jews, from which our colleague is descended and whose ancestors embraced Judaism in the eighth century AD in what today is southern Russia, about 200 years before Rurik came and unified the land. That Rurik was, as you know, the precursor of the Romanoffs. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. Then Mr..Tekoah forgets that during the days of the Romans our Jews — and there were no Khazars then, of course, for that was eight centuries before some European tribes were converted to Judaism ~ snoke Aramaic: they did not speak Hebrew. S/PV.1T26 86 (Mr. Baroody, Gaudi Arabia)

He tells us what El Quids means and that it is derived from Hebrew. The word "El Quds" is an Arabic word, from Kadassah. The word "El Quds" is a substantive. Arabic is one of the most ancient languages, one of the six basic languages, and by "basic" I mean that there was an interrelationship between verbs and substantives. It means "the sacred". "Kadiz" means "saint". "Kadassah" means to pray in the sacred places. The word happens to be Arabic, but it does not precede "Uru Salim", which is of Semitic origin and not of Hebraic origin. It existed with Jericho , before the sons of Jacob started to come from the Ur of the Chaldees in Western Iraq, because they were tribal and followed the pasturage, which was the .common thing to do. When there was drought they came from Western Iraq and descended through the Horen to the land of Canaan. If you read the Bible —

I do not know if you do, because you are too busys but I still read it — look at Genesis, how the sons of Jacob3 farther north from Jericho or Jerusalem, took a small town. Those towns were called city-states, with a king. The twelve sons of Jacob came. Jacob is one of our prophets. Do not think that I am quoting now from the Bible, if anybody has the Bible, I will read chapter and verse from it. I think it is either the 32nd or the 3*tth chapter of Genesis. I do not commit myself. The sons of Jacob came down to the land of Canaan — I am paraphrasing now, it is not word for word — and the son of the King, it seems, fell in love with one of their sisters, Dina. There is nothing wrong with that. A young man fell in love with a young girl. Benjamin was the last son of Jacob. I know you are secular, but you can be religious too — it does not matter. The mothers of the 11 sons were Aramaic or from other tribes. Jacob had many concubines in those days — wives and concubines — according to the Bibles and but for the mother of Benjamin they were not Jews. I do not know, because the Jews say that if you are a Jew you have to be born from a Jewish mother. What would you say about the mothers of the 11 sons, because, according to the Bible, there were 12 sons of Jacob, and Benjamin was the youngest?

Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): They were converted to Judaism. HR/sg S/PV.1726 87

Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia): We will convert you to be an Arab one of these days. That will solve the problem. One day —• I will not be around — you will be Arabs, all of you. It is like what happened to those Crusaders. The Suldiya tribe, who live in northern Arabia, are Arabiyas. We assimilated them. But you are diverting the attention of the Council.

What are you laughing about? This is history3 Sir. I take it from the Bible. In those days, you know, they were conservative people and tribal. They went to the king and told him, "Your son molested our daugher3 Dina." Then it seems that by that time the son had told his father, the king, that he was in love and would like to marry the girl. So the sons of Jacob, without their father's knowledge, according to Genesis, were taken aback. They wanted to pick a quarrel with the king, to fight. The king told them, "Why don't you come and settle amongst us, we marry your daughters and we give your

daughters in marriage?". It seems that they needed labour. They were urbans and the others were tribal. What did the sons of Jacob say? They said, "Please give us time to think these things over." Then they came two or three days later and said, "We cannot give our daughters in marriage unless the males are circumcised." That is in your Bible. Are you ashamed of the Bible? So the town-crier was sent out and he said: "The king and his son are going to be circumcised — what about you? — and let these people live amongst us." They circumcised them, and on the third day, when the pains were at their height, the sons of Jacob put those Canaanites to the sword and killed every one of them. These are some of the tricks that were used in those days, not only by Jews but perhaps by tribes in order to seize part of the land of Canaan. When Jacob found out, according to the Bible, he was so upset, because he was an honourable man, that he said, "Let us get out of here, because tomorrow their relatives will come, .and perhaps they will put us to the sword too." Then they moved southward and later they took Jericho and then Uru Salim— before it was called "El Quds", which means "'the Holy City" , because it was the first Qibla in Islam, before Mecca. The Moslems, when they prayed, turned their faces to El Quds, to Jerusalem. The word is not Hebraic — Jerusalem : Uru Salim. I grant that Hebrew, Arabic WR/sg S/PV.1T26 88-90 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia) and many tongues of tribes of the area were the same. ¥e have nothing against the Jevs. Our problem is with Zionism, a political movement based, on Judaism. As you remember, the First World War was fought allegedly to save the world for democracy and against German mercantilism. It was not against German militarism but against German mercantilism. People have to find a motivation. The European Zionists had an excuse. They were persecuted .in Europe. But what had we to do with it in our area? We had nothing to do with it in our area. So they had to have a motivation., and Herzl thought that the only way would be to go to Palestine and establish a State, but he forgot -- and probably Mr. Tekoah wishes to forget — that, ironically, many of the indigenous people of Palestine were originally Jews. Who were the disciples of Christ? Were they Romans? They were Jews. They embraced Christianity and later, because of the tyranny of Byzantium in the area, the Christians embraced Islam, but ethnologically they are our Jews. It does not matter whether they are Jews, Moslems or Christians, They are Semites. Zionism sprang from Eastern and Central Europe. Many Jews who are friends of mine are opposed to Zionism and say, "They are besmirching our religion". AW/gm/em/ad S/PV.1726 91 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

I have nothing against European Jews, do not get me wrong., but once you become an aggressor we have to defend ourselves. Now.j here I have the record of our Jewish conglomeration of people that came, as I tell you all the time., from Western Iraq. There is the Da.vidic Kingdom down to the fall of Jerusalem —- and I mean the fall of Jerusalem when Nebuchadnezzar came in in 586 B.C. That lasted 1*61* years. Then there was a revival during the Maccabean Kingdom: 166 to 63 B.C., 103 years. But let us see how many years some of the others lasted. Look at the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and the fall of paganism in 63 B.C. It lasted 386 years. Then., from the Constantine to the Persian conquest, 291 years. The period of Persian rule was ll* years. Reconquest by the Byzantine, 11 years. Conquest by Moslem Arabs, 1*35 years. Rule by Moslem Turks, 1072 A.D. to 1092 A.D.: 20 years. Reconquest by Arabs: 1092 A.D. to 1099 A.D. seven years. Then the Crusading Kingdom: 88 years. Reconquest by the Arabs: 1*2 years. And then the City ceded by treaty -- that is Jerusalem — to Frederick II. He was one of the Crusaders. Revived Arab rule: 278 years. And Jerusalem under the Ottoman Turks , who were Moslems : 1*00 years. So if you add up the Moslem and Arab rule., it comes to 1,000 years. The others come to 500 and some years. So regarding this fallacious argument "we were in Palestine", where were you in Palestine? In Judea and in Samaria. And you call that Israel? They were small enclaves — and it was not you, but our Jews. And'you say that the Jews have flocked from all the Arab lands. To where? To the land of Palestine,, because of your Zionism. You created a problem in the Arab world and outside the Arab world, indoctrinated those people to come. They were happy. I lived with them. We were classmates. We spoke Arabic. We ate the same food. Incidentally, I did not eat pork either. So you do not have to worry about your diet. I know Jews who eat pork. I say that because Mr. Tekoah said that it is a 'way of life, and food. There are many Jews who eat pork and do many things. They are marrying

Shiksas} Gentile girls. Therefore, do not, please, Mr. Tekoah, talk as if you know AW/gm/cc S/PV.1T26 92 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

I am not trying to make a historical dissertation. We are seized here of a problem that has perpetrated tragedy on Jew and Gentile alike, and I would like at this meeting to attack that problem from the humanitarian point of view as well as from the pragmatic point of view, to use a phrase of William James, an American: Pragma, from the Greek — the practical, the way that the problem could be perhaps attacked and solved. I think that my colleague, Ambassador Huang -— and although I do not use his terminology, he is entitled to use it — was correct. I'understood him to be making the assumption, or perhaps the assessment, that the two super-Powers — if you do not like to be called super-Powers, that is your privilege, but I think that you are super-Powers — meaning the United States and the Soviet Union, have it within their means to solve this problem if they want to. As I said in a previous intervention, I was present at Lake Success. Israel was created by the two super-Powers. I shall begin with the United States. I have here the memoirs of the late President Truman, and I shall quote from them: "Shortly before noon, Dr. Stephen S. Wise, Chairman of the American Zionist Emergency Council, came in to talk to me about the Jewish victims of nazi persecution and the serious problem of resettlement of the refugees, which led, naturally, to a discussion of a proposed Jewish State and homeland in Palestine. I had before me President Roosevelt's record and statements regarding Palestine, and the Secretary of State had sent me a special communication two days before expressing the attitude and the thinking of the State Department on Palestine: 'It is very likely', this communication read, 'that efforts will be made by some of the Zionist leaders to obtain from you at an early date some commitments in favour of the Zionist programme which is pressing for unlimited Jewish immigration into Palestine and the establishment there of a Jewish State. As you are aware, the Government and people of the United States have every sympathy for the persecuted Jews of Furope and are doing all in their power to relieve their suffering. The question of Palestine is however a highly complex one and involves questions which go far beyond the plight of the Jews in Europe. There is continual tenseness in the situation in the Near East, largely as a result of the AW/gm S/PV.1726 93-95 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

Palestine question3 and as ve have interests in that area' —- you mentioned interest today, Mr. Scali — - which are vital to the United States, we feel that this subject is one that should be handled with the greatest care and with a view to the long-range interest of the country.';; That is the end of the quotation from the State Department communication. MP/cc/ad ' S/PV.1726 96 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

Mr. Truman continues: "Since I was in agreement with the expressed policy of the Roosevelt Administration on Palestine., I told Rabbi Wise that I would do everything possible to carry out that policy. I had carefully read the Balfour Declaration, in which Great Britain was committed to a homeland in Palestine for the Jews. I had familiarized myself with the history of the question of a Jewish homeland and the position of the British and the Arabs. I was sceptical as I read over the whole record up to date about some of the views and attitudes by the 'striped pants boys'" meaning the "boys1' of the State "Department.' unlike today, they used to wear striped pants in those days — ''in the State Department. It seems to me that they did not care enough about what happened to thousands of displaced persons who were involved.. It was my feeling that it would be possible for us to watch out for the long-range interests of our country while at the same time helping these unfortunate victims of persecution to find a home. And before Rabbi Wise left,, I believe I made this clear to him."

Now3 there is a revealing quotation from someone who was in the State Department, whom I happened to know personally: his name was Colonel William Eddy. Colonel Eddy was sent by United States ambassadors in the area —• in the region of the Middle East — to brief the President about the Palestine question before partition. He writes: "The spokesman for the group, George Wadsworth," -•- who, incidentally, at one time was United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia — "presented orally an agreed statement in about 20 minutes" — on behalf of the United States Ambassadors in the region. — "There was little discussion, and the President asked few questions in the meeting,, whose minutes had been carefully guarded by the Department of State. Finally, Mr. Truman summed up his position with the utmost candour: 'I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs amongst my constituents.7" HP/cc ' S/PV.1726 97 (Mr. Baroody,, Saudi Arabia)

In other words, if there had been enough Arabs amongst Mr. Truman's constituents, the question would have been different. There is no justice here; it is a matter of votes. How, Mr. Tekoah, you have probably read the book by Mr. David Horowitz, because he wrote it in Hebrew. It was translated into English in 1953, and I believe it was Alfred Knopf who published it that year in the United States. The name of the book is State in the Making. I want to show you how the State of Israel was created amongst us — and I shall quote David Horowitz, an executive of the Jewish Agency, who indicates how the initial disillusionment with the Committee vote was dispelled and how the period of feverish activity commenced: "The fighting spirit rose in us. We met at the Agency offices and consulted on ways and means to turn the wheel of events once more. The struft/rle began. The telephones ran«; madly. Cablegrams sped to all parts of the world. People were drafted from their beds at midnip;hc and sent on peculiar errands. And, wonder of it all, not an influential Jew, Zionist or non-Zionist, refused to give us his assistance at any time. Everyone pulled his weight, little or great, in the despairing effort to balance the. scales in our favour." And then, when Forrestal, on 13 December, spoke to then Governor Dewev, who was a candidate for the presidency, about removing Palestine from the realm of partisan politics, the Governor said that while agreeing in principle with Forrestal, he was sceptical that the Democrats would really abide by any such decisions. This is taken from Forrestal's diary. And then at Lake Success — I witnessed this — my friend Mr. Gromyko, now the Soviet Foreign Minister, and Hershel Johnson —• I think it was Hershel Johnson* he was the deputy of Senator Austin, the first permanent representative of the United States to the United Nations , and had made three speeches on behalf of partition in 19^7 —• asked that the partition question be r>ut to the vote forthwith. At one time Mr. Austin, after consulting with the State Department, had thought we might place Palestine under the authority of the Trusteeship Council pending search for a solution to that problem. But Mr. Truman precipitated a vote. fiP/cc/em S/PV.1726 93-100 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia) and none other than my good friend General Romulo — he is still alive; may God prolong his life, he is a fine man ~- made a speech against partition that lasted for an hour. And then, according to General Romulo, who told me this, Mr. Truman called him --- the President of the Philippines — on the telephone and told him: If you do not ask your representative at the United Nations to vote for partition,, American aid will not be forthcoming.': That is why I am addressing you, Mr. Scali: your Government is responsible for the creation of Israel. And I do not know what made Mr. Gromyko vote for partition. He probably felt sorry for the Jews, as we all did, after all. Both major Powers voted for the partition of Palestine, but the great efforts were on the part of the United States. Later the Soviet Union found itself left out in the cold by the Zionists; the Zionists turned their backs on the Soviet Union — and began to do what? To work with the United States, probably because they had the money, while the Soviet Union was emerging from the war: it had lost 20 million in that war. of course it had to reconstruct the country. All this probably contributed to the Soviet Union's disillusionment. I do not know;. I am just thinking aloud. DR/ad S/PV.1T26 101 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

But anyway you are the two major Powers in the area and, as Ambassador Huang mentioned, I think you should be considered responsible for finding a prompt solution to this problem. I am not going into the words of resolution'2^2 (1967). I told you in this Council that the result would be zero, and I circled my hands in the air. It is below zero now. Mr. Scalij had a well-balanced speech today,and that reminds me of Ambassador Goldberg's famous phrase, "We want to treat this question even- handedly". The United States, the arbiter of the destiny of peoples. They have a scale 6,000 miles away from Palestine, even-handedly. What for? Mr. Truman wanted the votes. He probably also was a good man and felt sorry for the Jews. But why did ,he not feel sorry for the indigenous people of Palestine? Are they subhuman? This is logic. We felt sorry, everybody felt sorry for the persecution of the Jews. Mr. Tekoah always speaks about Haj Amin Husseini going to Germany during the Hitlerite regime. There was a price on his head. Where did you want him to go? Did you want him to go to New York or to London?

Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): He collaborated with the nazis.

Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia): Collaborate? You collaborate with everybody to seek your own ends. Rosenberg wrote that book about the racial superiority of the Nordic people. He was a Jew, or descended from Jews.

Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): It is a German name. He was not a Jew. You do not know your history.

Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia): The history is clear. I was told many years ago before Hitler why the German Jews got German names, which is human. They were disabled in many parts of Europe and all of them were called either Isaac or Jacob or Biblical names, and when the tax collector wanted to levy taxes and some of them perhaps wanted to evade these taxes, so they asked them to choose German names so as to be able to identify those who paid their taxes. DR/ad S/PV.1T26 102 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

I have treated this subject for so many years. I spare you a reading of The Jewish Mystique, which bolsters a lot of my arguments. The author is a Jew, an objective Jew. I have nothing against the Jews or Judaism. In a few days the illustrious Mr.'Brezhnev is meeting with another illustrious gentleman by the name of Mr. Nixon in Washington. They are not going to wine and dine, they are going to discuss various questions and I think that the Middle East is high on the list of their discussions according to various semi-official communiques which we read in the press of this country and in newspapers from abroad. Who is Baroody to make remarks to Nixon and Brezhnev? Baroody is a human being with two ears,, a tongue and two eyes, descended from a people with a long heritage with all due respect to the Russians, who are more ancient than the Americans. So Baroody has something to say through you, Sir,, here in the Council. For those who have ears, let them hear, and those who do not want to listen can block their ears. It is their privilege to do so. But there will be no peace in Palestine if those two gentlemen do not adopt a new pattern of policy that is in contradiction with the ancient policy predicated on the balance of power. The United States has certain interests in the area, we know that, but more so Europe in so far as the oil is concerned, because after all I think * that the American and British concessionaires there sell only 5 per cent of the oil to this country. The Arab world is the hub of the Moslem world. If you draw a straight line from Morocco, which is on the Atlantic, it goes through all of North Africa which is Moslem and happens to be Arab. Then it extends to the confines of China. You have Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and from the north you have Turkey and Iran and you go down and reach the Sudan. I am not talking about our Moslem brothers who live in enclaves and are not in a majority in certain African countries. There are 600 million Moslems, Do you mean to contain them, you two super Powers? ¥e do not threaten anybody. Six hundred million Moslems in a rectangular bloc that is one of the largest on this earth. They mean well by everybody. They mean well by the Soviet Union just as they mean well by the Western world. Even if we wanted to we are not in a position to wield power, to go against the Soviet Union DR/ad S/PV.1726 103-105 (Mr. Baroody., Saudi Arabia) or, for that matter, the Western world. But in that rectangle, that big territorial geographical rectangle, Israel was established by the United States to become a pretext for intervention inasmuch as this has been an antiquated policy of States since the days of Plato's Republic. Balance of power. If Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Nixon are going to shelve this problem because the balance of power policy still obtains the world will come to an end,, not because of Palestine, although Palestine will be a catalytic agent that may perhaps set the spark of a conflict that may draw the big Powers into a conflict. Who wants a conflict? ¥e do not want the Jews to be erased from the world, but they might do something like the Biblical Samson if and when there should be a revival amongst the Arabs — not to wield power for aggression, but there are many ways they can wield power. I am not going to mention them lest it be said that Baroody is threatening, but do not underestimate the Arabs and the Moslem world. AP/lc/sg S/PV.1726 106 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

Are you — the United States and the Soviet Union — going to jeopardize your security because of miscalculation? We know where the spheres of influence are. I do not have to name them. I do not wish to embarrass some of my brothers who are here. Some are with this camp and others are with that camp. And what are you doing,, Sir? ¥e sell you oil and you sell us hardware. To fight whom? Of course, to fight the United States, if it is provided by the Soviet Union, or to fight the Soviet Union if the arms are provided by the United States. Your secret agencies have evolved from agencies of collecting information for self-defence — which is legitimate, secret espionage for self-defence. They have evolved into organizations that can bring about coups d'etat, use agents provocateurs. I am saying this iadvisedly, drawing it from books that were written by those who were agent0,. ¥e are living in curious days. You should be proud, Mr. Scali, of those journalists who uncover many things. You, yourselfD are a journalist; you are seeking after the truth. Of course, the Russians have an older civilization than yours. They are more circumspect. Former members of the KGB — or whatever you call it — do not do the same as the former CIA workers who have left the service and write their memoirs. Billions are used, not. to collect news, but to subvert people when it suits you. And I am sorry to say, in fairness to you, that the smaller Powers are aping you, doing the same thing. And this is why we have so many smiles. The Chiefs of State smile and photographs are taken of them. But their agencies are busy. The intelligence agencies of the smaller States also are busy doing these things to one another. AP/lc S/PV.1726 107 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

From a humanitarian point of view it is your responsibility my good friend — because you are younp1 yet, and I will not live very long — to tell your leaders, through us here, to change that pattern that has backfired. You, Sir, pave us a speech here, cry good friend, Mr. Scali. It was marvellous in its diction, well-balanced, nothing wrong: compromise, five points. Let us take the mathematical sort of equation or parallel: 1, 2, 3, ^, 5. Now if both parties should compromise on certain points on the basis of those five points, do you know how many combinations you can make out of-1, 2, 3, ^, 5? And if one does not want to accept this solution, then it will be a compromise. Umpteen combinations of figures and umpteen combinations of abstract ideas for a solution. Where there is a will there is a way. Why do not you and the Soviet Union speak to that State that was created by you in 19^7? I think the Soviet Union may have regretted it — I do not know — or it may not have regretted it. You nay have regretted it but it does not show, because the Zionists are still very, very powerful. They have permeated your Congress, your Senate, your banking. You know who sells the gold. They made a good profit, Mocatt and Goldman, in London — I know who they are. Yes, the Jews know how to control markets. There is nothing wrong- Perhaps I missed my vocation. Perhaps I should have been in the gold business. And we, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, suffer because of those policies that are still predicated on the balance of power and power politics. This is not my swan song. You will hear from me again. I have other matters which you know, because you are a highly intelligent gentleman, otherwise your illustrious President would not have put his faith in you to represent the American Government. And I would be embarrassing my good friend, Ambassador Malik. I have known hira since 19^8. He is one of the nost adept and skilful diplomats and-I am sure M^> Brezhnev is not so haughty as not to heed what he tells him. AP/lc ' S/PV.1T26 108-110 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

It is tine that we representatives should talk loudly. I do talk loudly, to r.iy Chief of State. He has not handed me, yet. And I talk loudly to many in the Arab world 'and they do not hanp- ne.

Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): They mipht.

Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia): They will hang you. He says, "They ni>ht". You nifht be handed by your own people if you ro too far, but I will feel sorry for you because we have got to know you by sitting next to you here. A joke. This is how you want to relieve the tension. Sometimes I crack a joke to relieve the tension, but what I an saying is not puerile or childish. I an sayin.f this seriously. It is hifii tine that a new pane was turned, and we diplomats should not be automata, hardly able to function because of the strait jackets of instruction Xirovided to us by our respective Governments or hardly able to walk because of the tinjrt pants of procedure that we provide ourselves with in so nany semantical terns.. The tine is ripe for something drastic to be done lest things ^et out of hand. I have had my pulse on the situation. Tine and a^ain I have told you since I was 15 or l6 years old — that is about 50 years — and I am not talking off the top of Eiy head. I cone from the repion, from the area, and believe me I am talkin^ to you sincerely. Act before it is too late, you two Powers. China? What can China do? It has its problems. We have its sympathy. I told my rood friend Ambassador Huan^ that I was not asking for his support. But he said that it depends on the super-Powers, and today he confirmed it — or the two major Powers, if you do not like to be called super-Powers. You will meet arain in July, you will repeat the sane thino; here over and over afain. And then I will bring more books and more documents to quote from, and the prefabricated replies of Mr. Tekoah will be read — some prepared by him and prepared for him by others. Where will it pjet us? Perhaps this is what Israel is aiming at: the status quo so that it may consolidate its rule over the place. RH/25 S/PV.1726 111 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

And vill they always "be living in a fortress — surrounded., as the Crusaders were surrounded in different military fortresses? Look what happened to the Crusaders. If the Jews want to live among us, they can do so. But they cannot lord it over us. They cannot cast the Palestinian people "by the wayside. The Palestinian people have their personality. They are the indigenous people of Palestine, The Sykes-Picot-Sazonov agreement, which was signed in 1916 by the three allies of the First World War, partitioned the Ottoman empire. And in order to disguise their colonialism they called them mandates. I lived under a mandate; in Lebanon and Syria. I know what I am talking about. That was colonialism in disguise. There was a mandate over Syria., a mandate over Lebanon, a mandate over Iraq, and a mandate over Palestine. They were distinct people. We knew a Palestinian from the inflection of his voice. They happened to speak Arabic. They embraced Arabism. But many of them,, I must say, vere the original Jews. And the Khazars came and wanted to displace them. Sovereignty lies in a people. And there was a people —- the people of Palestine, whether we like it or .not. Even if they had not been Arabized, they would still have "been the people of Palestine. There was the people of Lebanon; the people of Syria; the people of Iraq. They were separate entities. The mere fact that for UOO years they had been ruled by the Ottomans did not rob them of their personality. The British wanted to establish the State in order to preserve the roots of the empire.

And the Zionists railroaded your country, Mr. Scali, into the war in 19Ha when the Germans were beating the British. You must remember that hotel -- the Savoy Plaza, facing the Plaza Hotel. That was where the Zionists met in order to intensify the British propaganda to railroad the United States into the First World War. And the price was the Balfour Declaration. I was a contemporary of those days. I knew people who attended that conference.

And one of your ambassadors to Turkey, Mr. Morgenthauj was against it, because he considered himself American. Therefore, after the British lost their empire and became insolvent and had to throw the question into the lap RH/25 S/PV.1726 112 (Mr. Baroody, Saudi Arabia)

of the United nations, it "became your responsibility. You. emerged as a great Power after the Second World War. The two World Wars were not brought to your homeland. You fought, you sent boys. You had no business being involved with those Europeans —- that is hindsight — but you were. And look what is happening now to you and to your dollar. And that touches us, because our patrimony is being eroded also. Therefore,, prime responsibility is with the United States Government — to restrain Israel and not to delay and to see how, in the words of Ambassador Goldberg, we can even-handedly solve this problem. We hope you will talk to your leaders — if not face to face, by communication; you have the wherewithal to do so.

Baroody is warning you that it will be a question of years, i ao not know how many. But I know through analysis, through my knowledge of the region, that if you do not act to find a really just solution, then, by the law of retribution, there may be a point from which there can be no return. And we all stand to lose. I must thank you, Mr. President, for your indulgence, and I must thank my colleagues for haying been so patient with me. But, after all, we do not wield world power. All we can do is come to yOU with our problem, hoping we may move you towards influencing your Governments as a departure from the antiquated duty of the diplomat to do nothing but what his Government tells him.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I shall limit myself to one remark, Mr. Baroody. Rather than addressing yourself to the two great Powers, you would do better to address yourself to all the permanent members and other members of the Security Council. "Whatever they may wish, two Powers cannot compel adoption of a resolution in the Security Council. Please bear that in mind. RH/25 S/FV.1726 113-115

Mr. SEN (India): After the most eloquent speech by Ambassador Baroody what I am going to say will come as an anti-climax. It is on a point of fact. I should like as briefly as I can to tell the Security Council of the Indian position on resolution 2^2 (1967) in 1967« I could, of course, read out the entire text of the speech by the then permanent representative of India, Mr. Parthasarathi, but that would take too long. Instead, I shall read three paragraphs from a document circulated yesterday. Mr. Parthasarathi said: "The principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by force is absolutely fundamental to our approach and we cannot accept or acquiesce in any decision that leaves out territories occupied by military conquest from the provision of withdrawal." "It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories — I repeat, all the territories — occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967." "... This being so, Israel cannot use the words 'secure and recognized boundaries'... to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict". (S/109^8, page 2) The Council has already heard what I had to say.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I call on the representative of Saudi Arabia, who wishes to exercise his right of reply. BHS/shG S/PV.1726 116

Mr. EAROODY (Saudi Arabia): Mr. President, I feel duty bound to answer you with a few words, because you put a question to me. The bulk of my statement that had to do with the two major Powers was directed to our good friend Ambassador Scali. If the Soviet Union would also like to establish peace., it could co-operate with the United States, instead of having each Power look at its traditional national interests in the area by resorting to a policy of balance of power. That is all I meant. But you know, Sir, that I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I said that after Mr. Gromyko and iir, Hershel Johnson voted for partition, you seem to have had either qualms or regrets, or perhaps followed a policy that I do not understand, and were favourable to the Arabs because, as I said, the Zionists probably turned their backs on you — I do not know why; you could ask them why — after you helped them to have a homeland in Palestine. That is why I addressed our

American friends and asked them to co-operate with you, and I asked the same of you. But I think the United States counts more in this matter than does the Soviet Union, because the United States provides not only arms but also aid to Israel. I think that I have made myself clear.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): With all due respect, I still ask the representative of Saudi Arabia to take my remarks into account. He himself recognized that Western Europe was interested in that part of the world and in oil at least as much as the United States, and I think more than the Soviet Union. I call on the representative of Israel.

Mr. __ TEKOAH (Israel): I should like to refer very briefly to the observation made by the representative of India. In my earlier intervention I said : "Even the Minister of State of the United Arab Emirates, who was present at the Security Council deliberations in November 1967, confirmed that the Arab delegations had in fact been informed at the time that the purpose of the omission, in the resolution, of the words 'all' and 'the: before the term 'occupied territories' was to leave the possibility of frontier rectifications.1'' (supra, page 71) BHS/shg ' S/PV.1726 117 (Mr. Tekoah., Israel)

I continued: ''This understanding" — that resolution 2k2 (196?) left open the possibility for territorial adjustments •— "was confirmed also... by India's representative... though his successor today., for obvious »- reasons., chose not to mention it...". (ibid. ) I could have added that for the same obvious reasons Egypt's Minister *" for Foreign Affairs chose also not to include in the documents submitted by him to the Security Council the statement to which I referred. The operative central sentence in the Indian representative's statement on

22 November 1967, as it appears in the verbatim record5 is as follows: "Of course, mutual territorial adjustments are not ruled out. . . '•'. (1382nd meeting, para. 53) What I have been trying to point out throughout this debate is that resolution 2U2 (1967) leaves the possibility for negotiation and agreement in order to define something that has not been defined in that resolution. That is the thesis which is contrary to that propounded here by the Egyptian

Foreign Minister, who spoke Of the immutability of the old line. Now once the principle that border changes are possible has been established -- and I think this debate makes it very clear that that principle has been recognized by all concerned., including the representative of India at the time who was critical of resolution 2U2 (1967) "~ then the actual extent of these border changes would, of course, have to be agreed between the parties in negotiations resulting in an agreement.

-4 The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I now call on the

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt, who wishes "to make a statement. * -

Mr. EL -ZAYYAT (Egypt): I should like first to tell the Council that we "were not informed of any such intention, and that we were indeed 'informed to the contrary. I do not like to say this in the absence of the then representative of the United Kingdom and the then representative of the United States. Lord Caradon told our Foreign Minister, half BHS/shrc/cc S/PV.1726 118 (Mr. El-Zayyat, En-ypt) jokingly half seriously, that he knew English better than the Egyptian Minister did, and therefore he assured him that the words "territories occupied" meant all territories occupied. Of course, I was not present, but I heard that from Mr. Riad himself. I have repeated it to Lord Caradon, and he did not deny it. As for the United States, we have verbatim records of private conversations and Mr. Goldberg also told Mr. Riad, "I assure you that not an inch of Egyptian territory is ^oinn; to be touched". I do not have the papers in front of me — I did not think that I would need to use them — and I state this now with a little diffidence because I do not want to speak about people who are not present. -> But the distortions alluded to in the very beginning have gone as far as Mr. Tekoah quoting, in the presence of the Council and in my presence, something that I never said when he spoke about the original sin. I do not know where he got that, but I just want to say that I did not say it. Having now heard all the members of the Council, having heard the statements made on behalf of Africa and on behalf of the non-aligned world, and having heard also the statements in exercise of the right of reply and other exercises of the Israeli representative, I feel we were fully justified when we asked for this series of meetings of the Council to examine at this historic time the situation in the Middle East. The meetings have rightly- been described by the representative of the United States as a challenge and an opportunity. Our two main questions have now been answered. They have been answered by the world, represented by the overwhelming majority of the members of this Council, by the representatives of Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Third World, on the one hand, and they have been answered by the Israeli representative, on the other hand. The first question centred around the continued military occupation of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian lands, illegally exploited, and maliciously disfigured by the Israeli military forces in order finally to usurp them or parts of them. The answer of the world was that this occupation was inadmissible and intolerable. You have indeed in the Council said "No" — "No" to occupation, "No" to coercion and "No" to BHS/shg . S/PV.1726 119--120 (Mr. El- -Zayyat, Egypt) usurpation. The answer that the Israeli representative had to give boils down to the naked confession that what the Israelis have occupied by force they intend to keep — or to keep whatever they want to keep of it. "No evacuation without negotiation",they saya meaning no negotiations will ever be allowed to succeed without resulting in further expansion and annexation. N.R/em S/PV.1726 121 (Mr. El-Zayyat, Egypt)

Mr. President, the representative of Israel -not only refuses to answer my explicit and repeated questions about what his people think of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by force . but he has angrily rejected and objected to your stating this principle from the Chair. The second question concerns the right of the people of Palestine — -» two and a half million people,whom,, as I have said,, you cannot wish away •••- to live in peace, free and independent, in the homeland of their fathers and grandfathers. The answer of the world,, here again, was clear. It was an affirmation that it was impossible without respect for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people for any meaningful, just or lasting peace to be attained. The sad answer of Israel is that the Palestinians have no place in Palestine. They are not a nation. They are indeed invited to cross the river out of Palestine and conquer the Kingdom of Jordan, if they really need a country of their own. Those are the answers clearly revealed to this Council, regardless of what the mass media of this town, the host of the United Nations, have found fit to print or fit to omit. "n regard to the Palestinians, this Council should never be made to forget that hundreds of thousands exist in Gaza, hundreds of thousands exist in Lebanon, and thousands and thousands of others are without homes all over the world. - They are not only the people living on the West Bank. It is obvious that we should, have by now passed to the submission and adoption of a resolution. Such a resolution could indeed sum up this debate» condemning without ambiguity the military occupation of our lands, condemning without ambiguity the usurpation of the rights of the Palestinian nation., calling without ambiguity for the respect of established _> international borders. We understand, however, that, because of the seriousness of the situation, more time is needed by the members of the Council to deliberate -« on the future course the Council is to take. The representative of Israel referred to what he called the need for the establishment of frontiers between Israel and. its neighbours. He alleged that frontiers never existed in our area and he seems to have some support here from the United States delegation. I have a very short comment to make. IIR/em S/PV.1726 122-125 (Mr. El-Zayyat, Egypt)

In support of his allegations the Israeli representative invoked certain provisions of the 19^9 Armistice Agreements and in particular article v» paragraph 2 of the Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement,, which stipulated that the Armistice Demarcation Line was not to be construed as a political or territorial boundary. He deliberately omitted any reference to the statement :r- in the same provision that the delineation of the Armistice Demarcation Line was without prejudice to the position as regards the "ultimate settlement of the Palestine question". As I have pointed out to the Council before, the purpose of this saving clause was to avoid any prejudice to the rights of the Arab people of Palestinespending., as I have just stated, the ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. This provision has no relevance to and no bearing whatsoever on the character of the international frontiers between Egypt and Palestine under the Mandate, and clearly recognized in the Mandate over Palestine as approved by the League of Nations. Article II s paragraph 2, of the same Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement provides that the military forces of the parties shall not advance beyond or pass the Armistice Demarcation Line and "shall not violate the international frontier • We also find a reference in article III, paragraph 2, to.,"the Egypt-Palestine frontier", in article VIII, paragraph 2, to the ''Egyptian-Palestine frontier'', and in the first paragraph of annex I again to the ''Egyptian-Palestine frontier' . There are many other provisions which prove conclusively that the international frontiers of Egypt were never at issue even for the Israelis at the time of the Armistice Agreements, or indeed anyone at any other time. Similar provisions are also to be found in other Armistice Agreements , between f, Israel and other Arab countries. The United States delegation will, I hope, give these remarks some attention. > - Surely the absence of the reference to the international borders in one resolution of the Council does not wipe them away. Before I end these brief remarks I wish to thank the Secretary-General and his Special Representative for the unambiguous answers to the three queries I put to them. It should be obvious to everyone now that Egypt never accepted and Egypt will certainly never accept a so-called separate or partial solution which will in reality solve nothing since it will leave dormant the seeds of more aggression, strife and future conflict. MP/gm S/PV.1726 126 (Mr. El-Zayyat, Egypt)

¥e sincerely agree with the United States representative when he judges this series of meetings to be an opportunity to review our perceptions; to find, in fact, where we are after the almost six years since the Council last met to put an end to the war., then called the Six-Day War, but now running into its sixth year. -* We have just heard once more the Israeli explanations of resolution

2U2 (196T)9 given under the cloak of what was called "constructive ambiguity'. Is it not time to remove this ambiguity? Is this the resolution that you have passed? Are these the decisions that you would take: partitioning Egypt, Syria, and Jordan? Is it not time for the Council to assert the principles you have pronounced today,, Mr. President? If one text is not clear, other texts are, can and should be. Certainly., the Charter is: it is the Charter only that we here cannot alter or change.

Mr. President 9 you and your colleagues around this table have given the situation in the Middle East much of your time and certainly much of your attention. Every State Member of this highest Council of the world has participated in this debate, serious and conscious of the grave situation our countries in the Middle East are facing today. We have come to the community of nations seeking the shelter of the Charter. Only if we find that shelter will the road to justice and peace be open. May I end by again expressing my special appreciation to the Foreign Ministers of Africa who conveyed to the*Council what Africa had resolved. May I also request His Excellency Mr. Fily Cissoko, who is present here, to convey Egypt's thanks to Africa. Other Foreign Ministers and colleagues from the Arab world certainly do not expect me to convey thanks to them. But allow me, .> Mr. President, to register — and I do this not merely because it is customary to do so — my esteem and admiration for the way in which you have • « conducted this debate and kept the light OIL the problem that is before the Council, the problem that has brought me here. MP/gm S/PV.1726 127 (Kr^_ E_l-Zayyat_,_ Egypt)

It seems we are now concluding, and I shall soon be going back home. I shall be leaving with a great debt of gratitude and appreciation for each word, which we have carefully listened to, and which we are going to study further, and for the spirit of help that has sustained me through this debate. I do hope that besides expressing appreciation for the words said I shall be able to express real appreciation for action undertaken.

The P_IffiSIDENT_ (interpretation from Russian): I thank the Foreign Minister for his kind words. I call now on the representative of Israel, Mr. Tekoah, who wishes to speak in exercise, of his right of reply. I trust I speak for all members of the Council when I express the wish that his statement will be brief.

Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt,, in his last remarks, referred to two substantive points. First of all, he referred again to the question of Palestinian rights and tried to explain away his suggestion as being made simply out or concern for the rights of Arabs of Palestine• My response will be in the words of a broadcast of today., 1^ June, over Radio Amman, the capital of Jordan: "The Prime Minister of Jordan reported to the Jordanian Cabinet on lU June 'regarding the memorandum that he sent to Arab Foreign Ministers concerning the meaning of the Egyptian Foreign Minister's call in the Security Council to create a Palestinian State in the occupied West Bank and the dangers inherent in this call with regard to the Palestian cause'." This is precisely the reason why I, from the very first meeting in this debate, pointed out that Minister Zayyat's references to the so-called inalienable rights of the Palestinians to live within secure and recognized boundaries are in fact a suggestion, a proposal, a call to dismember Jordan. MP/gm S/PV.1726 128.-130 (Mr. Tekoah, Israel)

The second point of substance which Minister Zayyat referred to was the question of resolution 2^2 (1967) and its interpretation. I take note of the fact that he too repeated today that there is much ambiguity .— I repeat: ambiguity — in resolution 2^2 (1967). Yes, we all realize that: I think this debate has made it clearer than ever before. The ambiguity., the openness, the possibility for interpretation.„ the invitation to accommodate each other., the invitation to conduct negotiations and conclude agreements applies also to a central provision of that resolution: the establishment of secure and recognized boundaries. Minister Zayyat quoted from the General Armistice Agreement concluded between Israel and Egypt in 19^9; as far as I could follow the quotation it was correct. He will find the same quotation in at least one of my statements in order to emphasize that if both Egypt and Israel undertake not to consider the Armistice Demarcation Line as determined in the said Agreement as prejudicing the claims and positions of the parties in the ultimate, peaceful settlement

of the Palestine problem, then, obviously3 they do not recognize that Armistice Line as an international boundary. Then, obviously, both parties reserve the right to come to the negotiations on a final peace settlement with whatever suggestions they may feel would be appropriate at the time of such talks. I also pointed out that that particular paragraph appears in all four of the Armistice Agreements concluded between Israel and its Arab neighbours: in the Israeli. Egyptian, Israeli-Lebanese, Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Jordanian Agreements. DR/jpm S/PV.1726 131 (Mr. Tekoah, Israel)

But the Israeli-Egyptian agreement went even further and included a clause quoted by me yesterday which specifically said, if I remember the text correctly, that the Armistice line should not be interpreted as a political^ territorial boundary. I think that this has been basically confirmed and understood as a result of the exchanges that we have heard in the course of »• the last week around the Security Council table. I again repeat, an Arab representative, the representative of India at the time in the Security Council * who identified himself entirely with the Arab position, made it very clear that resolution 2^2 (1967) which was adopted unanimously left open the possibility for border changes. Now obviously these border changes can be arrived at only through negotiation and agreement between the parties. If we were to accept the thesis as explained "by the Minister of Egypt we would find ourselves confronting a rather bizarre theory in addition to being completely wrong as

far as the basic documents involved in this problem are concerned: "the Armistice Agreements, resoulution 2U2 (1967) » the statements of representatives on the Security Council when that resolution was adopted. We would be confronting a strange theory of a line — an& all of us know what a line is —- which cannot be even one millimetre wide, which is to be considered an international boundary as far as one side to the agreement is concerned but not as an international boundary as far as the other side of the agreement is concerned. A line after all is

only a theoretical iine. low does Minister El-Zayyat propose that what was intended in 19^9 was that Israel recognized this theoretical line as constituting the international boundary for Egypt,while for Egypt it remained a purely theoretical line without any width at all because Egypt itself reserved the right for what? Expansion? Aggression? And this is a theory which would be untenable in any court, in any committee that would try to interpret from the legal point of view or from the political or historical point of view what was actually agreed on both in 19^9 and in 1967. I shall end my brief comment by saying that despite these differences of view and interpretation we still hope that Egypt will agree to enter into a process of negotiation — of free, honourable negotiations without any pre- conditions, without Israel asking of Egypt to accept in advance any Israeli view and position — and that these negotiations will at long last brinn peace to the Middle East, peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours. DR/Jpm S/PV.1T26 132

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I should like to inform the participants in our debate that resolution 2U2 (196?) also provides for a United Nations machinery. I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt.

Mr. EL-ZAYYAT (Egypt): I am taking the floor on just a few points, "because I have never seen such an exercise. Fortunately I was reading from a piece of paper. What I said about ambiguity is this."We have just heard once more the Israeli explanations of resolution 2^2 (19^7) given under the cloak of what was called constructive ambiguity." I did not say that the resolution had ambiguity. I was saying politely that the Israeli representative was trying to deceive the Council into giving explanations that were not the wish or the will of the Council. Secondly5 I have never said and 1 wish the record to show that I have never said, what he again alleged I said — quoting this dispatch or radio broadcast from Amman — asking for a Palestinian State in the West Bank, Your records show clearly that I never said that. The third exercise was this question of the line which would be a boundary for Egypt and not a boundary for Israel. Is this really so difficult? The boundaries of Egypt were the boundaries with Palestine. They were not the boundaries between Egypt and Israel, and Israel is not the State that inherited all of Palestine. The only legal basis which you have recognized and which Members recognizing Israel have recognized for Israel is a line inside Palestine, as shown on the map accompanying the 19^7 resolution partitioning Palestine. What is left after that line — and this is the armistice line — is the land of Arab Palestine, and it is with this Arab Palestine that Egypt has its international borders. The next point was about accommodation. The representative of Israel was asking that we both accommodate each other. We have no wish to be accommodated inside Palestine, and Israel must rest assured that this year, next year, this generation or the next generation, Israel will never — but never — be accommodated in Egypt. DB/jpm/em S/PV.1726 133-135 (Mr. El-Zayyat, Egypt)

The last point is about negotiations. I am not going to say anything. The Foreign Minister of Israel has apparently failed to convince his Ambassador. Here yesterday I quoted here what Mr. Abba Eban said about negotiations under duress. I stand on his declarations. I like it.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I call on the representative of Jordan.

Mr. SHARAF (Jordan): The Israeli representative has tried again to drive a wedge between Jordan and Egypt. The issue before this Council is not inter-Arab relations , nor is it our view of the future of our relationships or of how our countries and peoples should reconstitute or restructure their relationships. These are matters for the Arabs to decide amon<3 themselves. If there are common grounds there is a common position shared by the Arab countries who came to the United Nations in 19&7 complaining of the attack and the occupation by Israel of their territories. The common ground today is that they all agree that Israel should withdraw from all the Arab territories it occupied in 1967. That means Gaza, it means Sinai, it means the West Bank of Jordan, it means Arab Jerusalem.; it means the Golan Heights. If there is an interpretation of Security Council resolution 2^2 (1967) which was accepted officially by two Arab countries,, Jordan and Egypt, it is this interpretation. AP/ad/shg S/PV.1726 136 (Mr. Sharaf, Jordan)

This interpretation is not attributed "by me or by the Arab side to the resolution. It is one which was governed by the preambular paragraph, as I said this morning: no acquisition of territory by war. It is also governed by the norms of international law and international -relations and the law of the United Nations. This is an interpretation that the Arab Governments which accepted Security Council resolution 2k2 (1967) all share. If I may take a moment of your time, it is with great apprehension and sense of shock that one feels and witnesses the evolution in the Israeli position between 19^7 and today. It is an evolution from a position which then was that Israel wanted peace and wanted guarantees for the future, and not territory, something that is to be testified to by the fact that Israel in June 1967, led by its Foreign Minister, voted for the Latin-American draft resolution (A/L.523) which said that Israel should withdraw "all its forces from all the territories of Jordan, Syria and the United Arab Republic occupied as a result of the recent conflict:/", meaning June 1967, to a position where it now speaks of agreed borders. Now, while the principle of agreement is introduced in the Security Council resolution with regard to the machinery of the United Nations, introduced in that resolution., as you yourself Sir so rightly said, it does not apply to borders or to the concept of withdrawal. Withdrawal is governed by the lines, by the concept of no acquisition of territory by force and by the fact that the principle that the attacking forces should, in the context of a peaceful settlement, withdraw to the lines from which it crossed at the outbreak of the hostilities. The agreement is a matter that pertains to procedure. It is a matter which is associated with the work and the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. It is a concept that applies to the manner in which the resolution is to be implemented. It is a very serious and very dangerous concept to speak of agreed borders and give this interpretation to the clear and categorical call for withdrawal by a party which at the moment AP/ad S/PV.1T26 137 (Mr. Sharaf, Jordan) not only occupies and holds under occupation the national soil of three Arab countries but also speaks through a number of its leaders of retaining slices., perhaps all of the occupied territories. I wanted to draw the attention of the Security Council to this serious evolution in the Israeli position and the fact that it clearly depicts an appetite for territory and a rejection of the basic concept on which resolution 2k2 (1967) was based, which is a balance of obligations between peace, a guaranteed peace3 and a withdrawal by the forces of occupation to the lines from which they had started. Jordan's concept and understanding of resolution 2h2 (1967) — a concept and understanding which, from the statements I heard from the Foreign Minister of Egypt, I think Egypt also shares — is that withdrawal should be total and that it is only in that context, the context of a balance of obligations between total withdrawal and a guaranteed peace, that resolution 2h2 (1967) is to be applied. That is our understanding of it and that is our concept of the future just peace in the area.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): We have thus come to the end of the list of speakers who had inscribed their names for today, as well as the list of representatives who had expressed their desire to speak in exercise of the right of reply. Before adjourning this meeting, I should like to read the following statement : "Distinguished members of the Security Council, I should like to inform the Council of the following: "Some tentative suggestions have been made to me concerning the desirability of suspending for a reasonably short period the formal Security Council meetings dealing with the examination of the situation in the Middle East. .Among delegations which have informed me that they think such a suspension might be appropriate are those of Austria, France and the United Kingdom. AP/ad S/PV.1726 138-1^0

(Mr. Sharaf 3 Jordan)

"The exchange of views on this matter with the members of the Security Council has revealed a common view that such a suspension would be useful. It can "be used for further pondering on the results of the discussion of the question in the Security Council by both the members of the Council and the representatives of the States participating in the consideration of this question. In the light of the report of the Secretary-General on the efforts undertaken by his Special Representative and the statements made by all States participating in the present debate, the suspension could also be used for further unofficial consultations among the members of the Security Council as to the next steps o-f the Council. "There is a'general understanding that the Security Council would resume its examination of the situation in the Middle EastD for which purpose a meeting of the Council will be convened in the middle of July on a date to be determined following cnsultations among the members of the Council."

I call on Mr. El-Zayyat9 the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt. RH/31 S/PV.1T26

Mr. EL-ZAYYAT (Egypt): Mr. President, because of the seriousness of the situation, because what we are facing in our area is the question of having to end a war imposed on us and having to end the military occupation of our land and because of our respect and esteem for the three States mentioned in your statement — Austria, France and the United Kingdom — Egypt accepts suspension of the present debate. But may I take it that you, Mr. President, together with the President for next month — I believe it will be the representative of the United Kingdom ~ and the Secretary-General will keep in touch with the situation in order to determine when we shall next meet on the subject and what we shall meet for.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I thank the Foreign Minister of Egypt. His remarks will be taken into account.

Mr. SHARAF (Jordan): Mr. President, following the example of my colleague the Foreign Minister of Egypt, I simply wish to extend to you the thanks of Jordan for inviting my delegation to participate in the Council's deliberations on the acute and serious problem we are all facing. I wish to extend to members of the Council my thanks and the thanks of my delegation and Jordan for giving us this opportunity. I also wish to thank everyone who has upheld the principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force and expressed hope and determination that in the Middle East there will Ire peace based on justice.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): In conformity with the agreement among its members, the Security Conncil will next meet tomorrow, Friday, 15 June, at 10.30 a.m. to consider the question of Cyprus.

The meeting rose at 8.05 P.m. JTED PROVISIONAL

G/PV.172T 15 June 19T3 CIL ENGLISH

PROVISIONAL VERBATIM RECORD OF THE SEVENTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING

Held at Headquarters, New York, on Friday, 15 June 1973 D at.10,30 a.m.

President: Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Members: Australia Sir Laurence McINTYRE Austria Mr, JANKOWITSCH China Mr. CHUANG France Mr. de GUIRINGAUD Guinea Mrs. Jeanne Martin CISSE India Mr. SEN Indonesia Mr. ANWAR SANI Kenya Mr. ODERO-JOWI Panama Mr. RIOS Peru Mr. STUBBS Sudan Mr. ABDULLA United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Mr. WEIR United States of America Mr. SCALI Yugoslavia Mr. MOJSOV

This record contains the original text of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches in other languages. The final text will be distributed as soon as possible. Corrections shpuld be submitted to original speeches only.. They should be sent in quadruplicate within three days to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, Office of Conference Services, Room LX-2332, and incorporated in a copy of the record. AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 18 JUNE 1973, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR • CORRECTIONS WILL BE 21 JUNE 1973. The co-operation of delegations' in strictly observing this time-limit would be greatly appreciated.

73-82216/A AP/ad S/PV.172T 2-5

The meeting was called to order at 10.-55___a.m. >

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda was adopted.

LETTER DATED 26 DECEMBER 1963 FROM THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF CYPRUS ADDRESSED TO. THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL (S/5^38) REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON THE UNITED NATIONS OPERATION IN CYPRUS (S/109UO and Corr.l)

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): The representatives of Cyprus,'Turkey and Greece, in letters addressed to the President of the Security Council, have requested to be invited to participate, without the right to vote, in the discussion of the question on the' agenda. In accordance with the provisional rules of procedure and with the established practice of the Council I propose, if there is no objection, to invite the representatives of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece to take places at the Council table and to participate, without vote, in the Council's discussion. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Rossides, representative of Cyprus; Mr. Olcay, representative of Turkey; and Mr. Panayotacos, representative of Greece, took places at the Security Council table.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): Before the convening of . today's meeting I instituted contacts with members of the Council and also with representatives of the interested parties with d view to agreeing upon a draft resolution, now circulated as document S/109^6. Since there has been no objection to this draft resolution, I take it that the members of the Council find it generally acceptable. Accordingly, I propose to put the draft resolution immediately to the vote, after which I shall call on those representatives whose names are on the list of speakers, in accordance with the procedure which has repeatedly been followed by the Security Council in the past_ in similar cases. RHA S/PV.1727 6 (The President) I now put to the vote the draft resolution in document S/109^6. A vote was taken by show of hands. -In favour: Australia, Austria, France, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,, United States of America, Yugoslavia. Against: None. Abstaining: China.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): The draft resolution has "been adopted by 1^ votes in favour, with none against and 1 abstention. The Security Council will now hear statements by representatives who have asked to be allowed to speak on this question after the voting. The first speaker is the representative of Cyprus, on whom I now call.

Mr. ROSSIPES (Cyprus): I wish to thank the Security Council for allowing me to participate in this debate. At the outset, Mr. President, may I offer you our sincere congratulations on your presiding over the Security Council at this time. Your diplomatic skill, your objectivity and your long experience in guiding the deliberations of the Security Council have been well known and appreciated in the United Nations over many years. More recently — in the course of the past week — we have had the opportunity of seeing those qualities at work. It is fortunate that a man of your outstanding calibre should be presiding over the Security Council at a time when so many issues of great importance are being dealt with by this body. We have before us the report of the Secretary-General — a comprehensive and balanced document reflecting the situation and the development of the United Nations operations in Cyprus under the main Security Council resolution of' h March 196^. It may be pertinent at this juncture to recall that this resolution provided for a two-pronged United Nations effort ~ namely, first, that of' peace-keeping, including military deconfrontation and normalization, and, secondly, that of peace-making in the search for a peaceful solution, originally through a RHA S/PV.1727 7-10

(Mr. Rossides, Cyprus) mediator — whose constructive report still remains valuable guidance endorsed "by the Secreta.ry-General — ana, subsequently, through intercommunal talks under the Secretary-General's good offices. At the present stage, those local talks are being conducted in a reactivated and expanded form with the participation of — apart from the two interlocuters Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash — the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Osorio-Tafall, and the presence in an advisory capacity of two constitutional experts on Greece and Turkey, Mr. Dekleris and Mr. Aldikatzi. I take this opportunity to say that the participation of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the talks has made a most positive and constructive contribution to the talks and that the presence of the two constitutional experts has proved equally helpful. These talks, which are being held on the agreed basis of an independent, sovereign and unitary State, are generally recognized as offering the best way for a peaceful and lasting solution of the problem in accordance with the principles of the Charter and the relevant United Nations resolutions on Cyprus. The talks have now reached an advanced stage, and, according to the Secretary-General's. Special Representative, they have been "conducted in a constructive manner" offering the possibility of a substantial measure of agreement, although it is stated that "much patient work will be needed to bring the negotiations to a satisfactory end". (S/109^-0 and Corr.1, para. 79) The positive trend in the conduct of the talks thus far is an encouraging indication, and we look forward to a continuing spirit of mutual understanding and accommodation. BHS/sg S/PV.1727 11 (Mr. Rossides,- Cyprus)

My Government will go all the way within its means towards promoting and enhancing that spirit and will continue the negotiations with the utmost

goodwill. It is9 therefore3 earnestly to be urged that concepts reflecting extreme views one way or the other or of such a nature as might be disruptive of the State would, in the exercise of reason and moderation, be carefully avoided. The talks may thus offer the expectation of agreement on a balanced and viable constitutional structure in accordance with the established norms for a unitary State. A just and enduring solution can thus be achieved. The precise form of constitutional structure for Cyprus, being still .the subject of negotiation in the local talks, cannot at present be fully discussed in this Council. The negotiations 3 however, are conducted upon a basis, as I have already stated, and the constitutional part of that provides for a unitary State. The term "unitary State", which has been partly discussed, has a clearly defined legal meaning and content. The essential characteristic of it, to distinguish it from a federal State, is that institutions of local government function under the control of the State. Within that constitutional framework of a unitary State, variations as to the particular form to be applied in Cyrpus are being discussed in the local talks. They cannot, however, stray into the field of federation which lies entirely outside the agreed basis and which, in any case, by the very nature of territorial realities i**n Cyprus is wholly inapplicable. The characteristic precondition« • , of course,, for a federal State is the existence of a pattern of territorial separation between the separate units to be federated. That pattern does not exist in Cyprus where in all of its six districts the Greek and the Turkish population live intermingled. Wor can the concept,of federation be applied or function without its being related to distinct territorial entities. Such a notion or function is not known in public law and has no place in any existing constitution in the world, nor has it been applied anywhere. On these matters, and in particular reference to Cyprus, an eminent

British jurist and constitutional expert, Lord Radcliffes who was mandated in 1956 by the British Government to deal specifically with this question., declared that Cyprus BHS/sg . S/PV.172T 12 (Mr. Rossid.es, Cyprus)

"cannot be organized' as a federation because there is not pattern of territorial separation between the two communities and, apart from other objections, federation of communities which does not involve also federation of territories seems to be a very difficult constitutional form."

Furthermore3 the United Nations mediator, Mr. Galo Plaza, found on the very same grounds that a federal system of government in Cyrpus is wholly inapplicable, pointing out that any such attempt would be destructive of the State and would inevitably lead to its partition. Constitutional abnormalities, whether conceived in a policy of excessive separatism or otherwise, could never be workable or, for that matter, acceptable. What is of paramount importance in the relevant negotiations,to which stress should be laid, is that a resulting constitutional structure is practically workable. To that end it should not violate universally- established norms in a manner rendering its performance so cumbersome as to lead to its breakdown. Constitutional norms reflecting the accumulated wisdom from experience over the ages cannot, for whatever reason, be ignored or transgressed with impunity as to the resulting product. We feel confident that in the expanded local talks no such straying from constitutional norms would be allowed, particularly with the presence of the two .constitutional experts, to endanger the genuineness of the present effort towards a stable solution in a sense of mutual respect and a truly co-operative spirit. Regarding deconfrontation and normalization., the Secretary-General's •report expresses concern over the continued lack of progress in this field. My Government, consistent in its policy of co-operating with UK'FICYP, has all along and on all occasions declared its willingness to accept general and island-vide military deconfrontation. It has also accepted, , partial deconfrontation, as now proposed by IMFICYP, which is ready to negotiate agreements, as well as provide a United Nations military presence, by way of a further assurance that no risk whatever is involved to either side by the'deconfrontation. Such an initial step during the coming months would help generate greater confidence between the two sides — the report BHS/sg S/PV.1727 13 (Mr. Rossides, Cyprus) points out — and might well lead to a more general measure of military deconfrontation throughout the island. Among the benefits from such deconfrontation., the report stresses,its effect in reducing tension and also in creating a situation in which a significant reduction of the United Rations force would become possible, thereby reducing the over-all cost of UKfFICYP. Both aspects are important, particularly with the view to reducing the force, and the relevant proposal should be met with a positive response. In regard to normalization,, the restoration qf full freedom of movement is the fundamental premise from which other aspects of normalization would flow. The report points out that the "restrictions of the freedom of movement of civilians still remain one of the most serious problems in the island" (S/108^2, para. 5k), and refers to previous reports showing the developments since the Government took the initiative of the unilateral elimination in 1968 of all restrictions on freedom of movement in the expectation of response from the other side. In this respect, the Secretary-General's previous report remarks (S/9233, para. 55) that whereas Turkish Cypriots may move freely throughout the island, Greek Cypriots continue to be denied access to Turkish Cypriot enclaves and to a number of public roads,among which are main communication roads such as the Nicosia-Kyrenia road, and so forth. This situation in a-.sense affects also the freedom of movement of the Turkish Cypriots who, as a previous report points out, are still required to observe certain formalities of control when passing through Turkish-Cypriot barriers and checkpoints. (S/8622) As this unwarranted situation still continues, it would seem that at least a phased restoration of freedom of movement in those areas and main public roads particularly might be started in the same way as the proposal by UNFICYP in respect of deconfrontation. For indeed, aside from the relief from hardship, perhaps the most important aspect of the restoration of freedom of movement is its relevance to the psychological climate in the relations between the two communities. In a previous report, the Secretary-General pertinently remarked: BHS/sg S/PV.1T27 lt-15 (Mr. Rossides, Cyprus)

"The lifting of all restrictions on the freedom of movement has unmistakably demonstrated that the ordinary Greek and Turkish- Cypriot people desire to live in peace and harmony and seem already prepared to accept and support reasonable compromises'.' (S/8^U6) and also that • "... it had been gratifying to observe... the ease with which ordinary people of both communities were beginning to resume their former amicable relations", (ibid. •, para. 1^9)

In a subsequent report, document S/891^-P the Secretary-General, referring to the happy way in which the Greek and Turkish-Cypriots resumed their contact after the lifting of all restrictions, remarked that it was "an eloquent demonstration of the fact that the people of Cyprus desire to live in peace and harmony again and are able to do so". The willingness for conciliation and co-operation is always alive among the bulk of the Greek, and Turkish people of Cyprus and spontaneously comes to the surface whenever the opportunity presents itself, which regrettably is made available so few times. The most recent opportunity has been'this year's drought and the effective work accomplished by the intercommunal agricultural survey, the success of which is attributed in the Secretary-General's report "to the excellent co-operation shown by teams from both communities collaborating on that survey." DR/em S/PV.1727 16 (Mr. Ro s s i de s, Gyp rus )

The common desire of the people for increased co-operation in economic matters has also teen noted in a number of the Secretary-General's report., all of which stress the need for an integrated economy. Yet there has been no effective advance in that direction, again as noted.in several reports this is one of the regrettable outcoFies of a policy of excessive separatism which runs counter to the vital interests of the country and more particularly to the interests of the Turkish Cypriots having regard to the resulting imbalande in the economic well-being between the two communities with respect to which the Government has offered to supply funds and assistance towards the lifting .of the standard of living of the Turkish Cypriot community, which is the result of separatism. normalizing the relations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots through conciliation would present no problem whatsoever so long as no artificial obstacles and rigid prohibitions were placed in its way. Let us allow the warmth of feeling of the Cypriot people, Greek and Turkish alike, to find its natural outlet in acts of goodwill'and genuine co-operation and also in effective co -operation with the United Fations Force in Cyprus in its efforts towards military disengagement and normalization that have been so long delayed. This is the best way to enhance the common endeavour in the talks by bringing a new spirit into them aimed towards overcoming differences and difficulties in a more positive, more accommodating and more co-operative approach and in keeping with the moral demands of our present-day interdependent world. A just and enduring solution can in this way be achieved to the benefit of the people of Cyprus > Greeks and Turks alike, and in the wider interests of peace in that troubled area of the «• Mediterranean and in the world, at large. Before concluding, I should like to say a few words to express my Government's agratitude to our Secretary-General for his genuine and consistent efforts regarding the problem of Cyprus and its solution on a just3 workable and lasting basis. I also wish to express our deep appreciation to the Secretary- General's Special Representative in Cyprus, iir. Osorio Tafall for his untiring HR/em S/PV.1727 IT (Mr. Rossici.es, Cyprus) efforts in the conduct of the local talks and otherwise in carrying out his functions in Cyprus to which he has brought his many talents and experience3 wisdom and diplomatic skill. Likewise" we thank the Secretary-General's collaborators in the Secretariat, more particularly the Under-Secretary-General,, Mr. Guyer, the Assistant Secretary. General, '-fr. Urquhart, for their valuable services in this regard-, as well as to the Commander of United Nations Force Major-General Prem Chand for the very useful work he has been carrying out in the island in close co-operation with my Government. Finally> once again I wish to put on record how grateful we are to the countries whose generous contribution in military personnel and financial assistance have made possible the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from. Russian): I call on the representative of Turkey.

i'ir. OLCAY (Turkey): I should like to begin by congratulating you,, Mr. President., on your assuming the presidency of the Council. Your high personal qualities and your vast experience, so amply proved during the past fortnight when this body had to deal with such a complex and chronic problem as the Middle East, are a guarantee of success for the tasks which still remain to be dealt with during the current month. Inspired by the harmonious good neighbourly relations happily existing between our two countries and their ever-increasing economic co-operation further enhanced by exchanges of high level visits in recent years, I assure you? Mr. President., of my delegation's full co-operation and trust in the course of the debate on Cyprus. May I also be permitted to express my delegation's appreciation to the members of the Security Council for enabling us to participate in the debate on the present agenda item. There are permanent members of the Council,, there are non permanent members of the Council and there are some countries like my own which seem to be the permanent clients of the Council. Therefore, from time to time I also have to salute the presence of newcomers in the Council because we do come here very often,, and in that respect I would extend the particular feelings of sympathy and S/PV.1T27 18 (iir. Olcay., Turkey) friendship of rny country to the representatives of Austria,, Australia,, Peru, Kenya and Indonesia whom I have the honour of seeing for the first time during the debate on Cyprus. The periodic report of our Secretary- General on the United Nations operation in Cyprus (S/109UC and Corr.l) once again casts the frame of the deliberations of the Security Council on the matter. Keeping in wind the virtue of brevity, particularly after the trying times the Council has just had on a major and challenging question, and out of deference to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who • I understand will address the Council after the-discussion of the present item is over, I shall try to limit my intervention strictly to essentials. In paragraph 3^ of the report the Secretary-General notes that the intercommunal military situation has remained quiet during the period under review"., and that "there have been few incidents between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots". ky delegation notes with satisfaction this general assessment of the situation. We are happy that the intercommunal relations have remained calm., since we believe that the prevalence of such an atmosphere is an essential -— although not the only — requisite for the process of confidence building in.the ' island.Which in turn is a condition for the success of the ongoing talks. In paragraph 35 the Secretary--GenersJL observes that most of the incidents reported during February., March and April were not intercommunal in nature but were the result of activities of anti--government Greek Cypriot groups". The following paragraphs give an outline of the magnitude of these incidents. Though the violence has been limited to the Greek Cypriot community, what concerns us at this stage is the possible negative consequences of these incidents — as inscribed in the report — either by accident or by design on the security of the Turkish community. Qn the other hand one inevitably is concerned by the negative effects of these incidents on the peaceful efforts and on the difficult process of confidence building in the Island. Indeed, in paragraph 92 the Secretary-General says 'it is evident that these developments have had an adverse effect on the intercommunal talks". DR/em G/PV.172T 19. -20 Mr. 01cay, Turkey)

In this connexion I must also draw.attention to the continuation of statements from many Greek Cypriot quarters., including the highest ones, professing for the future of the Island an ultimate political objective other than its permanent independence. Such statements, particularly when they are made by persons who now occupy most responsible positions, are bound to have negative effects on intercommunal trust and thus on the enlarged intercommunal talks,, the purpose of which is to explore the constitutional possibilities with a view to re-establishing permanently the independent State on the basis of the partnership of its two constituent coiiiinunities. •HR/gm S/PV.1T2T •21 (Mr. Olcay,, Turkey)

In his observations the Secretary-General says: ''Progress in achieving a 'return to normal conditions has been noticeably slow. The public services rendered to members of the Turkish Cypriot community remain inadequate in some respects". (S/]UDj?UO_,_ p_ara._^_) Chapter III gives a detailed account on this subject. One notes with regret that, after almost a decade,, the Turkish Cypriot community,, which, as I have had the sad duty of reminding this Council on more than one occasion,, is the major, if not the exclusive, sufferer from the present stagnation in relation to returning to normal conditions , still continues to live in conditions of severe deprivation and discrimination even in such public service areas as electricity, water and mail. Furthermore, the Turkish community is denied its fair share in the benefits of the present economic development in the island as well as in the international assistance extended to it. In this connexion I would emphasize that in the extensive UHDP assistance that Cyprus continues to receive the share of the Turkish community and its participation in the projects are, in the words of the Secretary--General, still disappointingly low;i (ibid., para. 6l). It is all the more distressing if one keeps in mind the fact that the Turkish community has always enthusiastically wished to participate in UTJDB-assisted projects. Pending a lasting settlement of the Cyprus question,, I believe that much more can and should be done on the practical

level, in the preparatory and implementary stages of the UNDP projects3 to ensure adequate participation of both communities, for the betterment of the island's economy as a whole. Here is one area, where progress again depends upon the willingness of the Greek Cypriot side to co operate with the UNDP, UNFICYP and the Turkish Cypriot community. Such a co-operative attitude would be a positive step towards the creation of mutual confidence and as a byproduct would enhance the prospects for success in the enlarged intercommunal talks.

Reluctant to look only at the gloomy side of the Cyprus picture, I find, as I hope members of the Council might also find, relief in chapter IV., where the Secretary 'General expresses a note of optimism with regard to the success of the broadened intercommunal'talks^ the fifth and sixth rounds of which were devoted to the important issue of'local autonomy. We concur with his statement that these I'TR/gm , S/PV.172T 22 (Mr. 01cay, Turkey) talks are ':a positive, constructive and valuable step for the settlement of the constitutional issues paving the way to the solution of the long--outstanding 1 Cyprus problem ' (ibid . j para.__8_3)3 and accordingly the Turkish Government has extended its earnest and full support to the broadened intercommunal talks since they started. The time consumed since the inception of the broadened talks and the limited results achieved so far might seem disappointing. However, as the report suggests, the complexity and the vital importance of the problem should be borne in mind and,, "Wot only the substance of those problems but the words used to define them and their interpretation may become matters of lengthy and difficult debate ' • (ibid.., para._8p_) As a good example,, in the following paragraph the Secretary General tries to illustrate the controversial nature of one such term and the positions of the two communities thereon, thus indicating the difficulties inherent in subscribing to controversial3 undefined terminology. Indeed the Secretary• General, in his wisdom, omitted on purpose such undefined terminology in his aide-memoire of 18 May 19T23 document S/106643 paragraph 62, which sets the terms and the basis for the present broadened intercommunal talks. Ovviously the nature of the agreed final settlement is for 'the parties themselves to decide., as recognized once more in the Secretary-General's report. We have already heard this morning,in the course of a learned lecture on constitutional law,the views of one of the parties on an issue which,, in the very words of the representative of that party., should better be left to those discussing the various possibilities for a workable constitution in the Island at this time. Looking around this table., I can hardly understand the fears expressed with regard to some kind of federative system, which seems, after all, to have been the choice of so many of the Members of the Organization. That does not mean in- any way that Turkey or, as far as I know, the Turkish- -Cypriot side is committed to one form or another in the discussions of the future constitutional framework that will be adopted for the State to NR/gm S/PV.1727 23-25 (Mr. Oicay, Turkey) preserve its independence and its territorial integrity. I think that at this stage it is sufficient for me to say that the problem isa after all the responsibility of others at the present stage, and I hope that they fulfil it to the best of their ability in Cyprus. In keeping with one of its basic tenets of foreign policy, the Turkish Governments which is one of the directly interested parties., entrusted with 'moral and contractual obligations;, is determined to promote and contribute to a just and permanent peaceful solution of the qjuestion of Cyprus that will fully safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the Turkish and Greek communities and the other parties concerned. We have repeatedly stated, and I shall repeat once again, in the very words I used in the past, that we shall continue to work for changing Cyprus from an island of intercommuncal strife into a model of a bicommunal State, vhare, as orginally conceived and created, both of the communities will live as masters of their homeland, neither one dominating the other, and as equal partners in the independence, sovereignty., territorial integrity and security of their island. The Secretary -General recommended the extension of the mandate of UNFICYP for a further period of six months. The Turkish Government agreed to that recommendation, which was accepted a short while ago by this body, and I should like to express our appreciation to the members of the Security Council, as well as to the countries contributing to IMFICYP, for making possible the continuation of the Force's services in the island.

Recognizing the difficulties,, financial and otherwise} that they have to confront in order to make that contribution, I am once more pleased to express my delegation's concurrence with the view of the Secretary-General, who considers that their presence is required for the: maintenance of the relative security essential to the parties in the peaceful efforts. Before concluding --•• and I hope that for a change I shall not have to speak again in the debate — I should like to express my Government's sincere appreciation to the Secretary-Generals Mr. Waldheim, and to his assistants both here and in Cyprus, the Under-Secretary--General, Mr. Guyer, the Special Representative, Mr. Osorio-Tafall, whose presence I welcome in our deliberations, the Commander of the Force, Major-General Prem Chand and all their staff, as well as the members of the Force, for their dedicated and constructive work. MP/lc S/PV.1T2T 26

The PRESIDENT (interpretation fron Russian): I thank the representative of Turkey for the friendly words he addressed to me.. The next name inscribed on the list of speakers is that of the permanent representative of Greece to the United Nations, upon whom I now call.

Mr. PANAYOTACOS (Greece): At the outset, Mr. President, may .1 be permitted to associate myself with the congratulations and best wishes which have been extended to you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. My delegation acknowledges with appreciation the skill with which you have prepared the ground for this debate devoted to the 'question of Cyprus, and we wish you every success for the remainder of your tern in office. I would also like to thank you.. Sir, for giving.the Greek delegation the opportunity to participate in today's r.eeting and present a few observations on the Secretary-General's report, which has given us once again an up-to-date, realistic and comprehensive .assessment of the situation in Cyprus, as well as on the role of. the United 'Nations presence there during the last six months. The general conclusion that stems from the report in question is undoubtedly that this strife-torn island has to take more steps along the road to normalcy before any substantial reduction of the United -Nations coi'jmitinent in Cyprus can safely be envisaged. In this respect, we share the Secretary-General's concern that no substantial progress has been made towards the return to normal conditions and a military deconfrontation. It is encouraging, however, to note that, in spite of circumstantial differences and other difficulties^ arising from time to time, there appears to be a consensus among all parties directly concerned that the reactivated intercomnunal talks are the best — 'indeed the only -- available way for the purpose of promoting a peaceful solution of the problem confronting Cyprus. As the Secretary-General very aptly points out, these talks constitute: "... a positive, constructive and valuable step for the settlement of the constitutional issues paving the" way to the solution of the - long-outstanding Cyprus problem". (S/109^0. and Corr.l, para. 83) ' MP/lc S/PV.1727 27 ~ (Mr. Fan'ayotacos, Greece)

Needless to say, talks should, be only a means for acting, and an agreed settlement still appears to be remote. On the other hand, one should not lose sight of the fact that the Cyprus problem, unique in its complexity, cannot be solved overnight. Patience, good faith and good sense are the threefold prerequisite to any viable solution. And to those anong us who might show signs of understandable restlessness or restiveness, I say this: As long as one cannot act, to talk is already something. Furthermore, it is self-evident: that any settlement has to be in conformity with the Charter and the Council's resolutions of 1961f and 1967, taking also into consideration the well-being of , the people of Cyprus as a whole, within the framework of international peace and security. ,-May I stress once more that the constant objectives of the Greek Government's policy are based on the two resolutions in question and that the records of the Security Council testify to the consistency of this policy. In the same context, the Greek delegation voices its gratification at the fact that the intercommunal talks have been conducted in a constructive manner, according to the report's assessment. "We find it also particularly heartening .that, in Mr. Osorio-Tafall's view, there appears to be a good possibility that a substantial measure of agreement may be reached on questions of principle. ' . In his report the Secretary-General has however cautioned us that much patient work will be needed to bring the negotiations to a satisfactory end. On the other hand, it is encouraging that the situation in the island has remained almost calm during the last six months and no major incidents of an intercommunal character have occurred, in spite of the unfortunate intestine antagonisms still besetting the Greek community. We do believe and fervently hope that calm and good sense will ultimately prevail and spread in all directions, for the benefit of all. The Greek Government has repeatedly deplored all acts of violence and reiterated its belief that a negotiated constitutional settlement is the only way out. We were the first fully to endorse in October 1971 the former Secretary-General's aide-memoire on the reactivated intercommunal talks. We shall definitely be the last ones to give up endeavouring to ensure their successful consummation, .firmly convinced that the procedure now followed is the most likely to lead to an arrangement satisfactory to all concerned. MP/lc S/PV.1727 28 (Mr. Fanayotacos, Greece)

It is consequently in everybody's interest to refrain from any individual or collective action or any hasty initiative that could stir up passions and embitter the atmosphere, thus rendering a solution correspondingly more difficult. On the other hand, it is hardly necessary to emphasize further to the parties concerned the disastrous consequences of a breakdown in the talks. In the light of all those considerations, we fully endorse the Secretary- General's proposal, on the extension of the UMFICYP's mandate for another six months. Actually, its outstanding services to peace have by far exceeded

1 the frame of the island alone and given, in our opinion, vibrant proof of the V, Jib value of the United Nations peace-keeping operations. I cannot, however, in this respect help expressing our disappointment that so few members of the Security Council have been contributing to fi-nancing the United Nations • operations in Cyprus — all the more so since UWFICYP has by no means outlived its usefulness. It is therefore to be hoped that in order to keep these operations workable as long as needed, more members of the Security Council, as well as of the United Nations., will volunteer their material support. For its part, Greece will continue paying its substantial share in order to help check the financial deficit that causes — and for very good reason — our Secretary- General's concern. I furthermore believe that this is also an appropriate moment to remind ourselves once more that, in a wider scope, we cannot have something for nothing; we cannot fulfil the mandate of our Charter and make the United Rations an effective instrument of world peace without providing the necessary tools. As regards more specifically Cyprus, the degree of success of the reactivated talks depends largely on the preservation of peaceful conditions, detente and de con front at ion. "The mere presence of the Blue Berets in the island constitutes the strongest deterrent against a possible recurrence of intercommunal violence. May I also point out in this respect that neither Security Council resolution 186 (1961*) of March 196!+, by which the function of the United Nations Peace-Keeping Forces was defined, nor resolution 2hh (1967) of December 1967 by any means linked the duration of the stationing of those Forces in Cyprus to the length or even the existence of intercommunal talks. MP/lc S/PV.1727 29-30 (Mr. Panayotacos ., Greece)

Peace-keeping and genuine efforts at peace-making are two different facets of the whole operation, through which the role of the United Nations is being asserted. Although I agree in principle with the views formulated last year in this forum by some colleagues -- in particular, the representatives of the United Kingdom and Italy — that peace-keeping cannot "be a substitute for peace-makingj I consider it equally true that peace-making, at least through direct interconnnunal talks, becomes illusory without the reassuring presence in the island of the peace-keeping forces. It would consequently be more appropriate to assert that under the peculiar circumstances prevailing in Cyprus there is no substitute for peace-keeping as a means — the only means •— to success in peace-making. AW/cbm S/PV.1727 31 (Mr. Panayotacos, Greece)

Bearing this in mind., my Government expresses once more the hope to see UNFICYP keep extending its helping hand to the search for a just and lasting solution., as long as needed. After all,to use Rudyard Kipling's words no question is ever settled until it is settled right. We shall not deviate an pinch from this line of reasoning and conduct, as ve consider the peace-keeping operation in Cyprus as one of the most important expressions of the Security Council's discharge of its ultimate task in the maintenance of international peace and security. We do not see really who could assune the heavy responsibility for its premature interruption or drastic reduction. In concluding my remarks I should like to reiterate hov deeply ve are appreciative of and grateful for our eminent Secretary-General's constant interest in the question of Cyprus. Since he took up his office he has spared no effort for the ultimate success of the reactivated intercommunal talks under their enlarged new formula. For our part, we shall never cease to "back up his endeavours aimed at bringing about an agreed solution of the problem based on the concept of an independent, sovereign and unitary State of Cyprus. On this occasion I should also like to thank his able assistants, namely the Un'der-Secretary-General Mr. Roberto Guyer and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Cyprus Mr. Osorio Tafall. We are indebted to both of.them for their painstaking efforts in order to prevent, as far as they could, a deterioration of the situation and to bridge the differences still dividing the parties. Lastly, our thanks are extended to the Commander of the United Nations Force in Cyprus, Major-General Prem Chand,and to the officers and men under his command for the constructive efforts they have deployed on the spot with inexhaustible patience, commendable impartiality and unlimited good will.. A¥/cbm S/PV.1727 32 The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I thank the representative of Greece for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. SCALI (United States of America): First, I hope that I may be permitted a personal observation. As a relative newcomer to the ranks of the Security Council, I wish to express my great personal pleasure in participating in a discussion which has been marked by expressions of harmony, hope and proHise for the future, particularly in the important area of peace-keeping. The United States delegation supports the extension of the United Nations Force in Cyprus for another six months. The Force continues to contribute to the maintenance of law and order in Cyprus and thus to the maintenance of peace and security in the Eastern Mediterranean. I should like to express our appreciation for the highly professional work of the Secretary-General's Special Representative, Mr. B. F. Osorio-Tafall, and I should like also to pay our respects to the officers and men of the eight countries contributing forces to UHFICYP, which, under the leadership of Major-General Prem Chand, serves on the front lines of international peacekeeping. In the light of events in Cyprus since the Council's last meeting in December, the United States continues to be cautiously optimistic. The possibilities for substantive progress may be brighter than ever before in the long course of this frustratingly complex problem. •• We find grounds for encouragement in the Secretary-General's careful •t- and informative report (S/109^0 and Corr.l). The military situation in Cyprus has remained calm. There have been few incidents between Greek and Turkish Cypriots,, and only one shooting incident in the past six months has beeh judged to be a breach of the. cease-fire. This is a dramatic contrast to the experience during earlier periods. Vie are gratified that the intercommunal meetings betwen Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders have continued in a relatively restrained and constructive atmosphere. We strongly urge all sides to take fullest advantage of this promising atmosphere, and of the opportunity now at hand. We persist AW/cbm S/PV.1727 33 (?Ir. Scali, United States) in our hope that in the end all elements of the .Cypriot nation will reside peacefully, with one another in a soveriegn, independent, and united Cyprus. The situation within Cyprus contains elements of accomplishment and hope, as well as unfinished business. It is also apparent that constructive changes in the external considerations in the Cyprus situation have markedly improved the atmosphere since the United Nations- peacekeeping operation was first established. Ten years ago — even three years ago — the threat of involvement by States outside Cyprus was calculated as a real possibility. Now, in our judgement, the Cyprus situation is characterized by a much closer identity of views among the neighbouring Powers. This development has had a beneficial effect on international peace and security in the area, and has helped to restore more normal conditions in Cyprus. These are key objectives of'the United Nations Force, and the constructive attitudes of Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus deserve our full, unqualified support. The Secretary-General has again conveyed to us the melancholy news of continued financial deficits in the operation of the United Nations Force. The Secretary-General has repeatedly appealed for additional contributions. None the less, effective support of this United Nations peacekeeping operation has been left by United Nations [Members to a small number of States'which continue to contribute more generously than their own interests or responsibilities would dictate. The Secretary-General estimates that this deficit may soon reach $18.9 million. My Government has sought in the past few years, in consultation with the Secretary-General and other contributors, to encourage reduction or, better, elimination of this deficit. We had hoped that our formula of matching contributions and our special payment of $8 million last year would stimulate financial contributions to this United Nations Peacekeeping Force by other Members. We have been disappointed in the results. None the less, we continue to urge the Members of the United Nations, above all members of this Council and those who benefit most directly from UHFICYP's presence, to co-operate•in efforts to put UNFICYP on a sound and current financial basis. AW/cbm A/PV.1727 ' 3lt-35 (Mr. Scali, United States) In the absence of a positive response to appeals by the Secretary- General, we do not see how the present size and oeprations of UHFICYP can continue to be maintained much longer. Fortunately, however, we believe the Cyprus situation has progressed to a point where we can consider seriously reducing manpower in the United Nations peace force as well as streamlining and reorganizing its operations. In this connexion, the United States strongly supports the intention of the Secretary-Genera3., noted in paragraphs 89 and 99 of his report, to make a thorough study of ways and means to reduce the United Nations commitment in terms of finances and manpower. The United States will fully support such further economies in the U1IFICYP operation which the Secretary-General can achieve without jeopardizing its effectiveness. In our view, the study undertaken by the Secretary-General should at a minimum constitute an analysis of precisely what kind of adjustments in forces or operating procedures can be made to eliminate the annual deficit and. how the Secretary-General would implement those adjustments. We also hope that concurrently the Secretary-General and his staff will examine the creation of alternative force models. We have in mind a thorough review, for example, of models based on hypothetical reductions in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent, 50 per cent, and 75 per cent of UNFICYP's current strength. The study might address alternative restructurings of such a Force, to make it more mobile, to redefine its operating procedures, and assure adequate logistic support of each of these hypothetical levels within the terms of its current mandate. Heedless to say, we make these suggestions with no intention of committing the Secretary-General, present contributors to the United Nations Force, or this Council to any specific force level or structure. Clearly, these changes can only be determined in the light of many factors, after a careful review of the situation in and around Cyprus, and with the full agreement of all concerned. But we do believe it is time for a fundamental and detailed re-study of the structure, operations, and financing of the United Nations Force in Cyprus. We welcome the Secretary-General's intention to address these problems prior to our next consideration of this subject in December. AP/ad S/PV.1T2T 36

._ (United Kingdom): 'Once again we have voted in a spirit of guarded optimism to extend the mandate.of the United Nations Force in Cyprus for a further six months. The main reason for such guarded optimism is the opinion of the Secretary-General's Special Representative in Cyprus., recorded in the report on the last six months' operation, that there appears to be a good possibility that a substantial measure of agreement may be reached, in the interconmuncal talks, on questions of principle. It is on those talks that our main hopes are pinned- and it is my Government's firm view that they represent the best way of achieving progress towards a settlement. In this context, I wbuld take the opportunity to welcome the presence of Senor Osorio Tafall at this meeting. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to him for the 'skill and perseverance he has shown in Cyprus over the years and my Government is deeply appreciative of the continuing efforts made by him and his colleagues, both military and civilian, towards achieving a settlement of the dispute. We are likewise much indebted to the Secretary-• General himself., whose observations in his admirably clear and constructive report, we endorse and support, •There is no doubt, in the view of my delegation, that the role of the United Nations Force .continues to be of the greatest value in maintaining a close watch on developments in the internal military situation, in investigating matters involving the two communities in Cyprus and in using its good offices to help avoid confrontations. . This is clearly brought out in the Secretary--General's report. It is for this reason that my Government has again willingly supported the extension of the UHFICYP mandate and pledges to maintain our troop contingent and the existing level of our logistic.support for IMFICYP. I might perhaps mention at this juncture that the British financial contribution to the operation is now running at an annual rate of some £^.5 million — a not inconsiderable amount. This figure includes both the basic costs of our troops and the extra costs, which we are absorbing as part of our contribution, and also our logistic support to other contingents. These latter figures, our extra costs and the cost of logistic support9 have risen steeply. Nevertheless, in view of the serious financial position of the Cyprus operation, my Government has been willing, for the period of the renewed mandate, to absorb the increase. AP/ad. S/PV.1727 37

(Mr. Weir, United Kingdom)

The Secretary-General's report is indeed gloomy on the financial situation; far gloomier indeed on this aspect than on any other aspect. The financial situation has clearly got worse and the mounting deficit must be a matter of concern to us all. I should like to say one or two things about this. First of all., we hope that all contributors will adopt the same course that iny Government and some other Governments have taken of absorbing the increased costs which have arisen; in other words, increasing their total financial contribution. This, however, is not in itself enough and my second point is that my Government hopes that a more generous contribution will be made by all Member States in response to the Secretary-- General's appeal for financial support. This is an operation which is of importance for us all. Thirdly, my delegation welcomes the Secretary-- General's intention to achieve economies without jeopardizing the effectiveness of UNFICYP. We well understand that the implementation of any recommendations for reductions in the Force would have to depend upon political and military conditions prevailing at the time, as well as upon'the financial considerations. We hope none the less that significant economies will prove possible. One point which disturbs my delegation as much as it clearly disturbs the Secretary-General is the fact that the Secretary-General has had to report that: "Progress in achieving a return to normal conditions has been noticeably slow". (S/109^0 and Corr.l, para. 9*0 We have been particularly interested in the proposals made by the Secretary- General for reducing tension and generating confidence between the two communities. We realize that progress on this front must depend on the generation of confidence through progress in the intercommunal talks. Nevertheless, the atmosphere of confrontatibn/benefits no-one and it constitutes a heavy commitment on UNFICYP resources. As the report notes, there is a link between this problem and the military problem. UNFICYP, however, is ready to help with the negotiation of appropriate limited agreements AP/ad S/PV.1727 38 -Uo (Mr. Weir-, United Kingdom) as an initial step and to assist in their implementation. My Government strongly supports the proposals of the Secretary-General and his representatives in those fields. If this opportunity is exploited and the hoped -for progress is attained in the intercommunal talks, the situation could be transformed by next December. It is our earnest hope that. it will be.

Mr_,_ _JAMpW_IT_S_C_H (Austria) (interpretation from French): The Security Council has just extended for ttie twenty-fourth time the mandate for the stationing of the United ITations Force in Cyprus. My delegation's support for this decision should be interpreted as an affirmation of "the confidence of my country — which is speaking on this question for the first time in the Security Council — in the peace-keeping efforts of our Organization in Cyprus. In his clear and precise report the Secretary-General of the United Nations has drawn our attention to the fact that talks between the two communities were conducted in a constructive way and that in 'the opinion of his Special Representative in Cyprus,, it seems that there is some possibility that in the near future there will be a basis for agreement between the parties. My delegation is convinced that talks are the most promising way to reach a solution of the problems on the island. It is highly desirable for those talks to lead to solutions satisfactory to both communities. For that reason we very much welcome the efforts of the Secretary-General and his .Special Representative, Mr. Osorio Tafall3 which were at the origin of the resumption of talks a year ago. However, in spite of the resumption of talks and the rather encouraging pace at which they are being conducted the Secretary-General has once again drawn our attention to the fact that the situation remains quite unstable and that the calm which has generally been maintained has been interrupted by moments of tension and sporadic acts of violence. RH/ll/ad S/PV.1727 Ul (Mr. Jankowitsch, Austria)

I regret to have to add that it is unlikely that the situation will change before the fundamental problems are solved. In the circumstances, we believe that the observations of the Secretary-General are quite justified., and we support his proposal to extend the mandate of the Force for a period of six months. 'As I said at the beginning of this statement, my Government is particularly interested in the situation in Cyprus, for over the past nine years we have been associated with the United Nations peace-keeping efforts. A month after the adoption of resolution 186 (196*1) of k March 196^ my Government responded positively to the Secretary-General's request that there be placed at his disposal a military and police contingent, and at the present time Austria maintains not only a considerable military contingent but also a'field hospital and. the most sizable civil police force within the United Nations Force. Furthermore, over the years we have made voluntary contributions to

the continued financing of the Force. The financial deficit - whichi

regrettably continues to grow — is a source of major concern to my Government and other contributing Governments. I cannot fail to express our disappointment of the fact that the many appeals the Secretary-General has addressed to Member States to contribute more generously to the financing of the Force has been heeded only inadequately. On a number of occasions my delegation has in the General Assembly expressed the view that the present method of financing peace-keeping operations, which is based only on the contributions of a limited number of countries,, is neither adequate nor •justified. We hope that these questions will receive well-deserved attention within the context of efforts to establish a constitutional framework for all peace-keeping questions. As regards the United Nations Force in Cyprus, we appreciate the determination of the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to achieve a solution to the financing problem. We are pleased to learn that studies are under way to find ways and. means of reducing the United Nations financial commitment to the Force. There is no doubt that the United Nations Force is continuing to do an excellent job in Cyprus, and I should in particular like to say that we very much admire the efforts of Major-General Prem Chand. RH/ll/bo S/PV.1727 H2 (Mr. Jankowitsch,, Austria)

Certainly, the extension of the United Rations efforts in Cyprus for the Twenty-fourth time without there having been final and satisfactory results seems at first sight very discouraging, but when we realize that one of the possible alternatives is armed confrontation, we cannot hesitate to give our firm support to this United Nations operation. However, we also share the frequently expressed and growing concern that the United Nations presence on the island seems to be established and to be taking on more and more the character of unending obligation of the United Nations and the contributing countries. We join with other delegations, then, in expressing our most sincere hope that a lasting and unequivocal peace will soon be established in Cyprus.

Mr. MOJSOV (Yugoslavia): This is the third time during our current term in the Council that the Yugoslav delegation has participated in the periodic six-monthly review of the United Nations operation in Cyprus, which started as early as March 196U, almost a full decade ago, with Security Council resolution 186 (196U), An almost full decade of consolidated though always precarious peace is much better than one of hostilities of any kind. Still, this decade must not pass without a major positive change in the situation, without a final breakthrough. Once again we have the benefit of having before us an exhaustive, balanced_ and vigorous report by the Secretary-General. While it concerns itself, as it should, with the immediate aspects of the UWFICYP operation and its context inside and around Cyprus, it is obvious that we all have to be mindful of the larger parameters of time and space relevant when considering the situation in and around the Republic of Cyprus. The current Security Council debate on the whole Middle Eastern question highlights the precarious state of peace, or absence of full-scale war or hostilities, in an area plagued with constant crisis. The interdependence of peace and,progress in the Middle East, in the Mediterranean and in Europe and the dangers of any untoward developments spilling over from one part to another of these inter-connected regions have been stressed by many speakers. That is especially true of my delegation, Yugoslavia being a European and Mediterranean country. It is also in that context '•— the context of the danger of the Middle Eastern crisis being additionally complicated by new factors of tension and rivalries in the wider areas of the Persian Gulf-and elsewhere — that all the parties directly concerned with the matter before us must realize once again RH/ll/bo S/PV.1T27 k3 (Mr. Mo.i'sov, Yugoslavia)

hov imperative and how urgent it is — and it is "becoming more so with every passing moment — to make final progress and reach in Cyprus such agreement as would solve the crisis that we have "been considering semi-annually for so long. We have stated "before and are now repeating the same position in the same words: that a firm and constant commitment to the independent, sovereign, free and non-aligned Republic of Cyprus, an equal Member of the United Nations, and to its unity and territorial integrity has "been and remains the sine qua non of any progress in and around Cyprus. That would permit solution of the crisis and change the situation "by transforming that area of tension into an island of co-operation, peace and harmony and a factor of security and stability in the Mediterranean and "beyond. Equally, we have stated "before and are now repeating the same basic position: that the Republic of Cyprus, under the Charter, the relevant United Nations resolutions and basic principles of international law, is- as a sovereign State entitled not onl> to 'full respect for its territorial integrity but also to full observance of its inherent right to non-interference in its internal matters and to not having force or the threat of force used against it in any circumstances from any side whatsoever. The only possible basis for the solution of• their problems has been and remains the mutual understanding and agreement of all the people of Cyprus and.of its two communities, and the desire of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot people to live in justly shared unity, United and unified in peace and harmony, reaching and consummating reasonable compromises without pressure from outside. Those are the reasons why we are heartened by the references in the Secretary-General's report to the steady continuation of, and some further progress achieved in, intercommunal talks. Those are the reasons why we share his appraisal and hope stated in paragraph 83 of the report. At the same time, those are the reasons why we agree with the indication that still further, though a definite time should be allotted to those discussions, as stated in the report — that is, that "in any case at least another four months of discussions will be needed" .(S/109HO and Corr.l, para. 79). Indeed, in such

at./- . RH/ll/bo S/PV.172T UU-U5 (Mr. Mo.lsov, Yugoslavia) complex and sensitive matters patience is always well advised and all the time that is genuinely needed should be utilized. But we all know that nothing can last indefinitely and that the other half of the art of diplomacy — that is, problem-solving and compromise — should be utilized also. BHS/sg S/PV.1T27

(Mr. Mojsov, Yugoslavia)

The last six months have, fortunately, passed again without the outbreak of any major hostilities. At the same time, however,.many known dangerous and damaging incidents have taken place, often shattering relative normalcy, if one may use this term. Also some crises-laden political manoeuvres around Cyprus were attempted. It is to the credit of the Government of "Cyprus, of UWFICYP, and all the factors that have withstood and contained those incidents, that those manoeuvres did not shatter essential peace and stability and that the intercommunal talks could and have been permitted to continue, marking some progress. It would not be wise for anyone engaged in"them to temporize, expecting that developments, like the ones alluded to above, can benefit one side and weaken the other. The success of these talks, which are concerned with the joint fate of the people of one island, of one State, can be the achievement only of a common spirit of confidence, an(i no't of a competitive spirit o'f taking advantage over the other side. No one can be happy that the Secretary-General has had to report again that, while this time there are signs of increasing economic progress within each community of the island, even if not evenly distributed, (paragraph 62 of the report) little progress has been achieved in the field f of military .deconfrontation and that a return to normal conditions has been noticeably slow (paragraphs 93 and 9^). We would, on the whole, support the approach of partial deconfrontation, a limited measure of military deconfrontation, as leading to a more general one, and we would commend UNFICYP's readiness to negotiate appropriate limited agreements to this end and to provide a military presence to ensure that there should be no increased risk to the security of either community as a result. We only urge that both sides, not only one, as heretofore, adopt an approach that will facilitate the creation of a better atmosphere -for further negotiations and final results. And this aspect of the situation leads me to the subject of IMFICYP itself, its performance, its role and the financial aspects. BHS/sg S/PV.1727

. Mojsov, Yugoslavia)

This is a point on which I should like, as "before, to express our profound appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, to the Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Roberto Guyer, and to Mr. Osorio-Taffal,for all they have done and are doing in the political field, in activating and sustaining the onward movement and momentum in the intercommunal talks, for their care about UNFICYP and other matters. ¥e continue to have a very high opinion of, and have a feeling of gratitude to, the United Nations . Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus, its Commanding Officer., Major-General Prem Chand, and all the officers and men of the Peace-Keeping Force for their work , dedication and contribution. We do feel that the presence of UNFICYP and its essential role in successfully maintaining peace in the Island, provide a positive example of what the United Nations can do under the most trying circumstances. Let this example and experience and the renewed prestige of the peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations be borne in mind as we are addressing ourselves to finding ways and means of settling other international disputes and crises, some of "•which are not too far removed in time and space. It was because of such a positive view of the role, performance and legacy of UNFICYP, and because we were mindful of appeals made by the Secretary-General concerning the difficult financial position of UNFICYP, that the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has decided to make a voluntary contribution for the financing of UNFICYP in the amount of $20,000, under the terins of Security Council resolution 186 (196*0. A note to .that effect was handed to the Secretary-General the day before yesterday, 13 June 1973. At the same time, while noting the renewed recommendation °£ ^e Secretary-General, with the concurrence of the Governments of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, for the mandate of UNFICYP to be extended for yet another limited period, we do trust that the Secretary-General will be able, as he intends, to make meaningful appropriate recommendation's for the reduction of the United Nations commitment in terms of both finance and manpower. EHS/sg S/PV.172• 7

(Mr. Mbjsov, Yugoslavia,)

We.fervently hope that the time will come soon when the normalization of life and relations in the Republic of Cyprus will not require the presence of UEFTCYP, which cannot last indefinitely anyway. It is true that sometimes, as in the past decade, the presence in a country of such a force of the world Organization is most beneficial and indispensable. But it is equally true that, ultimately, no country should rely on that too much; nothing is healthier than the ability to sort out one's own affairs and to maintain one's own stability by one's own means. Therefore 3 no outside factors should make it more difficult for the people of Cyprus3 their two communities., their Governments3 "to find a solution for their own., and nobody else's, problems, rendering the presence of UHFICYP unnecessary. Therefore, we sincerely hope that a definitive and positive turning- point will be reached soon in the negotiations between the two communities in Cyprus in the forthcoming period and that the two communities will be in a position to reach a final agreement. It is indeed high time that this agreement should be reached and that peace and mutual trust established with a view to ensuring the development and full progress of Cyprus. We hope that we shall be able to note, in December this year, that a long and strenuous mission of the United Nations will have been completed successfully. However, if such a development — so much desired by all of us — should not materialize, then we shall no doubt be obliged, in *? December this year, to cease to express this desire in a routine-like manner and will have to examine, in a comprehensive manner, the problems and obstacles still standing in the way of the positive completion of the peace-keeping mission of the United Nations. DR/em S/PV.1727 51 . (Mr. Mojsov., Yugoslavia)

I should like to conclude this statement "by reiterating my Government's appreciation of our long established and good relations with the neighbouring and friendly countries of Greece and Turkey. Our relations with the Republic of Cyprus ., are, of course., excellent, to which the two Heads of State in their close personal relations have contributed to a great extent. They will continue their close partnership in further contacts and consultations among the non-olicnecl countries., particularly at the coming summit Conference of ifon-Aligned Countries ;, to be held next September in Algiers.

Mr. de GUIRIKGAUD (France) (interpretation from French): The renewal of the Mandate of the United Nations Force in Cyprus that we have just decided upon once again calls for comments from my delegation, as from other members of the Council,, comments more frequently in the past marked by resignation and more infrequently mixed with hope. Nevertheless the emphasis was clearly on hope last December when we welcomed the resumption of talks between the two communities and expressed the hope that, despite the obvious difficulties of the undertaking, the spirit of compromise might prevail over suspicion and intransigence. The role played by the Secretary-General in framing and securing the acceptance by the two parties of the new formula, the influence exercised by his Special Representative and the assistance of the-constitutional experts constituted in our eyes and continue today to constitute guarantees for these talks; they thus justify the hopes that continue to prevail here. The fact remains, however, that in the final analysis it is up to the parties at issue to come to an agreement and to fix the terms of such an agreement, the objective being to equip the Cypriot State with institutions guaranteeing its independence and its sovereignty and offering to its population as a whole, as well as to each community^ security and effective participation in public affairs. In this regard we note with satisfaction that despite certain difficulties which led one of the interlocuters to question the usefulness of its continued participation — difficulties now happily surmounted,, thanks inter alia to the intervention of the Secretary-General — ^3 meetings have been held since the resumption of the talks. The Special Representative does not rule out ! DK/em . S/PV.1727 | 52 | (Mr. de Guirings.ud, France)

| the possibility that, a satisfactory conclusion may be reached within a period j of four months. He couches this estimate in very cautious terms, howevers since he at the same time underscores the complexity of the problems at issue., which explains even the fundamental differences concerning the choice of terms used 1 to define the object of the talks, ilo matter what our legitimate concern to i assist the parties in their difficult task, it .goes without saying that it is j not for us to settle the debate..; the final solution to the constitutional problems of Cyprus must emerge from the actual talks between the two communities.

Nevertheless 5the success of the talks being very largely dependent on the mutual confidence of the parties,, some external conditions need to be met, they include *of course,, calm on the island and the absence of confrontation between the communities. In this respect incidents have been infrequent over the recent period, nevertheless the report does note acts of violence in one of the communities. The purpose of the presence of the United Nations Force in Cyprus for the past nine years has been precisely to restore and then to maintain order in the Island. But this concern has never in our eyes constituted an end in itself. The point was to give the two communities an opportunity to settle their problems in such a way as to eliminate the causes that justified the dispatch

of the Force So that the latter might withdraw and give place to the normal means available to a sovereign State in order to ensure public order. The very success of the Force in carrying out its mission may have contributed ove,r the years to make less immediately obvious the need to arrive at such a settlement as soon as possible. A de facto coexistence between the two communities awhile undoubtedly fraught with pressures and threats,, has little by little grown up while the risks of confrontation have tended temporarily to decline. Nevertheless everyone remains well aware of the precariousness of this state of affairs tfhich owes its fragile equilibrium among other things to the presence of the United Nations Force.

Today3however,, the talks are well under way. The quest for stable institutions to meet the wishes and the needs of the two communities is in progress. In the circumstances, while agreeing to the renewal of the Force's Mandate for a period of six months., we fully share the concerns of the DR/ern S/PV.1727 53-55 (Mr. de GuiringaucL France)

Secretary-General which have impelled him to study ways and means of reducing the United Nations commitment in Cyprus and we look forward with interest to the recommendations that he intends to put before us in his next report in December. For such reductions to be effected it is unquestionably 'necessary„as he has written., that progress be made in the talks between, the two communities. But the time has perhaps come for the parties, in their efforts to reach desirable compromises, to take into consideration this prospect for a progressive withdrawal of the Force which is inevitable. HR/lc S/PV.1727 56 (Mr. de Guirinr-aud? France)

The objective of this. Council when it set up the Force more than nine years ago remains our essential concern, namely, the establishment of a situation ensuring the harmonious coexistence of the two communities and public order, •without recourse to emergency or artificial measures. It is to this difficult but already long-standing task that the representatives of the communities have committed themselves in the framework of the resumed talks. Therefore we hope that conditions that will make it possible to bring the United Nations operation in Cyprus to an end will soon be met and that real and lasting peace will be established in the island.

Sir Laurence McIHTYRE (Australia): Let me begin by saying that the frank and very comprehensive report provided by the Secretary-General on the present state of the United Nations operation in Cyprus has served to persuade my delegation completely that, in the circumstances as described in document S/109^0, there is a continuing need for the presence of UNFICYP, and we have, accordingly, voted in support of the draft resolution in document S/109^6. We have in no sense given our support uncritically, as what has sometimes been called a matter of ritual. As the Secretary-General has noted in paragraph 98 of his report, the Governments that have been providing contingents for UNFICYP for the past nine years, including my own Government, have been somewhat 'uneasy at the growing length of the United Nations commitment in Cyprus and at the delay in reaching the settlement called for by the Security Council in March 196U. We too would not want tne continued and obviously beneficial presence of UNFICYP to come to be taken for granted in any quarter as indefinite as far as duration is concerned, not least of a.11 in view of the mounting costs of the operation as disclosed by the Secretary-General. ' Accordingly we note with satisfaction that the Secretary-General intends, in the light of studies made here at Headquarters and in Cyprus and also in the light of developments over the coming months, particularly in the intercommunal talks, • to, make appropriate and, we hope", comprehensive recommendations in the direction NR/lc S/PV.1727 57 (Sir Laurence Mclntyre, Australia)

of economy in his next report to this.Council. In any event we should certainly wish to see the total burden of costs shared more equitably throughout the United Nations as a whole. In the meantime, we fully accept the Secretary-General's judgement that it is essential that the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus be maintained for a further limited period., and Australia for its part"will continue'for the next six months to provide its police contingent at its existing strength and its financial contribution to UNFICYP at its existing level. The Secretary-General's report, unhappily., reveals significant evidence of continuing instability within Cyprus. Thus, while the intercommunal .military situation appears to have remained quiet in the past six months, with few incidents between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, militant activities conducted by groups of anti-Government Greek Cypriots have led to reprisals by other Greek Cypriots and have had disturbing effects among the Turkish Cypriot community. It is a matter for disappointment also that there seems to have been little progress in the field of military de con front at ion — which, if it could be achieved, even to a limited extent, would by all accounts help to reduce tensions and thus perhaps make possible some reduction of the United Nations Force. It is to be hoped that some progress in this .direction can be made as a result of the consultations foreshadowed in paragraph 93 of the Secretary- Gene r al' s re po rt. We note also that, while there has been a significant increase in economic activity within each of the two communities, there remains a marked disparity in the respective degrees of progress attained by the Greek and Turkish Cypriots and that economic and social contacts between the two communities remain limited. In the light of the continuing lack of confidence between the parties, the best hope for progress towards a settlement of the problems of Cyprus clearly lies in the intercommunal talks that continue to take place, with the participation of the Secretary-General's Special Representative, Mr, Osorio-Tafall, and the constitutional experts made available by the Governments of Greece and Turkey. S/PV.1727 58 (Sir Laurence Mclntyre, Australia)

We here can only urge the two parties to increase their efforts to reach agreement, first of all on the broad principles of a constitutional settlement that will take account of the wishes and needs of all Cypriots, so that the process of constitution-making on a balanced and viable basis, in the words of the representative of Cyprus, can then proceed, with a substantial measure of common understanding between the parties. It is gratifying that the Special Representative has "been able to report that the talks have been taking place in a constructive manner and that there appears to be a good possibility that a substantial measure of agreement may be reached on questions of principle. Since we have to accept that progress in this area is bound to be slow and painful, we can only hope that that the Special Representative's prediction that at least another four months of discussions will be required does not prove to lean too far in the direction of optimism. At any rate we can draw a measure of reassurance from the restrained, responsible and generally optimistic tone of the statements made here this morning by the permanent representatives of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece. In conclusion, I should like to pay a tribute to the tireless, patient

and dedicated efforts of the Special Representative, my Old friend ana colleague Mr. Osorio-Tafall, and to the high qualities of leadership displayed by the Commander of the United Nations Force, Major-General Prem Chand.

Mr. ODERO-JOWI^ (Kenya): I have asked for the floor to express very briefly my delegation's appreciation for the Secretary-General's report (S/109^-0 and Corr.l) on the United Nations operations in Cyprus. The report itself gives a very comprehensive picture of the activities of UNFICYP for the period from 2 December 1972 to 31 May 1973. 'While much progress has been made in fulfilling the mandate of the Force "to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions" (Resolution 186 (196U)), much still remains to be done to bring the two communities into complete harmony once again. Consequently my delegation fully supports the renewal of the mandate iffi/lc S/PV.1727 59-60

(Mr. Odero-Jowi, Kenya) of UWFICYP for at least a further period of six months; hence our vote in favour of the drai3 resolution contained in document S/109^6. It is our hope that further progress in normalization of the situation will have been made to enable at least a substantial reduction, if not the withdrawal of the Force at the expiration of the present extended term of duty of th -• Force. MP/gm S/PV.1727 61 (Mr. 0dero-Jowi, Kenya)

My country enjoys the most cordial and happy relations with Cyprus, Greece and Turkey. We are "bound together by a common aspiration "to international peace and security and by a common desire to enhance international co-operation for mutual development through trade, technical collaboration and cultural exchange in order to ensure prosperity and a good life for all our peoples. In the case of Cyprus our mutual ties are based on a common struggle against colonialism -•• a struggle which brought their national leader and hero, President Makarios,,to the shores of our land as a prisoner and deportee of the colonial system at a time when our own President was also a prisoner of the colonialists in a colonial gaol in our country. Since the attainment of independence by both our countries, the President of Cyprus has visited my country more than four times to strengthen the political, cultural and ecclesiastical ties between our two countries„ We co-operate and together strive for world peace and order in the non--aligned movement. It is therefore my country's most sincere wish that peace, accord and tranquillity - be vindicated in Cyprus now and at all times. It would be presumptuous for Kenya, or any other nation., to dictate to Cyprus how to go about its internal affairs in order to achieve peace between the two communities on the island which make up, the nation of Cyprus., Whatever my delegation says here, therefore, should be taken,in the form of friendly advice motivated by our desire to see peace and prosperity fully restored to the island. * My delegation believes that it is imperative that the intercommunal talks should be continued under the good offices of the Secretary-General and his representative. To succeedD however, there should be an atmosphere, on both sides, of mutual trust and confidence and a determination to sink their ethnic differences so as to build a common national identity. My delegation believes that this is possible within the framework of the concept of an independent, sovereign and unitary State of Cyprus, within which the two communities will play active roles for the betterment of all the peoples of the island. MP/gm S/PV.1727 62 (Mr. Odero-Jowi., Kenya)

With mutual trust and confidence on both sides, the fears which have been voiced by the Turkish Cypriots with regard to the concept of a unitary State, and which are mentioned in paragraph 8l, of the report, need not arise. My country, among many other countries in Africa., Asia and Latin America, is composed of people of different races and tribes, and yet it has been possible for all of us to live together and form a nation which serves the interests of all the peoples, regardless of creed, race or ethnic origin. This is not to diminish the real and complex problems in Cyprus, but only to propose and to indicate that with good will and the assistance of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force, harmonious relations can be created. Before that is possible, however, the two communities must do all within their power to end the artificial separation that now prevails in the island. As a first step, complete freedom of movement for civilians and the United Nations Peace--keeping Force should be restored throughout the island. That would facilitate the creation of mutual confidence without security risks to N either of the two communities. Side by side with the restoration of peace of movement, the two communities' should deliberately embark on gradual island-wide military deconfrontation under the close supervision of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force. That would facilitate substantial reduction of the United Nations presence, at least at the end of the period of extension. I very much trust that those suggestions will be found helpful in resolving the intercommunal conflicts in the island of Cyprus, a nation which is so friendly to my own.

The meeting rose at 1 p.m. UNITED NATIONS PROVISIONAL

S/PV.1728 SECURITY 15 June 1973 COUNCIL ENGLISH

PROVISIONAL VERBATIM RECORD OF THE SEVENTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-EIGHTH MEETING

Held, at Headquarters, New York, on Friday, 15 June 1973, at 3-30 p.m.

President; Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Members: Australia Sir Laurence McINTYRE Austria Mr. JANKOWITSCH China Mr. HUANG France Mr. LECOMPT Guinea Mrs. Jeanne Martin CISSE India Mr. SEN Indonesia Mr. ANWAR SANI Kenya Mr. ODERQ-JOWI " Panama Mr. BOYD Peru Mr. STUBBS Sudan Mr. ABDULLA United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Mr. JAMIESON United States of America Mr. SCHAUFELE Yugoslavia Mr. MOJSOV

This record contains the original text of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches in other languages. The final text will "be distributed as soon as possible. Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only. They should be sent in quadruplicate within three days to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, Office of Conference Services, Room LX-2332, and incorporated in a copy of the record. AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 18 JUNE 1973, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS WILL BE 21 JUNE 1973. The co-operation of delegations in strictly observing this time-limit would be greatly appreciated.

73-82221/A EH/3 S/PV.1728 2

The meeting was called to orderat 3.50 p.r-u

ADOFTIOIT OF THE AGE15DA

The agenda was adopted. :

LETTER DATED 26 DECEMBER 1063 FROM THE PERHAITEHT REPRESENTATIVE OF CYPRUS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL (8/5^88) REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 0!T THE TOUTED HATIOHS OPERATI01I IE CYPRUS (S/109UO and Corr.l)

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): In accordance with the decision taken toy the Council at this morning's meeting I intend, with the consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece to participate -without the right to vote in the Council's consideration of the question of Cyprus. .At the invitation of the President, Mr. Rossides, representative of Cyprus; Mr> Qlcay, representative- of Turkey; and Mr. Payanotacos, representative of Greece, took places at.the Security Council table.

MR. AHWAR SANI (Indonesia): First o-f all, allow me to express my high appreciation to the Secretary-General for his comprehensive report, which gives my delegation a clear picture of the activities of UNFICYP and the development of the problem of Cyprus during the last six months. The Security Council has today for the twenty-third time-adopted a resolution authorizing the extension of the mandate of the United Nations Peace-keeping Forces in Cyprus. This practice of nearly one decade gives rise to the question how long this situation .is going to continue — especially if one reads paragraph 60 of the Secretary-General's report, which states that RH/3 S/PV.1728 3 (Mr. Anwar Sard, Indonesia)

"During the period under review there has again "been no significant further progress towards a return to normal conditions". (S/109^0, and Corr.l, para.60) Paragraph 93 of the same report discloses that "Although there have been frew intercommunal incidents during the period under review, little progress has "been achieved in the field of military deconfrontation". (ibid., para. 93) In supporting the decision of the Council to 'extend the mandate of the United Nations Forces in Cyprus, my delegation wishes to place on record its sincere hope that increased efforts will "be undertaken by all parties concerned with regard to the search for solutions of the frustratingly complex problem of the island so that the operation of UHFICYP may come to a positive end within a reasonable period of time. My delegation's hope is strengthened by the positive aspects that have also been revealed in the report. We are particularly satisfied that major confrontation'between the parties concerned has at least been avoided. My * delegation furthermore wishes to commend the parties concerned for having demonstrated self-restraint and co-operation, thus showing their genuine desire to maintain peace and promote mutual understanding in Cyprus. The role of OTFICYP in exercising its good offices, where necessary, in order to prevent the situation from deteriorating should also be duly noted. My delegation has also taken note of FAO-UMDP involvement in assisting the economic progress of Cyprus. The rapid economic development benefiting both communities is heartening, though efforts should be made to end the disparity in the rates of progress of the two communities. Despite these somewhat encouraging features of.the Cyprus situation, my delegation realizes, however, that the present situation on the island is not prone to producing instant solutions and that more time, more co-operation and more good will will be needed to achieve a lasting settlement of the problem of Cyprus. My delegation is happy to note that intercommunal talks, reactivated on the basis of the Secretary-General's aide-memoire of 18 October 1971, have continued during the period covered by this report. In this regard, my delegation would like to take note of paragraph 8l of the Secretary-General's RH/3 S/PV.1728 If (Mr. Anwar Sani, Indonesia) report, in which he mentions the controversy between the interested, parties with regard to the concept of an independent, sovereign and unitary State of Cyprus, I should like to express our concern that it has so far proved impossible for the two communities to agree through the intercommunal talks on a constitutional framework that will provide for the adequate participation of the two communities in the Government of the Republic. However, my delegation believes that continuation of the talks with the assistance of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the two constitutional experts made available by the Governments of Greece and Turkey will lead towards a permanent solution of this sensitive issue acceptable to both communities — a solution that can safeguard the integrity and sovereignty of Cyprus as an independent non-aligned country, enabling the people of Cyprus to live in peace, unity and harmony. In conclusion, my delegation would, like to pay a tribute to Mr. Osorio-Tafall, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, to Major-General Prem Chand, . and to all the members of UHFICYP for their untiring devotion to the difficult task assigned to them. The resolution just adopted by the Council again extends the duration of their duties. My delegation wishes them every success in the discharge of their complex task.

Mr. SEN (India): This morning we voted for a resolution extendinp the mandate of the United Nations Peace-keeping Forces in Cyprus (UHTFICYP) by another six months. In doing so, we were conscious that by the middle of December 1973 these forces will have been on that troubled and beautiful .island for nearly ten years. There is universal acknowledgement that the presence of these forces has had the salutary effect of maintaining general calm and quiet in Cyprus. On the other hand, particularly during the last few years , there has been growing; .and increasingly voiced the feeling: that the United Nations presence in this form and for so many years may not have contributed to the speed with which all of us would like the negotiations between the parties to proceed. The best way of dispelling such a suspicion would be for the RH/3 S/PV.1T28 5 (Mr. Sen, India) parties to come to a rapid settlement and make it possible for the forces to withdraw. We are therefore glad to see our colleagues from Cyprus3 Turkey and Greece with us. V7e welcomei the moderation with which they have presented their views, and. particularly the determination they have expressed to achieve a solution to the Cyprus problem by peaceful means. The Secretary-General's admirable report also breathes hope and a sturdy sense of realism. BHS/em S/PV.1728 6 (Mr. Sen, India)

Since the Secretary-General reported on 1 December 1972,progress towards the restoration and maintenance of law and order has generally been satisfactory. The Secretary-General's latest report of 31 Hay 1973 also indicates that during the past six months the intercommunal military situation has remained quiet and that very few incidents have been reported between the Cypriots of Greek and Turkish origin. Incidents have, however, occurred within the Greek Cypriot community itself,, "but fortunately they did not develop into inter communal frictions. The need for vigilance is clearly established and we welcome the condemnation by the Governments of Cyprus and Greece of the use of violence, irrespective of its origin. Since the intercommunal talks are continuing we would not wish to say or do anything which might come in the way of progress and the eventual success of these talks. We shall, therefore5 be content with limiting our remarks to indicate briefly what in our opinion are the fundamental considerations of the situation prevailing in the island.

First, we should like to ensure that Cyprus would continue as a sovereign3 independent and unitary State. This seems to have been already agreed between the parties and reflects geography, demographic distribution of the people and the historical experience of the inhabitants. This is also consistent with the workable political and sministrative structure which we believe is necessary for Cyprus. We would not welcome and would indeed dissociate ourselves from any moves which may contain the seeds of partition, even in a distant future. Secondly, we should like to ensure that the fundamental rights of all the citizens of Cyprus3 and certainly of the Turkish community which constitutes nearly 20 per cent of the populationa are guaranteed and protected. Thirdly, we should like to ensure that Cyprus continues as a non-aligned and separate entity. v • , While, therefore, we would encourage every possible effort for the parties to come to a settlement and would indeed welcome and look forward to such a solution in the very near future, we would, in judging the merits of any final settlement, apply the considerations I have s'tated., BHS/em S/PV.1728 7 (Mr. Sen, India)

One immediate problem which we consider must engage the urgent attention of both the parties is that of normalization in the communal intercourse. We think that it is essential that military confrontation should rapidly be reduced, if not altogether eliminated. Similarly, we believe that full freedom of movement for the civilian population., including necessary transport and communication., should be restored. It would also be useful to continue to promote integrated economic activity and to bring about better economic relations between the two communities. These measures are not only good in themselves, but will contribute significantly to the progress of intercormmmal talks and, at the same time5 restore to the island its old and excellent tradition of all the communities living together in different cities, villages and hamlets in all parts of the island with a degree of toleration and understanding. The Secretary--General in his report in document S/lOpitO has drawn our attention, in paragraphs 72 and 93* to the problem of freedom of movement and military confrontation, and we should like to support the removal of all steps which come in the way of normalization and progress towards intercommunal reconciliation, on the basis of living and working together from day to day,, from week to week and from one year to another. Meanwhile, we would wish both the parties all success in their efforts and would look forward to a programme for an agreed final settlement, hopefully before 1973 comes to an end. In this hope we are encouraged by the fact that the sympathetic and efficient services and goodwill of the Secretary-General., his Special Representative, Mr. Osorio Tafall; the Commander of UNFICYP, Major-General Prem Chand- and all their colleagues and officers., with their men and staff, would continue to be available to the parties. The reconciliation of the various factors does indeed seem refreshingly favourable.

Mr. ABDULLA (Sudan): I should like to explain the vote of my delegation on the resolution that the Council adopted at this morning's meeting. By adopting that resolution, the Council has once again extended the mandate of the United Nations Force in Cyprus., thereby demonstrating once again the willingness of almost all its members to see that peace obtains in Cyprus. BHS/em S/PV..1728 8 (Mr. Abdulla, Sudan)

My delegation has read with keen interest the concise report of the Secretary--General. There are several passages in the report which give us encouragement and hope. Yet there are some passages which remind us of the fact that the road to a solution of the problem of Cyprus is not going to be an easy , one., and therefore calls for the most unremitting efforts in that direction. On the side of hope, we note that tae situation has remained quiet during the period under review and that there have been few incidents. We note also that the observation of the cease-fire has been satisfactory. We realize, however, that in the general context of the situation in Cyprus that cannot mean much. However,.that there exists an atmosphere in which efforts towards peacemaking have a better chance of succeeding is a fact whose significance we cannot underestimate. We hope, therefore3 that this opportunity will be put to good use by .both parties. Last December almost all the members of the Council were unanimous in

welcoming the reactivation of the intercommunal talks, thanks to the initiative of the Secretary-General. i-1y delegation shares the belief that he expresses in the report that "... talks are the best instrument for achieving a satisfactory, lasting and agreed solution based on the concept of an independent, sovereign and unitary State with the adequate participation of the two communities' . (S/109^-0 . and Corr.l, para. 82) It is reassuring, therefore, to note in paragraph 79 of the report that the ''talks have been conducted in a constructive manner ' and that in the view of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General "there appears to be a good possibility that a substantial measure of agreement may be reached on questions of principle". With the constructive approach on the part of both parties that has been evidenced so far., we have no doubt that they will also undertake the patient work that is evidently needed to bring the negotiations to a satisfactory end. I stated earlier in my remarks that in reading the report one comes across certain passages which serve as a reminder that the search for a solution is not an easy task. I was referring to such passages as the one in paragraph 60, which is not untypical. It states that: "During the period under review there has again been no significant further progress towards a return to normal conditions." BHS/era ' S/PV.1728 9-10 (Mr. Abdulla, Sudan)

This underlines the fact that despite all the encouraging signs of progress that have been observed, the situation in the area remains essentially unstable. It is for those reasons that my delegation voted in favour of the resolution to extend the mandate of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus. I wish to conclude this statement by again expressing the hope that through peaceful means Cyprus will ultimately emerge into a united, independent- sovereign and non-aligned State. Owing to the very close relations which my country enjoys will all the parties involved and because of the strategic importance of Cyprus for international peace in that troubled region, it is

significant3 in our view, that the future of Cyprus should be decided by the free will of its own people, without any interference or influence from outside. Finally, my delegation wishes to express its appreciation to the Secretary- General and his collaborators.,, notably Mr. Roberto Guyer^ the Under-Secretary--

General, Mr. Osorio Tafall and Major-General Prem Chand3 for the efforts they continue to exert in the maintenance of peace .in Cyprus and for assisting the Cypriot people in deciding the future of their country. DR/cbm/jpm S/PV.1728 11

Mrs. Jeanne Martin CISSE (Guinea) (interpretation from French): The Security Council has suspended its debate on the question of the Middle East. However, its attention is still directed to the Mediterranean, to the Island of Cyprus which is another hotbed of tension and a potential threat to peace and security in that same part of the world. For more than nine years the Security Council has been meeting at regular intervals to consider the reports of the United Nations Secretary- General on the operations of the United Nations Force in Cyprus. The extension of the mandate of the Force has become a necessity which confronts us in the quest for an agreed solution for the maintenance of peace and security in this part of the world where feelings run so high. Thus the Security Council has for the twenty-third time once again prolonged the mandate of the United Nations Force in Cyprus. The Secretary-General's report in document S/109^+0 and Corr.l, on the development of the situation in the island over the past six months give us grounds for some hope as to the favourable outcome of the intercommunal talks. We have noted with satisfaction, on the positive side of the Secretary- General's report, the relative calm over the period under review, with few incidents between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, which will unquestionably help the atmosphere of the talks. Nevertheless, although real progress has been made on questions of principle, several important problems are still outstanding, as may be seen from the Secretary-General's assessment of the situation, particularly in Chapter III of his report entitled "Activities towards a return to normal conditions", One is often tempted to believe that, despite the resumption of the talks, the two communities, Turkish and Greek, are still diverging and in fact are moving further and further apart, rather than coming closer together. My country which is very devoted to the principles of freedom and national unity of peoples cannot but deplore the gulf that still divides the two populations. My delegation deplores the fact that young people in the two Cypriot communities, Turkish and Greek, continue not to know one another and have even come to the point of hating one another thoroughly. We share the view of the Secretary-General when he writes in his report that "the reactivated intercommunal talks are the best instrument for achieving a satisfactory, lasting and agreed solution based on the concept of an independent, sovereign and unitary State with the adequate participation N of the two communities". (5/109^0 and Corr.l, para. 82) DR/cbm " S/PV.1T28 12 (Mrs. Jeanne Martin Clsse, Guinea) As the Secretary-General has so clearly put it, the quest for a concerted, just and lasting solution to the problem of Cyprus must "be based on the idea of an independent and sovereign Cypriot State that will guarantee the equal rights of the two national components. We hope that the forthcoming talks will go forward in a spirit of conciliation and mutual compromise and with a will on "both sides to arrive at a satisfactory solution in the direction of the national unity of the Cypriot people. It is with this hope that my delegation supports the recommendation of the Secretary-General in paragraph 97 of his report that the mandate of the United Nations Force in Cyprus be extended?and has accordingly voted in favour of the draft resolution (S/1091+6). Before concluding this brief statement I should like to associate myself with the preceding speakers, the members of the Council, in expressing my great appreciation to the Secretary-General for the unremitting efforts made by him and his representatives in order to safeguard peace and harmony in Cyprus.

Mr. BOYD (Panama) {interpretation from Spanish): The delegation of Panama voted in favour of draft resolution S/109^6 for the following reasons. Ever aince resolution 2077 (XX) of 18 December 1965 was adopted, every time we have had a chance,as co-sponsors of the draft resolution,, we have advocated unity for the Cypriot nation without any interference or intervention JF of any kind and without any limitations of any kind. The solution of the problem in our opinion must be sought with a view to Cyprus becoming a united, indivisible land where the rights of minorities are recognized and guaranteed. Ever since the bases were established in 1968 for the talks which are being pursued today we have always believed that it was important to find in Cyprus a plan for.a free independent and united State. We hope that with every passing day the threat of a military confrontation will be removed and that very soon freedom of transit throughout the entire island will be guaranteed indefinitely and without restrictions so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots can be reconciled and live in peace. DR/cbm S/PV.1728 13-15 (Mr. Boyd, Panama) Panama is a peace-loving nation and we express our "best wishes for the reconciliation of Greek and Turkish Cypriots so that all inhabitants of the island without any distinctions of any kind may enjoy all fundamental freedoms.

The conciliatory language of the Ambassadors of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece this morning has "been a source of great satisfaction to us. My delegation understands this problem particularly well be'cause Panama, like Cyprus, was. forced to accept a trust regime imposed on us to guarantee our. independence, which was at variance with all forms of morality and principles of international law. We would congratulate the Secretary-General on document S/109^0 which reports on United Nations efforts over the past six months in support of peace in Cyprus, In particular we would uoint 60 the excellent job done by the Under-Secretary-General., Mr. Roberto Guyer. We would conclude this explanation of our vote by saying that we~ are waware of the economic difficulties and difficulties of other kinds which the Secretariat has had to confront, and on behalf of the delegation of Panama; we would express our thanks for the co-operation provided by all those who have assisted in the case of Cyprus.

Mr. STUBBS (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): I wish to congratulate the Secretary-General on document S/109^0 and Corr.l of 31 May 1973.. This is a very precise and enlightening report and has proved of great usefulness in our deliberations. We would also express our appreciation to the Under-Secretary- General, Mr. Roberto Guyer and to the Special Representative of the Secretary- Mr". Osorio-Tafall for their important work, and to the Commander of the United Nations peace-keeping Force in Cyprus, Major-General Prem Chand, on that Force's efficient services. NR/sg . S/PV.1T28 16 (Mr. Stubijs, Peru)

Resolution 32h (1972) of the Council, adopted on 12 December 19723 extended for six months the stationing in Cyprus of.the United Nations Force in the hope that "by that time sufficient progress would "be made , towards a final solution of the problem to make it possible to remove or reduce considerably the forces in the area. From this report it is clear that, while there is a more propitious atmosphere at the present time, we are still very far from a situation which can be considered satisfactory. The maintenance of the status quo which has been more or less achieved over the past six months is not a sufficient guarantee for peace and security on the island. Suspicion and fear continue between both communities, and there are obvious economic differences aggravating tension. Although it might seem encouraging that the Greek Cypriots have been 'overcoming the problem of unemployment, in the Turkish community unemployment continues to be an acute problem. The same can be said about services. The Turkish Cypriots must still deal with the shortages which put them at a disadvantage as compared with the other community. There is a dangerous tendency to continue with separate development in the economic life of the two areas. There is no doubt that, unless this situation is corrected, any effort at political'stability will be virtually in vain. Furthermore, we should like to poi^nt as an encouraging sign to the fact that intercommunal talks have taken a constructive turn, and there f • has been goodwill on the part of the parties, showing a desire to reach agreement, which should lead to the results which the entire international community is anxiously awaiting. It is obvious that we are still very far from a concrete solution ensuring peace and security in the island of Cyprus, but the goodwill of the parties concerned and the presence of the United Nations in the area indicate that the first steps which have been taken will lead to a satisfactory conclusion. Peru has had friendly ties with Cyprus and with Turkey and Greece, and the Cypriot problem has received our close attention. We earnestly hope that the problem will be solved in such a way as to guarantee its independence and protect the special features of this bicommunal nation. .NR/sg S/PV.1728 17 (Mr. Stubbs, Peru)

Those are the reasons why my delegation voted this morning in favour of the draft resolution contained in document 3/109^6.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I shall nov exercise my right to make a statement as the representative of the Soviet Union on the item now under discussion in the Council. In connexion with the adoption by the Security Council of the resolution on the question of Cyprus, the delegation of "the Soviet Union would like to declare that the USSR has always taken and continues to take the position that this problem must be settled by peaceful means in the interest of easing tension in this important region, in the interests of the whole Cypriot people. The Soviet delegation has repeatedly set forth in the Council the position taken by the Soviet Government on the question of the situation in Cyprus. In doing so we have noted that a settlement of the problem of the situation in Cyprus must be based on respect for the freedom,

independence3 sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of

Cyprus3 a Member State of the United Nations that has pursued and continues to pursue a policy of peace and non-alignment with military blocs. The Soviet delegation continues to be deeply convinced that an early return to normality in Cyprus., the strengthening of its security and the extension of equitable co-operation between Cyprus and other countries will lead to a further enhancement of the international authority of the Republic and enable it to play a still more'significant role as an important factor for stability, for stabilizing the situation in the eastern Mediterranean. The Government of Cyprus and its President have, as is well known, repeatedly declared their dedication to the ideals of peace, security and mutual co-operation with other States. It is quite obvious and may be stated confidently that this position has met and will continue to meet with wide support and solidarity on the part of all peace-loving forces and international opinion. As has already been repeatedly noted, -there is and can be no doubt that the solution of the domestic problems of Cyprus is a matter for the Cypriots themselves. The lawful rights of the Cypriots, NR/sg S/PV.1728 18 (The President) both Greek and Turkish, must be observed by all. The question of Cyprus can and must be solved without any interference from outside. The Soviet Union is decisively opposed to any attempt to infringe the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus and any attempt to decide the question of Cyprus behind the back of its people, to the detriment of its vital interests and for the benefit of external imperialist forces. The Soviet delegation would like, in this connexion, once again to repeat that the Soviet Union continues to take the position that, in order to ensure the independence,, integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus, all foreign troops must be withdrawn from its territory, and also the foreign military bases situated in its territory must be removed, Cyprus is situated close to one of the hot spots in international relations, the Middle East region, where there subsists the danger of a new armed conflict. We hope that the consideration of the question of the situation in the Middle East in the Security Council, the first stage of which we have just completed, will help to make a substantial contribution to the restoration of peace in the region and hence to create favourable conditions for peaceful coexistence among States in the eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus is also in direct proximity to Europe. Therefore it is quite natural that the state of affairs in that continent, which has been troubled in the past, has a most direct influence on the situation in Cyprus. Accordingly one may note with satisfaction that the uositive trend towards an improvement in the international situation in the continent of Europe is turning, in the eyes of the whole world, into an irreversible process of strengthening of security and co-operation among all the countries of Europe. That is illustrated once again by the successful preparatory work for the calling of an all-European Conference on questions of security and co-operation. We are convinced that this will make an important contribution to improving the situation in the Mediterranean too. The Soviet delegation takes a positive view of the Secretary- General's report on the situation in Cyprus for the neriod from 2 December 1972 to 31 May 1973 and in particular the information concerning the intercommunal talks. One cannot but agree with the over-all conclusion in WR/sg ' S/PV.1T28 19-20 (The President) the report to the effect that the "best way of reaching an agreed and peaceful, solution of the problem of Cyprus is the resumption and continuation in positive terms of the intercommunal talks. / MP/gm S/PV.1T28 21 (The President)

My delegation expresses the hope that as a result of these talks it may be possible to overcome the ex isting difficulties and to bring these negotiations to a positive in the interests of the people of Cyprus and the strengthening of peace in the region. The report contains a recommendation that the stay of the United Nations troops in Cyprus be once again extended for a six-month period in order to; .enfeure normal conditions which will assist the continuance of the intercommunal talks o The Soviet delegation did not object to the Council's adoption of the resolution prolonging the stay of the United Nations troops in Cyprus until 15 December 1973, bearing in mind the position in this matter taken by the interested parties, and first and foremost by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. 'In so doing we believe that this extension of the stay of the United Nations troops in Cyprus will be effected in full accordance with the terms of the Security Council resolution of k March 196^ and subsequent decisions by the Council on the question of Cyprus --- that is, that the present functions of these troops will be maintained and that the existing voluntary procedure for their financing will continue to be in effect. As President, I would say that since the list of speakers on this question is exhausted,we shall now proceed to hear those representatives who have expressed a wish to make statements in exercise of their right of reply. I call first en the representative of Cyprus. Mr. ROSSIDES (Cyprus): I wish to thank all the -members of the Security Council who have participated in this debate and expressed their support for the independence and sovereignty of Cyprus, and also for non-intervention, and non- interference in its internal affairs. It is gratifying to realize that this is a situation where a small country has the support of the United Nations., and therefore the question of force is diminishing in the prospects for the development of that country. This is an achievement of the United Nations which, in spite of all its difficulties, is real and true. MP/gm S/PV.1728 22

(M*1• Rossides, Cyprus)

Wow I would like to say a few words to my colleague and friend the Ambassador of Turkey with regard to some of his remarks. This is intended not to be controversial t>ut merely as an elucidation of certain points.

First of all., with regard to the question of federationD my statement was ||f very clear on this: I said that it cannot, in the view of the highest legal if authorities, apply to Cyprus. Therefore it is not a question of choosing or not 1 . !!! . choosing federation, because federation does not apply, and if it were to be applied it would be a constitutional oddity and incompatible with the realities ., and therefore bound to fail. Consequently our position is that we want to have a solution which is compatible with the constitutional norms and territorial realities of the situation so that it can be workable. Federation cannot apply nor function because there are no separate territorial entities; and that is why it was agreed -- indeed it was agreed by the Turkish side repeatedly,, and I have the reports here •-•• that it was .to be a unitary State. And I believe that until now it has not been disputed that it is to be a unitary State. With regard to "the reference to statements which might endanger the future and the continued independence of Cyprus , I wish to place on record that the policy of Cyprus over the years, in the United Hations and outside, is well known to be the pursuit of a peaceful and lasting solution on the basis of sovereign and independent statehood — and in the particular instance, to pursue the intercommunal talks j;li'l ;jj to their successful conclusion on the basis of the sovereign independent and unitary State of Cyprus. And that is the policy of the Government of Greece, as was stated today by the representative of Greece also — and I would assume it is the policy also of the representative of Turkey. Is a question of sincerity raised regarding the promotion of the solution? The sincerity is to be judged from the conduct of the parties in the talks over the years in 'the promotion of deconfrontation, normalization, and conciliation, making solution of the problem possible. Anyone who cares to look through the reports will find that on all occasions the Cyprus Government has closely co operated with IMFICYP and^as is stated in repeated reports, the Cyprus Government has all the time been closely co-operating -with UNFTCYP for the furtherance of MP/gm S/PV.1T28 23-25 (Mr ._Rpssides ,_ Cyp_r_us_) deconfrontation whereas the Turkish Cypriot side has not. In the last report it is stated that the Government of Cyprus has maintained its position that it will accept deconfrontation 3 total or partial3 and this is to "be found in all previous reports as veil. That goes also for normalization and for conciliation. Measures of deconfrontation., normalization and conciliation are necessary preconditions for the solution of the problem and if the policy of the Government of Cyprus has all along been to assist and promote these objectives, its sincerity about a peaceful and lasting solution cannot be in doubt. Reference has been made by the representative of Turkey to equal partnership. Equal citizenship is what is required and what the Turkish Cypriots fully enjoy. But equality of partnership between 82 per cent and 18 per cent of the population is a very difficult concept to understand. I do not say that we do not want to be generous to the Turkish side , but to demand a complete equality of partnership in a ratio of 18 to 82 is a little bit extravagant, it seems to me. What we want., as I have granted, is of course equality of rights of citizenship. If there is any discrimination in Cyprus it is discrimination, at the present stage at least, against the Greek Cypriot majority and in favour of the Turkish Cypriot minority. That discrimination may be seen from the very fact that, as has been stated already, the majority so far does not have complete freedom of movement in the island: many roads are closed to them because of the Turkish enclave whereas the Turkish minority can move all over the island without i any obstacles. Now., what is the cause of all this trouble in Cyprus? The cause is the continued policy of separatism. As to the motivation for this policy, that is something I shall not enter into now. The fact remains, however, that because of this policy the Turkish Cypriot minority •— or community — is suffering: it is^true, they are the sufferers. . But that is because they are the pawns in a policy of the Turkish Cypriot leadership; and because they are pawns in that policy they cannot look after their own interests. We see that the 1971 report of the Secretary-General says that: "It would ... be difficult to utilize fully and rationally the human and other resources of the island if the present trend towards separate economic development is maintained". (g/10199? para. AW/lc S/PV.1T28

(Mr. Rossides, Cyprus)

Now, therefore, we see that the separate economic development is maintained in the cause of separatism, which prevents the Turkisth Cypriot people from .participating in the economic progress of the island. They are kept outside > it by the force of these circumstances. In spite of that they are given every opportunity by the Government to participate, and both the Government and private enterprises have offered to invest in the Turkish Cypriot areas and to supply funds for developing and raising the standards of the Turkish Cypriots. But again, because of the same policy of separatism, they are not allowed to do it. My friend has referred to the fact that the share of UNDP assistance is disappointingly low. I see from the part of the report from which he quotes that it is "disappointingly low" that it is said that the Turkish Cypriot participation and student enrolment at the UNDP-assisted Higher Technical Institute and Hotel and Catering Institute is still "disappointingly low" — because they will not enlist, because they will not participate. They are free to enrol, but they do not. Why do they not? Because they are still under the shadow of the separatist idea, and they cannot move forward towards doing what they would have done for their own benefit. • Therefore, the Secretary-General has repeatedly pointed out that it is necessary, for'the interests of all and for the Turkish Cypriots, to have an integrated economy — but they would refuse. And here, in the report again, another aspect is put out with regard to public services. My colleague said that they are not given the public services to which they would be entitled. But the report explains the reason why. It says that "... normalizing the public services in the area under Turkish Cypriot control is linked to the attitude of the Turkish Cypriot leadership concerning such matters as the maintenance of the military status quo and the freedom of .movement of Greek Cypriot civilians." (S/logltO and'Corr.l, para. If there is no freedom of movement, how can they get the proper public services? That is very difficult and it is rendered impossible. Therefore, if they were to allow freedom of movement they would certainly get all the public services that they may be missing now, although the Government does AW/lc S/PV.1728 27 (Mr. Rossides, Cyprus) everything to supply the electricity, for instance. Here we have it that the Government supplies electricity and water for all its citiziens, despite the fact that most of the taxpayers do not pay their electricity and water bills.' And it runs into millions of pounds that are not paid, and yet they supply then. But when they do not allow them to enter, therefore it is said that it is not possible to do it. Here we have in a previous report mention of the Kanli Koy dan. It was interestinc because it marked the first time since the outbreak of the disturbances that the Turkish Cypriots agreed after all to allow a Government official into the main Turkish Cypriot enclave north of Nicosia to supervise work done with the building materials especially released by the Government. Therefore, from the reports one can see there is a complete effort at separation and preventing matters from developing in a way as would help the . Turkish i Cypriot community. The other aspect that I -would like to mention is that of the importance of the confrontation. If we look through the reports, we find that,at least over eight years now the Government of Cyprus has been offering to proceed to the confrontation but that the other side has not accepted. The same with normalization. These efforts of the Government of Cyprus are sufficient indication of its intent to proceed seriously and effectively with the normalization and the confrontation and conciliation for a solution of the problem. The solution, of course, is a matter for the talk3 and we do hope that the appropriate spirit will prevail towards arriving at a -workable and lasting solution.

The PEES IDEM1 (interpretation from Russian): I call on the representative of Turkey, who wishes to exercise his right of reply.

Mr. OLCAY (Turkey): I shall try to be very brief. I am in a rather difficult position because in some ways I am in total agreement with my friend, Ambassador Rossides, and on some points I am — as he would expect and as, I suppose, members of the Council would expect — in total disagreement. I am happy to. say that I am in agreement when he says — solemnly I hope — AW/lc/bo S/PV.1728 28 (Mr. Olcay, Turkey)

that the permanent independence of the island is the main objective of his Government. That, of course, is a very good thing to hear here and is what we are all striving for. Sometimes I have thought that we were the only ones who were for this permanent independence. I have a reason for that, as I said this morning^ and I know that Ambassador Ressides will take exception to these statements of mine. Of course, it is hard for a. simple man like me, who is trained as a civil servant and is in the habit of attaching great value to statements by public figures, not to believe what he hears when the highest officials in a State proclaim that after all their ultimate aim is something else than the permanent independenc of their State, I believe that out of the 132 Members of this Organization of ours, 131 very high officials — I do not want to name names — would shudder at the idea of mentioning that some day that the independence of their State would come to an end. But I cannot help it. I have documents before me here, but members need not worry because I will certainly not quote them. However, in case they are interested my delegation is at their disposal to provide ample proof of what I mean when I say I consider certain declarations as a threat. But I am pleased and really thankful to hear my colleague saying that that does not mean anything really, and that in fact what the highest authorities in Cyprus mean is a permanent independence of their island. I am pleased to hear it. Now I come to some points of disagreement, and I am really going to i ! be brief about it. I disagree when Ambassador Ressides says that the highest legal authorities are of the opinion that there is an impossibility when it comes to adopting the form of federation, for instance. Wot, I repeat, that I am for federation or for any other form, because first of all my legal background does not give me the authority to speak here for or against any form of State. People are there, in Cyprus discussing precisely this point. Whatever they agree upon will be for us something to respect. But I just cannot accept the idea that any form of State or any form of constitution is to be set aside as an impossibility because some people think it is impossible, I therefore beg to disagree on this point. AW/lc ' S/PV.1728 29-30 (Mr. Olcay, Turkey)

And I certainly do not consider the word "unitary" in the sense which some people want to cive it. It may have some other sense, "but I say humbly that I am not a legal expert. I do not know exactly what it means. But certainly I know what it does not means and.that is where I am a bit unhappy when I am told that it is the only way out of the present crisis.

fF-Sr. .' *yv.. AP/ad S/PV.1T28 31 , (Mr. Olcay, Turkey)

The other point of disagreement ±s when we come to the discussion of the problem of partnership. But this again is a question for the people on the spot to decide. The only thing I remember is that Cyprus is the atypical, historical phenomenon. It has "been created, if I am not mistaken, on the basis of this equal partnership and the equal partnership to our mind means that the two communities have an equal say when it comes to the State's policy as a whole, to its future, to its independence, to its territorial integrity, to its defence, to its foreign policy and so on and so forth. For the rest, of course, the normal application' of the rule of law in any State would prevail. I hope that the Constitution will see to it, and of course, one cannot ignore the fact that there are two distinctly separate communities which, as everybody knows, and as I am sure that Ambassador Eossides would also agree, have had different national aspirations,and therefore a kind of autonomous development is to be expected. That is why there has been trouble in the past and that is what we want to prevent in the future through a more workable constitution. Now we come again to the question that we have so long discussed across the table with my dear friend Ambassador Rossides» the question of whether the Turkish community's diffidence in taking part in the economic life, the social life and so on of the island as a whole is due only to the fact that some.politicians on the Turkish side —• that is what is meant •— wish it 'that way. I dc not think that it is that easy to remove the fears of a community which has had some reasons to feel that fear. That is why the troops are there. They are not there just because of a whim on the part of the United Nations or of anyone in particular in Cyprus. I mean conditions have soi developed that it is only thanks to the presence of the United Nations troops that life has become livable there. AP/ad S/PV.1728 32 ; : (Mr_. 01 cay, Turkey)

Ambassador Ross ides has used the words "a shadow of a separatist idea". I think that this shadow is a result of the shadow of more serious events,a shadow which I hope —- and this ±3 -why i should like again to finish on a note of optimism —• will he removed as a result of the very serious, very businesslike, very genuine and very sincere efforts that no side, no interested party, spares to obtain a workable solution of the problem. Therefore, I think that basically we are again in agreement with Ambassador Rossides. What we both mean to say is that there has "been a difficult situation. I am not dwelling on the reasons for it. This situation, it is to be hoped, will end when the two sides which have lived through it see a better way of doing things and find a better constitutional framework for their future national life.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I call on the representative of Cyprus in exercise of his right of reply.

Mr. ROSSIDES (Cyprus): I am afraid that the policy of separatism is not a question of fear. It is a question of political policy, independently of fear. The fear is brought in as an excuse for that policy, and also other matters that have been introduced are to excuse that policy. That is out of policy; it is not out of fear. Because we can see the reference in an ^earlier report of the Secretary-General to the fact that the Turkish "... community leadership discourages the Turkish Cypriot population from engaging in personal, commercial or other contacts with their Greek Cypriot compatriots, from applying to Government offices in administrative matters, or from resettling in their home villages if they are refugees." (S/6228, para, 55) AP/ad S/PV.1728 33 (Mr. Rossides, Cyprus)

They are discouraged from any commercial contacts. They are not afraid of commercial contacts. They are discouraged from applying to Government officers in administrative matters. Further, they are discouraged from doing anything normal — - not out of fear., "but "because it is a policy, as I said "before. Also,, I have already stated on a previous occasion that there is a list of punishments ^inflicted upon the Turkish Cypriots for disobeying this order not to have any contacts with the Greeks: "Those who disobey the order with a view to having trade connexions with the Greek Cypriots pay a fine of £25 5s, or should be punished with imprisonment.... A fine of £20 will be imposed on those who have any dealings with Greek Cypriots or those who buy from Greek Cypriots goods which they could get from the Turkish Cypriot sector." (1568th meeting, page 72) So it is obvious that this is not a question of fear. It is a question of policy. And what does that policy aim at in keeping the people of Cyprus divided and separated? It is left to the imagination. There must be some particular political aim. It has transpired in the past in very official statements. Therefore, we cannot but relate this present policy — continued in spite of everything —- for keeping separation, for keeping up strife, for preventing conciliation, for preventing the confrontation, for doing everything to keep the people of Cyprus apart. And when we come to the negotiating table, proposals are made again of such extremist separation that make it difficult. It would not be difficult for these talks to come to a successful conclusion. They started in 1968, and after some time they came up against the impossibility of performance, of extreme separatism, excessiveness in separatism. And all these things are not fear? There is something else to it. And to say that it is fear and therefore you must have a constitution impossible of application because of fear does not make sense. But again I wish to end with optimism and to express the hope that reasonableness will prevail iu the talks so that we have a solution that, is workable and that the separatism, whatever its reasons or motivations , will be abandoned. AP/ad S/PV.1728, 3^-35 (Mr. Rossides, Cyprus) I say again that the Government of Cyprus is sincere in its conduct of these negotiations for the independence of Cyprus. But that does not mean that the ingrained feelings and aspirations of the people with Greek history extending back 2,000 years is a matter that should be regarded as a crime, or that their feelings are such that they should be deprecated. The feelings should be respected. The ideals should be respected. But the practical policy and the sincerity in this policy is something that cannot be disputed. RH/10/Jpm S/PV.1728 '36 (Mr. Rossides, Cyprus)

I hope my learned friend — I say "learned friend." because he also indulged in constitutional matters — will agree with me that it .;Ls bur hope that these talks will succeed in a spirit of sincere co-operation and under st anding. it

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I call upon the representative of Turkey, who wishes to exercise his right of reply.

.Mr. OLCAY (Turkey): I apologize for speaking again. I wish only to say that this debate has shown that when there is action there is reaction, without qualifying either the actions or the reactions. The Council may rest assured that when there is no action there will be no reactions. And vice-versa, I suppose. Therefore, to end on a note of optimism, let us hope that the people whose duty it is to put an end to this unfortunate situation will achieve success in the not too distant future in the island.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): The list of those wishing to speak on the present agenda item is now exhausted. As no' member of the Council or 'representative of those countries invited to take part in the Council's consideration of this item wishes to speak, I take it that the Council has thus completed its consideration of the question of Cyprus. Mr. Rossides, representative of Cyprus; Mr. Olcay, representative of Turkey; and Mr. Payahotacos, representative of Greece, withdrew..

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I would recall that at the 1725th meeting I read out to the Council a telegram from the President of Chad, His Excellency Mr. Francois Tombalbaye, containing a request that an opportunity be given to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chad, Mr. Baba Hassane, to make a statement on the question of the situation in the Middle East at today's meeting of the Council, following completion of our consideration of the question-of Cyprus. RH/10/JPM S/PV.1728 37 (The President)

In taking its decision, the Council had in mind that its consideration of the question of the situation in the Middle East was expected to be suspended at the end of the meeting yesterday evening — which in fact was done. In accordance with that decision, I now intend, if there are no objections, to invite the Foreign Minister of Chad, His Excellency Mr. Baba Hassane, to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement on the question of the situation in the Middle East. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Hassane, representative of Chad, took a place at the Council table.

Mr. HASSME (Chad) (interpretation from French): Mr. President, first of all I should like to perform two duties. I wish to thank you, Sir, and the other members of the Security Council for allowing me, by way of an exception, to take part, without the right to vote, in the debate on the agenda item concerning consideration of the situation in the Middle East. I should like to assure you that the Organization of African Unity and my Head of State are grateful to you for this exceptional decision to grant the request of my Head of State. I should like to congratulate you, Mr. President, on your assumption of the Presidency of the Security Council for the month of June. Those who have spoken before me have very eloquently referred to your merits and qualities as a diplomat familiar with United Nations affairs. I shall not yield to the temptation to return to that subject, since I am convinced that under your guidance the debate on this complex issue will lead ,to peace in that beleaguered area of the world. Members of the Council will recall that at its tenth regular session the Summit Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity adopted an important resolution on the crisis in the Middle East deciding that a delegation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of a number of States should come to set forth in the Security Council the feelings and concerns of all of Africa on this grave situation and the threat it poses to peace. Like my colleagues from Nigeria, the United Republic.of Tanzania, Algeria, Sudan, Kenya and Guinea, it is xinder that sacred mandate that I address the Council. RH/10 S/PV.1728 38-1+0

(Mr. Has sane. Chad)

With great concern, the entire world has closely followed events over the past few years in certain areas of the world. The recent cessation of the most terrible and devastating war of our time, the war in South-East Asia, was greeted with great relief and welcomed by the entire world. Another outstanding event which continues to come up in regional international talks and meetings is the development of the Israeli aggression of 5 June 196? against neighbouring Arab States. At the request of the Arab Republic of Egypt, an African State, and concerned by the conflict disrupting the Middle East, the Security Council was invited to review the political and military situation over the past six years and efforts undertaken and pursued by both the international community and Governments to put into effect the peace settlement decided upon by the Security Council in its resolution 2k2 (196?) of 22 November 1967. lie hope that that subject will be the essential point before us, and that Israel will not divert attention in any way that will work against proper consideration of the subject by the Council. The report of the Secretary-General (S/10929), of 18 May 1973, submitted under Security Council resolution 331 (1973) of 20 April 1973, is a detailed and comprehensive report on United Nations efforts to bring about a settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict. BHS/cm S/PV.1728

(Mr. Has sane,, Chad)

I should like to congratulate the Secretary-General and his Special Representative on the work they have done in difficult circumstances. The document clearly reports that if the six years which have been marked by tireless efforts of the United Nations to establish a just and lasting peace have revealed anything at all, it is that Israel's policy of colonial expansion and the systematic refusal of the Government of Israel to co-operate with the Organization have been the obstacle which any efforts towards peace have encountered. Such a negative attitude by a Member of the Organization deserves serious consideration on the part of the Council. It should also be recalled that in the search for a peaceful settlement of all the aspects of the situation in the Middle East, the United Nations, and in particular the Security Council, established a basis for a settlement of the conflict. I am referring, of course, to historic resolution 2^2 (1967), the operative part of which reads as follows: "1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a jsst and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the applicaton of both the following principles: "(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; "(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; "2. Affirms further the necessity (a) For guaranteeing freedom of naviagation through international waterways in the area; (b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; (c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the : . establishment of demilitarized zones; |; "3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative f to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the f. States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve I' • IT a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and fy" . principles in this resolution; BHS/cm S/PV.1728

(Mr. Hassane, Chad)

"U. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible." As the report of the Secretary-General indicates in paragraph U5 in particular, the parties to the conflict, with the exception of one State, accepted that resolution, It goes without saying that the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces to the positions occupied before June 19&7 constitutes a fundamental and preliminary step to any peaceful settlement in the Middle East.. The activities of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Ambassador Jarring, as well as the meetings which were held on the question of the Middle East in 1971 "by the representatives of the four major Powers, permanent members of the Security Council •— the United States, France, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdpm — to agree on a joint interpretation of the resolution referred to and on a joint formulation of the general provisions for a settlement, found themselves at an impasse and found that it was impossible to reach any result at all. The African States, members of the Organization of African Unity and Members of the United Nations, concerned by the conflict in the Middle East, wished to make their modest contribution to a settlement. To that end, they set up a Committee made up of-10 Heads of State under the Presidency of Senegal. The Committee went to, Israel and Egypt- with the mandate to promote a -neaceful settlement of the •conflict and to safeguard the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. The result of that mission appears in paragraph 96 of document S/10929. We read there, among other things: "Both parties had renewed their acceptance of Security Council resolution 2^2 (1967) and were ready to resume indirect negotiations under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring. The mission came to the conclusion that the success of renewed negotiations could be regarded as assured, if the practical application of the concept of secure and recognized boundaries' did not oblige Egypt to alienate part of its national territory and that it was necessary to obtain Israel's agreement to the putting into effect (without territorial annexation) of arrangements offering sufficient guarantees to -ensure its security." Israel was also called upon to act in accordance with the aide memoire of 8 February 1971 of the.United Nations mediator. The aide memoire received the unanimous support of the four permanent members of the Security Council at the time — France, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States. BHS/cm S/FV.1728

(Mr. Hassane, Chad)

In view of our great concern over the alarming situation prevailing in the Middle East, a situation which is a serious threat to the independence, security and unity of the African continent, in accordance with Security Council resolution 2^2 (1967), we support Egypt and other Arab countries occupied by Israel in their legitimate struggle to recover the entirety of their territory. We set up a Committee made up of 10 Heads of State to help find a solution of the problem and to contribute to safeguarding the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people in accordance with the responsibilities arising from the fundamental principles of the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations. The heads of African States met in Addis Ababa and agreed to continue to support Egypt and other occupied Arab countries until their entire territory, which was occupied in June 19^7, is liberated. The search for an agreement among the parties was the subject of various initiatives. Members will recall the unsuccessful attempt by the United States to reach-a provisional agreement on the reopening of the Suez Canal,

as called for by United Nations resolutions. The year 1971s like the preceding years, was marked by a lack of progress towards a settlement of the conflict in the Middle East. However, in resolution 2799 (XXVI) on the situation in the Middle East, the twenty-sixth session of the General Assembly: Expressed its full support for all the efforts of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to implement Security Council resolution 2U2 (1967); Noted with appreciation the positive reply given by Egypt to the initiative of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for establishing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East; Called upon Israel to respond favourably to the peace initiative of .Mr. Jarring.; Invited the parties to the conflict to give their full co-operation to the Special Representative in order to work out practical measures for: (a) Guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; (b) Achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; (c) Guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area. BHS/cm S/PV.1728 UU-U5 (Mr. Hassane, Chad

It is deplorable that no progress of the kind advocated by the United Nations has been iLd.de, The Secretary-General confirmed this in his report of 15 September 1972 to the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly, when he stated: "In spite of my uninterrupted efforts, it was not possible to achieve any substantial progress. As will be seen from statements published by the parties, it does not 'seem that there exists at this time a common basis for discussions under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring." In view of that, failure, the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly in resolution 29^9 (XXVTI) reaffirmed resolution 2799 (XXVI), and in addition decided to transmit it to the Council for appropriate action. In the light of the information that we have available and in the light of our study of the report of the Secretary-General3 it can be safely said that any efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement of the conflict have been thwarted by the Israeli Government. Our Organization has not been able to act effectively. DR/em S/PV.1728

(Mr. Hassane, Chad)

There has not even been a beginning of a satisfactory solution to any aspect of the problem. The cease-fire on a number of occasions has been violated by the Israeli armed forces. One need only refer to paragraph 10 of the report before the Council to see this. It should be pointed out that in the absence of an equitable and accepted settlement, the cease-fire is bound to renaln precarious and unstable. In this situation it is to be noted with great concern that in spite of many resolutions of the Organization of African Unity and'of the United Nations committing Israel to withdraw from all African and Arab occupied territories, Israel not only continues to refuse to implement those resolutions but endeavours to pursue a policy designed to crea.te in the territory a fait accompli to serve its expansionist designs. The situation is not ideal either in the occupied Arab territories following the hostilities of June 1967 by the Israeli army. The Security Council is in duty bound to call on the Government of Israel to rescind all action and to abandon all policies and practices affecting the population of these territories. It is also in duty bound to reaffirm that all action taken to create settlements in these territories, including Jerusalem., is null and void. Throughout the past six years the entire world has seen that the true objective of the Israeli Government is not peace, peace which we all ardently desire,, but to do its utmost, with the complicity of certain major Powers, •bo pursue a policy of territorial expansion to the detriment of the neighbouring countries. While mediation has been offered in an attempt to find ways and means to bring about a practical settlement of the explosive conflict pitting the States in the area against one another, Israel which was given birth by resolution l8l (ll) of the General Assembly dated 29 November 19^7» relative to the partition of Palestine, is preparing plans designed to annex African territories, those of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Minister of Defence of Israel stated his intentions unambiguously in his statement of 5 July 1968 when he said: fc. DR/em S/PV.1728 hi plr. Has sane, Chad)

"Our forefathers reached the frontiers which were 'recognized in the Partition Plan. Our generation reached the frontiers of 19^9s but the generation of the six-day war reached Suez, Jordan and the Golan Heights in Syria; there will he new lines but they will extend "beyond Jordan, perhaps even to Lebanon, perhaps even to central Syria". That is the true face of Israel and the thinking behind its so-called policy of peace and good nei^hbourliness which is truly appalling. The events which have occurred in the area since that statement reflect to what extent the Hebrew State is committed,, flagrantly disregarding the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council and it. plans to annex territories which are presently occupied and to conquer new territories. The law of military conquest remains in force. As a member of the OAU and of the United Nations we refuse to accept the fact that one State can occupy the territory of another State by the use of force . The United Nations is based on the proposition that war must not be a profitable enterprise. The General Assembly and the Security Council have on many i occasions condemned the territorial conquest by one State of another State by armed force. Right after the Israel-Arab conflict, the Fifth Special Session of the General Assembly brought out the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and called for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the occupied territories . Furthermore, other regional organizations adopted a similar position with regard to territorial acquisitions. The Charter of Bogota of 19^+8 of the Organization of American States states in Article 20: ''No territorial acquisition or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized. ' It is in that spirit that the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the member States of the Organization of African Unity met to deal with a dispute in the summer of 1969 between two member States of the Organization and said to. the Thirteenth Advisory Conference : DR/em S/PV.1728 U8 (Mr. Has sane, Chad.)

"... that they unanimously rejected emphatically the possibility of using armed force to settle disputes among the member States of the Organization", and said: "That as stated in article 3 (e) and article 20 of the Charter of the

Organization of American States5 no conquest or occupation by force of territories shall be recognized'1. Article 2, paragraph (c) of the 1963 charter of the Organization of African Unity rejected the principle of any territorial conquest by the use of armed force. The Conference of Heads of State and African Governments at its last summit -meeting adopted a resolution stating that: ''It reaffirms its complete and active support for the Arab Republic of Egypt in its' legitimate struggle, totally and by all possible means to recover its territorial integrity." It once again called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from all African and Arab territories which it had occupied. The Summit Conference of the Non-Aligned Countries which met in Georgetown in August 1972 rejected the principle of territorial acquisition by the use of force and called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the occupied Arab territories. African,, Asian and Latin American voices and those of the third world called on Israel to heed the voice of reason and good sense and called on that country.to liberate all the territories occupied by force. •• In the circumstances how can we fail to take up the problem of the Palestinian refugees? I am convinced that most of the members of the Council will be of my opinion when I say that settling the conflict in the Middle East relates especially to a settlement to be found by the world Organization for the tragedy of the Palestinian people. The origin of this situation lies in the injustice inflicted by the United Nations on that innocent people which has been a constant source of concern to the international community. Many resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council have recognized the right of that people to recover their national heritage. I would recall in that connexion the following resolutions: DR/em S/PV.1728 U9-50 (Mr. Hassane, Chad)

2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969; 2672 C (XXV) of 8 December 1970; 261*9 (XXV) of 30 November 1970- 2799 (XXVI) of 13 December 1971 and 29^9 (XXVIl) of 8 December 1972. These are resolutions of the General Assembly and I vrould also recall the relevant resolutions of the Security Council which all call for a just settlement of the problem of the Palestine refugees. S/PV.1728 51

(Mr. Hassanea Chad) This series of resolutions contains certain gaps which need to be filled. All call for a just and lasting solution of the Palestinian problem. The Palestinian people 'have not "been allowed to participate in negotiations on the questions which are first and foremost of concern to them. We believe it is high time to correct what still can be corrected. ' I should like to mention here the fact that international support for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people resounds throughout the world day after day and year after year. The United Nations has failed to act effectively to resolve the profound causes of the uprooting of that people, and so that people3 which has suffered such humiliations 9 has taken the centre of the stage. Proof of this is the fact that suddenly there has been an outbreak of acts of violence, terrorism in its' many forms, hijacking of aircraft and so forth. Referring to the situation in the Middle East, the Head of an African State said in Washington a few years ago: "A new event has taken the'centre of the stage since June, and that is the-entry of the Palestinian people. Their will asserts itself day by day and the leaders of States will have to take account of their desires. The Palestinian people now must really assume the responsibility for their fight to recover their rights in their own country -and the kind of commitment which might lead to an end. Their ability to sacrifice g^ their maturity in this political and military

struggle will largely determine the success of their struggle3 which other countries have a duty to support. A solution of the problem can be properly brought about only with the participation and support of the Palestinian people," a Furthermore, the ^ ^ Summit Conference Of the Organization of African Unity recognized that respect for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people is an essential element in any just and equitable solution, just as it is an indispensable element in any lasting peace in the area. We are also in favour of the idea that the General Assembly and the Security Council should explorewhat they can do to give the Palestine Liberation Organization observer status. Why should this not be done? NR/sg S/PV.1T28 52 (Mr. Hassane, Chad) It might very well he a step forward in the search for an equitable solution if-, we associate the people directly concerned with the deliberations on matters which are of vital interest for them. I would invite members of the Council to meditate on these words. Wo one can ignore the existence of that people and its aspirations. Ho force can bend their will. We believe that they must be allowed to take part as full participants in discussions on a settlement of the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. The- jovernment of Chad is proud to reaffirm its support for the just cause and noble fight of the Palestinians to recover their national heritage. The Head of my Government and the people of Chad are determined to give the Palestinians a chance to settle in Chad to combat Zionism. We the peoples of the United Nations' all have the duty to defend the principles, the authority and the morality of our Organization. However, at the present time we are in a deadlock. Our inability to act could easily appear to be a reflexion of the weaknesses and the shortcomings of the United Nations. It is our duty to act and to act swiftly,for the Organization bears a great responsibility in the tragedy of the Palestinian people. We must squarely face up to Israel's challenge to the Organization's' authority in refusing to implement its resolutions and squarely face up to the threat that hangs heavily over the neighbouring Arab States. We recall the recommendation by the General Assembly to the Security Council to take appropriate action. There can be no doubt that the General Assembly is referring to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations when it advocates action to be taken against the State of Israel. On 5 June 19^7 the world witnessed an act of aggression, perpetrated by the Israeli forces against the Arab countries. Just as in the case of South Africa, Rhodesia and Portugal, the Security Council has an obligation to take action against Israel. Africa has defined its position very clearly and unequivocally on the conflict in the Middle East. It unreservedly supports the Arab countries in their just fight. It draws the attention of Israel to the threat to the security and unity of the African continent because of its carrying out of acts of aggression and its refusal to withdraw from the territories of countries HR/sg S/PV.1T28 53-55 (Mr. Hassane, Chad)

it has victimized. The Organization of African Unity has advocated that individual and collective political and economic action be taken in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the charter of the Organization of.African Unity and the Charter of the United Nations. Africa calls on all those Povers thst supply Israel with -all forms of arms and .military equipment and give Israel moral and political support, enabling it to strengthen its military potential, to refrain from doing so. It is the hope of all of us that the Security Council will reach a constructive settlement rather than abdicating its authority and referring the matter to the General Assembly;, it knows very well that the problems of security and war fall within its purview, whereas the General Assembly has only powers of recommendation. The Council should be prepared to do its utmost to put an end to the present impasse. From the statements made in the present debate by the parties concerned in the conflict., the Security Council has1 doubtless noted the sincere desire for peace expressed by the victims of Israeli aggression and in particular an African country, Egypt, a founding member of the Organization of African Unity. The Foreign Minister of Egypt, Mr. El-Zayyat, stated in this body that his country accepted all the resolutions of the United Nations on the situation in the Middle East. Egypt has welcomed and co-operated with all the peace missions which have visited the area and has given a favourable reply to Mr. Jarring's aide-memoire. However, Israel, still drunk with victory, persists in its thinly veiled refusal to co-operate with the United Nations. The notion of secure and recognized boundaries cannot go beyond those of 5 June 1967• As these deliberations conclude, the Security Council will doubtless bear in mind many aspects of the conflict in the Middle East, but two in particular are essential and await acceptable solutions: the continued occupation of African and Arab territories, a principle not recognized by the international community or the Charter of the United Nations; and the tragedy of the Palestinian people, a primary cause of tension in the area. V I. : MP/gm S/PV.1T28 56 (Mr. Has s ane., Chad)

It should require that Israel withdraw from those territories and should associate the people of Palestine in the negotiations with the parties to the conflict, rather than just mentioning the Palestinian people. It seems to us that that is the path which would lead to a stable peace in the Middle East. Before I leave the Council table, I would formally request, as my colleagues, have dones that the resolution adopted in Addis Ababa by the Conference of Heads of State of the OAU be considered a working document of the Security Council.

\ i The_ _PRE_Sn3ENT_ (interpretation from Russian): I should like to inform the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chad that the resolution adopted by the anniversary session of the Organization of African Unity has already been circulated as a document of the Security Council at the request of the Foreign Minister of Nigeria. I thank the Foreign Minister for the kind words he addressed to me. That concludes the work of the Council for today. However, before adjourning, I should like to recall that "when the Council took its decision yesterday to suspend consideration of the question of the situation in the Middle East the wish was expressed that the recess be used for further reflection on the results of the debate on this question in the Security Council, both by members of the Council and by representatives of States whose representatives are taking part in the consideration of this question. In the light of the Secretary -General's report on the efforts undertaken by his Special Representative and of the statements made by all States whose representatives are participating in the discussion of the item, the recess might be used; also for further informal consultations among members of the Security Council concerning further steps to be taken by the Council. I should like to express the wish and the hope that members of the Security Council will make active use of the recess period for these noble purposes , and that by the time we resume discussion of this questiou in the Security Council the Council will have before it a draft of effective and concrete measures for taking a decision that will bring about a peaceful political settlement in the Middle East in accordance with the decisions of the United Nations and taking into account the efforts and initiatives of the Secretary -General and his Special Representative.

?_ne.. *?§.e*iSEL rose at 5. ^5 p.m.