Chapter VIII CONSIDERATION OF QUESTIONS … VIII CONSIDERATION OF QUESTIONS UNDER THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY CONTENTS PWt

Chapter VIII

CONSIDERATION OF QUESTIONS UNDER THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSIBILITY FORTHE MAINTENANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY

CONTENTSPWt

INTRODUCTORY NOTE . . . . _. . . . . . . 103

PARTI. ANALYTICAL TABLE OF MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE SECURITYCOUNCIL

Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 4

PART II

::3.

4 .5.6 .

7.8 .9 .

I O .

I I.

12.

13.14.IS.

16.

17.

IS.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.28.

29.

30.

The situation in Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The question of South Africa . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Items relating to the Middle East . . . . _. ~. . . . . . .A . The situation in the Middle East . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . .B. The situation in the occupied Arab territories . . . . , . . . . .The situation in Cyprus . . . .Complaint by Iraq . _. . . . . . . . . . _, . . . . . .Letter dated I September 1980 from the Permanent Representative of Malta tothe United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council . . . . . . .Complaint by Angola against South Africa . . . . .Complaint by Seychelles . . . . . . .Let ter dated I9 March I982 f rom the Permanent Representat ive of Nicaragua tothe United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General . . . . . . .Letter dated I April 1982 from the Permanent Representative of the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressedto the President of the Security Council . . . . . . . . _. . , . . . . . ,Letter dated 31 March 1982 from the President of the Republic of Kenya to thePresident of the Security Council enclosing the letter dated I8 March I982 fromthe President of the Republic of Chad to the President of the Security Council . . . . .Question concerning the situation in the region of the Falkland Islands (IslasMalvinas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . _ . .The situation between Iran and Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . _. . .Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa . . . . _.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._.Let ter dated I9 February 1983 from the Permanent Representat ive of the LibyanArab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the SecurityCouncil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Letter dated I6 March 1983 from the Permanent Representative of Chad to theUnited Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council , . . . . . . . . . . . .Letter dated 22 March 1983 from the representative of Nicaragua on the SecurityCouncil addressed to the President of the Security Council . . . . . . . . . . . . .._. . . . .Letter dated 5 May 1983 from the representative of Nicaragua on the SecurityCouncil addressed to the President of the Security Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . ._.. .Letter dated 2 August 1983 from the Permanent Representative of Chad to theUnited Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Letter dated 8 August 1983 from the Chat@ d’affaires a.i. of the PermanentMission of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to thePresident of the Security Council . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Letter dated I September I983 from the Acting Permanent Representative of theUnited States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of theSecurity Council . . . . . . ,... ,...,....,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,................Letter dated I September I983 from the Permanent Observer for the Republic ofKorea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council . . .Letter dated I September 1983 from the Charge d’affaires a.i. of the PermanentMission of Canada to the United Nations addressed to the President of theSecurity Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . .Letter dated I September 1983 from the Permanent Representative of Japan tothe United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council . . . . . . . . . . . . .Letter dated 2 September 1983 from the Acting Permanent Representative ofAustralia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security CouncilLetter dated I2 September 1983 from the representative of Nicaragua on theSecurity Council addressed to the President of the Security Council . . , . . . , . . . . . .The situation in Grenada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Letter dated 3 February 1984 from the Charge d’affaires a.i. of the PermanentMission of Nicaragua to the United Nations addressed to the President of theSecurity Council I.. . _. . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .Letter dated I8 March 1984 from the Permanent Reoresentative of the Sudan tothe United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council . . . . . . . . . .Letter dated 22 March 1984 from the Charg6 d’affaires a.i. of the PermanentMission of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to thePresident of the Security Council , , . . . , ,. . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , , . . . , , . . , , . . . , , . . . . , . . . , . .

II3I 30I38138178I882 0 2

2 0 42 0 52 1 4

2 2 0

2 2 4

2 2 9

2 3 02 3 92 4 4

2 4 9

251

2 5 4

2 5 7

2 5 9

263

2 6 4

2 6 4

2 6 4

2 6 4

2 6 4

2 6 92 6 9

2 7 4

2 1 4

2 7 6

100

PW31. Letter dated 29 March 1984 from the Permanent Representat ive of Nicaragua to

the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council . . . . . 2 7 832. Letter dated 21 May 1984 from the representatives of Bahrain, Kuwait. Oman.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates addressed to the President ofthe Security Council . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . , , . . . , . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , , . . . . , . . . . 2 8 2

33. Letter dated 4 September 1984 from the Charge d’affaircs a. i . of the PermanentMission of Nicaragua to the IJnited Nations addressed to the President of theSecurity Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 4

34. Letter dated 3 October 1984 from the Permanent Representative of the LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic to the United Nations addressed to the President ofthe Security Council . . . . . . _. . . . _. . . _. 2 8 4

35. Letter dated 9 November 1984 from the Permanent Representat ive of Nicaraguato the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council . . . . 285

1 0 11 0 1

INTRODUCI-ORY NOTE

The principles underlying the organization andpresentation of the material presented in chaptersVIII-XII of the present Supplement are the same asfor the previous volumes of the Repertoire. Thosevolumes should be consulted for a full statement ofsuch principles.

Chapter VIII indicates the chain of proceedings onthe substance of each of the questions mcluded m thereport of the Security Councrl to the General Assem-bly under the heading: “Questions considered by theSecurity Council under its responsibility for themaintenance of international peace and security.*’The range of questions covers broad1 those that maybe deemed to fall under chapters V7 and VII of theCharter. Ancillary material from the Oflcial Recordsbearing on relevant Articles of the Charter is present-ed in chapters X-XII. References to the ancillarymaterial are given at the appropriate points in theentries for each question in this chapter.

As an outline of the proceedin of the Council inrespect of the questions inclu ed in its agenda,dchapter VIII constitutes a framework within whichthe ancillary legal and constitutional discussion re-corded in chapters X-XII may be considered. Thechapter is, therefore, an aid to the examination of thedeliberations of the Council expressly related to theprovisions of the Charter within the context of thechain of proceedings on the agenda item.

The uestions are dealt with in the chronologicalorder o9 their inclusion in the agenda of the Council.’

inThe following questions, however, were included

the Council s agenda before the period underreview and are, therefore, discussed in the order inwhich the Council resumed their consideration: thequestion of South Africa,2 the situation in the MiddleEast,’ the situation in the occupied Arab territories,’the situation in Namibia,’ the situation in Cyprus,*the letter dated 1 September 1980 from the represen-tative of Malta,’ the complaint by Angola a instSouth Africa,* the situation between Iran and raql:Yand the complaint by Lesotho against South Africa.

The framework of the material for each question isprovided by the succession of affirmative and nega-tive decisions within the purview of this chapter.Decisions related to the subject-matter of chapters I-VI of the Re rtoire are, as a rule, omitted as notrelevant to tre purpose of this chapter or of theancillary chapters X-XII. The decisions are enteredin uniform manner. Affirmative decisions are en-tered under a heading indicative of the content of thedecision, and negative decisions are entered under a

headin indicative sole1 of the origin of the proposalor draif resolution. Af?u-mative decisions have beenreproduced in full as constitutive of the practice ofthe Council, while negative decisions are indicated insummarized form. Where the negative decision re-lates to a draft resolution in connection with whichdiscussion has taken place concerning the applicationof the Charter, the text of the relevant parts of thedraft resolution will in most instances be found inchapters X-XII.

As in the previous volumes of the Repertoire, ananalytical table of measures adopted by the Councilarran edinclu %

broadly by type of measure has beened as part I of chapter VIII. This table should

be regarded as of the nature of an index to chapterVIII; and no constitutional significance should beattached to the headings adopted in the compilationof this table or the inclusion of particular measuresunder the individual headings. In certain instancesmain headings and subheadings have been added,deleted or modified in order to adjust the table to therecent changes in the nature of the measures adoptedby the Council.

NOTES

I For a tabulation of the data on submission, see chap. X. partIII. As indicated in the editorial note. the questions included in theagenda of the Council during the years 1981-1984 appear underconventional short titles.

1 Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, Supplement1975-1980, chap. VIII. part II.

3 Ibid., Supplement 1966-I%& chap. VIII, part II; ibid., Suppkment 1969-1971, chap. VIII, part II; ibid., Supplement 1972-1974,chap. VIII, part II; and ibid., Supplement 19751980, chap. VIII.part II.

‘Ibid.. Supplement 19751980, chap. VIII, part II.$ Ibid., Supplement 1%&1%8, chap. VIII, part II; ibid., Supple-

ment 1969-1971, chap. VIII, part II; ibid., SuppIement 1972-1974,chap. VIII. part II; and ibid., Supplement 1975-1980, chap. VIII,part II.

h Ibid.. Suoolement I959-i%J. chao. VIII. ~srt II; ibid.. Sutwlement 1%4-k, chap. VIII, pai II; ibid.. S~~plem&t 1%6-i&8.chap. VIII. tort II: ibid.. SuoDIPment 196*1971. than VIII. ~srtII; ibid., .!i$plem&t 1972-i674, chap. VIII. pak JJ(unti1 i974,Complaint by the Government of Cyprus); and ibid.. Supplement1975-1980, chap. VIII, part II.

71bid.. Supplement 1975-1980. chap. VIII, part II.‘Ibid.. Supplement 1975-1980, chap. VIII. part II.pIbid.. Supplement 19751980, chap. VIII, part II.‘Olbid., Supplement 1975-1980, chap. VIII, part II.

103

104 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of iatemationel peace and aecwity

Part I

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL

NOTE

As in the previous volumes of the Repertoire, theentries in this tabulation are restricted to a referenceto the question, the date of the decision and the serialnumber of the decision.

1. Preliminuy measures lor the elucidation 01 facta

A .

B.

A .

B .

C .

D.

E.

F.

G .

H.

1.

Establ ishment of a special mission:Complaint by Seychelles:

Decision of IS December 1981 (res. 496 (1981))para. 3

Aff i rming the desirabi l i ty of an object ive examinat ion of thecauses of a conf l ic t :

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 31 October 1983 (res. 540 (1983))

preamble

II. Determination of the nature of the question

Determining the existence of a breach of peace in a region:Letter dated I April 1982 from the rcprescntalive of theUnited Kingdom:

Decision of 3 April I982 (rcs. 502 (I 982)). preambleConcerned at a serious situation that gravely endangersinternational peace and security:

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 2 I February 1983, President’s statement.

para. 2Concerned about a situation that has led to a serious threat lointernational peace and security:(i) Complaint by Iraq:

Decision of 19 June 1981 (res. 487 (1981)). preamble(ii) Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of IS July 1982, President’s statementConcerned at a situation that could have grave consequencesfor international peace and security:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 5 June 1982 (rcs. 508 (1982)). preamble

Concerned about a conf l ict endangering internat ional peaceand security in a region:

Situation bctwecn Iran and Iraq:Decision of 30 March 1984. President’s statement,

para. 2Concerned at the mounting threat to the security of a regionand its wider implications for international peace andsecuri1y:

Situation in Namibia:Decision of 28 October 1983 (res. 539 (1983))

preambleConvinced that deterioration of a situation has seriousconseauences for peace and seeuritv:

S&ation in the Middle East: .Decision of I9 June 1981 (res. 488 (1981)). preambleDecision of I8 December 1981 (rcs. 498 (1981))

preambleNoting with deep concern that the situation in a region hasseriously deteriorated:

Quest ion concerning the Falkland Islands (IslasMalvinas):

Decision of 26 May I982 @es. 505 ( 1982)). preambleConvinced that attacks on commercial ships constitute athreat to the safety and stability of an area and haveimplications for international peace and security:

Letter dated 2 I May 1984 from the representatives ofBahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates:

Decision of 1 June 1984 (res. 552 (1984)), preamble

J.

K.

L.

M .

N.

0.

P.

A .

Concerned about the prolongation of a conflict endangeringpeace and security:

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of I2 July 1982 (res. 514 (1982)). preamble

Concerned about an aggressive act and its consequences forpeace and security in a reg ion:

Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:Decision of I5 December 1982 (rcs. 527 (1982)).

preambleConcerned at the danger of a military confrontation that couldfurther aggravate the existing critical situation in a region:

Letter dated 5 May 1983 from the representative ofNicaragua:

Decision of 19 May 1983 (res. 530 (1983)). preambleDeclaration that a continued illegal military occupation is aflagrant violation of the sovereignty, indepcndcnce andterritorial integrity of a country and endangers internationalpeace and security:

Complaint by Angola against South Africa:Decision of 20 Dccembcr 1983 (res. 545 (1983))

para. 2Concerned at the continued occupation of parts of a country’sterritory in violation of the principles and objectives of theCharter of the United Nations:

Complaint by Angola against South Africa:Decision of 20 December 1983 (res. 545 (1983)).

preambleDecision of 6 January 1984 (rcs. 546 (1984)),

preambleConcerned at a mercenary aggression entailing the violation ofthe territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of acountry:

Complaint by Seychelles:Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507 (1982)), preamble

Expressing concern about continued military activities withina country as a result of aggressive acts and invasions byanother country:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 4 August 1982 (res. 5 I7 (1982)). preambleDecision of 12 August 1982 (res. 518 (1982))

preamble(ii) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:

Decision of 15 December 1982 (res. 527 (1982)).preamble

III. Injumctions to Governments lad l utboritiea involvedla disputes amd situationa

Call for cessation of hostilities, military operations and armedattacks:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I7 July 1981. President’s statement,p a r e . 2

Decision of 21 July 1981 (rcs. 490 (198l)), para. IDecision of 22 April 1982, President’s statement,

para. 3Decision of 5 June 1982 (res. 508 (1982)). para. IDecision of 6 June 1982 @es. 509 (1982)) para. 2Decision of I August I982 (rcs. 516 (1982)). para. IDecision of I I November 1983, President’s statementDecision of 23 November 1983 (rcs. 542 (1983))

para. 3(ii) Letter dated I April 1982 from the representative of the

United Kingdom:Decision of 3 April 1982 (res. 502 (1982)) para. I

(iii) Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of I2 July 1982 (rcs. 514 (1982)), para. 1Decision of 4 October I982 (res. 522 (1982)). para. IDecision of 21 February 1983, President ’s statement,

para. 5

put I. Amolythl tobk of masums adopted by the Security Council

Call for the withdrawal of armed forces:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 3 I October 1983 (res. 540 (1983)). paras.

Decision of 6 June 1982 (res. 509 (1982)). para. IDecision of 4 August 1982 (res. 517 (1982)). para. 2

2. 3

(ii) Letter dated I April 1982 from the representative of theUnited Kingdom:

Decision of I9 March 1981, President’s statement,para. 4

B .

IO!!

J .

(ii) Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decisron of 3 I October I983 (res. 540 (I 983)) pare. 5

Call for restraint by the parties:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I7 July 1981, President’s statement,para. 2

Decision of I I November 1983. President’s statement(ii) Letter dated I April 1982 from the representative of the

United Kingdom:

C.

D.

*- E.

F.

G.

H.

--

I.

Decision of 3 April 1982 (rcs. 502 (1982)). para. 2(iii) Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of 12 July 1982 (res. 514 (1982)). para. 2Decision of 4 October I982 (res. 522 (1982)). para. 2Decision of 21 February 1983. President’s statement,

para. 5(iv) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:

Decision of 20 December 1983 (res. 545 (1983)).para. 3

Decision of 6 January 1983 (res. 546 (1984)). para. 3Call for observance of cease-tire:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

De$on40f I8 December 1981 (res. 498 (1981)).

Decision of 4 June 1982. President’s statementDecision of I August 1982 (res. 516 (1982)). para. IDecision of 4 August 1982 (res. 517 (1982)). para. 2

(ii) Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 30 March 1984. President’s statement,

para. 9Demand for an immediate end to foreign militaryintervention:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 6 June I982 (res. 509 (1982)). para. 2Decision of I2 August I982 (res. 5 I8 (I 982)). para. I

(ii) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:Decision of 6 January 1984 (res. 546 ( 1984)). para. 3

Call for the return lo previously held positions:Situation in the Middle Easl:

Decision of 4 August 1982 (res. 517 (1982)). para. 4Decision of 17 September 1982 (res. 520 (1982)).

para. 3

Decision of I June 1984 (res. 552 (1984)) para. 5Calling upon the occupying Power to rescind a decisionaiming at imposing its jurisdiction in an occupied territory:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 17 December 1981 (res. 497 (1981)).

para. 2Demand for the immediate eradication of apartheid:

Question of South Africa:Decision of 23 October I984 (res. 556 (1984)). pars. 6

Call to soare the lives of certain condemned individuals:

CaJl to desist from acts violating the sovereignty andterritorial integrity of another State:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Ti;cxt,of I8 December 1981 (res. 498 (1981)).

(ii) Complaint by Iraq:

Question of South Africa:Decision of 9 Aoril 1982 (res. 503 11982)). Dora. IDecision of 4 October 1982. President’s &ement,

para. 2Decision of 7 December 1982 (res. 525 (1982)).

preamble, para. I

Decision of 19 June 1981 (res. 487 (198 I)), para. 2(iii) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:


Decision of 7 June 1983 (res. 533 (1983)). para. IDectsion of I3 January 1984 (res. 547 (1984)). para. I

Demand for an immediate release of all political prisonersand detainees:

Call to refrain from any action likely IO aggravate a situation:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 4 June 1982, President’s statement(ii) Letter dated 21 May 1984 from the representatives of

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates:

Question of South Africa:Decision of 23 October I984 (ra. 556 (1984)) para. 3

Call for the withdrawal of a declaration the Council declaresto be legally invalid:

Situation in Cyprus:Decision of I8 November 1983 (res. 541 (1983))

para. 2

Decision of I June 1984 (res. 552 ( 1984)), para. 3(iii) Letter dated I6 March 1983 from the representative of

Chad:Decision of 6 April 1983. President’s statement, para. 3

(iv) Situation in Cyprus:Decision of 18 November 1983 (res. 541 (l983)),

para. 8

Measures (in conncctloa rltb inJumtioar) to be taken byGwcrawots rod ruthorltks directly lsvolved in dlrputea aadrituotions

(v) Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 3 I October 1983 (res. 540 (I 983)). para. 6

Call to refrain from the use or threat of force:(i) Letter dated I April 1982 from the representative of the

United Kingdom:Decision of 1 April 1982. President’s statement,

para. 4

K .

L.

M .

N .

0.

P.

Q .

IV.

A .

B .

C.

(ii) Situation in the Middle East:Decision of I I November 1983, President’s statement

Call for the cessation of acts likely to endanger internationalpeace and security:

Call for respect of the rights of civilian populations and for thecessation of all acts of violence against them:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of I9 June 1982 (res. 512 (1982)). para. IDecision of 4 July 1982 (res. 5 I3 (1982)). para. I

Call upon the parties to alleviate human suffering and inparticular to provide assistance to refugees:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of I9 June 1982 (res. 5 I2 (1982)). para. I

Demand for an immediate lifting of all obstacles to thedispatch of needed supplies to the civilian population:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 29 July 1982 (res. 515 (1982)). pare. IDecision of 3 August 1982, President’s statement,

para. 3(i) Situation in the Middle East: Decision of I2 August 1982 (res. 518 (1982)) para. 2

Decision of I April 1982. President’s statement,para. 4

(iii) Letter dated 21 May 1984 from the representatives ofBahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates:

Decision of I June 1984 (res. 552 (1984)). para. 3Call for the respect of the territorial integrity of States notparties to hostilities:

Letter dated 21 May 1984 from the representatives ofBahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar. Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates:

Decision of I June 1984 (res. 552 (1984)). para. 3Demand for an end to attacks on commercial ships:

Letter dated 21 May 1984 from the representatives ofBahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the1Jnited Arab Emirates:

106 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of iatenutlonrl peace and security

D. Call upon the parties to adhere scrupulously to theirobligations under the Geneva Protocol of I925 and to observethe rules of international humanitarian law:

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 30 March 1984. President’s statement.

paras. 6 and 7E. Call for compensation for damage suffered as a result of an

aggressive act:(i) Complaint by Iraq:

Decision of 19 June 1981 &es. 487 (1981)) para. 6(ii) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:

Decision of I5 December 1982 (res. 527 (1982)).para. 2

(iii) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:Decision of 20 December 1983 (res. 545 (1983))

para. 4

V. Measures (In connection with injunctions) to be taken byother Governments and authorities

A.

B .

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

Rcaflirmation of sanctions:Question of South Africa:

De&on1 of 13 December 1984 (res. 558 (1984)

Calling for the full implementation of an arms embargo:Complaint by Angola against South Africa:

Decision of 6 January 1984 (res. 546 (1984)) para. 4Requesting all States to refrain from importing arms andother military equipment produced in South Africa:

Question of South Africa:Decision of I3 December 1984 (res. 558 (1984))

para. 2Callina uoon States to provide assistance:- .(i) Complaint by Seychelles:

Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507 (1982)), para. 8(ii) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:

Decision of 6 January 1984 (res. 546 (1984)). para. 6(iii) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:

Decision of I5 December 1982 @es. 527 (1982))para. 5

Decision of 29 June 1983 (res. 535 (1983)). para. 4Requesting assistance to a country from internationalorganizations, United Nations agencies or financialinstitutions:(i) Complaint by Seychelles:

Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507 (1982)), para. 8(ii) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:

Decision of 29 June 1983 (res. 535 (1983)) para. 4Urging all Member States to assist in restoration of peace andsecurity:

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 21 February 1983. President’s statement,

para. 6Requesting all Member States to bring their influence to bearupon those concerned in a dispute:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 5 June 1982 (res. 508 (1982)) para. 2

Calling upon all States to respect the sovereignty,independence and territorial integrity of a State:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I8 December 1981 (res. 498 (1981)).para. I

(ii) Situation in Cyprus:Decision of I8 November 1983 (res. 541 (1983)).

para. 6Decision of I I May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)). para. 4

Calling upon all Governments to deny any form of recognitionto the so-called “independent” bantustans and to refrain fromany dealings with them:

Question of South Africa:Decision of I5 Decembrr 1981, President’s

statement, para. 4Urging all Governments and organizations not to accordrecognition to the results of so-called “elections” in SouthAfrica:

Question of South Africa:

K .

L.

M.

N.

0.

A.

B .

C.

D.

E.

Decision of I7 August I984 (res. 554 (I 984)). para. 5Urging all States and organizations to use their influence andto take urgent measures to save the lives of condemnedmdividuals:

Question of South Africa:Decision of 9 April 1982 (res. 503 (1982)) para. 2Decision of 7 December 1982 (res. 525 (1982)).

para. 2Decision of 7 June 1983 (res. 533 (1983)) para. 2Decision of I3 January 1984 (res. 547 (I 984)) para. 2

Calling upon all States not to recognize any Cypriot Stateother than the Republic of Cyprus:

Situation in Cyprus:Decision of I8 November 1983 (res. 541 (1983))

para. 7Decision of I I May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)) para. 3

Calling upon all States to respect the right of free navigation:(i) Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of 3 I October I983 @es. 540 (1983)). pare. 3(ii) Letter dated 21 May 1984 from the representatives of

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates:

Decision of I June 1984 @es. 552 (1984)). para. IRequesting all States to abstain from actions that couldcontribute to the continuation of a conflict:

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of I2 July 1982 (res. 514 (1982)). para. 5Decision of 4 October 1982 (res. 522 (1982)). para. 6

Urging all Governments to take appropriate action in cooperation with the United Nations to assist the opptessedpeople of South Africa:

Question of South Africa:Decision of I7 August 1984 (res. 554 (1984)) para. 5Decision of 23 October 1984 (res. 556 (1984)). para. 5

VI. Measures for sett lement

Endorsement of the pacific settlement of disputes:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I I November 1983, President’s statementDecision of 23 November 1983 (res. 542 (1983)).

para. 4(ii) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:

Decision of I5 December 1982 (res. 527 (1982)).para. 6

(iii) Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 21 February 1983, President’s statement,

para. 3Decc;p90f 30 March 1984, President’s statement,

(iv) Le;;r dated I6 March 1983 from the representative of

Decision of 6 April 1983. President’s statement, para.2

Mediation endorsed or recommended:Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of I2 July 1982 (res. 514 (1982)). para. 4Decision of 4 October 1982 (res. 522 (1982)), pare. 5

Negotiations endorsed or recommended:Situation in Cyprus:

Decision of I5 June 1982 (res. 5 IO (1982)), pare. 2Decision of I4 December 1982 (res. 526 (1982))

para. 2Calling upon the parties to seek a diplomatic solution to theirdifferences:

Letter dated I April 1982 from the representative of theUnited Kingdom:

Decision of I April 1982, President’s statement,para. 4

Decision of 3 April 1982 (res. 502 (1982)) para. 3Call for respect of the sovereignty, political independence andterritorial integrity of other States:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 19 June 1981 (res. 488 (1981)), para. IDecision of I7 September 1982 (res. 520 (1982)).

para. 4

Put 1. Adytkd table of meamwem adopted by the !Gcurity Council 1 0 7

F.

G.

H.

I.

J .

K.

L.

M

N.

Decision of 23 November 1983 (res. 542 (1983)),para. 2

Call for respect of the territorial integrity and politicalindependence of other States:(i) Complaint by Seychelles:

Decision of IS December 1981 (res. 496 (1981)).para. I

(ii) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:Decision of 6 January 1984 (res. 546 (1984)), para. 3

Reaffirmation of the right of all countries in an area to live inpeace and security, free from outside interference:


Decision of I9 May 1983 (res. 530 (1983)), para. I

Reiteration by the Council that resolution 435 (1978),embodying the United Nations plan for the independence ofNamibia, is the only basis for a peaceful settlement of theNamibian problem:

Situation in Namibia:Decision of 28 October I983 (res. 539 (I 983)). para. 5

Declaration by the Council that only total eradication ofapartheid and the establishment of a non-racial democraticsociety based on majority rule can lead to a just and lastingsolution of the situation in South Africa:

Question of South Africa:Decision of I7 August I984 (res. 554 (I 984)). para. 4Decision of 23 October I984 (res. 556 (I 984)). para. 4

Reaflinnation of the right of free navigation in internationalwaters:

Letter dated 21 May 1984 from the representatives ofBahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates:

Decision of I June 1984 (res. 552 (1984)). para. 2

Aflirmalion of obligations under the Charter:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Ti;tn20f 22 April 1982, President’s statement,

(ii) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:Decision of I5 December 1982 (res. 527 (1982)).

para. 7(iii) Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of I2 July 1982 (res. 514 (1982)). preambleDecision of 4 Ociober 1982 (res. 522 (1982)).

preambleDecision of 2 I February 1983, President’s statement,

para. 3(iv) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:

Decision of 20 December 1983 (res. 545 (1983)),preamble

(v) Letter dated 5 May 1983 from the representative ofNicaragua:

Decision of I9 May 1983 (res. 530 (1983)). preamble(vi) Letter dated 21 May 1984 from the representatives of.

Bahrain, Kuwait. Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates:

Decision of I June I984 (res. 552 (I 984)). preamble

ReafTirmation of the legitimacy of the struggle for theelimination of apartheid and of the right to give sanctuary toits victims:(i) Question of South Africa:

Decision of I7 August 1984 (res. 554 (1984)).preamble


para. 3Decision of 29 June 1983 (res. 535 (1983)). preamble

Call for the transfer of an area to the administration of theUnited Nations:

Situation in Cyprus:Decision of I I May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)). para. 5

Appeal to the parties to make full use of the mechanismsavailable within regional organizations and to co-operate withregional groups: -(i) Letter dated I6 March 1983 from the representative of

Decision of 6 April 1983, President’s statement, para.4

(ii) Letter dated 5 May 1983 from the representative ofNicaragua:

Decision of I9 M a y 1983 (res. 5 3 0 (1983)), para. 3

0. Urging a regional group to find solutions to the problems ofthe region:


Decision of I9 May 1983 (res. 530 (1983)). para. 4

VII. Provisions bearing on specific issues relating tothe settlement

A. Enunciation or affirmation of principles governing settlement:I. Reaflirmation of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of

territory by force:Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I7 December 1981 (res. 497 (198 I )).preamble

2. Reafiirmation by the Council of its commitment to thesovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of acountry:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 2 I July I98 I (res. 490 (198 I )), para. 2

3. Expression of conviction by the Council of theimportance of international solidarity with a country:

Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:Decision of 29 June 1983 (res. 535 (1983)).

preamble4 . Determination by the Council that the provisions of the

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of CivilianPersons In Time of War, of I2 August 1949. continue toapply to an occupied territory: -

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of I7 December 1981 (res. 497 (1981)),

para. 35. Reaffirmation of the provisions of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights:Question of South Africa:

Decision of 23 October 1984 (res. 556 (1984)).preamble

6. Reaffjrmation of the legal responsibility of the UnitedNations over Namibia:

Situation in Namibia:Decision of 31 May 1983 @es. 532 (1983)).

preambleDecision of 28 October 1983 (res. 539 (1983)).

preamble7. Declaration by the Council that the independence of

Namibia cannot be held hostage to the resolution ofissues al ien to resolution 435 (1978):

Situation in Namibia:Decision of 28 October 1983 (res. 539 (1983)).

para. 48. Reaffirmation of the right of all countries to receive

refugees f leeing from apar the id oppression:Complaint by Lesotho:

Decision of 29 June 1983 @es. 535 (1983)).preamble

9 . Reaffirmation of the entitlement of a country IO promptand adequate compensat ion:

Complaint by Angola against South Africa:Decision of 6 January 1984 @es. 546 (1984)). para.

7IO. Consideration by the Council that a unilateral declaration

of independence is incompatible with certain treaties:Situation in Cyprus:

Decision of I8 November 1983 (res. 541 (1983)).preamble

8. Censuring illegal legislative and administrative measures anddeclar ing them inval id:(i) Question of South Africa:

Decision of IS December 1981. President’sstatement, para. 3

Decision of I7 August 1984 (res. 554 (1984)). paras.1, 2

(ii) Situation in Cyprus:Chad:

108 amplerampler V I I I . V I I I . M8ialcnmMxM8ialcnmMx 0 1 0 1 in1erutloulin1erutloul pe 8 c ep e 8 c e mdmd DecdIyDecdIy

Decision of I8 November I983 (res. 541 (1983)).preamble, para. 2

C. Opposition expressed by the Council to the system ofapartheid:

Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:Decision of 29 June 1983 @es. 535 (1983)) preamble

D. Rejection or repudiation by the Council of:I. South Africa’s insistence on linking the independence of

Namibia to irrelevant and extraneous issues:Situation in Namibia:

Decision of 28 October 1983 (res. 539 (1983))para. 3

2. Acts of violence against civilian populations:Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 4 July 1982 (res. 513 (1982)). para. IE. Deprecation or condemnation of

I. Invasions. armed attacks or other acts of violence:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I7 September 1982 (res. 520 (I 982)).preamble, para. 2

(ii) Complaint by Iraq:Decision of I9 June 1981 (res. 487 (1981)), para. I

(iii) Complaint by Seychelles:Decision of I5 December 1981 @es. 496 (1981))

para. 2Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507 (1982)). para. 2

(iv) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:Decision of I5 December 1982 (res. 527 (1982))

para. I(v) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:

Decision of 6 January 1984 (res. 546 (I 984)), para.2

2 . Illegal occupations:(i) Situation in Namibia:

Decision of 31 May 1983 (res. 532 (1983)) para. IDecision of 28 October 1983 (res. 539 (1983)).

para. I(ii) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:

Decision of 20 December 1983 @es. 545 (1983)).para. I

Decision of 6 January I984 (res. 546 (I 984)) paras.I. 2

3. Loss of human life:(i) Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of 21 February 1983, President’sstatement, para. 4

(ii) Situation in the Middle East:De$onl of I9 September I982 (res. 52 I (I 982)).

Decision of 23 November 1983 (res. 542 (1983)).para. I

(iii) Question of South Africa:yiz20f 23 October 1984 (rcs. 556 (1984))

4. Damage to property or material losses:Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of 2 I February 1983, President’sstatement. para. 4

5. Secessionist actions:Situation in Cyprus:

Decision of I8 November 1983 (res. 541 (1983))para. I

Decision of I I May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)). para. 26 . Interference in internal atTairs of a country:

Complaint by Seychelles:Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507 (1982)) para. 5

7. Continuation or escalation of a conflict:Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of 4 October 1982 (res. 522 (1982))preamble

Decision of 21 February 1983, President’sstatement, para. 4

Decis&;b;:f 31 October 1983 (res. 540 (1983)).

8. Policy of apartheidQuestion of South Africa:

Decision of 23 October 1984 (res. 556 (1984)).para. I

9 . Violations of the provisions of the Geneva Conventionsof 1949:

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 31 October 1983 (res. 540 (1983)),

para. 2IO. Illegal acts against the safety and security of civil

aviation:Complaint by Seychelles:

Decision of 28 May l9R2 (res. 507 (1982)), para. 6I I . Use of chemical weapons:

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 30 March 1984. President’s statement,

para. 512. Attacks bn commercial ships:

Letter dated 2 I May 1984 from the representatives ofBahrain, Kuwait , Oman. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates:

Decision of I June 1984 (res. 552 (1984)) para. 413. Violations of international humanitarian law:

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 30 March 1984, President ’s statement,

para. 814. Attacks on a United Nations force and the killing of

peace-keeping soldiers:Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I9 March I98 I , President’s statement,para. 4

Decision of 25 June I98 I, President’s statement,para. 4

F. Concern expressed by the Council over:I. Reported violations of the rules of international law:

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 30 March 1984. President’s statement.

para. 32. Differences between two countries:

Let ter dated I6 March 1983 from the representat iveof Chad:

Decision of 6 April 1983. President’s statement,para. 2

3. Violation of the territorial integrity, independence andsovereinntv of a country:(i) Sitiatjon in the Middle East:

Decision of 5 June I982 (res. 508 (1982)). areamble(ii) Complaint by Seychelles:‘ .

~I,. .

Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507 (l982)),preamble

4 . Loss of life and destruction caused by armed attacks:(i) Situation in the Middle Easl:

Decision of I7 July 1981, President’s statement,para. I

Decision of 4 June 1982, President’s statementDecision of 11 November 1983, President’s

statement(ii) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:

Decision of I5 December 1982 (res. 527 (1982)).preamble

(i i i ) Complaint by Seychelles:Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507)), preamble

(iv) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:Decision of 20 December 1983 (res. 545 (1983)).

preambleDecision of 6 January 1984 (res. 546 (1984))

preamble5. Sufferings of civilian populations:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of I9 June 1982 (rcs. 512 (1982)),

preambleDecision of 4 July 1982 (res. 5 I 3 ( 1982)), preambleDecision of 29 July 1982 (rcs. 515 (1982)),

preamble6. A prevailing state of tension:

Letter dated I April 1982 from the representative ofthe United Kingdom:

Decision of I April 1982. President’s stntement,para. 4

7. Deterioration of the situation in a region:Letter dated I April 1982 from the representative ofthe United Kingdom:

puC I. ha&al tabk of measures adopted by the -tr C3aod 109

Decision of 5 May 1982, President’s statement,para. I

8. Death sentences passed on certain individuals:Question of South Africa:

Decision of 5 February 1981, President’sstatement. para. I

Defision of 9 April 1982 (res. 503 (1982)).preamble

Decision of 4 October 1982, President’s statement.para. I

Decision of 7 December 1982 (rcs. 525 (1982)),preamble

Decision of 7 June 1983 (res. 533 (I 983% preambleDecision of I3 January 1984 (rcs. 547 (1984)).

preamble9. Arbitrary arrests and detentions without trial:

Question of South Africa:Decision of 23 October 1984 (rcs. 556 (1984)),

prcam blc10. Danger that mercenaries represent for all States:

Complaint by Seychelles:Decision of 28 May I982 (res. 507 (1982)).

preambleI I. Further secessionist acts in the occupied part of Cyprus:

Situation in Cyprus:Decision of I I May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)).

preamble12. Threats for settlement of an area by people other than its

inhabitants:Situation in Cyprus:

Decision of I I May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)).preamble

G. Support expressed by the Council for:I. Efforts by a Government to strengthen its authority:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 19 June I98 I (res. 488 (I 98 I)). para. 3Decision of 18 December 1981 (res. 498 (1981)),

para. 62. The territorial integrity. sovereignty and political

independence of a country within its internationallyrecognized boundaries:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 18 July 1983 (res. 536 (1983)),

preambleDecision of 18 October 1983 (rcs. 538 (1983)).

preamble

Decision of 4 June I98 I (res. 486 (198 I )). preamble

Decision of I9 April 1984 (rcs. 549 ( 1984)), para. 2Decision of 12 October 1984 (rcs. 555 (1984)).

Decision of 14 Dcccmbcr 1981 (res. 495 (1981)).

para. 23 .

preamble

An agreement for the resumption of intercommunal talks:Situation in Cyprus:

Decision of I5 June 1982 (rcs. 510 (1982)).preamble

Decision of 14 December 1982 (res. 526 (1982)),preamble

Decision of I5 June 1983 (res. 534 (1983)).preamble

H. Note taken by the Council of:1. Willingness or desire expressed by the parties lo resolve

their diflcrcnccs:(i) L$;;ated 16 March 1983 from the representative

Decision of 6 April 1983. President’s statement,para. 3

(ii) Letter dated 5 May 1983 from the representative ofNicaragua:

Decision of I9 May 1983 (rcs. 530 (1983)).preamble

2 . The determination of a country to ensure the withdrawalof all foreign forces from its territory:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 17 September 1982 (res. 520 (1982)).

preamble

3. The decision of the Organization of African Unity inagreement with a Government to establish a peace-keeping force for maintenance of peace and security inthat country:

Letter dated 3 I March 1982 from the President ofKenya transmitting a complaint by Chad:

Decision of 30 April 1982 (rcs. 504 (1982)), para. I4 . The decision of the Palestine Liberalion Organization to

move its forces from Beirut:Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 4 Auaust 1982 (res. 5 I7 I 198211. nara. 55 . The results of the International donferen& in &&rt of

the Struggle of the Namibian People for Independence:Situation in Namibia:

Decision of 31 May 1983 (res. 532 (1983)),preamble

6 . The proclamation of a so-called “indcpcndcnt” State inpursuance of the policy of apartheid andbantustanization:

Question of South Africa:Decision of I5 December 198 I. President’s

statement, para. I

VIII. Measures lo promote the implemcntatioa of reaol~thms

A . Notice of possible action under Chapter VII of the Charter:(i) Situation in the Middle East:


Decision of 4 August 1982 (res. 517 (1982)), para. 8(ii) Situation in Namibia:

Decision of 28 October 1983 (res. 539 (1983)),para. 10

(iii) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:Decision of 6 January I984 (rcs. 546 (I 984)), para.

8

B. Measures to obtain compliance:1. Rcanirming previous dceisions of the Security Council:

(i) Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 21 July 1981 (rcs. 490 (1981)),

preambleDecision of I8 December 1981 (res. 498 (1981)).

paras. I, 2Decision of 25 February 1982 (rcs. 501 (1982)).

para. IDecision of 5 June 1982 (res. 508 (1982)). preambleDecision of 18 June 1982 (rcs. 511 (1982)).

preambleDecision of 19 June 1982 (res. 512 (1982)).

(ii)

preambleDecision of I August 1982 (res. 516 (1982)).

preamble, para. IDecision of 4 August I982 (res. 5 I7 (I 982)), pare. IDecision of 17 August 1982 (rcs. 519 (1982)).

Decision of 17 September I982 (rcs. 520 (1982)),preamble

paras. 1 and 5De$cm20f I9 September 1982 (res. 521 (1982)),

Decision of 18 October 1982 (res. 523 (1982)),preamble

Situation in Cyprus:Decision of 4 June 198 I (rcs. 486 (1981)), preambleDecision of 14 December 1981 (rcs. 495 (1981)),

preambleDecision of I5 June 1982 (res. 510 (1982)),

preambleDecision of 14 December 1982 (res. 526 (1982)),

preambleDecision of I5 June 1983 (res. 534 (1983)).

preambleDecision of 18 November 1983 (rcs. 541 (1983)),

preambleDecision of 15 December 1983 (rcs. 544 (1983)).

preambleDecision of I I May I984 (res. 550 (1984)). para. IDecision of I5 June 1984 (ITS. 553 (1984)).

preamble

110 Cbsnter VIII. Maintenanea of Internatioarl m~aee and seeurlh

Decision of 14 December 1984 (res. 559 (1982))preamble

(iii) Complaint by Seychelles:Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507 (1982)).

preamble(iv) Situation in Namibia:

Depc;z;blif 31 May 1983 (res. 532 (1983)).

Decision of 28 October 1983 (res. 539 (1983)).preamble

(v) Question of South Africa:~~;cm, of 13 December 1984 @es. 558 (1984)).

2. Reaffirming the necessity of implementing previousresolutions:

SituaIion between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 21 February 1983, President’s

statement, para. 43. Expression by the Council of its determination IO

implement a previous resolut ion:Situation in the Middle Fast:

Decision of 19 June 1981 (res. 488 (1981)). para. IDecc;r3of 18 December 1981 (res. 498 (1981)),

4. Calling for compliance with, or co-operation inimplementation of, Security Council resolutions:(i) Situation in Namibia:

Decision of 3 I May 1983 (res. 532 (I 983)) para. 2(ii) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 22 May 1981 (rcs. 485 (1981)), para. (a)Decision of 23 November 1981 (res. 493 (1981)),

para. ((I)Decision of 26 May 1982 (res. 506 (1982)). para. ( II)Decision of 3 August 1982, President ’s statement,

para. 3Decision of 29 November 1982 (rcs. 524 (1982))

para. (a)Decision of 2 6 M a y 1983 ( r e s . 531 (1983)), Ipara.Decision of 2 3 November 1983 (res. 542 (1983)).

para. 6Decision of 29 November 1983 (res. 543 (l983)),

para. (a)Decision of 30 May 1984 (res. 55 I (I 984)) para. (a)Decision of 2 8 November 1984 (res. 557 (1984))

para. (u)(iii) Situation in Cyprus:

yjcm30f I8 November 1983 (res. 541 (1983)),

Decision of I I May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)) para. I(iv) Situation between lran and Iraq:

yision of 4 October 1982 (res. 522 (1982)), para.

5 . Warning against fai lure to comply with Securi ty Counci ldecisions:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of I9 March 1981. President ’s statement,

para. 56. Violations of a cease-fire noted by the Council:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of I August 1982 (res. 516 (1982)),

preamble7. Violations or non-implementation of Security Council

resolutions noted by the Council:Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I9 June 1981 (res. 488 (1981)),preamble

8 . Censure, indignat ion or condemnation expressed by theCouncil over non-implementation of a resolution:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 4 August 1982 (res. 517 (I 982)) para. 3(ii) Situation in Namibia:

Decision of 31 May 1983 (res. 532 (1983)),preamble

Decision of 28 October 1983 (rcs. 539 (1983)),preamble, paras. 2, 3

C. Actions requested of the Secretary-General to promote theimplementat ion of resolut ions:I. To undertake a mission of good offices:

Question concerning the Falkland Islands (lslasMalv inas) :

Decision of 26 May 1982 (res. 505 (I 982)) para. 22. To continue a mission of good offIces:

Situation in Cyprus:Decision of 4 June 1981 (res. 486 (1981)). para. 3Decision of I4 December 1981 (res. 495 (198 I)).

para. 3Decision of I5 June 1982 lres. 510 (1982)). para. 3Decision of I5 December 1983 (res. 544 (1983)),

para. 2Decision of I I May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)). para. 8Decision of 15 June 1984 (res. 553 (1984)). para. 2Decision of I4 December I984 (res. 559 (1984)).

para. 23. To hold consultations or discussions with the parties:

(i) Situation in the Middle East:Decision of I8 December 1981 (rcs. 498 (1981))

para. 7Decision of 25 February 1982 (res. 501 (1982))

para. 5Decision of I9 September 1982 (res. 52 I (I 982)).

para. 5De$on40f I8 October 1982 (res. 523 (1982)).

Decision of 23 November I983 (res. 542 (I 983)).para. 7

Decision of I9 April 1984 (res. 549 (I 984)) para. 5Decision of 12 October 1984 (res. 555 (I 984)).

para. 5(ii) Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of 31 October 1983 (res. 540 (1983))paras. 4, 7

(iii) Situation in Namibia:Decision of 31 May 1983 (res. 532 (l983)), para. 4

(iv) Question concerning the Falkland Islands (IslasMalv inas) :

Decision of 26 May 1982 (res. 505 (1982)). para. 4(v) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:


4. To continue his mediation efforts with the partiesconcerned:

Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 3 I October 1983 (res. 540 (1983)).

para. IDecision of 30 March 1984. President’s statement.

para. IO5. To conduct independent inquiries:

Situation in the Middle Fast:Decision of 4 April 1983, President’s statement,

para. 26. To undertake or continue appropriate efforts:

(i) Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 25 February 1982 (rcs. 501 (1982))

para. 4Decision of 4 July 1982 (res. 513 (1982)). para. 3

(ii) Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of 21 February 1983, President’s

statement, para. 77. To promote the implementation of a resolution:

(i) Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 5 June 1982 (res. 508 (1982)) para. 3Decision of I9 June I982 (res. 5 I2 (I 982)) para. 4

(ii) Situation in Cyprus:Decision of I I May I984 (res. 550 (I 984)). paras. 7,

II. .(iii) Complaint by Seychelles:

Decision of 28 May 1982 tres. 507 (1982)). oara. I38. To monitor the implementation of a resolut~b;;:

(i) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:~~$n60f 20 December 1983 (res. 545 (1983)).

Decision of 6 January I984 (res. 546 (I 984)). para.9


para. 8

Put I. Arulytkal tabk of measurea adopted by the Security Council 1 1 1--

9 . To give the matter of assistance his continued attention:Complamt by Lesotho against South Africa:

Decision of 29 June 1983 (res. 535 (I 9X3)), para. 5IO. To establish a fund for assistance and to ensure its

management:Letter dated 31 March 1982 from the President ofKenya transmitting a complaint by Chad:

Decision of 30 April 1982 (rcs. 504 (I 982)), paras.2 . 3

I I. To ensure a rapid deployment of United Nationsobservers:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of I August 1982 (res. 5 I6 (I 982)), para. 2

12. To increase the number of United Nations observers:Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 4 August 1982 (res. 5 I7 ( 1982)). para. 6Decision of I9 September I982 (rcs. 52 I (I 982)).

para. 313. To assist a subsidiary organ m the discharge of its task:

Complamt by Seychelles:Decision of I5 December 1981 (res. 496 (1981)).

para. 5Decision of 28 May I982 (res. 507 ( 1982)). para. I I

D. Establishment or employment of United Nations forces:I. Decision to dispatch or to authorize the deployment of

United Nations observers:(i) Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of I2 July 1982 (res. 514 (1982)), para. 3Decision of 4 October 1982 (res. 522 (1982)), para.

4(ii) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I August I982 (res. 5 I6 (I 982)). para. 22. Decision to increase the strength of a United Nations

force:

- Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 25 February 1982 @es. 501 (1982)).

para. 23. Decision to extend or renew the mandate of a United

Nations force:li) Situation in the Middle Easl:

Decision of 22 May 1981 (res. 485 (1981)). para. (h)Decision of 19 June I98 I (res. 488 (I 98 I )), para. 4Decision of 23 November I98 I (res. 493 (I 98 I)),

para. (h)Decision of I8 December 1981 (res. 498 (1981)).

para. 8Decision of 26 May I982 (res. 506 (1982)). para. (h)Decision of I8 June 1982 (res. 51 I (1982)). para. IDecision of I7 August I982 (res. 5 I9 (I 982)). para.

IDecision of I8 October 1982 (res. 523 (1982)).

para. IDecision of 29 November I982 (res. 524 (I 982)),

para. (b)Decision of I8 January 1983 (res. 529 (1983)).

para. IDecision of 26 May I983 @es. 531 (1983)). para. (h)Decision of I8 July 1983 @es. 536 (1983)). para. IDecision of I8 October 1983 (res. 538 (1983)).

para. 1Deci;o;;f 29 November 1983 (res. 543 (1983)),

Decision of I9 April 1984 (res. 549 (I 984)), para. IDecision of 30 May I984 (res. 55 I (I 984)). para. (h)Decision of I2 October 1984 (res. 555 (1984)),

para. 1Decision of 28 November 1984 (res. S57 (1984)).

para. (h)(ii) Situation in Cyprus:

Decision of 4 June 1981 (res. 486 (1981)). para. IDecision of 14 December 1981 @es. 495 (1981)).

para. IDecision of I5 June 1982 (res. 5 IO (1982)). para. IDecision of I4 December 1982 (res. 526 (1982)).

para. IDecision of I5 June 1983 (res. 534 (1983)). para. IDecision of I5 December 1983 (res. 544 (1983)).

para. I

Decision of I5 June I984 (res. 553 (1984)). para. IDecision of 14 December 1984 (res. 559 ( 1984)).

para. I4. Reaffirmation of the mandate, terms of reference or

general guidelines of a United Nations force:Situation in the Middle Easr:

Decision of I9 June 1981 (res. 488 (1981)),preamble

Decision of I8 December 1981 (res. 498 (198l)),para. 5

Decision of 25 February 1982 (res. 501 (1982)),para. 3

Decision of I9 April 1984 (res. 549 (I984)), para. 3Decision of I2 October 1984 (res. 555 (1984)).

para. 35. Call for full implementation of the mandate of a llnited

Nations force:Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I9 April 1984 (res. 549 (I 984)). para. 4Decision of I2 October 1984 (res. 555 (I 984)).

para. 46 . Authorizing a IJnited Nations force to carry out certain

interim tasks:Situation in the Middle Fast:

Decision of I8 June I982 (res. 5 I I (I 982)), para. 2Decision of I7 August I982 (res. 5 I9 (I 982)). para.

27 . Reaflirmation by the Council of its continuing support

for a United Nations force:Situation in Cyprus:

Decision of I8 November 1983 (res. 541 (1983)),preamble

Decision of I I May I984 (res. 550 (1984)).preamble

8. Warning against or deprecation of any attempt tointerfere with the status or deployment of a UnitedNations force:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I9 March I98 I, President’s statement,paras. 4 , 5

Decision of 19 June 1981 (res. 488 (1981)). para. 2Decision of I8 October 1982 (res. 523 (1982)).

para. 2(ii) Situation in Cyprus:

Decision of I I Mav 1984 (res. 550 (1984)). para. 69 . Reaflirmation by the Coincil of’its determination; in the

event of continuing obstruction of the mandate of aUnited Nations Force, to examine practical ways andmeans to secure its unconditional fulfilment:

Situation in the Middle Easl:Decision of I9 June 1981 (res. 488 (1981)). para. 7

E. Establishment or employment of other subsidiary organs:Complaint by Seychelles:

Decision of I5 December I981 (res. 496 (1981)).para. 3

Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507 (1982)). para. IO

F. Call for co-operation with subsidiary organs:I. Wi th the Secretary-General:

(i) Situation in t?amibia:Decision of 3 I May I983 (res. 532 (1983)). para. 3De;&on8 of 28 October 1983 @es. 539 (1983)).

(ii) Situation in Cyprus:Decision of I8 November 1983 @es. 541 (1983)),

para. 5Decision of II May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)). para. 9

(iii) Question concerning the Falkland Islands (IslasMalvinas):

Decision of 26 May 1982 (res. 505 ( 1982)). para. 32. With a United Nations force:

(i) Situation in the Middle East:Decision of I8 June 1982 (res. 511 (1982)). para. 3Decision of I9 June 1982 (res. 512 (1982)), pare. 3Decision of I2 August 1982 @es. 518 (I 982)). para.

4Decision of I7 August 1982 @es. 5 I9 (1982)), para.

3

112 Cbter VIII. Mdnttnrace of Intetnmtionrl mace l d secwitv

Dccc;or6of 19 September 1982 (res. 521 (1982)).

Decision of 18 January 1983 (rcs. 529 (1983)).para. 2

Decision of 18 July 1983 (rcs. 5 3 6 (1983)). para. 2Decision of I8 October 1983 (res. 538 (1983)).

para. 2Decision of 19 April 1984 (res. 549 (1984)), para. 3D&Ton3 of I2 October 1984 (res. 555 (1984))

(ii) Situation in Cyprus:Decision of 15 December 1983 (rcs. 544 (1983)).

para. 3

Decision of 19 May 1983 (KS. 530 (1983)). para. 4

I. Endorsement of the report of a mission to a country:Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:

Decision of 29 June 19R3 (ox. 535 (19R3)). para. 3

J. Note taken of the lack of unanimity of the permanentmembers of the Council that prevented it from exercising itsprimary responsibility for the maintenance of internationalpeace and security:

Decision of I5 June 1984 (res. 553 (1984)) para. 3 Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I4 December 1984 (res. 559 (1984)), Decision of 28 January lYR2 (res. 500 (19R2)).

para. 3 preamble

G. Dectsion to establish a special fund:Complaint by Seychelles:

Decision of 28 May 1982 (rcs. 507 (1982)), para. 9

H. Requests for information on developments or requirements:I. From the Secretary-General:

(i) Situation between Iran and Iraq:Decision of I2 July 1982 (res. 514 (1982)). para. 3Decision of 31 October 1983 (res. 540 (I 983)).

para. 4

IX. Measures to ensure further considerat ion

(ii) Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 22 May 1981 (res. 485 (1981)), para. (c)Decision of 23 November 1981 (res. 493 (198 I)).

para. (c)

A. Request for information from the Secretary-General regardingthe implementation of a decision of the Security Council:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 22 May 1981 (res. 485 (19RI)). para. (c)Decision of I9 June 1981 (res. 488 (1981)). para. 5Decision of 21 July 1981 (rcs. 490 (1981)), para. 3Decision of 23 November 1981 (rcs. 493 (1981))

para. (c)Decision of I7 December 19RI (rcs. 497 (1981))

para. 4

Decision of 25 February 1982 (res. 501 (ISSI)),para. 6

Decision of I8 December 19RI (res. 498 (1981)).para. 7

Decision of 25 February I982 (res. 501 ( I 982)) . para.Decision of 26 May 1982 (rcs. 506 (1982)). para. (c)Decision of I7 September 1982 (res. 520 (1982)).

para. 7

6

Decision of 19 September I982 (res. 521 (I 982)),para. 7

Decision of I8 October 1982 (res. 523 (1982)).para. 4

Decision of 29 November 1982 (res. 524 (1982)).para. (c)

Decision of 26 May 1983 (res. 531 (1983)), para. (c)yi;nt,of 23 November 1983 (rcs. 542 (1983)).

Decision of 29 November 1983 (res. 543 (l983)),para. (c)

Decision of 26 May 1982 (rcs. 506 (1982)). para. (c)Decision of 5 June 1982 (res. 508 (1982)). oara. 3Decision of I8 June l9R2 (res. 51 I (1982)). bara. 4Decision of 19 June 1982 (res. 512 (1982)). oara. 4Decision of 29 June 1982 (res. 515 (1982)); bara. 2Decision of I August I982 (res. 5 I6 (I 982)), para. 3Decision of 4 August 1982 (res. 517 (1982)). 7para.Decision of I2 August 1982 (res. 5 I8 (I 982)). para. 5Decision of I7 September 1982 (res. 520 (1982)),

para. 7Decision of 19 September 1982 (res. 52 I (1982)),

para. 7

Decision of 30 May 1984 (res. 55 I (1984)), para. (c)Decision of 28 November 1984 (res. 557 (1984)),

para. (c)

Decision of I8 October I982 (res. 523 (I 982)). para. 5Decision of 29 November 1982 (res. 524 (1982)),

(iii) Situation in Cyprus:Decision of 4 June I98 1 (res. 486 (I 98 1)). para. 3Fi;on30f I4 December 1981 (res. 495 (1981)),

Decision of I5 June 1982 (res. 510 (1982)), para. 3Decc;on30f 14 December 1982 (res. 526 (1982)).

Decision of I5 June I983 (res. 534 (I 983)), para. 3Decision of I8 November 1983 (res. 541 (1983)).

para. 9

para. (c)Decision of 18 January I983 (rcs. 529 (I 983)). 3para.Decision of 26 Mav 1983 (res. 531 (1983)). oara. (c)Decision of I8 July 1983 (res. 536‘(1983j),‘para.‘jDecision of I8 October I983 (res. 538 (I 983)). para. 3Decision of 2 3 November 1983 (res. 542 (1983) ) .

para. 7Decision of 2 9 November 1983 (res. 543 (1983) ) .

Decision of I5 December 1983 (res. 544 (1983)),para. 2

para. (c)Decision of 1 9 April 1984 (res. 549 (1984)). 5para.Decision of 3 0 M a y 1984 (res. 551 (1984)). oara. (c)Decision of I2 October 19g4 (res. 555 (I 9g4)). para: 5Decision of 28 November 1984 (res. 557 (l984)),

para. (c)Decision of I5 June 1984 (res. 553 (1984)), para. 2Decision of 14 December 1984 (res. 559 (1984)).

para. 2(iv) Letter dated 5 May 1983 from the representative of

Nicaragua:Decision of 19 May 1983 (res. 530 (1983)). para. 5

(v) Question concerning the Falkland Islands (IslasMalv inas) :

Decision of 26 May 1982 (res. 505 (1982)), para. 52. From United Nations observers:

Situation in the Middle East:Decision of 12 August I982 (res. 5 I8 (I 982)). para.

3

(ii) Situation in Cyprus:Decision of 4 June 1981 (res. 486 (1981)). 3para.Decision of 14 December 1981 (res. 495 (1981)).

para. 3Decision of 15 June 1982 (res. 510 (1982)). 3pare.Decision of 14 December 1982 (res. 526 (1982))

p a r e . 3Decision of 15 June 1983 (res. 534 (1983) ) . para. 3Decision of I8 November 1983 (rcs. 541 (1983)).

3. From other subsidiary organs:Complaint by Seychelles:

Decision of 28 May 1982 (rcs. 507 ( 1982)). para. I24. From all States:

Complaint by Seychelles:

.,.para. 9

Decision of 1.5 December 1983 (res. 544 (1983))para. 2

Decision of I I May 1983 (res. 550 (1983)), para. I IDecision of 1 5 June 1984 (res. 553 (1984)) 2para.Decision of I4 December 1984 (res. 559 (1984)).

para. 2(iii) Complaint by Iraq:

Decision of 1 9 June 1981 (res. 487 (1981)). 7para.

Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507 (1982)), para. 75. From a regional group:


P8d I I II3

(iv) Question concerning the Falkland Islands (IslasMalvinas):

Decision of 26 May 1982 (rcs. 505 (1982)), para. 5(v) Situation bctwccn Iran and Iraq:

Decision of I2 July 1982 (res. 514 (1982)) para. 6Decision of 4 October 1982 (rcs. 522 (I 982)) para. 7Decision of 3 I October I983 (res. 540 ( 1983)). para. 4

(vi) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:Decision of I5 December 1982 (rcs. 527 (1982))

para. 8Decision of 29 June 1983 (rcs. 535 (1983)). para. 5

(vii) Letter dated 5 May 1983 from the rcprcscnlativc ofNicaragua:

Decision of I9 May 1983 (rcs. 530 (1983)). para. 5(viii) Situation in Namibia:

Decision of 31 May 1983 (rcs. 532 (1983)). para. 5Decision of 28 October 1983 (rcs. 539 (1983)). para. 9

(ix) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:Dceision of 20 December I983 (rcs. 545 (1983))

para. 6Decision of 6 January 1984 (rcs. 546 (1984)) para. 9

(x) Question of South Africa:Decision of I7 August I984 (rcs. 554 (I 984)). para. 6Decision of 23 October 1984 (rcs. 556 (1984)). para. 7Decision of I3 December 1984 (rcs. 558 (1984)).

para. 4(xi) letter dated 21 May 1984 from the representatives of

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia andthe United Arab Emirates:

Decision of I June 1984 (rcs. 552 (1984)). para. 7

B . Provision by express decision to consider the matter further:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I8 December 1981 (rcs. 498 (1981)).para. IO

-.

Decision of I7 August I982 (rcs. 5 I9 (I 982)). para. 5(ii) Letter dated I April 1982 from the representative of the

United Kingdom:Decision of 5 May 1982. President’s statement. para.

3(iii) Situation bctwccn Iran and Iraq:

Dceision of 30 March 1984, President’s statement,para. I I

C. Decision to meet following submission of a report by theSeerctary-Gcneral:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of 4 August 1982 (rcs. 517 (1982)). para. 8Decision of I2 August I982 (rcs. 5 I8 (I 982)). para. 6

(ii) Situation in Namibia:Decision of 28 Qctobcr I983 (res. 539 (1983)). para.

I O

D. Decision to meet in the event of noncompliance with SecurityCouncil resolutions:(i) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I9 June 1981 (res. 488 (1981)). para. 7Decision of I7 December 1981 (res. 497 (1981)).

para. 4

(ii) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:Decision of 6 January 1984 (i-es. 546 (1984)). para. 8

(iii) Situation in Cvorus:Decision of.1 I May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)). para. IO

(iv) Letter dated 21 Mav 1984 from the representatives ofBahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar. Saudi Xrabia and theUnited Arab Emirates:


E. Decision to remain seized of the question:li) Situation in the Middle East:

Decision of I9 June 1981 (rcs. 488 (1981)). para. 7D e c i s i o n of 18 December 1981 (rcs. 498 (1981)).

para. IOD e c i s i o n of 25 February 1982 (res. 501 (1982)) para.

6Decision of 6 June 1982 @es. 509 (1982)) para. 4Decision of I7 Scptcmbcr 1982 (res. 520 (1982)).

para. 7Decision of 23 November 1983 (rcs. 542 (1983))

para. 7(ii) Situalion in Cyprus:

Decision of I I May 1984 (res. 550 (1984)). para. IO(iii) Question of South Africa:

Decision of I7 August I984 (rcs. 554 ( 1984)). para. 7Decision of 23 October I984 (rcs. 556 (I 984)). para. 8

(iv) Situation in Namibia:Decision of 31 May 1983 (res. 532 (1983)). para. 6Decision of 28 October I983 (res. 539 (I 983)). para.

I O(v) Complaint by Seychelles:

Decision of I5 December 1981 (rcs. 496 (1981)),para. 6

Decision of 28 May 1982 (res. 507 (1982)). para. I4(vi) Situation between Iran and Iraq:

Decision of 21 February 1983. President’s statement.para. 6

(vii) Complaint by Lesotho against South Africa:Decision of I5 December 1982 (rcs. 527 (1982)).

para. 9Decision of 29 June 1983 (rcs. 535 (1983)). para. 6

(viii) Complaint by Angola against South Africa:&Aion70f 2 0 December 1983 (res. 5 4 5 (1983)).

Decision of 6 January I984 (rcs. 546 (I 984)). para. IO(ix) letter dated 21 May 1984 from the rcprescntatives of

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia andthe United Arab Emirates:


X. Measum in conuecilon with the laability of the SecurityCoaocll to reach all 8grawnt

Decision to call an emergency special session of the GeneralAssembly:Situation in the Middle East:

Decision o f 2 8 J a n u a r y 1982 ( r c s . 5 0 0 (1982)),operative pare.

Part 11

I. THE SITUATION IN NAMIBIA

On 19 January 1981, the Secretamitted to the Security Council a ‘i!

-General sub-urther report’

concerning the implementation of Council resolu-tions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) concerning thequestion of Namibia. The report covered an account_of the pre-implementation meeting held at Genevafrom 7 to 14 January 198 1 under the auspices andchairmanship of the United Nations.2 After observ-ing that the meeting had failed to achieve its mainobjective of setting a firm date for a cease-fire andthe commencement of implementation of resolution

435 (1978). the Secretary-General appealed to SouthAfrica to review the implications of the meeting andto reconsider its position with regard to the imple-mentation of resolution 435 (1978) at the earliestpossible time.’

By letter’ dated 29 January 1981 addressed to thePresident of the Council, the representative of Tuni-sia, on behalf of the Group of African States at theUnited Nations, requested a meetin of the Councilas soon as possible to examine the urther report ofFthe Secretary-General on the implementation ofresolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978).

114 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of international peace and necurlty

At its 2263rd meeting, on 30 January 1981, theCouncil included the further report of the Secretary-General and the letter by Tunisia in the agenda.Following the adoption of the aalso drew the attention of the 8

enda,. the Presidentouncrl members to

the text of a letter5 dated 28 January 1981 fromSouth Africa addressed to the Secretary-General.”

of the Council to consider the question of Namibia inthe light of the refusal of South Africa to implementCouncil resolutions on Namibia.

At the outset of the meeting, the Secretary-Generalbriefly introduced his report, which he said dealtwith the Geneva meeting, in the course of which ithad become clear that South Africa was not yetprepared to sign a cease-fire agreement and toproceed with the implementation of resolution 435(I 978). He stated that he had addressed a letter to theMinister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa on 22January I98 I, in which he had drawn attention to hisreport to the Council and had expressed, infer ah,that he was deeply concerned over the effect of thepresent stalemate not only on the situation in Na-mibia itself, but also on the prospects of a peacefuland prosperous future for the region as a whole7

The representative of Tunisia stated that indepen-dence for Namibia in accordance with resolution 435(1978) appeared unlikely in 1981. Since the matterwas of great importance to the Security Council, hesaid, it should be given the necessary time for an in-depth analysis of the situation, taking into account allthe new local, regional and international developments. After such an analysis, he stressed, theCouncil could then take decisions commensuratewith the seriousness of the situation.*

At its 2267th meeting, on 2 I April 198 1, theCouncil included the letter in the agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the following wereinvited, at their request, to participate, without vote,in the discussion of the item: at the 2267th meeting,the representatives of Algeria, Angola, Benin, Cuba,Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Mo-zambrque, Nigerra, Senegal, Sierra Leone, SouthAfrica, Sri Lanka, Togo, the United Republic ofTanzania, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia and Zrmbabwe;at the 2268th meeting, the representatives of Canada,the Federal Republic of Germany and Kenya; at the2269th meeting, the representatrve of Romania; atthe 2270th meeting, the representative of Brazil; atthe 227lst meeting, the representatives of Bangla-desh and Democratrc Yemen; at the 2272nd meeting,the representatives of Burundi and the Libyan ArabJamahiriya; at the 2274th meeting, the representativeof Guyana; and at the 2275th meeting, the represen-tative of Singaporet4

The representative of Panama deplored that theGeneva meeting had failed despite the Secretaty-General’s good offices and high-level representationof the parties, and declared that the Ion cr SouthAfrica took to comply with resolutions 4f 5 (1978)and 439 (1978), the more the relations betweensouthern Africa and South Africa would deteriorate.9

At its 2267th meeting, the Council also decided toextend an invitation to the President and the fiveVice-Presidents of the United Nations Council forNamibia. At the same meeting, the President drewthe attention of the members of the Council to aletter dated 20 April 1981 from France, the UnitedKingdom and the United States, containing a requestthat an invitation under rule 39 of the provisionalrules of procedure be extended to Mr. Peter Kalangu-la and the others associated with the request.

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thathe understood the desire of the African States tostudy the developments in order to determine themost effective specific steps that should be taken., andthat the actions of South Africa, which were desrgnedto maintain its occupation of the Territory, repre-sented a serious threat to international peace andsecurity. He reviewed the efforts aimed at a settle-ment of the Namibian problem through peacefulmeans since 1972 and said that the General Assem-bly should express itself on the most recent develop-ments, whereas the Council should adopt decisivemeasures under Cha

Pter VII of the Charter to ensure

the achievement oNamibian people.rO

genuine independence by the

The representative of Japan stated that the Coun-

In regard to that proposal, one group of representa-tives” said that the request was objectionable as itrelated to the so-called Democratic Tumhalle Alli-ance (DTA) of Namibia, a political entity that hadresulted from the elections organized by the illegallyoccupying Power. The request was therefore consid-ered not m accord with the provisions of rule 39 ofthe provisional rules of procedure of the Council andcontra to resolution 439 (1978) by which theCounci had declared those elections and their resultsrnull and void.

cil’s meeting was not devoted to a substantivediscussion” of the item on its agenda and commend-ed the Secretary-General’s efforts and thanked himfor his objective report on the pre-implementationmeeting held at Geneva. He deplored South Africa’sintransrgence, which accounted for the failure of theGeneva meeting, and expressed concern over theoutcome of the meeting, as a result of which a seriousinternational situation had arisen.12

A second group of representativesI said that therequest that Mr. Kalangula be allowed to address theCouncil had been made on the ground that he wascompetent, as an individual and on behalf of hispolitical party, to supply the Council with relevantmformation on the srtuation in Namibia, under rule39 of the provisional rules of procedure. Sinceresolution 435 (1978) called for free and fair elec-tions under United Nations supervision and controlin Namibia, they thought that the Council shouldhear the opmions of those who would be participat-ing in those elections.

Decision of 30 April 198 1 (2277th meeting): rejectionof four draft resolutions

Resolution 439 (1978) was not applicable to thecase, since Mr. Kalanrepresentative of a k

ula’s request was to speak as apo itical party and not of an organ

established by a process that had been declared nulland void by that resolution of the Council. TheUnited Nations itself was based on the principles ofreason, discussion and representation and thoseprinciples, including the peace-making capacity ofthe Council, would be damaged if the Council deniedDTA the right to be heard.

By letterI dated 10 April 1981, the reof Uganda, on behalf of the Group of A rican StatesP

resentative The Council then proceeded to vote on the three-

at the United Nations, requested an urgent meetingPower proposal contained in the letter dated 20 April198 I. The result of the vote was six votes in favour to

Pall II 115

none a inst and the proposal was not adopted,having ailed to obtain the required majority.” At thePsame meeting, the Council further decoded to extendan invitation to participate in the discussion of theitem on the Council’s agenda under rule 39 of theprovisional rules of procedure to Mr. Peter Mueshi-hange of the South West Africa People’s Or aniza-tion (SWAPO) and, subsequently, at its f268thmeeting, to Mr. Clovis Maksoud, of the League ofArab States (LAS), at its 2272nd meeting, to Mr.Johnstone F. Makatini of the African NationalCongress of South Africa (ANC), and at its 2275thmeeting to the Chairman of the Special Committeeon the Situation with regard to the Implementationof the Declaration on the Granting of Independenceto Colonial Countries and PeoplesIx The item wasconsidered at the 2267th to 2277th meetings, from21 to 30 April 1981.

At the 2267th meeting, the President drew theattention of the Council members to the text of anoteI dated 1 April 1981 by the Secretary-Generaltransmitting General Assembly resolutions 35/227 Ato J, entitled “Question of Namibia”, to the Council;and to the further report20 of the Secretary-Generalconcerning the implementation of resolutions 435(I 978) and 439 (I 978) concerning the question ofNamibia.?’

At the same meeting, the Minister of State forForeign Affairs of Uganda stated that, after theUnited Nations had celebrated the twentieth anni-versary of the Declaration on the Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, thepeople of Namibia were missing from the list of alarge number of colonial peoples who had achievedindependence since the adoption of General Assem-bly resolution I514 (XV) in 1960. That situation wasall the more disturbinthe unique responsibi itf

and ironic since Namibia wasof the United Nations. He

reviewed the history o?Namibia since the originalcolonization of the Territory b Germany in 1884and depicted it as the “history ora continual betrayalof trust”. He described the response of the Councilthus far to South Africa’s act of illegality as “tenta-tive and indecisive’* and said that it had broadly beenin the following three phases: (a) thebe un with the Counctl’s adoption oP

eriod that hadresolution 264

(169) and consisted of repeated calls upon SouthAfrica to withdraw from Namibia and appeals to allStates to refrain from any contacts that might implyrecognition of South Africa’s authority over Na-mibia; (b) the period of dialogue beginnmg with theI972 meeting of the Council in Addis Ababa wherebyresolution 309 (1972) was adopted invitinSecretary-General to initiate contacts with f

thea I the

parties concerned in order to expedite the process ofIndependence for Namibia; and (c) the resumeddialogue beginning in A ril 1978 with the proposalby the Contact Group oF the Western Five that hadeventually led to the adoption of resolution 435(1978) by which the Council had provided for acease-fire, United Nations-supervised elections andthe establishment of a United Nations TransitionAssistance Group (UNTAG) in Namibia. The re-sumed dialogue ended with the failure of the Genevapre-implementation meeting, which had been thesubject of the Secretary-General’s report2”

He stated that South Africa’s continued occupationof Namibia was an illegality which had given rise toconsequences “characterized by a serious threat tointernational peace and constant acts of aggression”

within the meanin of Article 39 of the Charter, andenumerated the ollowing “specific elements” offbreach of international peace and security: (a) themassive milita presence of South Africa in Namib-ia; (h) South A rica’s continued use of the Territory7of Namibia as a springboard for constant armedattacks against the netghbouring States and theescalation of those attacks over the last few months,which had amounted to a “systematic and compre-hensive programme of violent destabilization of theentire region of southern Africa”: (c) the elaboratemachinery of repression organized by South Africaagainst the Namibian patriots, whose resistance hadbeen recognized by the Council since its adoption ofresolution 269 (1969) and the resulting dangerousconflict that could be ended only with the completewithdrawal of South Africa from Namibia; and (d)South Africa’s persistent scheme to dismember theTerritory of Namibia through the annexation ofWalvis Bay. He urged the Council to invoke Articles39 and 41 of the Charter and to impose comprehen-sive mandatory sanctions against South Africa. Sucha decision, as in the case of Southern Rhodesia in1966,22 would be in conformity with the demand ofthe vast majority of the international community. Heconcluded that the Group of African States at theUnited Nations would submit, at a later stage, draftresolutions to that effect.2’

At the same meeting, the Minister for ForeignAffairs of Sierra Leone stated that the situation insouthern Africa had become more menacing with theprospects of a racial war of “unforeseeable magni-tude” unfolding as a direct consequence of the illegaloccupation of Namibia by South Africa. He addedthat the Council had to implement the appropriateprovisions of Chapter VII of the Charter againstSouth Africa since all peaceful efforts aimed at thewithdrawal of South Africa from the Territory hadfailed owing to South Africa’s outright resistance andintransigence.24

The Minister for External Relations of Cuba,speaking on behalf of the Movement of Non-AlignedCountries, charged that the lawlessness of SouthAfrica was encouraged by the support of certainWestern Powers, whtch had permitted the continuedillegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa and itsexpansionist and aggressive policy against the inde-pendent neighbourmg States. He declared that theMinisters for Foreign Affairs of the non-alignedcountries, at their meeting at Algiers, had condemnedthe “systematic policy of destabrlization, provocationand aggression by the Pretoria racist regime”, andhad retterated their full support for SWAPO. Hestated that the Geneva pre-implementation meetinghad failed owing to South Africa’s persistent defianceof the intematlonal community and to the unwill-in ness of the Contact Group to exert on SouthA!rica the pressure necessary for a negotiated settle-ment. He recalled that the Coordinating Bureau ofthe Movement of Non-Aligned Countrtes had ex-pressed concern over the announcement that theUnited States Congress would repeal the ClarkAmendment, and had reaffirmed its commitment tosupport the defensive capability of the front-lineStates against South African aggression. fn conclu-sion, he repeated that the ministerial session of theCoordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries had mandated him to request thatthe Council apply comprehensive mandatory sanc-

116 Chapter VIII. Maiatenance of i~~ternathal peaa and security

[ions, including an oil embargo, under Chapter VII ofthe Charter.25

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operationof Niger said that any further delay in the liberationof Namibia could greatly endanger the stability ofAfrica and world peace. South Africa sought todiscredit the United Nations by alleging a lack ofimpartiality on the part of the Organization andwould not change its position unless comprehensivemandatory sanctions were imposed on it in accord-ance with the relevant provisions of Chapter VII ofthe Charter.26

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia saidthat, during the four years since SWAP0 and Africahad accepted the proposal of the Contact Group toend South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia,South Africa had used treachery and deception andhad dashed all hopes for a peaceful transition ofNamibia to independence b its outright rejection ofthe United Natlons plan or the independence oftyNamibia. He pointed to the fact that certain perma-nent members that were involved in the elaborationof the settlement plan that had culminated in resolu-!ion 435 (1978) co-operated closely and extensivelym economic and mihtary matters with South Africaand had to choose between their ties with racistSouth Africa and long-term fruitful co-operation withfree and independent Africa. He declared that theonly remaining course of action, apart from support-ing the continuing armed struggle, was the adoptionof enforcement measures under Chapter VII of theChartera2’

The De utyR

Prime Minister and Minister forForeign A airs of Jamaica stated that the Councilhad, on several occasions during the past 15 years,reaffirmed the special responsibility of the UnitedNations towards Namibia and that whenever theCouncil had sought to impose sanctions against arecalcitrant and intransigent South Africa, such ac-tions had been blocked either by those States thatcontinued to maintain significant political and eco-nomic interests in South Africa or by South Africa’s“spurious promises to co-operate”. He said thatPretoria’s “deliberate sabotage” of the Geneva pre-implementation meeting had made them doubtSouth Africa’s interest in a peaceful settlement of theNamibian question and that the Council was re-quired to ensure the full implementation of resolu-tion 435 (1978) by aic sanctions against !i

plying comprehensive econom-outh Africa under Chapter VII

of the Charter. He concluded by callinCouncil to consider South Africa’s acts of5

upon theaggression

against neighbouring States, thereby threatening in-ternational peace and security within the meaning ofArticle 39 of the Charter, and by reminding theCouncil members that Article 42 provided for addi-tional measures that could be taken by the Council toenforce South Africa’s compliance in the event thatsanctions were considered inadequate.2*

At the 2268th meeting, the Minister for ForeignAffairs of Indonesia said that South Africa, instead ofcqmplyine with the United Nations resolutions andwlthdrawmg from Namibia, had strengthened itscolonial grip over the Territory and had Instituted a::brutal reigv of terror” through the imposition of a

up t reo? I&$%

Ime” and the stationing in the Territorytroops, which it had also used for

2tu-$hm indlscrlminate at!acks on neighbouringI-fe declared that behmd all those transgtes-

sions ihat had destroyed the region’s stability lay

South Africa’s nuclear capability, which was clandes-tinely developed with the co-operation of its friendsin contravention of the Treaty on the Non-Prolifera-tion of Nuclear Weapons and which had resulted inthe rapid depletion of Namibia’s natural resources,thereby endangering the Territory’s future economicviability. He called upon the Council to ensure theimplementation of resolution 435 (1978) withoutfurther delay or modification and, in view of SouthAfrica’s persistent deIiance and the mounting threatto International peace and security, to impose thenecessary mandatory sanctions agamst South Africaunder Chapter VII of the Charter.29

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Algeria saidthat the lessons of the Geneva pre-implementationmeeting had prompted the African States to requestthe urgent meeting of the Council with a view toimposing corn rehensive

Pmandatory sanctions

against South A rica and that the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, at a special meeting of its Co-ordinating Bureau held at Algiers the preceding week,had endorsed the African initiative. He characterizedthe situation in Namibia as a state of “permanentaggression” and recalled previous resolutions of theCouncil imposing partial and selective sanctions,including the arms embargo adopted in 197?, whichhad proved inadequate, and the advisory opmion ofthe International Court of Justice of 30 June 197 lMregarding the legal status of Namibia.jl

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Senegalstated that South Africa had persistently blocked allefforts of the United Nations aimed at a negotiatedsettlement of the Namibian question and that it hadcontinually undertaken blatant acts of aggressionagainst the front-line States of Angola, Mozambique,Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana. He recalled thatthe Movement of Non-Aliization of African Unity (

ned Countries, the Organ-% AU) and, particularly, the

front-line States had all underlined the si nificance ofresolution 435 (1978) and the responsi% ility of theGroup of Five in the implementation of that resolu-tion and urged the Council to support the initiativeof the non-aligned and African countries.32

The representative of South Africa highlightedthree reasons for South Africa’s request to participatein the discussion of the item on the Council’s agenda:(a) that South Africa was “directly concerned withthe future of South Africa/Namibia”; (b) that thepeople of the Territory urgently desired an intema-tionally recognized independence, that South Africasupported their wish and shared their anxieties aboutcertain aspects of the procedure that had beenfollowed in the past and that it was South Africa’sright and duty to state its views to the Council; and(c) that South Africa had to emphasize that the“democratic parties” of the Territory had never beenallowed to state their views in the Council, while onegroup had been fiven “preferential treatment”through “one-sided’ action of the Council.

He referred to the Council’s decision at its 2267thmeeting denyin an invitation33 to DTA and chargedthat the Counci was biased in favour of SWAPO. HeBsaid that South Africa had maintained that the

rople of the Territory should determine its own

uture in a “manifestly free and fair procedure” andthat it was on the basis of that approach that SouthAfrica accepted the Western proposal on 25 April1978. The prevalence of “visible peace” throughoutthe Territory was one of the basic assumptions of theWestern proposal, which the democratic political

Put II 117-

parties did not believe the United Nations could andwould bring about. He added that the degree towhich the United Nations had assisted and identifieditself with SWAP0 was a matter of record, as was themanner in which it had designated the status of theother parties, and that the Geneva meeting had failedto reassure the latter in re ard

!to their anxieties.

Sanctions against South A rica would amount tosanctions against the countries of southern Africasince their economies were closely interlinked, a viewalso confirmed by the Economic Commission forAfrica (ECA).

He declared that the approach of the GeneralAssembly, as reflected in its resolutions 35/227 A to Jof 6 March I98 I, was wrong if genuine independencefor the Territory was sincerely sought, and that co-operation between South Africa and the neighbour-ing States was essential for the peaceful transition ofthe Territory to independence. He concluded byemphasizing that a settlement would not be achievedunless: (a) equal treatment of all parties was assured;(b) the rights of minority groups were protected andguaranteed; and (c) fundamentnl principles of democ-racy were ensured for the future.j4

At the 2269th meeting, the Minister for ExternalRelations of Panama stated that 25 Foreign Ministersfrom Africa, Asia and Latin America had beendesi nated by OAU and by the Co-ordinating Bureauof t1 e Movement of Non-Ali ned Countries at itsspecial ministerial meeting he d at Algiers with thekmandate to participate in the discussion on theCouncil’s agenda and to request it to impose urgentlyon South Africa comprehensive mandatory sanctionsunder Chapter VII of the Charter. He said that, inview of South Africa’s “lawless behaviour”, whichconsisted of utter contempt for the resolutions of theGeneral Assembly, the Council and the InternationalCourt of Justice, the Council would be justified toadopt the “measures of coercion”, which were de-manded by the seriousness of the situation in Namib-ia. He said that, as Ion

?as South Africa persisted in

ignoring the decision o the Council, comprehensivemandatory sanctions, including an oil embargo,should be imposed under Chapter VII of the Charteras requested by the special ministerial meetin

7of the

Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement o Non-Aligned Countries. Since South Africa’s economywas intimately linked with those of the neighbouringcountries, as was stated in the ECA report, specialmeasures should be devised for the extension ofmaterial and financial support to those countries toenable them to withstand the effects of the sanctions.He appealed to the Contact Group to ensure SouthAfrica’s co-operation with the Secretary-General’sefforts to implement resolution 435 (1978).35

At the same meeting, the Minister for ForeignAffairs of Zambia said that the Geneva conferencehad failed solely because of South Africa’s unreason-able stance and that the situation in and aroundNamibia had become dangerously explosive. TheUnited Nations plan remained the only valid basisfor the peaceful settlement of the Namibian problemand, therefore, the Council had been convened againin order to find a peaceful solution despite SouthAfrica’s attempts to wreck the negotiation process.He stated that Namibia was besieged by a calculatedSouth African reign of terror, with members ofSWAP0 its daily vtctims of detention, imprisonmentand torture, just as the independent neighbouringStates of Angola, Botswana, Mozambique and Zam-

bia were the victims of its constant aggressionlaunched from Namibian territory. He stressed thathis Government supported solutions to the problemsof southern Africa through the United Nations andon the basis of resolution 435 (1978), the implemen-tation of which was urgently needed, and that theContact Group had articular responsibility to sup-port the adoption o P enforcement measures againstSouth Africa in order to achieve those objectrves.36

At the same meeting, the Minister for Forei nAffairs and Co-operation of Togo” condemned taeracist system of apartheid, which he said was at theroot of South Afrrca’s persistent defiance of the willof the international community as well as its contin-ued illegal occupation of Namibia and the acts ofaggression against the independent neighbouringStates. He appealed to the Contact Group to exertpressure on South Africa and called on the Council totake the decisions that were necessary to meet thechallenge posed by South Africa.!*

The Minister for External Affairs of India statedthat it was imperative for the Council to take thefollowing actions: (a) declare that South Africa hadcommitted a breach of the peace and had threatenedinternational peace and security; (b) call for animmediate end to South Africa’s illegal occupation ofNamibia and the withdrawal of its forces from theTerritory; (c) demand the cessation by South Africaof all acts of genocide against the people of Namibiaand of aggression against the front-line States; (d)reaffirm the validity of the United Nations plan ascontained in resolutions 385 (I 976) 435 (I 978) and439 (1978) for achieving Namibia’s independenceand fix a time frame for Its implementation; and (e)impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions againstSouth Africa with a view to securing the implementa-tion of the plan.j9

At the 2270th meeting, the Minister of State forExternal Affairs of Nigerra said that the contentionthat “constructive dialogue” with the racist regime ofSouth Africa was desuable or even feasible was“naive and unrealistic”. He declared that, in view ofSouth Africa’s persistent violation of internationallaw for decades and its record of aggression againstneighbouring States, the unavoidable conclusion wasthat South Africa’s behaviour amounted to a seriousbreach of international peace and securit

yhand that

effective measures under Cha$

ter VII oft e Chartershould be speedily invoked.

At the same meeting, the President of the UnitedNations Council for Namibia stated that since theadoption of resolution 385 (1976), the Secretary-General had counted on the full support of OAU, thefront-line States, Nigeria and SWAPO, as well asother countries that were concerned with the precari-ous situation in southern Africa, while it was “wide1felt” that the group of Western Powers were “hal -rhearted” in their attempts to exert pressure on SouthAfrica, thus promoting its intransigence. He recalledthat smce the collapse of the Geneva pre-implemen-tation meeting, the Movement of the Non-AlignedCountries, OAU, the front-line States and the Gener-al Assembly at its thirty-fifth session had called uponthe Security Council urgently to impose mandatoryeconomic sanctions against South Africa underChapter VII of the Charter, in order to compel it toterminate its illegal occupation of Namibia. Enforce-ment measures had become imperative as a peacefulsolution for Namibia remained elusive. The UnitedNations Council for Namibia had given careful

118 Chapter VIII. Miiate- of iatemrtional peace and secwlty

consideration to the formulation of draft resolutionson sanctions against South Africa and had concludedthat a detailed review of South Africa’s acts ofaggression in violation of Article 39 of the Charterwas not necessary but that it was sufftcient to recall,as in resolution 428 (1978) that it had repeatedlyused the Territory of Namibia for launching acts ofaggressionStates.4t

against independent neighbouring

At the same meeting, Mr. Peter Mueshihange,Secretary for Foreign Relations of SWAPO, said thatthe Security Council was debatinNamibia for the first time since 7

the problem of1 9 8 and that it had

been “immobilized” in the intervening period, there-by encouraging South Africa to proceed with politicalrepression and other illegal acts of intimidation andne-oloniahsm in occupied Namibia. During thatperiod, begmning with the “Western initiative ’ thatwas to lead to free and fair elections under UnitedNations supervision, the trust had been betrayed andthe unique responsibility of the United Nations overNamibia and Its people had been seriously eroded.He referred to the participation of several Ministersin the Council’s meetings, following the summitmeeting of the front-line States at Luanda on 15March 1981, and, more recently, the extraordinaryministerial meeting of the Coordinating Bureau ofthe Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, and citedtheir call for increased assistance to SWAP0 toenable it to “intensify the armed struggle in the faceof South Africa’s persistent rejection of a negotiatedsettlement of the Namibia problem”.

In using Namibia repeated1 as a springboard foracts of aggression against the ront-line States, SouthtyAfrica had enlisted mercenaries from the UnitedStates, France, the United Kingdom, the FederalRepublic of Germany and Australia. Counter-revolu-tionary bandits of the National Union for the TotalIndependence of Angola (UNITA), who were housedon militaso-called ‘sb

bases inside Namibia, together with theuth African Defence Forces, were also

used for subversion and destabilization. He referredto the request for the participation of DTAj3 in theCouncil’s debate as a political act presented as aprocedural matter and added that allowing them toaddress the Securit Council would have violated theprovisions of reso ution 439 (1978).r

In the final analysis, the historic and specialresponsibility of the Umted Nations was flouted andrejected and the Council had to rectif the situationin Namibia. He concluded by calling or the imposi-/tion of comprehensive mandatory sanctions, includ-ing an oil embargo, against South Africa underChapter VII of the Charter and stated that SWAP0would support the call for an emergency specialsession of the General Assembly in the event that the$oum&15$ed to adopt the measures that were being

At the 2271st meeting, the Minister for ExternalRelations of Angola stated that the brutal repressionof the majority in South Africa within the frameworkof upurrheid was an expression of the colonial natureof the South African rC

fime that violated the princi-

ple of the right of peop es to self-determination, andthat the armed resistance ,by SWAP0 and ANCagamst the rllegal South Afrrcan authority could notbe equated in law wtth the terrorism Invoked, bygpatn$ Afrtca and, more recently. by the Umted

He recalled the Council’s resolutions on the manypremeditated, persistent, prolonged acts of armedmvaston by South Africa against Angola, which, interaliu, had warned South Afrtca that the Council wouldmeet again, in the event of further attacks, toconsider the adoption of effective measures, includ-ing those under Chapter VII of the Charter, andstated that despite all those resolutions the people ofAngola had had to make enormous sacrifices in orderto comply with the relevant resolutions on Namibiaso that the Namibian people too could becomeindependent. He said that, over the past three years,South Africa’s armed forces had carried out 1,400reconnaissance flights, 290 air raids, 56 debarkationsof helicopter-borne troops and 72 land attacks, whichhad caused the death of more than 1,800 persons, thewoundinestimate d

of about 1,000 and materlal damageat $7 billion.

He asked how many new acts of violation of thesovereignty and the territorial integrity of Angolawere necessary for the Council to shoulder itsresponsibility and to impose comprehensive manda-tory economic sanctions on South Africa, andstressed that any negotiated settlement of the Na-mibian question should be strictly within the frame-work of resolution 435 (1978).43

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thatthe “Pretoria racists” had elevated apartheid to thestatus of State policy and extended it to the Territoryof Namibia, which It occupied illegally and used as amilitary springboard for acts of aggression andprovocation against neighbouring independentStates. He said that the situation relating to theNamibian question was really critical after manyyears, during which the African States and theUnited Nations had shown patience and restraintand agreed to necertain Western $

otiations, an approach stressed byowers.

He pointed out that those Powers had initiallyopposed the adoption of effective measures as theyasserted that they could persuade South Africa to co-operate and recalled that in February 1972, when theCouncil had held a series of meetin sthose countries had given assurances ta

in Africa,”at they need-

ed six months to resolve the Namibian problem bymeans of negotiations. He declared that the SovietUnion adhered to a consistent position of principlewtth regard to Namibia and did not seek for Itself any“particular rights or privileges” in Africa or in anycontinent. The Soviet delegation believed that theCouncil must support the proposals of OAU and theMovement of Non-Aligned Countries and adoptcomprehensive mandatory sanctions against SouthAfrica under Chavote in favour o P

ter VII of the Charter and wouldsuch measures.45

The representative of the United Kingdom saidthat the Contact Group had just held a meeting inLondon and that a communiquC’6 had been issued atthe conclusion of that meeting. On behalf of the Five,he read out the communiqu6. Its text was as follows:

Senior officials of the five Western Governments (Canada,France, Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom andUnited States) met in London on 22 and 23 April 1981. toreview the situation concerning Namibia. They received acomplete report from Mr. Chester Cracker. United StatesAssistant Secretary-Designate for African Affairs, on his visit to12 African States, including the African front-line caoitals.South Afr ica, Nigeria, Zaire.-Kenya, Swaziland and the dongo:

The Five agreed that it was of the utmost importance to bringNamibia to independence at the earliest possible date andreiterated their commitment to an internationally acceptable

Pul I I 119- settlement. In that context. they also agreed that Security

Council resolution 435 (1978) continues to provide a solid basisfor transition lo independence in Namibia. They consideredpossibi l i t ies for strengthening the exist ing plan, and agreed thatexpeditious progress towards a settlement would be enhanced bymeasures aimed 81 giving greater confidence to all of the partieson the future of an independent Namibia.

The representatives agreed that it was necessary to developmore specific proposals for discussion with the concernedparties. It was decided that intensive consultalions amongcontact group represenlalives would continue and it is intendedthat the five Foreign Ministers will consider the issue furtherwhen they meet at Rome.

The representative of the United Kingdom in-formed the Council that the meeting in Rome wasscheduled to take place in 10 days’ time, on 4 and 5May 198 I. He noted that most of those participatingin the Council’s debate were advocating the adoptionof mandatory measures against South Africa underChapter VII and appealed to all concerned not toabandon the possiblhty of negotiation as his delega-tion was convinced that sanctions would not promoteNamibian independence on an internationally ac-ceptable basis. Referring to the case of Zimbabwe, hepointed out that it was in the long-term interest of allthe parties in Zimbabwe as well as in Namibia thatindependence could be attained by negotiated settle-ment rather than through armed struggle.47

At the same meeting, the representative of theUnited States said that the current series of Councilmeetings was to produce an independent, stable, self-govemmg Namibia and that there was no disagree-ment on that goal. She referred to some charges thathad been made against the Western States of theContact Group in the discussions, and said that shehad repeatedly asked herself how those chargesrelated to the goal of an independent, stable anddemocratic Namibia. She noted the repeated sugges-tion that, because peaceful negotiations had not yetbeen successful, some other course such as compre-hensive compulsory sanctions should be tried. Sheviewed that approach as unrealistic. Her Govem-ment’s objective was authentic inde endenceNamibia, as none of the members oP

forthe Contact

Group had any territorial ambitions in Africa. Shedeclared that the Namibian

Problem would be re-

solved eventually only by the orce of arms or by theexercise of reason and that her Government waspledged to the unflaly acceptable, ff

ing search for an intemational-aut entlcally independent, stable,

democratic Namibia.48At the 2273rd meeting, the representative of Ja

Fan

stated that Japan had consistently supported the IveWestern countries in their efforts aimed at an earlyand peaceful resolution of the Namibian problemand that those efforts included their settlementpro sal which led to the adoption of resolution 435(l9E) and their initiatives for conciliation andmediaiion. He added that the commitment of theFive to search for an internationally acceptablesettlement of the Namibian problem underlined hisdelegation’s belief that any constructive meanstowards a peaceful solution should be thoroughlyexplored.49

At the same meeting, the Minister for ForeignAffairs of the United Republic of Tanzania recalledthe statement b

itthe representative of the United

Kingdom, on be alf of the Contact Group, in whichhe referred to the successful Lancaster House confer-ence on Zimbabwe, and pointed out that Africa hadalways preferred negotiated solutions to armed resist-

ante, as the Lusaka Manifesto of 1969 on southernAfrica had made clear. He further observed that theLusaka Manifesto had indicated that the alternativeto a negotiated solution was not the sfafrcs quo but astru le for freedom. The Lancaster House confer-

PBence ad been successful owing to at least two crucialfactors: (a) the armed resistance waged by thePatriotic Front of Zimbabwe; and (b) the pressure ofthe international community, including the pressureof sanctions notwithstanding its limitation.

He declared that, as long as the road to negotia-tions continued to be blocked, a combination ofinternal and external pressures was an essentialprerequisite for a just and lasting solution and thatAfrica believed that the Council could act decisivelyby invoking enforcement measures provided for inChapter VII of the Charter, thereby exerting maxi-mum pressure on the South African regime in orderto ensure the implementation of United Nationsdecisions, particularly resolution 435 (1978).

He said that the London communiquC had, on theone hand, asserted that resolution 435 (1978) provid-cd a solid basis for transition to independence inNamibia, while, on the other hand, it had expressedthe view that the plan needed to be strengthened, andthat one wondered whether the word “strengthened”was not a euphemism for revision of the Ian. Hestated that, if the latter were the case, the ears andPapprehension of SWAPO,. of the African States andof the overwhelming malority of the internationalcommunity were more than Justified, and that thefront-line States, at their summit at Luanda on I5March 1981, had declared that what was urgentlyneeded was the implementation of resolution 435( 1978) without any “further delay, prevarication,qualification or modification”.‘”

At the 2274th meeting, the representative ofCanada expressed his dele ation’s concern over theCouncil’s decision not to a low all parties concernedfin the Namibian question to participate in itsconsideration of the problem under rule 39 of itsprovisional rules of procedure. He stated that Canadaremained fully committed to a negotiated settlementon the basis of the principles of resolution 435(I 978), but that, since it had become apparent thatprogress towards a settlement would be made only ifthe transitional process was fair and the resultsatisfactory, Canada and the other members of theWestern Five would examine possibilities forstrengthenin

?the existing plan in order to ive

greater con ldence to8

arties in the future o f anindependent Namibia. anada believed that the pathto an internationally acceptable settlement must beleft open and contemplated the call for sanctionswith the deepest concern, as such a course wouldprobably put an end to United Nations efforts a?ddelay progress towards Namibian Independence m-definitely. I

At the same meeting, the representative of theFederal Republic of Germany stated that his Govem-ment was convinced that there was no sound altema-tive to a negotiated settlement of the Namibianquestion, and appealed to South Africa and SWAP0not to a ravate the situation throu

f% I?acts of aggres-

sion an order violation. He said t at the success offuture endeavours towards a peaceful settlementwould depend on whether a climate of confidencecould be established among all parties concerned andthat, in his Government’s view, the imposition ofsanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of

120 Chapter VIII. M8iatcnma of iatcrnatioarl peace and security

the Charter would lead to a deterioration in thenegotiating climate without bringing Namibia closerto independence.52

At the 2275th meetin , on 28 April 1981, theChairman of the Special 8ommittee on the Situationwith regard to the Implementation of the Declarationon the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples stated that it had been the SpecialCommittee’s consistent position that full and effec-tive application of measures under Chapter VII ofthe Charter would be the key to the speedy restora-tion of peace, justice and freedom to the Namibianpeople, given South Africa’s intransigence and re-peated acts of aggression against the neighbouringStates, and that all the attempts to resolve theNamibian problem by means of negotiation hadfailed.53

At the same meeting, the representative of Francestated that his Government did not believe that theappeal in the Council for comprehensive mandatorysanctions could lead to Namibian independence in1981, but was convinced that the time for negotia-tions had not passed and that there was still hope asthe positions of the parties were not so far apart.Fears expressed in connection with “equal treat-ment” of the parties as well as the “democraticfuture” of Namibia could be allayed by providing theassurances necessary to restore a climate of trust,which was indispensable to make progress. Francewas determined to work, within the Contact Group,for a peaceful resolution of the Namibian question.54

The President, speaking in his capacity as therepresentative of Ireland, reviewed the history of theUnited Nations involvement in the Namibian ques-tion and said that a major turning-point had beenreached by the end of 1978, when South Africa andSWAP0 had accepted in principle the terms ofresolution 435 (1978) for an internationally accept-able settlement of the Namibian question. SouthAfrica’s publicly expressed reasons for its refusal toimplement the terms of the resolution were: (a) itsclaim that the United Nations would not be impar-tial; and (b) its professed fear that the implementa-tion of the plan might lead to “one man, one vote,once”.

He pointed out that the United Nations would notorganize the elections but supervise and control thoseelections while the South African administrationwould remain in the Territory until independence.He added that the reco nition by the GeneralAssembly of the role of SbAPO in the liberationstruggle was not incompatible with the Council’sdecision that the future Government of Namibiamust be determined by free and fair elections. Thepeople of Namibia must have the right to determinetheir own destiny as a people, including the politicalstructures they wanted for themselves.

Therefore, the following three points should guidethe Council: (a) a reaffirmation of resolution 435(1978); (6) a further effort within that framework toresolve any remaining obstacles; and (c) strong andsteady pressure on South Africa to implement inpractice what it had accepted in principle over twoyears ago. He further said that,. in the event SouthAfrica remained wholly intransigent, Ireland wouldbe ready to support certain graduated and carefullychosen measures in order to oblige that country tocarry out its obligations in international law as

defined by the Council and by the InternationalCourt of Justice.”

At the 2276th meeting, on 29 April 1981, therepresentative of Uganda introduced56 five draftresolutions,s7 the first jointly sponsored by Mexico,Niger, Panama, the Philippmes, Tunisia and Ugan-da; and the remaining four jointly sponsored byNiger, Tunisia and Uganda.

Under the first draft resolution (S/14459) theCouncil would: (a) determine, in the context ofArticle 39 of the Charter: (i) that South Africa’spersistent refusal to comply with Council and Gener-al Assembly resolutions on Namibia constituted aserious threat to international peace and security; (ii)that the continued illegal occupation of Namibia bySouth Africa constituted a breach of internationalpeace and an act of aggression; and (iii) that therepeated armed attacks perpetrated by South Africaagainst independent and soverei n States in southernAfrica constituted grave acts oB aggression; (6) con-demn South Africa for its acts as specified in (a)above; (c) decide, under Chapter VII of the Charterand in conformity with its responsibilities for themaintenance of international peace and security, toimpose comprehensive and mandatory sanctionsagainst South Africa; (d) decide as an urgent measure,under Article 41 of the Charter, to adopt effectivemeasures, including economic and political sanc-tions, an oil embargo and an arms embargo; (e) callupon all Member States, in conformity with Article25 of the Charter, to assist effectively in the imple-mentation of the measures called for by the resolu-tion and as elaborated in the appropriate resolutionsbefore the Council; U, call upon the specializedagencies to take all necessary measures to implementthe resolutions; (g) urge, having re ard to the princi-ples stated in Article 2 of the CR arter, States notmembers of the United Nations to act in accordancewith the provisions of the present resolution; (h)decide to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of theprovisional rules of procedure, a committee of theCouncil to monitor the implementation of theent resolution; (i) call upon States Members o F

res-the

United Nations or members of specialized a enciesto report to the Secretary-General and to the P ouncilcommittee on measures taken to implement theresolution; 0) invite the Secretary-General to reportto the Council on the progress of the implementationof the resolution and to submit his first report by . . .at the latest; and (k) decide to keep the item on itsa enda for further actions, as appropriate, in the light

Po developments in the situation.Under the second draft resolution (S/14460), the

Council would (a) reaffirm the inalienable rights ofthe people of Namibia to self-determination andindependence in a united Namibia, including WalvisBay and the Penguin and other offshore islands; (6)reiterate that Namibia was the legal responsibility ofthe United Nations until genuine self-determinationand national independence were achieved in theTerritory; (c) determine that South Africa’s ille aloccupation of Namibia, its

Persistent defiance oft% e

United Nations, its war o repression being wagedagainst Namibia, its repeated acts of aggressionlaunched from Namibian territory against mdepen-dent African States, its colonialist expansion and itspolicy of apartheid constituted a breach of intema-tional peace and security; (d) decide that all Statesshould sever all diplomatic, consular and traderelations with South Africa; (e) decide that, in

Put II 1 2 1-accordance with United Nations resolutions anddecisions, all States should prevent the import intotheir territories of all commodities and productsoriginating in South Africa and in illegally occu iedNamibia and exported therefrom after the date oFtheresolution; (fl decide that all States should not makeavailable, or permit their nationals and any personswithin their territories to make available, to theillegal regime in South Africa and occupied Namibiaor to any commercial, industrial or public utilityundertakmg, including tourist enterprises in thoseterritories, any funds for investment or any otherfinancial or economic resources, except payments forpensions or for medical, humamtarian or educationalpurposes, or for the provision of new material and, inspecial humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs; (R)decide that all States should prevent the entry intotheir territories, save on exceptional humanitariangrounds, of any person travelling on a South Africanpassport or on a passport issued by or on behalf ofthe illegal administration of South Africa in Na-mibia; (h) call upon all States to prohibit all travelincluding tourism, sports, scientific and culturalexchanges of their nationals to South Africa andoccupied Namibia; (i) decide that all States shouldprevent airline companies constituted in their territo-ries and aircraft of their registration or under charterto their nationals from operating to or from SouthAfrica and occupied Namibia and from linking upwith any airline or aircraft registered in those territo-ries; 0) call upon all States to take all possible furtheraction under Article 41 of the Charter; (k) call uponall States to ensure that their national legislationincluded penalties for violations of provisions of thepresent resolution; (0 call upon all States to carry out,m accordance with Article 25 and Article 2, ara-graph 6, of the Charter, the

Provisions oP the

resolution, and remind them that ailure or refusal todo so would constitute a violation of the Charter; (m)call upon States Members of the United Nations ormembers of specialized agencies to report to theSecretary-General and to the Council committee onmeasures taken to implement the resolution; (n)request the Secretary-General to report to the Coun-cil on the implementation of the resolution not laterthan . . . ; and (0) decide to remain actively seized ofthe matter.

Under the third draft resolution (S/14461), theCouncil would: (a) decide to impose a mandatoryembargo on the direct and indirect supply of petrole-um and petroleum

1roducts to South Afrrca and

occupied Namibia; ( ) decide that all States shouldprohibit: (i) the sale or supply of petroleum andpetroleum products to any person or body in SouthAfrica and occupied Namrbra; (ii) any actrvities thatpromoted the sale or supum products to South AP

ly of petroleum or petrole-rica and occupied Namibia;

(iii) the shipment in vessels, aircraft or any othermeans of transportation of their registration or undercharter to their nationals of any petroleum or petrole-um products to South Africa and occu(iv) any investments in or provision oP

ied Namibia;technical and

other assistance, including technical advice and spareparts, to the petroleum industry in South Africa andoccupied Namibia; (v) the provision of transit facili-ties, including the use of ports, airports, roads orrailway network by vessels, aircraft or any othermeans of transportation for carrying petroleum prod-ucts; and (vi) any activities which promoted or werecalculated to promote the prospecting for petroleum

in South Africa and occupied Namibia; (c) call uponall States to take all possible further action underArticle 41 of the Charter in order to put an end to theillegal occupation of Namibia and bring about itsindependence in accordance with the relevant resolu-tion of the Council; (d) call upon all States to ensurethat their national legislation included penalties forviolations of the provisions of the resolution; (e) callupon all States to carry out, in accordance withArticle 25 and Article 2, paragraph 6, of the Charter,the provisions of the resolution, and remind themthat failure or refusal to do so would constitute aviolation of the Charter; U, call upon the specializedagencies to take all necessary measures to implementthe resolution; (R) call upon States Members of theUnited Nations or members of specialized a

Eencies

to report to the Secretary-General and to the ouncilcommittee on measures taken to implement theresolution; (h) request the Secretary-General to re-port to the Council on the implementation of theresolution not later than . . . ; and (i) decide to remainactively seized of the matter.

Under the fourth draft resolution (S/14462), theCouncil would: (a) determine, having regard to thecritical situation created by South Afrrca in andaround Namibia, that the supply to South Africa andthe collaboration in the manufacture of arms andrelated material constitute a breach of internationalpeace and security; (b) decide that all States shouldcease forthwith any provision to South Africa of armsand related material of all types, including theprovision of all types of equipment and supplies, andgrants of licensing arrangements for their manufac-ture or maintenance; (c) decide that all States shouldensure that arms-export agreements provide forguarantees that wouldany components there0 P

revent embargoed items orfrom reaching South Africa

through third countries under any circumstances; (d)decide that all States should prohibit the export ofspare parts of embargoed aircraft and other militaryequipment belonging to South Africa and the mainte-nance and servicing of such equipment; (e) decidethat all States should seize any embargoed itemsdestined for South Africa that might be found ontheir territories, including items in transit; v) decidethat all States should prohibit government agenciesand corporations and individuals under their juris-diction from transferring technology for the manu-facture of arms and related material of all types to, aswell as from investing in their manufacture in, SouthAfrica; (g) decide that all States should prohibit allimports of arms and related material of any typefrom South Africa and should seize any such itemsthat might be found in their territories, includingitems in transit; (h) decide that all States that had notyet done so should put an end to exchange with SouthAfrica of military personnel, as well as ex rts inweapons technology and employees of arms actoriesrunder their jurisdrction; (i) decide that all Statesshould take effective measures to prevent the recruit-ment, financing, training and transit of mercenariesfor service in South Africa and occupied Namibia; 0)call upon all States to cease and prevent any direct orindirect cooperation on activities by public orprivate corporations, individuals or groups of indi-viduals in con’unction with South Afrrca in thedevelopment ot’ a nuclear-weapons capability b theracist regime of South Africa; (k) call upon all Htatesto take all possible further action under Article 41 ofthe Charter; (0 call upon all States to ensure that

122 Chapter VIII. Mahtenmcc of laternational pea= nod security

their national legislation include penalties for viola-tions of the provisions of the resolutions; (m) callupon all States to carry out, in accordance withArticle 25 and Article 2, paragraph 6, of the Charter,the provisions of the resolutton, and remind themthat failure or refusal to do so would constitute aviolation of the Charter; (n) call upon the specializedagencies to take all necessary measures to implementthe resolution; (0) call upon all States Members of theUnited Nations or members of specialized ato report to the Secretary-General and to the E

enciesouncil

committee on measures taken to implement theresolution; @) request the Secretary-General to re-port to the Council on the implementation of theresolution not later than . . . ; and (4) decide toremain actively seized of the matter.

Under the fifth and last draft resolution (S/14463),the Council would: (a) decide to establish, m accord-ance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of proce-dure, a committee of the Council, provided withpowers and means commensurate with its responsi-bilities, to undertake the following tasks and to reportto it with its observations: (i) seek from any Stateinformation relevant to the strict implementation ofresolutions. . , (1981) including any activities by anynationals of that State or in its territories that mightconstitute an evasion of the provisions of the resolu-tion; and (ii) examine such reports on the implemen-tation of the above-mentioned resolutions as mightbc submitted by the Secretary-General; (6) call uponall States to co-o crate fully with the committee inrcff

ard to the ful rlment of its tasks concerning thePe ective implementation of the provisions of resolu-tions . . . (198 1) and to supply to that committee suchinformation as might be sought by it in pursuance ofthe resolution; and (c) request the Secretary-Generalto provide every assistance to the committee in theimplementation of its mandate.

At the 2277th meeting, on 30 April 1981, thePresident (Ireland) drewJ* the attention of the Coun-cil members to the revised text of the second draftresolutionSV whereby the words “Decides that allStates shall” in operative paragraph 8 were replacedwith the words “Calls upon all States to”. ThePresident also announced that, at the request of thesponsors, the blank spaces contained in the first fourdraft resolutions would be replaced by the date “15July I98 l”.6o

He then put the draft resolutions to the vote. Thesix-Power draft resolution (S/ 14459) received 9 votesin favour, 3 against, and 3 abstentions, and failed ofadoption owing to the negative votes of three perma-nent members of the Council.61

The second draft resolution, as revised(S/l4460/Rev. I), received 9 votes in favour,. 3against, and 3 abstentions, and failed of adoptionowinmem ers of thefi

to the ne ative votes of three permanentE ounci1.62

The third draft resolution (S/14461) received 1 Ivotes in favour,, 3 against, and 1 abstention, andfailed of adoptron owing to the negative votes ofthree permanent members of the Council.63

The fourth draft resolution (S/14462) received 12votes in favour, 3 against, and no abstention, andfailed of adoption owing to the negative votes ofthree permanent members of the CounciL6’

The fifth draft resolution (S/14463), which wouldhave established a committee of the Council, was not

put to the vote in the light of the results of voting onthe preceding four draft resolutions6

Speaking after the vote, the representative of theUnited Kingdom stated that his delegation had votedagainst the draft resolutions because it wanted tokeep open the prospects for a negotiated settlementand considered sanctions to be economical1

rharmful

to many African and Western countries, inc uding hisown. A continued denial of independence to thepeople of Namibia would perpetuate instabilit andbloodshed in a region where only a settlement o iieredhope for peace and for stability. The United King-dom would continue actively, with the other partnersin the Western Five, to develop ways to enhance thepossibilities of the implementation of resolution 435( 1 978).66

The representative of France stated that his delega-tion had voted against the draft resolutions because itdid not believe that recourse to comprehensivemandatory sanctions against South Africa wouldpromote progress in the desired direction and thatthe adoption of such measures would run counter tothe goal of the resumption and intensification ofnegotiations aimed at the peaceful transition ofNamibia to independence. Resolution 418 (1977) of4 November 1977 relating to the arms embargo onSouth Africa remained in force and France wouldcontinue to abide by the obligations flowing from it.67

The representative of the United States stated thather Government had participated in a joint state-ment6* that resolution 435 (1978) continued toprovide a solid basis for Namibia’s transition toindependence, that it was firmly commrtted tomaking every effort to achieve an internationallyaccepted, independent, lasting settlement in Namib-ia, and that, for that reason, it could not support thedraft resolutions. Each of the draft resolutions relatedto sanctions, thereby representing what the UnitedStates believed was the wrong course for the achieve-ment of Namibian independence.69

The representative of U andaGroup of African States at t%

stated that thee United Nations had

come before the Council to present a “clear, une uiv-ocal, global consensus*’ and that the majority o the?Council members had concurred with the verdict ofthe international community that “peaceful pres-sure” should be applied against South Africa becauseof its oppression of the people of Namibia and itscontinued illegal occupation of that Territory. Theimpact of the negative vote by three permanentmembers was not to strengthen international peaceand security nor to speak for independence, freedomand self-determination, but rather to strengthen theoccupying Power and to comfort the forces that hadbeen intransigent and that had flouted every decisionof the Council. The negative votes had rebuffed thepossibility of collective action, thereby shattering theunity of the Council as well. He concluded by statingthat the commitment to resolution 435 (1978) hadarisen from a commitment to free and fair electionsand that the African Group would continue toemploy every . possible method to ensure SouthAfrica s compliance with that resolution.70

The President, speaking in his ca acity as therepresentative of Ireland, stated that rl is delegationbelieved that South Africa must be obliged to respectthe Council’s decisions and to carry out its clearobligations under the Charter and generally underinternational law. His delegation had nevertheless

Pall II 123

thought it right to make a sustained effort to avoiddivision in the Council. Since that was not possible,Ireland had voted for the two draft resolutions that,respectively, would have imposed an oil embargo(S/14461) and would have stren thened the armsembargo already in existence ( 114462).s Irelandbelieved that the Council could have indicated inadvance its intention to honour its obligations underArticle 50 of the Charter to States that might beconfronted with special economic problems arisingfrom the carrying out of those measures. Ireland hadabstained on draft resolution S/ I44601Rev. I! whichwould have imposed comprehensive economic sanc-tions as well as sanctions of a political nature. As aresult of its decision to abstam on the aforemen-tioned text, Ireland had felt obliged also to abstain ondraft resolution 5114459, which had involved adecision to adopt comprehensive economic andpolitical sanctions.”

Decision of 31 May 1983 (2449th meeting): resolu-tion 532 (1983)By letter’? dated 12 May 1983 addressed to the

President of the Council, the representative of Mau-ritius, on behalf of the Group of African States at theUnited Nations, requested a meeting of the Councilto consider the situation in Namibia.

By letter” dated 13 May 1983 addressed to thePresident of the Council, the representative of India,on behalf of the non-aligned countries, requested ameeting of the Council in order to consider furtheraction in the implementation of the Council’s planfor the independence of Namibia.

On 19 May 1983, the Secretary-General issued afurther report74 concerning the implementation ofresolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) concerning thequestion of Namibia. The report contained a summa-ry of developments since the conclusion of the pre-implementation meeting held at Geneva in January1981 and outlined the extensive consultations be-tween the Secretary-General and the parties con-cerned aimed at resolving outstanding issues tofacilitate the early implementation of resolution 435(1978). The Secretary-General reported that a largemeasure of agreement had been secured on themodalities to be employed in implementing resolu-tion 435 (1978) and that, as far as the United Nationswas concerned, the only outstanding issues were thechoice of the electoral system and the settlement ofsome problems relating to UNTAG and its composi-tion. The Secretary-General noted that other issues,which were outside the scope of resolution 435(1978),.were becoming a factor in the negotiations onNamibia, and expressed his concern that thosefactors should hamper the implementation of theCouncil’s resolution.

At the 2439th meeting, on 23 May 1983, theCouncil included the letters by Mauritius and Indiain the agenda. Following the adoption of the agenda,the following were invited, at their request, toparticipate, without vote, in the discussion of theitem on the agenda: at the 2439th meeting, therepresentatives of Aldesh, Benin, Cuba, E

eria, An

liypt, Et P;

ola, Australia., Bangla-iopia, Gambia, Guin-

ea, India, Indonesia, amaica, Kuwait, Mali, Mauri-tius, Nigeria, Panama, Romania, Senegal, theSeychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, theSyrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Yugoslaviaand Zambia; at the 2440th meeting, the representa-tives of Afghanistan, Botswana, Canada, the Federal

Republic of Germany, Kenya, Morocco, Mozam-bique, Uganda, Upper Volta and the United Repub-lic of Tanzania; at the 2441st meeting, the represen-tatives of Democratic Yemen, Japan, the LibyanArab Jamahiriya and Somalia; at the 2442nd meet-ing, the representatives of Bulgaria, Chile and Vene-zuela; at the 2443rd meeting, the representatives ofBarbados, Cyprus, Gabon, Liberia, Mexico, Mongo-lia, the Niger, Qatar and Viet Nam; at the 2444thmeeting, the representatives of Argentina, the Ger-man Democratic Republic and Hungary; at the2446th meeting, the representative of Czechoslova-kia; at the 2447th meeting, the representative ofMalaysia; at the 2448th meeting, the representativeof Grenada; and at the 2449th meeting, the re

Presen-

tatives of Ghana and the Islamic Republic o Iran.i4The Security Council also decided to extend invita-

tions as follows: at the 2439th meeting, to a deletion of the United Nations Council for Namibia edB

a-

by the President of that body, to the representative ofthe Chairman of the Special Committee againstApartheid, and to Mr. Sam Nujoma; at the 2440thmeeting, to the Acting Chairman of the SpecialCommittee on the Situation with regard to theImplementation of the Declaration on the Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;at the 2443rd meeting, to Mr. Clovis Maksoud; andat the 2447th meeting, to Mr. Johnstone F. Makatiniand Mr. Lesaoana S. Makhanda.14

The item was considered at the 2439th to 2444thand 2446th to 245 1st meetings, from 23 May to 1June 1983.

At the 2439th meeting,, the Minister for ForeignAffairs of India, speaking m his capacity as represen-tative of the Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, stated that he had come beforethe Council along with a large number of forei nministers of non-aligned countries, on the basis oP amandate from the Seventh Conference of the Headsof State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries,which had taken place in New Delhi from 7 to 12March 1983, and which had called upon the Councilto meet as soon as possible in order to considerfurther action on the implementation of its plan forNamibia’s independence under resolution 435( 1978).

He enumerated eight principles, also endorsed bythe United Nations: (a) that the right of the Namibi-an people to self-determination, freedom and nation-al independence in a united Namibia, includingWalvis Bay, the Penguin and other offshore islands,was inalienable; (b) that Namibia was the directresponsibility of the United Nations; (c) that SWAP0was the sole and authentic representative of theNamibian people; (d) that South Africa’s continuedillegal occupation of Namibia and its refusal tocomply with United Nations resolutions, as well asits attempts to devise and impose fraudulent consti-tutional and political schemes to perpetuate its holdon that Territory, should be condemned vigorouslyand unequivocally by the international community;(e) that South Africa’s exploitation of the naturalresources of Namibia, directly as well as throughforeign interests under the protection of the occu y-ing administration, was illegal and constitutea aserious violation of the Charter and an obstacle to thepolitical independence of Namibia;

t?that the

activities of SWAPO, in particular t e People’sLiberation Army of Namibia (PLAN), includinarmed struggle, against the illegal administration an dB

124 Chapter VIII. Mdmtewa of interutbd P-=-d&the forces of occupation were fully justified as alegitimate means to achieve freedom and nationalindependence; (g) that the countries of the non-aligned movement pledged to render all possiblematerial, financial, military, political, humanitarian,diplomatic and moral assistance to SWAP0 in itsstruggle to secure the total liberation of Namibia; and(h) that resolution 435 (I 978) containing the UnitedNations plan for the independence of Namibiaconstituted the only basis for the peaceful settlementof the Namibian question, and that any linkage orparallelism between the independence of Namibiaand the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angolamust be categorically rejected.

He said that South Africa had also used theTerritory of Namibia to launch acts of aggressionagainst independent States in the re ion, in particularthe front-line States, the latest act %eing the air raidagainst Mozambique. During the four years since theCouncil had adopted resolution 435 (1978) SouthAfrica had aimed at delaying its implementation.The latest retext had been the attempt to link thequestion oF Namibian independence to an entirelyirrelevant and extraneous issue. He said that it wastime for the Council to agree on a definite time framefor the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) andto remain actively seized of the question until theprocess was completed and that, if South Africacontinued to defy its decisions, the Council should beprepared to take appropriate action under ChapterVII of the Charter. 5

At the same meeting, the representative of theUnited Kingdom referred to recent acts of violenceand the toll in civilian casualties from the Pretoriacar bomb and the violation of Mozambican sover-eignty, and stated that his Government had alwaysdeplored the use of violence from any quarters in thesearch for solutions to the problems of southernAfrica. He pointed out that the Contact Group hadheld a series of meetings in Africa with the front-lineStates and SWAP0 while conducting parallel consul-tations with the South African Government. Broadagreement had been secured on a constitutionalframework which had led to the refinement andacceptance of the principles”j concerning the constit-uent assembly and the constitution for an inde n-dent Namibia. He referred to paragraph 18 ortheSecretary-General’s report and confirmed that as faras the United Nations was concerned the onlyoutstandin issues were the choice of the electoralsystem an d the settlement of some final problemsrelating to UNTAG and its composition.

He said that substantial progress had been madetowards the implementation of resolution 435 (1978)and that the Contact Group shared the concern thatfactors relating to the regional situation, which wereoutside the scope of the Contact Group’s mandate,had not yet permitted implementation of the UnitedNations plan. A Namibian settlement had to ensurethe security of all States in the re ionAngola. The United Nations plan for R

includinamibia coul d

not be implemented without the withdrawal of SouthAfrican forces from An olan territory. He expressedhope that the direct tal%s between the parties aboutthose problems would yield a satisfactory conclusionso that attention could be focused on the implemen-tation of resolution 435 (1978). The debate in theCouncil offered an opportunity to assist in thatdirection by making constructive contributions and

by formulating a resolution that would reinforce, notundermine, the negotiating process.7s

At the same meetinr$

, the President of the UnitedNations Council for amibia stated that the lack ofpro ress towards implementation of resolutions 385(1976) and 435 (1978) caused the United NationsCouncil for Namibia great concern. At every stage ofthe talks with South Africa during the five years sincethe adoption of resolution 435 (1978), South Africaand some of its partners had introduced new ele-ments aimed at delaying the implementation of theUnited Nations plan, most recently the attempt tolink the implementation of the settlement plan to thewithdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. Suchextraneous issues had been introduced because thetalks were held outside the United Nations frame-work. The Security Council meeting had been re-quested with the specific goal of bringing the talks onNamibia back into the United Nations framework,established by resolution 435 (I 978), under which theSecreta -General could be called upon to use hisgood of?ices and which did not recognize any linkageor extraneous factors.”

At the same meeting, Mr. Sam Nujoma, Presidentof SWAPO, gave a detailed account of the sufferings,abductions, massacres and other acts of intimidationto which Namibians were subjected by the SouthAfrican colonial arm

4of about 100,000 troops,

which had turned the erritory into a garrison State.He recalled the statement which he had made elevenand a half years ago, when he had been given theprivilege as the first freedom fighter to address theCouncil. The situation in and around Namibia whichhe had described before the Council in 1971 re-mained the same except that the human suffering anddestruction of property had increased to alarminproportions due to South Africa’s continued coloniaLfand racist oppression throughout the region.

Over the past two years, the United States hadbeen advocating a greater acce tance of South Africawithin the global framework oP Western security andthe net result of that policy was that Namibia’sindependence had been further delayed and thesuffering of the people prolonged. He lauded thereport of the Secretary-General, especial1 the con-cludinprevai ing state of affairs and showed who wasP

observations, which accurately rehected the

responsible for the impasse. SWAP0 had reviewedthe histoContact 2

of the negotiations and the role of theroup and had concluded that the five

Western Powers had ceased to be an honest broker inimplementing resolution 435 (1978).

He called upon the Council urgently to shoulder itsresponsibility in the implementation of the UnitedNations plan and, for that purpose, to strengthen therole of the Secretary-General, who was charged withthat responsibility under the terms of resolution 435(1978). He referred to the members of the ContactGroup as self-appointed and rejected the statementbdy

the representative of the United Kingdom that theontact Group should continue the negotiations on

the Namibian question.‘jAt the 2440th meeting, on 24 May 1983, the

representative of Cuba stated that in 1975, after thecolonialist forces had withdrawn from Angola, SouthAfrica had invaded the territory of independentAnhad

ola and that the Cuban internationalist fighterscome to Angola at that time to contribute to the

defence of its independence and territorial integrity.

Pul I I 125

Since then, South Africa had committed many acts ofaggression against Angola and occupied part of itsterritory for nearly two years. Cuba had alwaysrejected the linkage of Namibian independence to thepresence of the Cuban forces in Angola, and quotedthe first and ninth points of the Cuban-Angolan ‘ointstatement of 4 February 1982, according to wc ich:(a) the presence and withdrawal of the Cuban forcesstationed in Angola constituted a bilateral questionbetween the two sovereign States, in accordance withArticle 51 of the Charter; and (b) the Angolan andCuban Governments would consider the withdrawalof the Cuban forces, if the struggle of SWAP0 andthe demands of the international community suc-ceeded in achieving genuine independence for Na-mibia on the basis of resolution 435 (1978)7 and thetotal wrthdrawal of South Afrtcan troops.

At the same meeting, the representative of SouthAfrica charged that the main objective of the Coun-cil’s meeting was to undermine the delicate negotia-tions that were under way, and not to promote apeaceful settlement of the question of South WestAfrica. He said that South Africa continued toadminister the Territory legally, in conformity withthe spirit of the lapsed mandate from the League ofNations, and that South Africa had first accepted theWestern proposal and had informed the Secretary-General, on 22 December 1978, that it would co-operate in the expeditious implementation of resolu-tion 435 (1978).

On 6 February 1979, South Africa had advised theSecretary-General that early implementation wasim erative and had urged that UNTAG be in placebe Pore the end of that month, even if it only involvedcertain advance units. Since February 1979, how-ever, SWAP0 and the United Nations had createdthe obstacles which had frustrated agreement on apeaceful settlement. He quoted from a recent state-ment by his Minister of Foreign Affairs who had saidin the South African Parliament that there was anunquestionable de fucro linkage between the with-drawal of Cuban forces from Angola and the settle-ment of the Namibian/South West African question.He said that the problem had not been of SouthAfrica’s making. South Africa had tried to removethat last major obstacle to the realization of apeaceful settlement and had held two meetings at theministerial level with Angola in the Cape Verdeislands in December 1982 and February 1983. SouthAfrica was prepared to hold further talks with An olato resolve that issue. He added that South PA ricapreferred peaceful coexistence with all its neighbours,and had repeatedly invited its neighbours to enterinto non-aggression pacts.

In that context, he mentioned the bilateral ministe-rial talks between the Governments of South Africaand Mozambique. He stressed that South Africa wasseeking firm and concrete signs that the UnitedNations was prepared to give serious attention to thejustifiable concerns of the people of South WestAfrica and to the legitimate interests of South Africain a stable and peaceful southern Africa. He de-nounced what he called recent terrorist outrages andpointed to South Africa’s retaliation against ANCtargets in Mozambique, which illustrated the urgencyof the choice between an escalation of the confronta-tion and peace and cooperation. He expressed thehope that the Council would not consider any actionor impose any deadlines which might force the regionin the direction of a worsening of the conflict.77

At the 2443rd meeting, on 25 May 1983, therepresentative of the United States stated that herGovernment deplored cross-border violence insouthern Africa and had been seeking to assist theGovernments of the region to resolve mutual prob-lems by peaceful means. The United States had beenencouraged by the purposeful high-level dialoguebetween Mozambique and South Africa. The princi-ples of non-violence and of the settlement of dtsputesby peaceful means were especially pertinent to theissue under consideration by the Council. She saidthat it would be a mistake to discount the progressthat had been achieved towards the implementationof resolution 435 (1978) since the Council had lastreviewed the situation in Namibia. The United Statesshared the concern that the factors relating to theregional situation in southern Africa had not yetpermitted implementation of the United Nationsplan, and believed that those issues should beresolved rapidly in order to allow the Namibianpeople to exercise their right to self-determination.She stated that her Government had neither theintention nor the power to impose its own views onthose whose interests were most directly involvedand that its sole objective had been to assist theparties in tackling the obstacles that had thus farprevented the implementation of resolution 435(l;tii)7Band the attainment of Namibia’s indepen-

At the 2447th meeting, on 27 May 1983, therepresentative of France stated that France’s positionregardin the current situation was that resolutions385 (1986) and 435 (1978) were complete in them-selves and that Namibia’s accession to independenceand the unconditional implementation of those reso-lutions could not be impeded by external consider-ations. France, therefore, saw only advantages inhaving the Council give the Secretary-General amandate to resume contact with the arties con-cerned to ensure the implementation oP the UnitedNations plan. The problems that would remain afterthe implementation of the settlement plan, namely,the security and development of the southern Africanregion, should be reflected on.

He referred,.in that connection, to two su estionsmade the prevtous month by the Minister forTore&nAffairs of France at the International Conference mSupport of the Struggle of the Namibian People forIndependence: (a) that each sovereign State, especial-ly Namibia in the future, had the rtght to dectde onthe best way to strengthen its security, which Francewas prepared to support on its own and through theCouncil; and (b) that the United Nations should

Provide, in support of the Namibian settlement plan,or assistance to the countries most severely affected

by the continuing occupation of Namibia, particular-ly Angola, which had been the ob’ect of destructionand partial occupation because or’the people of Namibia.79

its solidarity with

At the 2449th meeting, on 31 May 1983, draftresolution S/l 5803 was adoptedsO unanimously asresolution 532 (1983). The resolution reads as fol-lows:

The Securi ty Counci l ,

Having considered the report of the !%crctary-Gcneml,Recalling General Assembly resolutions I514 (XV) of 14

December 1960 and 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966,

Recalling and re&tning its resolutions 301 (1971), 385 (1976),431 (1978), 432 (1978), 435 (1978) and 439 (1978).

Reaflrming the legal responsibility of the United Nations overNamibia and the primary responsibility of the Security Council forensuring the implementation of its resolutions 385 (1976) and 435(1978). including the holding of free and fair elections in Namibiaunder the supervision and control of the United Nations,

Tukina no& of the results of the International Conference in

126

Support-of the Struggle of the Namibian People for Independence.held at UNESCO House in Paris from 25 to 29 April 1983,

Taking hole of the protracted and exhaustive consultationswhich have taken place since the adoption of resolution 435(1978).

Further noting with rqrt? that those consultations have not yetbrouaht about the imnlementation of resolution 435 (1978).

I. Condemns South Africa’s continued illegal occupation ofNamibia in flagrant defiance of resolutions of the GeneralAssembly and decisions of the Security Council;

2. Co//s upon South Africa to make a firm commitment as to itsreadiness to comply with Council resolution 435 (1978) for theindependence of Namibia;

3. Further calls umn South Africa to co-operate forthwith andfully with the Secritary-General in order to-expedite the implc-mentation of resolution 435 (1978) for the early independence of

By letters2 dated I7 October 1983 addressed to thePresident of the Council, the representative of Sene-

Cbrptcr VIII. Maintenance of internatioa8l m and security

achieved with regard to the cessation of hostilities

&

and the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). He

al,. on behalf of the Group of African States at the

called upon all concerned to make another major

mted Nations, requested an urgent meeting of the

effort to reach the independence of Namibia at the

Council to consider the situation in Namibia.

earliest possible date and expressed his own determi-nation to continue his endeavours to that end and toassist the people of Namibia in any way he could.

By lettern’ dated 18 October 1983 addressed to thePresident of the Council, the re resentative of India,on behalf of the Movement o P Non-Aligned Coun-tries, requested a meeting of the Council to considerfurther the question of Namibia.

Namibia;4. Decrdes to mandate the Secretary-General to undertake

consultations with the parties to the proposed cease-fire, with aview to securing the speedy implementation of resolution 435(1978);

5 . Reques ts the Secretary-General to report to the Council on theresults of these consultations as soon as possible and not later than31 August 1983;

6. Decidus to remain actively seized of the matter.

Decision of 28 October 1983 (2492nd meeting):resolution 539 (1983)In pursuance of resolution 532 (1983) the Secre-

tary-General, on 29 August 1983, submitted a re-portnl concerning the implementation of resolutions435 (1978) and 439 (1978). In his report, theSecretary-General gave a detailed account of hisconsultations with the parties concerned and of hisvisit to South Africa and Namibia from 22 to 25August 1983. He had undertaken those efforts tocarry out the mandate given to him by the Council inresolution 532 (1983) namely, to consult with theparties to the proposed cease-fire with a view tosecuring the speedy implementation of resolution435 (1978). He stated that his prolonged consulta-tions had resulted, as far as UNTAG was concerned,in resolvin

%virtually all the outstanding issues and

that never efore had he been so close to finality onthe modalities of implementing resolution 435( 1978).

At the 248 1st meeting, on 20 October 1983, theCouncil included the letters by Senegal and India aswell as the report of the Secretary-General in itsagenda. Following the adoption of the agenda, thefollowing were invited, at their request, to partici-pate, without vote, in the discussion of the item onthe agenda: at the 248lst meeting, the representativesof Angola, Canada, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, the LibyanArab Jamahiriya, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone,South Africa, the United Republic of Tanzania,Yugoslavia and Zambia; at the 2482nd meeting, therepresentatives of Botswana, the Federal Republic ofGermany, Mozambique and Venezuela; at the2483rd meeting, the representatives of Algeria, theGerman Democratic Republic, Kenya, Kuwait, Mex-ico, Sri Lanka and Tunisia; at the 2485th meeting,the representative of Czechoslovakia; at the 2486thmeeting, the representatives of Argentina, Bulgariaand the Syrian Arab Republic; at the 2488th meeting,the representatives of Hungary, the Islamic Republtcof Iran, Peru and the Sudan; and at the 2490thmeeting, the representatives of Turkey and Uganda.”

The Secreta5

-General pointed out, however, thatthe position of outh Africa re rding the issue of thewithdrawal of Cuban troops rom Angola as a pre-Pcondition for the implementation of resolution 435(1978) still made it impossible to launch the UnitedNations plan. He indicated that he had repeatedlymade it clear that he did not accept the linkage andthat the question of Cuban troops was not envisagedin resolution 435 (1978) and was not part of hismandate under resolution 532 (1983).

The Council also decided to extend invitations toparticipate in the discussion of the item on theCouncil’s agenda under rule 39 of the provisionalrules of procedure to the following: at the 2481stmeetin , to a delegation of the United NationsCounci 7 for Namibia led by the President of thatbody,. to the Chairman of the Special Committee onthe Situation with regard to the Implementation ofthe Declaration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples and to Mr. PeterMueshihange; at the 2483rd meeting, to the ActingChairman of the Special Committee against Apurf-heid; and at the 2485th meeting, to Mr. Johnstone F.Makatini.”

The Council considered the item at its 2481st to2486th, 2488th, 2490th and 2492nd meetings, from20 to 28 October 1983.

The Secretary-General pointed out that his visit toNamibia had brought home to him the humantragedy of the current situation and the necessity forurgent progress towards implementation of the self-determmation and independence of the people ofNamibia. He also stressed the significance of apeaceful solution of the Namibian problem for apeaceful and cooperative future for all countries ofthe region. He warned that disastrous consequenceswould result if no substantial progress could be

At the 2481st meeting, the Minister for ForeignAffairs of Ethio ia,representative oP

speaking in his capacity asthe current Chairman of OAU,

stated that the withdrawal of Cuban forces fromAngola was an irrelevant and unjustified pre-condi-tion blocking the independence of Namibia. TheCuban forces had been requested by the Governmentof Angola for the purpose of repelling the invasion bySouth Africa. South Africa’s aggression and itsoccupation of parts of southern Angola necessitatedthe continued assistance. of Cuban forces in fullcooaf;;nty with the provisions of Article 51 of the

Pul II 127

The presence of Cuban forces in Angola, which hadposed no threat to the security and stability of theother States in the region, was thus not only legiti-mate and legal but a positive element in the contrnu-ing struggle for the maintenance of the sovereigntand territorial integrity of Angola. To speak of Sout zAfrica’s security concern over troops in a countrywith which it shared no common border could onlybe construed as tacit acceptance of its occupation ofthe international Territory of Namibia as legal.Linking that matter with the question of Namibia’sindependence could only be an interference in thedomestic affairs of Angola in clear contravention ofinternational law.

He recalled recent resolutions or decisions adoptedby OAU, the Movement of Non-Ali ned Countries,the International Conference in !f upport of theStru

gBand tIc of the Namibian People for Independencee General Assembly, which showed the emer-

gence of an international consensus rejecting the so-called linkage or parallelism in relation to Namibia’sindependence. He regretted that the Council had yetto pronounce itself on the matter and that suchsilence would amount to acquiescence in the delay ofthe implementation of the United Nations plan. Hestrongly urged the Council to reject all attempts tolink Namibia’s independence with any extraneousand irrelevant issues and to establish a time frame forthe implementation of resolution 435 (1978). TheCouncil should also seriously consider measuresagainst South Africa under Chapter VII of theCharter, if Pretoria persisted in its dilatory tactics.*’

At the same meeting, Mr. Peter Mueshihange,Secretary for Foreign Relations of SWAPO, de-nounced the linka e precondition insisted upon bySouth Africa and t fl e current United States Adminis-tration. He said that the issue of linkage had becomethe only obstacle in the negotiations on Namibia’stransition to independence.

He referred to the Secretary-General’s report andstated that it had led them to the following conclu-sions: (a) that the Secretary-General had successfullycarried out his mandate, under resolution 532 (1983),to undertake consultations with SWAP0 and SouthAfrica on the speedy implementation of resolution435 (1978); (h) that all the outstanding issues hadbeen resolved; (c) that those matters that weretechnical in nature as well as the related financialimplications were to be resolved quickly within theframework of resolution 435 (I 978) and on the basisof the understandings that had been reached amongthe negotiatin parties in New York in August 1982;(d) that the !!ecretary-General had confirmed thatSouth Africa would communicate its choice of theelectoral system-between the proportional represen-tation and a single constituency system-prior to theadoption of the enabling resolution by the Council;and (P) that SWAP0 had reiterated its readiness tosign a cease-fire a reement and to cooperate with theSecretary-Generaf and his Special Representative inthe judicious implementation of the United Nationsplan.

He declared the olitical will and determination ofSWAP0 to move onvard but added that the currentPmeetings of the Council were not engaged in theformulation and adoption of an enablin resolutionbecause of the unilateral and unwarrantef impositionof the issue of linkage by the United States on theNamibian ne otiations. That was a very seriousdevelopment kor them as it was also a direct chal-

len e to the authority of the United Nations, whichhadp assumed a unique responsibility over Namibiauntil its inde

p”ndence. He pointed out that SWAP0

sources con irmed that the Pretoria leadership wasnot contemplating the implementation of resolution435 (1978) for the next two to five years, if at all.Meanwhile, South Africa would continue to rely onmilitary repression inside Namibia and acts ofaggression against the front-line States and ANC. Heurged the Council to impose comprehensive manda-tory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter,which would compel the Pretoria regime to co-oper-ate full in the speedy implementation of resolution435 (1678).“4

At the same meeting, the representative of SouthAfrica referred to the report of the Secretary-General,which reflected accurately the position of the SouthAfrican Government. The discussions with the Secre-tary-General had been held to advance peacefulsettlement of the South West Africa question on thebasis of resolution 435 (1978) and, as a result, theremaining outstanding issues relating to the choice ofthe electoral system and the composition and statusof UNTAG had been resolved.

There was only one major issue left, the withdrawalof the Cubans from Angola on the understanding thatthey would not be replaced by any other hostileforces. He declared that his Government insisted onthe Cuban withdrawal. He noted that while theSecretary-General did not acce t the linkage betweena settlement in South West A rica/Namibia and thePwithdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, he hadacknowledged in his reports5 on the work of theOrganization to the thirty-eighth session of theGeneral Assembly that the destructive nature ofregional disputes was likely to be aggravated by thesuperimposition of East-West tension on such con-flicts. Since SWAP0 operated from Angola with theactive support of the Popular Armed Forces for theLiberation of Angola (FAPLA) and Cuba, the prcs-ence of the Cuban forces in Angola was indivisiblefrom the efforts to end conflict and to establish peacein the region.

He restated South Africa’s rejection of GeneralAssembly resolutions that had declared SWAP0 tobe the sole and authentic representative of the peopleof South West Africa and stressed that it would befutile for the Council to set any time frame for theimplementation of resolution 435 (1978) until theissue of the Cuban presence in Angola had beenresolved.B6

At the 2482nd meetin ,R

the representative ofAngola stated that one oft e most serious problemsthreatening international peace and security was theillegal occupation of Namtbia by South Africa, whichwas also one of the oldest before the United Nations.He said that, each time outstanding issues had beensettled, Pretoria had invented new ones and wouldnot end its illegal occupation of Namibia unless itwas forced. If resolution 435 (1978) was not imple-mented, the international community would be leftwith only two options: comprehensive sanctions or aprolonged armed struggle by SWAP0 and the peopleof Namibia with the support of their friends. Angolarejected artificial linkages and char ed

lthat “con-

structive engagement” had allowed outh Africa toengage in a “destructive engagement” against Angolaand to extend its illegal occupation of Namibia to thesouthern parts of hts country.

II Chapter VIII. Mdatcau~~~ of iatermtiood peace ad security

tion 435 (1978) was delaying the common objective.He renewed his Government’s demands for: (a) theimmediate and unconditional withdrawal of SouthAfrican forces occup

fying Angolan territory; (b) the

cessation of South A rica’s attacks on Angola; (c) thecessation of all lo istic and military support given toUNITA; a n d (4 the speedy implementation ofresolution 435 (1978). He pomted out that Angolahad invited its Cuban friends, among others, to assistthem in the defence of their sovereignty and territori-al integrity following the South African invasion.

He referred to South Africa’s brutal attacks on allfront-line States and said that the real reason forthose acts of aggression was not the presence ofCubans but rather South Africa’s pre-emptive opera-tion against any and all that threatened its raciststructure. He concluded that the Council must rejectSouth Africa’s insistence on linking Namibian inde-pendence to extraneous and irrelevant issues and thatit should also consider the application of appropriatemeasures under Chapter VII of the Charter in theevent of Pretoria’s continued noncompliance withthe Council’s resolutions.*’

At the same meetin the Deputy Minister forExternal Relations of Euba said that South Africahad consistently defied the international communityand flouted the resolutions of the Council and theGeneral Assembly in open violation of the funda-mental principles of the Charter. Namibia’s longhistory of colonial occupation and oppression wasexplained by its natural resources, including urani-um, and its strategic geographical location. TheSecretary-General’s recent visit to South Africa hadmade it clear that South Africa insisted on makingthe implementation of the settlement plan dependenton the presence of Cuban troops in An ola. Pretoriashould be asked what prevented its wit ff drawal fromNamibia in 1974 and before, when there were noCubans in Angola and when that country wascontrolled by the Portuguese colonial -army. Cubavigorously rejected the attempt at Imking the pres-ence of its troops in Angola with Namibia s mdepen-dence and emphasized that their presence was not asubject for negotiation with third parties.

He said that, on 4 February 1982, the Ministers forForeign Affairs of Cuba and Angola had signed adeclaration defending the principle of sovereignty asreflected in agreements between the two countries onthe basis of Article 51 of the Charter. He quotedarticle 9 of that declaration, which stated that theAngolan and Cuban Governments would considercommencin the implementation of a programme towithdraw Euban forces as soon as Namibia wasgenuinely independent and South Africa’s occupa-tion troops were completely withdrawn. Numerousatrocities committed by South Africa in the 10months of 1983 had been carried out from theoccupied Angolan territory. He concluded that theUnited Nations must assume its full responsibility inpreventing the outbreak of a catastrophe in southernAfrica and that the only course of action thatremained, in order to compel South Africa to abideby international law, was the application of mandato-ry sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter.*’

At the 2484th meeting, the representative of theUnited States said that the Secretary-General hadresolved the outstanding issues, except for one thatstood in the way of im

Plementing resolution 435

(1978) namely, South A rica’s position on the with-drawal of Cuban forces from Angola. She said it wasfrustrating that an issue outside the scope of resolu-

but that the United States remained convinced thatthat obstacle could and should be removed withperseverance and good will. She said that her Gov-ernment had devoted its energy to search for asolution on the basis of reciprocity, respect forsecurity and sovereignty on all sides and that it wouldcontinue with that effort as long as it appeared thatthere was a chance for a peaceful solution. TheUnited States neither sought nor desired any specialadvantage or position for itself, and its sole objectivehad been to assist the arties most directly concernedin overcoming the dif?iculties that had so far prevent-ed implementation of resolution 435 (1978). Sheconcluded that the future of Namibia depended onthe unity of the members of the Council in keepingthe negotiating process firmly on track.8B

At the 2485th meeting, the representative ofFrance commended the Secretary-General for havingcarried out courageously a difficult mission andnoted three points in his report: (a) the moderatepolicy, goodwill and spirit of compromise main-tained by SWAP0 and its leaders despite the frustra-tions of endless negotiations and the aggravation ofthe fighting; (b) the positive gestures by the PretoriaGovernment relating to the composition and statusof UNTAG and the question of impartiality; and (c)the reaffirmation from Pretoria regarding the unac-ceptable linkage between Namibian independenceand the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola.

Namibia’s accession to independence and theimplementation of resolutions 385 (1976) and 435(1978) could not be impeded by external consider-ations or by preconditions; France had upheld thatposition within the Contact Group. The questionarose whether South Africa’s continued insistence onlinkage precluded a peaceful settlement. He deploredthe protracted suffering of the people of Namibia andof the front-line States, particularly Angola, whichhad been the victim of raids, destruction and partialoccupation, and said that the French delegationunderstood and shared the feelings of bitterness andfrustration expressed in the Council’s meetin b

!Fzmany African delegations. He appealed to outAfrica to make the gestures that would permit theimplementation of the United Nations plan forNamibia.B9

At the 2490th meetin , the President stated thatmembers of the Counci s had before them a draftresolution90 sponsored by Guyana, Jordan, Malta,Nicaragua, Pakistan, Togo, Zaire and Zimbabwe.9*

At the 2492nd meeting, on 28 October 1983, thePresident drew the attention of the members of theCouncil to the revised text of the eight-Power draftresolution.92

At the same meeting, the representative of Zim-babwe, on behalf of the sponsors, introduced reviseddraft resolution S/16085/Rev.l and, in the course ofhis statement, orally amended the text whereby thedate “I December 1983” at the end of operativeparagraph 9 was replaced by “3 I December 1983”;and the words “not later than 31 December 1983” inoperative paragra h“as soon as gossi rl

10 were replaced by the hrasele followmg the Secretary-eener-

al’s report”.9Atthe same meetin

R, the revised eight-Power draft

resolution (S/16085/ ev.2) as orally amended wasvoted upon and adopted9j by 14 votes in favour,

Put II 129-none against, with 1 abstention, as resolution 539(1983). The resolution reads as follows:

The Security Counci l ,Havrng consrdered the report of the Secretary-General of 29

August 1983,Recalling General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of I4

December 1960 and 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966.Recalling and reaflrming its resolutions 301 (I 97 I), 385 (I 976).

431 (1978). 432 (1978), 435 (1978). 439 (1978) and 532 (1983),Gravely concerned at South Africa’s continued illegal occupation

of Namibia,Gravely concerned n/so at the tension and instability prevailing

in southern Africa and the mounting threat to the security of theregion and its wider implications for international peace andsecurity resulting from continued utilization of Namibia as aspringboard for attacks agamst and destabilization of AfricanStates in the region,

Reo/jirming the legal responsibility of the United Nations overNamibia and the primary responsibility of the Security Council forensuring the implementation of its resolutions, in particular,resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). which cal l for the holdingof free and fair elections in the Territory under the supervision andcontrol of the United Nations.

/ndiRnnnf that South Africa’s insistence on an irrelevant andextraneous issue of “linkage” has obstructed the implementationof resolution 435 (1978).

I . Condemns South Africa for its continued illegal occupationof Namibia in flagrant defiance of resolutions of the GeneralAssembly and decisions of the Security Council;

2. Further condemns South Africa for its obstruction of theimplementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) byinsisting on conditions contrary to the provisions of the UnitedNations plan for the independence of Namibia;

3. Rejecfs South Africa’s insistence on linking the indepen-dence of Namibia to irrelevant and extraneous issues as incompat-ible with resolution 435 (1978). other decisions of the SecurityCouncil and the resolutions of the General Assembly on Namibia,including General Assembly resolution I514 (XV);

4 . Declares that the independence of Namibia cannot be heldhostage to the resolution of issues that are alien lo resolution 435(1978);

5. Reilerutes that resolution 435 (I 978), embodying the UnitedNations plan for the independence of Namibia, is the only basisfor a peaceful settlement of the Namibian problem;

6 . Takes note that the consultations undertaken by the Secre-tary-General pursuant to paragraph 5 of resolution 532 (1983)have confirmed that all the outstanding issues relevant to resolu-t ion 435 (1978) have been resolved;

7 . Ajjirms that the electoral system to be used for the electionsof the Constituent Assembly should be determined prior to theadoption by the Council of the enabling resolution for theimplementalion of the United Nations plan;

8. Culls upon South Africa to co-operate with the Secretary-General forthwith and to communicate to him its choice of theelectoral system in order to facilitate the immediate and uncondi-tional implementation of the United Nations plan embodied inresolution 435 (1978):

9 . Requesfs the Secretary-General to report to the Council onthe implementation of this resolution as soon as possible and notlater than 31 December 1983;

I O . Decides to remain actively seized of the matter and lo meetas soon as possible following the Secretary-General’s report for thepurpose of reviewing progress in the implementation of resolution435 (1978) and, in the event of continued obstruction by SouthAfrica, to consider the adoption of appropriate measures under theCharter of the United Nations.

Following the vote, the representative of the SovietUnion said that while the resolution strengthened therole of the United Nations in the settlement of theNamibian question, the original draft had beenweakened durin the process of consultation. Theomission of a ifirect reference to sanctions‘ underChapter VII of the Charter to be imposed againstSouth Africa in the event of its continued refusal toimplement the Namibian settlement plan had been

brought about by the resistance by the United Statesand certain other Western friends of South Africa.Those States had once again confirmed that theycontinued to protect the racist regime against inter-national sanctions, thereby helping Pretoria to buytime and to obstruct Namibia’s transition to inde-pendence.93

The representative of the United States stated thathis Government fully supported the spirit of theresolution that had just been adopted. The UnitedStates had worked hard and would continue doing soto overcome obstacles that stood in the way ofNamibian independence. He said that there werecertain elements in the resolution that caused hisGovernment concern: (a) that the resolution con-tained a number of references to previous resolutionsthat had not been supported by the United States; (b)that the United States had some reservations relatingto the language of the resolution; and (c) that theUnited States regarded implicit allusion to possiblefuture action under Chapter VII of the Charter aspremature since substantial progress had been madern the negotiations aimed at the implementation ofresolution 435 (I 978).93

NOTES’ s/14333. OR, 36th yr., Suppl. for Jan.-March 1981.I For the purposes and background of the pre-implementation

meeting, see s114266, OR, 35th yr., Suppl. Jbr Oct.-Dec. 1980.3 s/14333, pares. I9 and 21, OR, 36th yr.. Suppl. fir Jan.-March

1981.4 s/14347. ibid.‘s/14346, ibid.

(2263rd mtg.. para. 4.’ Ibid. I pares. 8- 12.8 Ibid.. paras. 20-32.*fbid.. psras. 50-53.lo Ibid., paras. 6048.I1 Similar views were expressed by the representatives of the

Philippines, the Niger, Uganda, Ireland. Spain, France, the UnitedKingdom and the United States (2263rd mtg.. paras. 84-182).

“2263rd mtg., paras. 72 -79 .-. .

“s/14434. OR. 36th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1981.“For details, see chap. 111 in the present Supplement.l’Panama. Uganda and the Soviet Union, see 2267th mtg..

paraa. II and 12. paras. 19-24 and paras. 41-43.“France, the United Kingdom and the United States, see

2267th mtg., paras. I5 and 16, paras. 27-29 and paras. 32-37.“2267th mtg., para. 44.ID For further details, see chap. III in the present Supplement.I* 914423. For the text of the resolutions. see GAOR, 35th sex.

Suppl. No. 48.‘OSIl4333, OR, 36th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1981.I1 2267th mtg., para. 63.I1 For the consideration of the question of Southern Rhodesia

and the adoption of resolution 232 (1966), set Repertoire of thePractice of the Security Council, Supplement 1966-1968. chap.VIII, part II.

I3 2267th mtg., paras. 67-93.=a Ibid., paras. 97-l 3 I.1’ Ibid., paras. 133-149.I6 Ibid.. paras. 187-202.l7 Ibid.. paras. 205-220.I* Ibid.. paras. 223-242.“2268th mtg.. paras. 9-19.y, Legal Consequences for Slates of the Continued Presence of

South Mica in Namibia (South West &Zca) notwithstandingSecurity Council Resolution 276 (1970). Advisory Questions. I.C.J.Reports 1971, p. 16.

130 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of international peace and semity

‘I 2268th mtg.. paras. 21-55.‘1 Ibid., paras. 57-78.)J For the consideration of the invitation to Mr. Peter Kalangula

and the others associated with his request, see chap. 111, case I.y 2268th mtg., paras. 81-l 10.rr 2269th mtg.. paras. 5-33.16 Ibid.. paras. 36-52.jr For similar viewpoints, see also statements by the rcpresenta-

t ives of Zaire and Zimbabwe, 2269th mtg. , paras. 95-l 37 and 140-148.

Is 2269th mtg., paras. 56-79.Iv Ibid.. paras. 82-90.a2270th mtg., paras. 7-26.‘1 Ibid.. paras. 46-67.‘1 Ibid.. paras. 70-I 22.‘1 227 1st mtg., paras. 6-22.u For the consideration of the Namibian question by the

Security Council during its meetings at Addis Ababa in 1972, seeReperloire of the Practice of the Security Council. Supplement1972-1974. pp. 92-101.

“2271~1 mtg., paras. 44-66.16 s/14457. OR, 36th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1981.” 227 1st mtg., paras. 87-94.“Ibid.. paras. 124-131.4q 2273rd mtg.. paras. 93-103.XLlbid.. paras. 116-142.Ir 2274th mtg., paras. 9-16.J2 Ibid.. paras. 7 I-80.“2275th mtg.. paras. 31-37.w Ibid.. paras. 39-52.“2275th mtg.. paras. 66-112.)6 2276th mtg., paras. 6-26.rrSll4459, S/14460, S/14461, s/l4462 and S/14463, OR, 36th

yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1981.“2277th mtg., para. 5.sp S/l4460/Rev. I, OR, 36th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1981.“2277th mtg., para. 6.61 Ibid.. para. 24.b2 Ibid.. para. 25.b1 Ibid.. para. 26.“Ibrd.. para. 27.b’ibid.. para. 28.@Ibid.. paras. 32-38.M Ibid., paras. 39-45.MS114457. OR. 36th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1981.69 2277th mtg., paras. 53-59.7o Ibid.. paras. 66-92.‘1 Ibid., paras. 94 104.I2 S/15760, OR, 38th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1983.‘~Sll5761, ibid.74SI15776, ibid.I5 2439th mtg.lh St1 5287. OR, 37th yr., Suppl. for July-Sept. 1982.” 2440th mtg.‘12443rd mtg.7q 2447th mtg.M 2449th mtg.*I S/15943, OR, 38th yr., Suppl. for July-Sept. 1983.a2 s/16048, ibid., Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1983.s3S/16051. ibrd.“2481st mtg.M GAOR. 38th sex. Suppl. No. I (A/38/1), p. I.rb248lst mtg.I7 2482nd mtg.I8 2484th mtg.Ip 2485th mtg.W S/16085, adopted as amended in writing (S/l6085/Rev. I) and

oral ly at the 2492nd meeting by the representative of Zimbabwe.See resolution 539 (1983). The changes involved minor textualchanges as well as the deletion of an explicit reference lo ChapterVII of the Charter from operafive paragraph IO of the draftresolution.

91 2490th mtg.92 2492nd mtg. Revised draft resolution S/l6085/Rcv.l was

adopted as amended orallv (subsequently issued as S/l6085/Rev.2)at the same meeting. See resolut ion 539 (1983).

9J 2492nd mtg.

2. THE QUEsTION OF SOUTH AFRICA

Decision of 5 February 198 I (2264th meeting):statement of the PresrdentIn a letter dated 28 November 1980,’ the represen-

tative of Senegal, in his capacity as Chairman of theGroup of African States at the United Nations for themonth of November, forwarded for necessary actionthe copy of a letter of the same date addressed to himfrom the representative of the African NationalCongress of South Africa (ANC) in respect of deathsentences passed by the South African SupremeCourt on three members of ANC. The representativeof ANC had specifically requested that the Council,as in a similar case on an earlier occasion, holdconsultations and mandate the President to use his

Bood offtces to alert world opinion and to save theives of the three ANC members2

At its 2264th meeting, on 5 February 1981, theCouncil included the letter dated 28 November 1980from the representative of Senegal in its agenda.

As a result of consultations among members of theCouncil, the President then made the followingstatement on behalf of the Council:)

The members of the Security Council have entrusted me toexpress, on their behalf, their grave concern over the deathsentences recently passed by the Transvaal Division of theSupreme Court at Pretoria on Ncimbithi Johnson Lubisi (28).Petrus Tsepo Mashigo (20) and Naphtal i Manana (24) and whichmay be considered shortly by the Appellate Division of theSupreme Court at Bloemfontcin.

Having this in mind, I strongly urge that the Government ofSouth Africa, in order to avert further aggravating the situation inSouth Africa, should take into account the concerns expressed forthe lives of these three young men.

Decision of 27 August I98 I (2295th meeting): invita-tion extended to Mr. Johnstone MakatiniBy letter dated 27 August I98 I ,I the representative

of Niger, on behalf of the countries members of theCouncil belonging to the Movement of Non-AlignedCountries, requested a meeting of the Council at theearliest possible opportunity to consider the wishexpressed by Mr. Johnstone Makatini, representativeof ANC at the United Nations,. in his letter dated 24August addressed to the President of the Council,that, in accordance with the position taken by theCouncil in previous similar cases, the President issuea statement on behalf of the Council in connectionwith the death sentences passed by the PretoriaSupreme Court on three members of ANC-AnthonyTsotsobe, 25, Johannes Shabangu, 26, and DavidMoise, 25-n I9 August I98 I, in order to save theirlives.

At its 2295th meeting, on 27 August l98l., theCouncil included the letter from the representative ofNiger on its agenda. Following the adoption of theagenda, the Council decided to extend an invitationto Mr. Makatini under rule 39 of the provisionalrules of procedure.’

The re resentative of Niger pointed out that theSouth A rican regime was ready to murder in thePspace of a few months another three ANC militants

Pall II 1 3 1-

for reasons direct1 linked to their everyday struggleagainst the apart eid regime. He added that thexrepressive and political nature of the trials againstANC members escaped no one, since the deceptionof the South African authorities had been unmaskedalready six months ago. The black majority in SouthAfrica only demanded a just and democratic societywhere all races and social categories would be treatedequally and with justice and dignity. His delegationwashed to stress that it was the duty of the Council tohelp them to achieve that aspiratron, in accordancewith the Charter and the relevant resolutions of theCouncil, and appealed urgently to the Council toprevent the execution of the three patriots0

Most members joined the appeal of the representa-tive of Niger that the Council, through its President,call upon the Government of South Africa to desistfrom the execution of the three ANC members.’ Therepresentative of the United Kingdom indicated thatthe judicial process in the case might not yet becomplete, but stated his delegation’s view that, onhumanitarian rounds alone, the death sentences, ifthey were con rrmcd, should call for clemency.x TheBrepresentative of the United States recalled thestatement issued in February and expressed his wishthat the Council might finally come to a similarunanimous expression of concern.V Several represen-tatives voiced surprise and dismay that the membersof the Council had failed to endorse unanimously anappeal by the Council President as proposed by therepresentative of ANC and pointed to the well-known features of the South African handling of thecase in question which could not be described as anormal judicial process.‘O

Decision of I5 December 1981 (2315th meeting):statement by the PresidentBy letter dated 7 December 1981,” the representa-

tive of Botswana, on behalf of the Group of AfricanStates at the United Nations, requested that thePresident of the Council undertake consultationsamong the members of the Council in order that, inkeeping with precedent, appropriate action might betaken by the Council following the proclamation bySouth Africa of the independence of another bantu-start.

At its 23 15th meeting, on I5 December I98 I, theCouncil included the letter dated 7 December fromthe representative of Botswana in its agenda. As aresult of consultations held among members of theCouncil, the President made the following statementon behalf of the Council:‘*

The Security Council notes that on 4 December 198 I, the SouthAfrican regime proclaimed the Ciskei, an integral part of SouthAfrican territory, a so-called “independent” State, in pursuance ofits upunheid and bantustanization policy.

The Council recalls its resolution 417 (1977). in which itdemanded that the racist rCgime of South Africa should abolish thepolicy of bantustanization. II also recalls its resolutions 402 (1976)and 407 (1977). in which it endorsed General Assembly resolution31/6 A of 26 October 1976 on the matter. The Council furthertakes note of General Assembly resolution 32/105 N of 14December 1977 on the question of bantustans.

The Council does not recognize the so-called “independenthomelands” in South Africa: it condemns the purported proclama-tion of the “independence” of the Ciskei and declares it totallyinvalid. This action by the South African r&me. following similarproclamations in the case of the Transkei, Bophuthatswana andVenda. denounced by the international community, is designed IO

divide and dispossess the African people and establish cl ient Statesunder its domination in order to perpetuate aparrheid. It seeks tocreate a class of foreign people in their own country. It further

aggravates the situation in the region and hinders internationalefforts for just and lasting solutions.

The Council calls upon all Governments to deny any form ofrecognition to the so-called “independent” bantustans. to refrainfrom any dealings with them, to reject travel documents issued bythem, and urges Governments of Member States to take effectivemeasures within their constitutional framework to discourage allindividuals, corporations and other institutions under their juris-diction from having any dealings with the so-called “independent”bantustans.

Decision of 9 April 1982 (235lst meeting): resolution503 (1982)In a letter dated 8 April 1982,‘) the representative

of Uganda transmitted a letter from Mr. Makatini,representative of ANC, who informed the Presidentof the Council that the South African Court ofAppeal had confirmed the death sentences imposedon three members, Ncimbithi Johnson Lubisi, Naph-tali Manana and Petrus Tsepo Mashigo, in 1980 andrequested an urgent meeting of the Council oncemore to take up the matter; Mr. Makatini furtherrequested that the President use his ood offices tourge the Council, pursuant to the ca I made by thePCouncil on behalf of the three patriots on 5 February1981 at the 2264th meeting, to demand that SouthAfrica desist from carrying out those sentences and torelease immediately and unconditionally those andother patriots.

By another letter of the same date,” the representa-tive of Uganda requested an urgent meeting of theCouncil to examine the situation in southern Africa,following the confirmation of the death sentences onANC members.

At its 235 1 st meeting, on 9 April 1982, the Councilincluded the letter from the representative of Ugandarequesting the Council meeting” in its agenda.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Presidentdrew attention to a draft resolutionrJ submitted byTogo, Uganda and Zaire.

The representative of Uganda pointed out that anamendment had been proposed regarding the draftresolution and would be acceptable to the sponsors;he then read the text of the amendment, whichreplaced operative paragraph 2 of the original draft.He further stated that the meeting of the Council hadbeen requested for purely humanitarian reasons, inorder to enable the Council to help save the lives ofthree South African patriots. He recalled the state-ment of the President on 5 February 1981 expressingthe Council’s grave concern for the lives of the threepatriots and briefly indicated the humanitarian quali-ty of the draft resolution. Speaking on behalf of theAfrican Group and the three sponsors, he com-mended to the Council the draft resolution which hehoped would be adopted unanimously.‘*

The President then put the draft resolution asamended to the vote; it received I5 votes in favourand was unanimous1(1982).” It reads as r

adopted as resolution 503allows:

The Security Council,Recalling its resolution 473 (1980) and its statement of 5

February 1981 regarding the death sentences passed by theTransvaal Division of the Supreme Court at Pretoria on NcimbithiJohnson Lubisi. Petrus Tsepo Mashigo and Naphtali Manana.three members of the African National Congress of South Africa,

Gravely concerned at the conlirtnation of the death sentences bythe South African Court of Appeal on 7 April 1982,

Deeply concerned that the carrying out of the death sentenceswould further aggravate the situation in South Africa,

132 Chapter VIII. Mdateaaoce of latenuttonal peace and security

I. Culls upon the South African authorities to commute thedeath sentences;

2. Urges all States and organizations to use their influence and lotake urgent measures in conformity with the Charter of the UnitedNations, the resolutions of the Security Council and relevantinternational instruments to save the lives of the three men.

Following the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the United States commended thesponsors for their agreement to accept the criticallyimportant amendment to paragraph 2 of the text.ls

The representative of the Soviet Union criticizedthe delegation of the United States for insisting onlanguage in paragraph 2 of the resolution, whichchanged the context of the Council’s position con-cerning the lives of the three young patriots from theexplicit condemnation of the policy of apartheid as acrime against the conscience and dignity of mankmd,as found in resolution 473 (1980), paragraph 3,adopted unanimously on I3 June 1980. He deploredthe Insistence of the United States on considermg thethreat to the lives of the three young men in thecontext of the violation of human rights and not inthe context of the policy of upurfheid.lP

Decision of 20 September 1982 (2397th meeting):invitation of the Chairman of the Security CouncilCommittee established by resolution 42 I (1977)

Decision of 23 September 1982 (2398th meeting):other invitationsAt its 2397th meeting, on 20 Se tember 1982, the

Council resumed consideration oP the report of theSecurity Council Committee established by resolu-tion 421 (1977) concerning the question of SouthAfrica2” on ways and means of makmg the mandatoryarms embargo against South Africa more effective,an item which had been included in its agenda at the226lst meeting, on I9 December 1980.

The President stated that, in the course of consul-tations, the Council members had agreed to extendan invitation under rule 39 of the provisional rules ofprocedure to th$: Chairman. for I98 1 of the Security;“d~;~f, CommIttee estabhshed by resolution 42 1

At the 2398th meeting, on 23 September 1982, theCouncil invited the representatives of Algeria, Cubaand Ghana, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote.**

At the same meeting, the Council also decided toextend an invitation under rule 39 of the provisionalrules of procedure to the Chairman of the SpecialCommittee against Apurrheid.23

At the 2397th meeting, the Chairman for 1981 ofthe Security Council Committee recalled the adoption of the mandatory arms embargo under ChapterVII of the Charter in resolution 418 (1977) and theestablishment., organization and work of the Com-mittee estabhshed under resolution 421 (1977) inorder to study ways and means b which the embargocould be made more effective. +he report dated 19September 1980 of the Committee showed that theembargo was violated in that illicit transfers of armscontinued to take place and loopholes encouragedviolation of the embar o .mended that the loopi

The Committee had recom-oles be closed and had urged

that additional measures be taken to tighten theapplication of the arms embargo. He warned that ifthose steps were not taken to strengthen the im

Pact

of the arms embargo, the very respectability o theOrganization would be called into question.*’

At the 2398th meeting, the representative ofGhana, speaking in his capacity as the Chairman ofthe Group of African States at the United Nations,stated that sanctions offered the last

p”aceful instru-

ment to accomplish the abolition o apartheid andracial discrimination in South Africa. He reviewedthe developments since the imposition of the manda-tory arms embargo in 1977 and pointed to thedellberate violations of the arms embargo and theloopholes in the coverage of the arms embargo thathad become apparent since then. He also urged thatthe international community ban co-operation withSouth Africa’s nuclear programme, since that .en-hanced the racist regime’s nuclear-weapon capabIlityand enabled it to threaten peace and security m there ion and to terrorize nelghbouring countries. Heca ledH upon the Council Committee to prepare a listof all the products that would fall under the provi-sions of the arms embar

7o , suggested that the embar-

go be extended to so-ca led dual-purpose items thatcould be taken advantage of by the South Africanmilitary authorities and urged that oil be recognizedas an essential element in any arms embargo. Heappealed strongly to the Council that everything bedone to ensure the more effective implementation ofthe mandatory arms embargo against the apartheidrCgime in South Africa.2’

Ch?c$iton of 4 October 1982: statement of the Presi-

By a letter dated I6 September 1982*“ addressed tothe Secretary-General, the Chairman of the SpecialCommittee against Apartheld drew attention to thedeath sentences imposed by South Africa on 6 August1982 on Thelle Simon Mogoerane, Jer

xSemano

Mosololi and Marcus Thabo Motaung, t ree ANCmembers, on the charge of high treason.

On 4 October 1982, following consultations withthe Council members, the President issued thefollowing statement*’ on behalf of the members of theCouncil:

The members of the Security Council have entrusted me (0express, on their behalf, their grave concern at the death sentencespassed on 6 August 1982 in South Africa on Mr. Thcllc SimonMogoerane. Mr. Jerry Semen0 Mosololi and Mr. Marcus ThaboMotaung, three members of the African National Congress ofSouth Afr ica.

The members of the Security Council strongly urge the Govem-ment of South Africa, in order to avoid further aggravating thesituation in South Africa. to commute the death senlcnces.

Decision of 2404th meeting (7 December 1982):resolution 525 (1982)At ifs ?404th meeting, OII 7 December 1.982, the

Fg~nndc;l Included the questlon of South Africa m Its

The President stated that the meeting of theCouncil had been convened in accordance with arequest by the rethe Group of A rican States at the United NationsP

resentative of Uganda on behalf of

and the non-aligned members of the Council. Hedrew the attention of the Council to a draft resolu-tion** submitted by Guyana, Jordan, Panama, Togo,Uganda and Zaire. The draft resolution was put tothe vote, received 15 votes in favour and wasado

Bted unanimously as resolution 525 ( 1982).29 It

rea s as follows:The Security Council,Having considered the question of the death senten- passed on

I9 August 1981 in South Africa on Mr. Anthony Tsotsobe, Mr.Johannes Shabangu and Mr. David Moise,

Pul I I 133

Recalling its statement of 4 October 1982 regarding the deathsentences passed on 6 August 1982 in South Africa on Mr. ThelleSimon Moeoerane, Mr. Jerry Semano Mosololi and Mr. MarcusThabo Motaung, members of the African National Congress ofSouth Africa, and reiterating its urgent appeal for executiveclemency in this case,

Grave/y concerned at the confirmation by the Appellate Divisionof the Supreme Court of South Africa on 26 November 1982 of thedeath sentences imposed on Mr. Anthony Tsotsobe. Mr. JohannesShabangu and Mr. David Moise.

Conscious that the carrying out of the death sentences willfurther aggravate the situation in South Africa.

I. Culls rcpon the South African authorities to commute thedeath Sentences imposed on the six men;

2. Urges all States and organizations to use their influence and totake urgent measures, in conformity with the Charter of theUnited Nations, the resolutions of the Security Council andrelevant international instruments, IO save the lives of the six men.

Decision of 7 June 1983 (2452nd meeting): resolution533 (1973)By a letter dated 6 June 1983,‘O the representative

of Morocco, in his capacity as Chairman of theGroup of African States at the United Nations,informed the Council that South Africa had on thatday confirmed the death sentences passed on ThelleSimon Mogoerane, Jerry Semano Mosololi and Mar-cus Thabo Motaung and requested the Council totake urgent and appropriate action.

At its 2452nd meeting, on 7 June 1983, theCouncil included the letter from the representative ofMorocco in its agenda.

Following the adoption of the agenda, the Presi-dent drew attention to a draft resolutionjl that hadbeen worked out in the course of consultationsamong the members of the Council. He then put thedraft resolution to the vote; it received 15 votes infavour and was adopted unanimously as resolution533 (1983).32 It reads as follows:

The Security Council,Having considered the question of the death sentences passed on

6 August 1982 in South Africa on Mr. Thelle Simon Mogoerane.Mr. Jerry Semano Mosololi and Mr. Marcus Thabo Molaung,members of the African National Congress of South Africa,

Recalling its statemem of 4 October 1982 as well as itsresolution 525 (1982) appealing for executive clemency in thiscase,

Grave/y concerned over the decision of the South Africanauthorities on 6 June 1983 to refuse executive clemency in respectof the three men,

Conscious that the carrying out of the death sentences willaggravate the situation in South Africa,

I. Calls upon the South African authorities to commute thedeath sentences imposed on the three men;

2. Urges all States and organizations to use their influence and totake urgent measures, in conformity with the Charter of theUnited Nations, the resolutions of the Security Council andrelevant international instruments. to save the lives of the threem e n .

Decision of I3 January 1984 (2512th meeting):resolution 547 (1984)By letter dat$d 18 January 1984,” the representa-

tive of Togo: m his capactty as Chairman of theGroup of African States at the United Nations for themonth of January 198!, requested an urgent meetingof the Council to consider the question of the deathsentence passed by the Supreme Court of SouthAfrica against Mr. Malesela Benjamin Malaise, amember of ANC.)’

At its 2512th meeting, on 13 January 198?, theCouncil included the letter from the representative ofTogo in its agenda.

Following the adoption of the agenda, the Presi-dent drew attention to a draft resolutionjs that hadbeen prepared in the course of the Council’s consul-tations. He then put the draft to the vote; it receivedI5 votes in favour and was adopted unanimously asresolution 547 (1984).16 It reads as follows:

The Seruriry ~‘oun~rl.Iluvrng cwnsrdered the question of the death sentence passed on

6 June 1983 in South Africa on Mr. Malesela Benjamin Maloise.Rtwlhng its resolutions 503 (19x2). 525 (1982) and 533 (1983).~ruvely concmwd over the currenf decision of the South African

authorities to reject an appeal against the death sentence imposedupon Mr. Maloise,

Conscious that carrying out the death sentence will furtheraggravate the situation in South Africa,

I. t’u//s uprm the South African authorities to commute thedeath sentence imposed upon Mr. Maloise;

2. (/rKc.v all States and organizations to use their influence and totake urgent measures, in accordance with the Charter of IheUnited Nations, the resolutions of the Security Council andrelevant international instruments, to save the life of Mr. Male&aBenjamin Maloisc.

Decision of I7 August 1984 (2551s.t meeting): resolu-tion 554 (1984)By letter dated 8 August 1984,” the representative

of Algeria, on behalf of the Group of African States atthe United Nations, requested, in accordance withGeneral Assembly resolution 38/l I of 15 November1983, an urgent meeting of the Council to considerthe so-called constitutional reforms in South Africa.

At the 2548th meeting, on 16 August 1984, theCouncil included the letter dated 8 August from therepresentative of Algeria in its agenda. Following theadoption of the agenda, the Council decided to invitethe following, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote: at the 2548thmeeting, the representatives of Algeria, Argentina,Czechoslovakia, Nigeria, South Africa and Thailand;at the 2549th meetm , the representatives of Benin,Cuba, Mongolia, the 8yrian Arab Republic, Trinidadand Tobago and Yugoslavia; at the 2550th meeting,the representatives of the Congo, Indonesia, Kuwait,Qatar and Sri Lanka; and at the 255 1 st meeting, therepresentatives of Afghanistan, Guyana, Kenya andTogo.5 The Council also decided to extend invita-tions under rule 39 of the provisional rules ofprocedures, at the 2548th meeting, to the ActingChairman of the Special Committee against Apurf-heid, to Mr. Mfanafuthi J. Makatini and to Mr.Ahmed Gora Ebrahim, at the 2549th meeting, to theChairman of the Special Committee on the Situationwith regard to the Implementation of the Declarationon the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples and, at the 2551st meeting, to Mr.Lesaoana Makhanda.’ The Council considered theitem during its 2548th to 255lst meetings, on 16 andI7 August 1984.

Speaking on behalf of the Group of African Statesat the Umted Nations at the 2548th meeting, therepresentative of Algeria pointed out that the so-called constitutional reforms imposed by the SouthAfrican Government sought to entrench and perpetu-ate the apurrheid s

clstem and completed the edifice

that made the in igenous po ulation non-personsand deprived them of their undamental right toPcitizenship. He then described in detail the newconstitution establishing the hierarchy of races and aso-called three-house Parliament for whites, for “col-oureds” and for persons of Asian origin, respectively,while excluding blacks from any kind of representa-

tion altogether. He indicated that whereas the whitechamber could take up any matter it wished, theother two chambers could discuss issues only afterthe approval of the white President of the State,thereby guaranteeing the parliamentary dominanceof the white minority. Referring to the long chain ofdiscriminatory legislation, he stressed that the newconstitution was merely another link intended tostrengthen the apartheid regime and to perpetuatewhite supremacy.

In view of the Ionf

history of the racist system, therepresentative of A geria concluded that the aparf-heid system could not be reformed, but must berooted out, and that pressure must be kept up againstthe South African regime in order to obtain therestitution of the le itimateAfrican people. The E

riroup P

ts of the Southof A rican States at the

United Natlons therefore expected and demandedthat the Council, like the General Assembly, wouldre’ect the so-called constitution, as well as the resultso / the 2 November 1983 referendum. The Councilshould clearly indicate that the implementation ofthe “constitution” would inevitably aggravate ten-sion and conflict in South Africa and throu hout theregion. Only the eradication of aparfheidand theestablishment of a democratic non-racial societybased on universal adult suffrage in a united andunfragmented South Africa could lead to a just andlasting solution of the explosive situation in southernAfrica.3B

At the same meeting, the representative of SouthAfrica protested sharply agamst what he calledinterference by the Council in an internal affair of theRepublic of South Africa. That violation of theCharter by organs and members of the Organizationwas unacceptable as the subject of constitutionalarrangements was beyond the ambit of the UnitedNations. He offered the official explanation for thenew constitution and stressed that the black ppula-tion had not been left out but had exercised Its rightto self-determination by opting for political indepen-dence. He presented a detailed description of the newconstitutional set-up, which was supposed to advancethe goals of self-determination, autonomy, devolu-tion of power and co-ordinated economic develop-ment throughout the country. He denounced theUnited Nations as an ineffectual organization andindicated that his Government re’ected in advancewhat the Council would decide.]d

At the 2549th meeting, on 16 Au ustPresident drew attention to a fdra t

1984,. theresolutlo@

submitted by Burkina Faso, E pt, India, Malta,Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru and Yimbabwe.

At the 255 1st meeting, on 17 August 1984, therepresentative of India, speaking on behalf of theei

Pint non-aligned sponsors of the draft resolution,

ormed the Council that as a result of consultationswith other Council members the sponsors had a reedto a few changes, including the deletion oF theoriginal second preambular paragraph, some editori-al changes in the original fifth preambular paragraphand the deletion of some words in the last preambu-lar paragraph. He expressed hope that the spirit ofaccommodation shown by the sponsors would enablethe Council to adopt the draft resolution boverwhelming majority, if not by unanimity.’ Y

an

At the same meeting, the President put the drafiresolution to the vote; It received 13 votes in favour,

none against, and 2 abstentions, and was adopted asresolution 554 (1984).42 It reads as follows:

The Security Council,Recufling its resolution 473 (1980) and General Assembly

resolution 38/l I of I5 November 1983. as well as other relevantUnited Nations resolutions calling upon the authorities in SouthAfrica to abandon apartheid, end oppression and repression of theblack majori ty and seek a peaceful , just and last ing solut ion inaccordance with the principles of the Charter of the UnitedNations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Convinced that the so-called “new constitution” endorsed on 2November I983 by the exclusively white electorate in South Africawould continue the process of denationalization of the indigenousAfrican majority, depriving it of all fundamental rights, andfurther entrench opurfheid, transforming South Africa into acountry for “whites only”,

Aware that the inclusion in the “new constitution” of the so-cal led “coloured” people and people of Asian origin is aimed atdividing the unity of the oppressed people of South Africa andfomenting internal conflict,

Nofing wifh grave concern that one of the objectives of the so-called “constitution” of the racist rCgime is to make the “col-oured” people and people of Asian origin in South Africa eligiblefor conscription into the armed forces of the upurrheid r6gime forfurther internal repression and aggressive acts against independentAfrican States,

We/coming the massive united resistance of the oppressedpeople of South Africa against these “constitutional” manoeuvres,

Reuflrming the legitimacy of the struggle of the oppressedpeople of South Africa for the elimination of apartheid and for theestablishment of a society in which all the people of South Africaas a whole, irrespective of race, colour, sex or creed, wil l enjoyequal and full political and other rights and participate freely inthe determination of their destiny,

Fi rmly conv inced that the so-cal led “elect ions” to be organizedby the Pretoria r&ime in the current month of August for the“coloured” people and people of Asian origin and the implementa-tion of this “new constitution” will inevitably aggravate tension inSouth Africa and in southern Africa as a whole,

I. Dec la res that the so-cal led “new const i tut ion” is contrary tothe principles of the Charter of the United Nations, that the resultsof the referendum of 2 November 1983 are of no validitywhatsoever and that the enforcement of the “new constitution”wil l further aggravate the already explosive si tuat ion prevai l inginside apartheid South Africa;

2. Strongly rejects and declares as null and void the so-called“new constitution” and the “elections” to be organized in thecurrent month of August for the “coloured” people and people ofAsian origin as well as all insidious manoeuvres by the racistminority r&ime of South Africa further to entrench whiteminority rule and apartheid;

3. Furrher rejects any so-called “negotiated settlement” based onbantustan structures or on the -Iled “new constitution”;

4. So lemnly dec la res that only the tota l eradicat ion of apar the idand the establishment of a non-racial democratic society based onmajority rule, through the full and free exercise of universal adultsuffrage by all the people in a united and unfragmented SouthAfrica, can lead to a just and lasting solution of the explosivesituation in South Africa;

5. Urges all Governments and organizations not to accordrecognition to the results of the socalled “elections” and to takeappropriate action, in cooperation with the United Nations andthe Organization of African Unity and in accordance with thepresent resolution, to assist the oppressed people of South Africain their legitimate struggle for a non-racial, democratic society;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the SecurityCouncil on the implementation of the present resolution;

7. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Following the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the United States su ested that theUnited Nations could discuss and con emn all forms7of racial discrimination, deemed at one time aninternal matter, as the Members of the UnitedNations had pledged themselves through the Charterto promote human rights and fundamental freedoms

put II- 135

-

for all without distinction as to race, sex, language orreligion. He emphasized that his Government did notbelieve that Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Chartercould be interpreted to render the Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights or other general principles anullity. He added, however, that his delegation hadabstamed in the vote since the Council, whosemandate was clearly spelt out in Article 24, was notthe appropriate forum for that resolution. He ex-pressed the hope that the expansion of the franchiseto persons of Asian and so-called coloured descentcould eventually be further extended to include themajority of South Africans and declared that theUnited States would continue to encourage attain-ment of the ultimate goal of universal, non-discrimi-natory suffrage in South Africa.43

The representative of the United Kingdom statedthat his delegation shared the concern expressed inthe resolution about the absence of any provision inthe new constitution for the black majority. But hewarned against making a final jud ementpoint about the new arrangements. I - f

at thatis Government

had consistently declined to take a position on thenew arrangements, which might endanger prospectsfor further change in South Africa. He further tookexception with some of the language in the resolutionand did not accept that the references to the legitima-cy of the struggle related to armed struggle orextended to the use of force. Nor did his delegationbelieve that outsiders should prescribe solutions ordetermine the validity of internal arrangements.43

Decision of 23 October 1984 (2560th meeting):resolution 556 (I 984)By letter dated 17 October 1984,” the re

tive of Ethiopia, on behalf of the Group o?resenta-African

States at the United Nations, requested the Presidentof the Council, in pursuance of General Assemblyresolution 3912 of 28 November 1984, to considerthe serious situation in South Africa emanating fromthe imposition of the so-called new constitution andto take all necessary measures in accordance with theCharter, to avert the further aggravation of tensionand conflict in South Africa and m southern Africa asa whole.

At its 2560th meeting, on 23 October 1984, theCouncil included the letter from the representative ofEthiopia in its agenda. Following the adoption of theagenda, the Council decided to invite the representa-tives of Ethiopia and South Africa, at their request,to participate in the discussion without the right tovote. The Council also decided to extend invitationsunder rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules ofprocedure to the Chairman of the Special Committeeagainst Aparrheid and to Bishop Desmond Tutu.tThe Council considered the item at the same meet-ing.

The President opened the meeting and drew atten-tion to a draft resolution4s submltted by BurkinaFaso, Egypt, India, Malta, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peruand Zimbabwe.

The representative of Ethiopia, speaking on behalfof the Group of African States at the United Nations,condemned once again the process of bantustaniza-tion whereby blacks were uprooted from their ances-tral homes and forced to settle in barren wastelands.He also denounced the so-called referendums andelections as nothing other than attempts to entrenchwhite supremacy. He recalled the recent adoption ofCouncil resolution 554 (1984) and General Assembly

resolution 39/2 as expressions of the internationalcommunity regarding the illegitimate and racistcharacter of the regime and its policy. He warnedthat the situation could no Ion er continue andemphasized that the Council 9shou d finally agree tothe imposition of comprehensive and mandatorysanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII ofthe Charter; otherwise, the people of South Africawould be left with no other choice than the intensifi-cation of the ongoin armed stru le. He concludedby calling upon the Eouncil memrers to endorse thedraft resolution, which contained the minimum todefuse the current tension.&

The rethat the cp

resentative of South Africa charged a ainouncil was interfering in the internal a airsff

of his country and rejected whatever decisions theCouncil might arrive at in prescribing to South Africahow it should run its own affairs.

Bishop Desmond Tutu commended President P.W. Botha for his courage in declaring that the futureof South Africa could no longer be determined bywhites only, but deplored that that opportunity toresolve the burgeoning crisis in his native land shouldhave been vitiated by exclusion of the overwhelmingmajority in the land. From all indications it hadbecome clear that the new constitution was intendedto perpetuate the rule of a minority and to entrenchracism and ethnicity. He expressed dismay over allforms of violence, presented his dream of a truly non-racial, democratic society and pledged to continuethe work for justice, peace and reconciliation.47

Prior to the vote, the representative of the Nether-lands addressed the growing danger of an explosionleading to destruction and violence in South Africaand warned that decisive measures of basic reformwere ur ently required to forestall such a develop-ment . I-f e recalled his Government’s willingness toco-operate with other Council members in strength-ening the arms embargo by a mandatory ban on theimport of arms manufactured by South Africa. Heannounced his delegation’s support for the draftresolution, but objected to some of the languageemployed in the draft and to the Council’s passingJudgement on the legal validity of a Member State’sconstitution or electoral processes.47

At the same meeting, the draft resolution was putto the vote, received 14 votes in favour with Iabstention, and was adopted as resolution 556( 1984).48 It reads as follows:

The Securi ty Counci l ,

Recalling its resolution 554 (1984) and General Assemblyresolutions 38/l 1 of I5 November 198jand 3912 of 28 September1984, which declared the so-called *‘new constitution” contrary tothe principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Rearming the provisions of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, part icularly art icle 21, paragraphs 1 and 3. whichrecognize, inrer &a. the right of everyone to take Dart in theGovernment of his count@ directly or through freely chosenrepresentatives, and the will of the peoole as the basis of theauthority of Government,

. .

A/armed by the aggravation of the situation in South Africa, inparticular the wanton killing and the maiming of defencelessdemonstrators and workers on str ike as well as the imposit ion ofvirtual martial-law conditions intended to facilitate the brutalrepression of the black populat ion,

Gravely concerned at the continuinn arbitrarv arrests anddetentions without trial of leaden and activists of mass organiza-tions inside the country as well as the closure of several schoolsand universi t ies,

Commending the massive united resistance of the oppressedpeople of South Africa, including the strike by hundreds of

136 Cbrpter VW. Maiatcaaeec o f iaternational peace and aecwity

thousands of black students, to the imposition of the so-called“new constitution”,

Commending also the Asian and coloured communities in SouthAfrica for their large-scale boycott of the recent “elections” whichconstituted a clear rejection of the so-called “new constitution”,

Reujjirming the legitimacy of the struggle of the oppressedpeople of South Africa for the full exercise of the right to self-determination and the establishment of a non-racial democraticsociety in an unfragmented South Africa,

Convinced that racist South Africa’s defiance of world publicopinion and the imposition of the rejected so-called “new constitu-tion” will inevitably lead to further escalation of the explosivesituation and will have far-reaching consequences for southernAfrica and the world,

I. Reiterates its condemnation of the upar/had policy of theSouth African r&gime and South Africa’s continued deliance of theresolutions of the United Nations and designs further to entrenchupurrheid. a system characterized as a crime against humanity;

2. Fururrher condemns the continued massacres of the oppressedpeople, as well as the arbitrary arrest and detention of leaders andactivists of mass organizations;

3. Demund.c the immediate cessation of the massacres and theprompt and unconditional release of all political prisoners anddetainees;

4. Reu/firms that only the total eradication of uporfheid and theestablishment of a non-racial, democratic society based on majori-ty rule, through the full and free exercise of adult sumrage by all thepeople in a united and unfragmented South Africa, can lead to ajust, equitable and lasting solution of the situation in South Africa;

5. Crrgex all Governments and organizations to take appropriateaction, in co-operation with the United Nations and the Organiza-tion of African Unity and in accordance with the presentresolution, to assist the oppressed people of South Africa in theirlegitimate struggle for the full exercise of the right to self-determi-nation;

6. Demands the immediate eradication of uparrheid as thenecessary step towards the full exercise of the right to self-determination in an unfragmented South Africa, and to this enddemands:

(u) The dismantling of the bantustan structures as well as thecessation of uprooting, relocation and denationalization of theindigenous African people;

(b) The abrogation of the bans and restrictions on politicalorganizations, parties, individuals and news media opposed toapartherd;

(c) The unimpeded return of all the exiles;

7. Requesfs the Secretary-General to report to the SecurityCouncil on the implementation of the present resolution;


Following the vote, the representative of theUnited Kin dom

fstated that his Government had

supported t e resolution just adopted in order toprovide another sign by the international communitythat the problems of South Africa neither could norshould be resolved by repression, by the denial ofcivil and political rights or by violence. He regrettedthe exaggerated language used in some parts of theresolution and explained that his delegation regardedthe expression “crime against humanity” as one ofabhorrence rather than a technical le al descriptionand that it did not interpret any part o the resolutionkas fallinCharter. 8 within the terms of Chapter VII of the

Decision of 13 December 1984 (2564th meeting):resolution 558 (1984)In a letter dated 13 December 1984,50 the Chair-

man of the Security Council Committee establishedby resolution 421 (1977) concernin

%the question of

South Africa transmitted to the resident of theCouncil for the attention of its members the text of arecommendation adopted by consensus by the Com-mittee at its 63rd meeting, held on the same day.

At the 2564th meeting, on 13 December 1984, theCouncil included the letter in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council invited therepresentative of South Africa, at his request, toparticipate in the discussion without the right tovote.5 The Council considered the item at its 2564thmeeting.

The representative of the Netherlands stated that,a month earlier, his delegation had requested ameeting of the Security Council Committee estab-lished by resolution 42 1 (1977) in order to submit toits members a proposal to expand the arms embargoimposed in resolution 4 18 (I 977) by a ban on armsimports from South Africa, a ste that his Govem-

Pment had advocated over the last ew years. That steseemed advisable because South Africa had responJ-ed to the arms embargo with a major effort to buildup its capacity to manufacture arms and thus tocircumvent the provisions of the embargo. Moreover,the South African Government had launched anexport drive for its self-produced weapons. Underthose circumstances, his delegation believed that theinternational community must keep u

Pthe pressure

on South Africa so that a process o fundamentalreforms would be initiated leading to the eliminationof apartheid.

He then introduced the draft resolution 5I whichwas the result of extensive consultations with othermembers of the Council and had been recommendedby consensus by the Security Council Committeeestablished by resolution 42 1 (I 977). He added thathis delegation saw the proposed draft resolution,though of a non-mandatory character, as a concretestep forward, and urged the Council to endorse thetext.s2

Then the President put the draft resolution to thevote;.it received 15 votes in favour and was adounammously as resolution 558 (1984).s3 It rea cf

teds as

follows:The Security Council,RecuNing its resolution 418 (1977), in which it decided upon a

mandatory arms embargo against South Africa,Recalling its resolution 421 (1977). by which it entrusted a

Committee consisting of all its members with the task of. amongother things, studying ways and means by which the mandatoryarms embargo could be made more effective against South Africaand to make recommendations to the Council,

Tuking nofe of the Committee’s report to the Security Councilcontained in document S/l4179 of I9 September 1980,

Recognizing that South Africa’s intensified efforts to build up itscapacity to manufacture armaments undermines the effectivenessof the mandatory arms embargo against South Africa,

Considering that no State should contribute to South Africa’sarms-production capability by purchasing arms manufactured inSouth Africa,

I. Reaflrms its resolution 4 I8 (I 977) and stresses the continu-ing need for the strict application of all its provisions;

2. Requests all States to refrain from importing arms, ammuni-tion of all types and military vehicles produced in South Africa;

3. Requests all States, including States not Members of theUnited Nations, to act strictly in accordance with the provisions ofthe present resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the SecurityCouncil Committee established by resolution 42 I (I 977) concem-ing the question of South Africa on the progress of the implemen-tation of the present resolution before 31 December 1985.

Following the vote, the representative of theUnited Kin d o m pointed out that his Governmentwas opposed to certain su estions that would exac-erbate the situation in Sout Africa and could causePBgrave damage to neighbouring States and therefore

P u t II 1 3 7-

warned against the Council’s lightly entering intoareas such as Chapter VII measures. His Governmentalso objected to the use of trade sanctions, whichwere difficult to enforce and harmed the poorest andmost vulnerable, whereas trade was a channel forwidening mutual understanding and for exercising amoderatmg influence. He commended the Councilfor adopting a realistic course and expressed greatappreciation to the representative of the Netherlandsfor preparing a text that would command unanimousslJpporL5*

The representative of India underlined the primaryimportance of resolution 418 (1977) setting up themandatory arms embar o and suggested that the newmeasure to ban also at e import of South Africanarms was only an aspect of the total embargo. He alsoexpressed regret that the text adopted did not containall the improvements that had been proposed in theconsultations.s2

The representative of the Soviet Union asked forconcrete steps to close some of the loopholes in theembargo and to make it as comprehensive as possi-ble. Beyond the new decision, which he warmlywelcomed, he reiterated his Government’s long-standing support for the application of sanctionsprovided for in Chapter VII of the Charter.‘*

The representative of Pakistan called the decisionof the Council a mandatory Council resolution andexpressed hope that the Council would take up therecommendations for comprehensive measures sub-mitted by the arms embargo committee four yearsago.s2

The representative of South Africa protested thathe had specifically requested to speak before theCouncil voted on the draft resolution and called theprocedure adopted by the President most irre ular.He also acknowledged that the buildup of the 8outhAfrican arms industry had begun after the adoptionof resolution 418 (1977) and claimed that thatdevelopment was inevitable as the arms embargoconstituted an ill-conceived attempt to destroy SouthAfrica’s capacity to exercise its basic right to self-defence. He added that South Africa had becomeself-sufficient in a number of important armamentssectors and would continue to keep pace with therequirements of its defence.52

NOTES‘s/14277. OR, 35th yr.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1980.

r For similar expressions of concern, see also the letter dated IDecember 1980 from the Chairman of the Special Committeeagainst Apartheid (S/14280, ibid.) and the note verbale dated 23December 1980 from the Permanent Mission of Cuba to theUnited Nations transmitting the text of the communique adoptedat the plenary meeting of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countriesheld in New York on 23 December 1980 (S/14315. ibid.).

1 s/14361, incorporated in the record of the 2264th meeting. Seealso OR. 36th yr.. Resohdions and Decisions of the SecurityCounci l , I 98 I.

‘S/14648. OR, 36th yr., Suppl. for July-Sept. 1981.

‘For details, see chap. 111 of the present Supplement.

‘-2295th mtg.. paras. 5-8.I See 2295th mtg. , statements by the representat ives of China,

I c;rncc. the German Democratic Republic, Ireland, Japan, Mexi-to III<: I’hrlrppines, Spain, Tunisia. Uganda and the Soviet Union.

I /1’)5111 mtg.. paras. 43-44.i Ihrrl. parer. 65 and 66.

lo See 2295th mtg., statements by the representatives of Mexico(paras. W-54). the Philippines (paras. 57-62) and, in particular,Uganda (paras. 70-75).

‘I 914787, OR, 36th yr.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1981.

‘I s/14794. incorporated in the record of the 2315th meeting.See also OR. 36th yr.. Resolutions and Decisions of the SecurityCouncil, 1981.

I’ 9149.58, ibid.. 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982.

I4 S/14959, ibid.

I’ s/I 4960, adopted as orally amended as resolution 503 (I 982).I6 235 I st mtg., paras. 3-8.“For the vote, see ibid., para. 9.‘r 235lst mtg.. paras. 16-18.Is Ibid., paras. 19-24.M The report (S/ I41 79) was issued on I9 September 1980. See

Supplement 1975-1980, chap. VIII, part II, for details regardingthe submission and its first discussion at the 2261st meeting.

*I 2397th mtg.. para. 3. For details, see chap. Ill of the presentSupplement.

22 2398th mtg.. para. 2 (Algeria, Ghana), and para. I21 (Cuba).For details, see chapter I11 of the present Supplement.

“2398th mtg., paras. 3 and 4. For details, see chap. III of thepresent Supplement

zb2397th mtg.. paras. 7-29.“2398th mtg., paras. 7-32. For similar statements see ibid.,

paras. 36-45 (Togo), paras. 47-90 (Chairman, Special Committeeagainst Apartheid) and paras. I 12-120 (Algeria).

‘bSl15405, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1982.

“S/15444, ibid., Resolutions and Decisions of the SecurityCouncil, 1982.

z’S/l55l I, adopted without change as resolution 525 (1982).Iq For the President’s opening statement and the vote, see

2404th mtg.. paras. 2-4. See also chap. IV of the presentSupplement regarding the vote .

yI s/1 58 14, OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. /or April-June 1983.

I1 S/15815. adopted without change as resolution 533 (1983).r2 For the President’s opening statement and the vote, see

2452nd mtg. See also chap. IV of the present Supplement.

j3 S/16265, OR, 39th yr.. Suppi. for Jan.-March 1984.

y In a letter dated I I January 1984 (S/16271. ibid.), therepresentative of South Africa denounced the request by theAfrican Group as interference in the internal affairs of SouthAfrica and attached to the letter the text of the formal murdercharges against the defendant.

” S/16275, adopted without change as resolution 547 (1984).16 For the vote see 25 12th mtg. See also chap. IV of the present

Supplement.

” Sll6692. OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. /or July-Sept. f984.

u 2548th mtg. Similar statements regarding the unacceptabi l i tyof the South African constitution were made at the same meetingby: the representatives of Argentina, Egypt, India. Nigeria, Peruand Thailand and by the Acting Chairman of the SpecialCommittee against Apartheid; at the 2549th mtg. by the represen-tatives of China, Malta, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, theSoviet Union, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe and by the Chairman ofthe Special Committee on the Situation with regard to theImplementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Indepcn-dence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and Mr. Makatini; at the2550th mtg. by the representatives of Benin, the Congo, Cuba,Czechoslovakia, Kuwait , Mongolia, Nicaragua and Sri Lanka; andat the 255lst mtg. by the representatives of France. Guyana,Indonesia, the Netherlands, Qatar, Togo and Trinidad andTobago, by the President, speaking in his capacity as representa-tive of Burkina Faso, and by Mr. Makhanda.

Jq 2548th mtg.~S/l6700, adopted with small editorial changes as resolut ion

554 (1984).‘I 255lst mtg.‘? For the vote, see ibid. See also chap. IV of the present

Supplement.

‘I 255lst mtg.u S/16786, OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. /or Oct.-Dec. 1984.

” S/l 6791, adopted without change as resolution 556 (1984).

I38 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of international perice and security

* 2560th mtg. See also the statemenls by lndia (ihid.) and by theChairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid (ibid).

47 2560th mrg.*a For the vote, see ibid. See also chap. IV of the present

Supplemenl.‘9 2560th mtg. See also the explanation of the vote by the United

States (ihid.). which had abstained in view of some “excesses” oflanguage in (he text of rhe resolution.

m S/l 6860. OR. 39th yr., Suppi. for Ocr.-Dec. 1984.$1 S/16860, adopted without change as resolution 558 (1984).

5z 2564th mtg.51 For the vote, see ibid. Sex also chap. IV of the present

Supplcmenl.

3 . ITEMS RELATING TO THE MIDDLE EAST

A. T HE S ITUATION I N THE M IDDLE EAST

Decision of 19 March 1981 (2266th meeting): Presi-dent’s statementIn a letter’ dated 3 March 1981, the representative

of Lebanon requested a meeting of the Council toaddress itself to the continuing problem of repeatedIsraeli aggression against Lebanon. In previous let-ters,* he had informed the Council about particularacts of aggression against Lebanon which he chargedhad been committed by Israeli forces.

At its 2265th meeting, on 9 March 1981, theCouncil included the letter dated 3 March 1981 fromLebanon in the agenda. Followinagenda, the President of the I

the adoption of theouncil Invited the

representatives of Israel and Lebanon, at their re-quest, to participate in the discussion without theri ht to v0te.j The Council considered the item at the2 165th and 2266th meetings, on 9 and 19 March1981.

The representative of Lebanon stated that hisGovernment was not waiting for the expiration of themandate of the United Nations Interim Force inLebanon (UNIFIL) to submit its grievances and askfor action, as a novel situation had developed in thesouth since the last Council debate on 17 December1980, involving repeated acts of violence, which hadbecome constant, and continued warfare, whichcomprised a threat to international peace and securi-th

as well as to the safety of UNIFIL. The results oft e well-pondered policy of so-called pre-emptivestrikes by Israel were: (a) an escalation of militaryand paramilitary operations to an ever-ascendinglevel of intensity; (b) the disruption of the fabric ofcivilian life in south Lebanon; and (c) a general stateof disintegration and terror beyond the Lebaneseborders and in the whole Middle East. He deploredthe danger of UNIFIL being destroyed as a credibledeterrent and pointed to the stability of the o erationof the United Nations Disengagement 8bserverForce (UNDOF).

He quoted extensively from a statement by Presi-dent Sarkis to the third summit meeting of theIslamic Conference and, in view of the tremendousdanger, appealed to the Council to initiate a mecha-nism for peace in Lebanon and on the internationallyrecognized border with Israel, because only such astep could create the conditions for the peace-keepingenterprise to succeed. He concluded in expressing hishope that the Council could reach that type of action-oriented resolution.4

The representative of the Soviet Union recalledhow often the Council had been forced to meet inconnection with incessant acts of aggression by Israel

against Lebanon. He rejected the Israeli attempts tojustify those aggressive actions against Lebanon bymeans of assertlons that they were carrying out so-called pre-emptive strikes against Palestinians asblatant defiance of international law and of numer-ous decisions of the Council and the General Assem-bly designed to protect the sovereignty and territorialintegrity of Lebanon. The Israeli policy could only bedescribed as international State terrorism, whichrelied on the support of those who were paying lip-service to opposition against such terrorism.

He called for a return to collective efforts, withinthe framework of an international conference, to finda just and comprehensive settlement. In view ofIsrael’s continued banking on force, the Councilshould adopt a resolution condemning the acts ofaggression by Israel and calling for an end to suchaggression; the Council should also oblige the Israeliauthorities to observe and respect strictly the sover-eignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon and tocease all intervention in that State’s internal affairs.5

During consultations among members of theCouncil on 16 March 1981, the Secretary-Generalmade a statement that was issued on the same day asa special report.6 The Secretary-General reportedthat, even as the Council was considering the com-plaint brou ht by the Government of Lebanon on theviolence o B 2 and 3 March, further hostilities hadbroken out in southern Lebanon and had made thesituation in the UNIFIL area extremely tense. On themorning of 16 March, the de/act0 forces located inthe south had tired 24 tank rounds into the village ofAl-Qantara, in the Nigerian battalion sector ofUNIFIL, killing a Nigerlan captain and a corporaland injuring I I Nigerian soldiers. The dejizcro forceshad threatened to resume shelling unless the platoonof Lebanese soldiers was withdrawn from Al-Qan-tara, and that threat had been carried out when 10tank rounds were fired into a village in the Nether-lands battalion area.

The Secretary-General also informed the Councilthat the Commander of UNIFIL had made it clear tothe de /aclo forces that there was no question ofwithdrawing the Lebanese platoon, which had beenlocated in Al-Qantara since April 1979 in implemen-tation of the UNIFIL mandate as set out in resolu-tion 425 (1978). He added that the United Nationshad been in touch with the Israeli authorities, urgingthem to make all possible efforts to bring an end tothe irresponsible behaviour of the deficto forces. Henoted that in recent months UNIFIL had also had tocontend with constant efforts by various factions ofarmed elements to the north and west to infiltrate itsarea of operation and had sustained casualties in theprocess.

The Secretary-General declared that one of themost important principles upon which UNIFIL wasestablished was the full co-operation of all the partiesconcerned, but it had been all too clear throughoutthe history of UNIFIL, and was again underlined bythe tragic events in question, that co-operation hadnot been forthcoming. Therefore, al! possible effortsshould be made to impress upon all armed groups inthe area that provocation, harassment and militaryoffensives against UNIFIL could not and would notbe accepted.

At its 2266th meeting, on 19 March 198 1, theCouncil included the special report of the Secretary-

Put II 139

General, together with the letter dated 3 March I98 Ifrom the representative of Lebanon, in its agenda.

At that meeting, the President made the followingstatement on behalf of the Council members:’

The members of the Security Council are deeply shocked andoutraged at the report received about (he repeated attacks on theUnited Nations lnterlm Force in Lebanon and the continuingkilling of peace-keeping soldiers .n southern Lebanon.

These renewed barbaric acts against a peace-keeping force are adirect defiance of the authority of the Security Council and achallenge to the mission of the United Nations in maintaininginternational peace and security which cannot be tolerated.

The Council condemns these outrageous actions by the so-calledde jocfo forces which have caused the death and injury of Forcepersonnel present in Lebanon under international mandate. Instrongly condemning these latest outrageous acts of the so-calledde ~OCIIJ forces, the Council calls on all (hose who share in theresponsibility for this tense situation lo put an end to any actwhich might increase the threat to international peace and securityand to put an end to military assistance to any forces whichinterfere with the Force In the exercise of its mandate.

The Council addresses a serious warning to all the forcesresponsible for these dangerous acts violating the sovereignty andterritorial integrity of Lebanon, preventing the full deployment ofthe Force, Including the deployment of the Lebancsc armed forcesin the area. and severely hampering the Force in the fulfilment ofthe mandate as expressed in resolution 425 (1978). which states:

“The Security ~huncrl.

“Taking nofe of the letters from the Permanent Representa-tive of Lebanon and from the Permanent Representative ofIsrael.

“Having heard the statements of the Permanent Representa-tives of Lebanon and Israel.

- “Gravely concerned al the deterioration of the situation in theMiddle East and its consequences to the maintenance ofinternational peace,

“Convinced that the present situation impedes the achieve-ment of a just peace in the Middle East,

I. “(h//.c for strict respect for the territorial integrity.sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within itsinternationally recognized boundaries;

2. “Culls upon Israel immediately to cease its military actionagainst Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith itsforces from all Lebanese territory;

3. “Decides. in the light of the request of the Government ofLebanon. lo establish lmmediatcly under its authority a UnitedNations interim force for southern Lebanon for the purpose ofconfirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces. restoring intema-rional peace and security and assisting the Government ofLebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in thearea, the force to be composed of personnel drawn fromMember Stales;

4 . “Requesfs the Secretary-General lo report to the Councilwithin twenty-four hours on rhe implementation of the presentresolut ion.”

The Council emphasizes (hat it is essential that the Force receivethe full co-operation of all parties to enable it to carry out itsmandate in the entire area of operation up lo the internationallyrecognized boundaries, thus contributing to full implemcnlation ofresolution 425 (1978).

The Council calls for the immediate release of Lebanese militarypersonnel and of all those persons who were kidnapped by the so-called de /ucro forces during the recent hostilities.

The Council extends irs sympathy and deepfelt condolences tothe Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and thefamilies of the victims.

- The Council also commends the valiant action and the courage,under the most adverse circumstances. of the commanders andsoldiers of the Force and expresses full support for their efforts.

The President then announced that the date of thenext Council meetinthe item would be f

to continue consideration ofaxed in consultation with the

Council members and adjourned the meeting.

Decision of 22 May 1981 (2278th meeting): resolu-tion 485 (1981)At its 2278th meeting, on 22 May 1981, the

Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNDOF dated 20 May 19818 in its agenda.

In the report, covering the period from 21 Novem-ber I980 to 20 May 1981, the Secretary-Generalinformed the Council that with the co-operation ofboth parties the Force had continued to carry out thetasks assigned to it and had been able to contribute tothe maintenance of the cease-tire. He cautioned thatthe prevailing quiet was precarious and that untilfurther progress could be made towards a just andlasting peace the situation in the Israel-Syria sector,and in the Middle East as a whole, would remainunstable and potentially dangerous. Therefore, thecontinued presence of UNDOF was essential notonly to maintain quiet but to provide an atmosphereconducive to further efforts towards the achievementof peace. With the agreement of the Governments ofthe Syrian Arab Republic and Israel, the Secretary-General recommended to the Council that it extendthe mandate of UNDOF for a further period of sixmonths.

At the 2278th meeting, the President put the draftresolutiong which was before the Council to the vote:it received 14 votes in favour, with 1 member notparticipating in the vote,‘O and was adopted asresolution 485 (1981). It reads as follows:

The Security Council.HuvinR considered the report of the Secretary-General on the

United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.Decides:((I) To call upon the parties concerned lo implement immedi-

ately Security Council resolution 338 (1973);(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengage-

ment Observer Force for another period of six months. that is.until 30 November 1981;

(c) To request the Secretary-General to submit at the end ofthis period a report on the developments in the situation and themeasures taken 10 implement resolution 338 (1973).

At the same meetin ,resolution 485 (I 98 I), tfi

following the adoption ofe President made the follow-

ing complementary statement on behalf of the mem-bers of the Council:

As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the UnitedNations Disengagement Observer Force slates, in paragraph 26,that “despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, thesituation in the Middle East as a whole continues to be potentiallydangerous and is likely lo remain so unless and until a comprehen-sive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem canbe reached”. This statement of the Secretary-General reflects theview of the Security Council.”

De&Ion of 19 June 1981 (2289th meeting): resolu-tion 488 (1981)At its 2289th meeting, on 19 June 1981, the

Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNIFIL dated 15 June 1981 I2 in its agenda.

In his report, covering the period from 12 Decem-ber 1980 to 15 June 198 1, the Secretary-Generalnoted that, despite intensive efforts made both atUnited Nations Headquarters and in the field, thebasic situation had remained essentially the sameand that the activities of armed elements (mainly thePalestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and theLebanese National Movement), the de facto forces

rChristian and related militias) and the Israel De-ence Forces (IDF) in and near the UNIFIL area of

operation had continued and, on occasion, intensi-fied.

140 Cbaptcr VIII. Maiatetume of iatmrtlonal peaa and security

The Secretary-General observed that since itsestablishment, UNIFIL had encountered serious dif-ficulties in fulfilling its mandate and that the partieshad not, so far, found it possible to extend to theForce the full co-operation that it required. Despitethe many difficulties that it had had to face, UNIFILhad continued in its endeavours to consolidate itsposition and, in co-operation with the LebaneseGovernment, to strengthen and make more effectivethe Lebanese presence, both civilian and military, inits area of operation.

Force had not yet been able to fulfil the man Bthe

ate inThe Secretary-General indicated that althou

the way intended by the Council, he had no doubtthat its presence and activities in southern Lebanonwere an indispensable element in maintaining peace,not only in the area but in the Middle East as awhole. In his view, it would be disastrous if UNIFILwere to be removed at a time when the internationalcommunity was witnessing with acute anxiety thetensions and conflicts in that vital area of the world.For those reasons, the Secretary-General recom-mended to the Council that the mandate of UNIFILbe extended for a further period of six months.

Following the adoption of the agenda, the Presi-dent of the Council invited the representatives ofIsrael and Lebanon, at their request, to participate inthe discussion without the right to vote.3

The President then drew attention to a draftresolution.” which had been drawn up in the courseof consultations among members of the Council, andproposed to put it to the vote. The draft resolutionwas adopted by I2 votes in favour, none against, with2 abstentions,, as resolution 488 (1981); one memberdid not participate in the voting.” The resolutionreads as follows:

The Security Counc i l .Recalling its resolutions 425 ( I978), 426 ( I978), 427 ( 1978). 434

( 1978). 444 (I 979). 450 ( I979), 459 ( 1979). 467 (I 980). 474 (I 980)and 483 (1980).

Recalling the statement made by the President of the SecurityCouncil at the 2266th meeting, on I9 March 1981.

Noting with concern the violations of the relevant SecurityCouncil resolutions which had prompted the Government ofLebanon repeatedly to ask the Council for action, and particularlyits complaint of 3 March 1981,

Recullinn the terms of reference and general guidel ines of theUnited Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. as s&cd in the reportof the Security-General of I9 March 1978 confirmed by resolut ion426 (1978). and particularly:

(a) That the Force “must be able to function as an integratedand efficient military unit”.

(6) That the Force “must enjoy the freedom of movement andcommunication and other facilities that are necessary for theperformance of i ts tasks”,

(c) That the Force “will not use force except in self-defer&‘,(d) That “selfdefence would include resistance to attempts by

forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under themandate of the Security Council”,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on theUnited Nations Interim Force in Lebanon of I6 June 1981. andtaking note of the conclusions and recommendations expressedtherein,

Convinced that the deterioration of the present situation hasserious consequences for international security in the Middle Eastand impedes the achlcvement of a just. comprehensive anddurable peace in the ;~IIYI.

I. Reojlirms its rcpcatcd call upon all concerned for the strictrespcft for the political independence, unity, sovereignty andterritorial integrity of Lebanon and reiterates the Council’sdetermination to implement resolution 425 (1978) and the ensuingresolutions in the totality of the area of operation assigned to the

United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon up to the intemational-ly recognized boundaries;

2. Condemns all actions contrary to the provisions of the above-ment ioned resolut ions that have prevented the fu l l implcmenta-tion of the mandate of the Force, causing death, injury anddestruction to the civilian population as well as among the peace-keeping force;

3. Supports the efforts of the Government of Lebanon in thecivilian and military fields of rehabilitation and reconstruction insouthern Lebanon. and supports, in particular, the deployment ofsubstantial contingents of the Lebanese army in the area ofoperation of the Force;

4. Decides to renew the mandate of the Force for another periodof six months, that is. until 19 December 1981;

5. Requests the !Secrctary-General IO assist the Government ofLebanon in establishing a joint phased programme of activities tobe carried out during the present mandate-of the Force, aimed atthe total implementation of resolution 425 (1978). and to reportperiodically-to the Security Council;

6. Commends the efforts of the Secretary-General and theperformance of the Force, as well as the support of the troopcontributing Governments and of all Member States who haveassisted the Secretary-General, his staff and the Force in discharg-ing their responsibi l i t ies under the mandate;

7. Decides to remain seized of the question and reaffirms itsdetermination, in the event of continuing obstruction of themandate of the Force, lo examine practical ways and means tosecure its unconditional fulfilment.

Following the adoption of the resolution, theSecretary-General informed the Council about gravedevelopments involving the seizure of a number ofUNIFIL soldiers by armed elements who had infil-trated into the UNIFIL area of operation andattacked Fijian troops. Two soldiers had been killed;others had been forcibly detained and subsequent1released. The Secretary-General added that the fres iiattacks underlined the difficulties encountered byUNIFIL. He assured the Council that he would doeverything to assist in the implementation of theCouncil’s resolution and expressed hope that themembers of the Council would continue to makeevery effort to ensure that the parties heeded theopinion of the Council.15

The representative of Lebanon stated that the mostrecent incidents should give rise to measures toprotect the peace-keepers, to ensure their safety andto enforce respect for their mission. He expressedconcern that UNIFIL was in danger of becoming astatic fixture of the political panorama, because itsstructure as a conflict control mechanism was notalwa s commensurate with the magnitude of thecon icts confronting it! therefore hampering itst-reffectiveness. He emphasized once a ain the ultimateobjective of UNIFIL, namely, camp ete4 Israeli with-drawal and the restoration of Lebanon’s effectiveauthorit and sovereignty. He described resolution488 (19d 1) as an important decision since it providedfor a phased programme of activities lo be carriedout joint1 by UNIFIL and the Government ofLebanon. ln order to contribute to the success of theprogramme, his Government would draw up a practi-cal plan of action that would help to measure whetherthe current peace-keeping operation in southernLebanon was indeed useful.16

The representative of France indicated his Govem-ment’s support for the Secretary-General’s proposalsand appealed to all the parties concerned to observethe cease-fire called for by the Council and to makeevery effort to enable the consolidation of theUNIFIL zone of operations. He also praised theendeavours of the Secretary-General to reactivate the

Put I I 1 4 1

Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission andasked for those efforts to be pursued.17

The representative of Ireland stressed that peace-keeping forces should have no enemies and con-demned those who refused to recognize that principleand whose actions led to senseless killings. He agreedwith the Secretary-General that UNIFIL performedan important function as a conflict control mecha-nism and constituted an indispensable element inmaintaining peace in the Middle East as a whole. Healso referred to the humanitarian efforts by UNIFILin conjunction with other United Nations pro-grammes and praised the United Nations Force as aremarkable and hopeful development in world af-fairs.18

The representative of the German DemocraticRepublic criticized Israel for its refusal to respect theterritorial integrity, sovereignty and political inde-pendence of Lebanon and for its contmued employ-ment of the Haddad militia in the south of Lebanon.He restated the principle that United Nations forceswere bound exclusively by decisions of the Counciland reiterated his delegation’s reservations withregard to the formulation of the UNIFIL mandate, itscomposition and its Iinancing.lP

The representative of the Soviet Union also ex-pressed reservations regarding the mandate,. compo-sition and financing of UNIFIL, emphasized theneed to defend Lebanon as the victim of Israelia ression and recommended that Israel shouldd%ay th e expenditures arising from its armed ag-

- gression against Lebanon.**The representative of Israel denounced the PLO as

responsible for the death of the Fijian soldiers andchar edinvo vementf

that only on two occasions, when PLOwas not suspected, had the Council

pronounced itself on the killing of UNIFIL soldiers.2tThe representative of Japan appealed to the parties

to refrain from the use of force and to seek to solvethe problems through peaceful means. He added thatin the light of the principles of the Charter, terroristactions must not be condoned as a means of settlinginternational disputes.22

In conclusion, the President noted the deep sorrowshared by all Council members over the loss of twoUnited Nations soldiers in Lebanon as well as allthose who had died in the cause of peaceq2)

On 25 June 198 I, followinthe members of the Council, t%

consultations amonge

following statement:24President made the

As a result of consultations among the members of the SecurityCounci l 1 have been author ized to issue the fo l lowing statement .

At the end of the 2289th meeting of the Council, I made astatement to note the deep sorrow shared by al l members of theCouncil over the loss of two United Nations soldiers in Lebanon,as well as all those others who have fallen in fulfilment of theirduty in the cause of peace.

I also said that I was certain that I spoke on behalf of theCouncil when I conveyed our condolences to the Government andpeople of Fiji as well as to the families of the victims.

As President of the Council, I wish to condemn the killing on I9June 1981 by so-called armed elements of two Fijian peace-keeping soldiers of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.

This outrage aaainst members of n peace-keeping force is adirect defiance of-the authority of the Council and achallenge tothe mission of the Force. as stioulated in resolution 425 (1978).

In this connection, I am encouraged to learn that a group hasalready been established to investigate these events and that in themeantime appropriate steps are being taken by al l concerned. incooperation with the command of the Force, to prevent arecurrence of such incidents,

I a lso commend the val iant act ion and the courage. under themost adverse circumstances, of the soldiers of the Force andexpress full support for their efforts.

Decision of 17 July 1981 (2292nd meeting): Presi-dent’s statement

De+sion of 21 July 1981 (2293rd meeting): resolu-tion 490 (1981)In a letter dated 17 July 1981,25 the representative

of Lebanon requested an urgent meeting of theCouncil to discuss the deteriorating situation insouthern Lebanon and the attacks committed byIsrael against civilian targets in the city of Beirut. Hehad already referred to these developments in aprevious letter dated I3 July 1981 .26 In two lettersdated 15 and 16 July 1981, the representative ofIsrael had informed the Council of rocket attacks bythe PLO against towns in northern Israe12’

At its 2292nd meeting, on 17 July 198 1, theCouncil considered the letter of the same date fromthe representative of Lebanon.*’ Following the adop-tion of the agenda, the Council invited, at theirrequest, the representatives of Israel, Jordan andLebanon to participate in the deliberations withoutthe right to vote-j At the same meeting, the Councildecided, by a vote and in accordance with itsprevious practrce, to invite the representative of thePLO to participate without the riCouncil further decided to extend

ht to vote.28 Thean invitation to

Mr. Clovis Maksoud under rule 39 of the provisionalrules of procedure.24

The Secretary-General opened the deliberations byreporting renewed violence in the south of Lebanoninvolving shelling by Palestinian groups, various airstrikes against Beirut and other targets by IDF andthe de facto forces. He deeply deplored the extensivecivilian casualties in Lebanon and in Israel caused bythese outbursts of violence. He referred to thevarious communications the Governments of Leba-non and Israel, as well as the PLO, had sent to himregarding these hostilities and pointed out that thearea controlled bHe emphasized t h

UNIFIL had been tense but quiet.at all acts of violence that resulted

m civilian casualties should be deplored and calledupon all the parties to revert immediately to thecease-fires30

The representative of Lebanon condemned theIsraeli policy of pre-emptive strikes against Lebanonwhich had resulted in loss of lives and other hard:ships for the Lebanese people. He presented detailsabout the Israeli attacks and indicated that some 300peaCIVI P

.le had been killed and about 800 wounded. Theian nature of the tar ets and the large number of

women and children kil ed revealed the dimensionskof the tragedy. He underlined his Government’s aimat that point to reactivate the Israel-Lebanon MixedArmistice Commission that had been set up in 1949and asked for the Council’s sup rtMoreover, he urged the Counci p”

in that respect.to bring about the

immediate cessation of hostilities, to prevent furtherdeterioration and to create the atmosphere thatwould enable UNIFIL to play to the fullest its role asa conflict control mechanism.3i

The representative of Israel stated that the outragesperpetrated by the PLO had resulted in loss of lifeand considerable damage to property and that planswere ready to escalate these criminal designs. ThePLO control over a large part of Lebanon was ameans of assuring the freedom of operation to

142 Chapter VIII. Mhte- of iaterxmtioml peace and security

continue its acts of terror against Israel. He addedthat since his Government had brought the terroristactions to the attention of the Security Council to noavail, it had decided to exercise its right to self-defence, enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter,against the attackers. Israel felt that as much as itdeplored the harm to innocent Lebanese civilians,the real problem was how to put an end to intema-tional terrorism in general and, more specifically,how to end the PLO terror against the land andpeople of Israel. The representative suggested as afirst step the removal of all foreign armies andterrorists from Lebanese territory.)*

The representative of Jordan referred to the largeair raid over Beirut by Israeli planes and askedwhether the killing of hundreds of innocent civiliansas a result of lar e-scale bombing could be seen as alegitimate act op! self-defence. He called upon theCouncil to make its decision on the basis of theCharter and to act decisively against such blatantaggression.J3

The representative of the PLO recounted the mostrecent Israeli attacks against targets in Lebanon andinformed the Council of a request to the Secretary-General to use his good offices to put an end to thoseattacks. He appealed once a ainCouncil and to the Secretary- E

to the Securityeneral to use all the

means available to bring peace to the Middle Eastand to enable the Palestinians to return to theirhomesJ4

The representative of the Soviet Union condemnedthe Israeli intervention in the internal affairs ofLebanon and its large-scale armed aggression insouthern Lebanon resulting in an increasmg numberof Lebanese and Palestinian victims. He charged thatthe United States Government had encouraged andsupported the Israeli policy against the Arab States.He concluded that his Government considered it theduty of the Council strongly to condemn Israel forthe acts of armed aggression ademand an end to such 4F

inst Lebanon and toacts.

At the conclusion of the 2292nd meeting, thePresident of the Council read out the followingstatement:36

The President of the Security Council and the members of theCouncil, after hearing the report of the Secretary-General, expresstheir deep concern at the extent of the loss of life and the scale ofthe destruction caused by the deplorable events that have beentaking place for several days in Lebanon.

They launch an urgent appeal for an immediate end to all armedattacks and for the greatest restraint so that peace and quiet maybe established in Lebanon and a just and lasting peace in theMiddle East as a whole.

At the beginning of the 2293rd meeting, on 21 July1981, the President of the Council issued additionalinvitations to the representatives of DemocraticYemen, Egypt., Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, the SyrianArab Repubhc and Yemen, at their request, toparticipate in the debate without the right to vote.’He also drew attention to the text of a draftresolution3’ sponsored by Ireland, Japan and Spain.

The Secretary-General informed the Council mem-bers that his military aides in the area had beeninvolved in efforts to secure the acceptance of acease-tire by Israel and the PLO, but that shelling hadresumed while those efforts were still being pur-sued.JR

The representative of Spain then introduced draftresolution S/14604, which the delegations of Ireland,Japan and Spain had prepared in order to recall the

appeal issued at the end of the 2292nd meeting andto call once again for an immediate cessation of allarmed attacks. He expressed appreciation to the non-aligned members and other delegations for havingcontributed suggestions and observations regardingthe text of the draft resolution. He then read out thetext and proposed that it be adopted without discus-sion.j9

At the 2293rd meeting, on 21 July 1981, the draftresolution was put to the vote and adopted unani-mously as resolution 490 ( 198 1 ).4o It reads as follows:

The Security Council,Reafjirming the urgent appeal made by the President and the

members of the Security Council on I7 July I98 I, which reads asfolJows:

“The President of the Security Council and the members ofthe Council, after hearing the report of the Secretary-General,express their deep concern at the extent of the loss of l ife and thescale of the destruction caused by the deplorable events thathave been taking place for several days in Lebanon.

“They launch an urgent appeal for an immediate end to allarmed attacks and for the greatest restramt so that peace andquiet may be established in Lebanon and a just and lasting peacein the Middle East as a whole.“,Taking no& of the report of the Secretary-General in this

respect,1. Culls for an immediate cessation of all armed attacks;2. ReqOirms its commitment to the sovereignty, territorial

integrity and independence of Lebanon within its internationallyrecognized boundaries;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report hack to the SecurityCouncil on the implementation of the present resolution as scxm aspossible and not later than forty-eight hours from its adoption.

Following the adoption of the resolution, there resentative of Tunisia stated that the Israeli policyoPdefiance and fails accomplis proved that Israel hadnot accepted the conclusions endorsed by the UnitedNations. Under the circumstances, it was the duty ofthe Council to take effective action in the face of theuncontrollable excesses of the Israeli Government.The representative of Tunisia doubted that Israelwould abide by any measure decided upon by theCouncil unless the Council strengthened its decisionby a combination of sanctions m accordance withChapter VII of the Charter.4’

The representative of France stressed the urgentneed for the Council’s unanimous call for an immedi-ate cease-fire and condemned vigorously any resortto so-called pre-emptive actions that could not bejustified by any interpretation of Article 51 andmerely resulted in a further cycle of violence.42

The representative of the United Kingdom alsorejected the policy of pre-emptive strikes as a factorleadin to further acts of retaliation and prolongingthe su!kerinrestraint to %

in Lebanon. He called for a policy ofe exercised on all sides and emphasized

that peace could be achieved only if the right toexistence of all States in the region, including Israel,was acknowledged by the entire international com-munity and if the need for Palestinian self-determi-nation was seen as central to stability in the MiddleEast.43

The representative of Egypt took issue with theIsraeli claim that it had acted in self-defence andstated once a ain that the scope of self-defence ininternational aw and in conformity with Article 51fof the Charter could not be distorted to provide anycountry with a free hand to kill innocent civilians atwill. Self-defence could not be invoked unless anarmed attack had occurred. The border incidents thatIsrael had reported to the Council did not warrant

Pui II 143

massive retaliation, but should have been settledthrough involvement of UNIFIL or the UnitedNations Troop Supervision Organization (UNTSO).The Egyptian representative added that even beforethe advent of the Charter of the United Nations theexercise of self-defence was subject to certain limita-tions: as United States Secretary of State Websterhad pointed out, situations that gave rise to acts ofself-defence were to be instant, overwhelming leav-ing no choice of means, and no moment for deiibera-tion; legitimate self-defence implied the adoption ofmeasures proportionate to the seriousness of theattack and justified by the seriousness of the danger.In the light of those norms, the response to minorborder incidents should consist in a protest lodgedwith the Council, not a full-scale attack on innocentcivilians. He also discussed the question of retalia-tion or reprisal and, invoking several General Assem-bly and Council decisions, pointed out that actions ofmilitary reprisal could not be tolerated and wereinadmissible. The representative of Egypt warnedthat the contemporary legal order was at stake andthat the world threatened to return to the law of thejungle, in which the use of force was the order of theday. He recalled the Geneva Conventions of I949 towhich Israel was a party, and appealed to all pa&esto end violence and bloodshed. He concluded byreiterating that peace could be pursued in the MiddleEast, if Israel and the Palestinian people recognizedeach other and their corresponding rights, and urgedthe Government of Israel to renounce its aggressivepractices.44

Mr. Clovis Maksoud, who had been invited underrule 39, pointed out that LAS supported the applica-tion of appropriate sanctions m accordance withChapter VII of the Charter in order to render arepetition of the strikes against Lebanon impossi-ble.4J

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republicrejected Israel’s claim that its recent actions againstLebanon had been carried out in exercise of its rightof self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter andsuggested that the victims of Israel’s a ressive actswere being denied their right to sel -defence. HePwelcomed the fact that the overwhelming majority ofthe International community had rejected the Israelinotion of pre-emptive self-defence and joined in thecall for the strict application of sanctions underChapter VII of the Charter.46

Decision of 23 November 1981 (23 1 I th meeting):resolution 493 (I 98 I )At its 231 Ith meeting, on 23 November 1981, the

Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNDGF dated 20 November I98 14’ in its agenda.

In the report, covering the period from 21 May to20 November I98 I, the Secretary-General informedthe Council that with the cooperation of both partiesthe Force had continued to carry out the tasksassigned to it and had been able to contribute to themaintenance of the cease-fire. He cautioned that theprevailing quiet was precarious and that until furtherprogress could be made towards a just and lastingpeace the situation in the Israel-Syria sector, and inthe Middle East as a whole, would remain unstableand potentially dan erous. Therefore, the continuedpresence of UN D8 F was essential not only tomaintain quiet but to provide an atmosphere condu-cive to further efforts towards the achievement ofpeace. With the agreement of the Governments of the

Syrian Arab Republic and Israel the Secretary-Gener-al recommended that the Council extend the man-date of UNDOF for a further period of six months.

At the 231 Ith meeting, the President put the draftresolution48 which was before the Council to the vote:it received I4 votes in favour, with I member notparticipating in the vote,49 and was adopted asresolution 493 (198 I). It reads as follows:

The Security Council.IIuwng cunsidered the report of the Secretary-General on the

United Nations Disengagement Observer Force,Decides.((1) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediate-

ly Security Council resolution 338 (1973);(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement

Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 31M a y 1982;

fc) To request the Secretary-General IO submit at the end of thisperiod a report on the developments in the situation and themeasures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

At the same meetin , following the adoption ofresolution 493 (I 98 l), t 1 e President made the follow-ing complementary statement on behalf of the mem-bers of the Council:

As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the UnitedNations Disengagement Observer Force states, in paragraph 27,that “despite the presenl quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, thesituation in the Middle East as a whole continues to be potentiallydangerous and is likely to remain so unless and until a comprehen-sive seltlemenl covering all aspects of the Middle Easl problem canbe reached”. This statement of the Secretary-General reflects theview of the Security CounciLW

Decision of 18 December 1981 (2320th meeting):resolution 498 (198 1)At its 2320th meeting, on I8 December 1981, the

Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNIFIL dated I I December I98 I 5i in its agenda.

In his report, coverinIO December I98 I, the 8

the period from I6 June toecretary-General noted that,

despite intensive efforts made both at United Na-tions Headquarters and in the field, the basic situa-tion preventing the fulfilment of the mandate ofUNIFIL had remained the same and that the activi-ties of armed elements, the de acm forces and IDF i,and near the UNIFIL area o ffued.

operation had contin-

The Secretasertous outbrea of hostilities in mid-July affecting‘i:

-General gave an account of the

areas outside UNIFIL control and resulting in aconsiderable influx of people from other parts ofLebanon into the UNIFIL area. He referred specifi-cally to the resumption of attacks against targets insouthern Lebanon by Israeli aircraft on IO July 1981and the continuation of hostilities, including ex-change of fire, air strikes and naval bombardmentsthroughout the period until 24 July; the period ofviolence, including a massive Israeli attack on Beirut,was brought to an end by a cease-fire on 24 July1981, whrch the Secretary-General had helped tobring about.

Since that time, as the Secretary-General reported,UNIFIL had made strenuous efforts to maintain thecease-fire, and calm had prevailed in the area of theUNIFIL operations, despite the underlying tension.The Secretary-General stated also that the situationin southern Lebanon remained precarious and unsta-ble and that UNIFIL continued to be prevented fromfully implementing the task allotted to it by theCouncil, as the parties failed to cooperate fully. TheSecretary-General also noted that no progress had

144 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of latermtlonal peace and security

been made in the further deployment of UNIFIL inthe enclave controlled by the defacro forces and thatrestrictions relating to the freedom of movement ofUNIFIL and UNTSO personnel in the enclavecontinued to complicate UNIFIL operations.

The Secretary-General further re orted that duringthe period under review, means o consolidating thePcease-fire and of making progress in the fulfilment ofthe UNIFIL mandate had been under discussion withthe Lebanese Government and other parties con-cerned.

In spite of all the difficulties faced by UNIFIL, theSecretary-General considered that its presence andactivities in southern Lebanon were an Indispensableelement in maintaining peace, not only in theimmediate area but in the Middle East as a whole. Herecommended that the mandate of the Force beextended for a further period of six months.

During the 2320th meeting, the President of theCouncil Invited the representatives of Israel, Kuwait,Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic! at theirrequest, to participate in the discussion wlthout theright to vote.J The Council also decided to extend aninvitation to Mr. Clovis Maksoud under rule 39 ofthe provisional rules of procedure.52

The representative of Lebanon suggested thatUNIFIL, which had been sent to southern Lebanonon a dynamic mission, had been unable to bringabout peace and had become a static reality in thedynamics of an ever-expanding war. He pointed outthe role played by the so-called armed elements andthe so-called de facto forces in undermining thechances for peace in the area. He regretted thatUNIFIL had not yet used its ri

fi”t of self-defence to

resist attempts to prevent it rom discharging itsduties and proposed that the time had come toredefine its mandate unequivocally, so that the Forcecould enjoy the full support and exercise its deterrentprerogative fully unhindered. He pointed out that theLebanese people still hoped that UNIFIL would helpto contain the explosive situation in the country andto prevent events in the south from detonating amore general war. He referred in that context to hisletter dated I4 December 19815J addressed to theSecretary-General asking for a stren thening ofUNIFIL without changing its mandate. Ris Govem-merit’s proposals, which were reflected in a draftresolution distributed prior to the Council’s meeting,were not geared towards asking UNIFIL to go to warand enforce peace, but were designed to give UNIFILthe appropriate strength in relation to its tasks,foremost the withdrawal of Israel from southernLebanon, in accordance with resolution 425 (1978).Peace in southern Lebanon was not only an aim interms of international morality and rights, but also apra

0matic im erative, since the region and the world

cou d not a Rord the hazard of non-peace.54At the same meeting, the representative of Israel

declared that the first part of the mandate ofUNIFIL, namely, the withdrawal of Israeli forces,had been successfully carried out and mentioned thatthe completion of that withdrawal had been con-firmed by the UNIFIL Commander on 13 June 1978and recorded in the pro ess report of the Secretary-General on the same ay.J’ He deplored that the$remaining parts of the UNIFIL mandate had not yetbeen implemented: international peace and securityhad not been restored in Lebanon because of the

continuing presence of Syrian troops and of PLOterrorists on Lebanese ~011.~~

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republicstated that the sole purpose of the establishment ofthe Arab Defence Force in Lebanon was to terminatea tragic fratricidal war and to grant the Lebanesepeople the opportunity to determine their owndestiny in unity without external interfcrence.57

The representative of Ireland stated that the suc-cess of UNIFIL in helping to maintain peace in there

fion was clear for all to see and, to appreciate that

fu ly, one needed only to consider what the situationwould be if UNIFIL did not exist. The cease-fire thathad been brought about by resolution 490 ( I98 I) wasstill holding, owing among other things to the specialcontribution of UNIFIL. He renewed the Irish appealthat peace-keeping forces should not be met withhostility but should receive full co-operation from allconcerned; that would enable the Force to deploy andto have full freedom of movement throughout thewhole area of operations. Further, he submitted againthe basic principle that a peace-keeping force was nota substitute for efforts to negotiate a settlement; thepeace-keeping force allowed an opportunity forpeace-making.5X

In indicating his delegation’s support for therenewal of the UNIFIL mandate, the representativeof France also favoured the earliest possible resumption of the activities of the Israel-Lebanon MixedArmistice Commission and welcomed the Lebanesesuggestions of strengthening the means and objec-tives of UNIFIL.5U

At the same meeting, the President put to the votethe draft resolution,W which had been prepared in thecourse of the Council’s consultations; it received I3votes in favour, none against, with 2 abstentions, andg;o;topted as resolution 498 (I 981).61 It reads as

The Securiry Council.Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978). 426 (1978). 427 (1978), 434

(1978). 444 (1979), 450 (1979). 459 (1979). 467 (1980). 474(1980). 483 (1980). 488 (1981) and 490 (1981),

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on theUnited Nations Interim Force in Lebanon of I I December 1981.and taking note of the conclusions and recommendations ex-pressed therein,

Taking nofe of the letter of the Permanent Representative ofLebanon to the Secretary-General dated 14 December 1981,

Convmced that the deterioration of the present situation hasserious consequences for peace and security in the Middle East,

I. Reaflrms its resolution 425 (1978). in which it(a) Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignly

and pol i t ical independence of Lebanon within i ts internat ional lyrecognized boundaries;

(b) Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military actionagainst Lebanese terr i tor ial integri ty and withdraw forthwith i tsforces from all Lxbanese territory;

(c) Decides, in the light of the request of the Government ofLebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a UnitedNations interim force for southern Lebanon for the purpose ofconfirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring internationalpeace and securi ty and assist ing the Government of Lebanon inensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the forceto be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;

2. ReaJ,Gms its past resolutions and particularly its repeatedcalls upon all concerned for the strict respect of the politicalindependence, unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Leba-non;

3. Relferares its determination to implement resolution 425(1978) in the totality of the area of operation assigned to theUnited Nations Interim Force in Lebanon up to the intemalional-ly recognized boundaries so that the Force may fulfil its deploy-

PMPM I I I I 145

DecisionDecision of 25 February 1982 (2332nd meeting):merit and so that Ihe United Nations Truce Supervision Organiza-tion may resume its normal functions, unhindered, under theprovisions of the General Armistice Agreement of 1949;

resolution 50 I ( 1982)In accordance with paragraph 10 of resolution 498

(1981), the Council resumed the deliberations regard-ing UNIFIL and the developments in the Israel-Lebanon sector in February 1982. At its 233 1stmeeting, on 23 February 1982, the Council includedthe situation in the Middle East in its agenda andconsidered resolution 498 (1981), a sthe Secreta -General on UNIFIL,b

TP

ecial report ofand a lette+

dated 16 Fe ruary 1982 from the representative ofLebanon addressed to the President of the Councilduring its 2331st and 2332nd meetings, on 23 and 25February 1982.

4. Culls upon all concerned lo work towards the consolidation ofthe cease-fire called for by the Security Council in resolution 490(1981) and reiterates its condemnation of all actions contrary tothe provisions of the relevant resolutions;

5. Culls orlenlion to the terms of reference and general guidelinesof the Force. as stated in the report of Ihe Secretary-General of 19March 1978 confirmed by resolution 426 (1978), and particularly:

(II) That the Force “must be able to function as an integratedand efficient military unit”;

(b) That the Force “must enjoy the freedom of movement andcommunication and other facilities that are necessary for theperformance of i ts tasks”;

(c) That the Force “will not use force except in sclfdcfencc”;

(4 That “sclfdefence would include resistance lo attempts byforceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under themandate of the Security Council”;

6. Supporrs the efforts of the Government of Lebanon in thecivilian and military fields of rehabilitation and reconstruction insouthern Lebanon. and supports, in particular, Ihe restoration ofthe authority of the Government of Lebanon in that region anddeploymem of substantial contingents of the Lebanese army in thearea of operation of the Force;

7. ReqUesrs Ihe Secretary-General lo continue his discussionswith the Government of Lebanon, with a view lo establishing ajoint phased programme of activities Lo be carried out during thepresent mandate of the Force, aimed at the total implementationof resolution 425 (1978). and to report periodically lo the SecurityCouncil;

8. L&ides lo renew the mandate of the Force for six months,that is, until 19 June 1982;

-9. Cornmenu the efforts of the Secretary-General and the

performance of the Force. as well as the support of the troopcontributing Governments, and of all Member States who haveassisted the Secretary-General, his staff and the Force in discharg-ing their responsibilities under the mandate;

IO. Decides lo remain seized of the question and lo review,within Iwo months. the situation as a whole in the light of the letterof the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the Secretary-General dated I4 December I98 I.

Explaining his delegation’s abstention in the vote,the representative of the Soviet Union emphasizedthat UNIFIL should function in strict conformitywith the Charter and act under the control of theCouncil, particularly with respect to its functions,. itstotal strenof nationa f

th, the principles underlying the selectloncontingents and the procedures whereby

those troops were financed.62The representative of the United States welcomed

the renewal of the UNIFIL mandate since it had beenperforming a crucial role in preserving peace in theMiddle East. The hope was that the momentumtowards a

raceful settlement of the broader Arab-

Israeli con ict on the basis of resolutions 242 (1967)and 338 (1973) as well as of the Camp Davidframework could be maintained. The only way toreach a fmal settlement was first of all to avoideruptions of violence. He added that his Governmentwas pleased about the language of the resolutionunderlying the sovereignty of the Lebanese Govem-ment and the integrity of its national territory.63

The representative of Lebanon thanked the Coun-cil for its prompt response and for the decision to

- reassess the situation after two months. He regrettedtha! his Government’s aims could not be met fullyowing to differences of opinion within the Counciland appealed once again to the members to consider~JK;, Lhe Lebanese proposal to strengthen

In the special report, dated 16 February 1982, theSecretary-General had informed the Council thatsince the adoption of resolution 498 ( 198 I ) the cease-tire in southern Lebanon had been maintained;however, the basic underlying tensions in the areahad persisted,. and the situation had remained ex-tremely volatde. UNIFIL had continued to faceattempts at infiltration by armed elements, and theencroachments by the de ac~o forces in the UNIFILarea of deployment had not been removed. Theviolations of Lebanon’s territorial integrity had alsocontinued.

The Secretary-General had further informed theCouncil that a senior aide had visited the area at hisrequest and conducted talks with all sides concerned.The Force Commander of UNIFIL and the LebaneseGovernment had urged that the ceiling for UNIFILtroorein F

s should be increased by no less than 1,000 toorce the current operations and to make further

deployment possible in accordance with resolution425 (1978).

The letter dated 16 February 1982 from thereoP

resentative of Lebanon contained a confirmationthe requests of the Lebanese Government concem-

ing UNIFIL, as presented in a memorandum to theSecretary-General on 14 December 198 1 .67

Following the adoption of the a enda,a

at the 233 1 stmeetinCounci f

,.on 23 February 1982, t e President of theInvited the representatives of Lebanon and

Israel, and at the 2332nd meeting, on 25 February,the.representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, attheir request, tothe ri

articipate m the discussion without

kt to vote.I: At the 2331st meetin

%, the Council

also ecided, by a vote and in actor ante with itsprevious practice, to invite the representative of thePLO to participate in the deliberations without theright to vote.6 At the same meeting, the Councilfurther decided to extend an invitation to Mr. ClovisMaksoud under rule 39 of the provisional rules ofprocedure.‘j9

At the 2331st meeting, the representative of Leba-non welcomed that the Council had started consulta-tions on the question of UNIFIL on 16 February, andexpressed hope that the time for reflection on thebest course to follow would help avoid another crisisand enable UNIFIL to perform the mission entrustedto it by the Council in 1978. He emphasized that thsincrease in UNIFIL troop strength recommended bythe Secretary-General had to be unequivocally relat-ed to the full implementation of resolution 425(1978). He asked how and when Israel would cease itsmilitary action against Lebanese territorial inteand withdraw its forces, how and when P

rityUN FIL

would be enabled to restore international peace andsecurity in the area, and how and when UNIFIL, in

146 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of iatenmtional pesse ad security

completing its mandate, would assist the Govem-ment of Lebanon in restoring its authority in thearea. In the belief that the Council could reverse theseemingly irreversible process towards conflagrationand war, he proposed an injunction to ensure Israel’stotal and unconditional withdrawal, a qualitative andquantitative enhancement of UNIFIL capabilities,and a strict implementation of a joint phased pro-gramme of action to ensure the gradual transition ofthe responsibilities for peace and security fromUNIFIL to the Lebanese Army,. thereby. restoringLebanese sovereignty and territorial mtegnty. Thosesteps required that UNIFIL play a dynamic role inthe fulfilment of its mission. A static role for UNIFILwould condemn the Force to the role of a helplesshostage in the ever-expanding cycle of turmoil andviolence.70

At the beginning of the 2332nd meeting, on 25February 1982, the President drew the attention ofthe Council to a letter dated 23 February 1982,” inwhich the representative of Lebanon had transmlttedto the Secretary-General the text of a memorandumdated 16 February from the Lebanese parliamentarydele ation, expressing its views on the situation in

flsout ern Lebanon in connection with the Council’sdebate.

At the same meeting, the representative of Irelandrefuted criticism that UNIFIL had been ineffectiveand pointed to its success in promoting peacefulconditions in the area where it had been allowed tooperate. He urged that the request for an increase inUNIFIL numbers be approved, but made mention ofthe problem that UNIFIL had not yet been able tofulfil its peace-keeping mandate. In order to advancethat objective, he called upon the Council to insist atall times on full respect for the Force, to co-operatefurther with the Force and to seek Its full deploy-ment! and to make clear that the Force was nosubstrtute for continuing efforts to negotiate a peacesettlement, an aim for which peace-keeping wassupposed to provide an opportunity. He welcomedrenewed efforts by a permanent member of theCouncil to initiate negotiations, through a specialenvoy charged with mediation. He concluded bypointing out what the situation in Lebanon would bewithout UNIFIL and that the international commu-nity had a serious interest in its continuation.‘*

The representative of the Soviet Union raised thequestion of whether the Council should take somepreventive actions to forestall a new act of a ressionby Israel. In view of the draft resolution tYiat hadbeen elaborated in consultations, he announced thathis Government would not object to the increase inUNIFIL troop strength by l~,OOO men and, forreasons of principle, would again abstain in the voteon the draft.73

At the same meeting, the President put the draftresolution,74 which had been prepared m the courseof the Council’s consultations, to the vote; it received13 votes in favour, none against, with 2 abstentions,and was adopted as resolution 501 (1982).” It readsas follows:

The Security Council.

Recalling i ts resolutions 425 (I 978). 426 (1978). 427 (1978). 434(1978), 444 (1979). 450 (1979), 459 (1979). 467 (1980). 474(1980). 483 (1980), 488 (1981). 490 (1981) and 498 (1981),

Acting in accordance with its resolution 498 (1981), and inpart icular with paragraph IOof tha t resolution. in which it decidedto review the situation as a whole,

Having studied the special report of the Secretary-General on theUnited Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,

7hkrnR ~OIP of the letter of the Permanent Representative ofLebanon to the President of the Security Council,

Having reviewed the situation as a whole in the light of the reportof the Secretary-General and of the letter of the PermanentRepresentat ive of Lebanon,

Noting from the report of the Secretary-General that it is thestrong recommendation of the Commander of the United NationsInterim Force in Lebanon. and also the wish of the Government ofLebanon. thar the ceiling for troops of the Force should beincreased, and that the Secretary-General fully supports therecommendation for an increase by one thousand of the troopstrength of the Force,

I. Reaflrmr its resolution 425 (1978) which reads:“The Sectmy Council,“Taking note of the letters from the Permanent Representa-

tive of Lebanon and from the Permanent Representative ofIsrael,

“Having heard the statements of the Permanent Representa-tives of Lebanon and Israel,

“Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in theMiddle East and its consequences to the maintenance ofinternational peace,

“Convinced that the present situation impedes the achieve-ment of a just peace in the Middle East,

“I. Culls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sover-eignty and political independence of Lebanon within its intema-tionally recognized boundaries;

“2. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its mil itary actionagainst Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith itsforces from all Lebanese territory;

“3. Decides, in the light of the request of the Government ofLebanon, lo establish immediately under i ts authority a UnitedNations interim force for southern Lebanon for the purpose ofconfirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring intema-tional peace and security and assisting the Government ofLebanon in ensuring the return of its eflcctive authority in thearea, the force to be composed of personnel drawn fromMember States;

“4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Councilwithin twenty-four hours on the implementation of the presentresolution.“;2 . Decides to approve the immediate increase in the strength

of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon recommended bythe Secretary-General in paragraph 6 of his report, from sixthousand to approximately seven thousand troops, to reinforcepresent operations as well as to make further deployment possibleon the lines of resolution 425 (1978);

3. Re-etmhasizes the terms of reference and general guidelinesof the For& as stated in the report of the Secret&-General of 19March I978 confirmed bv resolution 426 (I 978). and particularly:

(a) That the Force “must be able to function as ai integratedand efXcient military unit”;

(6) That the Force “must enjoy the freedom of movement andcommunication and other facilities that are necessary to theperformance of ils tasks”;

(c) That the Force “will not use force except in selfdefence”;(d) That “sel f -defence would include resistance to at tempts by

forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under themandate of the Security Council”;

4. Culls upon the Secretary-General to renew his efforts toreactivate the General Armistice Agreement between Lebanon andIsrael of 23 March 1949 and, in part icular, to convene an earlymeeting of the Mixed Armistice Commission;

5. Requesfs the Secretary-General to continue his discussionswith the Government of Lebanon and the parties concerned with aview to submitting a report by IO June 1982 on the necessaryrequirements for achieving further progress in a phased pro-gramme of activities with the Government of Lebanon;

6. Decides to remain seized of the question and invites theSecretary-General to repoti to the Security Council on thesituation as a whole within two months.

Following the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the United States expressed her

Pall I I 147

c.

appreciation of the common effort among the mem-bers of the Council to arrive at a text that would havethe support of the Lebanese Government and ofLebanon’s neighbours as well as of the troop contrib-utors and others who supported the UNIFIL opera-tion. She noted that it had taken too much time toaccede to the request for more troops and renewedher delegation’s wish to address the question ofcontinued violence in all its aspects and complexitiesin the area.76

Decision of 22 April 1982: statement of the PresidentFollowing a letter dated 10 April 1982” in which

the representative of Lebanon submitted a complaintto the Council concerning massive Israeli troopconcentrations on the Lebanese-Israeli borders andofficial Israeli threats against the territorial integritof Lebanon, another letter dated 21 April 1982 8Ybrought charges that the Israeli air force hadlaunched extensive attacks on the coastal area southof Beirut and north-east of Sidon, which, accordingto preliminary reports, had caused heavy casualtiesand severe damage to civilian property. The repre-sentative of Lebanon requested urgent consultationsof the Council, in order to determine what appropri-ate measures could be taken immediately to avoidfurther escalation and deterioration of the situation,

On 22 A rilmembers oP

1982, following consultations withthe Council, the President issued the

following statement79 on their behalf:The President of the Security Council and the members of the

Council, having taken note of the letter dated 2 I April I982 fromthe Permanent Representative of Lebanon lo the United Nations,the oral report of the Secretary-General and his appeal of 2 I April1982, which reads as follows:

“The Secretary-General has learned with deep concern of theIsraeli air strikes today in Lebanon.

“He urgently appeals for an immediate cessation of all hostileacts and urges all parties to exercise the maximum restraint sothat the cease-fire, which has generally held since July I98 1, canbe fully restored and maintained.“.I. Urgent ly demand an end to al l armed attacks and violat ions

which jeopardize the cease-fire which has been in effect since 24July I98 I and warn against any recurrence of violations of thecease-fire, in accordance with Security Council resolution 490(1981) of 21 July 1981;

2. Enjoin all the parties to fulfil their responsibilities withrespect to peace and invite them to work for consolidation of thecease-fire.

In pursuance of resolution 501 (1982), the Secre-tary-General submitted a special report dated 25April 1982,80 in which he stressed that the situationin southern Lebanon remained extremely volatile. Hepointed out that although the arrangements for thecease-fire which had come into effect in July 1981had general1very real J

held, unresolved tensions had led to theanger of wides read

sparked in the area. He Phostilities being

re erred to the Israeli airstrikes into Lebanon on 21 April and to the appealIssued by him on that day. He stressed that the cease-fire was no substitute for the fulfilment of theUNIFIL mandate and that there had been littleprogress rn that direction in the two precedingmonths. He provided detailed information about theincrease in the strength of some UNIFIL troops andabout new endeavours to reactivate the Israel-leba-non Mixed Armistice Commission. Regarding theimplementation of a phased programme of activitieswith the Government of Lebanon, the Secretary-General stated that the Commander of UNIFIL hadinitiated a series of meetings aimed at enlisting

support for certain early steps that would demon-strate the desire of the parties to co-operate withUNIFIL and contribute to a reduction of tensions.


Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNDOF dated 20 May 1982”’ in its agenda.

In the report, covering the period from 2 I Novem-ber 1981 to 20 May 1982, the Secretary-Generalindicated that UNDOF had continued to perform itsfunctions effectively, with the co-operation of thep?rtie!, and that, during the period under review, thesltuatlon in the Israel-Syria sector had remainedquiet, with no serious incidents. The Secretary-Gen-eral cautioned, however, that the situation in the areacontinued to be potentially dangerous, unless anduntil a comprehensive settlement covering all aspectsof the Middle East problem could be reached. In theexistinered fl

circumstances, the Secretary-General consid-t e continued presence of UNDOF to be

essential and recommended that the Council extendthe mandate of the Force for a further period of sixmonths.

At the 2369th meeting, on 26 May 1982, thePresident of the Council put a draft resolution,R2which had been prepared in the course of theCouncil’s consultations, to the vote. It was adoptedunanimously as resolution 506 (1982).“’ It reads asfollows:

The Securrty Counci l ,HovinR considered the report of the Secretary-General on the

United Nat ions Disengagement Observer Force,Decides:((I) To call upon the parties concerned lo implement immediate-


Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 30November 1982;

(c)To request the Secretary-General to submit, at the end of thisperiod, a report on the developments in the situation and themeasures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

In connection with the adoption of the resolution,the President made the following complementarystatement on behalf of the CouncW4

As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the UnitedNations Disengagement Observer Force states, in paragraph 28,that “despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, thesituation in the Middle East as a whole continues to be potentiallydangerous and is likely to remain so unless and until a comprehen-sive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem canbe reached”. This statement of the Secretary-General ref lects theview of the Security Council.

Decision of 4 June 1982: statement of the PresidentDecision of 5 June I982 (2374th meeting): resolution

508 (1982)Decision of 6 June 1982 (2375th meeting): resolution

509 (1982)Decision of 8 June 1982 (2377th meeting): rejection

of a draft resolutionBy letter dated 4 June I 982,*5 the representative of

Lebanon charged that Israel1 military aircraft hadconducted no fewer than nine successive bombingraids on the city of Beirut and that Israeli forces andIsraeli aircraft had beLebanon north of r$

un to shell the area in southernabatiyeh, causing an undeter-

mmed number of casualtles. He called for urgentconsideration by the Council.

1 4 8 Chapter VIII. Mdntenanm of internatioad peace and security

By another letter of the same date,86 the representa-tive of Lebanon called for an urgent meeting of theCouncil.

On the same day, 4 June 1982, after consultationswith the members of the Council, the President madethe following statements7 on their behalf:

The President and the members of the Security Council havelearned with concern of the serious events which occurred today inLebanon and of the loss of human life and the destruction causedby those events. The President and the members of the Councilmake an urgent appeal 10 all the parties lo adhere strictly lo thecease-fire that had been in effect since 24 July 1981 and lo refrainimmediately from any hostile act likely 10 provoke an aggravationof rhe situation.

At its 2374th meeting, on 5 June 1982, the Councilincluded the second letter dated 4 June 198286 fromthe representative of Lebanon in the agenda. Follow-ing the adoption of the agenda, the Council invited,at its 2374th meetin& the representatives of Israeland Lebanon and, at its 2375th meeting, of Egypt, attheir request, tothe ri

dParticipate in the discussion without

t to vote. At its 2374th meetin , the Councilalso ecided, by a vote and in actor dante with itsprevious practice, to invite the representatjve of thePLO to participate in the deliberations wlthout theright to vote.8 At the same meeting, the Councilfurther decided to extend an invitation to Mr. ClovisMaksoud under rule 39 of the provisional rules ofprocedure.89 The Council considered the issue at its2374th to 2377th meetings, on 5, 6 and 8 June 1982.

At the 2374th meeting, the President drew theattention of the Council members to a draft resolu-tion,W which had been submitted by the representa-tive of Japan. He also referred to a letter dated 4 June198291 from the representative of Jordan, who hadtransmitted the text of a letter from the observer ofthe PLO char ing Israel with launching successivebombing attac e s on Beirut and southern Lebanon onthat day.

The Secretary-General informed the members ofthe Council in detail about the successive Israeli airstrikes against several targets in Beirut and throu -out the southern half of Lebanon. He indicated t fibatfull information about the casualties was not yetavailable and that he had issued an urgent appeal, inconjunction with the statement of the President, forcessation of hostilities at the earliest possible time.92

The representative of Japan also expressed hisdeep concern about the military activities in Lebanonand introduced a draft resolution for quick adoption.He briefly summarized the main provisions of thedraft and asked that it be adopted unanimousI& inorder to meet the grave situation in Lebanon.

The President then put the draft resolution to thevote; it was adopted unanimously as resolution 508( 1982).W It reads as follows:

The Security Council,Recalling its resolutions 425 (I 978). 426 (I 978) and its ensuing

resolutions and, more particularly, resolution 501 (1982),Taking no& of the letters of the Permanent Representative of

Lebanon dated 4 June 1982.Deeply concerned at the deterioration of the present situation in

Lebanon and in the Lebanese-Israel i border area, and iIs conse-quences for peace and security in the region,

Gravely concerned al the violation of the territorial integrity.independence and sovereignty of Lebanon,

ReaJPming and supporting (he statement made by the Presidentand the members of the Security Council on 4 June 1982, as wellas the urgent appeal issued by the Secretary-General on 4 June1982,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General,

I. Calls upon all the parties lo the conflict lo cease immediatelyand simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon andacross the Lebanese-Israeli border and not later than 0600 hours,local time, on Sunday, 6 June 1982;

2. Reuuests all Member Slates which are in a position lo do so lobring their influence to bear upon those concerned so that thecessation of hostilities declared by Security Council resolution 490(1981) can be respected; - -

3. Requesfs the Secretary-General to undertake all possibleefforts to ensure the implementation of and compliance with thepresent resolution and to report lo rhe Security Council as early aspossible and not later than forty-eight hours after the adoption ofthe present resolution.

Following the adoption of resolution 508 (I 982),the representative of the United Kingdom expressedthe dismay felt by his Government and by the peopleof Britain at the terrorist attack on the IsraeliAmbassador to London, but emphasized that thatassassination attempt did not in any way justify themassive Israeli air strikes against Lebanese towns andvillages.95

The representative of Ireland also stated his deepconcern about the situation in Lebanon, which wasextremely dan erous.

i?He condemned the attack on

the Israeli Am assador, who had been accredited toIreland earlier on, but he described the Israeli airstrikes as an indiscriminate attempt at retribution ofmassive 9g roportions and with incalculable conse-quences.

The representative of Lebanon informed the Coun-cil that Israeli commandos had landed a few hoursago on the coastal road to Beirut and had started toshoot at cars and buses full of refugees fleeing fromthe south. He pointed out that despite the Presiden-tial statement of 4 June the Israel1 military activityhad continued intensively and underlined the Leba-nese wish for the Israeli aggression to be stopped bythe Council. He described the chaotic circumstancesthat had resulted from the Israeli operations andexpressed renewed hope that the Council’s resolutionwould indeed initiate peace and security for all ofLebanon.97

The representative of the PLO cited the reportingin The New York Times as an example of how themedia saw the Israeli attack on Palestinian civilianconcentrations in Beirut and denied PLO responsi-bilit for the attack on the Israeli Ambassador. Hereaxarmed the PLO principle not to engage in any actof violence outside the occupied land or mvolving aninnocent third party and denounced the Israeliterrorist acts against the Palestinian population inthe occupied territoxy.9*

The representative of the Soviet Union pointed outthe numerous grave occasions of Israeli aggressionagainst Lebanon in the previous six weeks andcondemned the new lar e-scale milita aggressionagainst a sovereign Arab 6tate. The Israe i record was7a clear violation of international law, the Charter ofthe United Nations and the relevant United Nationsdecisions. In the light of that situation, his delegationfavoured the immediate end of the Israeli aggressionagainst Lebanon and an end to further escalation inthe area. The resolution, which had been accepted bythe Council, did not fully reflect his Government’scall for an immediate cease-fire and a strong condem-nation of Israeli aCouncil to use all eY-f

ressive policies. He urged theective means under the Charter

to halt further Israeli aggression against Lebanon.99The representative of Israel criticized the Council

for passing over the PLO campaign of terror, includ-

Pui I I 149

ing the attempted assassination of the Israeli Ambas-sador. He charged that the PLO had committed some150 acts of terrorism since July 198 I and warned thatLebanon could not claim the benefits of internationallaw if it did not carry out its duty to interdictPalestinian attacks from its soil against Israeli tar-gets.‘@’

Mr. Clovis Maksoud conveyed the view of LASthat the PLO could not be associated with theattempt to kill the Israeli Ambassador, but addedthat the Palestinians had been exercising the right ofall peoples who had been deprived of the exercise oftheir national rights when they had carried outlegitimate acts of resistance. He also criticized sharp-ly the Israeli warning that it would direct furtherstrikes against Lebanon.‘o’

The President, speaking in his capacity as therepresentative of France, noted that his Governmenthad condemned the air raids and the escalation ofviolence in Lebanon and alon the frontier betweenLebanon and Israel. In view o the spreading hostili-Bties: the Council had to decide quickly on a call foran immediate cease-fire. Force would not guaranteethe right of Israel to live in security or the right of thePalestinians or the Lebanese to live in peace.‘02

At the beginning of the 2375th meeting, on 6 June1982, the President drew the attention of the Councilto a draft resolution’O’ submitted by Ireland.

In pursuance of resolution 508 (I 982) the Secre-ta1 97

-General submitted his report dated 6 June2,1m in which he stated that he had made an

urgent appeal to the parties for a cessation ofhostilities. He noted that the representative of thePLO had reaffirmed its commitment to stop allmilitary operations across the Lebanese border andthat the representative of Israel had informed himthat althouright of sel -defence, resolutionf

h Israel had been actin50d

in exercise of its(1982) would be

brought before the Israeli Cabinet. The Secretary-General added that the hostilities had escalateddangerously and that the Israeli forces had movedinto southern Lebanon. He also conveyed the de-tailed information received from the Commander ofUNIFIL.‘05

After the Secretary-General’s oral report, the repre-sentative of Ireland introduced the draft resolutionsubmitted by his delegation and urged the Council totake rapid and unanimous action to put a stop to themassive invasion of Lebanese territory by Israeliforces. ‘06

At the same meeting, the representative of Israelreviewed in detail the numerous terrorist actionscommitted by Palestinians against Israeli citizensand representatives. He asserted that his Govem-ment was simply exercising the right of self-defenceto

Protect the lives of its citizens and to ensure their

sa ety against the PLO, which had headquarters,trainmg grounds and bases of operations in Lebanon.He reiterated his Government’s pledge that it hon-outed the independence and territorial integrity ofLebanon and had no territorial ambitions in Leba-non. He stressed that it was Lebanon’s duty to

- prevent its territory from being used for terroristattacks against other States and that in the mean timethe Government of Israel had decided to free theinhabitants of Galilee from PLO harassment.lo7

At the same meeting, the draft resolution submit-ted by Ireland was put to the vote and adopted

unanimously as resolution 509 (1982).‘O* It reads asfollows:

The Securrry Council.Recallma its resolutions 425 (1978) and 508 (1982)..Gruvcly concwned at the situation as described by the Secretary-

General in his reDort IO the Council,

Rcaflrming the need for strict respect for the territorialintegrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanonwithin its internationally recognized boundaries,

I. Demandr that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwithand unconditionallv to the internationally recognized boundarieso f L e b a n o n ;

2. Demands that all parties observe strictly the terms ofparagraph 1 of resolution 508 (1982). which called on them tocease immediately and simultaneously all military activities withinLebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border;

3. Cu//s on all parties to communicate to the Secretary-Generaltheir acceptance of the present resolution within twenty-fourhours;

4. Dectdes to remain seized of the question.

The representative of China condemned the ongo-ing armed invasion by Israeli forces and pointed outthat, despite many Council meetings to consider theIsraeli invasion of Lebanon, the situation in thesouthern region had been deteriorating; he viewedthe escalation of the war by Israel not only as anotherinsolent challenge to the Lebanese and Palestinianpeoples, but also as a deliberate exacerbation of thesituation in the Middle East, endangering worldpeace and security.lW

The representative of the Soviet Union also con-demned the massive incursion by the Israeli aggres-sors into Lebanon, trampling underfoot basic normsof international law and many resolutions of theCouncil. He called upon the Council to weighseriously the Israeli moves in Lebanon which weredesigned to plunge the Middle East ‘into a newmilitary conflict and constituted a direct threat tointernational peace and security.“O

The representative of Poland joined in the con-demnation of the Israeli invasion, which directlycontravened Article 2! paragraph 4, of the Charterand numerous resolutions, including resolution 508(1982), adopted on the previous day.“’

The representative of Egypt stated that the Israeliinvasion of southern Lebanon ran counter to Israel’sdeclared intention of seeking a comprehensive peace,threatened world peace and subjected the MiddleEast to a new wave of instabilit and chaos. Hereiterated the requirements issued by his Govem-ment for an easin of tensions in the area: first, animmediate cease- Btorial integrity,

ire in Lebanon; secondly, the terri-independence and sovereignty of

Lebanon within its internationally recognized bound-aries; thirdly, the immediate and unconditional with-drawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.“2

At the beginning of the 2376th meeting, on 8 June1982, the President drew attention to the report ofthe Secretary-General dated 7 June 1982 relating toresolution 509 (I 982),“) in which he informed theCouncil that he had transmitted the text of resolution509 (1982) to the Forei nLebanon and to the C airmank

Ministers of Israel andof the Executive

Committee of the PLO; the replies received fromLebanon, Israel and the PLO were also included.

At the 2376th meeting, the Secretary-Generalupdated his report orally and indicated that extensivehostilities continued, with the Israeli forces movingfurther north and with the UNIFIL troops beingforcibly run over and pushed aside despite persistent

150 Chapter VIII. Mdnteamce of iatcnmtiod mrc and dty

efforts to hold their positions against the Israeliavalanche.“’

The representative of Lebanon stated that hisGovernment had asked for the meeting because thesituation in Lebanon was becoming increasinglygrave and serious. He denounced Israel’s flat non-compliance with resolutions 508 (1982) and 509(I 982) and warned that the future, independence andsovereignty of Lebanon were at stake; therefore, hecalled once again upon the Council to preventLebanon’s extinction by stopping the war immediate-Iz

. The invasion of Lebanon violated the Genevaonvention and all rules of international morality

and human rights. He mentioned an appeal by theLebanese Red Cross stating unequivocally that itsworkers and vehicles had been savagely attacked byIsraelis and that they had been prevented fromevacuating the civilians and the wounded and fromtransporting medicines, blood and food supplies tothe distressed.ii5

The representative of Israel charged again thatLebanese territory had become the staging-

fround for

indiscriminate terrorist attacks on the civi ian popu-lation of Israel. His Government’s complaints to theCouncil regarding those attacks had gone unheeded,whereas its resort to the exercise of its right of self-defence had led to emergency and other extraordi-nary meetin s of the Council. His Government wasready to adirm the sovereignty of Lebanon, but itinsisted that Lebanon equally acknowledge the rightof the people of Israel to live in peace and security.ii6

At the 2377th meeting, on 8 June 1982, therepresentative of Spain stated that Israel’s disregardfor the President’s appeal dated 4 June and itsmassive and continued Invasion of Lebanon violatednumerous Council resolutions and had most seriousimplications for world peace. The disdain shown byIsrael for resolution 508 (I 982) and for basic normssuch as the General Armistice Agreement of 1949could not be justified by linking the armed attackagainst Lebanon with the assassination attemptagainst the Israeli Ambassador to London.

In view of the worsening situation, his delegationhad decided to submit a draft resolutioni” which hepresented to the Council for immediate adoption. Inthe preamble of the draft resolution, the Councilwould have recalled resolutions 508 (1982) and 509(I 982) and taken note of the report of the Secretary-General dated 7 June 1982 as well as of the positivereplies received from the Government of Lebanonand the PLO; in the operative part, the Councilwould have: (a) condemned the noncompliance withresolutions 508 (I 982) and 509 (I 982) by Israel; (b)urged the parties to comply with the regulationsattached to The Ha uereiterated its deman dg

Convention of 1907; (c)that Israel withdraw all its

military forces forthwith and unconditionally to theinternationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon;(d) reiterated also its demand that all parties observestrictly the terms of paragraph I of resolution 508(1982), in which the Council had called upon them tocease immediately and simultaneously all militaryactivities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border; .and (e) demanded that within sixhours all hostilities must be stopped, in compliancewith resolutions 508 (I 982) and 509 (I 982); and u>decided, in the event of non-compliance, to meetagain to consider practical ways and means, inaccordance with the Charter.jia

At the same meeting, the President put the draftresolution to the vote; tt received I4 votes in favoufand 1 against and was not adopted, owing to thenegative vote of a permanent member of the Coun-cil.i’p

In explanation of her vote, the representative ofthe United States pointed out that the two previousresolutions, 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), containedbalancin language that took account of the complexorigin o z the conflict in Lebanon and across theLebanese-Israeli border, whereas the text that hadjust been voted on was not sufficiently balanced toaccomplish the ob’ectives of ending the cycle ofviolence and estab ishing the conditions for a justr’and lasting peace in Lebanon. For that reason, sheconcluded, her Government had voted against thedraft resolution, but would continue ongomg effortsto bring the violence to an end.izO

Several delegations deplored in varying degreesthat the Council had not been able to adopt the draftresolution in the search for an end to the Israeliinvasion.12i

Decision of I8 June 1982 (2379th meeting): resolu-tion 511 (1982)At its 2379th meeting, on I8 June 1982, the

Council included the report of the Secretary-Generaldated IO June 1982 on UNIFIL’22 in the agenda.

In his report, covering the activities of the Forcefor the period from I1 December 1981 to 3 June1982, the Secretary-General described the situationin southern Lebanon and noted that during theperiod under review the activities of armed elements,the de&to forces and the IDF within and near theUNIFIL area of operation had continued and gave anaccount of the main incidents that had taken place.He stated that both at United Nations Headquartersand in the field, intense efforts had been made tomaintain the cease-fire that had come into effect on24 July 1981 and to restore it after hostile actsoccurred. The Secretary-General emphasized thatsignificant changes in deplo

zment had been made as

a result of the increase in t e strength of the Force.The Secretary-General noted that, on 21 April and 9May 1982, Israeli aircraft had attacked targets inLebanon, and he stated that since the situation in thearea remained extremely volatile he had taken everyopportunity to urge restraint on the parties.

In two addenda to his report, dated I I June198212j and 14 June 1982,i2’ the Secretary-Generalreferred to events that had occurred between 4 andIO June and between 1 I and I3 June respective1The Secretary-General stated that, despite the dirry

.I-

cult and dangerous situation prevailing in Lebanon,all UNIFIL troops and UNTSO observers had re-mained in their positions and, although the Israeliforces had imposed restrictions on the movement ofUNIFIL on the coastal road and in the enclave,UNIFIL headquarters had, nevertheless, been able torestore communications with and supplies to thevarious battalions. He added that UNIFIL troo swere also endeavouring to the extent possible in tRecircumstances to extend protection and humanitari-an assistance to the population of the area.

The Secretary-General stated that, despite thefundamentally altered situation in southern Lebanonand the dangers inherent in it, UNIFIL troopscontinued functioning. He expressed the view that ifthe terms of resolution 509 (1982) were to be

Pall II 1 5 1

_-

implemented, UNIFIL could usefully contribute tothe objectives prescribed b the Council. However,for UNIFIL to function ef-7ectively, he added, therewould need to be a clear definition by the Councilitself of the terms of reference of the Force in theexisting situation, as well as full cooperation fromthe parties concerned. The Secretary-General addedthat the Government of Lebanon had expressed theview that UNIFIL should continue to be stationed inthe area, pending further consideration of the situa-tion in the light of resolution 509 (1982).

Following the adoption of the agenda, the Councilinvited the representatives of Israel, Lebanon, theNetherlands, Sweden and the Syrian Arab Republic,at their request, to participate in the discussionwithout the right to vote.3 The Council also decided,by a vote and in accordance with its previouspractice, to invite the representative of the PLO toparticivote.‘* P

ate in the deliberations without the right toThe Council further decided to extend an

invitation to Mr. Clovis Maksoud under rule 39 ofthe provisional rules of procedure.l26 The Councilconsidered the issue during its 2379th meeting, on I8June 1982.

The President drew the attention of the Council toa draft resolution,i27 which had been prepared in thecourse of consultations by the Council. The draftresolution was then put to the vote, received 13 votesin favour, none against, and 2 abstentions, and was;tlol&d as resolution 5 I 1 ( 1982).12r It reads as

The Securily Council.

Recall ing i ts resolutions 425 (1978). 426 (1978). 427 (1978). 434(1978). 444 (1979). 450 (1979). 459 (1979), 467 (1980). 483(1980) 488 (1981) 490 (1981). 498 (1981) and SO1 (1982).

Reu/jirming its resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982).Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the

United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and taking note of theconclusions and recommendations expressed therein,

Bewing in mind the need to avoid any developments whichcould further aggravate the situation and the need, pending anexamination of the situation by the Security Council in all itsaspects, to preserve in place the capacity of the United Nations IOassist in the restoration of the peace,

I. Decides. as an interim measure, to extend the presentmandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for aperiod of two months, that is, until 19 August 1982;

2. Authorizes the Force during that period IO carry out, inaddition. the interim tasks referred to in paragraph 17 of thereport of the Secretary-General on the Force;

3. Calls on all concerned to extend full co-operation to the Forcein the discharge of its tasks;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Councilregularly informed of the implementation of resolutions 508(1982) and SO9 (1982) and the present resolution.

Followin the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the United States welcomed therenewal of the UNIFIL mandate for two months sothat the Council would have the opwhat best would serve the people op”

rtunity to studyLebanon and the

peace of the region.i29The representative of Ireland deplored that in view

of the massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon therenewal of the mandate of UNIFIL had been disrupt-ed and that the cease-fire had not yet been fullyrestored. He dismissed the Israeli claim of self-de-fence as unwarranted, pointed to the lack of propor-tionality between the different violent measures andcharged that such destructive actions escalated thelevels of violence and further weakened the hopes forcomprehensive peace in the region.

He further protested against the contempt that theIsraeli military showed for the United Nations peace-keeping force and their disregard for the fragilepurpose and mode of peace-keeping, which dependedon the consent of the parties, the full cooperationfrom all concerned and the acceptance of its moralauthority. He added that the Force had never beenallowed to deploy fully throughout its area of opera-tions and expressed his Government’s concern aboutthe future of UNIFIL. He underlined two require-ments regarding UNIFIL: (a) that UNIFIL be givenfull co-operation in what it was expected to do; and(h) that the decision to extend its mandate for aninterim period of two months should be seen as atemporary expedient. He concluded by saying thatthe extension of the UNIFIL mandate was no morethan a holdinCouncil to mat

operation and that it was up to the

period.iXOe new dispositions beyond the interim

The representative of the Soviet Union stressedthat the renewal of the UNIFIL mandate was not aroutine decision, because the Israeli troops hadcarried out the large-scale aggression against Leba-non, breaking through the lines of the peace-keepingforce and sowing death and destruction among theLebanese and the Palestinians. The Israeli invasion,which demonstrated the Israeli disregard of theCouncil and its decisions,,constituted a serious threatto the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon.The Soviet Government considered that the Councilshould immediately take steps to halt the Israeliaggression and to defend the sovereignty and territo-real integrity of Lebanon and the legitimate rights ofthe Arab people. He also indicated that his Govem-ment found it possible not to oppose the extension ofUNIFIL.“’

The representative of the United Kingdom statedthat the invasion of Lebanon was clearly in violationof international law and of Article 2, paragraph 4, ofthe Charter, as well as in complete disregard of thedemands of the Council, He added that the BritishGovernment, together with the other States membersof the Euroviolation oP

ean Community, saw the invasion as aLebanon’s sovereignty and could not

accept the Israeli claim that its action amounted toself-defence. Since it was too early to know whetherthere was a role for UNIFIL in the radically alteredcircumstances in Lebanon, he welcomed the exten-sion of the mandate of UNIFIL, so that the opportu-nity for a

?ossible new role for the Force could bepreserved.‘-*

The representative of China also condemned theIsraeli authorities for flagrantly launching the mas-sive invasion of Lebanon, bombarding Lebanesecities and towns and Palestmian refugee camps andbarring the discharge of the functions of UNIFIL. Inview of the need created by the new situation inLebanon and the request of the Lebanese Govem-

the resolution?‘rment, his dele ation had supported the adoption of

The representative of the Netherlands stated thatthe Israeli violations of the UNIFIL area seriouslyundermined the ability of the Force to perform itsduties. He explained that his Government main-tained its troops in UNIFIL in view of the humani-tarian assistance and protection that the Force couldextend to the population, but did not wish to discussthe continued deployment until the political situationhad become a little clearer. He appealed urgently tothe Israeli Government to respect UNIFIL fully, to

152 Chapter VIII. Mdnteaum of interrmtiond peace and acmrity

withdraw the Israeli units and to allow humanitarianassistance without hindrance.‘)’

The representative of Israel read out to the mem-bers of the Council his letter dated 7 June 198213’addressed to the Secretary-General, in which hepresented his Government’s response to resolution509 (1982) arguing that the Israeli action had beentaken in accordance with Article 51 of the Charterand announcing that a withdrawal of the Israeliforces would be mconceivable prior to the conclusionof concrete arrangements that would reliably pre-clude hostile action against Israel’s citizens.‘-6

The representative of Sweden explained his partici-pation in the Council meeting by pointing out hisGovernment’s very deep concern about the flagrantviolation not only of the independence of Lebanonbut also of the political authority of UNIFIL and ofthe Council. The Israeli contempt for UNIFIL andthe way its troops had simply overrun the peace-keeping force to launch the attack against Lebanonwere very disturbing to the Swedish Government. Heunderlined that the concept of peace-keeping restedon the assumption that the parties would co-operatein good faith with the peace-keeping forces and thatthe question of the future of the Palestinian peoplecould not be settled through the use of force norcould Israel’s security be achieved by military means.He warned that the history of peace-keepin in theMiddle East had taught a disastrous lesson ok what adrastic and ill-advised removal of United Nationspeace-keeping troo s could entail. Peace-keeping hadproved to be an ex!ective instrument at the disposalof the international community for the containmentof conflicts. It should be maintained as a function ofthe United Nations and the international communityas a whole, acting through its universal Organization,and should assume responsibility for those opera-tions.ij7

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republiccriticized the use of the veto to defeat the adoption ofthe Spanish draft resolution issuing a further warningagainst Israel and called for expulsion of Israel fromthe United Nations for its gross violations of itsCharter obligations and appealed to the Council notto delay any longer the application of mandatorysanctions against Israel under Chapter VII of theCharter.13*

Decision of 19 June 1982 (2380th meeting): resolu-tion 512 (1982)

Decision of 26 June 1982 (2381~1. meeting): rejectionof a draA resolution

Decision of 4 July 1982 (2382nd meeting): resolution513 (1982)At its 2380th meeting, on 19 June 1982, the

Council resumed its consideration of the item thathad been included in the agenda at the 2374thmeeting, on 5 June 1982. At the beginning of the2380th meeting, the President drew the attention ofthe Council to a draft resolution’39 submitted by thedelegation of France.

Speaking in his capacity as representative ofFrance, the President stated that the bloodshed thathad begun during the tragic events in Lebanon hadnot yet ended. While attempts continued to brinabout the implementation of resolutions 508 (1982 5and 509 (l982), his delegation was increasin

?y

concerned with the situation of the civilian popu a-

tions, both Lebanese and Palestinian, who neededlarge-scale and effective aid. The draft resolution hadbeen prepared to demonstrate the Council’s solidari-ty with the suffering population and to increase andimprove the aid that had so far been made available.He urged the Council to adopt the draft resolution,which was of special significance for France, whichhad a particularly deep attachment to Lebanon.lOThe President then put the draft resolution to thevote; ,it received 15 votes in favour and was adopted;~~;:;;ously as resolution 512 (1982).“’ It reads as

The Security Council.Deeply concerned at the sufTerings of the Lebanese and Palestin-

ian civilian populations,Refirnng to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Conven-

tions of I949 and to the obligations arising from the regulationsannexed to The Hague Convention of 1907.

ReufirminR its resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982).

I . Cirlls upon al l part ies to the confl ict to respect the r ights of thecivilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence winstthose populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviatethe suffering caused by the conflict, in particular, by facilitatingthe dispatch and distribution of aid provided by United Nationsagencies and by non-governmental organizations, in particular, theInternational Committee of the Red Cross;

2. Appeals to Member States to continue to provide the mostextensive humanitarian aid possible;

3. Slrrssrs the particular humanitarian responsibilities of theUnited Nations and its agencies, including the United NationsRelief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,towards civilian populations and calls upon-all the parties to theconflict not to hamper the exercise of those responsibilities and toassist in humanitarian efforts;

4. Takes note of the measures taken by the Secretary-General toco-ordinate the activities of the international agencies in this fieldand requests him to make every effort to ensure the implementa-tion of and compliance with the present resolution and to reporton these efforts to the Security Council as soon as possible.

At its 238lst meeting, on 26 June 1982, theCouncil resumed the consideration of the item.

The President, speaking in his capacitrepresentative of France, introduced a draii

as theresolu-

tion’42 sponsored by his delegation, under which, inthe preambular part, the Council would have reaf-firmed resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (I 982) and 512(1982); given expression to its serious concern at theconstant deterioration of the situation in Lebanon,resulting from the violation of the sovereignty,integrity, independence and unity of the country;expressed profound apprehension regarding the dan-gers of extension of the lighting within Beirut; and, inthe operative part: (a) demanded that all the partiesobserve an immediate cessation of hostilitiesthroughout Lebanon; (b) demanded the immediatewithdrawal of the Israeli forces engaged aroundBeirut to a distance of 10 kilometres from theperiphery of that city, as a first ste towards thecomplete withdrawal of Israeli forces rom Lebanon,Fas well as the simultaneous withdrawal of the Pales-tinian armed forces from Beirut, which should retireto the existing camps; (c) supported all efforts by theGovernment of Lebanon to censure Lebanese sover-eignty throughout the territory and the integrity andindependence of Lebanon within its internationallyrecognized frontiers; (d) called upon all armed ele-ments in the Beirut area to respect the exclusiveauthority of the Government of Lebanon and abideby its dlrectives; (e) supported the Government ofLebanon in its will to regain exclusive control of itscapital and to that end to install its armed forces,which should take up positions within Beirut and

put II IS3interpose themselves cn its periphery; (/) requestedthe Secretary-General, as an immediate measure, tostation United Nations military observers, in agree-ment with the Government of Lebanon, with instruc-tions to supervise the cease-fire and disengagementin and around Beirut; (g) further requested theSecretary-General to study any request by the Gov-ernment of Lebanon for the installation of a UnitedNations force which could, within the framework ofthe implementation of the preceding paragraphs, takeup posltions beside the Lebanese interposltion forces,or for the use of the forces available to the UnitedNations in the region; (h) requested the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on anurgent and sustained basis not later than I July 1982on the status of implementation of the resolution andof resolutions 508 (I 982), 509 (I 982) and 5 I2 (1982);(i! requested all Member States to co-operate fullywith the United Nations in the implementation ofthe resolution; and 0) decided to remain seized of thequestion.

The President, in his rapacity as the representativeof France, strongly urged the adoption of the text ashis Government was alarmed at the destruction ofentire neighbourhoods in Beirut and hoped to see thereturn of at least minimum security throughout thecity by stationing United Nations military observers,and possibly also creating conditions for the initiat-ing of genuine negotiations.l43

At the same meeting, the President put the reviseddraft resolution to the vote: it received 14 votes in

- favour and 1 vote against, and was not adopted,owin

Pber.’ 4to the negative vote of a permanent mem-

Following the vote, the representative of theUnited States explained that his delegation had cast anegative vote, since the draft resolution, whichotherwise was sup rted by his Government, did notaddress the need or the ehmination from Beirut andp”elsewhere of the presence of armed Palestinianelements.l4s

At its 2382nd meeting, on 4 July 1982, the Councilresumed consideration of the item.

The President drew the attention of the Council toa draft resolution,‘4h which had been prepared in thecourse of the Council’s consultations. He then drewattention to a number of documents, including aninterim reportt4’ of the Secretary-General dated 30June 19.82, submitted in pursuance of resolution 512( 1982), m which a prelimmary account of the human-itarian efforts of the United Nations system to assistLebanon was given.

At the same meeting, the President put the draftresolution to the vote; It received I5 votes in favourand was adopted unanimously as resolution 513( 1982).‘4R It reads as follows:

The Security Council,Alarmed by the continued sufferings of the Lebanese and

Palestinian civilian populations in southern Lebanon and in westfkirut.

Referring to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Conven-tions of 1949 and to the obligations arising from the regulationsannexed to The Hague Convention of 1907,

Reajirming its resolutions 508 (1982). 509 (I 982) and 512(1982),

I. Calls for respect for the rights of the civilian populationswithout any discrimination and repudiates all acts of violenceagainst those populations;

2. Calls further for the restoration of the normal supply of vitalfaci l i t ies such as water, electricity. food and medical provisions,particularly in Beirut;

3. Commends the eflorts of the Secretary-General and the actionof international agencies to alleviate the sufferings of the civilianpopulation and requests them to continue their efforts to ensuretheir success.

Decision of 29 July 1982 (2385th meeting): resolu-tion 515 (1982)

Decision of I August 1982 (2386th meeting): resolu-tion 516 (1982)

Decision of 3 August 1982 (2387th meeting): state-ment of the President

Decision of 4 Au1

usttion 517 (198 )

1982 (2389th meeting): resolu-

Decision of 6 August 1982 (239lst meeting): rejec-tion of a draft resolution

Decision of 12 August 1982 (2392nd meeting):resolution 5 18 (I 982)By letter dated 28 July 1982,149 the representatives

of E yptthe E

and France requested an urgent meeting ofouncil in order to take up the situation in the

Middle East; they attached to the letter a draftresolutionIs co-sponsored by Egypt and France.

At its 2384th meeting, on 29 July 1982, theCouncil included the letter, in addition to the letterdated 4 June 1982 from the Permanent Representa-tive of Lebanon to the United Nations, in its agendaand resumed its consideration of the item.

Following the adoption of the agenda, the Councilinvited, in addition to the representatives previouslyInvited, at the 2384th meeting, the representative ofqakistan, and at the 2389th meeting, the representa-tives of Cuba and India, at their request, to partici-pate in the discussion without the right to vote.3

At the be innin of the meeting, the Presidentreferred to tff fe dra tand France.

resolution submitted by Egypt

The representative of France expressed deep regretabout the continuing invasion of Lebanon and occu-pation of Beirut by Israeli troops and recalled theappeal by the President of France to the combatantsto observe the requirements of the cease-fire and hissuggestion that a United Nations force be set up toassist in separating the fighting parties in Beirut. Heproposed that although that suggestion had not beenadopted b the Council, another effort be made toseek the 6ouncil’s support. In that connection hementioned the working document that he, togetherwith the representative of Egypt,. had submitted tothe Council on 2 July. Since the situation had ottenworse in and around Beirut, they had deci ded tosubmit officially the draft resolution whose text wasidentical with the earlier working document.

He emphasized the political dimension of theLebanese situation and urged the other members tosee the proposed text in the light of military andpolitical characteristics of the ongoing crisis and ofpossible approaches to a peaceful settlement based onthe Charter of the United Nations and on theaccethe 8

tance of the Palestinian objective. He invitedouncil to amend the submission to take account

of recent developments and agreed to consider thosesuggestions with an open mind.‘j’

I54 Chapter VIII. Malntcnmm of intenwiod peace and dty

He reviewed in great detail the draft resolutionunder which, in its preambular part, the Council,guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,would have recalled its resolutions 242 (1967) and338 (1973) recalled further its resolutions 508(1982). 509 (1982) 511 (1982) 512 (1982) and 513(1982). expressed its gr?lc concern at the situation inthe Middle East, in partrcular the existing situation inLebanon, reaffirmed the obligation of all to respectstrictly the sovereignty, territorial integrity and polit-ical independence of all countries and the legitimatenational rights of all peoples in the Middle East,reaffirmed further the obligation that all Statesshould settle their disputes by peaceful means in sucha manner that international peace and security andjustice would not be endangered and that they shouldrefrain from the threat or use of force against theterritorial integrity or political independence of anyState or in any other manner inconsistent with thepurposes of the United Nations, and expressed itsdetermination to seek the restoration of peace andsecurity in the region based on the principles ofsecurity for all States and justice for all peoples.

In the operative part, under section A, the Councilwould have (a) demanded that all the parties to theexisting hostilities in Lebanon observe an immediateand lasting cease-fire throughout Lebanon; (h) de-manded the immediate withdrawal of the Israeliforces engaged around Beirut to an agreed distance asa first step towards their complete withdrawal fromLebanon and the simultaneous withdrawal from westBeirut of the Palestinian armed forces, which wouldbe redeployed with their light weapons, as a first stepin camps to be determined, preferably outside Beirut,through modalities to be agreed upon between theparties, so putting an end to their military activities;(c) called for the conclusion of an agreement betweenthe Palestinian armed forces and the Government ofLebanon concerning the destination and destiny oftheir weapons, other than those referred to above; (d)called for the departure of all non-Lebanese forces,except those which would be authorized by thelegitrmate and representative authorities of Lebanon;(e) supported the Government of Lebanon in itsefforts to regain exclusive control of its capital and,to that end, to install its armed forces, which shouldtake up positions in Beirut and interpose themselveson its periphery; and

I?further supported all efforts

by the Government o Lebanon to ensure Lebanesesovereignty throughout the territory and the integrityand independence of Lebanon within its internation-ally recognized frontiers.

Under section B, the Council would have (a)requested the Secretary-General, as an immediatemeasure, to station Unrted Nations military observ-ers, by agreement with the Government of Lebanon,in order to supervise the cease-fire and disengage-ment, in and around Beirut; and (b) further requestedthe Secreta -General, bearing in mind the provi-sions of reso ution 5 I I (1982). to prepare a report on7the prospects for the deployment of a United Nationspeace-keeping force, which could, within the frame-work of the tmplementation of the preceding para-graphs, take up positions beside the Lebanese inter-position forces, or on the use of the United Nationsforces already deployed in the region.

Under section C, the Council would have (a)considered that the settlement of the Lebaneseproblem should contribute to the initiation of adurable restoration of peace and security in the

region within the framework of negotiations based onthe principles of security for all States and justice forall peoples, in order, namely, to (i) reaffirm the rightof all States in the region to existence and securit inaccordance with resolution 242 (1967); (ii) reaRtrmthe legitimate national rights of the Palestinianpeople, including the right to self-determination withall its implications, on the understanding that to thatend the Palestinian people should be represented inthe negotiations and, consequently, the PLO shouldbe associated therein; and (iit) call for the mutual andsimultaneous recognition of the parties concerned;and (b) requested the Secretary-Genera!, in consulta-tion with all the parties concerned including therepresentatives of the Palestinian people, to makeproposals to the Council designed to achieve bpolitical means the objectives mentioned above, wit za view to the recognition of and respect for theexistence and security of all.

Under section D, the Council would have (a)requested the Secretary-General to report to theFaunncil on an urgent and sustained basis.not later

. . . on the status of the tmplementatton of theresolution; and (b) requested all Member States to co-operate fully with the United Nations Secretariat inthe implementation of the resolution.

The representative of Egypt suggested that theproblem of the Middle East would continue to defysettlement unless and until a just solution to thePalestinian question had been achieved. He addedthat Egypt, the first and onl Arab country toestablish normal relations with lsrael, rejected com-pletely the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and itspolicies against the Palestinian people and the PLO.Based on its conviction that the territorial integrityand sovereignty of Lebanon could not be restoredunless Israel withdrew completely from all Lebaneseterritory, his Government,. together with France, hadembarked on a new imtiative for a movementtowards a comprehensive peaceful settlement for theMiddle East as a whole. He underlined basic Charterprinciples regarding the non-use of force and theresolution of disputes through peaceful means as wellas the right to self-determination and endorsed theCouncil resolutions regarding the invasion of Leba-non. He then introduced the draft resolution, pre-senting its various parts and commenting on Egypt’sreasons for submitting them to the Council. He urgedin conclusion all Council members and all the partiesin the Middle East to give their support to theFrench-Egyptian initiative.“*

The representative of Jordan stated that the Coun-cil was duty-bound to warn the aggressor that itwould not tolerate the continued a ression againstthe Lebanese and Palestinian popu ations7 and re-minded the Council of its power to invoke measuresunder Chapter VII of the Charter. Regardin theFrench-Egyptian draft resolution, he expressed sur-prise that suggestions for changes of the originalworking document of 2 July were not contained inthe text, which had been formallCouncil, but he indicated his wil ingness to partici-r

submitted to the

pate in the efforts to amend the text for adoption bythe Council. He emphasized in particular the rele-vance of basic Charter principles, such as the peace-ful settlement of disputes, the inadmissibility of theacquisition of territory by force, and the right to self-determination, for the renewed effort to find waysand means to resolve the Middle East problem.’ 3

Put 11 155

At the conclusion of the 2384th meeting, therepresentative of Lebanon informed the Council thathis Government had been advised by the Intema-tional Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) thatIsraeli check-points were still preventing the entryInto West Beirut of any food or supplies, despitewhat had been promised.t54

At the 2385th meeting, on 29 July 1982, therepresentative of Lebanon gave strong support to theFrench-Egyptian initiative and stressed that peace inLebanon could not wait for the comprehensivesettlement of the Middle East crisis. He repeated thethree basic objectives for a solution in Lebanon,namely, the withdrawal of Israel from all of Lebanon,the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces, and thedeployment of the Lebanese Army and securityforces, and concluded by saying that Israel’s securitycould be guaranteed only by peace and mutualrecognition of eve

7nation’s and people’s right to

exist, as provided or in the draft resolution.‘55The representative of Pakistan pointed out that

very recently the Extraordinary Ministerial Meetingof the Coordinating Bureau of the Movement ofNon-Aligned Countries held at Nicosia had calledupon the Council to apply as a matter of urgencycomprehensive mandatory sanctions a ainstunder Chapter VII of the Charter, untif

lsraelIsrael fully

carried out the relevant resolutions of the UnitedNations.15”

The representative of Ireland stressed the fact thatthe ca ital of a Member State had been under virtualsiege or nearly two months by the armed forces of itsPneighbour and that the Council had not yet succeed-ed m implementing its resolutions and terminatingthe occupation. In view of this circumstance, timewas ripe for a new effort that would provide forcertain immediate steps to stop the conflict in Beirutand address the problem in its larger context. HisGovernment had always felt that something shouldbe done to get a real political dialogue under way andthat the right of the Palestinian people to self-deter-mination had to be included in whatever was to bediscussed and agreed to. He expressed his apprecia-tion for the initiative taken by Egespecially for the main lines oft i

pt and France ande draft resolution,

although he cautioned that a United Nations forceshould not be established unless the whole issueincluding all the implications of such a step werediscussed in depth in the Council.‘57

The representative of Spain informed the Councilthat his Government had instructed him to submiturgent1purely h

a draft resolution that was addressed toumanitarian concerns and could be ado ted

at the same meeting. He then read out the text oP thedraft resolution15* and appealed to the Councilmembers to adopt it as soon as possible to put an endto the siege of Beirut where the civilian populationhad been suffering from hunger, thirst, war anddeath.‘59

The representative of Jordan welcomed the Span-ish draft resolution and called upon the Council totake it up ur entlymembers of tft

and referred to an appeal bye Government of Lebanon who de-

scribed the worsening situation in West Beirut as aresult .of the continued siege of the area by Israelioccupiers.‘60

The representative of the United States renewedher Government’s commitment to the peace, inde-pendence and sovereignty of Lebanon, but indicated

that her delegation could not support the Spanishdraft since there was no time to gather or confirm thefacts about the current situation in Beirut, since therewas only an inadequate opportunity for consultationswith her Government and since the draft resolutionwas lacking in balance. Although the PLO hadimposed itself in the first instance on the civilianpopulation of Beirut, the draft resolution submittedby Spain called only upon Israel to desist in itsmilitary activities. She felt that a one-sided appeal ina two-sided conflict suggested political as well ashumanitarian purposes. In the light of those difficul-ties, she asked for suspension of the Council meetingto permit consultation about the text with herGovernment.‘“’

The representative of France fully supported theSpanish representative and agreed that priorityshould be given to the draft resolution and it shouldbe voted upon as quickly as possible.16*

At the same meeting, following a short suspen-sion,‘“’ the President proposed, in accordance withthe request of the United States, to suspend themeeting for consultations. The representative ofPanama opposed the proposal for suspension, andthe President put the United States request to a vote.The result was 6 votes in favour, 6 against, and 3abstentions; the pro osalmeeting therefore P

for a suspension of theailed to obtain the required

majority and was not adopted.l”4Immediately following the vote on the suspension

of the meeting, the President put the draft resolutionsubmitted by Spain to the vote. It obtained I4 votesin favour; one member did not participate in thevote. Therefore, the draft had been adopted asresolution 5 I5 ( 1982).‘63 It reads as follows:

The Securify C’ouncrl.Deep/y roncemed at the situation of the civilian population of

Beirut,Referrina to the humanitarian orinciples of the Geneva Conven-

tions of I949 and to the obligations arising from the regulationsannexed to The Hanue Convention of 1907.

Recolhng its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982).I. Demands that the Government of Israel lift immediately the

blockade of the citv of Reirut in order to permit the dispatch ofsupplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population andallow the distribution of aid orovided by United Nations agenciesand by non-governmental organizat ions, part icular ly the Intema-tional Committee of the Red Cross;

2. Requests the Sccretaty-General to transmit the text of thepresent resolution to the Government of Israel and to keep theSecurity Council informed of its implementation.

The representative of the United States stated thather Government had found it impossible to partici-pate in the vote and strongly objected to the proce-dure employed at the meeting; she suggested that itwould be impossible for the Council to function ifmembers were not to be provided an opconsultation with their Governments.’

prtunity for

The representative of the Soviet Union viewed theCouncil’s action as most appropriate in that the anti-humanitarian actions on the part of Israel in Beiruthad cut off supply routes for food and electricity,prevented various humanitarian organizations, in-cludin

fthe United Nations Relief and Works A

for Pa estine Refugees in the Near East (UNRIvency

from carrying out their work and gross1A),

violated theCouncil’s resolutions 5 I2 (1982) and 1I3 ( 1982).i6’

At its 2386th meeting, on I August 1982, theCouncil resumed its consideration of the item.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Presidentstated that the meeting had been convened at theurgent request, made during the night, of the repre-sentative of Lebanon in view of the new and seriousoutbreak of fighting in and around Beirut. He drewthe attention of the members to a draft resolution16*that had been drawn up following consultationsduring the morning. Before putting the text to thevote, the President announced the correction of asmall error in the printed copy. Then the draft wasput to the vote, received 15 votes in favour and wasadopted unanimously as resolution 516 ( 1982).‘69 Itreads as follows:

The Security Council.Rea/jirmrng its resolutions 508 ( 1982), 509 (1982), 5 I I (I 982).

512 (1982) and 513 (1982).Recoiling its resolution 515 (1982),Alarmed by the continuation and intensification of military

activities in and around Beirut,Taking note of the latest massive violations of the cease-fire in

and around Beirut,I. (bnjirms its previous resolutions and demands an immediate

cease-fire, and a cessation of all military activities within Lebanonand across the Lebanese-Israel i border;

2. Au01orrx~ the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, onthe request of the Government of Lebanon, United Nationsobservers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut;

3. Requms the Secretary-General to report back to the SecurityCouncil on compliance with the present resolution as soon aspossible and not later than four hours from now.

Following the adothe representative oP

tion of resolution 516 (1982),Lebanon thanked the Council

for convening so urgently and adoptin&

the resolutionin reaction to the new Israeli attac in the WestBeirut area and read out an appeal by the PrimeMinister of Lebanon who asked m despair why thepeople in Lebanon were subjected to the attacks andso much suffering and why the United Nations hadso far been unable to put an end to the bloodshed andviolence.“”

In pursuance of resolution 5 16 (1982), the Secre-ta

7-General submitted a report dated 1 Au ust

19 2,“’ in which he informed the Council t at,fifollowing the adoption of the resolution, he hadreceived a letter”* from the representative of Leba-non requesting, on behalf of his Government, thestationing of United Nations observers in the Beirutarea to ensure that the cease-fire was fully observedby all concerned. The Secretahe had instructed the Chief o Staff of UNTSO to;Y

-General stated that

make the necessary arran ements, in consultationwith the parties concerne d, for the immediate de-ployment of United Nations observers in and aroundBeirut in accordance with resolution 516 (1982).

The Secretary-General reported that the Israeliauthorities had informed the UNTSO Chief of Staffthat the matter would be brought before the IsraeliCabinet. He informed the Council that the Chairmanof the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commissionhad met with the Commander of the Lebanese Army,who had assured the UNTSO Chief of Staff that theArmy was ready to provide all the facilities and toassist the United Nations observers in the implemen-tation of resolution 5 16 (1982). He had also receiveda message from the Chairman of the ExecutiveCommittee of the PLO informing him of the acceptance by the PLO of resolution 516 (1982) and of hisreadiness to co-operate with United Nations observ-ers. He added that the Chairman of the Commissionhad reported from his preliminary observations on

the ground in Beirut that the cease-fire appeared tobe holding as of 2400 hours local time.

In the addendum to his report dated 3 AugustI 982,t73 the Secretary-General stated that intensiveefforts had continued for the speedy implementationof resolution 516 (1982). He reported that the Israeliauthorities had informed the Chief of Staff ofUNTSO that the Israeli Cabinet would discuss thesubject on 5 August 1982 and that, pending adecision by the Government of Israel on resolution5 16 (1982), no co-operation would be extended toUNTSO personnel in the execution of that resolu-tion. Noting that every effort was being made tostress to the Israeli authorities the importance andurgency of the matter, the Secretary-General said thatalthou

b”the detailed plan for the deployment of

Unite Nations observers in the Beirut area had beenready since 1 August, it could not be put into fulleffect until the reply from the Israeli Governmentwas received.

The Secretary-General stated further that, as atemporary practical measure, he had instructed theUNTSO Chief of Staff to take immediate steps to setup initially observation machinery in territory con-trolled by the Lebanese Government, in close consul-tation and co-operation with the Lebanese Army. Hereported that the United Nations observers asslgnedto the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commissionhad been constituted as the Observer Group Beirut(OGB) and that the Chairman of the Commissionhad been appointed Officer-in-Charge.

At the 2387th meeting, on 3 August 1982, theCouncil resumed its consideration of the item.

At the be inning of the meeting, the Presidentmade the ollowing statement,, which had beentkprepared during consultations with members of theCouncil, on their behalf in connection with the gravesituation in Lebanon:“’

1. The members of the Security Council are seriously concernedat the prevailing high state of tension and at reports of militarymovements and continued outbrenks of firing and shelling in andaround Beirut, contrary to the demand in resolution 516 (1982),which was adopted at 1325 hours, New York time, on I August1982, for an immediate cease-fire and cessation of all militaryactivities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border.They consider it vital that these provisions be fully implemented.

2. The members of the Security Council have taken note of theSecretary-General’s reports submitted pursuant to resolution 516(I 982). They express full support for his efforts and for the steps hehas taken, following the request of the Government of Lebanon, tosecure the immediate deployment of United Nat ions observcn t omonitor the situation in and around Beirut. They note withsatisfaction from the Secretary-General’s report that-some of thewrtia have alreedy assured General Erskine of their full w&ration for the d;ploymcnt of United Nations observers andthey call urgently on all of the parties to cooperate fully in theeffort to secure effective deployment of the observers and toensure their safety.

3. They insist that all parties must observe strictly the terms ofresolution 516 (1982). They call further for the immediate IiRingof all obstacles io th; dispatch of supplies and the distribution o?aid to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population inaccordance with previous resolutions of the Council. The membersof the Security Council will keep the situation under close review.

At the 2388th meeting, on 4 August 1982, theCouncil continued its consideration of the item inresponse to a request by the representative of theSoviet Union, as the President informed the mem-bers at the beginning of the meeting.17s He also drewthe attention of the members to a draft resolutionsubmitted by Jordan and Spain.‘76

Put II - 157

The representative of the Soviet Union pointed outthat his delegation had alerted the Council to the factthat Israeli military forces had launched new large-scale attacks against west Beirut and that the repre-sentative of Israel had denied those facts at theprevious meeting. He added that the new acts ofaggression were by that time widely known and that,faced with the extremely serious situation, the Coun-cil had to take effective and decisive measuresincluding the deployment of additional United Na-tions observers in and around Beirut. Furthermore,the Council should consider measures under ChapterVII of the Charter.“’

The representative of Jordan described in somedetail the devastation resulting from the most recentIsraeli attack in Beirut and suggested that Israel hadlaunched the new attack in order to bring about thecollapse of the tripartite discussions between theSpecial Ambassador of the llnited States, the PLOand the Lcbancse Government. In fact of the Israeliattempt to take over the capital of Lebanon, theCouncil needed to take the firmest mcasurcs. Forthat reason, he introduced the draft resolution, whichwas co-sponsored by Spain and Jordan.t7x

The representative of Spain expressed dismay thatthe !sraeli Government was delaying the dispatch ofaddlttonal United Nations observers by reserving thedecision to accept the Council mandate to a cabinetmeeting yet to be held and denounced the Israelidelaying tactics at a time of grave fighting. Hcexpressed hope that the Council would adopt theJordanian-Spanish draft to put an end to the Israeliaggression.’ y

The representative of China condemned the Israeliattack against the Lebanese and Palestinian peoplesand proposed that the Council, faced with suchlawlessness on the part of the Israeli authorities,should put an end to the Israeli invasion by theadoption of forceful measures against Israel, inaccordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of theCharter.laO

At the 2389th meeting, on 4 August 1982, thePresident drew attention to the revised textlal of theJprdaman-Spanish draft resolution. The representa-tive of Spam announced several changes, includingthe addltlon of a new paragraph, and read out thechanges. Ix! The President repeated the wording of thevarious changes and then put the revised text to thevote. It received 14 votes in favour, with I absten-tion, and was adopted as resolution 517 ( 1982).18’ Itreads as follows:

The Security ~buncil.Deeply shocked and alarmed by the deplorable consequences of

the Israeli invasion of Beirut on 3 Augusl 1982,1. Reconjirms its resolutions 508 ( 1982). 509 ( 1982). 5 I2 ( 1982).

513 (1982). 515 (1982) and 516 (1982);2. Conjirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire

and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon;3. Censures Israel for its failure IO comply with the above

rcsoluIions;4. Calls for the prompt return of Israeli troops which have

moved forward subsequent to 1325 hours, eastern daylight time,on I August 1982;

5. Takes nofe of the decision of the Palestine LiberationOrganization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut;

6. Expresses IIS appreciation for the efforts and steps taken bythe Secretary-General to implement the provisions of resolution516 (1982) and authorizes him, as an immediate step, to increasethe number of United Nations observers in and around Beirut;

7. Requesfs the Secretary-General to report to the SecurityCouncil on the implementation of the present resolution as soon as

possible and not later than 1000 hours, eastern daylight time. on 5August 1982;

8. Declde.7 to meet at that time, if necessary, in order to considerthe report of the Secretary-General and. in case of failure tocomply by any of the parties to the conflict. to consider adoptingeffective ways and means in accordance with the provisions of theCharter of the United Nations.

Following the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the United States explained hisdelegation’s abstention in the vote by pointinlack of an explicit and unequivocal call z

to theor the

withdrawal of the PLO from Lebanon and added thatthe text was not consistent with the balanced policyset forth by the President of the United States in adeclaration issued that morning.lR4

In pursuance of resolution 5 17 (I 982), the Secre-tary-General submitted a report dated 5 August,lBs inwhich hc informed the Council that the representa-tive of Lebanon had assured him of the LebaneseGovernment’s readiness to co-operate fully in theimplementation of the resolution and that the Chair-man of the Executive Committee of the PLO hadreaffirmed that organization’s commitment to thecease-tire. He stated that the Israeli authorities hadundertaken to respond to the Council’s resolutionlater that day, following a Cabinet meeting. He addedthat, as soon as transit arrangements were completed,additional observers from the existing establishmentof UNTSO would be dispatched to the Beirut area.

The Secretary-General reported further that on 4August, in Vienna, he had appealed to the PrimeMinister of Israel for adherence to the cease-fire andco-operation in the deployment of United Nationsobservers in and around Beirut and had expressed hisreadiness to go immediately to Israel and Lebanon todiscuss the matter with all parties concerned. He saidthat he had been informed by the Prime Minister ofIsrael that the Government would welcome his visitif there was not a parallel visit to the Chairman of theExecutive Committee of the PLO. The Secretary-General stated that he did not find that positionacceptable, as he felt it his duty to meet with allpartles involved in the hostilities, and he reiteratedhis appeal for co-operation.

In two addenda to his report, dated 5 and 6August,‘86 the Secretary-General conveyed to theCouncil the decision of the Israeli Cabinet, wherebythe Israel1 Government, charging that all previouscease-fires in Lebanon and the Beirut area had beenviolated by the terrorist organizations, refused toaccept the stationing of Umted Nations observerssince they would not be able to monitor the activitieiof the organizations and since their presence wouldsignal to those terrorists that they would not have toleave Beirut and Lebanon despite the urgent de-mands of the Lebanese Government and the Presi-dent of the United States.

At the 2390th meeting, on 6 August 1982, when theCouncil resumed the consideration of the item, thePresident drew the attention of the members to thereport of the Secretary-General and a drafttionlB7 submitted by the Soviet Union.

resolu-

The representative of the Soviet Union denouncedthe Israeli re’ection of the demands contained inresolution 5 I 4and a challen

(1982) as a sign ofe which the Counci

iifrowing arrogance

but had to tacould not ignore

e up. Under those circumstances, hesubmitted to the Council a draft resolution underwhich the Council, deeply indignant at the refusal ofIsrael to comply with the decisions of the Security

158 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of htermtkmll peace and security

Council aimed at terminating the bloodshed inBeirut, would have (a) strongly condemned Israel fornot implementing resolutions 516 (1982) and 517(1982); (b) demanded that Israel immediately imple-ment the resolutions full

2; and (c) decided that, in

order to carry out those ecisions of the Council, allthe States Members of the United Nations should, asa first step, refrain from supplying Israel with anyweapons and from providing it with military aid. Therepresentative of the Soviet Union added that hehoped that the Council would support the draft,which constituted the absolute minimum necessaryto put an end to Israel’s aggression; if that did nothave the desired effect, the Council would have totake more severe measures under the Charter.lsn

The representative of Jordan indicated that hisdelegation believed that the draft resolution did notgo far enough, in view of the language employed inthe previous resolutions regarding the bloodshed inBeirut; he saw the appeal to Member States to refrainfrom supplying weapons or providing military aid asinadequate and mentioned the application of meas-ures under Chapter VII as appropriate.la9

The Council continued its consideration of theitem at its 2391st meeting, on 6 August 1982.

The representative of the Soviet Union reiteratedhis appeal to the Council that the small step indi-cated in his delegation’s draft resolution be accepted.He announced a small change in the text, which hisGovernment had agreed to accept in order to achievethe constructive purpose entailed in the draft resolu-tion. He said that in the third operative paragraphthe words “as a first step” would be deleted and thatthe words “until the full withdrawal of Israeli forcesfrom all Lebanese territory” would be added at theend of that paragraph. In the light of the importanceof the moment, he asked that the draft resolution, asorally revised, be put to the vote immediately.iw

The representative of the United Kin dom indi-cated that his delegation would abstain rom votingrkon the draft resolution, since no effort had beenmade to take into account the views of some partiesto the conflict and no good had been done by theintroduction of the draft, as witnessed by the silenceof the representative of Lebanon.i9’

At the same meeting, the President read out thetext of the draft resolution, as orally revised, and putit to the vote; it received I I votes in favour, I voteagainst, and 3 abstentions, and was not adopted,owin to the negative vote of a permanent member oft h e ounci1.i9*6

The representative of the United States, referringto the ongoing efforts of his Government through itsspecial envo to help bring about a negotiatedsettlement o ry the crisis in Beirut and in Lebanon,stated that his delegation stood ready to support anyaction in the Council that would assist the envoy inhis mission and that it had cast a negative votebecause the draft resolution had called for sanctionsagainst Israel and because the unbalanced text wouldnot have contributed to a negotiated peaceful settle-ment.ip3

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thathis delegation had been approached by the delegationof the United States, shortly before the Councilmeeting began, regarding the possibility of arriving ata consensus text, and that his delegation had request-ed that a specific amendment be proposed instead of

general remarks before an a reement could be soughton the revision of the draA resolution.iW

The representative of the United States repliedthat his delegation had simply maintained its generalwillingness to consider any reasonable text thatwould have served the peace process in Lebanon.‘95

Subsequent1 ,fy

the President explained that infulfilling his unctions he had conducted informaltalks with members of the Council to see to it thatthey would help maintain the unity and commonpurpose of the Council, but that at a certain point,based on his own judgement, he had decided toproceed to the formal meeting as those efforts werenot likely to bear fruit.i9”

At its 2392nd meeting, on 12 August 1982, theCouncil resumed its consideration of the item. ThePresident drew attention to a draft resolutiont9’sponsored by Guyana, Jordan, Panama, Togo, Ugan-da and Zaire.

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thathis delegation had requested the urgent convening ofthe Council in view of the worsening situation inLebanon, as the lsraeli forces continued to violate thecease-fire in Beirut and as Israeli troops with tankshad moved into regions located north of Beirut.Under those circumstances, it was his delegation’sview that the Council should undertake immediateaction to put an end to Israeli aggression.19*

The representative of Jordan referred to the letterdated I2 August 1982 from the representative ofLebanon,i99 in which the new attacks by the Israeliforces were reported to the President of the Council,and denounced the Israeli campaign against Beirutand the areas north of the Lebanese capital. He alsobrought to the Council’s attention a letter received bhis Mission from the observer of the PLO,2oo whit Bset out the relentless attacks by Israeli tanks, air-planes and infantry against Lebanese and Palestinianquarters in Beirut. As the attacks were continuingdespite the cease-fire arranged by the Special Envoyof the United States, the representative of Jordansubmitted to the Council the draft resolution spon-sored by the delegations of Guyana, Jordan, Togo,Uganda and Zaire, which was designed to strengthenthe presence of United Nations observers in andaround Beirut and to lift all restrictions that theE$l,i command had imposed on the city of Bei-

The representative of the PLO stressed the serious-ness of the deteriorating situation in Lebanon andread out a message from the Chairman of the PLO, inwhich the continued shelling was reported andimmediate steps were requested to ensure the safetyof Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, in consequenceof the agreement involving the PLO, the LebaneseGovernment and the Special Envoy of the UnitedStates.202

At the same meeting, the.President suspended themeeting for a short time m order to allow somedelegations to receive instructions from their Gov-ernments before proceeding to the vote on the draftresolution.203 Following the suspension, the represen-tative of Jordan announced a few minor editorial andprocedural changes in the text of the draft resolu-tion.2M

The President then put the draft resolution, asorally revised, to the vote; it received I5 votes infavour and was adopted unanimously as resolution5 18 ( 1982).20J It reads as follows:

Put II 159-

The Securiry Council.Recullingits resolutions 508 (1982). 509(1982). 51 I (1982), 512

(1982). 513 (1982). 515 (1982). 516 (1982) and 517 (1982),Expressing IIS mosf serious concern about continued military

activities in Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut,I. Denran& that Israel and all patties lo the conflict observe

strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to rheimmediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and.particularly, in and around Beirut;

2. UemanA the Immediate liflingofall restrictions on the city ofBeirut In order 1 01 0 permit Ihe free entry of supplies 10 meet theurgent needs of the clvilian population in Beirut;

3. Requesfs the United Nations observers in, and in the vicinityof, Beirut lo report on the situation;

4. fkmand.y that Israel co-operate fully in the effort to securethe effective deployment of the United Nations observers, asrequested by the Government of Lebanon, and in such a manneras to ensure their safety;

5. Requesfs 1 he Secretary-General to report as soon as possible lothe Security Council on the implementation of Ihe presentresolution:

6. I&ide.s 1 01 0 meet, if necessary, in order 10 consider thesituation upon receipt of the report of the Secretary-General.

In pursuance of resolution 518 (1982), the Secre-ta

7-General submitted a report dated 13 August

1 9 2,206 in which he stated that he had brought theresolution to the attention of the Ministers forForeign Affairs of lsrael and Lebanon and of theChairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO.He reported that the representative of Israel hadinformed him that IDF strictly observed the cease-fire throughout Lebanon on the axiomatic conditionthat it was mutual and absolute and that Israel’sposition with regard to United Nations observers hadbeen set out in his letter dated 5 August 1982.207 TheSecretary-General had been informed that the Leba-nese Government and the PLO accepted resolution518 (1982).

The Secretary-General stated further that therewere 10 United Nations observers in Beirut and thatefforts were continuing to bring additional observersto the area and also to enable them to functioneffectively. With reference to paragraph 2 of resolu-tion 518 (1982), the Secretary-General stated that hehad been following with deep anxiety the deteriora-tion of the situation affecting the civllian populationin west Beirut. He informed the Council that he hadasked the Chairman of the United Nations inter-agency survey mission to return to Lebanon on 10August to reassess the needs of the affected popula-tion and that he was continuing his efforts to securethe free entry of supplies to meet the urgent needs ofthe civilian population in Beirut.

Decision of 17 August 1982 (2393rd meeting): resolu-tion 519 (1982)At its 2393rd meeting, on 17 August 1982, the

Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNIFIL dated 13 August 1982*O* in the agenda.

In his report, the Secretary-GeneralHave an ac-

count of developments relating to UNIF L since theadoption of resolution 5 1 I (1982) on I8 June. Henoted that the conditions prevailin in Lebanon hadcomplicated the logistic support oft% e Force and thatfurther difficulties had been created b

t:restrictions

on the freedom of movement of UNIFI imposed bythe Israeli forces. He described incidents involvingIsraeli forces which had occurred in the UNIFIL areaof deployment in the days immediately following theIsraeli invasion and which had been strongly pro-tested to the Israeli authorities. He reported that

UNIFIL had taken action to contain the activities ofa new armed group, equipped and controlled by theIsraeli forces, which had appeared in parts of theUNIFIL area at the end of June, and had continuedto resist attempts by the dejizcro forces to operate inthe UNIFIL area of deployment, although in someinstances they had been able to enter that area withthe assistance of the Israeli forces. He added thatdurin the latter part of the reporting period theUN&L area had been generally quiet and that noarmed clashes had been observed.

The Secretary-General reported further that, until16 June 1982, UNIFIL humanitarian teams had beenable to assist the population of Tyre through thedistribution of food and water and the dispensing ofmedical aid, but that those efforts had been halted bythe Israeli authorities on 16 June. In the second halfof June UNIFIL had extended co-operation to thehumanitarian efforts of various United Nationsprogrammes and ICRC.

Recalling that in his last report ,he had referred tothe fundamentally altered sltuatlon m which theForce had found Itself after the Israeli invasion, theSecretary-General stated that, despite the diflicultiesit had faced, the Force had been deeply engaged inextending protection and humanitarian assistance tothe civilian population in its area. He expressed theview that the presence of UNIFIL had provided animportant stabilizing and moderating Influence insouthern Lebanon during that difficult time.

The Secretary-General stated that, as the overallsituation in southern Lebanon remained uncertainand fraught with danger, the Government of Leba-non had indicated that UNIFIL should continue tobe stationed in the area for an additional interimperiod of two months, pending further considerationof the situation in the light of resolutions 508 (1982),509 1982), 511 (1982), 512 (1982), 513 (1982), 515(198 5 ), 5 I6 (I 982) and 5 I7 (I 982). Taking all factorsinto account, and bearing in mind the posltion of theGovernment of Lebanon, the Secretary-General rec-ommended that the Council extend the mandate ofUNIFIL for a further interim period.

At the 2393rd meetinP

, the President drew atten-tion to the draft reso ution,209 which had beenprepared in the course of consultations among themembers, and put it to the vote; it received 13 votesin favour and none against, with 2 abstentions, andwaro;opted as resolution 519 ( 1982).210 It reads as

The Security Councrl,Reca l l i ng i ts resolulions 425 (I 978), 426 ( I978), 427 (I 978), 434

(1978), 444 (1979), 450 (1979). 459 (1979), 467 (1980). 483(1980), 488 (1981), 490 (1981). 498 (l981), 501 (1982) and 511(19W,

Reu/jirming its resolutions 508 (I 982) and 509 (I 982), as well assubsequent resolulions on the situation in Lebanon,

Huving s tud ied with grave concern the report of Ihe Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon andnoting its conclusions and recommendations and the wishes of theGovernment of Lebanon as set out therein.

Beuring in mind the need, pending an examination by theSecurity Council of the situation in all its aspects, lo preserve inplace the capacity of the United Nations to assist in the restorationof the peace and of the authority of the Government of Lebanonthroughout Lebanon.

1. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United NationsInterim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of twomonths, Ihal is, until I9 October 1982;

2. Authorizes the Force during (hat period to continue to carryout, in addition, the interim tasks in the humanitarian and

1 6 0 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of intcmatloral peace and aeewity

administrative fields assigned lo it in paragraph 2 of resolution51 I (1982);

3. Culls on all concerned, taking into account paragraphs 5, 8and 9 of the report of Ihe Secretary-General on the Force, toextend full co-operation lo it in the discharge of its tasks;

4. Supports the efforts of the Secretary-General, with a view tooptimum use of observers of the United Nations Truce Supervi-sion Organization, as envisaged by relevant resolutions of theSecurity Council;

5. Decides lo consider the situation fully and in all its aspectsbefore I9 October 1982.

Decision of 17 September 1982 (2395th meeting):resolution 520 ( 1982)

Decision of 18 September 1982 (2396th meeting):resolution 52 1 ( 1982)On 2 September 198?, the Secretary-General sub-

mitted a report on the situation in the Beirut area,*”in which he reviewed the situation in the area since13 August. He indicated that the cease-fire, whichhad gone into effect on 12 August, had generally held,but that, despite persistent efforts, it had not beenpossible to increase the number of United Nationsobservers in Beirut beyond IO and that, althoughfrom 21 August members of OGB had been able tomove in and around Beirut with greater ease thanbefore, their freedom of movement had been onoccasion curtailed by IDF. He informed the Councilof OGB reports, which indicated the arrival of theFrench, United States and Italian contingents of themultinational force which, as at 26 August 1982,numbered 2,285, and detalled the number of Pales-tinian and other forces that had departed from Beirutduring the period 21 August to 1 September.

In two addenda to his report, dated 15 and 17September 1982,*I* the Secretary-General reviewedthe situation in the Beirut area from 2 to 15September and from 15 to 17 September, respective-ly, outlining developments in the area on the basis ofreports from the United Nations observers of OGB.He stated that the situation had remained generallycalm from 2 to 13 September, but that tension hadgreatly increased on 14 September, and cited anumber of incidents, including the explosion of 14September at the headquarters of the LebaneseChristian Phalangist Party in which the President-elect of Lebanon had been killed.

By letter dated 16 September 1 982,*13 the represen-tative of Lebanon requested an urgent meeting of theCouncil to consider the situation m Lebano?, in thelight of the latest Israeli incursion into Beirut.

At its 2394th meeting, on 16 September 1982, theCouncil included, in addition to the letter dated 4June 1982 from the representative of Lebanon andthe letter dated 28 July 1982 from the representativesof Egy

Ft and France, the letter dated 16 September

1982 rom the representative of Lebanon in itsagenda and resumed its consideration of the item. Inaddition to those reoresentatives Dreviouslv invited.the President invitdd, at the 2334th medting, thereoresentatives of Kuwait and the Svrian ArabRepublic and, at the 2396th meeting, the’representa-tives of Algeria, Democratic Yemen and Greece, attheir request, to artici ate in the discussion withoutthe ri

iv7 t!!t to vote. The ouncil considered the item at

its 2 94th to 2396th meetings, on 16, 17 and 19September 1982.

At the 2394th meetin , the representative ofLebanon noted that it had 6 een nearly a month sincethe Council had last met to consider the Lebanese

question and that various efforts inspired by theresolutions of the Council had produced successfulresults. He deplored that Lebanon had been com-pelled to return to the Council to reiterate its urgentcall that Lebanon should be left to the Lebanese.While his country was mourning the death of itsyoung President-elect, the Israehs had once againchosen to invade Beirut, flouting international lawand violating numerous commitments includin thea reement negotiated by the Special Envoy ol-f

f thenited States. He asked by what right Israel could

pretend to allot to itself the task of maintaining lawand order in the capital of Lebanon, a sovereigncountry, and sharply rejected the claim of the Israeliarmy that it served as a force of stability in a countrythat the same Israeli forces had destabilized. Heemphasized once again the Council’s responsibilitytowards Lebanon and requested that the Councilreaffirm its previous resolutions and see to it thatIsrael withdraw totally and unconditionally fromLebanese territory.*‘*

The representative of Kuwait condemned the newinvasion of Beirut b Israeli forces as a grave andflagrant violation o ty the United States-sponsoredagreement that had led to the withdrawal of thePalestinian and Syrian forces from the capital ofLebanon. He saw the Israeli act of a ression asanother episode in the overall strategy w ich aimedPBat establishing only one military force in the MiddleEast and expressed his conviction that the UnitedStates had a major responsibility to force the Israelisto withdraw with dispatch from Beirut.*”

The representative of Jordan indicated that he hadprepared a draft resolution, which was still in theform of a working paper and which he would notsubmit until he had had consultations with membersof the Council. He invited proposals, amendmentsand changes regarding the mformal text from theother members and hoped that the Council would beable to achieve consensus with regard to the extreme-ly grave situation in Lebanon, where the principalaim was to safeguard the integrity of Beirut and itspopulation.*16

The re resentative of Lebanon underlined theurgency oF the situation and supported the call by therepresentative of Jordan for a speedy agreementamong the Council members.*”

At the 2395th meeting, on 17 September 1982, thePresident drew the attention of the Council membersto a draft resolution2’8 submitted by the representa-tive of Jordan.

The representative of Jordan expressed hope thatthe draft that he had submitted would meet with theconsensus endorsement of the Council and that stepswould be taken to carry out the objectives of the draftresolution. He then read out the text of the reviseddraft resolution and asked that it be put to the voteimmediately before further statements were made.2’9

The President explained that several names werealready inscribed on the list of speakers and that hetherefore could not satisfy the wish of the representa-tive of Jordan.220

The representative of France charged that theIsraeli advance towards west Beirut was a deliberateand unwarranted violation of the plan of the SpecialEnvoy of the United States, which had been seriouslycompromised by Israel’s unilateral action. He re-called in that connection his Government’s commit-ment to the immediate implementation of the Coun-

Put II 1 6 1

cil resolutions concerning the deployment in Beirutof UNTSO observers, whose presence would enablethe Council to evaluate the threat facing the civilianpopulations and the possibility of taking othersteps.22’

The representative of the United Kingdom ex-pressed his Government’s dismay with the latestrecurrence of violence in Lebanon. He deplored theinterruption of the hoped-for peaceful recovery bythe assassination of the President-elect and stressedthat Israel had no right to arrogate to itself the powerof intervention in the capital and territory of aneighbouring State.2?2

The representative of Uganda stated that there wasno doubt that Israel had seized on the death of thePresident-elect as a mere pretext to move into westBeirut and called it inadmissible that Israel shouldassert a ri

Pht to police the internal affairs of Lebanon

in spite o the explicit wishes of the Government andpeople of Lebanon.223

The President then *LCd out the specific words, asorally revised, of a paragraph in the revised draftresolution and put the text to a vote; the revised draftresolution received 15 votes in favour and wasadopted unanimously as resolution 520 (1982).224 Itreads as follows:

The Securr~y i’ouncrl.

Having consrdered the report of the Secretary-General of 15September 1982,

Condemning the murder of Bashir Gemayel. the constitutionallyelected President-elect of Lebanon, and every effort to disrupt byviolence the restoration of a strong, stable government in Lebanon,

Having l istened to the statement by the Permanent Representa-tive of Lebanon,

Taking nole of the determination of Lebanon to ensure thewithdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon,

1. Reaffirms its resolutions 508 (1982). 509 (1982) and 516(1982) in all their components;

2. Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut inviolation of the cease-tire agreements and of Security Councilresolulions:

3. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied byIsrael before I5 September 1982. as a first step towards the fullimplementation of Security Council resolutions;

4. Calls agoin for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorialintegr i ty , uni ty and pol i t ical independence of Lebanon under thesole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanonthrough the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon;

5. Rea/jirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982) whichcall for respect for the rights of the civilian populations withoutany discrimination, and repudiates all acts of violence againstthose populations;

6. Supporrs the efforts of the Secretary-General IO implementresolution 516 (1982). concerning the deployment of UnitedNations observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut,and requests all the parties concerned to cooperate fully in theapplication of that resolution;

7. Decides to remain seized of the question and asks theSecretary-General to keep the Security Council informed ofdevelopments as soon as possible and not later than within twenty-four hours.

Following the ado tion of the resolution, therepresentative of the ii3 viet Union noted that whenStates reached unanimity on a given resolution theyshould not fail to implement it, especially as theCouncil had the elementary obligation to achieve theimplementation of its resolutions.225

At its 2396th meeting, on 18 September 1982, theCouncil resumed its consideration of the item, at theurgent request of the representative of Jordan.

At the beginning of the 2396th meeting, theSecretary-General gave an oral report on new devel-

opments in the Beirut area, as requested in resolution520 ( 1982).226 He informed the Council membersabout his efforts to obtain agreement from all theparties concerned to implement the resolution andabout the discovery of the massacre that had oc-curred in several Palestinian refugee camps in thenight of 17118 September. He provided detailsregarding the precise deployment of Israeli andLebanese troops as well as other armed elements inBeirut and read from reports that the IO UnitedNations observers had sent from the scene of thekillings. He indicated that his efforts to increase thenumber of observers had not slackened, but that theopposition to additional observers remained un-changed. He suggested that under the new circum-stances observers might not be enough. He also notedthat UNIFIL had successfully prevented the harass-ment of the civilian population in its arca of deploy-ment by any armed group.227

The representative of the PLO bitterly denouncedthe Israeli military for the atrocities committed in thePalestinian camps and rcjccted the Israeli claim thatChristian militiamen or Christian Phalangists hadbeen responsible for the massacre of innocent civil-ians. He urged the Council to consider scndinUnited Nations force to Beirut to protect the sa etyP

a

and security of the Palestinian people, as observerswould not be enough to provide adequate protec-tion.228

The representative of the Soviet Union condemnedthe new Israeli advance and occupation of theLebanese capital and the crimes committed againstthe defenceless civilian population under cover of theIsraeli occupiers. He called for strong and effectivemeasures by the Council to halt the massacre ofPalestinian people and suggested that the new resolu-tion to be adopted should contain a warning by allmembers, including its permanent members, thatIsrael was obliabide by the E

ed under Article 25 of the Charter toouncil’s decisions and to carry them

out. If any delegation objected to such a provision,the whole world should know who was trying toprotect the Israeli aggressor.229

The representative of Jordan lamented the massa-cre of innocent Palestinians and called upon theCouncil to overcome its seeming paralysis and tosend contingents of armed forces, actin

kunder

Chapter VII of the Charter, to protect the P a estinianpeople from additional acts of genocide.230

The representative of Lebanon strongly denied thatthe Palestinian civilians had been killed by Lebanesearmed elements and charged that the Lebanesetroops had been thwarted in their effort to establishcontrol over the city by the Israeli occupation thattook place beginning on IS September. He also saidthat the Lebanese army would undoubtedly welcomeinternational forces in Lebanon, as had been sug-gested by various speakers2j1

Numerous speakers expressed in varying degreestheir dismay and revulsion at the atrocities commit-ted against Palestinian civilians.232 Several represen-tatives called for measures under Chapter VII of theCharter to force Israel to desist from its aggression.233

The representative of Israel denied that Israeliforces had been involved in the murder of innocentcivilians in the camps and claimed that the Lebanesetroops had failed to take charge as provided for in theplan of the Special Envoy of the United States; whenthe Israeli command had discovered the bloodshed

162 Chapter VIII. Maiatemace of iatenutionrl pmx and Emily

the next morning, its troops had surrounded all threecamps in order to protect the surviving civilians fromfurther attacks.2J4

Subsequently, the President suspended the meetingin order to enable the members to enter into consul-tations on the matter. When the meeting was re-sumed,. the President drew attention to the draftresolution that had been prepared in the course ofconsultations among the members.2-‘5 The draft reso-lution was put to the vote at the same meeting andadopted unanimously, with 15 votes in favour, asresolution 52 I ( 1982).lj6 It reads as follows:

The Security Council.Appalled at the massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut,Having heard the report of the Secretary-General at its 2396th

meeting,Noting that the Government of Lebanon has agreed to the

dispatch of United Nalions observers to the sites of greatesthuman suffering and losses in and around that city,

I. (bndemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians inBeirut;

2. Rea~rms once again its resolutions 512 (19X2) and 513(1982). which call for respect for the rights of the civilianpopulalions without any discrimination, and repudiates al l actsof violence against those populalions;

3. Authorizes the Secretary-General, as an immediate step, toincrease the number of United Nations observers in and aroundBeirut from ten I OI O fifty, and insists that there shall be nointerference with the deployment of the observers and (ha1 theyshall have full freedom of movement;

4. Requesfs the Secretary-General, in consullation with theGovernment of Lebanon, 10 ensure the rapid deployment ofthose observers in order that they may contribute in every waypossible within their mandate to the effort to ensure fullprotection for 1he civilian populations:

5. Requests the Secretary-General, as a matter of urgency, IOinitiale appropriate consultations and, in particular, consulta-tions with the Government of Lebanon on additional stepswhich the Security Counci l might take, including the possibledeployment of United Nations forces, 10 assist that Governmentin ensuring full prelection for 1he civilian populations in andaround Beiru1 and requests him to report to the Council withinforty-eight hours;

6. Insr.sfs that all concerned must permit United Nationsobservers and forces established by the Security Council inLebanon to be deployed and to discharge their mandates and, inthis connection, solemnly calls atten1ion to the obligation of allMember States, under Article 25 of the Charter of the UnitedNations, to accept and carry out the decisions of the Council inaccordance with the Charter:

7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Councilinformed on an urgent and continuing basis.In pursuance of resolution 521 (1982), the Secre-

ta197

-General submitted a report dated 20 September2,251 in which he stated that he had been informed

on 20 September that the Israeli Cabinet had decidedto concur with the dispatch of an additional 40United Nations observers to the Beirut area. Hereported that 25 of those had already arrived inBeirut at 1230 hours Greenwich mean time. He alsooutlined developments in west Beirut from 18 to 20September, as reported by OGB.

The Secretary-General stated that he had requestedthe Commander of UNIFIL to comment on thepossibility of sending UNIFIL units to the Beirutarea, should the Lebanese Government so requestand the Council so decide. He had been informedthat, if required it would be possible to send toBeirut a group of about 2,000 men without seriouslyaffecting the capacity of UNIFIL to perform its owninterim tasks in southern Lebanon.

The Secreta -General stated further that, on 20September 198 , the representative of Lebanon had7

informed him that his Government had formallyrequested the reconstitution of the multinationalforce. He noted that, on 20 September, the Observerfor the PLO had informed him that the PLO insistedthat military forces, or agreed multinational forces,should be deployed immediately to undertake theeffective safeguards. He also noted that on the sameday the President of the United States had an-nounced that he had decided, together with theGovernments of France and Italy, to send themultinational force back to Beirut for a limitedperiod.

In two addenda to his report, dated 27 and 30September,2’8 the Secretary-General reported that asof 22 September all the additional observers hadarrived in Beirut. He gave an account of develop-ments in the Beirut area from 20 to 27 Septemberand from 27 to 30 September, respectively, asreported by OGB.

Decision of 18 October 1982 (2400th meeting):resolution 523 (1982)At its 2400th meeting, on 18 October 1982, the

Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNIFIL dated I4 October 1982*j9 in its agenda.

In his report, the Secreta -General reviewed de-velopments relating to the unctioning of UNIFIL;Ysince the adoption of resolution 519 (I 982) on 17August. Describing the situation in southern Leba-non, the Secretary-General noted that, throughoutthe period under review, the UNIFIL area hadremained quiet and no armed clashes had beenobserved. He stated that the presence and activitiesof IDF within the UNIFIL area of deployment hadsignificantly decreased and the activities of the defacto forces (Christian and associated militias) andthe new local groups, armed and uniformed by theIsraeli forces, had been effectively contained. Headded that UNIFIL not only had provided protectionand humanitarian assistance to the local populatio?,but had also extended the fullest co-operation possl-ble to the humanitarian efforts of the various UnitedNations programmes and ICRC. He indicated thatlogistic support of the Force had continued to beproblematic owing to the restrictions imposed by theIsraeli forces on UNIFIL freedom of movement,although some improvements had occurred since I1October.

The Secretary-General stated that, despite thedifficulties faced by UNIFIL, it had carried out itsinterim tasks with dedication and efficiency. Heexpressed the view, however, that the existing situa-tion was clearly unsatisfactory. While the originalmandate of the Force remained valid even in thecurrent circumstances, he stated that it was obviousthat the conditions under which UNIFIL was expect-ed to carry out its mandate had radically changed. Headded that it had not been possible, owing to theattitude of the Israeli authorities, for UNIFIL to laya useful role in the humanitarian assistance Fleldoutside its areas of deployment.

The Secretary-General expressed his deep convic-tion that the withdrawal of UNIFIL in the existingcircumstances would have highly undesirable conse-quences. He therefore recommended that the Councilextend the mandate for a further limited period. Henoted that the Government of Lebanon had ex-pressed the view that the mandate of UNIFIL shouldbe extended for a period of three months and that theSecretary-General should consult with the Lebanese

Part II 163

Government during that time on ways and means ofredefining the mandate to enable the Force to fulfilits original mission. While the attitude of the IsraeliGovernment as expressed to him had not been infavour of the continued activity of UNIFIL, theSecretary-General expressed his hope that, if theCouncil decided to extend the mandate of the Force,the Israeli authorities would extend their co-opera-tion to UNIFIL.

At the 2400th meeting, on 18 October 1982, thePresident of the Council invited the representative ofLebanon, at his request, to participate in the discus-sion without the right to vote.) At the same meeting,the Council also decided, by vote and in accordancewith its previous practice, to invite the representativeof the PLO to participate in the deliberations withoutthe right to vote.2m

At the same meeting, the Council heard a state-ment b the President of Lebanon, who renewed thetrust or his Government and people in the interna-tional community and in the Council’s ability toprovide protection against aggression. He stressedthe importance of UNIFIL as an interim Force andof its mandate to restore peace and security insouthern Lebanon and to assist the Lebanese Gov-ernment in ensuring the return of its effectiveauthority in the area. He aflirmed the solidarity ofthe Lebanese people, who were confident that peacein Lebanon did not have to await an overall MiddleEast solution, with the Arab world and its commit-ment to the legitimate rights of the Palestinians andthe non-acquisition of territories by force and war.z4’

Following the statement by the President of Leba-non, the meetin was suspended.242 When the meet-ing was resume d, the President of the Council drewthe attention of the members to a draft resolution243prepared in the course of the Council’s consultations.The President then put the draft resolution to thevote; it received I3 votes in favour, none a ainst, and2 abstentions, and was adopted as reso ution 523f( 1982).244 It reads as follows:

The Securiry Council.Having heard the statement of the President of the Republic of

Lebanon,Reca l l i ng i ts resolutions 425 (1978). 426 (1978) and 519 (1982).Rea/lirminlp its resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (I 982), as well as

all subsequent resolutions on the situation in Lebanon,Having studied the report of the Secretary-General and taking

note of i ts conclusions and recommendat ions,Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon,1. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations

Interim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of threemonths, that is, until 19 January 1983;

2. Insisls that there shall be no interference under any pretextwith the operations of the Force and that it shall have full freedomof movement in the discharge of its mandate;

3. Aufhorrzes the Force during that period to carry out. with theconsent of the Government of Lebanon, interim tasks in thehumanitarian and administrative fields, as indicated in resolutions511 (1982) and 519 (1982). and lo assist the Government ofLebanon in ensuring the security of all the inhabitants of the areawithout any discrimination;

4. Requests the Secretary-General. within the three-monthperiod, to consult with the Government of Lebanon and to reportto the Security Council on ways and means of ensuring the fullimplementation of the mandate of the Force as defined inresolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978). and the relevant decisionsof the Council;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the SecurityCouncil on the progress of his consultations.

In his report coverin! the period from 21 May to18 November 1982,24 the Secretary-General in-formed the Council that with the cooperation ofboth parties the Force had continued to carry out thetasks assigned to it and had been able to contribute tothe maintenance of the cease-tire. He cautioned thatthe prevailing quiet was precarious and that, untilfurther progress could be made towards a just andlasting peace, the situation in the Israel-Syria sector,and in the Middle East as a whole, would remainunstable and potentially dangerous. Therefore, thecontinued presence of UNDOF was essential notonly to maintain quiet but to provide an atmosphereconducive to further efforts towards the achievementof peace. With the agreement of the Governments ofthe Syrian Arab Republic and Israel., the Secretary-General recommended to the Counctl that it extendthe mandate of UNDOF for a further period of sixmonths.

At the 2403rd meeting, on 29 November 1982, thePresident put the draft resolution,246 which had beenprepared in the course of the Council’s consultations,to the vote; it received I5 votes in favour and wasadopted unanimously as resolution 524 (1982).*” Itreads as follows:

The Securi!y C’ouncil,Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the

United Nat ions Disengagement Observer Force,Dec ides .(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediate-

ly Security Council resolution 338 (1973);(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations D&engagement

Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 31May 1983;

(c) To request the Secretary-General to submit, at the end of thisperiod, a report on the developments in the situation and themeasures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

Following the adoption of the resolution, thePresident made the following complementary state-ment on behalf of the Council:248

As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the UnitedNattons Disengagement Observer Force states, in paragraph 27.that “despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, thesituation in the Middle East as a whole continues to be potentiallydangerous and is likely to remain so unless and until a comprehen-sive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem canbe reached”. This statement of the Secretary-General ref lects theview of the Security Council.

Decision of 18 January 1983 (241 lth meeting):resolution 529 (I 983)At its 241 I th meeting, on 18 January 1983, the

Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNlFIL dated 13 January 1983249 in its agenda.

In his report, the Secreta7

-General reviewed de-velopments relating to the unctioninsince the adoption of resolution 523 (1 d

of UNIFIL82). Describ-

ing the situation in southern Lebanon, the Secretary-General stated that the presence and activities of IDFin the UNIFJL area had been generally limited,although IDF had further developed its logisticfacilities in the area. He reported that a series ofincidents involving the de Sacto forces, includingarmed incursions, acts of harassment and kidnapof a soldier, had taken place, but that attempts oF

ingthe

de ficto forces to operate within the UNIFIL areahad remained relatively limited. Noting that IDF hadcontinued the recruitment and arming of selectedvillagers in the UNIFIL area, he reported that theForce had made strong representations to the Israeliauthorities about the arming of such groups.

164 Chapter VIII. Mdatcnmcc of iaternatioaal pncc and security

The Secretary-General indicated that, while thenumber of displaced persons who had sought refugein the UNIFIL area had continued to decrease andhumanitarian assistance of an emergency nature hadbeen discontinued, the Force had maintained itsactive co-operation with the regional authorities ofthe Lebanese Government, the United Nations Chil-dren’s Fund (UNICEF) and ICRC. He added that theIsraeli authorities still imposed restrictions on thefreedom of movement of UNIFIL and prevented theForce from extending humanitarian assistance out-side its area of operation.

The Secretary-General expressed the view thatUNIFIL would be able to hand over its responsibili-ties to the Lebanese authorities only after the issue ofIsraeli withdrawal had been successfully settled, andstressed that the presence of the Force was animportant factor in ensuring the well-being of thecivilian population of its area of deployment. Heinformed the Council that the Lebanese Governmenthad requested the extension of the UNIFIL mandatefor a further period of six months and stated that heconsidered it essential that the mandate should beextended, as a premature withdrawal of the Forcewould unquestionably have grave consequences. TheSecretary-General therefore recommended a furtherextension of the mandate of UNIFIL. He mentionedthat the Government of Israel had expressed the viewthat UNIFIL should not at the time be extended formore than two or three months. He also drewattention to the financial difftculties faced by theForce.

At the 241 Ith meeting, the President invited therepresentatives of Israel, Lebanon and the SyrianArab Republic, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to v0te.j The Councilconsidered the item at that meeting.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Presidentdrew the attention of the Council members to thedraft rcsolution250 sponsored by Jordan.

The representative of Lebanon pointed out thathis Government was asking the Council to extendUNIFIL for another six months because a longerperiod would give UNIFIL more stability and someof the tasks could only be carried out over a Ion ertime span. He added that his Government 7a sorequested that the zone of operation of UNIFIL beextended to the whole of Lebanese territory so thatUNIFIL could help the State to re-establish itsauthority throughout the whole country.2s’

The representative of Jordan recalled that UNIFILhad been set up in 1978 in order to ensure thewithdrawal of the Israeli forces and enable theLebanese Government to exercise full sovereigntyover its territory, that four years later the Israelioccupation in Lebanon had expanded and that therewere still practices, especially on the part of Israel,that were incompatible with the principle of preserv-ing the sovereignty, independence and territorialintegrity of Lebanon. In view of these prevailingconditions, he urged the Council to accede to theLebanese request and to adopt the draft resolutionaccordingly.* I

The representative of the Netherlands warned thatthe withdrawal of UNIFIL would have grave destabi-lizing consequences and suggested that it shouldremain in the area so as to be available to play a rolein any future security arrangements. He deplored thepractrce of limiting the freedom of movement of

UNIFIL personnel and urged the Israeli Governmentto stop hindering the Force from performing itsduties. He also pointed to the increasmg shortfall inthe UNIFIL budget and the growing burden on thetroop-contributing countries.

He added that his Government considered severalobjectives as significant for its future participation inthe peace-keeping force, namely: (a) some noticeableprogress should be made in establishing and increas-ing the authority of the Lebanese Government in thecountry; (b) there should be improvement in theprospect of withdrawal of foreign troops from Leba-non; and (c) a future role for UNIFIL m the securttyarrangements in southern Lebanon required its effec-tive deployment along the Lebanese-Israeli border,free from unauthorized forei n

Ptroops or de ficlo

forces. He demanded in cone usion that the peace-keeping operations of UNIFIL be clearly defined.25j

The representative of Israel affirmed his Govem-ment’s view that in the new circumstances UNIFILas established in 1978 had outlived its usefulness andthat the security arrangements involving Israel andLebanon could and should be arrived at throughnegotiations between the two Govemments.25’

At the same meeting, the draft resolution spon-sored by Jordan was put to the vote and adopted by13 votes to none, with 2 abstentions, as resolution529 ( 1983).252 It reads as follows:

The Securify Counci l ,Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), and all

subsequent resolutions on the United Nations Interim Force inLebanon,

Recoi l ing jurfher i ts resolutions 508 ( 1982) and SO9 ( I 982)Huving taken note of the letter of the Permanent Representative

of Lebanon to the President of the Security Council and to theSecretary-General of 13 January 1983. and of the statement hemade at the 241 Ith meeting of the Council,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General and takingnote of his observations,

Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon,1. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations

Interim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of sixmonths, that is, until I9 July 1983;

2. Calls upon al) parties concerned to co-operate with the Forcefor the full implementation of the present resolution;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the SecurityCounci l on the progress made in th is respect .

Followin the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the United States welcomed therenewal of the UNIFIL mandate as a positiveelement in the negotiations between the LebaneseGovernment and other parties designed to restoreLebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and toprevent any repetition of the recent tragic conflict.2s1

The representative of the Soviet Union recalledthat the problem of Lebanon which arose as a resultof massive Israeli a ression remained unsettled andthat Israel continue to occupy a significant part ofYLebanese territory. He pointed out in particular thatthe recent invasion in June 1982 had resulted inIsrael occupying more than 40 per cent of Lebaneseterritory. He expressed his Government’s wish to seethe Council’s resolutions 508 ( 1982) and 509 (1982),which had been adopted unanimously, full imple-mented by all Council members as their imp ementa-rtion was the key to the solution of the problem.2s1

Decision of 26 May 1983 (2445th meeting): resolu-tion 531 (1983)

Put I I 1 6 5-

At its 2445th meeting, on 26 May 1983, theCouncil included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNDOF dated 20 May 1983253 in the agenda.

In his report, the Secretary-General described theactivities of the Force for the period 19 November1982 to 20 May 1983. The Secretary-General indi-cated that UNDOF had continued to perform itsfunctions effectively, with the co-operation of theparties, and that, during the period under review, thesituation in the Israel-Syria sector had remainedquiet. Nevertheless, the Secretary-General stated, thesituation in the Middle East as a whole continued tobe potentially dangerous and was likely to remain so,unless and until a comprehensive settlement coveringall aspects of the Mlddle East problem could bereached, as called for by the Council in resolution338 (1973). In the existing circumstances, the Secre-tary-General considered the continued presence ofUNDOF in the area to be essential. He thereforerecommended that the Council extend the mandateof the Force for a further period of six months, until30 November 1983, and pointed out that the Gov-ernments concerned had expressed their agreement.

At the 2445th meeting, the President drew atten-tion to a draft resolution,z54 which had been preparedin the course of the Council’s consultations, and putit to the vote. It received 15 votes in favour and wasadopted unanimously as resolution 53 I (1 983).2j5 Itreads as follows:

The Security Council.Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the

United Nat ions Disengagement Observer Force,Dec ides :(0) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediate-


Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 30November 1983;


On behalf of the Council, the President then madethe following complementary statement:256

As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the UnitedNations Disengagement Observer Force states, in paragraph 26.that “despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, thesituation in the Middle East as a whole continues to be potentiallydangerous and is l ikely to remain so. unless and unti l a compre-hensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problemcan be reached”. That statement of the Secretary-General reflectsthe view of the Security Council.

Decision of 18 July 1983 (2456th meeting): resolu-tion 536 (1983)At the 2456th meeting, on 18 July 1983, the

Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNIFIL dated 12 July l983237 in the agenda.

The report contained an account of developmentsrelating to UNIFIL for the period from I9 January to12 July 1983. The Secretary-General pointed out thatduring the reporting period the UNIFIL area wasgenerally quiet, with the exception of several inci-dents invc$menterin &

IDF soldlers and de fhcfo forces

eNIFIL area with therr weapons.

UNIFI continued to operate its check-points and topatrol its area of deployment and co-operated withthe Lebanese authorities and United Nations agen-cies in extending humanitarian assistance to thepopulation. He stated that UNIFIL continued tocarry out the interim tasks laid down by him and

endorsed by the Council after the Israeli invasion ofLebanon in June 1982.

The Secretary-General affirmed that UNIFIL re-mained an important element of stability in southernLebanon under the prevailing conditions. Althoughthe circumstances under which the Force was estab-lished had been radically altered as a result of theIsraeli invasion, the task of assisting the Governmentof Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effectiveauthority in southern Lebanon remained especiallyrelevant in the iven situation. The Secretary-Gener-al warned that, f: efore the Lebanese Government wasin a position to assume effective control of the area, awithdrawal of UNIFIL would unquestionably be aserious blow to the prospect of an early restoration ofthe authority of the Lebanese Government in south-ern Lebanon as well as to the welfare of the inhabi-tants of the UNIFIL area of deployment. TheSecretary-General considered it essential that themandate of UNIFIL should once again be extendedon an interim basis, bearing in mind the request forextension of the Lebanese Government.

At the beginning of the 2456th meeting, on 18 July1983, the President invited the representative ofLebanon, at his request, to participate in the discus-sion without the right to vote.> The Council consid-ered the item at that meeting.

The President drew the attention of the Councilmembers to a draft resolution,25* which had beenprepared in the course of the Council’s consultations,and to a letter dated 5 July 1983259 from therepresentative of Lebanon, in which he conveyed therequest of his Government that the UNIFIL mandatebe extended for another interim period of threemonths.

After a very brief suyension of the meetintechnical difficulties,* the Deputy Prime R

, pue tomister

and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Lebanon statedthat since the establishment of UNIFIL in 1978 hiscountry had witnessed dramatic changes, with thetightin between the PLO and Israel continuing onand o 8 in varying degrees of intensity. While thepolitical and military situation had become moredifficult after June 1982, UNIFIL had remained asteadfast element preserving in the face of chaos thehope of peace, stabilitthat his Government h

and legitimacy. He explainedad requested the extension of

the UNIFIL mandate for another three months as itexpected ongoing negotiations to bring some clarifi-cation with regard to the future of Lebanon andespecially the restoration of its sovereignty andterritorial integrity. Lebanon’s goal remained thewithdrawal of all unauthorized forces from its territo-ry and the ability of all Lebanese to live in peace andfreedom.260

At the same meetinin the course of consu tations was put to the vote andk

, the draft resolution prepared

adopted, with 13 votes in favour, none a;t,.sF;;lons, as resolution 536 (1983).26 Q

ainst, and 2It reads as

The Security Council.Having heurd the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs

of the Republic of Lebanon,Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), and all


Recallingfurther its resolutions 508 (I 982), 509 (1982) and 520(1982), as well as all its other resolutions on the situation inLebanon,

166 Chrpter VIII. Maintenance 01 international peace and secuity

Reiferufing its strong support for the territorial integrity,sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within itsinternational ly recognized boundaries,

Having raken nore of the letter of the Permanent Rcprescntativcof Lebanon to the President of the Security Council of 5 July 1983,

Huving studied the report of the Sccrctary-Gcncral and takingnote of his observations and recommendation expressed therein,

Rcspondrng to the request of the Government of Lebanon,I. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations

Interim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of threemonths, that is, until I9 October 1983;

2. Coils upon all parties concerned to co-operate with the Forcefor the full implementation of its mandate as defined in resolu-tions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) and the relevant decisions o f t h eSecurity Council;

3. Rcques(s the Secretary-General to report to the Council on theprogress made in this respect .

Fol lowing the adoption of the resolut ion, therepresentattve of France expressed deep concernabout the change of circumstances under whichUNIFIL had been forced to work, in particular thefact that an Israeli battalion had been stationedwithin the UNIFIL zone of de loyment, and renewedhis Government’s support or UNIFIL. He alsoFindicated that France would prefer to see the multi-national force stationed in Beirut replaced by aUnited Nations force.26’

The representative of the Soviet Union pointed outthat the decision at that meetinthirteenth case of extending the &

represented theNIFIL mandate

since 1978, eloquent testimony to the absence of anyimprovement in the situation in Lebanon. He criti-cized in particular that the Israeli troops continued tosupport its puppets in southern Lebanon and toprovoke incidents with UNIFIL personnel, in defi-ance of the clear decisions taken by the Council.26i

The representative of the Netherlands announcedthat his Government had once more agreed to theextension of the UNIFIL mandate, but would with-draw its troops from Lebanon at the expiration of thenew three-month period, unless new circumstancesenabled it to reconsider its position.26’

The representative of the United Kingdom con-curred with the representatives of France and theNetherlands in regard of the future of UNIFIL asmore of a humanitarian than peace-keeping opera-tion.26i

Decision of 12 September 1983 (2475th meeting):adjournmentBy letter dated 9 September 1983,262 the represen-

tative of Lebanon requested an urgent meetin of theCouncil. He referred to an earlier letter ated 2%September,263 .m which he had informed the Secre-tary-General about the withdrawal of Israeli troopsfrom parts of Mount Lebanon and had conveyed hisGovernment’s determination to obtain the removalof all forei n troops from Lebanon and its request forassistance srom LAS in that regard. He indicated thatsince the Israeli withdrawal hostilities had beenescalating and the urgency of the need for an end tothe fighting and violence had become still greater. Healso transmitted his Government’s wish for theCouncil to declare a cease-fire and to take thenecessary measures for its implementation.

At its 2475th meeting, on 12 September 1983, theCouncil included the letter dated 9 September 1983in its agenda. Following the adoption of the agenda,the President invited the representative of Lebanon,at his request, to participate in the discussion withoutthe right to vote.’

The President drew attention to the letter dated 2September 1983 from the representative of Lebanonand to the report of the Secretary-General264 on thesituation in the Beirut area, in which the develop-ments relating to the withdrawal of the Israeli troopsfrom the Beirut area were summarized based oninformation received from OGB.

The representative of Lebanon informed the Coun-cil members about several points that had beendiscussed by his Government in view of the continu-ing destruction and bloodshed in Lebanon. Hereported that Lebanon wanted to continue to exist asan independent and unified country, maintain itsunique pluralist character, remove the non-Lebanesedimension of the conflict and determine its futurefreely. In order to enable the country to implementthose intentions, Lebanon needed from the Councilan immediate and effective cessation of all hostilitiesand the withdrawal of all illegitimate foreignforces.26’

Followin!I

the statement by the representative ofLebanon, t e 2475th meeting was adjourned.

On 19 September 1983, the representative ofLebanon submitted a draft resolution,266 underwhich, in the preambular part, the Council, infer alia,would have expressed deep concern over the continu-ing deterioration of the situation in Lebanon and therepeated acts of violence; expressed deep grief at theextensive loss of life, human sufferings and destruc-tion; reiterated its strong support for the territorialintegrity, sovereignty and pohtical independence ofLebanon within its internationally recognized bound-aries; and borne in mind that the grave situationconfronting Lebanon endangered peace and securityin the region.

In the operative part, the Council would have (a)called for an immediate cease-fire and a prom tcessation of all hostilities throughout Lebanon; ( !l )called upon all parties to refrain from all acts whichviolated Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integ-rity and which endangered its people’s safety andunity; (c) authorized the Secretary-General to deployimmediately and in consultation with the Govem-ment of Lebanon an adequate number of UnitedNations observers to momtor the situation in theareas of hostilities and requested all parties to co-operate fully with the United Nations observers inthe implementation of their mandate; (d) called uponall involved to facilitate the activities of ICRC, theUnited Nations Coordinator of Assistance for theReconstruction and Development of Lebanon and allUnited Nations agencies concerned in humanitarianactivities in all areas of hostilities, in order toevacuate the dead and wounded and provide food,medical supplies and humanitarian assistance; (e)called upon all States and parties to support theLebanese Government in its efforts to ensure thecomplete and immediate withdrawal of all non-leba-nese forces whose presence in Lebanon did not havethe approval of the Government of Lebanon; U,requested the Secretary-General, as a matter ofurgency, to initiate appropriate consultations, and inparticular with the Government of Lebanon, onadditional steps, including the possible deploymentof United Nations forces, to assist that Governmentin its efforts to ensure peace and public order andsecure the full protection of the civilian population inall areas of hostilities; ) requested the Secretary-General to report to the (8 ouncil on the implementa-

Pul II 167

tion of the resolution within 72 hours; and (h)decided to remain seized of the matter.

In a letter dated 19 September 1983,267 the repre-sentative of Lebanon referred to the draft resolutionsubmitted by his delegation and to a meeting on thesame day with the Council President and indicatedthat his delegation left it to the President’s discretionto submit the draft to a vote at an appropriate time,when a sitiveif any oF”

response was likely to be obtained orthe members of the Council felt that further

action on the case was rendered necessary in the lightof new developments. He added that his delegationshared the concern of the President and the Secre-tary-General that the Council should have beenunable, when confronted with a tragedy of suchmagnitude, to respond with a positive contributionto the cause of peace in Lebanon.

Decision of 18 October I983 (2480th meeting):resolution 538 (1983)

Decision of I1 November 1983 (2496th meeting):President’s statementAt its 2480th meeting, on 18 October 1983. the

Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNIFIL dated 12 October 1983268 in its agenda.

In his report, the Secretary-General ave an ac-count of developments relating to FUN1 IL for theperiod from I3 July to I2 October 1983. He statedthat during the reporting period the UNIFIL areahad been generally quiet. He pointed out that recentevents in the Aley and Shouf regions had had nodirect impact on the UNIFIL area of deployment,except for an influx of displaced persons from thoseregions. During the period, UNIFIL had continuedto carry out the interim tasks laid down by him andendorsed by the Council after the Israeli invasion ofLebanon in June 1982, and in that context it hadcontinued its efforts to provide protection andhumanitarian assistance to the local population andto prevent activities that would hamper the restora-tion of the authority of the Lebanese Government inits area. He added that the capability of UNIFIL toachieve those objectives was contingent upon the co-operation of the Israeli authorities, who, as theoccupying Power, were in control of the area.

The Secretary-General aflirmed that UNIFIL re-mained an important element of stability in southernLebanon, as its presence also represented the com-mitment of the United Nations to support theindependence, sovereiLebanon and to help fi

nty and territorial integrity ofring about the withdrawal of

the Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, in accord-ance with resolutions 425 (1978) and 509 (1982). Hewarned that a withdrawal of the Force from its areaof operation under the given circumstances would bea serious blow to the prospect of restoring theauthority of the Lebanese Government, as well as tothe security and welfare of the local population. Herecommended to the Council that it should extendthe mandate of UNIFIL, onceinterim period, bearing in mind

a ain,f

for anothert e request of the

Lebanese Government. He also called the attentionof the Council to the increasin financial difficultiesfaced b

7the Force and reporte d that the accumulated

shortfa I in the UNIFIL Special Account had risenfrom $168.5 million at the time of the last report tosome $173.9 million as of the beginning of October1983.

At the same meeting, the President invited therepresentatives of Israel, Lebanon and the SyrianArab Republic and, at the 2496th meeting, on I1November 1983, the representative of the Sudan, attheir request, to participate in the discussion withoutthe right to vote.’ The Council considered the issueduring the 2480th, 2495th and 2496th meetings, on18 October and 1 I November 1983.

At the beginning of the 2480th meeting, thePresident drew the attention of the members to adraf? resolution,269 which had been prepared in thecourse of the Council’s consultations.

At the same meeting, the representative of Leba-non emphasized the need for the continued presenceof UNIFIL in southern Lebanon, both as a demon-stration of the commitment of the United Nations toLebanon’s independence, sovereignty and territorialintegrity and as a fundamental factor for stability inthe region. The requested approval of the renewal ofthe UNIFIL mandate for a further six months wouldenable the Lebanese authorities to restore legitimacym the south and to seek to bring about the wlthdraw-al of all unauthorized forces from all Lebaneseterritory.270

The President put the draft resolution to the vote;it received 13 votes in favour and none against, with2 abstentions, and was adopted as resolution 538(1983).*” It reads as follows:

The Security Counci l ,Having heard the statement of the representat ive of Lebanon.Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) and all


Recalfingjmher i ts resolutions 508 (1982). 509 (1982) and 520(1982), as well as all its other resolutions on the situation inLebanon,

Reiferafing its strong support for the territorial integrity,sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within itsinternational ly recognized boundaries,

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on theUnited Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and taking note of theconclusions and recommendations expressed therein,

Taking nole of the letter of the Permanent Representative ofLebanon IO the Secretary-General.

Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon.I. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations

Interim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of sixmonths, that is, until 19 April 1984;

2. Calls upon al l part ies concerned to cooperate ful ly with theForce for the full implementation of its mandate, as defined inresolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) and the re levant decis ionsof the Security Council;

3. Reques1.s the Secretary-General to report IO the SecurityCouncil on the progress made in this respect.

Following the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the Netherlands recalled that hisGovernment had considered the withdrawal of itsUNIFIL battalion from Lebanon as of 19 Octoberand pointed out that the situation in Lebanon hadnot than ed during the period covered by the latestreport. Ife noted with appreciation the success ofUNIFIL in providing humanitarian assistance to thelocal population and in trying to help restore theauthority of the Lebanese Government. His Govem-ment realized that to withdraw from UNIFIL wouldhave an adverse effect on efforts of the UnitedNations to contribute to a solution of the crisis inLebanon and emphasized the undiminished interestof his country in United Nations peace-keeping. Heexpressed hope that a more meaningful role could bedevised for UNIFIL and voiced his Government’s

decision to retain a limited contingent with theUnited Nations Force. He further appealed to allMember States to pay their assessment for UNIFILwithout delay since the financial foundations of theForce had continued to deteriorate severely.r70

The representative of France pointed out that theob’ectives set out for the Force under resolution 425(1678) had not alwa s been attained and deploredthat after the Israe i invasion of June 1982 anroperational battalion of its soldiers was present in thezone controlled by UNIFIL. He expressed his Gov-ernment’s wish to

kive UNIFIL new tasks and

mentioned that simi ar use could be made of theavailable UNTSO personnel in the area.*”

The representative of the Soviet Union noted thatthe Security Council had dealt for the fourteenthtime with the question of the extension of theUNIFIL mandate and saw that as testimony to theexplosive situation in Lebanon. He accused Israel ofclear steps to perpetuate its occupation of areas ofsouthern Lebanon and indicated that the so-calledmultinational force was also consolidating its posi-tion on Lebanese soil, with United States Marines asbackbone. In view of the fact that the date for thede arture of the multinational force was long past, here erred to concerns expressed by the Secretary-Gen-Pera1 about the trend towards the creation of suchforces.271

The representative of the United Kingdom ex-pressed concern about the lack of progress withregard to the restoration of Lebanon’s independence,sovereignty and territorial integrity and joined in thewarning by the representative of the Netherlandsregarding the financial shortfall in the UNIFILspecial account.27’

The representative of Israel stated that the resolu-tion adopted by the Council at the meeting had notchanged the UNIFIL mandate) althou the situationhad indeed been altered drastically. 8e reiterated hisGovernment’s view that UNIFIL had outlived itsusefulness and its presence was no longer called for insouthern Lebanon. He also affIrmed his Govem-merit’s willingness to proceed towards full and speedyimplementatron of the Israeli-Lebanese agreement ofI7 May 1983 aimed at the restoration of Lebanesesovereignty.271

At its 2495th meeting, on 1 I November 1983, theCouncil resumed its consideration of the itey, andcompleted its deliberations at the 2496th meeting onthe same day.

At the beginninNovember 1983, t ft

of the 2496th meetin , on 1 Ie President made the following

statement272 on behalf of the members of the Council:The members of the Security Council wish to express their

profound concern at the recent and current developments innorthern Lebanon which have caused and are still causingwidespread suffering and loss of human life. The members appealto all parties concerned to exercise the utmost restraint and seekfreely to attain, and to respect, an immediate cessation ofhostilities, to settle their differences exclusively by peaceful meansand to refrain from the threat or use of force. The members of theCouncil highly appreciate the work of the United Nations Reliefand Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and ofthe International Committee of the Red Cross in providingemergency humanitarian assistance to Palestinian and Lebanesecivilians in and around the city of Tripoli. The members of theCouncil will continue to follow the situation in Lebanon with thegreatest attention.

Decision of 23 November 1983 (2501st meeting):resolution 542 (1983)

By letter dated 22 November 1983,273 the represen-tative of France invoked Article 35 of the Charterand rule 2 of the provisional rules of procedure of theCouncil and requested an urgent meeting of theCouncil to consider the situation in northern Leba-non.

At its 2501st meeting, on 23 November 1983, theCouncil included the letter in its agenda. The Presi-dent drew the attention of the Council members to adraft resolution,274 which had been prepared in thecourse of the Council’s consultations, and put thedraft resolution to the vote. It received I5 votes infavour and was adopted unanimously as resolution542 ( 1983). 275 It reads as follows:

The St-curily Council.Having considered the situation prevailing in northern Lebanon,Recalling the statement made on this question by the President

of the Security Council on I I November 1983,Deeply concerned by the intensification of the fighting, which

continues to cause great suffering and loss of human life,I. Depiores the loss of human life caused by the events taking

place in northern Lebanon:2. Reireram irs call for the strict respect for the sovereignty,

political independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon withinits intemationalty recognized boundaries;

3. Requests the parties concerned immediately to accept a cease-fire and scrupulously to observe the cessation of hostilities;

4. Invifes the parties concerned to settle their differencesexclusively by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or useof force;

5. Pays Iribule to the work done by the United Nations Reliefand Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and bythe International Committee of the Red Cross in providingemergency humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian and Leba-nese civilians in Tripoli and its surroundings;

6. Coils upon the parties concerned to comply with theprovisions of the present resolution;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the situation innorthern Lebanon, to consult with the Government of Lebanon,and to report to the Security Council, which remains seized of thequestion.

Decision of 29 November 1983 (2502nd meeting):resolution 543 ( 1983)At its 2502nd meeting, on 29 November 1983, the

Council included the report of the Secreta?-Generalon UNDOF dated 2 I November 1983 76 in itsagenda.

In his report, the Secretary-General described theactivities of UNDOF for the period 21 May to 2 INovember 1983. The Secretary-General indicatedthat UNDOF had continued to perform its functionseffectively, with the co-operation of the parties, andthat, during the period under review, the situation inthe Israel-Syria sector had remained quiet. Neverthe-less, the Secretary-General stated, the situation in theMiddle East as a whole continued to be potentiallydan

ferous and was likely to remain so, unless and

unti a comprehensive settlement covering all aspectsof the Middle East problem could be reached, ascalled for by the Council in resolution 338 (1973). Inthe existing circumstances, the Secretary-Generalconsidered the continued presence of UNDOF in thearea to be essential. He therefore recommended thatthe Council extend the mandate of the Force for afurther period of six months, until 3 I May 1984, andpointed out that the Governments concerned hadexpressed their agreement.

to a draft resolution,2 j which had been prepared inAt the same meeting the President drew attention

the course of the Council’s consultations, and put it

Put I I 1 6 9

to the vote; it received 15 votes in favour and wasadopted unanimously as resolution 543 (1983).27R Itreads as follows:

The Security Council,Huving considered the report of the Secretary-General on the

United Nat ions Disengagement Observer Force,Dec ides .(a) To call upon the parties concerned lo implement immediate-



(c)To request the Secretary-General to submit, at the end of thisperiod, a report on the developments in the situation and themeasures taken IO implement resolution 338 (1973).

In connection with the resolution, the Presidentthen made the following complementary statementon behalf of the Councll:279

As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the UnitedNations Disengagement Observer Force states, in paragraph 26,that “despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, thesituation in the Middle East as a whole continues lo be potentiallydangerous and is likely to remain so, unless and until a compre-hensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problemcan be reached”. That statement of the Secretary-General reflectsthe view of the Security Council.

Decision of 29 February 1984 (2519th meeting):rejection of a draft resolutionBy letter dated I4 February I 984,2H0 the represen-

tative of France requested, in accordance with rule 2of the provisional rules of procedure, an urgentmeeting of the Council to consider the situation inBeirut.

At its 2514th meeting, on I5 February 1984, theCouncil included the letter in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the President invited, atthe same meetin ,

athe representatives of Italy and

Lebanon, and at t e 25 16th meeting, on 23 February,the representative of Senegal, at their request, toparticipate in the discussion of the item without theright to vote.’ The Council considered the issueduring its 2514th to 2516th and 25 19th meetings,from 15 to 29 February 1984.

The representative of France pointed out that thesituation in the Beirut area had again become veryserious and mentioned in particular the fate of thecivilian population as a matter of greatest concern.He recalled that during the tragic summer of 1982 hisdelegation had proposed the establishment of aUnited Nations force in the Beirut area and that thatdraft resolution had failed owing to the ne ative voteof a permanent member of the Council. -fhe sugges-tion m a resolution adopted a few weeks later for thecreation of such a force to assist the LebaneseGovernment in protecting the civilian population inBeirut would have taken too much time to be carriedout. For those reasons, his Government had respond-ed positively to the request by the Lebanese Govem-ment for French troops to join in the creation of amultinational force. Yet, as was evident in his letterdated 21 September 1982, addressed to the Secre-tary-General,28’ his Government maintained its wishfor a United Nations force. He added that the timehad come to review the issue of a new UnitedNations force and suggested that, in view of the clearneed for such a force, it would be most suitable toassign certain detachments from UNIFIL to Beirut.Although France stood ready if asked by the UnitedNations to participate in such a force,. it wouldappear preferable that the United Natlons force

would contain no nationals of States that werepermanent members of the Council. He proposedthat the United Nations force be deployed to replacethe multinational force, which should be withdrawnfrom Lebanon. Such a decision would be an effectivecontribution to the protection of the civilian popula-tion in Beirut and thus to the re-establishment ofpeace.2x?

At the 25 15th meeting, on I6 February 1984, therepresentative of Egypt expressed support for theFrench proposal, as it would facilitate the end tobloodshed and the establishment of a cease-fire inLebanon. All members of the Council should assist inseeking the withdrawal of the multinational force andin securing the rapid deployment of a United Nationsforce.2n’

The representative of the United Kingdom en-dorsed the French suggestion concerning an effectivepresence in and around Beirut and proposed that, inview of the role played by the United Nationsobservers in Beirut, thought be iven to how toutilize their presence as a symbol oB the internationalcommunity. For that reason, his Government hadsubmitted that the observers currently serving inBeirut could be somewhat increased in number andbe assigned to undertake small confidence-buildingmeasures; furthermore, his Government would liketo suggest the active use b the Secretary-General ofhis good-offices role; and astly, the role of UNIFILrshould be expanded to facilitate Israeli withdrawalfrom southern Lebanon.283

The representative of the United States stated thather Government shared the view expressed byFrance that the international community shouldassume greater responsibility for assisting the Leba-nese people and welcomed the British suggestions.She expressed strong support for the United Nationspeace-keeping role m Lebanon and singled out therecord of UNIFIL as well as of the observers inBeirut and reiterated her Government’s readiness toexpand and stren then those activities. In view of theconsistent Unitef States support for United Nationspeace-keeping, her delegation stood ready to enterInto serious discussions concerning the compositionand deployment of United Nations forces throughoutLebanon.283

The representative of Italy, whose Governmenthad joined in the multinatlonal force in Beirut,stressed that Italy had always held the view that aUnited Nations presence, if feasible, should replacethe multinationat force and that, as the urgentintervention of the United Nations was required, theissue should be carefully looked into with whichmandate and under which conditions a new UnitedNations force could be set up to safeguard humani-tarian and political interests.2*3

The representative of the Netherlands also wel-comed the French proposals as an indication for theway the United Nations must play a larger role tobring peace to the Beirut area. He cautioned, how-ever, that one should not embark too hastily on aUnited Nations peace-keepinunderlined what the Secretary-I

mission there andeneral had described

as conditions for such an o ration, namely: that thepeace-keepinpermission of

forces shou d be deplo edYthe host country and wit h

with thethe consent

of all parties involved; that eace-keeping missionsshould be given a clearly de med mandate; and thatPsuch a force needed the full backing of the Council.

170 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of iatemrtioml peace and security

He hoped that careful reflection would benefit con-structive proposals leading to a stable cease-tire inBeirut and expressed his appreciation for the Britishsuggestions concerning some limited steps.283

At the 2516th meeting, on 23 February 1984, therepresentative of Lebanon recalled that his Govem-ment had requested, in a draft resolution submittedin September 1983, that the Council dispatch inter-national observers to those areas from which theIsraeli army had withdrawn, and that that draftresolution was still before the Council. He stated hisGovernment’s support for the deployment of UnitedNations forces or observers to assist in restoringpeace and stabilit

hin his country. Althou

18h Lebanon

would welcome t e establishment of a orce in theBeirut region alone, it held that any such force shouldhave the means to undertake its task in all parts ofLebanon. He emphasized that his Government wasnevertheless keen on seeing an international force inLebanon and was ready to co-operate with theCouncil in drawing up and implementing any draftresolution that would effectively contribute to put-ting an end to the crisis in Lebanon.284

At the 2519th meeting, on 29 February 1984, therepresentative of France introduced a revised draftresolution,285 which had resulted from painstaking,determined efforts among the members of the Coun-cil and reflected the behef of its supporters in theparamount role to be played by the United Nationsin ending violence, decreasing tension and bringingabout reconciliation and peace.

In the preamble of the draft resolution,W theCouncil would have expressed awareness of theimportance of the action being carried out in Leba-non by the United Nations, both on behalf of peaceand at the humanitarian level; recalled its resolutions508 (1982) and 509 (1982) and the need for respectfor the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty andindependence of Lebanon, within its internationallyrecognized boundaries; noted the determination ofLebanon to secure the withdrawal of all non-leba-nese forces from Lebanon; earnestly desired a posi-tive outcome of the dialogue of national reconcilia-tion from which none was excluded, such dialoguebeing an indispensable basis for peace and security inLebanon; expressed grave concern at the situationprevailing in Lebanon, and in particular in the Beirutarea; and expressed the conviction that the situationhad grave consequences for peace and security in theregion as a whole and might impede the attainmentof a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

In the operative part of the draft resolution, theCouncil would have (a) issued an urgent appeal foran immediate cease-fire and the cessation of allhostilities throughout Lebanon and requested thatthey be strictly complied with; (6) requested theSecretary-Genera1 to make without delay all arrange-ments to enable OGB to monitor compliance withthe cease-fire in the Beirut area; (c) decided, inagreement with the Government of Lebanon, toconstitute immediately, under the authorit of theCouncil, a United Natlons force composed ornel furnished b

person-Member States other than the

permanent mem i!J ers of the Council and selected, ifappropriate, from contingents of UNIFIL-the forcewould have taken up a position in the Beirut area, inco-ordination with the Lebanese authorities con-cerned, as soon as all elements of the multinationalforce would have withdrawn from Lebanese territoryand territorial waters, and the United Nations force

would have had the mission of monitoring compli-ance with the cease-fire and helping to protect thecivilian populations, including in the Palestinianrefugee camps, and, without intervenin

kin the

internal affairs of Lebanon for the bene it of anyparty whatever, would thereby have assisted in re-establishing the peace necessary for the restoration ofthe territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and inde-pendence of Lebanon; (d) requested Member Statesto refrain from any intervention in the internalaffairs of Lebanon and any action, in particularmilitary action, that might Jeopardize the re-estab-lishment of peace and security in Lebanon, and tofacilitate the task of the United Nations force; and (e)invited the Secretary-General to report to It within48 hours on the implementation of the resolution.287

At the same meeting, the representative of theSoviet Union recalled the tragic days in the summerof 1982 when Israel massively invaded Lebanon, andpointed to the various Council resolutions in whichimmediate Israeli withdrawal had been demanded.He accused the United States of collaborating withthe Israeli Government and worsening the dan erfacin the Lebanese Government and people. henote8 that his Government had proposed as early asJuly 1982 to use UNIFIL contingents in the Beirutregion and had supported the dispatch of a UnitedNations force in September 1982, following themassacre in the Sabra and Shatila camps; the lattersuggestion, a draft resolution before the Council, hadbeen defeated owing to the ne ative

fvote of the

United States, which subsequent y sent its Marinesand contingents supplied by members of the NorthAtlantic Treaty Or anization (NATO) to Lebanon.He reiterated that tae settlement in Lebanon shouldbe achieved on the basis of Council resolutions 508(1982) and 509 (1982). He criticized the draft beforethe Council for several reasons: it should have speltout more clear1 the need to withdraw the multma-tional force and foreign warships from the area andshould have offered a guarantee that the multination-al force would not resume interference in the internalaffairs of Lebanon. Some members had not beenwilling to provide those assurances. As there were afew other ambiguities, his delegation would havewished for some more time to clarify the remainingIssues, but as the draft resolution had been finallyintroduced without further consideration of theposition of the Soviet Union, his delegation wouldhave to vote against the draft in its current form.***

The representative of India stated that the Councilshould have had a little more time to resolve someremaining problems and regretted that that had notbeen possible.2B9

The representative of the United States pointed tothe long and distinguished record of United Nationspeace-keeping efforts in the Middle East and else-where in the world and called them an importantadjunct to the primary purposes of the Charter. Sheadded that those efforts had so far never provedinconsistent with the rights of any nations or any

t!eoples and deplored that no new peace-keeping

orce would be established on that day by theCouncil. As the representative of the Soviet Unionhad announced his veto, she indicated that furthercomments on the draft would serve no useful pur-pose.288

At the same meeting, the President put the revisedFrench draft resolution to the vote; it received 13votes in favour and 2 against and was not adopted

Put 11 1 7 1

owin to the negative vote of a permanent member oft h e ouncil.2WE

Following the vote, the representative of the Neth-erlands cited Article 24 of the Charter and expresseddeep regret that the Council had failed to live up tothe Charter mandate as well as to the expectations ofthe peoples of the world. He hoped that the Councilcould soon recover from this set-back and succeed inplacing a peace-keeping force in the Beirut area.288

The rethat he ailed to understand that anythmg of whatP

resentative of the United Kingdom stated

had been said in the meeting justified a veto on alimited United Nations action requested by Lebanonand that he believed that many non-aligned countrieswould be greatly concerned about how easily theCouncil could be blocked in the attempt to exerciseits duties under the Charter. He wondered why thedelegation which had cast a negative vote had tried torestrict the Council discussion to the smallest geo-

Praphical area possible, but had referred to actionsar outside the city of Beirut. He affirmed his

Government’s conviction that the United Nationsshould play an extended role in Lebanon, but alsostressed that all Members should strive to ensure thatthe Lebanese people could choose their own Govern-ment and adjust their internal affairs without exter-nal interference. He assured the Council that hisdele ation remained committed to an effort to usethe E ouncil and the United Nations for the job theywere intended to do.2sK

The representative of France expressed deep regretthat the draft resolution had not been adopted, andthat the Council was not fulfilling its mission underthe Charter, as it could not reach a decision in thosecircumstances.28R

The representative of Lebanon appealed to theCouncil to reconsider the positions taken during themeetings and to respond positively and as soon aspossible to any new initiative in view of the seriouscondition of Lebanon and in fulfilment of theprinciples of the Charter.2XX

Decision of I9 April 1984 (2530th meeting): resolu-tion 549 (1984)At its 2530th meeting, on I9 April 1984, the

Council included in its agenda the report of theSecretary-General on UNIFIL dated 9 April 1984.29i

The report contained an account of developmentsrelating to UNIFIL from I3 October I983 to 9 April1984. The Secretary-General pointed out that thesituation in the UNIFIL area of southern Lebanonhad remained relatively peaceful, while the situationin the rest of Lebanon had been cause for greatconcern in the last six months. He stated that thepresence of UNIFIL was re ardedLebanese Government and R

as essential by thead been of benefit to the

much-increased population of that area. He referredto a letter dated 9 April 1984292 from the representa-tive of Lebanon addressed to him in which the wishof the Government for an extension of the mandateof UNIFIL for another six months had been con-veyed. He concurred with that request and recom-mended that the mandate be renewed.

- The Secretary-General noted that, however benefi-cial the role of UNIFIL might be, it did not measureup to the original mandate or to the intentions oflater Council resolutions. For those reasons, he hadconsidered further means to achieve the principalobjectives by focusing on the common interests

which all concerned had in changing the situation forthe better. A reversion to genuine peace and normali-ty in southern Lebanon would be in the interest ofvirtually all concerned. The Government of Lebanonand the peo le of southern Lebanon desired therestoration oPLebanese sovereignty and authority upto the international border as early as possible. Israel,while expressing its desire to withdraw its forces fromLebanon, was concerned over the security of itsnorthern border after its withdrawal. The security ofthe Palestinian refugees, especially in the camps inthe Sidon area, was a matter of grave concern andresponsibility.

Taking into account all those concerns, the Secre-tary-General suggested that UNIFIL should be ena-bled to plaobjectives or

an expanded role in attaining theIsrael’s withdrawal,

in the region and the restoration oPeace and securityLebanese authori-

ty and sovereignty up to the international boundary.A decision by the Council in that sense could providethe framework for the achievement of those objec-tives. He therefore proposed that the Council consid-er at the appropriate time a future course of action,including the following elements: (a) the temporarydeployment of UNIFIL, with elements of the Leba-nese army and internal security forces, in areasvacated by Israeli forces; (b) the immediate deploy-ment of elements of UNIFIL in the Sidon area onIsraeli withdrawal from that area, with a view toassuring the safety and security of the population,including Palestinian refugees in the camps in thatarea; and (c) the working out of the necessaryarrangements to ensure that southern Lebanon wouldbecome a zone of peace under the sovereignty andauthority of the Lebanese Government.

The Secretary-General acknowledged the diflicul-ties of such a plan, but put it forward in view of theclear needs in southern Lebanon for the re-establish-ment of peaceful, normal conditions and economicprosperity.

In conclusion, he alerted the Council once again tothe financial difficulties amicting the work ofUNIFIL and requested that the Governments of themore developed countries make available additionalvoluntary contributions to the UNIFIL SuspenseAccount.

The representatives of Lebanon and Israel wereinvited., at their request, to participate in the discus-sion without the right to vote.’ The Council consid-;‘9”sd4 the issue at its 2530th meeting, on I9 April

to a draft resolution2 1 which had been prepared inAt the same meetinf the President drew attention

the course of the Council’s consultations. He then putthe draft to the vote; it received I3 votes in favourand none against,. with 2 abstentions, and wasadopted as resolution 549 (1984). It reads as fol-lows:294

The Seamy Council,Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978). 426 (1978), 501 (1982). 508

(I 982). 509 (I 982) and 520 (1982). as well as all its resolutions onthe situation in Lebanon,

Having sfudied the report of the Secretary-General on theUnited Nations Interim Force in Lebanon of 9 April 1984 andtaking note of the observat ions expressed therein,

Taking note of the letter of the Permanent Representative ofLebanon to the Secretary-General of 9 April 1984,

Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon.

172 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of international peace and security

I. Deecide.~ to extend the present mandate of the United NationsInterim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of six

Council to consider the most recent act of aggression

months, that is, until 19 October 1984;committed by Israel against the refugee camp ofPalestinians at Ein El Hilweh in south Lebanon.

2. Rrircrures its strong support for the territorial integrily,sovereignty and independence of Lebanon within its intemational-ly recognized boundaries:

3. Remnphosir~.~ the terms of reference and general guidelinesof the Force as slated in the report of rhe Secretary-General of 19March 1978. approved by resolution 426 (1978). and calls upon allparties concerned lo co-operate fully with the Force for the fullimplemcnration of its mandate;

4, Reifenms that the Force should fully implement its mandateas defined in resolutions 425 (1978). 426 (1978) and all otherrelevant resolutions;

5. R~quevrs the Secretary-General (0 continue consultations withthe Govemmen( of Lebanon and other parties directly concernedon the implementation of the present resolution and (0 report lothe Council thereon.

Followin the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the Soviet Union pointed out thatthe root causes of the dangerous situation in Lebanonneeded to be re-examined again in view of the refusalby Israel lo withdraw from all occupied Lebaneseterritory. He called upon the United Nations not toacquiesce in Israel’s defiance and the inability of thepeace-keeping force to perform the assigned task, thesupervision of the Israeli withdrawal. If Israel persist-ed in its act of defiance, he su

fPested that the Council

consider the adoption of e ective measures in re-sponse to those circumstances.2q’

At its 2540th meeting, on 21 May 1984, theCouncil included the letter by the representative ofKuwait in its agenda. Followin

flthe adoption of the

agenda, the President invited t e representatives ofIsrael,. Kuwait and Lebanon, at their request, topartlclpate in the discussion without the right tovote.3 At the same meeting, the Council also decided,by a vote and in accordance with its previouspractice, to invite the representative of the PLO toparticipate in the deliberations, without the right tovote.29 The Council further decided to extend invita-tions to the Chairman of the Committee on theExercise of the Inalienable Rights of the PalestinianPeople298 and to Mr. Clovis Maksoud298 under rule 39of its provisional rules of procedure.

The representative of France expressed hope thatthe continued Israeli presence in the UNIFIL deploy-ment area would be terminated soon and indicatedthat his Government was pre ared to accept theSecretary-General’s suggestion or a possible exten-Psion of the Force’s mandate and deployment area.295

The representative of the Netherlands recalled thathis Government had decided to maintain its contin-gent in UNIFIL since it was convinced that UNIFILcould play a bigger role, going beyond mere humani-tarian assistance to the civilians in the area. Heconveyed his Government’s support for the ideascontained in the Secretary-General’s re rt and for adiscussion of how to apply those ideas or a strength-F”ened role for UNIFIL. He again underlined thestrong warning by the Secretary-General regarding itsworsening financial condition.295

The representative of Kuwait stated that on I5May the Israeli occupation forces had surrounded thePalestinian refugee camp Ein El Helweh, in thesouthern part of Lebanon, demolishing about 30houses in the camp and wounding or arresting dozensof Palestinians. He added that Israel should be calledupon to put an end to the massacres, torture,imprisonment and dispersal of civilians in the occu-pied territories and to the destruction of their houses,and to protect those citizens and their oods until thefuture of the occupied areas had been kmally decided.He urged the Council to shoulder its responsibilityand to ensure the implementation of its resolutionson the matter and mentioned in particular thosedecisions regarding the violations of internationallaw by the Israeli forces in the occupied areas, thewithdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since1967, the implementation of the Palestinians’ right toself-determination and to their own State and the re-establishment of the territorial integrity, indepen-dence and security of Lebanon in connection withtotal Israeli withdrawal in accordance with resolution509 (1 982).29*

The representative of the United Kingdom statedthat his Government supported both the Lebanesewish and the Secretary-General’s proposals for astren thened

0role for UNIFIL in southern Leba-

non.2 s

The representative of Lebanon also described theIsraeli attack on the Palestinian refugee camp andcharged that approximately I50 people had beenarrested and others wounded or killed. He calledupon the Council to put an end to that state of affairsby enforcing its resolutions providing for Israeliwithdrawal and for transformation of the south into azone of peace and security.z9*

The representative of Lebanon referred to his letterdated 9 April addressed to the Secretary-General andindicated his Government’s strong support for theSecretary-General’s recommendations regarding anenlarged and enhanced role for UNIFIL.295

The representative of Israel noted again that hisGovernment regarded the continued presence ofUNIFIL in the deployment area as superfluous, butadded that its redeployment in the area north of thezone controlled by Israeli forces and as a bufferbetween the Syrian and Israeli forces could beuseful.29s

Decision of 21 May 1984 (2540th meeting): invita-tion of the PLO

ofB letter dated I7 May 1 984,196 the representativeITuwait, in his capacity as Chairman of the Group

of Arab States at the United Nations for the month ofMay 1984, requested an urgent meeting of the

The representative of the PLO wondered why theCommissioner-General of UNRWA had notified theSecretary-General only much later about the Israeliattack and referred to the information that the Israeliresponsible officer had refused to receive theUNRWA official during the time of the attack. Healso asked the Council to condemn Israel for thatcriminal act in south Lebanon and to impose manda-tory sanctions on Israel. He added that the establish-ment of another commission to investigate the Israelideeds would be of little use because Israel wouldagain refuse to co-operate with the investigatinggroup. In that connection he referred to a report ofthe Special Commission established under resolution446 (1979) which had not been taken up by theCouncil because the members were not agreed 9nhow to handle that reprt about Israel1 practices moccupied territories.29

The representative of India stressed that thebloodshed should be immediately ended and that

Put II 173

Israel should be made to carry out its internationalobligations, including its withdrawal from southLebanon and a stop to the illegal settlements in theoccupied territories. He supported the call for aninternational peace conference on the Middle East toadvance towards a comprehensive and just sotutionand committed his Government’s full co-operationas the current Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.298


Council included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNDOF dated 23 May 1984299 in its agenda.

In his report, the Secretary-General described theactivities of UNDOF for the period 22 November1983 to 2 I May 1984. The Secretary-General indi-cated that UNDOF had continued to perform itsfunctions effectively, with the co-operation of theparties, and that durm the period under review thesituation in the Israe -Syria7 sector had remainedquiet. The Secretary-General stated that, despite theexisting quiet in the sector, the situation in theMiddle East as a whole continued to be potentiallydangerous and was likely to remain so, unless anduntil a comprehensive, just and durable peace settle-ment covering all aspects of the Middle East problemcould be reached, as called for by the Council inresolution 338 (1973). In the prevailin circum-stances, the Secretary-General considered tae contin-ued presence of UNDOF in the area to be essential.He therefore recommended that the Council extendthe mandate of the Force for a further period of sixmonths, until 30 November 1984, and pointed outthat the Governments concerned had given theirassent.

At the 2544th meeting, the President drew atten-tion to a draft reso1ution,300 which had been preparedin the course of the Council’s consultations. He thenput the draft resolution to the vote; it received ISvotes in favour and was adopted unanimously asresolution 551 ( 1984).Wo1 It reads as follows:

The Security Council,Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the

United Nat ions Disengagement Observer Force,Decides:

((I) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immcdiate-ly Security Council resolution 338 (1973);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations DisengagementObserver Force for another period of six months, that is, until 30November 1984;


On behalf of the Council, the President made thebullying statement302 regarding resolution 55 I

As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the UnitedNations Disengagement Observer Force states, in paragraph 26:“despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, the situation inthe Middle East as a whole continues to be potentially dangerousand is likely to remain so, unless and until a comprehensivesettlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem can bereached”. That statement of the Secretary-General reflects theview of the Security Council.

Decision of 6 September 1984 (2556th meeting):rejection of a draft resolutionBy letter dated 24 August 1984,mj the representa-

tive of Lebanon requested an urgent meeting of the

Council to consider all practices and measures takenby the Israeli occupymg authorities in southernLebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya region.

At the 2552nd meeting, on 29 August 1984, theCouncil included the letter in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the President invited thefollowing, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote: at the 2552ndmeeting, the representatives of Israel, Kuwait, Leba-non and the Syrian Arab Republic;3m at the 2553rdmeeting, the representatives of Qatar, the Sudan, theUnited Arab Emirates and Yemen;‘05 at the 2554thmeetin the

%6of Iran;representative of the Islamic Republic

and at the 2555th meeting, the representa-tives of Cuba, Democratic Yemen and Turkey.307The Council, at its 2552nd meeting, also extendedinvitations under rule 39 of the Council’s provisionalrules of procedure to the Chairman of the Committeeon the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of thePalestinian People3os and to Mr. Clovis Maksoud.W8The Council considered the item at its 2552nd toWith meetings, from 29 August to 6 September

At the 2552nd meeting, the representative ofLebanon stated that the Council should be informedabout the situation of the people in Lebanon andespecially of the inhabitants of the south, numberingmore than 8OO,ooQ, who were suffering from Israel’soccupation and unJust arbitrary practices. His delega-tion was lodging a complaint with regard to theIsraeli practices In the hope that the members of theCouncil would understand and shoulder their ressibilities. He then offered a detailed picture op”

n-the

many ways in which the Israeli occupation forceswere oppressing the Lebanese population in violationof numerous provisions of the Fourth Geneva Con-vention of 12 August 1949, The Hague Conventionsof 1899 and 1907, the Charter of the United Nationsand the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Inconclusion, he requested that the Council: (a) imple-ment its resolutions on complete Israeli withdrawalfrom Lebanon, the immediate cessation of Israelipractices a ainst

&the inhabitants of the south, the

western Befor their le

aa and the Rashaya region and respectitimate right to live in

dignity; (b compel Israel to Iif Reace, security andits siege of the

occupied territories; (c) insist on the necessity forIsrael to respect the Charter, the Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights, the norms of internationallaw, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, other intema-tional conventions and The Hague Conventions of1899 and 1907; and (d) stress Lebanon’s inalienableright to its waters.m8

The representative of Israel stated that there wasnot the slightest justification for the Lebanese com-plaint and for the Council meeting and cha ed thatthe Lebanese Government, under pressure rom the;BSyrian Arab Republic, had started a propagandacampaign with regard to the alleged impairment ofsecurity in southern Lebanon in order to divertinternational attention from the worsening situationin the area of Beirut. He underlined that the Govem-ment of Lebanon, under international law, had theduty to prevent its territory from being used forterrorist attacks against another State and that theState under such attacks had the right to takeappropriate self-defence measures to protect itselfand its citizens.308

At the 2556th meeting, on 6 September 1984, thePresident drew the attention of the Council to a draR

174 Chapter VIII. Maintenaaee of iaterrwioml peace aad security

resolution3w that had been submitted by Lebanon. Inthe preambular part of the draft resolution, theCouncil would have, in&r alia, reaffirmed previousresolutions on Lebanon and recalled the relevantprovisions of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights, and stressed the humanitarian principles ofthe Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and theobligations arising from the regulations annexed toThe Hague Convention of 1907.

At its 2559th meeting, on 12 October 1984, theCouncil included the report of the Secretary-Generalon UNIFIL dated 9 October 19843i3 in its agenda.

In the operative part,, the Council would have (a)reiterated its call for strict respect for the sovereignty,independence, unity and territorial integrity of Leba-non within its internationally recognized boundaries;(6) affirmed that the provisions of the Fourth GenevaConvention of 1949 applied to the territories occu-pied by Israel in southern Lebanon, the westernBekaa and the Rashaya district, and that the occupy-ing Power was duty-bound to respect and uphold theprovisions of the said Convention and of othernorms of international law; (c) called upon Israel, theoccupying Power, to respect strictly the rights of thecivilian population in the areas under its occupationin southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and theRashaya district, and to comply strictly with theprovisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of1949; (d) demanded that Israel immediately lift allrestrictions and obstacles to the restoration of normalconditions in the areas under its occupation inviolation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,particularly concerning the closing of roads andcrossings, the limitation of freedom of movement ofindividuals and the normal flow of persons andgoods between those areas and the rest of Lebanon,and the obstruction to the normal conduct of Leba-nese Government institutions and personnel; (e)urged all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Con-vention of 1949 to make every effort to ensurerespect for and compliance with the provisionsthereof in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa andthe Rashaya district; and U, decided to remain seizedof the question.

The report of the Secretary-General contained anaccount of developments relatin to UNIFIL from 10April 1984 to 9 October 1984. Tae Secretary-Generalnoted that the situation in the UNIFIL area insouthern Lebanon had remained relatively peacefulin the last six months and that the Government ofLebanon and the people of southern Lebanon hadmade it clear that the presence of UNIFIL wasimportant to them. He referred to a letter dated 8October in which the representative of Lebanon hadinformed him in writing of the Government’s requestthat the mandate of UNIFIL be extended for afurther period of six months and stated his ownrecommendation to that effect.

The Secretary-General further recalled his previouscomments regarding an expanded role for UNIFILand its contribution to the objectives of Israeliwithdrawal and of restoring Lebanese authority andsovereignty up to the internationally recognizedboundary. He listed in this connection once more thethree specific steps in the redeployment of UNIFILthat would result in such an expanded role for theForce. He reported that after his own visit to the areain June 1984 and a follow-up visit by the Under-Secreta -General for Special Political Affairs of theUnited ?Iations Secretariat, he had gained the im-pression that there was general agreement on theobjectives formulated by him and on the importanceof an expanded UNIFIL mandate for the implemen-tation of those goals. In view of the relativelyfavourable situation in regard to the withdrawal ofIsraeli forces from southern Lebanon, he warned thatthe opportunity should not be missed, as that wouldresult in a further deterioration in the area. He alsomade mention of the fragility of UNIFIL in terms ofthe circumstances under which the Force had tooperate in southern Lebanon and under the impact ofthe financial difficulties faced by the operation.

At the same meeting, the representative of Maltaformally requested, in accordance with rule 38 of theprovisional rules of procedure, that the draft resolu-tion submitted by Lebanon be put to the vote.jiO

Prior to the vote, several delegations, who indi-cated support for the draft resolution, stated theirreservations regarding the lack of balance in the text,especially in the light of the serious situation in partsof Lebanon other than the south.311

At the same meeting, the draft resolution was putto the vote; it obtained 14 votes in favour and 1against and was not adopted owinvote of a permanent member of t73

to the negativee Council.j’z

Following the vote, the representative of the

Following the adoption of the agenda, the Presi-dent invited the representative of Lebanon, at hisre uest, to participate in the discussion without theri$

t to vote.) The Council considered the issue at its2 59th meeting, on 12 October 1984.

At the same meeting, the President drew attentionto the text of a draft resolution,314 which had beendrawn up in the course of the Council’s consulta-tions. He put the draft resolution to the vote; itreceived 13 votes in favour and none against, with 2abstentions, and was adopted as resolution 555( 1984).“s It reads as follows:

The Secur i t y Counci l ,Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) 426 ( 1978) SO1 (1982), 508

(1982). 509 (I 982) and 520 (1982) as well as all its resolutions onthe situation in Lebanon,

United States explained that his delegation had votedagainst the draft resolution, which it saw as one-sidedand unbalanced in that it addressed humanitarianand securitfailed to re er to similar problems in other parts ofr

issues only in southern Lebanon but

Lebanon, to take account of the view that Israel wasin compliance with the appropriate rules of theFourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and The HagueProtocols of 1907 and to call for the removal of allforeign forces from Lebanese territory.3’0

Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on theUnited Nations Interim Force in Lebanon of 9 October 1984. andtaking note of the observations expressed therein,

Taking noft- of the letter of fhe Permanent Representative ofLebanon addressed to the Secretary-General of 8 October 1984.

Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon,1. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations

Interim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of sixmonths, that is. until I9 April 1985;

2. Reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity,sovereignty and independence of Lebanon within its intemational-ly recognized boundaries;

Decision of 12 October 1984 (2559th meeting):resolution 555 (1984)

3. Reemphas izes the terms of reference and general guidel inesof the Force as stated in the report of the Secretary-General of 19

Put II 1 7 5

Msrch 1978. approved by resolution 426 (I 978) and calls upon allparties concerned IO co-operate fully with the Force for the fullimplementation of its mandate;

4. Reiferures that the Force should fully implement its mandateas defined in resolutions 425 (1978). 426 (1978) and all otherrelevant resolutions;

5. Requesrs the Secretary-General to continue consultations withthe Government of Lebanon and other parties directly concernedon the implementation of the present resolution and to report tothe Council thereon.

Decision of 28 November 1984 (2563rd meeting):resolution 557 (1984)At its 2563rd meeting, on 28 November 1984, the

Council included the re or-t of the Secreta?-Generalon UNDOF dated I November 1984 I6 m Itstagenda.

In his report, the Secretary-General described theactivities of UNDOF for the period 22 May 1984 to16 November 1984. He indicated that UNDOF hadcontinued to perform its functions effectively, withthe co-operation of the parties, and that durmperiod under review the situatron in the Israel-8

theyrra

sector had remained quiet. The Secretary-Generalstated that despite the present quiet in the sector thesituation in the Middle East as a whole continued tobe potentially dangerous and was likely to remain so,unless and until a comprehensive, just and durablepeace settlement covering all aspects of the MiddleEast problem could be reached, as called for by theCouncil in resolution 338 (1973). In the prevailingcircumstances, the Secretary-General considered the

- continued presence of UNDOF in the area to beessential. He therefore recommended that the Coun-cil extend the mandate of the Force for a furtherperiod of six months, until 31 May 1985, and pointedout that the Governments concerned had given theirassent.

At the 2563rd meeting, on 28 November 1984, thePresident drew attention to a draft resolution,3’7which had been prepared in the course of theCouncil’s consultations. He then put the draft resolu-tion to the vote; it received 15 votes in favour andwas adopted unanimously as resolution 557(1984).)‘* It reads as follows:

The Security Council.Huving considered the report of the Secretary-General on the

United Nat ions Disengagement Observer Force,

Decide.s.((I) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediate-



(c) To request the Secretary-General IO submit, at the end of thisperiod, a report on the developments in the situation and themeasures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

On behalf of the Council, the President then madethe following complementary statementjr9 regardingresolution 557 (I 984):

As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the UnitedNations Disengagement Observer Force states, in paragraph 26:“despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, the situation inthe Middle East as a whole continues to be potentially dangerousand is likely to remain so. unless and until a comprehensivesettlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem can bereached”. That statement of the Secretary-General rellects theview of the Security Council.

NOTES~Sll4391, OR. 36th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1981.‘s/l4354 (letter dated 30 Januav 1981). ibid., and s/l4381

(letter dated 24 February 1981) ibid. See also letters dated 2February and 8 and IO March 1981, in which the representative ofIsrael brought to the attention of the Council various incidents inwhich PLGactivists based in Lebanon were said to have attackedIsraeli communities (s/14355. s/l4394 and s/14398. ibid.).

J For details, see chap. 111 of the present Supplement.’ 2265th mtg., paras. 7-26.J Ibid.. paras. 21-44.~s/l4407. OR, 36fh yr., Suppl. for Jan-March 1981.’ S/14414, ibid., Resolufions ond Decisions o/ fhe Securiry

Council . 1981.’ S/14482, ibid., Suppl. for April-June 1981.p S/14484, adopted without change as resolution 485 (198 I).lo For the vote, see 2278th mtg.. para. IO.ii S/14485, OR, 36th yr., Resokions and Decisions o/ rhe

Security Council, 198 1.I1 S/14537. [bid.. Suppl. for April-June 1981.rJs/l4557, adopted without change as resolution 488 (1981).‘(For the vote, see 2289th mtg., para. 3.IJ 2289th mtg., paras. S-13.I4 Ibid.. paras. I 5-3 I.i’ Ibid.. paras. 32-39.Is Ibid., paras. 40-5 I.I9 Ibid.. paras. 61-68.Ja Ibid., paras. 72-78.*I Ibid., paras. 80-86.21 Ibid., paras. 81-92.I3 Ibid.. paras. 93 and 94.l4 S/14572, OR, 36ih yr., Resolutions and Decisions of the

Securiry Council. 1981.IJ s/14596. ibid., Suppl. for My-Sepr. 1981.*6 S/ 14586. ibid.I7 s/ 1459 I and s/14594. ibid.*s 2292nd mtg. for the discussion and the vote on the invitation

to the PLO. For further details, see chap. III of the presentSupplemew

29 2292nd mtg. For details, see chap. III of the present Supplemeni.

Je2292nd mtg., pares. 14-19.II Ibid., paras. 2 l-36.1’ Ibid.. paras. 38-63.31 Ibid., paras. 65-75.14 Ibid., paras. 77-102.sJ Ibid., paras. 103-I 16.M s/l 4599, OR, 36th yr., Resolutions and Decisions of the

Security Council, 1981.I7 s/14604, subsequently adopted without change as resolution

490 (1981,.Jr2293rd mtg., paras. 5-12.I9 Ibid.. paras. I 5-2 I.40 For the vote, see ibid., para. 2 I.‘I Ibid., paras. 23-38.‘I ibid., paras. 39-44.(3 Ibid., paras. 45-54.U Ibid., paras. 62-82. For a detailed discussion of the concept of

self -defence developed by the representat ive of Egypt. see chap.XI. part III. of the present Supp/emenf.

4J 2293rd mtg.. paras. 95-141.*Ibid., paras. 143-166. The call for such sanctions was also

supported by the representatives of Democratic Yemen (ibid..paras. 171-181) and Yemen (ibid., paras. 183-196).

41 S/14759. OR, 36th yr., Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1981.u S/14761, adopted without change as resolution 493 (1981).* For the vote of the Security Council, see 231 Ith mtg., para. 2.)” s/14164. OR, 36th yr.. Resolutions and Decisions 1981.Ji St14789 and Corr. I, ibid., Suppl. /or Oct.-Dec. 1981.)I 2320th mtg., para. 2. For further details, see chap. 111 of the

present SupplementJJS/l4792, OR, 36th yr., Suppl. for 0c~-Dec. 1981.

176 Chapter VIII. Malntcmncc of iatenutioml peace and sccurlty

J4 2320th mtg.. paras. 5-20.JJThc Israeli representative referred here to document

s/I 2620ihdd.5, OR, 33rd yr.. Suppl. /or April-June 1978.“2320th mtg., paras. 31-37.)’ Ibid., paras. 49-65.SD Ibid.. paras. 66-8 I.w Ibid.. paras. 91-97.60 s/14803. adopted without change as resolution 498 (1981).61 For the vote, see 2320th mtg.. para. 98.62 Ibid., paras. 106-I 12.b3 Ibid.. paras. I 13-l 18.M Ibid.. paras. 120-l 30.6, s/14869, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1982.*S/14875. ibid.“S/14792, ibid.. 36th yr.. Suppl. jar Oct.-Dec. 1981.68 See 2331~1 mtg., paras. 3-10, for the discussion and the vote

on the invitation to the PLO. For further details, see chap. Ill ofthe present Supplement.

6q 2331~1 mtg.. paras. I I and 12. For details, see chap. III of thepresent Supplemenl.

T O 2331~1 mtg:. paras. 15-39.“S/14888, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. fir Jan.-March 1982.l2 2332nd mtg., paras. 5-27.‘I Ibid.. paras. 28-38.l4 S/14890, adopted without change as resolution 501 (I 982).” For the vote, see ibid., para. 88. For details, see chap. IV of the

presenl Supplement.‘6 2332nd mtg.. paras. 106-l 13.It S/14962, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982. The

Government of Lebanon expressly reserved its right to call for anurgent meeting of the Council should the escalation continue orthe situation deteriorate.

I8 SJ 14989, ibid.79 S/14995. OR, 37th yr.* Resolutions and Decisions of the

Security Council, 1982.ms/I4996, ibid., Suppl. for April-June 1982.11 s/15079. ibid.I2 s/l 5118, adopted without change as resolution 506 (1982).*‘For the vote, see 2369th mtg., para. 2.M s/I 5 124, OR, 37th yr.. Resolutions and Decisions of lhe

Security Council, 1982.o St I5 I6 I, ibid., Suppl. for April-June 1982.MS/I5162, ibid.~‘s/l5163, ibid., Resolutions and Decisions of rhe Security

Council, 1982.I1 See 2374th mtg., paras. 2-8, for the discussion and the vote on

the invitation to the PLO. For further details, see chap. III of thepresent Supplemen:.

Dq 2374th mtg., paras. 9 and IO. For details, see chap. 111 of thepresent Supplement.

w S/ I 5 168, adopted without change as resolut ion 508 (1982).qI s/I 5 164. OR, 37th yr,, Suppl. for April-June 1982.q2 2374th mtg.. paras. 14-22.q1 Ibid., paras. 23-26.w For the vote, see 2374th mtg.. para. 27.qJ Ibid.. paras. 29-32.p1 Ibid., paras. 33-37.q’ Ibid.. paras. 39-46.q( Ibid.. paras. 48-58.R Ibid., paras. 59-69.‘QQ Ibid.. paras. 72-78.101 Ibid.. paras. 80-89.101 Ibid.. paras. 91-98.101 S/l 5 171, adopted without change as resolut ion 509 (1982) .lM S/15174. OR, 37th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1982.IOJSee 2375th mtg., paras. 4-14. for the oral report of the

Secretary-General.lo6 See ibid., pares. I J-20, for the introduction of dralt resolution

s/15171.10’ 2375th mtg., paras. 22-67.KU For the vote, see ibid.. para. 91. See also chap. IV of the

present Supplement.

Im2375th mtg., paras. 100-108.110 Ibid.. paras. 109-l 15.I’1 IbId.. paras. 116-123.II2 Ibid.. paras. 136-145.111 Stl5178, OR, 37th yr., Suppl. [or April-June 1982.II4 2376th mtg.. paras. 4-16.115 Ibid.. paras. 18-23.In6 Ibid.. paras. 25-35.117S/15185. OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982.Ifi1 2377th mtg.. paras. 3-22.llqSee ibid., para. 23. for the vote. See also chap. IV of the

present Supplemenf for further details.120 2377th mtg.. paras. 25-28.I21 See ibid.: I reland, paras. 29-38; Japan, paras. 39-42; President

(France), paras. 83 and 84; and Soviet Union, paras. 43-47.121 S/I 5194, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982.I23 S/I 5 194IAdd. I, ibid.1)4S/I 5194/Add.2, ibid.12’ For the discussion and the vote on the invitation to the PLO,

see 2379th mtg.. paras. 2-7. For further details, see chap. III of thepresent Supplemenl.

126 2379th mtg., para. 8. For details, see chap. III of the presentSupplement.

127s/15235. adopted without change as resolution 51 I (1982).12( For the vote, see 2379th mtg., para. 9. See also chap. IV of the

present Supplemenl.Ilq 2379th mtg.. paras. I l-14.IM Ibid.. paras. 15-38.II1 Ibid., paras. 39-50.132 Ibid., paras. 51-61.w Ibrd.. paras. 62-70.‘“Ibid., paras. 99-104.II5 For the full text of the Israeli letter, see the Secrelary-

General’s report (S/ I5 178). para. 5, OR, 37fh yr., Suppl. fir April-June 1982.

‘“2379th mtg., paras. 121-151.‘3’Ibid.. paras. 153-168.I I* Ibid., paras. I 7 I-I 80.lJq S/15240, adopted without change as resolution 512 (1982).‘“2380th mta.. oaras. 4-9.1~ For the v% ‘see ibid., para. I I. See also chap. IV of the

present Supplement for further details.“I The t&t introduced at the 2381~1 meeting was the second

revision; for the full text. see S/15255/Rcv.2, OR, 37rh yr.. Suppl.for Awil. -June 1982. See ibid. for the original draft s/I5255 and-ibid. ?or S/I 5255IRcv. I. The text undenucnt considerable changea,with two operat ive paragraphs being added and major editor ia lchanges throughout the text.

l’J238lst mtg., paras. 6-10.I” See ibid.. para. 12, for the vote. See also chap. IV of of the

present Supplemenf for further details.14’2381st mtg., pares. 14-17.“S/15273, adopted without change as resolution 513 (1982).1“ SJ I5267 and Corr. I, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982.1U For the vote, see 2382nd mtg. , para. 6. See also chap. IV of

the present Supplement.wq s/l 53 16. OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. /or July-Sept. 1982.19 S/l531 7, ibid. The drafi resolution was not put to the vote.IJI 2384th mtg.. paras. 7-26.IJ1 Ibid., paras. 28-51.151 Ibid., paras. 52-77.‘J4 Ibid.. paras. 79 and 80.IJJ 2385th mtg., paras. 3-14.156 Ibid.. paras. 16-28.lJ7 Ibid.. paras. 38-65.lJ*S/l5325. adopted without change as resolution 515 (1982).IJq 2385th mtg., paras. 66-72.MI Ibid.. paras. 74-76.1~ Ibid.. paras. 77-82.‘6lIbid.. para. 83.I~~!$cc ibid., para. I IO; the meeting was suspended for IO

minutes.

ParI I I 177

I” For the procedural discussion, including several points oforder and clarifications regarding the purpose of the consultationsthat the United States sought the longer suspension for, and thevote, see 2385th mtg.. para. 122.

~For the vote on drafi resolution S/15325. see 2385th mlg.,para. 123.

I66 2385th mtg.. para. 125.lb1 Ihrd.. paras. 135-142.161 S/15330, adopted without change as resolution 516 (1982).‘69See 2386th mtg., paras. 3-l I, for the President’s opening

statement and the vote. For further details on the vote, see alsochap. IV of the present Supp/t?nenl.

1’0 2386th mtg.. paras. 1 1-l 3.“1 St15334, OR, 37th yr.* Suppl. for July-Sept. 1982.In S/l 5333, r&d.1’)S/15334/Add.l, ibid.1” s/15342, ibid.. Resolulions and Decisions of the Security

Council. 1982.“‘2388th mtg.. para. 2 .1’6 Ibid., para. 3. Draft resolution S/l5343 was subsequently

considerably revised and then adopted as resolut ion 517 (1982).See OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. fir July-Sept. 19X2 for the original text.

“‘2388th mtg., para. 4-9.I’( IbId.. paras. 1030. In the original draft resolution (S/15343),

the Council would have expressed deep shock and alarm regardingthe atrocities committed by the Israeli force and the invasion ofBeirut (preambular para.), condemned Israel for its failure locomply with Council resolutions (operative para. 3) and consid-ered adopt ing elTective ways and means in accordance with theprovisions of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations(old operative para. 7); it also would have contained several datesand deadlines regarding a report of the Secretary-General and thereconvening of the Council. The draft resolution contained sevenoperative paragraphs, whereas the revision had eight paragraphs,since a new paragraph 5 was added.

1’9 2388th mtg.. paras. 31-39.‘~0 Ibid., paras. 47-56.111 S/I 5343/Rev. I, adopted without change as resolution 5 I7

(1982) .‘*I 238%h mtg., paras. 5-9.I*1Sec ibid., para. 16, for the vote. For details, see chap. IV of

the present Supplement .1‘4 Ibid.. paras. 30-35.Ia5 s/ 15345, OR, 3 7th yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1982.I& S/l 53451Add.l and 2, ibid.wS/I 5347, ibid. The draft resolution was revised and put to the

vote, but failed of adoption, owing lo the negative vote of apermanent member.

Ia1 2390th mtg.. paras. 6-15.w Ibid.. paras. 16-35.lW2391sl mtg., paras. 14-19.l9l ibid., paras. 25-29.IpI For the vote, see ibid., para. 38. For details, see chap. IV of

the present Supplement .I93 239lst mtg.. paras. 45-51.Iw Ibid.. paras. 52-56.‘9’Ibid.. paras. 57 and 58.1% ibid.. paras. 73-77.19’S/I 5355, subsequently adopted. as orally revised, as resolu-

tion 518 (1982).19‘2392nd mtg., paras. B-IO.I* S/15353, OR, 37th yr., Suppl. /or July-Sept. 1982.ZUI S/I 5354, ibid.ml 2392nd mtg.. paras. 1 I-19.101 Ibid., paras. 21-26.201 For the announcemenl regarding a short suspension, see

2392nd mtg.. para. 72.WIbid.. para. 73.mg For the vote, see ibid., para. 83. For details, see also chap. IV

of the present Supplement.x~ S/15362, OR, 37fh yr., Suppl. Jor July-Sept. 1982.mO7 SII 5345lAdd. 1, i b i d .-S/15357, ibid.

x)9 s/15367, adopted without change as resolution 519 (1982).llo See 2393rd mtg.. para. 3. for the vote. See also chap. VI of the

present Suppiemenl.I” 915382, OR, 37th yr., Suppl. for July-Sept. 1982.211S/15382/Add.I and 2, ibid.z13 s/l 5392, ibid.“‘2394th mlg., paras. g-22.2” Ibid.. paras. 52-61.II6 Ibid.. paras. 164-166.1” Ibid.. para. 169.*11 s/I 5394/Rev. I, subscqucnrly adopted without change as

resolution 520 (1982). The revised draft direred from the originaldraR in several respects: operative para. 1 was transferred to thepreamble as its second paragraph; operative para. 2 became para.1. with the words “and in particular its call upon all the parties tothe confl ict to cease immediately and simultaneously al l mil i taryactivities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israel border”deleted and replaced by “and 516 (1982) in all their components”;the fourth preambular para. was expanded beyond the words“political independence” and became operative para. 4; oldoperative paras. 3 and 4 became new operative paras. 2 and 3; oldoperative para. 5 calling upon Governments to ensure theimplementation of the Council’s relevant conditions was deleted;old operative para. 6 became new operative para. 7; and newoperat ive paras. 5 and 6 were inserted. See SII 5394, OR, 37th yr . .Suppl. jar July-Sepf. 1982 for the original text.

It9 2395th mtg.. paras. 3-5.lmlbid.. para. 6.11’ ibid., paras. 7- 16.lx Ibid.. paras. 27-35.11’ Ibid.. paras. 36-48.II4 For the President’s declaration and the vole, see ibid.. paras.

54-57. For further details, see chap. IV of the present Supplement.‘1’ 1395th mtg.. pares. 58-62.II6 The report was issued on the same day as document SI 15400,

OR, 37/h yr., Suppl. Jor July-Sept. 1982.*I’ For the statement of the Secretary-General, see 2396th mtg..

paras. 7-24.12’ Ibtd., paras. 26-38.In Ibid.. paras. 39-48.ly) Ibid.. paras. 49-60.~1 Ibid.. paras. 74-83.I31 See the statements by Greece, China, the President, Kuwait .

Democratic Yemen. Poland, Spain. Egypt. the Syrian ArabRepublic, France, Algeria, Irerand, ihe U&d Kingdom, Panama,Uganda and Guyana (2396th mtg.). See also in this connection theletter dated 18 September 1982, in which the representative ofGreece requested an urgent meeting of the Council with a view toexamining the critical situation in hbanon (S/l 5401, OR, 37th yr..Suppl. for July-Sept. 1982).

II3 See 2396th mtg.: Algeria, paras. 154-158; and Syrian ArabRepublic, paras. I26- 142.

zy Ibid., paras. 160-175.z1’ For the suspension and resumption of the meeting, see ibid.,

para. 230. Drawl resolution S/l5402 was adopted without changeas resolution 521 (1982).

IM For the vote, see 2396th mlg., para. 247. See also chap. IV ofthe present Supplement .

lJ’ SJ 15408, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. fir July-Sept. 1982.lJ8 Sl15408/Add. 1 and 2. ibid.II9 s/1 5455, ibid.. Suppl. /or Oct.-Dec. 1982.MO 2400th mtg.. paras. 2-l 1, for the discussion and the vote on

the invitation to the PLO. For further details, see chap. III of thepresent Supplement .

141 2400th mtg.. paras. 14-35.I41 See ibid., para. 36, for the suspension of the meeting.*4’S/15458, adopted without change as resolution 523 (1982).*u For the vote, see 2400th mtg., pare. 37. See also chap. IV of

the present Supplement14’St 15493, OR. 37th yr.. Suppl. /or Oct.-Dec. 1982.146 S/15503, adopted without change as resolution 524 (1982).I” For the vote, see 2403rd mtg., para. 1. See also chap. IV of the

present Supplement .

1 7 8 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of latemathmal pcrcc and dt’y

I” Si15504. OR, 37th yr.. Resolutions and Decisions of rheSecurity Council, 1982.

‘*s/15557, ibid., 38th yr., Suppl. jar Jan.-March 1983.zm s/15564, adopted without Change as resolution 529 (1983).UI 241 Ith mtg.J5* For the vote, see ibid. Set also chap. IV of the present

Supplemenl .

*I For the vote, see 2544th mtg.MN Sll6S93, OR. 39th yr.. Resolutions and Decisions of fhe

Security Council, 1984.

N s/I 57 77, OR, 38th yr.. Suppl for April-June 1983.JHS/15793. adopted without change as resolution 531 (1983).*)I Set 2445th mtg. for the vole. See also chap. IV of the present

Supplement .

MI St1671 3, ibid., Suppl. {or July-Sept. 1984.Jo1 2552nd mtg.*’ 2553rd mtg.JM 2554th mtg.*01 2555th mtg.

*#S/15797. OR, 38th yr.. Resolutions and Decisions of theSecurity Council. 1983.

2 ’ 7 S/l 5863, ibid., Suppl. for July-Sept. 1983.25Js/15871. adopted wiihout change as resolution 536 (1983).2~vSl15868, OR. 38th yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1983.~0 2456th mtg.2b1 See ibid. See also chap, IV of the present Suppfement.2b’s/15974, OR. 38th yr.. Suppl. for Jul~Sepf. 1983.2~ s/I 5953, ibid.lM s/l 5956 . i b id .263 2475th mtg.2as/15990, OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1983.16’ s1 I 5994 , i b id .2~s/16036, ibid.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1983.2H s/16046, adopted without change as resolution 538 (1983).2m 2480th mtg.171 Sac ibid. for the vote. For further details, see also chap. IV of

the present Supplement .

m 2552nd mtg. For further details, see chap. III of the presentSupplemenf.

IW Sll6732. OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. jar July-Sept. 1984. The draftresolution was put to the vote and not adopted, owing to thenegat ive vote of a permanent member.

~0 2556th mtg.JII See 2556th mtg.. statements by the Netherlands, Peru and the

United Kingdom.II* For the vote, see 2556th mtg.“1s/16776, OR, 39th yr., Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1984.II4 5116779. adopted without change as resolut ion 555 (1984) .IIJ For the vote, see 2559th mtg. See also chap. IV of the present

Supplemenl .“‘s/16829. OR. 39th yr.. Suppl. for Oct.-DE. 1984.jl’ 5116845, adopted without change as resolution 557 (1984).‘“For the vote. see 2563rd mtg.J1pSIl 6847, OR, 39th yr., Resolutions and Decisions of the

Security Council. 1984.

272 S/16142, OR, 38th yr.. Resolutions and Decisions of the B. TH E S I T U A T I O N I N T H E O C C U P I E D

Security Council, 1983. ARAB TERRITORIES

2r3 s/16178, ibid., Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1983.)‘* s/16179. adopted without change as resolution 542 (1983).

See s/l 6228, OR, 38th yr . , Suppl . for &I.-Dec. 1983, for the repor tof the Sccntary-Gcncral in pursuance of resolution 542 (1983),wwwh 7.

Its For the vote, see 2501st mtg.276 S/I 6 169. OR. 38th yr., Suppl. /or Oct.&c. 1983.*“s/l6l87, adopted without change as resolution 543 (1983).27s For the vote, see 2502nd mtg.In Sll6188. OR. 38fh yr.. Resolutions and Decisions oj the

Security Council, 1983.

Decision of 17 December 198 1 (2319th meeting):resolution 497 (198 1)By letter dated 14 December 1981,’ the representa-

tive of the S rian Arab Republic requested an urmeeting of t h iB

ente Council to discuss the decision o the

Israeli Government to apply Israeli laws to theoccupied Golan Heights.

*JJS/l6339. ibid.. 39th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1984.2” WI 5420, ibid., 37th yr.. Suppl. jk July-Sept. 1982.2B2 2514th mtg.IJJ 25 15th mtg.*M 2516th mtg.JJ~S/l635l/Rev.2. OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1984.lJJ For the original draR and the first revision, see ibid. Since the

changes in the ditTecrcnt drafts wen merely editorial, they arc notpresented here in detai l .

zJ’Sce 25 19th mtg. for the French statement.l” 2519th mtg.m Ibid. For similar complaints, see the statements by Malta and

Nicaragua.

At its 23 16th meeting, on 16 December 1981, theCouncil included the letter in its agenda. The Councildecided to invite the followin , at their request, toparticipate without vote in t e discussion of the!Aquestion: at the 2316th meeting, the representativesof Cuba, E ypt, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, SaudiArabia, the s rian Arab Republic, Turkey and VietNam; at the 317th meeting, the representatives ofsIndia and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; at the 2318thmeeting, the representatives of Pakistan, Romania,Yugoslavia and Zaire; and at the 23 19th meetinrepresentatives of Indonesia and Senegal.2 The E

, theoun-

zJJ See 25 19th mtg. for the vote. set also chap. IV of the presentSupplement .

cil also decided to extend an invitation to Mr. ClovisMaksoud under rule 39 of the provisional rules ofprocedure.) The Council considered the issue at itsfi;fth to 2319th meetings, on 16 and 17 December

nl S/16472, OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. /or April-June 1984.n1 s/16471. ibid. The letter also contained an appeal by the

Lebanese Government for new energetic efforts by the Council topromote the objectives of UNlFlL in southern Lebanon.

JJ’ s/16491. adopted without change as resolution 549 (1984).JW For the vote, see 2530th mtg. See also chap. IV of the present

Supplemenl .2~ 2530th mtg.m s/1 6569. OR, 39th yr. I Suppl. /br April-June 1984.JW For the discussion and the vote (I I in favour and I against,

with 3 abstentions), see 2540th mtg. For further details, see chap.III of the present Supplement.

m 2540th mtg.m s/16573. OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. /or April-June 1984.100 s/16592. adopted without change as resolution 551 (1984).

The representative of the Syrian Arab Re ublicinformed the Council that on 14 December 19 K 1 theIsraeli Government had decided to annex the SyrianGolan He@&, occupied since June 19$7,.by enact-ing legislation imposmg Israeli laws, jurlsdlctlon andadministration on that part of the Syrian ArabRepublic. He denounced the Israeli action as anoutright violation of international law prohibitingoccupation and annexation as well as of the Charterof the United Nations, which banned the use of forceand the acquisition of territory by force. He viewedthe latest annexationist episode as another step in aprocess of colonization begun by Israel in 1967. Hesharply condemned the Israeli action as a flagrant

Pall II 179

violation of the Charter, of Council resolutions, in

!iarticular resolution 338 (1973) and of the Israeli-yrian cease-fit-e and called upon the Council to

resort to pertinent measures under Chapter VI1 of theCharter, especially mandato

7sanctions, and to

declare the Israeli decisions nul and void. Otherwise,the situation might worsen, endangering further theregion and the peace and security of the world atlarge.’

The representative of Israel stated that the area inquestion was very small but of greatest significance tothe security of the people of Israel. He noted that theSyrian Arab Republic had, since 1948, claimed thatthere was no international boundary between it andIsrael and that only the ultimate settlement couldestablish permanent boundaries. He described sever-al major events in which the S rians had bombardedIsrael1 towns and villages, anJemphasized the vitalinterest of the Israeli side to be protected againststrikes from the Golan Heights. He denounced theSyrian rejectionist attitude towards a comprehensivepeace settlement with Israel under resolution 242(1967). In view of the need to administer everydayactivities in the area occupied since 1967 his Govern-ment and the Knesset had decided to regularize thesituation on the Golan Heights by applying Israelilaw, jurisdiction and administration to the area. Headded that no responsible Government in Israelwould agree to return to the totally insecure armisticelines that were obtained before 1967.$

The representative of Kuwait, speaking in hiscapacity as Chairman of the Group of Arab States atthe United Nations, charged that the new fait accom-pli was in line with the Israeli plan to annex all theoccupied territories. The annexation of the GolanHeiinad

ts violated the Charter principle regardin7

themissibility of the acquisition of territory by orce

as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative tothe Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Italso aggravated an already explosive situation in theMiddle East.6

The representative of Egypt regarded the illegalIsraeli action as a serious challenge to the prospectsof stability and to the peace process in the MiddleEast. He pointed out that the extension of Israeli lawsand jurisdiction over the occupied Golan Heights rancounter to resolution 242 (1967) reaffirming, inferalia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territoryby war and to the agreement of disengagementbetween Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic of 30May 1974.’

The representative of the United Kin dom af-firmed that the Golan Heights belonged to tae SyrianArab Republic and formed part of the territoriesoccupied by Israel in 1967; therefore the BritishGovernment considered the change of status of theGolan Heights as contrary to international law andtantamount to annexation and held all measuresimplementing the initiative to have no legal va1idity.r

At the 2317th meeting, on 16 December 1981, therepresentative of Cuba read out a communiqueadopted at the plenary meeting of the Movement ofNon-Aligned Countries, in which it expressed deepest concern over the expansionist and annexationistpolicies of Israel regarding the Golan Heights andemphasized the principle that the acquisition ofterrito

7by force was inadmissible under intema-

tional aw; the communique also condemned theIsraeli act as a flagrant violation of the Charter,

international law and relevant United Nations reso-lutions and supported the call of the Syrian ArabRepublic for appropriate action by the Council inorder to restore the full sovereignty of the SyrianArab Republic over all its occupied territories. Therepresentative of Cuba added that the Council shoulddemand that Israel revoke that decision; otherwise,the United Nations should without delay impose onIsrael the sanctions provided for in Chapter Vll ofthe Charter.9

The representative of Lebanon warned againstinternational relations being

Boverned by the logic

used by the representative of srael in justifying theannexation of the Golan Heights, as there would beno limits to security obsessions and expansionism.1°

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thatit could not be denied that the Israeli decisioncontradicted all the norms of international law andconstituted a gross violation of the Charter and itsfundamental principles, including the principle of theinadmissibility of the acquisition of territory byforce. His delegation resolutely condemned the Israe-li transgression and asked that the Council pass aresolution declaring the Israeli measures illegal andinvalid and demandintract annexation of t eR

that Israel immediately re-Golan Heights. If Israel

refused to heed the will of the international commu-nity, the Council should convene and weigh thepossibility of measures under Chapter VII of theCharter against Israel.”

The representative of France also condemned theIsraeli act as tantamount to annexation and a directattack on the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republicover territory that belonged to it and had beenoccupied in 1967. He called the act a violation of theprinciple of the non-acquisition of territory by forceas laid down in resolution 242 (I 967) and added thatthe Israeli law was completely null and void.‘!

At the 2318th meeting, on I7 December I98 I, therepresentative of Zaire stated that the entire intema-tional community had condemned the act of annexa-tion as violating United Nations resolutions and theprinciple of the inadmissibility of the acquisition ofterritories by force as well as major instruments ofinternational law. He urged the members of theCouncil and particularly its five permanent membersto seek a sui generis agreement to guarantee theexistence and security of all States in the region,including that of a Palestinian Arab State, in view ofa rapidly deteriorating situation in which irrationali-tJ

and violence seemed to prevail over reason and theesire for peace.”The President of the Council, speaking in his

capacity as the representative of Uganda, joined theother speakers in denouncing the Israeli act as a clearcase of annexation that was without any moral,political or legal justification and therefore totallyInvalid. He cited Article 2, paragraphs 4 and 3, of theCharter as well as article 47 of the fourth GenevaConvention relative to the Protection of CivilianPersons in Time of War and The Hague ConventionNo. VI of 1907 and pointed out that the Israelimeasure had violated those principles of intemation-al law. He rejected the Israeli attempt to justify theannexation of the Golan Heights and depicted thenew action as another step m a well-orchestratedprogramme of expansion, aggression and dominationcovering the whole of the Middle East. He indicatedhis delegation’s support for the draft resolution

160 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of iaterndoad mace and security

before the Council and stressed that Israel couldachieve security only through a negotiated andcomprehensive peace in the Middle East, beginningwith a just settlement of the Palestinian question.14

Resuming his function as President, he then sus-pended the meeting for 10 minutes;l$ thereafter hedrew the attention of the members to a draftresolution prepared in the course of the Council’sconsultations,16 which he put to the vote. The draftresolution received 15 votes in favour and wasadopted unanimously as resolution 497 (1981).” Itreads as follows:

The Securify Council,Having considered the letter of 14 December I98 I from the

Permanent Representat ive of the Syrian Arab Republic containedin document S/14791,

Reu/lirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmis-sible, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, theprinciples of international law and relevant Security Councilresolutions,

I. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdic-tion and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights isnull and void and without international legal efTect;

2. Demands that Israel. the occupying Power, should rescindforthwith i ts decis ion;

3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Conventionrelative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of I2August 1949, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied byIsrael since June 1967;

4. Remes1S the Secretary-General to report to the SecurityCouncil on the implementation of the present resolution withintwo weeks and decides that, in the event of non-compliance byIsrael. the Council would meet urgently, and not later than 5January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accord-ance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Following the vote, the representative of theUnited States ex lained

Fthat his delegation had

supported the dra t resolution because it reaffirmedprevious Council resolutions spelling out the basis ofa just and durable peace in the region. He mentionedin particular the withdrawal from occupied territo-ries and the right of every State in the area to live inpeace within secure and recognized boundaries. Heexpressed deep regret at the Israeli action regardingthe Golan Heights and stated that his Governmentdid not accept as valid unilateral acts desi ned tothan

t!e the status of territories occupied in 1 867. He

urge both Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic toseek to resolve their differences by negotiationswithin the framework of resolutions 242 (1967) and338 ( 1973).18

The representative of Israel indicated that hisGovernment could not accept the resolution andcharged that the Syrian Arab Republic, in attackingIsrael several times since its establtshment, hadviolated the principle that force should not be used orthreatened and that it had failed to observe theprinciple of peaceful settlement of disputes in reject-mg negotiations with Israel.lp

Decision of 20 January 1982 (2329th meeting):rejection of a draft resolution

Decision of 28 January 1982 (2330th meeting):resolution 500 (1982)In pursuance of paragraph 4 of resolution 497

(198 l), the Secretary-General submitted two re-ports*O to the Council in which he informed theCouncil about his contacts with the Israeli Govern-ment and the clear negative reaction by Israel withregard to the cancellation of its measures on theGolan Heights.

At its 2322nd meeting, on 6 January 1982, theCouncil included resolution 497 (198 I) and thereport dated 31 December 198 1 of the Secretary-General (S/14821) in its agenda. The Council de-cided to invite the following, at their request, toparticipate, without vote, in the discussion on theitem: at the 2322nd meeting, the representatives ofCuba, Democratic Yemen, Israel, Kuwait, the LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic, Morocco, Senegal, SriLanka, the Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen and Yugo-slavia; at the 2323rd meeting, the representatives ofAfghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, the GermanDemocratic Republic, India, the Libyan Arab Jama-hiriya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan; at the2324th meeting, the representatives of Hungary,Iraq, Pakistan and the Ukrainian Soviet SocialistRepublic; at the 2325th meeting, the representativesof Bulgaria, Greece, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Portugaland Viet Nam; at the 2327th meeting, the representa-tives of Burundi, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia, Mauri-tania, Oman and the United Arab Emirates; and atthe 2329th meeting, the representative of Grenada.*

At its 2322nd meeting, the Council also decided,by a vote, and in accordance with the Council’sprevious practice, to extend an invitation to therepresentative of the PLO to participate in the debateon the item.*’ At the same meeting, the Councilfurther decided to extend an invitation to Mr. ClovisMaksoud under rule 39 of the provisional rules ofprocedure.** The Council considered the item at its:;K&nd to 2330th meetings, from 6 to 28 January

At the 2322nd meeting, on 6 January 1982, therepresentative of the Syrian Arab Republic statedthat the immediate rejection by Israel of resolution497 (1981), also made clear in the two reportssubmitted by the Secretary-General, led the SyrianGovernment to resort again to the Council in orderto compel Israel to rescind its grave breach ofinternational law. He charged that Israel had system-atically tried to erode the Israeli-Syrian ArmisticeAgreement of 1949 in order to undermine theinvolvement of the United Nations in the Palestinianquestion. He reiterated his Government’s two princi-pal conditions for peace in the Middle East: theunconditional withdrawal of Israel from all theoccupied Arab territories, and the exercise by thePalestinian people of their ri

Pt to self-determination

and to their own national tate. He proposed thatsince the Council’s resolution had been flouted byIsrael, the Council should invoke its powers underArticles 39 and 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter inresponse to what, under General Assembly resolution3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, was clearly acase of aggression by Israel against the Syrian ArabRepublic and other Arab neighbours. He also notedthat Israel’s policies contradicted the principles of thenon-use of force and of the inadmlssibihty of theacquisition of territory by force and added that, if theCouncil did not impose sanctions against Israel, hisGovernment would reserve its right under Article 51to deal with the Israeli aggression.*)

The representative of Israel invoked the principlesof the Charter prohibiting the use or threat of forceand obligating members to settle their disputes bypeaceful means and repeated his charges regardingthe acts of aggression mounted by the Syrian ArabRepublic a mst the people of Israel. He citedprovisions rom the Definition of AP ression an-nexed to General Assembly resolution Y314 (XXIX)

put II 181

and called upon the Syrian Arab Republic to acceptthe Israeli invitation to unconditional negotiationsbetween the two States.*’

At the 2328th meeting, on 14 January 1982, therepresentative of Jordan introduced the text of adraft resolution,*’ which was sponsored by his delega-tion but reflected the unanimous support of LAS aswell as support from the Movement of Non-AlignedCountries. Under the draft resolution, in its pream-bular part, the Council would have, infer ah,recalled its resolution 497 (I98 I), recalled GeneralAssembly resolution 3314 (XXIX), which, in itsannex, defined an act of aggression as “the Invasionor attack by the armed forces of a State of theterritory of another State, or anhowever temporary, resulting rom such invasion orfy

military occupation,

attack, or any annexation by the use of force of theterritory of another State or part thereof’, deter-mined that the continued occupation of the SyrianGolan Heights since 1967 and its annexation byIsrael on 14 December 1981 constituted a continuingthreat to international peace and security, and actedin accordance with Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter.

In the operative part of the draft resolution, theCouncil would have (a) strongly condemned Israelfor its failure to comply with Council resolution 497(1981) and General Assembly resolution 361226 B;(6) determined that Israeli measures in the occupiedSyrian Golan Heights, culminating in Israel’s deci-sion of I4 December 198 1 to impose its laws,jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syri-an Golan Heights, constituted an act of aggressionunder the provisions of Article 39 of the Charter; (c)decided that all Member States, in accordance withArticle 41 of the Charter, should: (i) refrain fromsupplying Israel with any weapons and related mili-tary equipment and suspend any military assistanceto Israel; and (ii) suspend economic, financial andtechnological assistance to Israel; (d) requested allMember States to consider suspending diplomaticand consular relations with Israel; (e) decided also tocall upon all Member States to carry out the presentdecision of the Security Council, in accordance withArticle 25 of the Charter; (/) urged, havinthe principle stated in Article 2, paragrapa

regard to6, of the

Charter,. States not Members of the United Nationsto act m accordance with the provisions of theresolution; (g) called upon all other United Nationsbodies, the specialized agencies of the United Na-tions and their members to conform their relationswith Israel to the terms of the resolution; (h) decidedto establish, in accordance with Article 29 of theCharter, a committee of the Council to examine andreport to the Council on the pro

dress of the imple-

mentation of the resolution; an (i) requested theSecretary-General to submit a report to the Councilon the Implementation of the resolution.26

At the 2329th meeting, on 20 Januarepresentative of Ireland stated that his 8

1982, theovemment

supported firm and clear measures in response toIsrael’s defiance of resolution 497 (198 1), measuresthat would ensure that the Israeli claim to haveannexed the Golan Heights would be without inter-national legal effect. As the Israeli measures werelegal and administrative, the Council should takespecific legal countermeasures to ensure that theIsraeli claims received no recognition. That could bedone through the Council’s reiterating that the Israelidecision was illegal and void, determming that Statesmust give no recognition to it and deciding clearly

that all States should review their relations withIsrael to ensure that no such recognition was given orimplied. His delegation had worked towards a draftresolution on those lines, but regrettably agreementamong all Council members had so far been impossi-ble.

He then reviewed the draft submitted by Jordanand pointed out among other things that the meaningof the law-making function of the Council underChapter VII of the Charter should be spelt out clearlyand precisely with regard to the obligations incurredby the international community if the text were to beadopted. In view of the imprecise quality of theprovisions in the draft resolution his delegationwould abstain in the vote, although it agreed with agood part of the language proposed.*’

The representative of the United States called thedraft resolution an aberration-even a perversion-of the purpose which the Council was called upon byChapter VII to perform; she cited Article 39 andsuggested that the draft resolution, instead of assign-ing a constructive role to the Council of preventmgan aggravation of the situation, would exacerbate thesituation. She renewed her Government’s call forne otiations based on resolutions 242 (1967) 338(1873) and 497 (1981) and indicated that her delega-tion opposed the Jordanian draft resolution.zB

At the same meetin , the President put the reviseddraft resolution29 to tae vote; it received 9 votes infavour, 1 vote against and 5 abstentions and was notadopted owing to the ne ative vote of a permanentmember of the Council. %

Following the vote, the representative of theUnited Kingdom explained that his delegation hadabstained in the vote, as it considered a determina-tion under Article 39 of the Charter that the Israeliaction constituted an “act of aggression*’ too far-reachin

Band serious and recalled that even at the

time o the Korean War the Council had not gonebeyond the finding that the events in questionconstituted a breach of the peace. He added that hisdelegation would have preferred a consensus, withoutinvoking Chapter VII, calling upon all States to denyrecognition or assistance to Israel’s decision. Since noconsensus had been achieved so far on the issue, hisdelegation remained willing to work for the commonobjective of getting Israel to rescind its illegal act.3i

The representative of Israel condemned the effortto exploit the Council’s proceedings for the relentlesswarfare against his country and appealed once againto the Syrian Government to start negotiations withIsrael to settle all the outstandin issues on the basisof resolutions 242 (1967) and J38 (1973).3*

At the 2330th meeting, on 28 January 1982, whenthe Council resumed consideration of the issue at therequest of the representative of JordanJJ the Presi-dent drew attention to a draft resolution34 sponsoredby Jordan.j$

The representative of Jordan stated that in view ofthe defeat of his first draft, which had prevented theCouncil from exercising its primary responsibility forthe maintenance of international peace and security,he wished to submit a new draft resolution calling foran emergency special session of the General Assem-bly and asked that the text be put to the vote.36

The representative of Israel rejected Jordan’s callfor an emergency special session of the GeneralAssembly, as the regular session of the Assembly wasdue to resume at a date to be announced and the

182 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of iaternathml peace and security

resolution of the Assembly mentioned in the firstJordanian draft had been adopted in violation ofArticle 12, paragraph I. Citing a number of relevantsources from earlier occasions regarding emergencyspecial sessions, he suggested that such a step wouldbe neither proper nor needed, but considered theabuse of the emer ency mechanism under rule 8 ofthe Assembly’s ru es of procedure as inevitab1e.j’f

The President then put the draft resolution to the

on the item.42 At the same meeting, the Councilfurther decided to extend an invitation to Mr. ClovisMaksoud under rule 39 of the provisional rules ofprocedure.43 The Council considered the item at its2334th, 2338th, 2340th, 2344th and 2348th meetin son 24, 26 and 30 March and 1 and 2 April 198f .

At the 2334th meeting, the representative of

vote; it received 13 votes in favour and none against,with 2 abstentions, and was adopted as resolution500 (1982).38 It reads as follows:

The Securiry Council.Havineconsidered the item on the agenda of its 2329th meeting,

as contained in document S/Agenda/2329/Rev. I,Taking info arcounl that the lack of unanimity of its permanent

members at the 2329th meeting has prevented i t f rom exercisingits primary responsibility for the maintenance of internationalpeace and security,

Decides IO call an emergency special session of the GeneralAssembly lo examine the question contained in documentSIAgendaI2329IRev. I.

Following the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the United States stated that hisdelegation had abstained in the vote since no produc-tive purpose could be served by debating the issueonce again in an emer ency special session of theGeneral Assembly and since that debate wouldactually diminish the prospects for peace in theMiddle East.‘9

Jordan drew the attention of the Council and of theinternational community to the systematic martyr-dom of the occupied territories and their Palestinianand other Arab victims and warned about thepotential for disaster arising from that situation. Hementioned in particular the turmoil that had shakenvarious arts of the occupied Palestinian territoriesarising rom the Palestinian resistance to Israel’sPdetermination to annex their territories. He criticizedthe inaction and complacency of the highest execu-tive or anCounci P

of the United Nations and blamed thefor the not too distant emer ence of a grave

threat to peace and security out oB that untenablesituation. He requested the Council to shoulder itsresponsibilities towards the Palestinian people andsee to it that Israel’s ille 1 measures of oppression,confiscation and bloods ed were stopped and the8”Israeli occupation terminated.u

The representative of France indicated that hisdelegation had joined in supporting the call for anemergency special session in order to allow for a far-ranging debate in the General Assembly on thequestion of the Golan Heights. But he warned againstefforts to adopt such measures as sanctions in theAssembly as such decisions would contravene theprinciples of the Charter regarding the rules ofcompetence of the Council as apart from thoseapphcable for the Assembly.“’

The representative of the PLO also stressed themost critical condition in the occupied territories andread out the text of a letter dated 23 March 1982from the Chairman of the PLO addressed to theSecretary-General in which further Israeli transgres-sions were reported and the United Nations wasurged to put an end to Israeli aggression and toimplement its resolutions regardin the exercise bythe Palestinian people of its ina ienable nationalPrights.”

Decision of 2 April 1982 (2348th meeting): rejectionof a draft resolutionBy letter dated 22 March 1982,” the representative

of Jordan, in his capacity as Chairman of the Groupof Arab States members of the League of Arab Statesat the United Nations,. requested an urgent meetingof the Council to consider what he described as thegrave and rapidly deteriorating situation in theoccupied Palestinian and Arab territories, includingJerusalem.

At its 2334th meeting, on 24 March 1982, theCouncil included the letter in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council decided toinvite the following, at their request, to participatewithout vote in the discussion of the question: at the2334th meeting, the representatives of E ypt, Israel,Pakistan, Senegal and the Syrian Arab R epublic; atthe 2338th meeting, the representatives of Moroccoand Turkey; at the 2340th meeting, the representa-tives of the German Democratic Republic, India andIran; at the 2344th meeting, the representatives ofAlgeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Iraq, the Libyan ArabJamahlriya, Viet Nam, Yemen and Yugoslavia; andat the 2348th meeting, the representatives of Demo-cratic Yemen and Saudi Arabia.2

The representative of Sene al, speaking also in hiscapacity as Chairman of t e Committee on theaExercise of the Inalienable Rights of the PalestinianPeople, stated that in its report to the GeneralAssembly at its thirty-sixth session,46 the Committeehad proposed (and the Assembly had subsequentlyendorsed”) the following recommendations: (a) thePalestinians had the right to return to their homesand to recover the oods of which they had beenstripped; (b) they had the right to self-determinationwithout outside interference and the right to nationalindependence; (c) they had the right to create anindependent State in Palestine; (d) the question ofPalestine was at the heart of the Middle East problemand no solution to the problem could be contem-plated if it failed to take account of the inalienablerights of the Palestinian people; (e) the exercise ofthose inalienable rights would contribute also to afinal solution to the whole Middle East crisis; V, theparticipation of the PLO, on an equal footing with allother parties on the basis of General Assemblyresolutions 3236 (XXIX) and 3375 (XXX), wasindispensable in all efforts, at all meetings and in alldebates and all conferences on the Middle Eastorganized under the auspices of the United Nations;(9) the acquisition of territory by force was inadmis-sable and Israel consequently had an obligation towithdraw totally and rapid1 from all the occuArab territories; (h) the 19 9 Fourth Genevaf 8

iedon-

vention must be applied; and (i) all States in theregion had the right to live in peace.

At the 2334th meeting, the Council also decided, He added that any approach to solving the Middleby a vote, and in accordance with the Council’s East crisis must necessarily take account of theprevious practice, to extend an invitation to the elements he had outlined. He hoped that the draftrepresentative of the PLO to participate in the debate resolution that would be submitted for the Council’s

Put I1 1 8 3-

approval would include all necessary measures tocontain the most recent troubles in the occupiedterritories.4a

At the same meeting, the representative of Israelcharged that constant provocations on the part ofJordan and the PLO had been subverting anymovement towards peaceful coexistence in the regionand labelled the request for the Council meeting aclear attempt to engender additional tensions and toattract support for the provocations in Judaea andSamaria. He suggested that a framework for thepeaceful coexistence between Jew and Arab wasclearly emerging and called upon the Council towelcome that promise of reconciliation between thetwo fraternal Semitic peoples.49

At the 2348th meeting, on 2 April 1982, thePresident drew attention to the text of a draftresolutions0 submitted by Jordan.>’ Under the draft,the Council would have considered the letter dated22 March 1982 from the representative of Jordanand would have: (a) denounced measures imposed onthe Palestinian population, such as dismissal ofelected ma ors b Israeli authorities, as well as theviolation or *gthe II et-ties and rights of the inhabitantsof the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, whichhad followed the measures taken by Israel withregard to the Golan Hei hts, and which could onlydamage the prospects or peace; (b) called uponBIsrael, the occupying Power, to rescind its decisiondisbanding the elected municipal council of Al-Birehand its decision to remove from their posts the- Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah; (c) reaffirmed thatall the provisions of the Geneva Convention relativeto the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of Warof 12 August I949 continued to apply in full to all ofthe occupied territories; (d) called upon Israel tocease forthwith all measures applied in the WestBank, includin Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and theSyrian Golan Aeights, which contravened the provi-sions of that Convention; (e) called upon the Secre-tary-General to report to the Council not later than 7April 1982 on the implementation of the resolution;and u> decided to remain seized of the item.

The representative of lsrael warned that the draftresolution did nothing to promote the cause of pacein the Middle East, but placed another obstacle m thepath of peace. He added that although not a singleword in the draft resolution supported understandingand conciliation, Israel would continue its efforts tocreate an atmosphere conducive to the peace processand to work towards the establishment of autonomyin Judaea, in Samaria and in the Gaza District inaccordance with the Camp David agreement.j*

At the same meeting, the President put the Jorda-nian draft resolution to the vote; it received 13 votesin favour and I against, with I abstention, and wasnot adopted owing to the ne tive vote of a perma-nent member of the Counci .J3Y

Following the vote, the representative of theUnited Kingdom expressed his regret that efforts toput together a text that would have en’oyed consen-sus support had not been successful. d is delegation,however, had voted in favour of the Jordanian draftbecause it was in agreement with the text, especiallypara raph 1, which faithful1 reflected the views ofthe states members of the European Community.54

The representative of the United States explainedthat the Jordanian draft had not achieved theprimary objective of the Council, which was to urge

restraint on the parties to avoid an new outbreak ofviolence. He deplored that no re erence to resolu-rtions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) had been insertedinto the draft resolution sponsored by Jordan andthat, instead, the text had used strongly denunciatorylanguage and disregarded the complexity of theproblem, thus compelling the United States to vote“no”.SS

The President, speaking in his capacity as repre-sentative of Zaire, also expressed regret that theCouncil had not arrived at a consensus whereby itcould have put pressure on the opinion of theinternational community in order to promote peacein the region. Since his delegation had not hadenough time to obtain instructions concerning theJordanian text, he had abstained in the vote, but hereaffirmed the unswerving support of the Ke ublic ofZaire for the Arab and Palestinian cause. !t

Decision of 20 April 1982 (2357th meeting): rejectionof a four-Power draft resolutionBy letter dated 12 April 1982,s7 the representative

of Morocco conveHassan II, King oty

ed a request b His Majesty KingMorocco and 8 hairman of the Al-

Quds Committee of the Organization of the IslamicConference, that an urgent meeting of the Council becalled to consider what he described as the graveevents taking place in occupied Palestinian territoryand, most particularly, in the Holy City of Jerusalem.

In a letter dated 13 April I 982,5n the representativeof Iraq, current Chairman of the Organization of theIslamic Conference, also requested on behalf of themembers of that organization an immediate meetingof the Council to consider the very grave situationthat had arisen as a consequence of the deliberatearmed attack against the sacred Al-Aqsa Mosque andthe Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

At its 2352nd meeting, on 13 April 1982, theCouncil included the two letters in its agenda.Following the adoption of the agenda, the Councildecided to invite the following, at their request, toparticipate, without vote, in the discussion of thequestion: at the 2352nd meeting, the representativesof Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia andTurkey; at the 2353rd meeting., the representatives ofBangladesh, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, theSudan and the Syrian Arab Republic; at the 2354thmeeting, the representatives of the Niger and Sene-

fal; at the 2355th meeting, the representatives ofndia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Somalia; at

the 2356th meeting, the representatives of D’iboutiand the United Arab Emirates; and at the 1 357thmeetin ,

dthe representative of Kuwait.z At the

2352n meeting, the Council also decided, by a vote,and in accordance with the Council’s previous prac-tice, to extend an invitation to the representative ofthe PLO to participate in the debate on the item.s9

At the same meeting, the Council further decidedto extend an invitation to Mr. Clovis Maksoud underrule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure.60 TheCouncil considered the item at its 2352nd to 2357thmeetings, from 13 to 20 April 1982.

At the 2352nd meeting, the representative ofMorocco thanked the Council for having acceptedthe request of King Hassan II, in his capacit asChairman of the Al-Quds Committee, to ho1 CT anurgent meetinplace in Jerusa em,f

to consider the grave events takingunder Israeli military occupation.

He read out a message from the King, in whxh the

184 Cbmter VIII. Maintcnmce of Intemdooal ncax mmd necurlcy

bloody and sacrilegious action in front of the Al-AqsaMosque was described as rendering more dangerousa situation that already endangered internationalpeace. The message provided a detailed account ofthe sudden shooting spree started by an Israeli soldierin uniform against a crowd of Moslem worshippers,killing at least two and wounding 22. It was arguedthat Israel’s responsibilit

rcould not be disputed,, as it

was responsible at least or preventing, or wanting toprevent, such criminal acts, but had shown insteadextreme passivity in regard to various terroristmovements, as witnessed in earlier attacks on theMosque and other Moslem sites in Jerusalem. TheKing further condemned Israel’s contempt for peace-ful religious coexistence in Jerusalem and, on behalfof 41 Islamic nations, solemnly protested Israel’sattempt to change the status and character of theHoly Places and to claim Jerusalem as the eternalcapital of Israel. In the light of the most recentdesecration of the Holy City, the King’s messageconcluded with a request that the file on Jerusalembe reopened.61

The representative of Jordan also denounced theattack by a group of armed Israeli troops against theAl-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Heexpressed strong doubt about the Israeli claim thatthe carnage had been carried out by a derangedindividual who had very recently immigrated toIsrael from America and had been in military servicewhen he committed the murderous deed. He chargedthat the attacker had been protected by other Israelisoldiers and whisked away to safety after his journeyof destruction. He informed the Council that hisGovernment had declared a day of solemn protest insolidarity with the Palestinian people and the sancti-ty of the Holy Places. That step would be followed byother steps, until all the occupied territories had beenreturned to the Arabs and the full rights of thePalestinians had been fully restored.62

The representative of Israel stated that his Govem-ment and the world shared the sense of revulsion atthe despicable act committed by a man who mightwell be mentally deranwould have to account or his deeds before a court off

ed and that the perpetrator

law. He deplored that certain countries had soughtthe Council meeting in order to exploit the misdeedsof one individual in order to fan the flames ofreligious hatred. Those same countries had over theyears lent their support to a terrorist organizationbent on destruction and murder in Israel and nevercondemned in any manner the banditry of the PLO.He underlined Israel’s continued firm commitmentto the protection of the Holy Places, in accordancewith a law passed by the Knesset m 1967.63

The representative of the PLO offered a detailedaccount of the events at the Mosque and blamed theIsraeli authorities for the incident that was reflectiveof Zionist methods and practices in Palestine. Herenewed his organization’s call for a eaceful settle-ment based on the recognition oP the nationalinalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, independence and the solution oftheir refugee problem.64

The representative of Iraq, speaking also in hiscapacity as Chairman of the Islamic Conference,denounced the criminal attack against the holysanctuary as a manifestation of the colonialist men-tality of the rulers in Tel Aviv. He expressed deepindi nation at Israel’s defiance of the resolutions ofthe 8 ouncil and the General Assembly and called for

firm and decisive action by the Council to bring anend to the Israeli occupation of Arab territories,including the Holy City of Al-Quds.65

At the 2357th meeting, on 20 April 1982, thePresident drew the attention of the Council to a draftresolutio+ sponsored by Iraq, Jordan, Morocco andUganda.

Under the draft resolution, in its preambular part,the Council would have referred to the letter dated 12April 1982 conveying the request of King Hassan IIand to the letter dated 13 April 1982 of the represen-tative of Iraq, as well as to the message of KingHassan II and the statements made before theCouncil reflecting the universal outrage caused by theacts of sacrilege at the Haram Al-Sharif, one of theholiest places of mankind; taken note of the state-ment received from the Islamic Hi

Per Council in

Jerusalem concerning the shooting o worshippers byarmed Israelis within the precincts of the Haram Al-Sharif; borne in mind the unique status of Jerusalemand, in particular, the need for protection andpreservation of the spiritual and reli

7ious dimension

of the Holy Places in the city; reca led its relevantresolutions pertaining to the status and character ofthe Holy City of Jerusalem; expressed deep concernover the sacrilegious acts pesanctity of the Haram Al-Shari in JeNsa em on 11T

etrated aP

inst the

April 1982 and the criminal acts of shootinworshippers, particularly inside the sanctuary oP

atthe

Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque;. ex-pressed deep grief at the loss and injury of crvilianlife as a result of those criminal acts; and affirmedonce more that the Geneva Convention relative tothe Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War ofI2 August 1949 was applicable to all territoriesoccupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

In the operative part, the Council would have (a)condemned in the strongest terms the appalling actsof sacrile e perpetrated within the precincts of theHaram A -Sharit (6) deplored any act or encourage-fment of destruction or profanation of the HolyPlaces, religious buildings and sites in Jerusalem astending to disturb world peace; (c) called upon Israel,the occupying Power, to observe and apply scrupu-lously the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Conven-tion and the principles of international law governingmilitary occupation and to refrain from causing anyhindrance to the discharge of the established func-tions of the Islamic Higher Council in Jerusalem; (d)requested the Secretary-General as he deemed appro-priate to keep the Council fully informed on theimplementation of the resolution; and (e) decided toremain seized of that serious matter.

At the same meeting, the draft resolution was putto the vote, received 14 votes in favour and 1 agamstand was not adopted owing to the ne ative vote of apermanent member of the Council. w

Following the vote, the re resentativeUnited States stated that her 8

of theovemment strongly

condemned the senseless act of violence that hadoccurred on 11 April 1982 at the Dome of the Rock.She stressed that the United States sought to decreasetensions in the area and prevent further acts ofviolence and added that the draft resolution wouldnot have helped to achieve that ob’ective. Herdelegation had voted against the draA resolutionbecause it would make new acts of violence morelikely and because it contained Ian uage that impliedthat the responsibility for the terti le event lay with%

Put 11 1 8 5

the Israeli authorities. In conclusion, she pointed outthat the long-standing position of the United Stateson the status of Jerusalem was not affected by thevote.6R

Decision of 2 August 1983 (2460th meeting): rejec-tion of a 20-Power draft resolutionBy a letter dated 5 November I 982,69 the represen-

tative of Morocco, in his capacity as Chairman of theGroup of Arab States at the United Nations, request-ed that an urgent meeting of the Council be convenedto consider what he termed the question of Israel’sperseverance in its policy of establishing settlementsin the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories.

In a letter dated 9 November 1982,‘” the retative of the Niger, Chairman of the Group oF

resen-States

members of the Organization of the Islamic Confer-ence at the United Nations, requested on their behalfand jointly with the Group of Arab States at theUnited Nations the convemng of a Council meetingto discuss Israel’s announcement of the establish-ment of new settlements in the occupied territories.

At its 2401st meeting, on 12 November 1982, theCouncil included the two letters in its agenda.Following the adoption of the agenda, the Councilinvited the representatives of Morocco, the Niger andSenegal, at their request, to participate in the discus-sion without the right to vote.*

At the same meeting, the Council also decided, bya vote, and in accordance with the Council’s previouspractice, to extend an invitation to the representativeof the PLO to participate in the debate on the item.”The Council further decided to extend an invitationto the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise ofthe Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People toparticipate. at his request, under rule 39 of theprovisional rules of procedure.72

The Council began its consideration of the item atits 24Olst meeting, on 12 November 1982.

At the 2401st meeting, the representative of Mo-rocco stated that the meeting had been requested totake up the grave issue of the illegal Israeli settle-ments in occupied Arab territory which constitutedan intolerable provocation against the le itimateinhabitants of those areas and necessitated Pirmnessof the Council in recallin its decisions demandingrespect for the principles opl the Charter of the UnitedNations and condemning Israel’s violations of thoseprinciples in the troubled region of the Middle East.‘r

The representative of Jordan denounced the sys-tematic and relentless Israeli policy of incarceratmgthe Palestinian people b colonization and contisca-tions. The annexation or Arab lands, initially creeping, but now openly admitted and leaping, consumedenormous financial and human resources! with aview to foreclosing any possibility of achievm a justand lasting peace in the Middle East. He o Rered adetailed account of the way the Israeli occupiers wentabout colonizing Arab land and cited amon othersources the last report” of the Security E ouncilCommission established under resolution 446(I 979) especially its conclusions regarding the Israeli- settlement policy, and urged that the Commission beasked to report on recent developments regardin B theaccelerated establishment of new settlements.’

By a letter dated 8 February I 983,76 the representa-tive of Jordan, in his capacity as Chairman of theGroup of Arab States at the United Nations, request-ed that the Council be convened immediately to

resume consideration of Israel’s persistence in itspolicies of establishing settlements in the occupiedArab and Palestinian territories.

At its 2412th meeting, on I1 February 1983, theCouncil added the letter to the agenda adopted at the240lst meeting and resumed consideration of theitem. In addition to the representatives previouslyinvited, the Council invited the following, at theirrequest, to participate in the discussion without theright to vote: at the 2412th meeting, the representa-tives of E ypt,Yemen an d

India, the Syrian Arab Republic,Yugoslavia; at the 2413th meeting, the

representatives of Algeria, Cuba, the German Demo-cratic Republic, Iran (Islamic Republic 09, Kuwait,Lebanon, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, andat the 2414th meeting, the representatives of Demo-cratic Yemen and Greece.2 At the 2412th meeting,the Council also extended an invitation to Mr. C1ov1.sMaksoud under rule 39 of the provisional rules ofprocedure.” The Council considered the item at itsW&h to 2414th meetings from 1 I to 16 February

At the 2412th meeting, the representative of theSyrian Arab Republic warned with urgency that theIsraeli annexation of occupied Arab territories hadassumed the characteristics of an expansionist pro-cess that was seen as irrevocable by the Israelis andbound to result in the mass expulsion of the popula-tion in those areas. He gave the example of Jerusalemwhere more than 90,000 settlers had colonized theannexed portion of East Jerusalem and 30,000 othershad settled more than 100 military outposts, therebylaying siege to the city. He pointed out that Israel’spersistence in its annexation policy could only aggra-vate the volatile situation in the occupied territories.He called upon the Council to impose mandatorysanctions against Israel and to expel it from thefamily of the United Nations; if the Council failed toact, he su ested, some States might exercise theirright to seB-defence in order to repulse aggression.78

At the 2414th meeting, the representative ofFrance stated that his Government condemned ener-getically the continuation of the Israeli settlementspolicy in the occupied territories and pointed outthat the French refusal to accept any of the cases ofthe policy offair accompli had been consistent since1967, as it was contrary to the rules of internationallaw. He called upon the Government of Israel toabide by the rules of international law and empha-sized that lasting peace could be established in thearea by dialogue, not by unilateral measures.79

At the end of the same meeting, the Presidentannounced that the date of the next meeting of theCouncil to continue consideration of the item wouldbe determined in the course of consultations withmembers of the CounciLso

By a letter dated I3 May 1983,*i the reii

resentativeof

Batar, in his capacity as Chairman oft e Group of

Ara States at the United Nations, requested that theCouncil be urgently convened to resume its consider-ation of the item on its agenda.

At its 2438th meeting, on 20 May 1983, theCouncil added the letter to the agenda adopted at the2412th meeting and resumed consideration of theitem. In addition to the representatives previouslyinvited, the Council invited the representatives ofMali and Qatar, at their re uest, to participate in thediscussion without the ri8t to vote.2

186 Chapter VIII. Mdate~ of interoatiod peace ad dty

At the same meetin ,1

the representative of Qatar,speaking on behalf oft e Group of Arab States at theUnited Nations, stated that the situation in theoccupied Arab territories continued to deteriorate asa result of the Israeli occupation policies. He notedwith great regret that the United Nations not onlyhad been unable to restore the usurped rights of thePalestinian people, but had also proved incapable ofrestraining the usurper. The reason for the failure ofthe United Nations could be attributed to theprotection afforded to Israel by the United States.The effect of that political support had spread to theCouncil, where the ri ht of veto, or the threat to useit, had transformed tifi e Council into another forumfor speeches without considering the most elementa-ry rules of justice. He called upon the Council toremove the restrictions that had so far prevented theimposition of sanctions against Israel under ChapterVII of the Charter.R2

At the end of the same meeting, the Presidentannounced that the Council would continue itsconsideration of the item on a date to be set afterconsultations with the members.RJ

In a letter dated 27 July 1983,84 the representativeof Democratic Yemen, in his capacity as Chairmanof the Group of Arab States at the United Nations,requested an immediate meeting of the Council todiscuss the situation in the occupied Arab territories.

At its 2457th meeting, on 28 July 1983, theCouncil added the letter to the agenda adopted at the2438th meeting and resumed consideration of theitem. In addition to the representatives previouslyinvited, the Council invited the following, at theirrequest, to participate in the discussion of thequestion without the right to vote: at the 2457thmeeting, the representatives of Afghanistan andMalaysia; at the 2459th meeting, the representativesof Bahrain, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Iraq, the Lib anArab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Araiiia,Somalia, the Sudan and Tunisia; and at the 2460thmeeting, the representative of Israel.* The Councilconsidered the item at its 2457th to 246 I st meetings,from 28 July to 2 August 1983.

At the 2457th meeting, the representative ofJordan stated that the annexation of the occupiedArab territories, especially the West Bank, was thecentral aim in the policy of the Israeli Government.He held Israel’s settlement policy to be ille al andillegitimate, geared towards permanency of tae newsettlements. He charged that the recent atrocities inHebron reflected the systematic terrorism in theoccupied towns and villages, which served to emptysystematically those areas that had been taken byIsrael. He also suggested that accurate monitoring ofthe location of the Israeli settlements clearly revealedthe long-range Israeli aims of disrupting any econom-ic, demographic or geographic continuit

tybetween

the Arab villages and cities. The use o religious,historic or security concerns served to distort the realpurposes of the settlement policy.

He added that the Israeli settlement policies hadforced Israel to follow an expansionist militaristiclogic seeking to expand its security zone for thosesettlements and seeking living resources, especiallywater, in the occupied territories. He charged thatthere was a clear relationship between the failure ofvarious peace endeavours and the escalation of thesettlement programmes. He deplored the inability ofthe United Nations, especially the Council, to re-

spend appropriately to the worsening situation, butxpressed determination to pursue peace through

e,t ose institutions.RsAt the 2459th meeting, on 1 August 1983, the

President drew attention to the text of a draftresolutionB6 submitted by Algeria, Bahrain, Demo-cratic Yemen, D’ibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Leba-non, Libyan AraA Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco,Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, SyrianArab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates andYemen.

Under the draft resolution, in its preambular part,the Council would have referred to the statement ofthe representative of Jordan at the 2457th meetingand the letter dated 27 July 1983 from the represen-tative of Democratic Yemen; stressed the urgentneed to achieve a comprehensive, ‘ust and lastingpeace in the Middle East; and af-t armed that thesituation in the occupied Arab territories remainedgrave and volatile, that the Israeli settlement policiesand practices constituted a major obstacle to allefforts and initiatives towards a comprehensive, justand lasting peace in the Middle East, and that theregulations annexed to The Hague Conventions of1907 and the provisions of the Geneva Conventionrelative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Timeof War of I2 August 1949 were applicable to theArab territories occupied by Israel in 1967, includingJerusalem.

In the operative part, the Council would have (a)reaffirmed all its relevant resolutions; (b) determinedthat the policies and practices of Israel in establishingsettlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territo-ries occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, had nolegal validity, constituted a major and serious ob-struction to achieving a comprehensive, just andlasting peace in the Middle East and were in contra-vention of article 49 (6) of the Geneva Conventionrelative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Timeof War; (c) called once more upon Israel, theoccupyin

f;Power, to abide scrupulousl

6by the provi-

sions oft e above-mentioned Geneva onvention, torescind its previous measures, to desist from takingany action that would result in changing the legalstatus and geographical nature and materrally affect-ing the demo raphic composition of the Arab territo-ries occupied in 1967 and, in particular, not totransfer parts of its own civilian population into theoccupied Arab territories and to force transfers ofArab population from those territories; (d) stronglydeplored the continuation and persistence of Israel inpursuing those policies and practices and called uponthe Government and people of Israel to rescind thosemeasures, to dismantle the existing settlements, todesist from expanding and enlarging the existing onesand, in particular, to cease on an urgent basis fromthe planning, construction and establishment of newsettlements in Arab territories occupied in 1967,including Jerusalem; (e) rejected all Israeli arbitraryand illegal actions, especially those that resulted inthe expulsion, deportation and forcible transfers ofArab populations from the occupied Arab territories;u> condemned the recent attacks perpetrated againstthe Arab civilian

p”pulation in the occupied Arab

territories, especia ly the killing and wounding ofstudents at the Islamic University of the Arab city ofAl-Khalil on 26 July 1983; (g) called upon all Statesnot to provide Israel with any assistance to be usedspecifically in connection with settlements in theoccupied territories; (h) reaffirmed its determination,

PJtt II 187-

--

in the event of non-compliance by Israel with theresolution, to examine practical ways and means inaccordance with relevant provisions of the Charter tosecure the full implementation of the resolution; (i)decided to keep the situation in the occupied Arabterritories under constant and close scrutiny; and 0)requested the Secretary-General to report to theCouncil within three months on the implementationof the resolution.

At the 246 I st meeting, on 2 August 1983, therepresentative of Israel stated that hts Governmenthad unreservedly condemned the murders perpe-trated in the city of Hebron, but wondered why theCouncil had not raised its voice when a few weeksearlier a Jewish student at a religious seminary inHebron had been stabbed to death by several assail-ants. He further refuted charges of mass poisoning ofPalestinian schoolgirls at several schools in the WestBank and explained that those incidents could not beblamed on the Israeli authorities. He appealed againto the Arab neighbours to recognize Israel’s existenceand its right to exist and to negotiate without priorcondit ionse7

At the same meeting, the representative of Jordan,on behalf of the States members of LAS, introducedthe draft resolution co-sponsored by 20 States andcalled upon the Council to adopt the text, which wasmoderate and well-balanced.67

Before the vote, the representative of Zaire indi-cated that the draft resolution, if endorsed by theCouncil, like others in the past would not lead toactions and thereby would undermine the credibilityof the Council. He added that paragraph 6 was nott;kyed and that his delegation would abstain in the

At the same meetin9

, the draft resolution was putto the vote, received 1 votes in favour and 1 against,with 1 abstention, and was not adopted, owing to thenegative vote of a permanent member of the Coun-cil.a*

Following the vote, the re resentativeUnited States said that the draK

of theresolution had not

adequately addressed the recent series of criminalattacks in the West Bank. Although his delegationsupported several elements in the draft, other partswere wholly unacceptable to the United States, thusresulting in a negative vote. While the United Statesremained opposed to the Israeli settlements policy,there was nothing to sustain the implication in thetext that Israel had carried out forcible transfers ofArabs from the occupied territories. He added thatthe settlements constttuted an obstacle to a fair andlasting peace in the Middle East, but that hisGovernment saw no sense in calling for the disman-tling of the settlements before the peace negotiationswere begun and in arguing whether or not the Israelisettlements were ille al.

9He deplored rhetoric and

polarization in the nited Nations as they exacer-bated the relations between the protagonists, insteadof inducing them to come to the bargaining table.n7

Decision of 4 April 1983: statement of the PresidentBy a letter dated 31 March 1983,89 the representa-

tive of Iraq, in his capacity as Chairman of the Groupof Arab States at the United Nations, requested anurgent meeting of the Council to discuss the serioussituation arisinthe occupied &

from the cases of mass poisoning inest Bank.

On 4 April 1983, the President made the followinstatement on behalf of the members of the Council:

The members of the Security Council have met in informalconsultations with great concern on 4 April 1983 to discuss casesof mass poisoning in the occupied Arab territory of the West Bankas referred to in document S/15673.

The members of the Council request the Secretary-General toconduct independent inquiries concerning the causes and effects ofthe serious problem of the reported cases of poisoning and urgentlyto report on the tindings9i

NOTES

‘S/14791, OR, 36th yr., SuppI. /or &t.-Lkc. 1981.z For details. see chap. III of the present Supplement.I 2316th mtg., para. 2.4 Ibid.. paras. 7-l 7.r Ibid., paras. 20-46.6 Ibid.. paras. 5@58.’ Ibid., paras. 62-72.I Ibid., paras. 73-77.92317th mtg.. paras. 5-12.lo Ibid., paras. 15-24.ii Ibid.. paras. 25-32.I1 Ibid., paras. 88-92.I3 2318th mtg., paras. 20-44.“2319th mtg., paras. 19-27.“Ibid., para. 28.I6 S/14798. adopted without change as resolution 497 (1981).I7 See 2319th mtg.. para. 29. for the vote. For funher details, see

chap. IV of the present Supplement.“2319th mtg., paras. 31-35.I9 Ibid., paras. 37-40.IQ S/14805, dated 2 I December 1983, OR. 36th yr.. Suppl. for

Oct.-Dec. 1981, and s/14821, dated 31 December 1983, ibid.I’ For the vote and discussion, see 2322nd mtg., pat-as. 17-22.

See also chap. 111 of the present Supp/ement.I1 2322nd mtg., paras. 23 and 24.I) Ibid,, pat-as. 32-70. Similar views were exprcsscd at the same

meeting by Jordan, Kuwait, the Lao People’s Democratic Republicand Senegal; at the 2323rd meeting by Bangladah, Cuba, Dcmc+cratic Yemen and Sri Lanka and by Mr. Maksoud; at the 2324thmeeting by Algeria, India, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Pakistan,the Sudan, Yemen and Yugoslavia and by the PLO; at the 2325thmeeting by the German Democratic Republic. Hungary. Iraq,Morocco, Nicarqua, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Viet Nam; at the2326th meeting by Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Guyana and Mongolia;at the 2327th meeting by Czechoslovakia, Indonesia, Mauritania+Oman and Uganda; at the 2328th meeting by Burundi, China,Poland, Togo and the United Arab Emirates; and at the 2329thmeeting by Grenada and the President, speaking in his capacity asrepresentat ive of the USSR.

I4 2322nd mtg., paras. 154-170.15s/14832. OR, 37th yr., Suppl. for Jan.-March 1982. The draft

was subsequently revised, but failed of adoption, owing to thenegat ive vote of a permanent member.

lb 2328th mtg., paras. 3-19.I7 2329th mtg., paras. 124-152.“Ibid., paras. 156-161.rp In S/l4832/Rev. 1, operative paragraph 4 was deleted, and

operative paragraphs 5-9 were renumbered as 4-8. In the lastpreambular paragraph, the explicil invocation of Articles 39 and41 was replaced by “relevant provisions of Chapter VII”. For thetext, see OR, 37th yr., Suppl. for Jan.-March 1982.

IO For the vote, see 2329th mtg., pan. 16. See also ChJp. IV ofthe present Supplement.

‘I 2329th mtg., paras. 168-174.I2 Ibid., pans. 196-199.I3 That request was made at the end of the 2329th meeting, ibid.,

pams. 222 and 223.y S/14848, adopted without change as resolution 500 (1982).I5 2330th mtg.. pam. 3.

188 Chap(er VHI. Mhaaance o f iatcnmtiood peace aad sccuity“Ibid., paras. 6 and 7.J7 I b i d . . paras. 12-20.I1 For the vote, see ibid., para. 22. See also chap. IV of the

present Supplemenf.le 2330th mtg.. paras. 26-31. The representative of the United

Kingdom expressed similar concerns in explaining his delegation’sabstcnt ion.

*Ibid.. paras. 35-38.‘1 S/14917. OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1982.I* For the vote and the statement by the President in his capacity

as representative of the United States, see 2334th mtg., paras. 2-8.See also chap. 111 of the present Supp/emenf.

“2334th mtg.. paras. 9 and IO.w I b i d . . paras. 14-29.‘) Ibid.. paras. 33-55.“GAOR. 36th sex. Suppl. No. 35 (A/36/35), paras. 49-53.” General Assembly resolution 36/l 20 D.I1 2334th mtg., paras. 60-65. Views similar to those expressed by

the f irst three speakers were expressed at the same meeting byEgypt, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic, and by Mr.Maksoud; at the 2338th mtg. by Jordan, Morocco and Turkey; atthe 2340th mtg. by the German Democratic Republic and Iran;and at the 2344th mtg. by Algeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, India, Iraq.the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Viet Nam. Yemen and Yugoslavia.

4p 2334th mtg., paras. 135-141.w S/14943. OR. 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982. The draft

resolution failed of adoption owing to the negative vote of apermanent member.

51 2348th mtg., para. 3.J2 Ibid.. paras. 5-8.u For the vote, see ibid.. para. 9. See also chap. IV of the present

Supplement .y 2348th mtg., paras. I l-15.‘J Ibrd.. paras. 16-20.J6 Ibrd.. paras. 66-73.J1 S/14967. OR, 371h yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982.)a S/14969. ibid.‘9 For the vote and discussion, see 2352nd mtg., paras. 2-7. See

also chap. 111 of the present Supplement.M 2352nd mtg., paras. 8 and 9.6’ /bid., paras. l2- 15.61 Ibid., paras. 16-40.b 3 Ibid.. paras. 42-49.M Ibid.. paras. 5 l-83.6’ Ibid.. paras. 86-94. Similar views were expressed at the 2353rd

mtg. by Malaysia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and by Mr.Maksoud; at the 2354th mtg. by Bangladesh, Guinea, Indonesia,Iran, Senegal. Sudan and Turkey; at the 2355th meeting by China,India and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; at the 2356th mtg. byDjibouti, Somalia, ihe USSR and Ihe United Arab Emirates; andat the 2357th mtg. by Kuwait and Poland.

w S/14985, OR. 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982. The draftresolution was not adopted, owing to the negative vote of apermanent member.

(‘See 2357th mtg.. para. 101, for the vole. See also chap. IV ofthe present Supplement .

(a 2357th mtg.. paras. 107-I 16.ffl s/l 5481, OR, 37th yr., Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1982.lo .V 15483. ibid.‘I For the discussion and vote. see 240191 mtg., paras. 9-16. See

also chap. III of the present Supplemenl.I* See 240191 mtg.. paras. I7 and 18.‘I Ibid.. paras. 26-44.14S/14268. dated 25 November 1980, OR, 35th yr., Suppl. for

Ocr.-Dec. 1980.‘J 2401 st mtg., paras. 49-70. Similar views were expressed at the

same meeting by the Niger, the PLO and the Chairman of theCommittee on the Exercise of the Inalienable .Cights of thePalestinian People.

“S/l 5599, OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1983.‘I 2412th mtg.“Ibid. Similar views were expressed at the 2412th mtg. by

Egypt, India. Yemen and Yugoslavia and by the PLO; at the2413th mtg. by Algeria, China, Guyana, the Islamic Republic of

Iran, Jordan, Malta, Pakistan, Poland, Turkey and Zimbabwe; anda1 the 2414th mtg. by Cuba, Democratic Yemen, the GermanDemocratic Republic, Kuwait, Nicaragua and the United ArabEmirates, and by the President, speaking in his capacity asrepresentat ive of the Soviet Union.

tp 2414th mtg. Similar views were expressed at the same meetingby the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

a2414th mtg.II S/I 5764. OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1983.(I 2438th mtg. Similar views were expressed at the same meeting

by India, the Syrian Arab Republic and the PLO. The spokesmanfor the PLO offered a very detailed description of recent violencein the occupied terr i tor ies.

*I 2438th mtg.uS/15890, OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1983.*J 2457th mtg. Similar views were expressed at the same meeting

by the representatives of Democratic Yemen, India and Pakistan,and by the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of theInalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Observer forthe PLO; at the 2458th mtg. by the reprksentatives of Egypt andthe USSR; at the 2459th mtg. by the representatives of Bangla-desh, China. Cuba, Kuwait and the Syrian Arab Republic and byMr. Maksoud; at the 2460th mtg. by Af&anistan, Bahrain, theLibyan Arab Jamahirtya, Nicaragua,. Poland, Saudi Arabia. theSudan and Yugoslavia; and at the 2461~1 mtg. by Djibouti, theGerman Democratic Republic, Mauritania, Morocco and Togo.

“S/15895. OR. 38th yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1983. The draltwas not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanentmember of the Council.

I7 2461 st mtg .8K/brd. See also chap. IV of the present Supplementnq S/I 5673, OR, 38th yr., Suppl. for Jan.-March 1983. See also

the letter dated 30 March 1983 from the Chairman of theCommittee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of thePalestinian People (s/15667, ibid.) and the letter dated 3 Aprilfrom the representat ive of Israel (S/I 5674 . i b id . . Supp l . /or April-June 1983) reject ing the changes.

QQ s/I 5680, OR, 38th yr.. Resolutions and Decisions of theSecuriry Council, 1983. See also the letter dated 5 April 1983 fromthe rebresentative of Israel rejecting the Council’s statement(S/15683. ibid.. St&. for April-June 1983).

91 The Secretary-General submitted a report dated IO May 1983to which a report of the Director-General of WHO was annexed(S/I 5756, ib id . ) .

4. THE SITUATION IN CYPRUS

Decision of 4 June 1981 (2279th meeting): resolution486 (1981)On 27 May 1981, before the mandate of the

United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus(UNFICYP) was due to expire, the Secretary-Generalsubmitted to the Council a re rt’ coverin theperiod from 1 December 1980 to 7 May 1981.r Pn hisreport, the Secretary-General stated that within theframework of the mission of good offices entrusted tohim by the Council the intercommunal talks inCyprus had continued in a generally constructiveatmosphere, although with limited practical results.A more intensive pace for those deliberations wasplanned as from the beginning of July. The Secretary-General concluded that the continued presence ofUNFICYP remained necessary, both in helping tomaintain calm on the island and in creating theconditions under which the search for a

raceful

settlement could best be pursued, and he t ereforerecommended to the Council that it extend themandate of UNFICYP for a further period of sixmonths. In an addendum* issued on 4 June, theSecreta

x-General indicated that, followiq consulta-

tions, t e parties concerned had si@ied theirconcurrence with the proposed extension.

Parl fl 189

At its 2279th meetin , on 4 June 1931, the Councilincluded the report o B the Secretary-General in itsagenda under the item “The situation in Cyprus” andinvited, at their request, the representatives of Cy-prus, Greece and Turkey3 to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote. The Council alsoinvited Mr. Nail Atalay4 to participate under rule 39of the provisional rules of procedure. The Councilconsidered the item at its 2279th meeting.

At the outset of the meeting, the President put tothe vote a draft resolution5 prepared in the course ofconsultations, which was adopted by 14 votes infavour to none a ainst,resolution 486 (I 81).6 The resolution reads as1

with no abstentions, as

follows:The Security Council,Tuking noreof the report of the Secretary-General on the United

Nations operation in Cyprus of 27 May 198 I.Noting the concurrence of the parties concerned in the recom-

mendation by the Secretary-Generat that the Security Councilshould extend t he s ta t i on ing of the United Nations Peace-keepingForce in Cyprus for a further period of six months,

Noling also that rhe Government of Cyprus has agreed ihal inview of the prevai l ing condit ions in the island i t is necessary tokeep the Force in Cyprus beyond 15 June 1981,

ReqDirming the provisions of its resolu(ion 186 (1964) and otherrelevant resolulions,

Reireruring its support of the ten-point agreement for theresumpt ion of the intercommunal talks which was worked out atthe high-level meeting on 18 and I9 May 1979 at Nicosia underthe auspices of the Secretary-General,

I. Exrends Once more the stationing in Cyprus of the United- Nations Peace-keeping Force established under resolution 186

(1964) for a further period ending on I5 December 1981;2. Nofes wifh safisficlion that the parties have resumed the

intercommunal talks within rhe framework of the ten-pointagreement and urges them to pursue these ta lks in a cont inuing.sustained and result+riented manner, avoiding any delay;

3. Requesls the Secretary-General to continue his mission ofgood ofices, to keep the Security Council informed of the progressmade and lo submit a report on the implementation of the presentresolution by 30 November 1981.

Followin the vote, the Secretary-General assuredthe Counci that he was takin steps to give effect tokthe resolution just adopted. Eof

onceming his mission

19 Qood offkes, he referred to his report’ of 27 May1 and observed that the intercommunal talks’

were scheduled to enter a more active phase at thebeginning of JuIY.~

The representative of Cyprus stated that both hisbiannual appearance before the Council and theresolution just adopted, while essential for the preser-vation of peaceful conditions, were at the same timea sad commentary on the ability of the UnitedNations to apply the rinciples of the Charter and theperemptory norms oPinternational law to a small anddefenceless country in whose case they had beenviolated. He noted that while the talks were still alivethehe K

had as yet produced no results whatsoever, andoped that when he appeared before the Council

again in six months’ time he would have somethingpositive to report on thems9

The representative of Greece asserted that theextension of the mandate of UNFICYP representedan admission of failure on the part of the UnitedNations in its mission of guaranteeing the indepen-dence and territorial integrity of its Members, partic-ularly the small countries. Despite the praiseworthyefforts of the Secretaand the dedication oftx

-General and his colleaguese Force no real progress had

been made in the dialogue. The intercommunal talks

had reached a tumin -point and could not be extend-ed indefinitely, and t Ii is might be the last opportunityto achieve an agreement which would maintain theindependence, unity, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cypru~.~*

Mr. Nail Atala stated that the reference in theresoIution to the dreek Cypriot administration as theso-called Government of Cyprus made the resolutionunacceptable to the Turkish Cypriot side. He stressedthat the principle of the equality of the two commu-nities must be maintained whenever and whereverthere had to be a reference to the intercommunaltalks or to the respective status of each communitMoreover, the modus operandi of UNFICYP r

.wou d

have to be changed and its mandate revised accord-ingly, since under the terms of resolution 186 (1964),which provided that it was to prevent a recurrence offighting and contribute to the restoration of iaw andorder and a return to normal conditions, it had nolegitimate function to perform in the north ofCyprus. If UNFICYP were adjusted to the presentrealities of Cyprus, 30 per cent of its personnel wouldsuffice to control the cease-fire lines and thus ade-quately fulfil its mandate. In addition, the wording ofthe fifth preambular paragraph andthe resolution did not accurately

aragraph two ofreRect the fact that

the intercommunal talks had been resumed and werecontinuing on the basis of the Secretary-General’sopeninporate %

statement of 9 August 1980,” which incor-the high-level agreement of 12 February

1977, the IO-point agreement of 19 May 1979 andother important elements; however, he would notinsist on a change in the wording so as not to createan impasse.12

The representative of Turkey asserted that in thecurrent circumstances the discussion in the Councilwas both inappropriate and harmful to the search fora solution by means of the intercommunal negotia-tions. His Government was satisfied at the continua-tion of the intercommunal talks, which were the onlyvalid means for arriving at a just and lasting solutionto the problem of Cyprus, and reiterated its supportfor, and co-operation with, the Secretary-General inhis mission of ood offlces. However, he objected toreferences to at e “Government of CSecretary-General’s report and in the tIi

prus ’ in thelrd

Preambu-

lar paragraph of the resolution the Counci had justadopted. His delegation’s position concemin thattitle was well-known and remained unchange% , andall of Turkey’s reservations regarding previous Coun-cil resolutions referred to in the current resolutionremained unchanged. He noted as well that theCouncil had not adopted the wording his delegationhad proposed for paragraph 2 of the resolution,which would have referred to the Secretary-General’sstatement of 9 August 198011 as providing theframework for the resumption of the intercommunaltalks, and stressed that his Government neverthelessinterpreted the text of the resolution, and particularlythe reference to the resumption of the talks, in thatlight.13

Decision of 14 December 1981 (2313th meeting):resolution 495 (198 1)On 1 December 198 I, the Secretary-General sub-

mitted a report” covering the period from 28 May to30 November 198 1. He noted that during the periodunder review UNFICYP had continued to performits peace-keepin functions by supervising the cease-fire lines, providing security m the area between the

190 Chapter VIII. M~intcmncc of latcmatioaal peace and secwlty

lines, looking after the safety and welfare of Cypriotsresiding in areas under the control of the othercommunity and supporting relief operations co-ordi-nated by the OffIce of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). These activi-ties had made a major contribution to maintainingcalm in the island. During the same period the searchfor a solution of the Cyprus problem had undergone arapid evolution, with both sides in the intercommu-nal talks submitting new or revised proposals whichincluded for the first time concrete arrangements asthe proposed basis for a comprehensive settlement.On 22 October 198 1, the Special Representative ofthe Secretary-General had submitted on his behalf anevaluation paper drawn up in the exercise of hismission of good offices which analysed the positionsof the partles. The Secretary-General expressed thehope that the consideration of that paper would markthe beginning of a new and fruitful phase in thesearch for a negotiated settlement. He concludedthat, under the circumstances, the continued pres-ence of UNFICYP remained necessary and recom-mended to the Council that it extend the mandate ofUNFICYP for a further period of six months. In anaddendum” dated 14 December 198 1, the Secretary-General indicated that, following consultations, theconcerned parties had signified their concurrencewith the proposed extension.

At its 2313th meeting, on 14 December 1981, theCouncil included the report of the Secretary-Generalin its agenda and invited, at their request, therepresentatives of Cyprus, Greece and TurkeyI toparticipate in the discussion without the right tovote. The Council also invited Mr. Nail Atalay” toparticipate in accordance with rule 39 of its provi-sional rules of procedure. The Council considered theitem at its 2313th meeting.

The President drew the attention of the membersof the Council to a draft resolution’* prepared in thecourse of consultations, which he then put to thevote. It was adopted unanimouslyI as resolution 495(198 l), and reads as follows:

The Security Counc i l .Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the United

Nations operation in Cyprus of I December 198 I,Noring the concurrence of the part ies concerned in the rccom-

mendation by the Secretary-General that the Security Councilshould extend the stationing of the United Nations Peace-keepingForce in Cyprus for a further period of six months,

Noting also that the Government of Cyprus has agreed that inview of the prevai l ing condit ions in the island i t is necessary tokeep the Force in Cyprus beyond I5 December 1981,

Reo/lirming the provisions of its resolution I86 (I 964) and otherrelevant resolulions,

Reiterating its support of the ten-point agreement for theresumption of the intercommunal talks which was worked out atthe high-level meeting on 18 and I9 May 1979 at Nicosia underthe auspices of the Secretary-General,

I. Extends once more the stationing in Cyprus of the UnitedNations Peace-keeping Force established under resolution I86(1964) for a further period. ending on I5 June 1982;

2. Nofes wifh sotisjocfion that the parties have resumed theintercommunal talks within the framework of the ten-pointagreement and urges them to pursue these talks in a continuing,sustained and result-oriented manner, avoiding any delay;

3. Requests the Secretary-General lo continue his mission ofgood oflicts, to keep the Security Council informed of the progressmade and to submit a report on the implementation of the presentresolution by 31 May 1982.

In explanation of the vote, the representative ofChina pointed out that, for historical and politicalreasons, China had until then adhered to a well-

known position vis-d-vis United Nations peace-keepin& operations. However, having taken into consider-atlon the changes in the international arena and theevolution in the role of the peace-keeping operations,his delegation would from then on actively considerand support such United Nations peace-keepingoperations as were conducive to the maintenance ofinternational peace and security and to the preserva-tion of the sovereignty and independence of theStates concerned., in strict conformity with the pur-poses and principles of the Charter.*O

The Secretary-General observed that after almost18 years of United Nations involvement in Cyprusthe problem was still far from a solution, leadingsome, perhaps, to question whether the UnitedNations road to peaceful accord, involvin the con-current use of peace-keepin and good o

f@8Ices, had

justified its political and mancial cost. However,considering the enormously complex pattern of con-flicting interests involved., It would have been idle tolook towards an immediate solution. By managingeffectively to keep the threatening situation on theround under control and maintaining the peace, the

k nited Nations had helped to create conditionsconducive to the search for a political settlement ofthe underlying dispute. Instead of confrontationthere had been radual movement, and the pace ofthat movement iad been distinct1 accelerated overthe past few months. He appealeJ to all the partiesconcerned not to allow impatience to obscure a soberassessment of the progress achieved, nor to lose sightof the great distance that remained to be travelled.Calling for reater efforts, greater restraint and more

aconcrete ac ievements, he concluded that the pathhad been charted, and while the obstacles wereformidable, he was convinced that with the co-opera-tive efforts of all concerned they could be over-come.*’

The representative of Cyprus indicated that hisGovernment found the Secretary-General’s evalu-ation of the status of the negotiations helpful andhoped it would pave the way to a more productivephase in the talks. However, It had never been meantto form the basis for the negotiations, which was, andalways would be, the United Nations resolutions andthe two high-level agreements, including the prioriton Varosha. He noted that, as a gesture of good wil ,rhis Government had agreed to the adjournment ofthe debate on the uestion of Cyprus during thethirty-fifth session o the General Assembly in the?previous year and again during the current year’sregular Assembly session, but If the talks did notre ister progress within a reasonable time they would

&a s for, and have, a full-fledged debate and aresolution during a resumed session of the Assembl .That was not meant as a threat, but if the other sidedid not reciprocate his Government’s good will,determination and bona fides to achieve progressthen they would have to act to safeguard the interestsof their country,. both in the United Nations and inevery other available forum.**

The representative of Greece stated that, whileUNFICYP had contributed greatly to the stabiliza-tion of the situation in Cyprus and was renderinginvaluable services to all the Cypriots, it would be afatal mistake to consider the peace-keeping operationas a coal in itself. He claimed that it was because theTurkish Cypriot proposals had been so unsatisfactorythat the Secretary-General had found it necessary toplay a more active role in the negotiations within his

Put II 1 9 1-mandate of good offIces, and had thus presented theparties with his evaluation of the various aspects ofthe problem, which the Government of Cyprus hadaccepted as a vehicle for advancing the negotiations.His Government found that to be a constructive andhelpful step, and was committed to helping to find asolution that would be consistent with the relevantresolutions of the General Assembly and the Counciland the high-level agreements of 1977 and 1979.23

Mr. Nail Atalay reiterated his objection to theterminology referring to the Government of Cypruscontained m the resolution just adopted, and oncea!ain referred to the need to alter the modus operandi

o UNFICYP. In addition, he asserted that the fifthpreambular paragraph and paragraph 2 of the resolu-tion did not accurately reflect the actual basis onwhich the talks were continuing, which now included,in addition to those elements he had mentioned atthe Council’s 2279th meeting in connection withresolution 486 ( I98 I), the Secreta -General’s recentevaluation paper. The Turkish zypriot side supported the efforts of the Secretary-General and hadaccepted the evaluation paper as the framework andthe basis for the intercommunal negotiations. Hestressed that the Cyprus problem was a matterbetween the two communities and that a just andlasting solution could be found only through inter-communal talks held on an equal footing. TheTurkish Cypriot side was determined to do all itcould to keep the process of the intercommunal talksalive, despite the unconstructive attitude of the other

>- side.14The representative of Turkey declared that, follow-

ing I6 months of uninterrupted talks, the intercom-munal talks had reached a crucial stage, The TurkishGovernment endorsed the view expressed by theSecretary-Gcncral concerning his evaluation paper inparagraph 56 of his report and fully supported theTurkish Cypriot proposal that the Secretary-Gener-al’s evaluation paper should constitute the frame-work for the intercommunal negotiations. He regret-ted that the resolution lacked any encouragement forthe two communities along the lines of paragraph 56of the Secretary-General’s report. Commenting onthe reference to the Government of Cyprus containedin the third preambular paragraph of the resolutionjust adopted, the Turkish representative stated thatTurkey did not recothe leaders of the E

nize that status as belonging toreek Cypriot community, who

had placed themselves in the position of usurpers ofthat title. The Republic of Cyprus would not have alegal and legitimate government until, through theintercommunal ne otiations, the bicommunal es-sence of the Repu% lit guaranteed by internationaltreaty had been restored, with each communityhaving its own federated state within a biregional andbicommunal framework.25

Decision of I5 June 1982 (2378th meeting): resolu-tion 510 (1982)In a report2* covering the period from 1 December

I98 I to 3 1 May 1982, submltted on I June 1982, theSecretary-General noted that durin the period underreview the search for a negotiated, just and lastingsettlement of the Cyprus problem had entered a newphase. Under the auspices of his Special Representa-tive the two interlocutors at the intercommunal talkshad embarked on a systematic review of the mainelements of the constitutional aspect using the evalu-ation paper as a framework for the taIks. They had

succeeded in arriving at “points of coincidence” in anumber of cases, which did not mean that the majorsubstantive elements of the Cyprus problem wereabout to be resolved, but that the were beingsystematically reconsidered, reformu ated and re-rduced. When this task had been completed it wouldstill *be necessary to undertake the politically chal-lenglqg enterprise of devising solutions for majorconstitutional and territorial Issues. The Secretary-General concluded that the continued presence ofUNFICYP remained necessary and recommended tothe Council that it extend the mandate of UNFICYPfor a further period of six months. In an addendumissued on 14 June I982*’ the Secretary-Generalstated that the parties concerned had agreed to theproposed extension.

At its 2378th meeting, on I5 June 1982, theCouncil included the report of the Secretary-Generalin its agenda and invited, at their request, therepresentatives of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey28 toparticipate in the discussion without the right tovote. The Council also invited Mr. Nail AtalayZVunder rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules ofprocedure. The Council considered the report of theSecretary-General at its 2378th meeting.

At the beginning of the 2378th meeting, thePresident put to the vote a draft resolutionJo that hadbeen prepared in the course of consultations. Thedraft resolution received 15 votes in favour and wasadopted unanimously as resolution 510 (I 982).“’ Itreads as follows:

The Securiry Council,Taking nofeof the repon of the Secretary-General on the United

Nations operation in Cyprus of I June,Noting the concurrence of the parties concerned in the recom-


Noling also rhar the Government of Cyprus has agreed that inview of the prevai l ing condi t ions i n the island it is necessary tokeep the Force in Cyprus beyond I5 June 1982,

Reafwming the provisions of its resolution I86 (1964) and otherrelevant resolutions.

Reiferufing its support of the ten-point agreement for theresumpt ion of the intercommunal talks which was worked out atthe high-level meeting on 18 and 19 May 1979 at Nicosia underthe auspices of the Secretary-General,

I. Exlmds once more the stationing in Cyprus of the UnitedNations Peace-keeping Force established under resolution I86(1964) for a further period, ending on I5 December 1982;

2. Notes with salisficfion that the parties have resumed theintercommunal talks within the framework of the ten-pointagreement and urges them to pursue these talks in a continuing,sustained and result*ricnted manner, avoiding any delay;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his mission ofgood offices, to keep the Security Council informed of the progressmade and to submit a report on the implementation of the presentresolution by 30 November 1982.

The representative of Cyprus stated that the prob-lem of Cyprus was not one of differences between thetwo communities or of religious differences, butrather a problem of the invasion and occupation of asmall, non-aligned country striving to protect itsindependence alarge and power P

inst the expansionist policy of aul neighbouring country. Pointing to

the strategic location of Cyprus and to the number ofyears that the problem had been before the GeneralAssembly and the Council, he stated that the problemof Cyprus was international in nature, and directlyaffected the peace and security of the area and of theworld in general. Despite the provisions of the manyresolutions adopted by the Assembly and the Council

1 9 2 Chapter VIII. Mainttanwe of iaternatioal pcwx and accmrity

there had been no withdrawal of the Turkish troops,no refugees had been permitted to return to theirhomes, and the intercommunal talks had failed toachieve any progress on matters of substance.

He called upon the Council and countries notmembers of the Council to bring pressure to bearupon Turkey to end its aggression and to withdrawits troops from Cyprus. He referred to the proposal ofthe President of the Republic of Cyprus for the totaldisarmament and demilitarization of Cyprus and thecreation of a mixed Greek-Turkish Cypriot policeforce under the control of an international UnitedNations police force, and cited the positive responseof his President to the proposal of the Prime Ministerof Greece, who had offered to withdraw the Greekcontingent stationed in Cyprus under the 1960Agreements32 provided that the Turkish troops werealso withdrawn and a United Nations police forcewas stationed in Cyprus. Pled insupport for the strengthening of t8f-J

his country’se nited Nations,

he declared that if the world community, through theUnited Nations, did not choose to give the Organiza-tion the means to carry out its task there would be noend to the aggressive use of force.“3

The re resentative of Greece stated that free andmeaning ul negotiations between the Greek CypriotsPand the Turkish Cypriots were inconceivable as longas a substantial part of the Republic of Cyprusremained under military occupation. Since bothcommunities were concerned about their security hisGovernment had proposed that, along with theGreek contingent, the Turkish troops should with-draw from Cyprus and an enlarged United Nationspeace-keeping force should be established. His Gov-ernment was willing to assume all the additionalexpenses that such an increase of the Force wouldentail. After that step, intercommunal talks shouldstart with a view to drafting a constitution whichwould be based on internationally recognized safe-guards for the protection of minorities. A demilitari-zation of the Republic of Cyprus, coupled withinternational guarantees, should complement thesettlement in order to meet further security demandsof the parties concemed.34

Mr. Nail Atalay affirmed that, as stated in thereport of the Secretary-General, progress was begin-ning to be made at the intercommunal talks. How-ever, the Turkish Cabout the future or

priot community was concernedthe talks as a result of certain

actions of the Greek Cypriot leaders and certainstatements by the Prime Minister of Greece.35

The representative of Turkey noted at the outsetthat, in the light of the positive developments thathad taken place since the resumption of the inter-communal talks and the fact that the search for asolution in Cyprus was continuing steadily, hisGovernment would have wished to avoid a dlscus-sion that was certain to involve acrimonious ex-than es, whereas the renewal of the mandate ofUN IfICYP was a formality. He further stated that, inthe view of the Turkish Government, the encourage-mept of the intercommunal talks was the best way toarTlye. at a solution. m Cyprus, and any action ormltlatlve that could Jeopardize the talks or encouragethose who desired to mtemationalize the problemshould be avoided as it would result in a breakdownof the talks between the two communities.36

De&ion of 14 December 1982 (2405th meeting):resolution 526 (I 982)

On 1 December 1982, the Secretary-General sub-mitted to the Council a reportJ’ on UNFICYPcovering the period from 1 June to 30 November1982. He indicated that the new phase of his missionof good ofices, which had been initiated at theintercommunal talks on 7 January 1982, had contin-ued at a steady pace and in a constructive atmo-sphere during the re

Porting period. The interlocutors,

who continued to ollow the evaluation paper sub-mitted by his Special Representative, had completedthe discussion of almost all of the constitutionalaspects and were about to begin an examination ofthe territorial aspect. He hoped that the partiesconcerned would demonstrate the political will nec-essary to undertake the next phase of the negotiationsas soon as possible. The Secretary-General concludedthat the continued presence of UNFICYP remainednecessary, and recommended to the Council that itextend the mandate of UNFICYP for a furtherperiod of six months. In an addendum issued on 13December 1 982,38 the Secretary-General stated thatthe parties concerned had agreed to the extension.

At its 2405th meeting, on 14 December 1982,following the inclusion of the Secretary-General’sreport in the agenda, the Council invited, at theirrequest the representatives of Cyprus, Greece andTurkeyj9 to participate in the discussion without theright to vote, and invited Mr. Nail Atalaya underrule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure. TheCouncil considered the report of the Secretary-Gen-eral at its 2405th meeting.

The President drew the attention of the Council toa draft resolution4’ prepared in the course of consul-tations, which he then put to the vote. The draftresolution was adoresolution 526 (19 f

ted by 15 votes in favouti2 as2). The resolution reads as fol-

lows:The Securig~ Council,Taking note of the report of the Stcretary-General on the United

Nations operation in Cyprus of I December 1982,Nofing the concurrence of the parties concerned in the rccom-

mcndation by the Secretary-General that the Security Councilshould extend the stationing of the United Nations Peace-keepingForce in Cyprus for a further period of six months,

Noting also that the Government of Cyprus has agreed that inview of the prevailing conditions in the island it is necessary tokeep the Force in Cyprus beyond I5 December 1982,

ReaJirming the provisions of its resolution I86 (1964) and otherrelevant resolutions,

Reiterating its support of the ten-point agreement for theresumption of the intercommunal talks which was worked out atthe high-level meeting on 18 and I9 May 1979 at Nicosia underthe auspices of the Secretary-General,

1. Extends once more the stationing in Cyprus of the UnitedNations Peace-keeping Force establ ished under resolut ion 186(1964) for a funher period, ending on 15 June 1983;

2. Notes with satisfaction that the parties have resumed theintercommunal talks within the framework of the ten-pointagreement and urges them to pursue these talks in a continuing,sustained and resul t -or iented manner, avoiding any delay;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his mission ofgood offxes, to keep the Security Council informed of the progressmade and to submit a report on the implementation of the presentresolution by 31 May 1983.

The representative of Cy x-usprinciple of the non-use o P

declared that theforce in international

relations enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 4, of theCharter of the United Nations was being violated inCyprus and stated that if the resolutions and deci-sions of the United Nations continued to be disre-

!arded the reputation of the Organization would beurther eroded, as its credibility depended upon its

Put I I 193

-

-

living up to its decisions. Regarding the intercommu-nal talks, he maintained that, except for identifyingthe negotiating positions of both stdes, no substan-tive pro ress had been achieved since the last renewalof UN $ICYP. He hoped that the Council wouldfollow developments in Cyprus vigilantly and con-tinue to recognize its s cial responsibility towardsCyprus and its people. r

The representative of Greece asserted that theintercommunal talks had been dealing mainly withminor issues, creating a totally misleadmg impressionof progress. He recalled that, in addition to theproposal for an enlargement of UNFICYP, hisGovernment had proposed that the situation be re-examined by a special committee of the UnitedNations or by an international conference. SinceTurkey had taken a negative stand with regard tothose proposals it might be time for the Council toexert its influence on Turkey in order that it mightabide by the resolutions of the General Assembly andthe Council.44

Mr. Nail Atalay reaffirmed the Turkish Cypriotcommunity’s support of the intercommunal talks asthe best means available for the solution of theproblem of Cyprus and stated that interference byparties not directly involved would only harden thepositions of the parties. He urged that the Councilencourage negotiations in conditions of equalitybetween the two national communities and restrainall interference. His people hoped that the Councilwould induce the two communities to resolve theirdifferences through talks on the basis of the princi-ples and a reements they had concluded betweenthemselves. %5

The representative of Turkey stated that his Gov-ernment considered it essential to safeguard theintercommunal negotiations, especially at a timewhen they were suffering a set-back, and declaredthat the problem would not be solved by invokingunrealistic recommendations that had been rejectedby the Turkish community of Cyprus and Turkey.Rejecting the view that the question of Cyprus was aproblem born of military intervention, he assertedthat the Turkish community of Cyprus and Turkehad used the right of self-defence in accordance wit Iithe Treaty of Guarantee to recreate the state ofaffairs provided for in the Cypriot Constitution, butthis time in a sound and durable manner, whichcould not be other than as a federation. The Turkisharmed forces would remain on the territory until theconclusion of a final agreement between all theparties because, as experience had unfortunatelyshown, international forces had never been able toensure the full security of populations.‘6

Decision of I5 June 1983 (2453rd meeting): resolu-tion 534 (1983)In his report dated 1 June 1983,4’ coverin the

period from 1 December 1982 to 31 May 1989, theSecretary-General stated that the intercommunaltalks had continued regularly on the basis of hisevaluation paper, but noted that following the adoption on 13 May 1983 of General Assembly resolution37/253 the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot communityhad announced their decision not to attend themeeting of the talks scheduled for 31 May 1983. Hehoped that the talks could be continued as soon aspossible on the existing, mutually acceptable basisand had strengthened his personal involvement with-in the framework of his mission of good offices. It

was his intention to follow up on the work doneduring the current phase of the talks in order to givefresh impetus to the talks. He appealed to allconcerned to show restraint. The Secretary-Generalconcluded that the continued presence of UNFICYPremained necessary and recommended to the Coun-cil that it extend the mandate of the Force foranother six months. In an addendum dated 14 June1983,‘* the Secretary-General stated that the partiesconcerned had agreed to the proposed extension.

At its 2453rd meeting, on 15 June 1983, theCouncil included the report of the Secretary-Generalin its agenda and invited the representatives ofCanada, Cyprus, Greece and Turkey,4g at theirrequest, to participate in the discussion without theright to vote. The Council also invited Mr. NailAtalay50 under rule 39 of its provisional rules ofprocedure. The Council considered the item at its2453rd and 2454th meetings, on 15 June 1983.

At the outset of the 2453rd meeting, the Presidentput to the vote a draft resolution5i prepared in thecourse of the Council’s consultations. The draftresolution was unanimously adopted as resolution534 (1983). The resolution reads as follows:

The Security Council,Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the United

Nations operation in Cyprus of I June 1983,Not ing the concurrence of the part ies concerned in the recom-


Noling also that the Government of Cyprus has agreed that inview of the prevai l ing condit ions in the island i t is necessary tokeep the Force in Cyprus beyond I5 June 1983,

ReqOirming the provisions of its resolution I86 (I 964) and otherrelevant resolutions,

Reiterating its support of the ten-point agreement for theresumption of the intercommunal talks which was worked out atthe high-level meeting on 18 and 19 May 1979 at Nicosia underthe auspices of the Secretary-General,

I. Erren& once more the stationing in Cyprus of the UnitedNations Peace-keeping Force established under resolution 186(1964) for a further period, ending on I5 December 1983;

2. Nofes with salisficrion that the parties have resumed theintercommunal talks within the framework of the ten-pointagreement and urges them to pursue these talks in a continuing,sustained and result-oriented manner, avoiding any delay;

3. Requesrs the Secretary-General to continue his mission ofgood oftices, to keep the Security Council informed of the progressmade and to submit a report on the implementation of the presentresolution by 30 November 1983.

The representative of Cyprus stated that theUnited Nations resolutions were as far as ever frombeing implemented, and that as a result the problemof Cyprus continued to pose a grave threat to thepeace of the region and to international peace andsecurity in general. Turkey and the Turkish Cypriotleader had embarked on new secessionist stepsdirected against the territorial integrity and unity ofCy rus, and were undermining the intercommunaltal s.kl He rejected the Turkish argument that theCypriot Government’s efforts to internationalize thequestion of Cyprus while negotiations were going onwere contrary to the spirit of the intercommunaltalks. The talks were held to solve the internal aspectsof the problem, whereas the international aspectswere matters rightly to be considered by the UmtedNations. Furthermore, the talks originated fromCouncil and General Assembly resolutions, and sincethe Assembly had called for the talks it was appropri-ate and necessary on the part of his Government tokeep that body informed and to request its further

194 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of intermtionml peace and security

assistance in the search for a solution. He expressedregret that following the adoption by the Assembly ofresolution 37/253, whose operative para raph 1 6welcomed the intended initiative of the 8ecretary-General, Turkey had refused to respond to theSecretary-General’s call for a meeting to discuss hisintended initiative. He reiterated his Government’ssupport for negotiations under the auspices of theSecretary-General and appealed to the Turkish sideto abandon its present policies and to work at thenegotiating table to reach a just and durable solutionbased on relevant United Nations resolutions andhigh-level agreements.50

Mr. Nail Atalay stated that the problem of Cyprusexisted because there was no Government by theconsent of the two communities on the island, and hecited his own presence before the Council as a clearindication that the Greek Cypriot administration didnot represent the Turkish Cypriot people. The at-tempt to split the problem into an internal and anexternal factor was really an attempt to preventTurkey and the Turkish Cypriots from arresting theHellenization of the island. Decisions of the UnitedNations and other international bodies which ig-nored the rights and status of the Turkish Cypriotcommunity only made an agreed political settlementmore difficult. He stated categorrcally that GeneralAssembly resolution 37/253, which, infer alia, “callsupon all States to support and help the Governmentof the Republic of Cyprus”-meaning the GreekCypriot administration-to exercise “sovereigntyand control over the entire territory of Cyprus”, wastotally unacceptable to the Turkish Cypriot side. Itwas the understanding of the Turkish Cypriots that,if and when the negotiations started, that resolutionwould not be taken into consideration. The TurkishCypriot side had decided to reassess its position inthe light of resolution 37/253; he afIirmed, however,that the Turkish C priotsoperate fully with t h

would continue to co-e Secretary-General and were

determined to continue the negotiating process in aspirit of good will and with a constructive attitude.He deplored the fact that some of the States contrib-uting troops to UNFICYP had departed from theirtradttional equidistant posture by voting in favour ofresolution 371253 and hoped that they would returnto the position of not takin sides in the dispute inorder to retain the impartia ity that was essential tofthe car

7Cyprus.5ing out of peace-keeping operations in

At the Council’s 2454th meeting, the representa-tive of Canada noted that, as a troop contrtbutor toUNFICYP, his Government remained willing toassist in the peace-keeping process but was anxious toensure that there would be tangible evidence that thecomplementary process of peace-making was pro-gressin .UNFIC!YP

The formation and maintenance ofhad provided the necessary stable condi-

tions under which the peace-keeping process shouldhave succeeded long ago. The United Nations haddone all that was possible to create and maintainthose conditions in Cyprus, but UNFICYP of itselfcould not bring about an intercommunal settlement.His Government believed that the failure to achievea negotiated settlement and a return toconditions was attributable to a lack of wil on theP

eaceful

part of the parties to make the necessary difftcultcompromises and called upon them to enter intoserious and fruitful discussions in a spirit of good willand compromise. Noting that neither the patience

nor the resources of Canada were without limits, hereaffirmed Canada’s strong support for the Secretary-General in his efforts to give fresh impetus to thenegotiating process and expressed the hope that allinterested countries would do likewise.s2

Decision of I8 November 1983 (2500th meeting):resolution 54 1 (I 983)On I5 November 1983, the representatives of the

United Kingdom,53 Cyprus” and Greeces5 addressedseparate letters to the President of the Council callingfor an urgent meeting of the Council to consider thesituation in Cyprus. In requesting the meeting, therepresentative of Cyprus stated that on 15 November1983 the so-called Assembly of the “Turkish Feder-ated State of Kibris” had proclaimed an independentState in the part of the territory of the Republic ofCyprus which was under mihtary occupation byTurkey in an attempt to secede from the Republic ofCyprus. The purported secession was in clear viola-tion of specific provisions of Council resolutions andcreated an explosive situation that threatened theindependence, sovereignty, territorial integrity andunity of the Republic of Cyprus and ‘eopardizedinternational peace and security. His cl ovemmentrequested that the Council take urgent and effectiveaction to deal with that grave development inaccordance with the relevant provisions of the Char-ter.

At its 2497th meeting, on 17 November 1983, theCouncil included the three letters in its agenda. Thefollowing representatives were invited, at their re-quest, to participate in the discussion without theright to vote: at the 2497th meeting, the representa-tives of Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Greece, India,Romania, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Yugo-slavia: at the 2498th meeting, the representatives ofAlgeria, Cuba and Democratic Yemen; and at the2500th meeting, the representative of Egypt.56 At the2498th meeting, the Council invited Mr. Rauf Denk-tas5’ to participate in the discussion under rule 39 ofits provisional rules of procedure. The Councilconsidered the item at its 2497th to 2500th meetings,on 17 and 18 November 1983.

At the 2497th meeting, the Secretary-Generalstated that the matter before the Council concernedthe announcement on 15 November of a TurkishRepublic of Northern Cyprus and the issuance of adeclaration in which that entity was described as anindependent State. He had been informed of theannouncement by a letter from the leader of theTurkish Cypriot community, Mr. Denktas, and hadresponded with an expression of his deep regret at theannouncement, which he considered contrary to theresolutions of the Security Council and at variancewith the high-level agreements of 1977 and 1979, andan appeal to all those involved to exercise the utmostrestraint.

The Secretary-General told the Council that, basedon the suggestion made by Mr. Denktas on 1October, hts Special Representative had arrived inCyprus on 14 November to begin consultationsregarding a high-level meeting between the leaders ofthe two communities, which was meant to pave theway for a resumption of serious intercommunalnegotiations. Against that back round, he felt con-strained to express once again f is deep disappoint-ment at the action taken on 15 November. However,Mr. Denktas had informed him that the proposal fora high-level meeting under the ausptces of the

Pall II 195

Secretary-General remained valid and that the goodoflices of the Secretary-General and the negotiationsmust continue.

The Secretary-General stated that he was deter-mined to attempt to induce the parties to return tothe search for an agreed, just and negotiated settle-ment, and to that end he would utilize to the fullestthe presence at the United Nations of high-rankingrepresentatives of all concerned. Regarding the situa-tion on the island, he informed the Council thataccess to the north of Cyprus had been temporarilyclosed prior to the Turkish Cypriot announcementand had been reopened shortly thereafter. The situa-tion remained calm, and the presence of UNFICYPprovided a measure of assurance that the calm wouldnot be disturbed.5*

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cyprus de-clared that his Government considered the declara-tion of the independence of the entity described asthe “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” null andvoid, and that all States were duty-bound to recog-nize no Cypriot State other than the Republic ofCyprus. He asserted that Turkey was solely responsi-ble for the purported declaration of independence,and that the Denktas r&me was a mere puppetmaintained and controlled by Turkey. Those actionsrepresented a breach of Turkey’s obligations underthe Treaty of Guarantee and the Treaty of Estabiish-ment and constituted a threat to international peaceand security with implications which extended be-yond the confines of Cyprus. His Government ap-pealed to the Council to discharge its responsibilitiesunder the Charter by adopting effective measureswhich would reverse the situation in the occupiedpart of Cyprus. He urged that the Council seriouslyconsider taking effective measures to implement itsown mandatory resolutions, in accordance with theCharter.58

At the 2498th meeting, Mr. Denktas indicated thathe stood ready to resume the negotiations within theagreed procedure. As the declaration of indepen-dence had made clear, the Turkish Cypriot sidefavoured continued negotiations under the goodoffices of the Secretary-General and believed that thedeclaration of statehood would help the negotiatingprocess because it underlined the equality of theparties. The Turkish Cypriot side stood by the 1977and 1979 summit agreements, the 1980 openingstatement of the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General’s evaluation paper, all of which foresaw theestablishment of a blzonal federal republic.

He charged that the problem of Cyprus existedbecause the Greek Cypriots sought to destro thebicommunality of Cyprus and to make of it a & reekCypriot State, relegatmg the Turkish Cypriots to thestatus of a minority within that State. The recogni-tion by international force of the Greek Cas the legitimate Government of Cyprus h

priot wingad led the

Greek Cypriots to feel that they had achieved whatthey had set out to achieve and had removed anyincentive for re-establishing a bicommunal State. Mr.Denktas urged that the Council give Cyprus a chanceto establish bizonal, bicommunal federalism. TheGreek Cynition oP

riot call for condemnation and non-recog-the Turkish C priot move should be

ignored, for it was only wL en the world started torecogmze them that the Greek Cypriots would feelthe need to come to the negotiating table.57

The reTurkish 8

resentative of Turkey contended that the

Turkishy

Priot declaration of independence and the

mi itary presence in Cyprus were in accord-ante with the international treaties b which theRepublic of Cyprus had been establisheJ. The unilat-era1 amendments by the Greek Cypriots to the 1960Cypriot Constitution were in contravention of theTreaty of Guarantee concluded between the Republicof Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey,and of the Constitutional Order of Cyprus, whichTurkey, as a guaranteein Power, was duty-bound topreserve and restore. dn that basis the Turkishmilitary continued to protect the Turkish C priotcommumty In order to prevent union with c! reeceand to restore the conditions that the 1960 Constitu-tion had aimed at establishing, namely, a bicommu-nal republic within which the two communities,under the protection of the appropriate safeguardsand guarantees, could live in peace and security.States that recognized the Greek Cypriot administra-tion as the Gqvemment of Cyprus were endorsing aflagrant violation of international law. The CypriotState had been co-founded by the two commumties;how then could one of them form a Government torule over both? The Council had recognized that theright to self-determination was exercised in Cyprusjomtly by the two communities, since the Councilconsidered that only the two communities togetherwere competent to bring about a negotiated solution.

The Greek Cypriots, however, had persisted inreferring to the Turkish Cypriot community as aminority or ethnic group, making it clear that theyhad no intention of restoring to it its legal andlegitimate position as cofounder of the Republic.Turkish Cypriot exasperation had finally led to thedeclaration of inde

?p”ndence. It was not a secession,

however, for the urkish C priots had proclaimedthemselves bound b

rthe 4 reaties

Establishment andof Guarantee,

Al iance which had given birth tothe Republic of Cyprus. The representative of Turkeproposed that the Council should, above all, ca 1rupon the two communities to resume intercommunalnegotiations within the framework of the mission ofgood offices of the Secretary-General. It should takemto account the willingness of the Turkish Cypriotsto negotiate and refrain from judgements based ondistortions and prejudices. Unilateral condemnationof the Turkish community in Cyprus would a

Yavate

its exasperation but would never deflect it rom itsaspiration for equality, protected and sustained byTurkey.“’

The representative of Nicaragua stated that thedecision to declare an independent Turkish CypriotState was unacceptable because it destroyed theunity, independence, sovereignty and territorial in-tegrlty of a Member State. It endangered intemation-al peace and security, violated Article 2, paragraph 4,of the Charter, and violated relevant decisions of theGeneral Assembly and Council, inbly resolutions 3212 (XXIX and 3

3P

articular, Assem-1253 and Council

resolutions 365 (1974) and 67 (1975), which formedthe foundation on which the search for a solutionshould be based. The two communities in Cyprusmust come to an agreement between themselveswithout interference. The Council should promotethe efforts of the Secretary-General to achieve anegotiated solution, should declare the Turkish Cy-

Rriot action null and void and should call uponember States not to recognize the declaration of

1% Cbaotcr VIII. Malatenamx of intcrmtiod m aad aectuitv

The representative of Australia, noting that hisGovernment was a troop contributor to UNFICYP,called upon all parties to allow the Force to carry outits mandate unimpeded and stated that if the Forcewere placed in jeopardy his Government would haveto review the participation of its contingenLs7

At the outset of the 2499th meeting, the President(Malta) brought to the Council’s attention a draftresolution@I submitted by the United Kingdom.61

At the same meeting, the representative of Paki-stan asserted that without an appreciation of thecircumstances leading to the decision to proclaim theindependence of a Turkish Republic of NorthernCyprus it would be impossible to arrive at a correctjudgement on it. That decision was attributable tothe neglect shown by the international communityregarding the interests and concerns of the TurkishCypriots and to the failure of the Greek Cypriotleadership to mitigate the misgivings of their Turkishcompatriots. A resolution condemning the TurkishCypriot community, whose co-operation was a sinequa non for the re-establishment of the unity ofCyprus, would aggravate the situation, and an at-tempt to isolate the Turkish Cypriot communitywould impede the resumption of the intercommunalnegotiations and the resolution of the problem. TheTurkish Cypriot declaration was not an irreversibleact of secession. The Turkish Cypriot communityhad expressly reaffirmed its desire for the resumptionof negotiations and the continuation of the Secretary-General’s mission of good offlces. Therefore, therepresentative of Pakistan u e d the Council tostrengthen the hand of the 7ecretary-General t ocontinue his good offices in Cypru~.*~

At the 2500th meeting, the representative ofGuyana expressed the view that the draft resolutionto be adopted by the Council should have con-demned the Turkish Cypriot declaration of indepen-dence as being in defiance of the United Nations, andin particular of resolutions 365 (1974) and 367(1975). The Council should have declared that theUnited Nations would not accord any recognition tothe so-called independent entity, and an appealshould have been directed to Member States not torecognize it. However, his delegation appreciated theeffort made b the authors of the draft resolution andin a spirit o ty compromise would vote in favour.62

The representative of Turke rejected the firstpreambular paragraph of the draK resolution becauseof its reference to the Government of the Republic ofCyprus and, defending the legitimacy of the TurkishCypriot community’s right to self-determination andits decision in the exercise of that right to create itsown independent State, he further rejected the sec-ond, third and fourth preambular paragraphs andoperative paragraphs 1, 2 and 7. He expressedsurprise that, contra

7to the Council’s normal

practice, the draR reso ution contained no referenceto the ne otiations between the two communities,and stateif that the onl possibility for the Secretary-General to conduct h is mission of good oficesoutside the framework of the intercommunal negotia-tions would be between two independent CypriotStates and with their prior consent. He concludedthat,.as the draft resolution was based on a distortionof hIstorica events and showed no concern for anequitable approach to the two communities of Cy-prus, Turkey would reject it in its entirety.62

The representative of the United Kingdom statedthat the draft resolution sponsored by his delegationreflected the views of his Government: it deploredthe action by the Turkish Cypriot community, whichwas incompatible with the treaties govemmg theestablishment of the Republic of Cyprus, and itrecognized only one Cypriot State, under the Gov-ernment of President Kyprianou. His Governmenthoped that the intercommunal negotiations would beresumed, and that could best be done through theSecretary-General, whose statement of 17 Novemberhis Government warmly welcomed and whose effortsit fully supported.62

The representative of Pakistan noted that hisdelegation had proposed certain amendments to thedraft resolution circulated by the United Kingdomand regretted that those proposals had not receivedthe attention they deserved from the Council. Thedraft resolution had contained a reference to theintercommunal negotiations, which Pakistan consid-ered essential, and whose deletion from the revisedversion of the draft resolution rendered that draftunacceptable.62

At the same meeting, the draft resolution63 wasadopted by 13 votes in favour to I against, with 1abstention, as resolution 54 1 (1983). The resolutionreads as follows:

The Security Council,Having heard the statement of the Foreign Minister of the

Government of the Republic of Cyprus,Concerned at the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot authorities

issued on 15 November 1983 which purports to create anindependent State in northern Cyprus,

Cons ider ing that this declarat ion is incompatible with the 1960Treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprusand the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee,

Considering, therefore, that the attempt to create a “TurkishRepublic of Northern Cyprus” is invalid, and will contribute to aworsening of the situation in Cyprus.

Realjirming its resolutions 365 (1974) and 367 (1975).A ware of the need for a solution $31 the Cyprus problem based on

the miss ion of good oflices undertaken by the Secretary-General.Ajfirming its continuing support for the United Nations Peacc-

keeping Force in Cyprus,Tak ing note of the Secretary-General ’s statement of I7 Novem-

ber 1983,I. Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of

the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus;2. Considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid

and calls for its withdrawal;3. Calls fir the urgent and effective implementation of its

resolutions 365 (1974) and 367 (1975);4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his mission of good

oflices. in order to achieve the earliest possible progress towards ajust and lasting settlement in Cyprus;

5. Calls upon the parties to co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices;

6. Gulfs upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence,territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus;

7. Calls upon all States not to recognize any Cypriot State otherthan the Republic of Cyprus;

8. Cul l s upon al l States and the two communit ies in Cyprus torefrain from any action which might exacerbate the situation;

9. Reques ts the Secretary-General to keep the Security Councilfully informed.

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thathis delegation had voted in favour of the resolutionin the belief that it adequately met the needs of thesituation and that it had been uided by the fact thatthe text was acceptable to the E ovemment of Cyprus.However, he maintained that the Zurich-Londonagreements referred to in the preambular part of the

PM I I 197-resolution had been imposed upon Cyprus andreP

resented a serious curtailment of the sovereigntyo the Republic of Cyprus, that the guaranteesenvisioned therein were essentially used to serveinterests that were alien to the Cypriot people, andthat they had failed both in the past and in thecurrent circumstances to prevent armed interventionand other acts aimed at splitting up the State ofcypnls6*

Mr. Denktas responded to the adoption of theresolution by reiterating the position he had ex-pounded at the Council’s 2498th meeting. Hestressed that, even if the entire world recognized thepresent admmistration as the legitimate Governmentof Cyprus, his people would never do so. The onlysolution was to reestablish the bicommunal, bizonalfederal system with the aid, help and good offices ofthe Secretary-General, for which the Turkish Cypriotcommunity remained ready.62

Decision of 15 December 1983 (2503rd meeting):resolution 544 ( 1983)On 1 December 1983, the Secretary-General sub-

mitted a repoiV4 on the United Nations operation inCyprus covering the period from I June to 30November 1983. He noted with regret that, despiteintensive efforts on his part in cooperation with theparties concerned, the search for a settlement of theproblem of Cyprus had suffered a set-back during the

rriod under review. In his meetings with the parties

ollowing the action of the Turkish Cypriot commu-nity of 15 November 1983 he had strongly urgedthem to observe all of the provisions of resolution541 (1983) and had drawn their attention to the callfor their cooperation in his mission of good ofIices.He stated that the chances for success in his effortswould depend on the cooperation of the partiesinvolved and their willingness to engage in seriousnegotiations. The Secretary-General concluded that,based on the situation on the round and politicaldevelopments, the presence of NFICYP remained&indispensable,. and he recommended a further six-month extension of its mandate. In an addendum6jdated 15 December 1983, the Secretary-Generalinformed the Council that the Governments ofCyprus, Greece and the United Kingdom had agreedto the proposed extension.

At its 2503rd meeting, on 15 December 1983, theCouncil included the report of the Secretary-Generalin its agenda and invited, at their request, therepresentatives of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey66 toparticipate in the discussion without the right tovote, and also invited Mr. Nail Atalay6’ under rule 39of its provisional rules of rocedure. The Councilconsidered the item at its P 503rd meeting.

The President drew the Council’s attention to adraft resolution6* prepared in the course of consulta-tions, which he then put to the vote. The draftresolution received 15 votes in favour and wasadopted unanimously as resolution 544 (1983). Itreads as follows:

The Security Council,

Taking nofe of the report of the Secretary-General on the UnitedNations operation in Cyprus of I December 1983,

Noting the recommendation by the Secretary-General that theSecurity Council should extend the stationing of the UnitedNations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus for a further period of sixmonths,

Noring also that the Government of Cyprus has agreed that inview of the prevailing conditions in the island it is ncccssary tokeep the Force in Cyprus beyond I5 December 1983,

Reo/lirming the provisions of its resolution 186 (I 964) and otherrelevant resolutions,

I. Exrends once more the stationing in Cyprus of the UnitedNations Peace-keeping Force established under resolution 186(1964) for a further period. ending on IS June 1984;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his mission ofgood offices, to keep the Security Council informed of the progressmade and to submit a report on the implementation of the presentresolution by 31 May 1984;

3. Calls upon all the parties concerned to continue to cooperatewith the Force on the basis of the present mandate.

The representative of Pakistan expressed regretthat the resolution just adopted contained certainelements that had no direct bearing on the extensionof the mandate of UNFICYP. He cited the third andfourth preambular paragraphs, which had remainedunchanged despite the objection of the TurkishCypriot community, and pomted out that the secondpreambular paragraph had been altered to indicate,for the first time, that the resolution did not enjoy theagreement of all the parties concerned. The resolu-tion retained the reference to “other relevant resolu-tions” contained in the fourth preambular paragraph,despite his delegation’s su estion that it be deletedbecause of its implicit inc usionY of resolution 541(1983) which Pakistan and the Turkish Cypriotcommunity had rejected. It also made no reference tothe intercommunal talks and the important agree-ments that had been reached both within and outsidethe United Nations framework. Nevertheless, hisdelegation had voted in favour of the draft resolutionin order to underscore the importance it attached tothe United Nations peace-keeping role and thecontinued presence of UNFICYP m Cyprus.67

The representative of Cyprus referred to resolution541 (1983) and stated that mere condemnation of thepurported secession of the so-called Turkish Repub-lic of Northern Cyprus was not enough. The Councilshould take the measures provided for in the Charterto ensure the withdrawal of Turkish settlers fromCyprus, the lifting of the declaration and the with-drawal of Turkish recognition of the illegal entity.67

The re resentative of Greece expressed the hopethat the ecretary-General would be able to contrib-lute to the implementation of paragraph 2 of resolu-tion 541 (1983). Greece welcomed the renewal of themandate of UNFICYP with particular satisfactionbecause its presence helped to avert dangerous crisesin Cyprus and also helped to create an atmosphere ofmoderation and conIidence.67

Mr. Nail Atalay stated that the Turkish Cy riotswould have preferred a clear-cut, concise reso utionPextendin the mandate of UNFICYP and sup

Brtin

the goo offices mission of the Secretary-l? 7enerawhile avoiding delving into the substance of theconflict. Instead, the resolution referred again to theGreek Cypriot administration as the Government ofCyprus, and the paragraphs relating to the intercom-munal talks in previous resolutions had been deleted.Therefore, the Turkish Cypriots rejected the resolu-tion in 1010; in the future, the principle, scope,modalities and procedures of cooperation betweenthe Turkish Republic of Northern C prus

Jand

UNFICYP would be based sole1 on the ecisions tobe taken by that Government. I-Je further stated that,while he did not question the right of any country toexercise its right to vote as it deemed tit on any issue,the voting records on General Assembly resolution

198 Chapter VIII. Mdntctmmx of lstermtiod mace and wcurlh

37/253 and Council resolution 54 I (1983) of some ofthe troop-contributing countries had impaired theTurkish Cypriots’ trust in UNFICYP operations,which required meticulous impartiality.67

The representative of Turkey endorsed the TurkishCypriots rejection of the resolution just adopted andinformed the Council that his Government rejectedthe resolution for the same reasons. He supportedMr. Atalay’s statement concerning the future basisfor contacts between the Turkish authorities inCyprus and UNFICYP. He noted that UNFICYPdemonstrated the interest of the United Nations inCyprus and in that wa fulfilled a political functionto which the Turkish i!ypriots and Turkey were notin principle opposed; however, the interest shown inthe Cyprus problem by any international organ whichcontinued to support usurpation would leave theTurkish people sceptical and would exasperate theTurkish Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriot communitywould not rescind its decision nor would Turkeywithdraw its recognition. He suggested that effortsshould be concentrated instead on bringing the twoparties to the negotiating table.67

On 1 May 1984, the Secretary-General submitted areport69 on the latest progress in his mission of goodoffices.

Decision of I1 May 1984 (2539th meeting): resolu-tion 550 (1984)In a Ietter’O dated 30 April 1984, the representative

of Cyprus requested that the Council be convenedurgently to consider the grave situation in Cypruscaused by the “exchange of ambassadors” betweenTurkey and the illegal regime in the areas of Cyprusunder Turkish occupation and to take urgent andeffective measures in accordance with the relevantprovisions of the Charter for the full and effectiveImplementation of its resolutions in all their respects.

At its 253lst meeting, on 3 May 1984, the Councilincluded the letter in its agenda. The followingrepresentatives were invited, at their request, toparticipate in the discussion without the right tovote: at the 2531st meeting, the representatives ofAntigua and Barbuda, Cyprus, Greece, Turkey andYugoslavia; at the 2532nd meetin

4, the representa-

tive of Afghanistan; at the 253 rd meeting, therepresentatrves of Australia, Ecuador, Sri Lanka andthe Syrian Arab Republic; at the 2534th meeting, therepresentative of Algeria; at the 2535th meeting, therepresentatives of Cuba, Guyana, Jamaica, Mongoliaand Viet Nam; at the 2536th meeting, the representa-tives of Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Hungary,Panama and Saint Lucia; at the 2537th meeting, therepresentative of the German Democratic Republic;and at the 2538th meeting, the representatives ofCzechoslovakia and Mala sra.‘l In addition, at the2531st meeting, Mr. Rauf f; enktas was invited in hisindividual capacity under rule 39 of the Council’sprovisional rules of procedure.72 The Council consid-ered the item at its 2531st to 2539th meetings, from 3to 11 May 1984.

At the 253lst meeting, the President of Cyprusobserved that the international community was inagreement about the question of Cyprus, and theproblem was whether or not that a eement could beimplemented. After the event of 1Y November 1983the international community had promised that itwould take measures to reverse the situation. TheSecretary-General had proposed to the Turkish sideto freeze the process, desptte the call for reversal in

the Council resolution, but Turkey had one aheadand exchanged ambassadors. The Presi c!ent of Cy-prus concluded that there could no longer be anydoubts as to the intentions of Turkey, whose long-standing plan had been the partition of Cyprus andthe destruction of the Republic, and he warned of thecoming end of Cyprus as an independent State unlessthe Council acted quickly and effectively. If itbecame too late to act, the Council, through itscondonation and lack of action, would be an accom-plice to what had been happening at the expense ofCypnls.‘~

Mr. Denktas asserted that the Turkish Cypriotswere not floutin the decisions of the Council, as hadbeen suggested, %ut were defying the attempt by onesection of a b&national country to deceive the worldassembly and the Council by falsehoods. The TurkishCypriot policy had developed in defence against theGreek Cypriot plan for union with Greece. TheTurkish Cypriots were trying to prevent their de-struction as one of the peoples of Cyprus and one ofthe co-founders of the Republic, and they could notaccept that, because the partnership had been de-stroyed by force in 1963, they had no right to claimjustice. Mr. Denktas confirmed his wilhngness anddesire for negotiations and dialogue and suggestedthat the Council insist that the other side meet withthem.72

At the 2532nd meetin ,Turkey stated that those wa

the representative ofo wished to prevent the

Turkish Cypriot community from progressing on thepath of independence should persuade the GreekCypriot administration and Greece to consent to theresumption of the intercommunal negotiations underthe auspices of the Secretary-General’s good offtces,with a view to reaching a comprehensive settlementwithin the framework of a bicommunal, bizonal andnon-aligned federation based on the principle of theequality of the two communities. His Governmentcontinued to support the Secretary-General’s missionof good offices and considered, as always, that theinterlocutors of the Secretary-General in his efforts toresume the intercommunal negotiations were theTurkish Cypriot community and the Greek Cypriotcommunity.73

The representative of Greece expressed the beliefthat, had the resolution of the situation in Cyprusbeen a question of finding an intercommunal balancewithin the framework of internationally acceptedpatterns, that goal could have been attained within amatter of a few weeks. He suggested that what hadhappened in Cyprus stemmed Instead from Turkishexpansionism in the eastern Mediterranean and fromTurkey’s so-called geopolitical interest in Cyprus.Turkey was asking for an unconditional surrenderbased on Turkish military might, which would neverbe accepted.73

The representative of India expressed regret thatthe Turkish Cypriot leadership had taken furtheractions in direct contravention of resolution 541(1983) and the endeavours of the Secretary-General.His delegation had always advocated an equitablesolution to the Cyprus question that would ensure thedignity and equal rights of both communities in anundivided country, and had pointed to intercommu-nal ne otiations as the only means towards that end.India % elieved that the Secretary-General’s missionof good offices remained the only possible channelthrough which both sides could be engaged inmeanmgful negotiations. The Council should request

Put II 199

the Secretary-General to persist in his efforts andshould strengthen his hand in doing so. States thathad influence in the region should actively supportthe Secretary-General’s efforts and display greaterdetermination to ensure the implementation of reso-lution 541 (1 983).73

The representative of Pakistan, at the 2534thmeeting, stated that the right of the Turkish commu-nity in Cyprus to equal status was sui genmis andcould not be qualified or diminished by distinguish-in

8between a majority and a minority community in

a tate. A basis for the fruitful continuation of theSecretary-General’s good oflices clearly existed andshould not be impaired by the adoption of anotherone-sided resolution, which could result in the irre-trievable loss of the co-operative attitude of one ofthe communities. He urged the Council to adopt aresolution that would provide the necessary supportto the good offices of the Secretary-General and beacceptable to both sides.”

At the 2535th meeting, the representative of VietNam called upon the Council to show more seriousconcern about the events in Cyprus, to supthe Secretary-General’s mission of good oK”

rt fullyIces and

to take effective measures under Chapter VII of theCharter to uarantee the implementation of thereIevant reso utions adopted by the General Assem-fbly and the Councii.75

The representative of the United Kingdom statedat the 2538th meeting that it was necessary to make adistinction between the immediate problem of thepurported exchange of ambassadors, which, be onddoubt, was in contravention of resolution 541 (I ii83),and the more fundamental long-term problem of thesituation in Cyprus, which was gettincomplicated. The Council’s message s%

increasinglyould be that

the resolution of the long-term problem required thatall parties cooperate with the Secretary-General’smission of good offtces while in the meantimerefraining from any action that might exacerbate thesituation. That would best be done on the basis ofcertain fundamental principles that had the backingof the parties and of the international community asa whole.76

At the outset of the 2539th meeting the Presidentdrew attention to a draft resolution sponsored bIndia, Nicaragua, the Upper Volta and Zimbabwe. K

Prior to the vote the representative of Pakistanstated that his delegation had littIe choice but to voteagainst the draft resolution as it made no reference tothe intercommunal talks or to the high-level agree-ments of 1977 and 1979, and it attempted to redefinethe mandate of the Secretary-General in terms thatwould give his efforts little chance of success, byrequestmty with a

him to undertake new efforts in conformr-t e Charter and pertinent United Nations

resolutions, including resolution 541 (1983) and thedraft resolution,7R

At the same meeting, the draft resolution77 wasadopted by 13 votes in favour to 1 against, with 1abstention, as resolution 550 (1984). It reads asfollows:

The Security Council.Having considered the situation in Cyprus at the request of the

Government of the Republic of Cyprus,Huving heard the statement of the President of the Republic of

CYPnrS.Taking no& of the repon of the Secretary-General,Recalling its resolutions 365 ( I974), 367 (I 975). 541 ( 1983) and

544 (1983)

Deeply regfplling the non-implementation of its resolutions, inparticular resolution 54 I (1983)

Grave/y concerned about the further secessionist acts in theoccupied pan of the Republic of Cyprus which are in violation ofresolut ion 541 (1983). namely, the purported exchange of ambas-sadors between Turkey and the legal ly inval id “Turkish Republicof Northern Cyprus” and the contemplated holding of a “constitu-tional referendum” and “elections”, as well as by other actions orthreats of actions aimed at further consolidating the purportedindependent State and the division of Cyprus,

Deeply concerned about recent threats for settlement of Varoshaby people other than its inhabitants,

Req/f?rming its continuing support for the United NationsPeace-keeping Force in Cyprus,

I. Re@Twms its resolution 54 I (1983) and calls for its urgent andeffective implemenlal ion;

2. Condemns al l secessionist act ions, including the purportedexchange of ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriotleadership, declares them illegal and invalid and calls for theirimmediate withdrawal;

3. Reiierules the call upon all States not to recognize thepurported State of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” setup by secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or inany way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity;

4. Culls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence.territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic ofCYPW

5. Considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by peopleother than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transferof that area to the administration of the United Nations;

6. Considers any attempts to interfere with the status or thedeployment of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprusas contrary to the resolutions of the United Nations;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to promote the urgent imple-mentation of Security Council resolution 541 (1983);

8. Reofirms the mandate of good offices given to the Secrelary-General and requests him to undertake new efforts to attain anoverall solution to the Cyprus problem in conformity with theprinciples of the Chaner of the United Nations and the provisionsfor such a settlement laid down in the pertinent United Nationsresolutions, including resolution 541 (1983) and the presentresolution;

9. Culls upon all parties to co-operate with the Secretary-Generalin his mission of good offices;

10. Decides to remain seized of the situation with a view totaking urgent and appropriate measures, in the event of non-implementation of resolution 541 (1983) and the present resolu-t ion;

I I. Requests the Secretary-General to promote the implementa-tion of the present resolution and to report thereon to the SecurityCounci l as developments require.

Following the vote,United States indicated

the representative of thethat his delegation was

substantially in agreement with the resolution buthad abstained because, in view of the stronthat existed among the parties any exacer %

feelings

the conflict must be avoided.{8ation of

The representative of the United Kin dom!

ex-pressed reservations about paragraphs 5, and 10,and regarded the correct interpretation of paragraph8 as crucial. He explained that his delegation hadvoted in favour of the resolution on the understand-ing that paragraph 8 meant that the Secreta -Gener-al’s mandate as set out in resolution 36 (1975)7remained valid, and that the Secretary-Generalwould take account of the principles of the Charterand of the relevant resolutions but would be as freeunder this resolution as he had been in the past.78

The representative of the Netherlands stated that,while his delegation had voted in favour of theresolution, it had some reservations as to its wording,in particular paragraph 10, and regarded paragraas m no way restrictmg the freedom of action ofh 8

theSecretary-General.‘*

zoo Chapter VIII. Mainteamce of international peace rad secwhy

Mr. Denktas indicated that the present resolutionwas unacceptable to the Turkish Cypriots because itwas based on resolution 541 (1983) which they hadnot accepted. An attempt by the Secretary-General topromote the implementation of resolution 541(1983) would kill the intercommunal talks and anyprospect of a negotiated settlement; he thereforehoped that the Secretary-General would find a paral-lel way of approaching them. He noted that theCouncil, in reaffirming the good oflices mandate,had tied it to resolution 541 (1983), and stated thatthe Secretary-General would have to convince themthat his good offices mission would be based exclu-sively on the powers granted in resolution 367

r1975). Paragraph IO was unacceptable because itailed to mention summit or high-level agreements.‘8

The representative of Turkey rejected the resolu-tion as a whole at the outset because it was based onresolution 541 (1983), and then commented onspecific unacceptable provisions: the seventh pream-bular paragraph and para raphproper interference by the E

5 represented im-ouncil in the search for a

solution, which was the exclusive responsibility ofthe two communities of Cyprus; paragraph 3 ex-pressed a policy of ostracism that was neither realis-tic nor just and could only impede the quest forultimate reconciliation between the two communi-ties; the inclusion of paragraph 6 was incomprehensi-ble, in view of the position reiterated that morning byMr. Denktas;76 paragraph 8 was not only untimely,but dan erous; and paragraph IO had no meaningand no fegal basis in the Charter.78

Decision of 15 June 1984 (2547th meeting): resolu-tion 553 (1984)On 1 June 1984, prior to the expiration of the

mandate of UNFICYP, the Secreta -General sub-mitted a report79 covering the period rom 1 Decem-7ber 1983 to 31 May 1984 in which he indicated thatthe search for a settlement of the Cyprus problemhad continued during the period under review with-out success. He concluded that the presence ofUNFICYP remained indispensable and recommend-ed that the Council extend its mandate for a furtherperiod of six months. In an addendum dated 15 June1984,*O the Secretary-General informed the Councilthat the Governments of Cyprus, Greece and theUnited Kingdom had agreed to the proposed exten-sion, whereas the Government of Turke and theTurkish Cypriot community had indicate d that thewere not in a position to accept the text of the draKresolution contained in document S/l6622 andwould explain their stand at the meeting of theCouncil.

At its 2547th meeting, on I5 June 1984, theCouncil included the report of the Secretary-Generalin its agenda and invited, at their request, therepresentatives of Cyprus, Greece and Turkeya toparticipate in the discussion without the right tovote. The Council also invited Mr. Necati M. Erte-kiln** to participate in accordance with rule 39 of itsprovisional rules of procedure. The Council consid-ered the item at the 2547th meeting.

The President put to the vote a draft resolution83prepared in the course of consultations, which wasadopted unanimously with 15 votes in favour asresolution 553 (1984). The resolution reads as fol-lows:

The Security Council.

Taking no& of the report of the Secretary-General on the UnitedNations operation in Cyprus of I June 1984.

~Voling the recommendation by the Secretary-General that theSecurity Council should extend the stationing of the UnitedNations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus for a further period of sixmonths,

Noring also that the Government of Cyprus has agreed that inview of the prevailing conditions in the island it is necessary tokeep the Force in Cyprus beyond 15 June 1984,

Reuflrming the provisions of its resolution I86 ( 1964) and otherrelevant resolutions.

I. Exfends once more the stationing in Cyprus of the UnitedNations Peace-keeping Force established under resolution 186(1964) for a further period, ending on 15 December 1984;

2. Reque.v.7 the Secretary-General to continue his mission ofgood offices, to keep the Security Council informed of the progressmade and to submit a report on the implementation of the presentresolution by 30 November 1984;

3. <hIis upon all the parties concerned to continue to cooperatewith the Force on the basis of the present mandate.

The representative of Greece noted that, alongwith the renewal of the mandate of UNFICYP, theresolution just ado tedGeneral’s mission oP

reaffirmed the Secretary-

Secretagood offices. He stated that the

-General’s mission, as defined in resolu-tions 367 (1975), 541 (I 983) and 550 (1984), had thefull support of his Governmenta

Mr. Ertekun observed that the present resolutionwas an updated version of resolution 544Turkish Cypriot side was therefore le h

1983). Thewith no

alternative but to reject the resolution in tofo and forthe same reasons it had rejected resolution 544(1983), although it was prepared to accept thepresence of UNFICYP on the same basis as thatstated in December 1983. He further stated that sinceUNFICYP had been set up, 20 years a o, thesituation on the island had changed consi derabland a revision of the mandate would seem in iIorder.

The representative of Turkey also rejected thepresent resolution in toto.

Decision of 14 December 1984 (2565th meeting):resolution 559 (1984)With the agreement of the members of the Council,

the Secretary-General delayed the submission of hisreport on the United Nations operation in Cyprus inorder to be able to incorporate the results of the finalround of high-level proximity talks on Cyprus, heldon I2 December 1984. Accordingly, on I2 December1984, he submitted a re

p”rt84 covering developments

relating to UNFICYP rom I June to 30 November1984 and re rting on his missjon of good offrices forthe period rom I June to I2 December 1984. Thep”Secretary-General indicated that during the periodunder review the two sides had engaged rn a series ofhigh-level proximity talks. By 12 December he hadjud

Ped that the documentation for a draft agreement

c o u d be submitted to a joint hiBh

-level meetingunder his auspices starting on I7 anuary 1985, atwhich he expected that the interlocutors wouldconclude an agreement containing the necessaryelements for a comprehensive solutron of the prob-lem armed at establishing a Federal Republic ofCyprus, Once again, the Secretary-General concludedthat the presence of UNFICYP remained indispens-able, and recommended that the Council extend itsmandate for a further period of six months. In anaddendums5 dated 14 December 1984 the Secretary-General informed the Council that the Governmentsof Cyprus, Greece and the United Kingdom hadagreed to the proposed extension, whereas the Gov-

Put I I 201- emment of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot commu-

nity had indicated that they could not accept thedraft resolution contained in document S/l6862 andwould convey their views at the meeting of theCouncil.

At its 2565th meeting, on I4 December 1984, theCouncil included the Secretary-General’s report in itsagenda and invited, at their request, the representa-tives of Canada, Cyprus, Greece and Turkeys6 toparticipate in the discussion without the right tovote. The Council also invited Mr. Denkta$,*’ underrule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure. TheCouncil considered the item at its 2565th meeting.

At the outset of the meeting, the President made astatement*’ on behalf of the Council expressing theCouncil’s appreciation to the Secretary-General andthe hope that the forthcoming high-level meetingwould be useful and advance the developments onthe question of Cyprus. He then put to the vote adraft resolutionaR prepared in the course of consulta-tions, which was adopted unanimously with I5 votesin favour as resolution 559 (I 984). The resolutionreads as follows:

‘The Security Councrl,Toking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the United

Nations operation in Cyprus of 12 December 1984,Noring the recommenbation by the Secretary-General that the

Security Council should extend the stationing of the UnitedNations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus for a further period of sixmonths,

Noting also that the Government of Cyprus has agreed that inview of the prevai l ing condi t ions in the island it is necessary tokeep the Force in Cyprus beyond I5 December 1984.

Reufirming the provisions of its resolution I86 (I 964) and otherrelevant resolutions,

I. Extends once more the stationing in Cyprus of Ihe UnitedNations Peace-keeping Force established under resolution 186(1964) for a further period, ending on I5 June 1985;

2. Requests the Secretary-General IO continue his mission ofgood onices. lo keep the Security Council informed of the progressmade and lo submit a report on the implementation of the presentresolution by 31 May 1985;

3. Culls upon all the parties concerned lo continue to co-operatewith the Force on the basis of the present mandate.

The representative of Greece expressed his Gov-ernment’s earnest wish that the crucial round ofnegotiations between the President of Cyprus andMr. Denkta$ durin their meetine in January wouldlead to a fair an d viable solution of the Cyprusproblem on the basis of the provisions of the relevantUnited Nations resolutions.*’

Mr. Denktas rejected the resolution just adoptedand stressed that the summit meeting in Januarywould take place between the two leaders of the twocommunities, and not between the President of theRepublic of Cyprus and Mr. Denktas. In addition,the draft agreement prepared and presented by theSecretary-General would have to be submitted for theofficial approval of the two leaders. The text couldnot be rewritten or modified, and as far as theTurkish Cypriot side was concerned, the only pointto be discussed pertained to certain dates that wouldbe filled in at the high-level meeting. Furthermore,the draft agreement constituted an inte rated wholeand did not allow for the introduction orB reservationsof any kind. He was certain that the Secretary-General would conduct the hi&h-level meetivg on I7January 1985 mmdful of the Juridical requirementsstemmmg from the nature of the draft agreement.*’

The representative of Turkey stated that, since theTurkish Cypriots had rejected the present resolution,

Turkey also rejected it, and for the same reasons. Hepointed out that since December 1983 neither theTurkish Cypriots nor Turkey had accepted the Coun-cil resolutions on UNFICYP. If a hi@-level agree-ment was concluded its implementation would un-doubtedly require the allocation of newresponsibilities to UNFICYP, in which case it wouldbe essential to find a legal foundation for its presenceand activities that would be acceptable to everyone.His Government expected that a resolution takingthat new situation into account would be submittedto the Council in June 1985.87

The representative of Greece observed that certainstatements had created the impression that theCypriot President would be presented at the Januarymeeting with a document to be signed on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. He suggested that the outcome of adialogue must always be the product of mutualagreement, and hoped that the proximity talks wouldinitiate a process that would solve remaining pointsof difference with a view to achieving a finalagreement.*’

NOTESI S/14490, OR, 36th yr.. Suppl. jar April-June 1981.

2 s/ 1449OlAdd. I, ibid.‘2279th mtg.. para. 8. See also chap. III of the present

Supplement .4 Ibid.. pare. 9.‘s/I 4500, adopted without change as resolution 486 (198 I).L 2279th mtg., para. 12. One member did not participate in the

voting.’ See s/I 3369, OR, 34:h yr.. Supp l . jar Apr i l -June 1979. para. 5 I.’ 2279th mtg., paras. 14-18.q Ibid.. paras. 23-35.lo Ibid., paras. 39-42.‘I S/I 4100. OR, 35:h yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1980.‘I 2279th mtg., paras. 48-62.I3 Ibid., paras. 68-79.I4 S/14778 and Corr.1 and 2, OR, 36th yr.. Suppl. /or Oct.-Dec.

1981.IJ s/I 4778lAdd. I. ibid.I6 2313th mtg., para. 2. See also chap. III of the present

Supplement .“2313th mtg.. para. 3.I‘ s/14790, adopted without change as resolution 495 (1981).I9 2313th mtg., para. 5.IQ Ibid.. paras. 7-9.I’ Ibid.. paras. I I-20.I1 Ibid.. paras. 26-39.*I Ibid., paras. 43-50.I4 Ibid., paras. 57-73.1s Ibid.. paras. 76- 100.lb St I 5 I49 and Corr. I, OR, 37th yr. I Suppl. for April-June 1982.I1 S/ I5 149lAdd. 1, ibid.“2378th mlg., para. 1. See also chap. III of the present

Supplemenl.*923781h mtg., para. 2 .JO S/I 52 16, adopted without change as resolution 5 IO (1982).” 2378th mtg.. para. 4.j1 1960 Treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of

CYDIUS (United Nations. Treaty Series. vol. 382. No. 5476. D. IO)ani the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee (United Nations, Treary’ieries;vol. 382. No. 5475, p. 4).

J1 2378th mtg.. pares. 15-38.u Ibid.. paras. 44-53.I) /bid., paras. 60-88.M Ibid.. paras. 93-118.I7 S/I 5502 and Corr. 1, OR, 37th yr.. Suppi. /or Oct.-Dec. 1982.

2 0 2 Chapter VIII. Malate- of latenmtiooal peace and ety

JI S/l 3502tAdd. 1, ibid.H 2405th mtg., para. I. Set also chap. 111 of the present

Supplemenl.40 2405th mtg.. para. 2.*I s/l 5523, adopted without change as resolution 526 (1982).** 2405th mtg.. para. 4.*‘Ibid.. paras. 12-14.u Ibid.. paras. 47-57.*) Ibid.. paras. 63-104.e Ibid.. paras. 107-128.*’ S/ I581 2 and Corr. I, OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. /or April-June 1983.U.W158121Add.I. ibid.4q2453rd mtg. See also chap. 111 of the present Supplement.JO 2453rd mtg.‘I S/15828, adopled without change as resolution 534 (1983).Jz 2454th mtg.J3St16147, OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1983.“S/16150, ibid.5’s/16151. ibid.)6 For details, see chap. III of the present Supplement.” 2498th mtg.JI 2497th mtg.Jq 2498th mtg. Similar views were expressed by a number of

other delegations. See 2498th mtg.: India, Seychelles, Austral ia,Algeria and Canada; 2499th mtg.: USSR, Sri Lanka, Cuba,Yugoslavia and Netherlands; and 2500th mtg.: Guyana, Zim-babwe, Poland, Democratic Yemen and France.

6os/16149. adopted without change as resolution 541 (1983).(I 2499th mtg.6* 2500th mtg.61 s116149, adopted as resolution 541 (1983).“Sll6l92, OR. 38th yr.. Suppl. for Ocr.-Dec. 1983.bs Sl I6 I92fAdd. I, ibid.u 2503rd mtg. See also chap. III of the present Supp/ement.67 2503rd mtg.us/16217, adopted without change as resolution 544 (1983).M s/ 165 19. OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. /or April-June 1984.‘Os/16514. ibid.‘I For details, see chap. Ill of the present Suppkment.I1 253lst mtg.n2532nd mtg.‘* 2534th mtg.‘5 2535th mtg.I6 2538th mtg.” S/16550, adopted without change as resolution 550 (1983).n 2539th mtg.n s/l6596 and Corr. I and 2, OR, 39th yr., Suppl. /or April-June

I984.W S/ I6596/Add. I, ibid. An additional addendum was submitted

on the same date (SI16596IAdd.2, ibid.).II 2547th mtg. See also chap. III of the present Supplement.u 2547th mtg.*I s/16622, adopled without change as resolution 553 (1984).uSl16858, OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1984.a’ S/16858/Add. I . ib id. An addit ional addendum was submitted

on 2 February 1485 relating the latest developments in (heSccretarv-GcneraI’s mission of good oliices (S/l6858/Add.2. OR,40th yr.: Suppl. for Jan.-Mar& 1985).

y 25651h mtg. See also chap. III of the present Suppiemenl.I7 2565th mtg.“s/16862, adopted without change as resolution 559 (1984).

5. COMPLAINT BY IRAQ

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

Decision of 19 June 198 1 (2288th meeting): resolu-tion 487 (1981)B a letter dated 8 June 1981,’ the representative

of raq transmitted the text of a letter from theP

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq, requesting theconvening of an immediate meeting of the Council todeal with an act of aggression by Israel against Iraqwith far-reaching consequences for internationalpeace and security. He reported that on Sunday, 7June 198 1, at 1837 hours, Israeli war-planes hadraided Baghdad and that their objective had been todestroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor installations. TheForeign Minister also drew attention to the fact thatwhereas Iraq, the victim of the attack, was a party tothe Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of NuclearWeapons, Israel had consistently refused to sign andratify the Treaty. He concluded that the internationalcommunity could not remain silent regarding theserious escalation of aggression, which Israel hadalready admitted.

In a letter dated 8 June I98 l,* the representative ofIsrael drew attention to his Government’s announce-ment that on 7 June the Israel Air Force hadlaunched a raid on the atomic reactor Osirak, nearBaghdad, and had destroyed the reactor, whichreportedly had been designed to produce atomicbombs to be used against Israel.

At its 2280th meeting, on I2 June 198 I, theCouncil included the letter dated 8 June 1981 fromthe representative of Iraq in its agenda. Follow.ing theadoptlon of the agenda,.the following were invited, attheir request, to participate without vote in thediscussion of the item: at the 2280th meeting, therepresentatives of Algeria, Brazil, Cuba, India, Iraq,Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Romania,the Sudan, Turkey and Yugoslavia; at the 2281stmeeting, the representatives of Bulgaria, Guyana,Somalia, Viet Nam and Zambia; at the 2282ndmeeting, the representatives of Bangladesh, Czecho-slovakia, Egypt, Hungary, Mongolia, Sierra Leoneand the Syrian Arab Rethe representatives oP

ublic; at the 2283rd meeting,Indonesia, Italy, Morocco,

Poland and Yemen; at the 2284th meeting, therepresentatives of Nicaragua and Sri Lanka; at the2285th meeting, the representative of Malaysia; andat the 2288th meeting, the representative of theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya.’

At the 2280th meeting, the Council also decided,followin a short discusslon4 and a vote,5 in accord-ance wit the Council’s usual practice, to invite thearepresentative of the Palestine Liberation Organiza-tion (PLO) to participate in the debate.

At the same meeting, the Council also decided toextend an invitation to Mr. Chedli Klibi under rule39 of the provisional rules of procedure.6 A similarinvitation was extended, at the 2284th meeting, toMr. Sigvard Eklund, Director-General of the Intema-tional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),’ and, at the2286th meeting, to Mr. Clovis Maksoud.*

The Council considered the item at its 2280th to2288th meetings, from 12 to 19 June 1981.

At the 2280th meeting, the Forei nIraq offered a detailed description oP

Minister ofthe Israeli air

raid against the Iraqi nuclear installations nearBaghdad and of the circumstances surrounding thatact of aeression. He charged that Israel had persis-tently strtven to obtain a nuclear militaand that with the support of the United7

capacitytates and

through occasionally questionable operations it hadmanaged to produce several nuclear bombs of at leastthe strength of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima. Healso pointed out that while the Iraqi Government hadfaithfully adhered to the Treaty on the Non-Prolifera-

P u t I I 203

tion of Nuclear Weapons and had complied with itsprovisions as well as with the safeguards as adminis-tered by IAEA, Israel had refused to accede to theTreaty and the international control of atomic ener-gy. He described the programme undertaken by hisGovernment with regard to the development ofpeaceful uses of atomic energy, a right of every State,and castigated the constant attempts of the IsraeliGovernment to disrupt and undermine those legiti-mate activities. He further reviewed the positiontaken by the General Assembly at several sessionsregarding the patterns of military and nuclear collab-oration with Israel and suggested that the Israeliattack on Osirak should be condemned as a clear-cutact of aggression and that mandatory sanctions underChapter VII of the Charter should be imposed inorder to interrupt the flow of military co-operationand assistance between Israel and some States and tobring about Israel’s compliance with the system ofIAEA inspections and safeguards.’

At the same meeting,. the representative of Israelstated that the raid against the Iraqi atomic reactorOsirak had been an act of self-preservation withwhich Israel had exercised its right of self-defence asunderstood in international law and as preserved inArticle 51 of the Charter. He accused Iraq ofharbouring a long-standing intention to destroy theState of Israel and cited Iraq’s rejection of all UnitedNations proposals to resolve the Middle Easternproblem peacefully, in particular Council resolutions242 (1967) and 338 (1973). He charged that, inrecent years, Iraq had entered the nuclear armamentsfield methodically and had purposefully built up anuclear-weapons capability. The situation had devel-oped to the point where the reactor was to go criticalin a matter of weeks, which had forced the IsraeliGovernment to act with dispatch. In order to averteven greater pain to the civilian population inBaghdad, the Israeli Government had decided tostrike the nuclear facility before it could become animmediate and great menace to Israel. The represen-tative of Israel cited several le

fal authorities support-

ing the view that legitimate se f-defence included theright to forestall a surprise attack and described theIsraeli action as fully within the provisions of Article51 of the Charter. He denied Iraqi charges that itsnuclear installations had been attacked prior to JuneI98 I and renewed his Government’s su estion thata nuclear-weapon-free zone be establis edgB in theMiddle East.‘O

At the 2288th meeting, on 19 June 198 I, thePresident drew attention to a draft resolutioni’prepared in the course of consultations.

Mr. Sigvard Eklund, Director-General of IAEA,reported that the Board of Governors of IAEA hadconsidered the Israeli attack on Osirak as a specialitem during its regular session and viewed the matterwith great apprehension. He offered a detailed de-scription of the existing nuclear facilities in Iraq andinformed the Council that Iraq had complied fullywith the inspections required periodically under thesafeguards programme of the Agency. In view of theIsraeli action and the rationale put forward for thatdrastic step he concluded that the raid on Osirakconstituted an attack on the safeguards system ofIAEA.‘*

The representative of the United States stated thatthe Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor raised troublingquestions that exacerbated the problems of theMiddle East. Her Government, without diminishing

in any way its friendship and alliance with Israel, feltthat the means chosen by Israel hurt the peace andsecurity of the area and that Israel had not exhaustedthe available diplomatic approaches; thereby, theregional confidence that was essential for the peaceprocess had been damaged. She agreed that Israelshould be condemned, that IAEA should be strength-ened and that Israel’s neighbours should recognizeIsrael’s right to exist and should enter into negotia-tions to resolve their differences. She emphasizedthat the negotiations of the last few days were gearedtowards an outcome that would protect the vitalinterests of all parties. In conclusion, she madespecial mention of the cooperative spirit and goodfaith of the Iraqi Foreign Minister and expressedhope that the results would move the turbulentMiddle East closer to the time when all parties couldturn their energies and resources from war to peace.”

At the 2288th meeting, the President put the draftresolution to the vote: it received 15 votes in favourand was adopted unanimously as resolution 487(1981).14 It reads as follows:

The Stwmry Cnuncrl.Huvrng considrwd t h e a g e n d a c o n t a i n e d i n d o c u m e n t

S/Agenda/2280,Havrng noted the contents of the letter dated 8 June 1981 from

Ihe Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq,Having heard the statements made on the subject aI its 2280th

through 2288th meetings.Taking nufe of the statement made by the Director-General of

the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Agency’s Board ofGovernors on the subject on 9 June I98 I and his statement to theSecurity Council at its 22881h meeting on I9 June 1981.

Takmg now also of the resolution adopted by the Board ofGovernors of the Agency on I2 June I98 I on the “mililary attackon Iraqi nuclear research centre and its implications for theAgency”,

Fu/ly aware of the fact that Iraq has been a par(y to the Treatyon the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came intoforce in 1970. that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq hasaccepted Agency safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and Ihatthe Agency has testilied that these safeguards have been salisfactorily applied to date.

Nofing furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the Treaty onthe Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,

Deeply concerned about the danger IO international peace andsecurity creaIed by the premeditaled Israeli air attack on Iraqinuclear installations on 7 June 1981. which could at any timeexplode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for thevital interests of all States,

Considering Ihat. under the terms of Article 2. paragraph 4, ofthe Charter of the United Nations, “all members shall refrain intheir international relations from the threat or use of force againstthe territorial integrity or political independence of any 5 late. or inany other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UnitedNations”.

I. Strongly condemns the mtlitary attack by Israel in clearviolation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms ofinternational conduct;

2. Culls upon lsrael to refrain in the future from any such acts orthreats thereof;

3. Furfher considers that the said attack constitutes a seriousIhreaI IO the entire safeguards r&gime of the International AtomicEnergy Agency, which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;

4. Fully recognizes the inalienable sovereign right of lraq and allother States, especially the developing countries, to establishprogrammes of technological and nuclear development to developtheir economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordancewith their present and future needs and consistent with theinternationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weaponsproliferation;

5. Calis upon Israel urgently IO place its nuclear facilities underthe safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency;

204 Cbaptcr VIII. Mhtteamce of intcnhoaal -c-e and necurlty6. Conriders that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the

destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has beenacknowledged by Israel;

7. Reques ts the Secretary-General lo keep the Security Councilregularly informed of the implementation of the present resolu-tion.

Following the adoption of the resolution, theMinister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq deplored that theinclusion of decisive measures, including sanctionsunder Chapter VII of the Charter, had not beenpossible. He expressed great dismay regarding theattitude shown by the United States in supportingand protecting Israel.”

NOTES

I Sll4509. OR, .3&h yr.. Suppl. jar April-June 1981. See also theletter dated IO June 1981 from the representative of Iraqtransmitting a second letter from the Foreign Minister offeringfurther details about the Israeli aggression aid two earlier raidsaimed at the nuclear installations on 27 September 1980. He alsocalled for measures under Chapter VII of ihe Charter and urgedthat the Council and the international community lend fullsupport lo Iraq (S/l45 14. ibid.).

1S/14510, ibid.J For details, se-e chap. III of the present Supplemenl.‘The representative of the United States restated her delega-

tion’s opposition to the invitation of the PLO under the specialpractice. The representative of Ireland announced his delegation’ssupport for the invitation and argued that since the invitation wasnot requested under rule 37, the procedure chosen was not inviolat ion of the Counci l ’s legal pr inciples. The representat ive ofJapan indicated that he objected IO the invitation of the PLOunder the special modality, as the item before the Council did notfall under the general question of the situation in the Middle East(see 2280th mtg.. paras. 6-15).

‘See 2280th mlg., para. 16, for the vote (I I in favour, I against,3 abstentions). See chap. 111 of the present Supplemenf for furtherdetails.

6lhid.. para. 17.’ 2284th mtg., para. 4.* 2286th mtg., para. 2.v 2280th mtg.. paras. 21-53. For similar views, see statements by

Algeria, Jordan, the Sudan and Tunisia at the 2280th meeting; byAlgeria, Cuba, India, Kuwait, Pakistan and Mr. Klibi at the 22816meeting; by China, the German Democratic Republic, Lebanonand Uganda at the 2282nd meeting; by Egypt, Mongolia, Roma-nia, Sierra Leone. Soviet Union, Viet Nam. Yugoslavia andZambia at the 2283rd meeting; by Niger, Panama, the Syrian ArabRepublic and Yemen at the 2284th meeting; by Bangladesh, Cuba(on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries), Czecho-slovakia, Morocco and Poland and by the PLO at the 2285thmeetin%; by Guyana, Hungary and Somalia at the 2286th meeting;by Indonesia. Malaysia. Nicaragua and Sri Lanka and by Mr.Maksoud at the 2287th meeting; and by the President (Mexico) althe 2288th meeting. For comments reprimanding Israel for itsaction but refraining from any call for punitive sanctions, seestatements by France, Japan and the United Kingdom at the2282nd meeting; by Ireland at the 2285th meeting; and by Italy althe 2286th meeting.

loSee 2280th mtg., paras. 57-l 17. See also 2288th mtg., paras.38-98, for a restatement of the Israeli position.

Ifi S/14556, adopted without change as resolution 487 (1981).I2 2288th mtg., paras. 6-19.I) Ibid.. paras. 22-36.I4 See ibid.. para. 151, for the vote.“Ibid.. paras. 181-186. For similar views on the text of the

resolution, see ibid.. statements by the German DemocraticRepublic. Uganda and the Soviet Union. See chaps. XI and XII ofthe present SupplPmenf for a special analysis of the relevantdiscussions regarding Articles 2. paragraph 4. 39, 41 and 51 andChapter VII of the Charter.

6 . LETTER DATED I SEPTEMBER 1980 FROM THE PER-MANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF MALTA TO THEUNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENTOF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

In a letter’ dated 14 January 1981, the representa-tive of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya informed theSecretary-General that the Basic People’s Congresseshad decided to ratify the special agreement betweenthe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Malta and to submitthe dispute over the continental shelf to the Intema-tional Court of Justice (ICJ), provided that nodrilling in the disputed area would be allowed untilthe Court had concluded its consideration of thematter.

Ej letter* dated 15 January 1981, the representa-tive of Malta referred to paragraph 5 of the Secretary-General’s report) of 13 November 1980, which statedthat the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had undertakenunconditional1 to submit the original text of theagreement to the Popular Congresses for ratificationwith a view to exchanging the instruments of ratifica-tion and formulating the joint notification to theRegistrar of ICJ during the first two weeks ofDecember 1980, and charged that the Libyan ArabJamahiriya not only had delayed ratification but hadlaid down a new condition. The Government ofMalta viewed it as a failure by the Libyan Govem-ment to comply fully with its solemn undertakinggiven to the Security Council and the Secretary-General, and requested the Council urgently to takeall necessary action within its powers as the guardianof international peace and security and as theprotector of the legitimate peaceful activities ofsmall, unarmed countries.

In a letter’ dated 2 I July 198 1, the representativeof Malta requested the President of the Council toconvene a meetin

awith a view to condemning the

Libyan Arab Jama iriya and urging it not to performfurther acts of molestation.

At its 2294th meeting, on 30 July 198 I, theCouncil resumed its consideration of the item, whichhad been included in its agenda at its 2246thmeeting. The President invited the representatives ofMalta and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to participatein the discussion without the right to vote, inaccordance with the decision taken at the 2246thmeeting.’ The Council considered the matter at its2294th meeting.

The Secretary-General stated that since he hadreceived the letter dated 14 January 198 1 from theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya, his special representativeand he had maintained close contact with bothparties with a view to assisting them in finalizing theexchange of instrument of ratification and Jointnotification to ICJ as provided for in the specialagreement. In late March, following his representa-tive’s suggestions, a delegation from the Libyan ArabJamahirlya had visited Malta where inconclusivediscussions had been held between the parties, andsubsequent efforts had so far not succeeded. Maltaheld that the presence in the instrument of ratifica-tion submitted by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ofwhat it considered to be implicit conditions regard-ing the question of drillmg was unacceptable,whereas the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had stated thatits instrument of ratification., while referring to thePeople’s Con fesses as the highest authority compe-tent to rati y international agreements, did notPcontain any additions or amendments to the special

put II ms

agreement. He described the subsequent efforts of hisrepresentative and stated that he would continue tofollow the situation carefully and remain in contactwith the parties; he expressed confidence that the twosides would make renewed efforts to overcome theexisting difliculties.6

The representative of Malta recalled that in August1980 the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had threatenedMalta by sending armed naval units against anunarmed oil rig conducting explorations m an off-shore area well within Malta’s side of the median linebetween the two countries. That armed threat was thereason for Malta’s recourse to the Council, and theCouncil could not afford to ignore it; resort to thesame threat was still implied and had recentlypervaded the Libyan attitude towards Malta. Heexpressed regret that the Council had declined to takeearly action on Malta’s complaint, stating that it wasvital for the preservation of peace for the Council torequest a solemn assurance from the Libyan ArabJamahiriya that it would not harass or threaten withforce what were peaceful, unarmed activities carriedout in accordance with International law and prac-tice.

He asserted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya hadno justifiable claim over the area under dispute andwas seeking to gain time through procrastination inorder to avoid a legal solution and delay the econom-ic development of Malta. His Government wasdetermined to safeguard Malta’s legitimate interestsand sovereignty through whatever oto it, but contmued to exercise sel -restraint and toP

tions were open

seek a peaceful solution. He called upon the Councilto condemn the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its showof force in August 1980 and for going back on itsundertaking to the Secretary-General to go to ICJ inaccordance with the 1976 agreement signed by thetwo Governments, and to urge the Ltb an ArabJamahiriya not to perpetrate further acts o molesta-Ftion or to take the law into its own hands.’

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyareiterated his country’s wish to conclude the ex-change of instruments of ratification and to submitthe dispute to ICJ. He attributed the creation ofobstacles to the Government of Malta and stated thatthe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya believed that it wasbetter to continue with the bilateral negotiationsbetween the two countries in order to resolve thedispute and eliminate impediments, instead of delay-ing the negotiations through the creation of unneces-sary obstacles8

Before adjourning the meeting, the President appealed to the two parties to show moderation andgoodwill and to pursue the necessary contacts witheach other so as not to jeopardize their good-neigh-bourly relations.9

NOTES’ S/14331. OR. J6rh yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1981.

2 S/14332. ibid.3S/142S6. ibid.. JSlh yr.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. IPSO.

- ‘S/14595, i b i d . , 36th y r . . Supp l . fo r Ju ly -Sepr . 1981. On severalprevious occasions the representative of Malta had rcauestedmeetings and action by the-Council: KC S/14375. ibid.. Subpl. firJan.-March 1981: S/14498. ibid.. SUDDI. for Aoril-June 1981: and. . , .S/14558. ibrd.

‘For details, see chap. 111 of the present Supplement.6 2294th mtg.. paras. 5-14.

’ Ibid.. paras. 19-70.‘Ibid.. paras. 73-79.p Ibid.. para. 80.

7. COMPLAINT BY ANGOLA AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA

Decision of 31 August 198 I (2300th meeting): rejec-tion of a six-Power draft resolutionBy letter’ dated 26 August I98 I, the representative

of Angola transmitted a letter from the President ofAngola to the Secretary-General informing him of anattack by the regular army units of the South Africanregime and requesting an urgent meeting of theCouncil in order to take the necessary steps to avoida confrontation of a greater magnitude and todemand the immediate and unconditional withdraw-al of all units of the South African army from theterritory of the People’s Republic of Angola.

At its 2296th meeting, on 28 August 1981, theCouncil included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council invited thefollowing, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote: at the 2296thmeeting, the representatives of AnViet Nam and Zimbabwe; at the 21

ola, Brazil? Cuba,97th meeting, the

representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany,India, Kenya, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, SouthAfrica and Yugoslavia; at the 2298th meetmg, therepresentative of Canada; and at the 2300th meetin ,the representative of Mozambique.z At its 2299t7lmeeting, the Council decided, at the request of therepresentative of Tunisia, to extend an invitation toMr. Clovis Maksoud under rule 39 of the provisionalrules of procedure.-’ The Council considered this itemat its 2296th to 2300th meetings, on 28, 29 and 31August 1981.

At the 2296th meeting, the re resentative ofAngola said that on 25 Auof the apartheid regime o iT

ust 1 9 8 I tIt e armed forcesPretoria had invaded the

southern part of An140 armoured vehic es,, 38 helicopters and 3 artilleryf

ola, accompanied by 135 tanks,

units; anti-radar missiles were also displayed. TheSouth African invaders, including gangs of mercenar-ies, had occupied a number of towns and totally orpartially destroyed others. The invasion was charac-terized bony in

terrible brutalities. To maintain its hegem-t he region and its position as a bastion of

minority rule and privilege, South Africa had, since1975, carried its racist and Imperialist wars across itsborders into the territory of sovereign neighbouringStates. It had been aided litically, economically,militarily and diplomatical y byr its allies, the West-ern patrons of imperialism and neocolonialism. Asthe South Atlantic counterpart and partner of theNorth Atlantic alliance,. Pretoria was doing every-thing it could to destabrhze thedent States of the region. SoutK

rogressive indepen-Africa’s acts were

nothing short of State terrorism. By any criteriawhatsoever the racist regime stood indicted forterrorism.

The Animme r.7

olan Government and people demandedthe iate and unconditional withdrawal of theracist troops from the territory of Angola. Thespeaker also requested assistance to enable An ola tostrengthen its defence capability in the face osSouthAfrica’s military and nuclear might. He asked for along-standing solution based on Justice to the prob-lems that plagued southern Africa.’

2 0 6 Clmpter VI11. Maintenance of iaternatioml peace and security

The representative of the United Kingdom saidthat his Government had repeatedly condemnedviolence in the region. The South African Ambassa-dor had been summoned to the Foreign and Com-monwealth OfIice where the Government had ex-pressed its concern at the escalation of militaryactivities in the area. The speaker emphasized thathis Government remained fully committed to inde-pendence for Namibia on the basis of resolution 435(1978). The Council should appeal, in simple anddirect terms, to the South African Government toterminate its military action in Angola and towithdraw its troops immediately.’

The representative of Spain said that in the view ofhis Government, South Africa’s flagrant act of ag-gression should be condemned immediately becauseof the danger it represented for the peace andstability of the entire area and the Council should callupon the South African forces immediately to with-draw from the territory of a sovereign country.6

The representative of the German DemocraticRepublic recalled that the representatives of manyStates, including the German Democratic Republic,had repeatedly called upon the Council to adoptserious measures against South Africa in order tocompel it to abandon its acts of aggression againstsovereign States and to

fiuarantee the peaceful devel-

opment of southern A rica. Even so, nothing hadbeen done because those who had close links withSouth Africa had prevented the Council from carry-ing out its duties under the Charter. The Councilshould come out decisively against the aggressionemanating from South Africa and take u the defenceof peace and security in southern PA rica as well.South Africa should bear the main responsibility forits actions which jeopardized peace. Apart from afirm condemnation of South Africa, the Councilshould call upon South Africa to cease its a

Pression

forthwith and to withdraw its troops rom theterritory of Angola. South Africa should providecompensation for the damage caused to the Angolanpeople and State.’

The representative of Zimbabwe, who spoke in hiscapacity as Chairman of the Group of African Statesat the United Nations for the month of August, saidthat African countries condemned and rejected out-right the lies and misrepresentations advanced by theracist regime to justify its blatant violation of inter-national law and of provisions of the Charter of theUnited Nations. The speaker called upon the Councilto take appropriate steps and measures with moralcourage, a sense of urgency and responsibi1ity.r

The representative of the Soviet Union said thatPretoria’s actions were directed to undermining therevolutionary achievements of the Angolan people,towards destabilizing the progressive regime set up inthat country. It was an open secret why the leaders inPretoria had started such a military adventure: theyhad relied on support for their aggressive plans fromimperialist and racist forces. The acts of aggressionconstituted a serious threat to international peaceand security, not only in Angola but in all indepen-dent African countries. The raid by South Africa, ifnot repulsed, might become yet another link in achain of further large-scale acts of a ression againstindependent African States. The de egation7 of theSoviet Union supported Angola’s demand that theCouncil firmly condemn the racist regime of SouthAfrica, call for the immediate cessation of its acts ofaggression against Angola and the withdrawal of its

troops from Angolan territory forthwith and compelthe South African regime to respect the sovereigntyand territorial integrity of Angola.9

The representative of China decried the invasionas an act of aggression violating Angola’s indepen-dence, sovereignty and territorial integrit It demon-strated once again that the South A &an racist7rC ime was the root cause of instability in southernA frica. Its outrageous conduct could only strengthenthe unity and the resolve of the peoples of Namibiaand the rest of Africa to continue the struggle. TheChinese delegation supported the just demands bythe representatives of African States in that regard.iO

The representative of Japan said his country totallydisapproved of the military actions undertaken bySouth Africa against its neigbbour, as they wentagainst the efforts by members of the United Nationstowards a settlement of the Namibian problem andfurther exacerbated it.”

The representative of Viet Nam pointed out thatfor several years international opinion of all politicalpersuasions and on all continents had vigorouslycondemned the colonialist and aggressive policy ofthe South African regime, designed to perpetuate theillegal occupation of Namibia, bring about an explo-sive situation and destabilize the front-line States-in particular Angola. The new phase of aggressiona amst Angola not only constituted a grave violation

Po the sovereignty and territorial integrity of thatcountry, but also showed insolent scorn for Councilresolutions condemning earlier attacks by the Preto-ria regime. The delegation of Viet Nam called uponthe Council to take prompt and decisive actions,including sanctions against the South African aggres-sors.‘*

The representative of Ireland condemned withoutreservation the actions perpetrated against Angolawhich increased the likelihood of a wider conflict insub-Saharan Africa, a bloody and destructive conflictwith the possibility of the direct involvement offoreign forces. The urgent response from the Councilin the form of either a resolution or a presidentialstatement should be unanimous and should includein addition a demand that South Africa show respectfb.r,fi,the soveretgnty and terrttorial integrity of Ango-

The representative of the United States agreed thatthe Council should demand the immediate withdraw-al of South African forces from the territory ofAngola. I4

The President reminded the members that inresolution 475 (1980) the Council had decided toremain seized of the matter of the armed invasion ofAngola by the South African armed forces and thatthe relevant provisions of that resolution, which hethen read out, were still in force.ir

At the 2297th meeting, the representative ofMexico said that the act of aggression by SouthAfrica called for an ener eticimmediate action by the E

condemnation andouncil. He stressed that

the impunity of South Africa was in large measurethe result of ambiguous conduct by the Council,which had not reacted with sufficient decisivenesswhen faced with an obvious fact. The circumstancesin which the attacks had occurred and the argumentsinvoked by their authors called for more carefulthinking. An attempt was being made to legitimizethe theory of preventive attack and to justify the useof force against other States for ideological reasons or

Pml II 207

strategic interests. Such thinking could lead to ac-cepting as normal any crusade against movements ofnational independence and the efforts at social andeconomic transformation in many countries. TheCouncil had not spared verbal condemnations of thecontinued violations of international law by SouthAfrica but the Council had failed to take effectivemeasures.

South Africa’s intention in perpetrating those actsof aggression was to prolong its illegal domination ofNamtbia through the annihilation of the forces thatwere struggling for that Territory’s independence.The Councrl should unequivocally express the deci-sion of the international community to restore legali-ty in southern Africa and ensure the full exercise ofnational rights by the Namibian people. His delega-tion would support any draft resolution that wasconsistent with the previous decisions and wouldpromote the independence of Namibia, the abolitionof the apartheid regime and an end to the excesses ofSouth African pohcy.‘”

The representative of Niger stated that Pretoriawished once again to irritate international o

Pinion in

order to divert its attention, to create con usion bypushing urgent matters into the background and torevive the cold war, which it had always used andabused to consolidate its illegal presence in Namibiaand to continue with impunity its shameful policy ofapartheid. South Africa should be condemned for itsacts; it should be urged to withdraw forthwith all itstroops from Angolan territory; and it should becompelled to pay to Angola complete and adequatecompensation for the loss in human lives and thematerial damage resulting from its unprovoked actsof aggression. The delegation of Niger was convincedthat It was of great urgency to prevent the repetitionof these acts and to implement speedily and totallyresolution 435 (1978) on the independence of Na-mibia. The Council was also requested to support thepreparations for the special session of the GeneralAssembly on Namibia.”

The representative of Tunisia stated that it wasimperative for the Council to adopt the necessarymeasures and sanctions provided for in the Charter,as referred to in resolution 475 (1980), especiallyparagraph 7. The Tunisian delegation believed thatthe new aggression on the very eve of the emergencyspecial session of the General Assembly on thequestion of Namibia left no room for hope that SouthAfrica intended to put an end to its illegal occupationof Namibia no matter what resolutron might beadopted, unless it was accompanied by machinery formandatory sanctions.rR

The representative of France informed the Councilthat because of the gravity of the situation the SouthAfrican Ambassador in Paris had been called to theMinistry of Foreign Affairs where he had beennotified about the French condemnation of theunprovoked and unjustified invasion of Angola bySouth Africa. The speaker added that a lastingsolution to the tension prevailing in southern Africarequired the speediest possible implementation ofresolution 435 ( 1978).19

- The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyadeclared that the Council should handle its responsi-bility and take the following measures in order toguarantee the independence, sovereignty and territo-rial integrity of Angola and the other front-lineStates. It should: (a) impose sanctions against South

Africa, as provided in Chapter VII of the Charter; (6)condemn the a ression committed by the racistregime of Soutf Africa against Angola and theviolation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity;(c) condemn the utilization by South Africa of theinternational Territory of Namibia to commit thataggression; (d) secure the immediate withdrawal ofthe forces of South Africa from Angolan territory; (e)ensure that South Africa respect the independence,sovereignty and territorial inte rity of Angola; u> seeto it that South Africa refrain rom the utrlization offNamibia to initiate provocative acts of aggressionagainst Angola; and (R) require South Africa to payfull compensatron for the damage mflrcted on Angolaas a result of the aggression.2

Many other representatives strongly condemnedthe unwarranted aggression and called upon theCouncil to adopt the most rigid measures.

At the 2299th meeting, the Council had before itthe text of the draft resolution sponsored by thedelegations of Mexico, Niger, Panama, the Philip-pines, Tunisia and Uganda.2Z

In the preambular part of the draft resolution, theCouncil, inter alia. would have expressed deepconcern at racist South Africa’s latest acts of aggres-sion against Angola, which constituted a threat tointernational peace and security, and at the contin-ued military occupation of parts of southern Angolaby the racist regime of South Africa; deplored SouthAfrica’s utilizatron of the illeof Namibia as a s

ally occupred Territoryringboard Por armed invasions and

destabilization o F Angola; and expressed awarenessof the need to take effective measures to maintaininternational peace and security, in view of SouthAfrica’s continued violation of the Charter and theresolutions of the Council.

In the operative part, the Council would have: (a)strongly condemned the racist regime of South Africafor its premeditated, unprovoked and persistent actsof aggression perpetrated against the people and theterritory of Angola; (6) stron ly condemned alsoSouth Africa’s utilization of t fi e illegally occupiedterritory of Namibia as a springboard for armedinvasions and destabilization of Anthat such acts of aggression were a 1

ola; (c) declaredagrant violation

of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angolaand constituted a breach of international peace andsecurity; (d) demanded the immediate and uncondi-tional withdrawal of all South African troops fromthe territory of Angola:, (e) strongly condemned theuse by racist South Afrrca of mercenaries against theGovernment and people of Anthe aggressive campaign and ot It

ola; Ifl condemneder hostile activities

aimed at destabilizmg Angola; (g) urged all MemberStates, as a matter of urgency, to extend materialassistance to Angola in order to enable its people todefend the national independence, soverei nty andterritorial integrity of thetr country; (h) fcal ed uponall States to implement fully the arms embargoimposed against South Africa in resolution 418(1977); (i) called for the payment of full and adequatecompensation to Angola by South Africa for thedamage to life and property resulting from those actsof aggression; 0) decided to impose comprehensiveand mandatory sanctions against racist South Africaunder the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter;(k) decided to send immediately to Angola a commis-sion of investigation, comprising five members of theCouncil, in order to undertake an on-the-spot evalu-ation of the critical situation resulting from the

208 Chrpter VIII. Maintenance of international peace and security

aggression of racist South Africa and to report to theCouncil not later than 30 September 1981; (0decided to remain seized of the question and to meetagain to consider the effective implementation of theresolution.

At the 2300th meeting, the same group of countriessubmitted a revised draft resolutionzJ which differedfrom the previous document in that operative para-graph 10 had been deleted, operative paragraphs I 1and 12 being renumbered in consequence, and, inoperative paragraph I I, the term “the aggression”had been substituted by “the armed invasion”.

At the same meeting, the President of the Council,speaking in his capacity as the representative ofPanama, reminded the members that the system ofsecuritof the 6

conceived at San Francisco by the foundersrganization had been affirmed basically (a) in

the acceptance and fultilmcnt by the Member Statesof the obli ations enshrined in the Charter (Article 4,para. 1); ( t) in the binding force of the resolutions ofthe Council (Article 25); and (c) in the primacy incase of conflicts of the obligations imposed by theCharter over obligations contracted by MemberStates by virtue of any other international agreement(Article 103). In the light of those provisions. theconcept of neutrality regarding the application ofresolutions of the Council could not be upheld. Therecould be no justification for South Africa’s non-compliance with resolution 475 (1980). Neutrality inthat case would mean the acceptance of the existingstate of affairs in South Africa and Namibia, includ-ing the system of racial discrimination and theacquiescence in the continuation for the sake ofalleged economic, strategic and security interests of asystem of colonial exploitation, which was a disgraceto mankind. The seriousness of the unprovoked actof aggression required the Council to adopt forcefulmeasures against the Pretoria regime so that it wouldput an end to its reprehensible acts of aggression andcease to be a threat to world peace.24

The representative of the United Kingdom, ex-plaining his vote before the vote, pointed out that thedraft resolution contained elements that his dele a-tion found difficult to support. In the view of R isGovernment, operative paragraph 3 did not consti-tute a determination under Article 39 of Chapter VIIof the Charter; therefore his delegation would abstainwhen the draft resolution was put to the vote.2J

The revised draft resolution26 was put to the voteand., havinagamst, wit fl

-received I3 votes in favour and 1I abstention, failed of adoption owing

to the negative vote of one of the permanentmembers of the Council.27

Decision of 20 December 1983 (2508th meeting):resolution 545 (I 983)By letter28 dated I4 December 1983 addressed to

the President of the Council, the re resentative ofAngola requested an urgent meeting of the Council todeal with the situation resulting from the violation ofthe territorial integrity and national sovereignty ofAngola and, in particular, the occupation since 198 Iof parts of southern Angola by the armed forces ofSouth Africa.

At the 2504th meeting, on I6 December 1983, theCouncil included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the following wereinvited, at their request, to participate in the discus-sion without the right to vote: at the 2504th meeting,

the representatives of Angola, Botswana, Brazil,India, Mauritania, Mozambique, Portugal, Somalia,South Africa, Yugoslavia and Zambia; at the 2505thmeeting, the representatives of Argentina, Canada,Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, the LibyanArab Jamahiriya, Nigeria and the United Republic ofTanzania; at the 2506th meeting, the representativesof Benin and Ethiopia; and, at the 2507th meeting,the representatives of Cuba and Turkey.? At the2506th meeting, the Council also decided to extendan invitation under rule 39 of the provisional rules ofprocedure to the Chairman of the Special Committeeon the Situation with regard to the Imp’ *.nentationof the Declaration on the Granting of Inuependenceto Colonial Countries and People~.~~ The Councilconsidered this item at its 2504th to 2508th meet-ings, on 16, 19 and 20 December 1983.

Opening the discussion at the 2504th meeting, therepresentative of Angola drew the attention of theCouncil to the full-scale war that the South Africanregime had been waging against his country since198 1. The war was being supported in various overtand covert ways by certain States Members of theUnited Nations, without whose backing the SouthAfrican troops could not have tried to destabilize thelegitimate Government of Angola. The acts of aggres-sion had intensified between mid-1982 and the timeof the meeting. The speaker referred to the occasionswhen his Government had brought its case to theCouncil.‘o Demanding a withdrawal of the racistsoldiers and mercenaries from the territory of Ango-la, the speaker stressed that this question was non-negotiable, as it was Angola’s inherent right underinternational law on statehood and national sover-eignty.

He invoked Article 25 of the Charter and pointedout that South Africa had since I976 refused to abideby that Article with absolute impunity. As a Memberof the United Nations, Angola had the right to expectsupportive action, especially from the Council, whosepermanent members had the duty not to make amockery of international law and of the Charter byusin

fthe veto to block the course of justice. The

spea er concluded by saying that if the Council didnot condemn racist South Africa for its militaryoccupation of Angolan territory nor force its with-drawal then one would be forced to conclude that byits impotence and inaction the organ legitimizedwar.-”

The representative of South Africa declared thathis country’s security operation in southern Angolahad one objective only: the protection of South WestAfrica/Namibia against terrorist attacks by the SouthWest Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO). Aslong as SWAP0 continued them, South Africa wouldtake whatever action was necessary to defend thepeople of South West Africa/Namibia. In particular,South Africa would not allow SWAP0 to establishsanctuaries north of the border in Angola, fromwhere it could carry out its raids against the inhabi-tants of the territory. In keeping with the Charter,South Africa would have much preferred to resolvethe problem by eaceful means. Durin the talksbetween South A rica and Angola in the .ape VerdeP 8Islands, a formula had been proposed that could haveled to the cessation of armed activities in the borderarea and the withdrawal of SWAP0 and Cubanforces above certain latitudes in Angola. During thesecond round of talks a senior South African delega-tion had made it clear that the talks could not

Pul II 209

continue unless FAPLA and SWAP0 manifested thesame military restraint that South Africa had main-tained for a number of months. South Africa had alsomade it clear that an overall solution to the problemsof the region would require the withdrawal of theCubans from the whole of Angola. South Africa hadno desire to control a single centimetre of Angolanterritory and it was prepared to examine the possibil-ity of peaceful coexistence with all States of theregion. The Movimento Popular de Libertacao deAngola (MPLA), in accordance with internationallaw, should ensure that its territory was not used forthe launching of terrorist attacks against its neigh-bouts. The moment SWAP0 ceased its campaign ofviolence, action against SWAP0 would cease. In suchcircumstances, South African military action acrossthe border against SWAP0 elements in Angola wouldno longer be necessary.

He then read out the message from his ForeignMinister to the Secretary-General expressing hisGovernment’s readiness to begin a disengagement offorces on 3 I January 1984 on the understanding thatthe gesture would be reciprocated by the AngolanGovernment31 The Foreign Minister also said thatthe South African Government remained prepared tobe in the process of implementing resolution 435(1878) upon resolution of the problem of Cubanforces in Ango1a.l’

The representative of Somalia emphasized thatSouth Africa’s acts of aggression against Angola overthe past eight years and its current occupation ofAngolan territory constituted a violation of theCharter principles and the norms of internationallaw. It was an intolerable situation that was madeeven more untenable by South Africa’s arro antattempts to justify its actions with

Patently Balse

arguments. Every possible jud8ement o international

law had declared South A rica to be in illegaloccupation of Namibia. That regime could not claimthe right to use military force against those whoopposed its illegal, racist and oppressive rule. TheAfrican States, and indeed all States that looked tothe United Nations as the source of collectivesecurity, found it incomprehensible that South Africahad been allowed to carry out with impunity itsmurderous attacks on Angola and other neighbouringcountries and to occupy Angolan territo . Hisdelegation hoped that the Council would fu til the7promise to Angola contained in its resolution 475( 198O).j’

The representative of India, s eaking on behalf ofthe Movement of Non-Aligned 8ountries, referred tovarious documents condemning the repeated viola-tions by South Africa of the territorial integrity ofAngola and other neighbouring States. He appealedto the Council to act decisively in condemnin inunequivocal terms the aggression by South A ricaBand its continuing military occupation of parts ofsouthern Angola and demanding the immedtate andunconditional withdrawal by South Africa of all itsoccupation forces, as also a commitment by it torespect scrupulously the independence, sovereigntyand territorial integrity of Angola. The Councilshould also ask for full compensation from SouthAfrica for all the damage that had been inflicted onAngola over the last years by South African asion and occupation. Mere condemnation of ouths

res-

African aggression and a call upon South Africa towithdraw were not enough, for Pretoria had shownscant regard for such pronouncements. If South

Africa’s intransigence persisted, the Council shouldbe prepared to ado

t!t appropriate measures under

Chapter VII of the harter. That in turn would callfor a display of the requisite political will on the partof all members of the Council.>’

The representative of Botswana declared that theinvasion and occupation of Angola were an attemptby South Africa to intimidate Angola and to deny thepeople of that country the right to choose freely thepolitical system under which they wanted to live. Hestated that South Africa should be compelled torespect Article 2. paragraph 4, of the Charter and tocease supporting the Uniao National para a Inde-pendtncia Total de Angola (UNITA), whose acts ofbanditry had caused so much death and destructionin Angola. The answers to the problem of the regionwere the speedy implementation of resolution 435(1978) and the total abolition of upurrheid and thedemocratization of South African society.”

Several African countries addressed the Counciland unanimously demanded that it should reject anyattempt to justify the aggression against Angola. Theyjoined Angola in demanding that the Council de-nounce and condemn South Africa and declared thatnothin

fbut the immediate and unconditional ccssa-

tion o hostilities against Angola, followed bimmediate and unconditional withdrawal of B

theouth

African forces, would convince them of South Afri-ca’s seriousness about disengagement. They demand-ed full and prompt compensation by South Africa forthe destruction of property and loss of life broughtabout by its continued occupation and called forsanctions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter.They also requested the Council to adopt the draftresolution bemg prepared as a modest contributionto peace and security for Ango1a.j’

The representative of Pakistan stated that thetiming of the offer of disengagement made by theForeign Minister of South Africa in his letter ad-dressed to the Secretary-General)* raised the legiti-mate suspicion that it was tactical in nature andlimited in objective. Its aim appeared to be to avoidcondemnation by the Council of South Africa’scontinued occupation of Angolan territory. It skirtedthe central issue of the withdrawal of South Africantroops from Angola’s territory and instead held out apromise of disengagement under conditions that ifaccepted would amount to the United Nationsendorsing South Africa’s purported justification of itslawless actions against Angola. In addressing itself tothe violations of the Charter, the Council could fulfilits special responsibility under the Charter only bitaking firm action in support of those principles.

The representative of China said that the Councilshould condemn South Africa’s armed aggressionagainst Angola and demand that South Africa respectthe soverei

vnty and territorial integrity of Angola and

withdraw a 1 Its troops immediately and uncondition-ally.3j

Some socialist countries associated themselveswith all the demands advanced by many of thespeakers. In addition, they called for an end to themisuse of the Territory of Namibia as a springboardfor aggression, and the termination of all assistancefor and any collaboration with UNITA, the instru-ment of South African policy. They stressed that inthe spirit of resolution 539 (1983) the fulfilment ofthose demands should in no way be linked to thepresence of Cuban forces in Angola. The threat to

210 Chapter VIII. Mdatenmcc of intcrnatioaal peace and security

that country continued to exist, and thus the condi-tions continued to exist that had induced Angola torequest foreign assistance under Article 51 of theCharter. It was absolutely imperative to force SouthAfrica to comply with those demands through theimposition of sanctions under Chapter VII of theCharter.‘”

The Chairman of the Special Committee on theSituation with regard to the Implementation of theDeclaration on the Grantin of Independence toColonial Countries and Peop es underlined that theHentire international community should not merelycondemn the blatant breach of all norms of intema-tional law and the principles of the Charter by theSouth African minority rtgime, but also take con-crete steps to redress and prevent the recurrence ofsuch criminal acts through the faithful and strictapplication of the relevant provisions of the Charter.At the same time, all possible support and assistanceshould be given to the Government of Angola in itsefforts to protect and safety and sovereignty. Sue Ii

uard its territorial integri-support and assistance

should be given as well to the people of Namibia intheir struggle for liberation under the leadership ofSWAPO.

He mentioned that the Special Committee hadlong called for the full and effective application ofmeasures under Chapter VII of the Charter, bearingin mind the continuing defiance by South Africa ofits Charter obligations and its persistent use of forceto perpetuate its illegal domination of Namibia, aswell as its repeated and increasingly savage acts ofaggression against neighbouring independent AfricanStates.

South Africa should not be allowed to replace itsobligation to grant independence to Namibia with itsaggression and illegal occupation of Angola. ThePretoria regime should be left in no doubt as to theinternational community’s determination to ensureNamibia’s independence and the restoration ofpeace, justice and equality in southern Africa.3J

The representative of Guyana stated that theCouncil could not consider its duty done if it simplylistened to a debate and added yet another resolutionto the list of those that South Africa continued toignore. There should be a recognition of the need toensure that the Council’s authority was respected andthat that body could assert itself to protect a MemberState against violations of the Charter by anotherMember State. Speaking about the draft resolution,J7he pointed out that his delegation would mostcertainly have preferred a draft resolution morecategorical and unequivocal in its expression. It washoped that the spirit of accommodation that thesponsors had displayed in respect of the wordingwould be matched by a willingness on the part ofPretoria’s friends, particularly among the permanentmembers of the Council, to intensify pressure on therbgime to respect Angola’s independence, sovereigntyand territorial integrity.3*

The President, making a statement in his capacityas representative of the Netherlands, said that inview of the grave consequences that might ensuefrom the violation of Angola’s sovereignty andterritorial integrity, the Netherlands Governmentdeemed it imperative that the Council take urgentaction to redress that intolerable situation. He ex-pressed the hope that the Government of SouthAfrica, in complying with the Council’s demands,

would make the gesture of goodwill needed topromote the political settlements without which itand its neighbours would know no enduring peaceand prosperity.3s

The representative of the United Kingdom saidthat his delegation would vote in favour of the draftresolution although it had reservations on certainpoints in it. Thus, it did not consider that the lastpreambular paragraph and operative paragraph 2 fellwithin the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charteror constituted a finding or decision that had specificconsequences under the Charter. Moreover, thedelegation considered that the wording of operativeparagraph 2 was unfortunate. It should in no way betaken as a justification for further intervention bforeign forces in the internal affairs of Angola. Sue iTaction would indeed endanger international peaceand security. The main concern of the Britishdelegation was that the objective of the draft resolu-tion-the withdrawal of South African forces fromAngola-should be achieved. Therefore, the BritishGovernment had welcomed the indication that SouthAfrica would beas indicated in t

in to disengage its forces in Angolaae letter of 15 December 1983 from

the South African Foreign Minister to the Secretary-General.32 That was a major opportunity f?r prpgress‘,“,~a~;!~ peace and the reduction of tenslon m the

The President then put to the vote the draftresolution,37 which was adopted by 14 votes to none,with I abstention.39 The resolution reads as follows:

The Sect&y Council,Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representative of

Angola to the United Nations,Deeply concerned at the continued occupation of parts of

southern Angola by the South African military forces in flagrantviolation of the principles and objectives of the Charter of theUnited Nations and of international law.

Gravely concerned at the massive loss of human life andextensive destruction of property brought about by the continuingattacks against and military occupation of the territory of Angola,

Reca l l i ng i ts resolutions 387 (1976). 428 (1978). 447 (1979). 454(1979) and 475 (1980).

Bear ing rn mind that in accordance with Article 2. paragraph 4.of the Charter, all Member States shall refrain in their intema-tional relations from the threat or use of force against theterritorial integrity or political independence of any State or in anyother manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UnitedNat ions,

Conscrous of the need to take effective measures to maintaininternational peace and security in view of the continued violationof the Charter by South Africa,

I. Strong ly condemns South Africa’s continued mil i tary occupa-tion of parts of southern Angola which constitutes a flagrantviolation of international law and of the independence, sovereign-ty and territorial integrity of Angola;

2. Declares that the continued illegal military occupation of theterritory of Angola is a flagrant violation of the sovereignty,independence and territorial integrity of Angola and endangersinternational peace and security;

3. Demands that South Afr ica should uncondit ional ly wilhdrawforthwith all its occupation forces from the territory of Angola andcease all violations against that State and henceforth scrupulouslyrespect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola;

4. Considers, moreover, that Angola is entitled to appropriateredress for any material damage it has suffered;

5. Calls upon all Member States to desist from any action whichwould undermine the independence, territorial integrity andsovereignty of Angola;

6. Requesrs the Secretary-General to monitor the implementa-tion of the present resolution and report to the Security Councilaccordingly;


put II 2 1 1

Decision of 6 January I984 (25 I 1 th meeting): resolu-tion 546 (1984)By a lette140 dated 1 January 1984 addressed to the

President of the Council, the representative of Ango-la transmitted an urgent message from the Presidentof Angola requesting an urgent meeting of theCouncil to consider the worsening military situationin southern Angola created by the advance of SouthAfrican military units further north into Angolanterritory. The violent combat between the SouthAfrican military units and Angolan units could leadto disastrous consequences, which in turn threatenedpeace and security in the region.

At its 2509th meeting, on 4 January 1984, theCouncil included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, representatives of thefollowing States were invited, at their request, toparticipate in the discussion without the right tovote: Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Africa,Togo, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia;and., at the 2510th meeting, Algeria, Nigeria, theSyrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia.*The Council considered this item at its 2509th to251 I th meetings, on 4, 5 and 6 January 1984.

Opening the discussion, the representative of An-ola spoke of a series of military moves be

Bun by the

outh African armed forces further norta of theirpositions inside Angolan territory. Those acts ofarmed aggression had been aimed at localities morethan 200 kilometres from the Namibian border,which gave the lie to the South African assertion thatits troops would enNamibian freedom Ighters. The latest operation wass

age in operations only against

one of the largest using sophisticated weaponry. Itwas part of an ongoing attempt by the regime to usemilitary might inside Angolan territory and install apuppet administration in areas under South Africanmilitary occupation.

The Council owed southern African States someaction that would redress the military aggressioncarried out by the racist South African rCglme. Todeny Pretoria s friends any excuse to point a finger atAngola, his Government was willing to test the so-called offer of disengagement made by the SouthAfrican regime. At the same time, he indicated thatneither the Government nor the people of Angolacould understand the Council’s inability or unwill-ingness to act when the issue had been before theCouncil since 1976; when six resolutions had beenadopted by the Council itself since 1976; when therewas a clear violation of the Charter; when theCouncil was the supreme peace-keepinOrganization and the guardian of the E

organ of theharter; when

the will of the international community had beenregularly, consistently and unequivocally expressedin support of the Angolan positlon; when there hadbeen almost 3,000 documented cases of South Afri-can aggression against Angola up to mid-l 98 I ; whenthere had been no case of an Angolan soldier eversetting foot across the national borders of Angola;when the known. recognized and internationallyacknowledged aggressor struck with impunity acrossits own borders; and when the States members of theCouncil and of the United Nations acknowledged thevalidity and ‘ustness of the Angolan position andacknowled eracist Sout%

d and admitted the culpability of theAfrican regime. As a State Member of

the United Nations, Angola had the right to demandand expect an answer to the question of why the

Council had been impotent to deliver justice and tosafeguard peace and security.4l

The representative of South Africa reiterated thatthe South African activities were aimed at eradicat-ing SWAP0 nests in Angola. As a condition for peaceand security, he demanded that Luanda take thenecessary steps to ensure that its territory was notused for the launching of aggression against itsneighbours. He assured the Council that as long asthe Angolan Government tolerated, encouraged andnourished SWAP0 on its soil, the South AfricanDefence Force (SADF) would seek out its bases anddestroy them. As for the implementation of resolu-tion 435 (1978), South Africa remained prepared tobegin its implementation upon resolution of theproblem of Cuban forces in Angola as reflected inpara raph 12 of the Secretary-General’s report4? tot h e ouncil.41E

The representative of Upper Volta recalled theresolutions adopted by the Council in regard to thesituation in Angola. He said that if the Council wasunable to give the world the expected response to thatdistressing problem, it was articularly due to thesupport enjoyed by Pretoria rom certain permanentPmembers of the Council. Another condemnation ofthe Pretoria regime’s continued a ression againstAngola and a further demand t at that regimeBgimmediately and unconditionally withdraw its troopsfrom Angolan territory would be inadequate. It washigh time that the Council stood firm in demandingthe strict implementation of its resolutions anddecisions. That firmness could be convincing only ifall the members spoke with one voice.4’

The representative of Togo, speaking as Chairmanof the Group of African States at the United Nationsfor January, invited the Council to adopt a resolutiondemanding an immediate cease-fire and the uncondi-tional withdrawal of South African troops fromAngola. The Council should once again condemnSouth Africa’s hostile acts against Angola, order thatthey be stopped and reject “linkage”. The Councilshould exert unanimous and increased pressurea ainst the racist South African regime to force it toa 6andon its policy of aggression against its neigh-bours.41

The r epretext oP

resentative of India“hot pursuit”-or op”

inted out that theso-called preventive

strikes-that the representative of South Africa hadpresented to the Council stood long discredited andexposed. South Africa had no business being inNamibia: Pretoria had repeated1springboard for launching acts or

used Namibia as aaggression, destabi-

hzation and terrorism against independent AfricanStates in an effort to consolidate its illegitimatepresence in Namibia and to further its exploitation ofthe human and material resources of that Territory.

He said that the Movement of Non-Aligned Coun-tries viewed the occupation of Angolan territory byforces of the racist rtgime as an act of aggressionagainst the Movement itself. He indicated that theCouncil should address itself more urgently to theissue at hand, condemn those actions in the strongestterms and demand respect for Angola’s sovereignty,independence and territorial integrity. Speaking ofthe necessitunder the Ch

to ensure by every means availablearter that South Africa respect the will

of the Council, he declared his delegation’s readinessto extend its support to all efforts in that direction.41

212 Chapter VIII. Mdoteosoce of iotcroatiood peace sod security

The representative of Mozambique underlined thatthere were no signs of South Africa’s compliance withresolution 545 (1983) and other relevant resolutions,or of the so-called disengagement. The Council andthe West bore a great responsibility. The West had todecide whether It wanted to arrest the violence andallow genuine independence or whether it preferredto continue to allow its finances and expertise to beused to perpetuate racism and apartheid, to prolongthe violence and to bring about a blood-bath. TheCouncil had to decide whether it would take thenecessary measures to force South Africa to respectinternational law through the imposition of sanc-tions.41

The representative of the United Republic ofTanzania said that the Council had before it a case ofcontinuing aggression against a sovereign, indepen-dent Member of the Organization. The latest mihtarycampaign provided further proof that South Africadid not intend to abandon its aggressive militaristicpolicies in the region unless compelled to do so. Thatactive policy of open hostility and aggression wasaimed at crippling the Angolan revolution. TheCouncil seemed incapable of acting as the implemen-tation of its resolutions was held hostage to the illegaldemands of the apartheid regime. Every action of theinternational community attempting to censure thatregime or to find a peaceful solution to any of theproblems in southern Africa had been reciprocatedwith an act of aggression by South Africa. Angola, asa State Member of the Organization, was entrtled toand should be granted protection by the Council.

He stressed that his delegation sought from theCouncil a categorical condemnation of the SouthAfrican aggression, a demand for the cessation of itsacts of aggression and the unconditional withdrawalof the occupayment oP

ation forces from Angola, as well as theprompt and adequate compensation by

South Africa for the damage to human life andproperty brought about by its aggression. The Coun-cil should make it clear that if South Africa persistedin its aggression the Council would have to considerthe ado tion of effective measures under Cha ter VIIof the 8hatter. The Council should also rea#urn theright of Angola to take all measures necessary underthe Charter, in particular Article 51, to safeguard itssovereignty, territorial integrity and independences41

At the 2510th meeting, the representative ofEthiopia said that time and again Pretoria had toldthe world in no uncertain terms that it could not careless what the Council did or what the internationalcommunity at large thought, so long as its importantally and its other Western friends stood by its side.South Africa’s intensification of its war of aggressionagainst Angola was but that regime’s arrogant re-sponse to resolution 545 (1983). The speaker quotedthe statement bEthiopia of 18 r,

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofecember 1983 which “called upon

the international community to intensify the world-wide campaign to isolate the Pretoria regime andurged all peace-loving peoples and Governments toincrease their material and financial support to thefront-line countries, in particular to Angola, as wellas to the liberation movements of southern Africa”.43

The re resentative of the Soviet Union stated thatSouth APrican racists had undertaken the latest act ofbanditry only because they knew full well that theycould count on the patronage of certain WesternPowers-foremost among them the United States,which collaborated with the Pretoria regime and gave

it support and political protection. Certain peopleshad had the illusion that it had been the concern ofthe West to normalize the situation in southernAfrica in the interest of the African countries. Butafter so many years of the Western Powers obviouslypandering to Pretoria that illusion should be fullydissipated. The Soviet delegation was convinced thatthe Council was duty-bound not merely to adopt anew resolution containing another condemnation ofthe South African aggressors, but to adopt decisiveeffective measures under Cha

Pter VII of the Charter

in order to force South A rica immediately andunconditionally to halt all acts of aggression againstAngola and forthwith to withdraw its troops from theoccupied territo of Angola. The Council shouldseek reparations rom the Government of Angola for;Yall the damages it had sustained.43

Other speakers also associated themselves with thedemands of Angola and indicated that the Councilwas faced with a challenge to move beyond the ritualof indignant condemnation of the racist regime for itsa ression and occupation of Angola and to takee f?ective measures under Chapter VII, which shouldbring about the immediate and unconditional with-drawal of South African forces from southernAngola.”

At the 251 Ith meeting, the representative of theNetherlands indicated that the dangerous conditionsprevailin in southern Africa were a direct result ofSouth A rica’s7 stubborn refusal to terminate itsunlawful occupation of Namibia and to implementthe United Nations settlement plan for Namibia.Namibia was not part of the Republic of South Africaand South Africa could derive no valid legal claim forthe violation of Angola’s sovereignty and territorialintegrity from its continued illegal presence in Na-mibta. The Netherlands would vote in favour of thedraft resolution before the CounciL4 That did notmean, however, that his Government was consider-ing taking any measures for the implementation of itsoperative paragraph 6.”

The representative of Zimbabwe stressed thatshould the demands contained in the draft resolutionbe ignored by South Africa, the Council shouldreserve the right to meet in order to consider theadoption of more effective measures under ChapterVII.‘6

At the 2509th meeting, the President drew theCouncil’s attention to a draft resolution sponsored by

bique, Nicaragua, the dnited #epublic of Tanzania,the delegations of An ala, E ypt, Indta, Mozam-

Upper Volta, Zambia and Zimbabwe.4sAt the 2511 th meeting, a revised draft resolution47

was submitted by the same group of countries, as wellas Malta, Nigeria. Pakistan and Peru. At the samemeeting, the draft resolution was put to the vote andwas adopted by 13 votes to none, with 2 absten-tions.‘* It reads as follows:

The Security Council,Huving cons idered the statement of the Permanent Represcnte-

tive of Angola to the United Nations,Reca l l i ng its resolutions 387 (1976). 4 1 8 (1977) . 4 2 8 (1978), 4 4 7

(1979). 454 (1979). 475 (1980) and 545 (1983) .G&e/y concerned at the renewed escalation of unprovoked

bombing and persistent acts of aggression, including the continuedmilitary occupation, committed by the racist r&time of SouthAfrica in violation of the sovereignty, airspace and territorialintegrity of Angola,

Grieved at the tragic and mounting loss of human life andconcerned about the damage and destruction of property resulting

Pui 11 2 1 3

from those escalated bombing and other mil i tary attacks againstand occupation of Ihe territory of Angola by South Africa,

fndignanr at the continued military occupation of parts of theterritory of Angola by South Africa in contravention of the Charterof the United Nations and relevanl Security Council resolutions,

Consrrous of the need to take effective steps for the preventionand removal of all threats to international peace and securityposed by South Africa’s military altacks,

I . Strong/y condemns South Afr ica for i ts renewed, intensif ied,premeditated and unprovoked bombing, as well as the continuingoccupation of parts of the terrilory of Angola, which constirute aflagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of thatcountry and endanger seriously international peace and securily;

2. Further strongly condemns South Africa for its utilization ofthe international Territory of Namibia as a springboard forperpetrating the armed attacks as well as sustaining its occupationof parts of the territory of Angola;

3. Demands that Sourh Africa should cease immediately allbombing and other acts of aggression and unconditionally with-draw forthwith all its military forces occupying Angolan territoryas well as undertake scrupulously to respect the sovereignty,airspace, territorial integrity and independence of Angola;

4. Calls upon all States to implement fully the arms embargoimposed against South Africa in Security Council resolution 41X(1977);

5. Rea/lirms Ihe right of Angola, in accordance with the relevantprovisions of the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular,Article 51, to take all the measures necessary to defend andsafeguard its sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence;

6. Renews its request to Member States to extend all necessaryassistance to Angola, in order that Angola may defend itselfagainst the escalating mil itary attacks by South Africa as well asthe continuing occupation of parts of Angola by South Africa;

7. Reajjirms further that Angola is entitled to prompt andadequate compensation for the damage to life and propertyconsequent upon these acts of aggression and the continuingoccupation of parts of its territory by the South African militaryforces;

8. Decides to meet again in the event of non-compliance bySouth Africa with the present resolution in order to consider theadoption of more effective measures in accordance with appropri-ate provisions of the Charter;

9. Requests the Secretary-General IO monitor the implementa-lion of the present resolution and report to Ihe Security Councilthereon not later than IO January 1984;

10. Decidps to remain seized of the matter.

Following the voting, the representative of theUnited Kingdom declared that his delegation hadbeen faced with a resolution drafted in extremelanguage on which the authors had not been preparedto make more than minor changes. For example, hisdelegation could not accept and did not accept theovertones of Article 39 of the Charter, which stillremained in the last preambular paragra h and inoperative paragraph 1. His delegation cou d not andPdid not support operative paragraph 6, which mighteven be taken as an invitation to widen conflict andexacerbate the problems of finding peace in theregion. The British reservations on those aspectsremained as stated on 20 December 1983 in relationto resolution 545 (I 983). Other parts of the resolu-tion, too, were unacceptable in substance, such as thethird preambular paragraph and operative paragraph8, or were inappropriate. In his delegation’s view, aresolution containin such elements rlsked taking theCouncil down anot iter blind aIley.46

NOTES

I S/14647. OR. 36th yr., Suppl. for July-Sept. 1981. See also Iheletter dated 27 August I98 I, in which the Angolan request for aCouncil meeling was reiterated (S/14654, ibid.), and another letterdated 25 August 1981, in which the representative of Angola

transmitted the text of a letter from the President of Angolaaddressed to the Secretary-General in which he expressed concernabout the alleged concentration of more than 45,000 South Africansoldiers on the border between Angola and Namibia and warnedthat his country might be forced to resort to Article 51 of theCharter for its self-defence (S/14643, ibid.).

l For details, see chap. III of the present Supplement.’ 2299th mtg.. para. 2. For details, see also chap. 111 of the

present Supplement .‘2296th mtg., paras. 7-25.j Ibid., paras. 26-30.b Ibid., paras. 3 I-38.’ Ibtd., paras. 40-56.$Ibid., paras. 58-63.q Ibid., paras. 64-8 I.lo Ibid.. paras. 82-85.I’ Ibid., paras. 86-9 I.I2 Ibid.. paras. IO2- I 18.11 Ibid.. paras. 135-143.“ Ib id . . paras. 144-148.I5 Ibid.. paras. I58 and 159.lb22971h mtg., paras. 6-22.I’ Ibid.. paras. 23-3 I.Ia Ibrd.. paras. 32-37.I9 Ibid., paras. 38-55.*O Ibid., paras. 58-65.zI For the re levant statemenls, see 2297th mtg., Yugoslavia and

India; 2299th mIg., Mr. Clovis Maksoud and Uganda; and 2300thmtg.. Mozambique.

21 Sli4664, OR. 36th yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1981.zJ Sl14664lRev.l and 2, ibid.z4 2300th mlg.. paras. 22-38.1, Ibid.. paras. 40-44.IbS/14664/Rev.2, OR. 36th yr., Suppl. for July-Sept. 1981. The

second preambular paragraph was revised by substituting the term“armed invasion” for “acts of aggression”; operative paragraph 3was changed by replacing the words “acts of aggression” by“armed invasion” and “breach of internat ional peace and securi -ty” by “a danger to international peace and security”. ParagraphIO in the original draft invoking Chapter VII of Ihe Charter hadbeen deleted in the lint revision.

I7 For the vole, see 2300th mtg., para. 45.I1 s/l62 16. OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. fir Oct.-Dee. 1983.lq 2506th mtg.M Resolutions or decisions on this question were adopted by the

Council in 1978. 1979. 1980 and 1981.‘I 2504Ih mtg.I2 S/ 162 19, annex I, OR, 38th yr., Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1983.H 2506th mtg., Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Mauritania, Mozam-

bique, Nigeria, United Republic of Tanzania and Zimbabwe; and2507th mtg., Zambia, Ethiopia and Egypt

14 2506th mtg.M 2507th mtg.)6 2506th mtg., Poland; 2507th mtg., German Democratic

Republic, Soviet Union and Cuba; and 2508th mtg.. Poland.” S/16226, sponsored by Angola, Botswana, Guyana, Jordan,

Malta, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Togo, theUnited Republic of Tanzania, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe;adopted without change as resolution 545 (1983).

I1 2508th mlg.j9 For the vote, see 2508th mtg. See also chap. IV of the present

Suppkment.4oSl16244. OR, 39th yr.. Suppi. for Jan.-March 1981.‘I 2509th mtg.d2 S/l 5943, OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1983.4J 2510th mtg.u For the relevant statements, see 2510th mtg., China, Malta,

Zambia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Algeria; and251 Ith mtg., Yugoslavia, France, Zimbabwe and Nicaragua.

1’ S/l 6247, OR, 39th yr., Supplement for Jan.-March 1984.M 251 lrh mtg.” S/ I6247/Rcv. I, adopted as resolution 546 (I 984). The rtvi-

s ion involved smal l changes in opera t ive paragraphs I , 8 and 9.

2 1 4 Chapter VIII. MaioCaance of iaterndooal peace and seedy

u For the vote, see 251 Ith mtg. !See also chap. IV of the presentSupplemennl.

8. COMPLAINT BY SEYCHELLES

Decision of IS December 1981 (2314th meeting):resolution 496 ( 198 I)By letter’ dated 8 December 1981, the representa-

tive of Seychelles informed the Council that on 25November 1981 the Republic of Seychelles had beeninvaded by 45 mercenaries who had landed at theSeychelles International Airport. The invaders, whohad come from South Africa, had immediatelylaunched an attack at the airport, inflicting heavydamage, and had taken hostages. Those invaders whohad not been captured and detained had fled in panicby hijacking an Air India aircraft, which they hadcommandeered to South Africa. In view of the threatto international peace and security resultin

kfrom

that situation, the representative of Seyche les re-quested that the Council be convened urgently toconsider the matter and take appropriate action.

At its 23 14th meeting, on 15 December I98 I, theCouncil included the letter in its agenda and consid-ered the question at that meeting. The representa-tives of Seychelles and Botswana were invited, attheir request, to take part in the discussion withoutthe right to vote.*

The President of the Council drew attention toseveral documents,’ including the text of a draftresolution,4 which had been prepared in the course ofthe Council’s consultations.

The representative of Seychelles informed theCouncil that at 1430 Greenwich mean time on 25November 198 1 a group of 44 foreign mercenarieshad arrived at Seychelles International Airport onboard a scheduled flight of the Royal Air Swaziairline. The mercenaries had travelled by coach fromSouth Africa to Matsapha Airport in Swaziland. Asthey had disembarked in Seychelles and were goingthrough customs, a customs officer had detected afalse-bottomed baview of the fact f

containing a sub-machine-gun. Int at all members of the group had

been carrying more or less similar pieces of luggage,the security forces had been alerted and the busesscheduled to take the group to their hotel had beenordered not to move. Once the mercenaries hadrealized that their plot had been foiled, they hadimmediately unpacked their weapons and takencontrol of the airport, including the air traffic controltower. They had also taken everyone at the airport-a total of 70 people-as hostages. The defence forcesof Seychelles had then moved into position andcontamed the mercenaries at the airport. The mer-cenaries had then ordered a scheduled Air IndiaBoeinthe pi ot to take them to Durban, South Africa, withf

707 to land, hijacked the aircraft and ordered

all passengers on board.In all,. 44 mercenaries had left on the aircraft,

taking with them one dead. Two had been seriouslywounded. Left behind had been members of the rearguard of the mercenary force, some of whom hadinfiltrated the country prior to the arrival of thegroup of 44 and had taken part in the lighting. Allwere foreigners. Six mercenaries had been capturedand detained. The attack had resulted in loss of life,injuries, considerable hardship to the hostages andextensive damage caused to the airport facilities,

control tower and various buildings. The losses hadbeen estimated at about $30 million.

There was every reason to believe that SouthAfrica had been involved in the aggression. Despitethe South African declaration that the hijackers hadbeen taken into custody in South Africa and wouldbe dealt with according to its stringent anti-hijackinglegislation, only five of the mercenaries had beencharged with kidnapping and released on minimalbail. The other 39 had not been charged but had beenset free despite the request by the Government ofSeychelles that the mercenaries be returned to Sey-chelles to stand trial before an international tribunalappointed by the United Nations.

The Government of Seychelles requested theCouncil to establish an international commission ofinquiry to be composed of three members of theCouncil to investigate the origin, background andfinancing of the mercenary invasion, as well as toassess the economic damage and to report to theCouncil with appropriate recommendations not laterthan 31 January 1982. The action of the SouthAfrican regime showed that it might have had a handin the organization of the invasion. Stating that heexpected the Council to pass the necessary judgementand condemnation and to initiate the necessaryaction, the representative of Seychelles reserved theright to bring the matter again before the Councilshould the situation warrant it.5

The representative of Botswana said that althoughthe Council possessed no concrete evidence to sug-est that the mercenaries had been sent to Seychelles

% y the Government of South Africa, it had manyquestions to put to South Africa and hoped thatSouth Africa would answer them. First, why had themercenaries been released so quickly des ite the factthat they had arrived back in South A rica on thePsame plane they had forced to fly to South Africa?Secondly, why had South Africa’s stringent so-calledanti-terrorist laws not been invoked against themercenaries, at least to punish them for hijacking theAir India plane? Thirdly, did South Africa think thatthe pilot of the Air India plane had decided to fly toDurban for fun? Fourthly, had the presence on theaircraft of armed men not been enou

fvevidence to

suggest that the pilot could not have own his planeto South Africa of his own volition? Fifihly, had thepilot been asked to tell his story and to explain, inparticular, why he had armed men on his plane?Sixthly, and most important, as the Council hadevery reason to ask, why had the mercenaries been soelated to be back m South Africa, knowing only toowell that they could easil be imprisoned for up to 30years for their damnab e act of terrorism? It wasIlm ortant that the real truth of what had happenedin i!eychelles on 25 November should be known in allits dimensions. The speaker urged the Council to setup a commission of Inquiry to visit Seychelles andwherever information could be found as soon aspossible to find out what had happened on 25November. The Commission should assess the eco-nomic changes wrought by the invasion and make thenecessary recommendations for alleviating them.6

The President then put the draft resolution to thevote; it was adopted unanimously by 15 votes asresolution 496 (1981).’ The resolution reads asfollows:

The Security Council,Tuking nofe of the letter dated 8 December 1981 from the

Char& d’affaires of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of

P u t I I 2 1 5

-

Seychelles to the United Nations addressed to the President of theSecurity Council,

Having heard the statement of the representative of the Republicof Seychelles,

Beoaring rn mind that all Member States must refrain in theirinternational relations from the threat or use of force against theterritorial integrity or political independence of any State, or inany other manner mconsistent with the purposes of the UnitedNations,

I. A/jirms that the territorial integrity and political indepen-dence of the Republic of Seychelles must be respected;

2. Condemns the recent mercenary aggression against theRepublic of Seychelles and the subsequent hijacking;

3. Derrdev to send a commission of inqutry composed of threemembers of the Security Council in order to Investigate the origin,background and tinanctng of the mercenary aggression of 25November l9Rl against the Republic of Seychelles, as well asassess and evaluate economic damages, and to report to theCouncil with recommendations no later than 31 January 1982;

4. Decidtv that the members of the commission of inquiry willbe appointed after consultations between the President and themembers of the Security Council and the Republic of Seychelles;

5. Requesls the Secretary-General to provtde the commission ofinquiry with the necessary assistance;

6. 1kcrde.r to remain seized of fhe question.

The representative of the Soviet Union said thathis delegation had voted in favour of the draftresolution for the following reasons: a group ofmercenaries had invaded the territory of a sovereignState Member of the United Nations; that grou hadcarried out armed actions on the territory o P thatState, action that had taken human life and causedserious material damage; and mercenaries had seizeda civilian aircraft belongin

Bto another State and had

hijacked it to South A rica. The naked act ofprovocation committed against Seychelles consti-tuted a violation of the universally recognized normsand principles of international law and a furthermanifestation of the policy of international terrorismpursued by imperialist circles against young indepen-dent States. That dangerous military adventure notonly violated the sovereignty of Seychelles but alsorepresented a serious threat to international peaceand security. The speaker expressed the convictionthat the Council, upon receiving the report of theCommission of Inquiry, would take the necessarymeasures not only to defend the sovereignty ofSeychelles, but also to prevent any acts of mtema-tional terrorism carried out by means of mercenariesagainst the independence of developing States Mem-bers of the Umted Nations.R

Other representatives also strongly condemned theuse of mercenaries and of international banditry,which endangered international peace and securityand unanimously supported resolution 496 ( 1981).4

The representative of the United States remarkedthat the resolution posed questions of a more generalsort, which the Council should take cognizance ofand reflect on. The first question was whether theintervention was a purely internal affair, the answerto which was apparently “no”. Secondly, if it was nota purely internal affair and involved another State,was the Council then perhapsquestion that a commission o P

rejudging the veryinquny had been

established to investigate? The third question was:Was it always legitimate for a Government that hadsurvived an attempted coup to seek an investigationand perhaps redress in the United Nations? Whatabout a Government that had not survived a coup?

Could it seek an inquiry from the Council? In herview, the Council, like the General Assembly and allother bodies, should always take care to think beyond

the specific case to the im lications of a specificaction for future activities.’ i?

The President of the Council, speaking in hiscapacity as the representative of Uganda, mentionedfour features of the aggression that were especiallydisturbing to his delegation. First, the Council couldnot ignore the overwhelming prima facie evidence,widely reported by many independent sources, thatthe vtcious hand of South Africa had been involvedin the episode. That development was even moregrave given th e ec ared design of South Africa tod Imttmidate and destabilize any and all African coun-tries that had chosen the path of genuine indepen-dence for themselves and solidarity with the strug-gling peoples of southern Africa. The second featurewas the fact that the aggression had been perpetratedthrough the instrumentality of a band of mercenaries.No continent had suffered and continued to suffer sogrievously from the trauma of mercenaries as Africa.The third feature was the fact that the aggressiveepisode had been followed by the serious crime ofhijacking. The fourth feature was the fact that thevictim of the aggression was a small, vulnerable andnon-aligned African country whose hope for a peace-ful and independent existence lay in the UnitedNations. The speaker said that his delegation wouldgive its comprehensive views on the present com-plaint when the Council considered the report of theCommission of Inquiry.”

In a note dated 24 December 1982,‘* the Presidentof the Council stated that, following his consultationswith the members of the Council and Seychelles, anagreement had been reached that the Commission ofInquiry established under resolution 496 (1981)would be composed of Ireland, Japan and Panama.

It was subsequently agreed, during consultationsamong the members of the Commission, that Ambas-sador Carlos Ozores Typaldos of Panama wouldserve as its Chairman.

The Commission of Inquiry visited Seychelles,Swaziland and South Africa between 24 Janua and6 February 1982. In a note dated 27 January 71 82,13the President of the Council informed the membersthat the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry hadnotified him that, owing to the delay encountered asa result of the complexit of the reparatory work,the Commission would md it di? ffrcult to report tothe Council by 3 1 January, as called for in paragraph3 of resolution 496 (198 I). Accordingly, the Commts-sion had requested an extension of the date ofsubmission of its report until early March. ThePresident added that, following informal consulta-tions on the matter, it had been found that nomember of the Council had any objection to theCommission’s request and that the Chairman of theCommission had been so informed.


Council resumed its consideration of the item enti-tled “Complaint by Seychelles” and included thereport of the Commission of Inquiryr4 in its agenda.

The Council invited the following, at their request,to participate, without vote, in the discussion of theitem: at the 2359th meetin , the representatives ofAlgeria, Angola, Argentina, Benin, Botswana, Cuba,Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Honduras, India, the LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Mal-

216 Chapter VIII. Maiatemncv of iatermtioad puce ad mmrlty

dives, Malta and Seychelles; at the 2361~1 meeting,the representatives of Afghanistan, Barbados, Bulga-ria, the German Democratic Republic, Grenada,Hungary, Mali, Mozambique, Nicara ua, Pakistan,Sao Tome and Principe, the Unite % Republic ofTanzania, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia; at the 2365thmeeting, the representatives of Kenya, the LibyanArab Jamahiriya, Mauritius and the Syrian ArabRepublic; and, at the 2367th meeting, the representa-tives of Bangladesh, Mon olia,

%Nigeria, Sri Lanka,

Swaziland and Zambia.2 T e Council considered theitem at its 2359th, 2361st, 236Sth, 2367th and2370th meetings, from 20 to 28 May 1982.

The report of the Commission of Inquiry, dated 15March 1982,14 included a detailed review of theCommission’s activities both at Headquarters andduring its visit to the area, as well as its conclusionsand recommendations.

The representative of Panama, on behalf of theChairman of the Security Council Commission ofInquiry established under resolution 496 (198 l),introduced the report of the Commission. He saidthat the Commission members were of the opinionthat taking into account the immediate planning andpreparation of the aggression by the mercenaries,rncluding the recruitment of over 50 mercenaries byColonel Michael Hoare, as well as the fact that theweapons used by the mercenaries were tested inSouth Africa, it was diflicult for the Commission tobelieve that the South African authorities were notaware of the preparation in that connection. On thebasis of the documents supplied by the SeychellesGovernment, the Commisston esttmated that thetotal losses suffered by the Seychelles economyamounted to approximately $18 million. The mostserious reversal was likely to be a drop in incomefrom the tourist industry.

The Commission felt that there would be signifi-cant adverse repercussions upon the economy ofSeychelles. Therefore, the Commission recommend-ed that financial, technical and material assistance beprovided ur ently through an appropriate fund inorder to ena% le the country to deal with the dificul-ties resulting from the aggression and that States andthe intemattonal community as a whole should makeevery possible effort to prevent mercenary opera-tions, having re ard

%to the grave threat that those

operations pose , particularly to small island Stateswith limited resources such as Seychelles. It wasfurther recommended that Governments that hadinformation related to mercenary activities should,without delay, communicate such information, dr-rectly or through the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations, to Governments concerned. Another recom-mendatron was that the International Civil AviationOrganization (ICAO) give further consideration topreventive measures, while taking into account thewish of Governments to facilitate tourism. He alsomentioned the difficulties that the Commission hadfaced in South Africa in its endeavour to fulfil itsmandate.‘>

The Minister for Forei nthat his Government couB

Affairs of Seychelles saidd not be fully satisfied until

the origin, background and financing of the 25November 198 1 aggression had been fully estab-lished. An armed operation, carried out by foreignerscoming from a foreign country, could have beenplanned only with the complicity of foreign authori-ties. Indeed, Mr. Hoare’s recent statement at thePietermaritzburg court had implicated the South

African regime at the highest political and militarylevels. The complete transcript of both the public andclosed sessions of the trial should enable the Com-mission to prepare a suorigin, background and mancing o the aggression.P

plementa7

report on the

He added that it was virtually impossible for hisnation to remedy the economic situation resultingfrom that aggression without urgent financial assist-ance from members of the Umted Nations and ofother international or anizations. In that connectionhe asked the Counci k to make an appeal that theassistance be provided without delaMember States to co-operate ful y in the speedyr

and to call upon

drafting and subsequent implementation of an inter-national convention against recruitment, use, linanc-ing, training and harbouring of mercenaries in theinterest of international peace and security. He alsoproposed that the mandate of the Commission beextended to enable it to complete its inquiry.16

The representative of France drew two conclusionsfrom the report of the Commission of Inquiry. Thefirst concerned the need for an international conven-tion against the recruitment, use, financing andtraining of mercenaries. The second concerned assist-ance to be given to Seychelles. France suggested that,upon the initiative of the Council, a fund forvoluntary contributions should be established inwhich France was prepared to play a special role.”

The representative of Jordan stressed that allevidence m the report pointed to the fact that the actof a ression emanated from the Government ofSout 88Africa. South Africa obviously wanted to havecontrol over that island and to undermine theindependence of Seychelles. Since the Council wasthe ultimate guardian of international peace andsecurity it should, first, condemn the act of aggres-sion in the strongest terms and, secondly, inittate aprocess to work out a convention aimed at safe uard-mg small countries against dangerous and un awfulPacts of aggression such as that against Seychelles. Healso supported the suggestion that the United Na-tions should consider establishing a special voluntaryfund to assist Se

ichelles. He called for a supplemen-

tary inqui7

by t e Commission in an effort to get tothe root o the matter.‘*

The re resentative of Egypt, on behalf of theGroup oP African States at the United Nations,menttoned that the report of the Commission con-tained no specific recommendations as to the ori in,financing and organization of the aggression, !I utthere was every reason to believe that South Africahad been involved in the aggression. He underlinedthe following elements. First, South Africa had notpermitted the Commission to interview the mercen-aries, who had returned to South Africa aboard thehijacked Air India plane. In particular, the Commis-sion had been handicapped by not having an inter-view with the leader of the mercenaries, MichaelHoare. Secondly, the immediate preparations for andplanning of the mercenary aggression, including therecruitment of over 50 mercenaries by Hoare, hadtaken place in South Africa. A number of thosemercenaries had been reservists in the South AfricanDefence Force to whom call-up apers had beenissued. Thirdly, Martin Dolinsche tl, an intelligenceofftcer with the South African National IntelligenceService, had been among the seven mercenariescaptured by the Seychelles Security Forces followingthe mercenary aggression. In answer to a question inthe South African Parliament on 19 February 1982,

Put II 217

the Minister of Interior admitted that the authoritieshad indeed officially issued a new passport to MartinDolinschek under the alias of Anton Lubic.

Fourthly, Mike Hoare, testifying at the hijack trial,had revealed that the awith the knowledge oftY

ression had been carried oute South African Intelli ence

Service and with men supplied by the South A ricanBDefence Force. A delivery invoice of weapons andammunition to be used in the coup and delivered toHoare’s house had been submitted as evidence incourt. Hoare had been informed that the SouthAfrican Cabinet had decided in principle in Septem-ber 198 1 that the invasion attempt using mercenariesshould go ahead.

Fifthly, the Speaker of the South African Parlia-ment had refused a request on 4 May 1982 from theopposition Progressive Federal Party to hold aspecial debate on the involvement of the SouthAfrican Government and the South African army inthe aggression against Seychelles.

Sixthly, South Africa had released 39 of the 44mercenaries in December 198 1 without chargingthem or even disclosing their identities, althoughthey had forced an Air India plane to fly to SouthAfrica. Subsequently, the Government of SouthAfrica had reversed itself and charged the mercenar-ies. However, the verdict could almost be predicted.

In the light of those developments, the representa-tive of Egypt affirmed that (a) the report of theCommission was an interim report; (b) one could notexclude the possibilit that further information relat-

- ing to the mandate or the Commission might becomeavailable, particularly during or after the trial on thehijacking charges in South Africa or at the trial thatwas to take place on I6 June 1982 in Seychelles; and(c) a thorough investigation should be carried out bythe Commission in order to get to the facts about theorigin and background of the mercenary a ression.The Commission should be authorized to urnish a7supplementary report in due course containing anyfurther information. In conclusion, he said thatunless the world community and the Council dealteffectively with the situation in southern Africa, thePretoria regime would continue to pursue its policyof aggression and suppression against the people ofSouth Africa, its illegal occupation of Namibia andits acts of aggression against the neighbouring coun-tries.lq

The representative of the United Kingdom de-clared that his Government had informed the Gov-ernment of Seychelles that it would look sympatheti-cally at any request for assistance in repairing thedamage. His Government had also undertaken toimplement immediately an aid agreement in theamount of f 1.5 million. He mentioned his delega-tion’s participation in the recent session of theGeneral Assembly’s Ad Hoc Committee dealing withthe drafting of an international convention athe recruitment, use, financing and training oP

ainstmer-

cenaries. His delegation considered that the Commis-sion’s proposal to furnish a supplementary reportshould be accepted by the Council.**

- The representative of Angola called the mercenaryattack on Seychelles a most flagrant and brutalviolation of territorial integrity and sovereignty andpart of a comprehensive master plan concocted bythe illegal racist regime of South Africa against anindependent country that was a member of theOrganization of African Unity (OAU) and a Member

of the United Nations. He welcomed the report of theCommission of Inquiry and supported the creation ofa special fund to help rebuild the airport and otherbuildings dama ed

fby the mercenary activity in

Seychelles. He a so requested the Council to remainseized of the matter and to prepare a complementaryreport in addition to the one before it.

At the 236lst meeting, the representative of Japanpointed out that according to the findings of theCommission of Inquiry the primary objective of themercenaries had been to overthrow the Governmentof Seychelles in order to install James Mancham asthe head of State. Seychelles was clearly the victim ofaggression; its sovereignty and territorial integrityhad unquestionably been violated by mercenariesfrom outside the country, although some Seychellesexiles apparently were also involved. The Japanesedelegation was of the view that the Council’s firsttask was to consider whether or not to request asupplementary report. Certain ambiguities on thefinancing mi ht also be clarified if further informa-tion was co1 ected from diverse sources, includingfMichael Hoare and Gerard Hoaresan, a Seychelloisresident in South Africa who seemed to have beenclosely involved in the actual attack. He expressedconfidence that the leaders and people of Seychelles,with international co-operation, would overcome theeconomic difficulties in the near future.22

The representative of the Soviet Union stressedthat the aggressive action against Seychelles wasanother example of the policy of international terror-ism that the imperialist circles directed against youngindependent States that had embarked upon the roadof independent national development. The report ofthe Commission proved that the South Africanauthorities not only knew about the aggression beingprepared, but were its initiators and organizers. Thatwas a normal manifestation of the policy of the racistregime of Pretoria, which intended to crush theaspirations of the people of Africa to freedom,independence, equal rights and social pro ress.

FI n

that connection, he supported a number o recom-mendations in the Commission’s report, called forthe rapid completion of the drafting of an intema-tional convention against the recruitment, use, li-nancing and training of mercenaries and urged theCouncil to take far-reaching measures against theracist regime of Pretoria in order to prevent suchattacks on independent States.*j

The representative of Maldives mentioned that theproblem of mercenary activities should not beviewed merely as isolated acts by eccentric, derangedor unscrupulous people. They could readily becomereal major threats to smaller and poorer countriesthroughout the world and that could be an intema-tional problem of great magnitude. Countries likeMaldives relied to a considerable extent on theUnited Nations for the preservation and mainte-nance of their security, independence and territorialintegrity.24

The representative of Algeria stressed that every-where in southern Africa, the Pretoria regime waschallenging the inde endence and sovereignty ofAfrican peoples, chal enginP

aOAU and the United

Nations m order to establis its imperialist strategyof domination, destabilization and the weakening offree Africa. The continuation of the Commission’sactivities would enable the Council to place intema-tional resfinanced

nsibility on those who prepared andt I?e aggression. In addition to condemning

2 1 8 Chapter VIII. Maiatenmcc of intcmathal peace and dty

the aggression, the Council should see to it thatreparations for the damage were extracted from theaggressor. The creation of a special fund for Sey-chelles was also required as an urgent measure and allStates should be invited to contribute to it.*!’

The representative of the German DemocraticRepublic supported the legitimate demand of Sey-chelles that the forces responsible be brought toaccount and obliged to make compensation. He alsounderlined that the evaluation of the facts and thenaming of the perpetrators were all the more impera-tive because the aggression a ainstone link in the chain of I?

Seychelles wasagrant violations of

international law by the apartheid regime.26The representative of the United Republic of

Tanzania, speaking of South Africa’s general policyof aggression a amstmentioned that p!

independent African States,or South Africa the toppling of the

revolutionary Government of Seychelles, leading tothe installation of a puppet regime, was part of thegrand design against the opbehaviour of the South

onents of apartheid. TheA rican authorities in han-P

dling the whole affair left no doubt that they wereinvolved. As the possibility of mercenary aggressionremained a serious threat, the Council should de-nounce the whole concept of mercenarism as a crimeagainst humanity threatening the independence, sov-ereignty and territorial integrity of States.*’

The representative of Botswana, speaking as Chair-man of the Council of Ministers of OAU, expressedhis gratification that the display of solidarity in thecondemnation of the mercenary aggression againstSeychelles transcended differences m other areas ofpolitical endeavour. As the objective of the plot hadbeen to capture the entire leadership of the country,overthrow the Government and reinstate the formerhead of State, the mandate of the Commission shouldbe extended in order to prepare a complementaryreport. The area of investi atron had been narrowedto mercenaries inside Sout% Africa itself. The Coun-cil should see to it that the Government of SouthAfrica provided all the assistance the Commissionmight require. The ultimate objective was the adop-tion by the international community of a globalconvention on mercenarism.2B

The representative of Viet Nam suggested that theproliferation of violent attempts at a coup d’&at andarmed intervention could be explained by the plansfor stemming the tide of the national liberationmovements and by the hegemonistic policies ofimperialist forces. It was to be hoped that aninternational convention on mercenarism would bedrafted so that it would be applicable not only tomercenartes but especially to States that recrutted,financed and used them and had on their territorytrammg camps disguised in various ways, and thatthe convention would provide for severe punishmentboth of the mercenaries and of the States thatemployed them.29

The representative of Yugoslavia said that theattack on Seychelles constituted a twofold violationof international law: (a) the asovereignty of a country; and

ression against the( r) the hijacking of an

aircraft and the taking of hostages. Either violationcould not and should not be tolerated by the intema-tional community and particularly by the Council.The Council should fulfil its responsibilities andfinall make South Africa obey the norms of intema-tiona behaviour.‘*r

The representative of Barbados emphasized thathis country regarded mercenarism as a crime againsthumanity. Barbados had been among the sponsors ofGeneral Assembly resolution 35148 of 4 December1989, which had established the Ad Hoc Committee,and tt had been an active member of that Committee.His delegation was aware that some delegations-even some of those serving on the Ad Hoc Commit-tee-would prefer that no convention be elaborated.The Barbados delegation appealed to all members ofthe international community to safeguard the princi-ple of sovereign equality by taking necessary actionto eliminate mercenary activity by their nationalsand from within their borders.3t

The representative of Mozambique declared thatthe encouragement and or anizationactivities against sovereign !!

of mercenarytates was a breach of the

principles of international law and ran counter to thepurposes of the Charter, which enshrined the aspira-tion of all States to live in peace and security, freefrom threats by outside forces.j*

The representative of Zaire mentioned that thespeedy adoption of an international conventionwould represent an important contribution to theprogressive development of international law, inaccordance with the spirit of the Declaration onPrinciples of International Law concerning FriendlyRelations and Cooperation among States m accord-ance with the Charter of the United Nations.33 It wasessential that the international community assumecollective responsibility for eliminating those activi-ties that jeopardized international peace andsecurity.34

The representative of Swaziland declared that hisGovernment and people felt insulted, injured andabused, ‘ust like the people of Seychelles, when theironly air ine/ was caught in the crosstire of adventu-rism and the circumstances of geoproximity wereexploited and abused by the aggressors.3’

The representative of Sri Lanka noted that theCommisston of Inquiry had focused attention onseveral important aspects to which the internationalcommunity should give urgent consideration: (a) itdealt with the recurring problems of armed aggres-sion against independent States with a view tooverthrowinprinciples ok

their Governments, in violation of thethe Charter; (b) it dealt with the role

played by foreign mercenaries, a common phenome-non m African politics; (c) it drew the attention of theworld commumty to air piracy, which threatened thelives of innocent passengers who were unsuspectingvictims of aggression and international terrorism;and (d) it highlighted the short-term and long-termimpact on the economies of States that becametargets of foreign aggression.36

The President of the Council, speaking in hiscapacity as the representative of China, said that thenumerous facts listed in the repoti and recentdisclosures in the press clearly showed that the armedinvasion of Seychelles by foreign mercenaries was acarefully laid political plot to overthrow, by means ofa coup d’ktat, the legitimate Government ofchelles. In Chma’s view, the Council should stroncondemn the racist regime of South Africalaunching the criminal mercenary invasion of Sey-chelles and accept the recommendations of theCommission of Inquiry.37

At its 2370th meeting, on 28 May 1982, theCouncil had before it the text of a draft resolutior$*

Put I I 219

submitted by Guyana, Jordan, Panama, Togo, Ugan-da and Zaire.

The representative of Togo presented the draftresolution and explained that the document was thefruit of very lengthy work, in the course of which thenon-aligned members had had to make concessionsamong themselves and had benefited from the adviceof other members of the Council. All together, I1 ofthe 12 amendments proposed had been accepted.3p

At the same meeting, the draft resolution was putto the vote and adopted unanimously as resolution507 (1982).*O It reads as follows:

The Securrry Cbuncil,

Having exumined the report of the Security Council Commis-sion of Inquiry established under resolution 496 (1981).

Gravely concerned at the violation of the territorial integrity,independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Seychelles,

Deep/y grieved at the loss of life and substantial damage toproperty caused by the mercenary invading force during its attackon the Republic of Seychelles on 25 November 1981.

Grave/y concerned at the mercenary aggression against theRepublic of Seychelles, prepared in and executed from SouthAfrica,

Deeply concerned at the danger which mercenaries represent forall States, particularly the small and weak ones, and for thestability and independence of African States,

Concerned at the long-term effects of the mercenary aggressionof 25 November 1981 on the economy of the Republic ofSeychelles,

Reiterating resolution 496 (1981). in which it affirms that theterritorial integrity and political independence of the Republic ofSeychelles must be respected,

I. Tukes nofe of the report of the Security Council Commissionof Inquiry established under resolution 496 (I 98 I) and expressesits appreciation for the work accomplished;

2. Stron,qly condemns the mercenary aggression against theRepublic of Seychelles;

3. Commends the Republic of Seychelles for successfully repuls-ing the mercenary aggression and defending its territorial integrityand independence;

4. Reafirms its resolution 239 (1967) by which, inter alio, itcondemns any State which persists in permitting or tolerating therecruitment of mercenaries and the provision of facilities to them.with the objective of overthrowing the Governments of MemberStates;

5. Condemns all forms of external interference in the internalaffairs of Member States, including the use of mercenaries todestabilize States and/or to violate the territorial integrity, sover-eignty and independence of States;

6. Furlher condemns the illegal acts against the security andsafety of civil aviation committed in the Republic of Seychelles on25 November 1981;

7. Calls upon all States to provide the Security Council with anyinformation they might have in connection with the mercenaryaggression of 25 November 1981 likely to throw further light onthe aggression, in particular transcripts of court proceedings andtestimony in any trial of any member of the invading mercenaryforce;

8. Appeds to all States and international organizations, includ-ing the specialized agencies of the United Nations. to assist theRepublic of Seychelles to repair the damage caused by the act ofmercenary aggression;

9. Decides to establish, by 5 June 1982. a special fund for theRepublic of Seychelles, to be supplied by voluntary contributions,through which assistance should be channelled for economicreconstruction;

IO. Decides to establish an od hoc committee, before the end ofMay 1982. composed of four members of the Security Council, tobe chaired by France, to co-ordinate and mobilize resources for theSpecial Fund established under paragraph 9 of the presentresolution, for immediate disbursement to the Republic of Sey-chelles;

I I. Requesfs the Secretary-General to provide all necessaryassistance to the Ad Hoc Committee for the implementation, inparticular, of paragraphs 8. 9 and IO of the present resolution;

12. Decides to mandate the Commission of Inquiry to examineall further developments and present by I5 August 1982 asupplementary report, with appropriate recommendations, whichshould take into account, inter alia, the evidence and testimonypresented at any trial of any member of the invading mercenaryforce;

13. Requesfs the Secretary-General to provide all necessaryassistance for the implementation of the present resolution andparagraph I2 above;

14. Decides to remain seized of the question.

After the adoption of the resolution,, the represen-tative of the United States expressed his delegation’sdoubts that a supplementary report would prove tobe any more conclusive than the one in hand. TheCommission lacked the powers and competence of acourt of law, and its findings, necessarll

?, must be

limited and tentative. He expressed con ldence thatthe members of the Commission would exercise thesame care in any supplementary report as they haddemonstrated in the first report.‘”

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Seychellesthanked the members of the Council and otherspeakers for the expression of solidarit with, andprofound friendshi

Pfor, the people and &ovemment

of Seychelles mani ested by the representatives of nofewer than 50 States Members of the United Na-tions.42

In a note dated 28 May 1982,41 the President of theCouncil, after referrin to paragraph 10 of resolution507 (1982), in which t e Council decided to establishft.an ad hoc committee, before the end of May 1982,composed of four members of the Council, to bechaired by France, to co-ordinate and mobilizeresources for the Special Fund established underparagraph 9 of the resolution, for immediate dis-bursement to Seychelles, announced that, followingconsultations with the members of the Council,agreement had been reached that the other threemembers of the Ad Hoc Committee would beGuyana, Jordan and Uganda.

In a note dated 13 August 1982,” the President ofthe Council stated that the Chairman of the Commis-sion had informed him that, owing to the need for theCommission to receive and study the record of theevidence and testimony presented at trials in bothSeychelles and South Africa, it would need furthertime to submit its supplementary report as called forin paragraph 12 of resolution 507 (1982). According-ly, the Chairman of the CornmissIon had requestedan extension of the date of submission of its reportuntil 3 1 October. The President added that, followinginformal consultations on the matter, it had beenfound that no member of the Council had anyobjection to the Commission’s re uest and that theChairman of the Commission had% een so informed.

In a note dated 31 October 1982,4’ the President ofthe Council stated that the Chairman of the Commis-sion had informed him that the Commission hadbegun the examination of the record of the courtproceedings which had been received from Se chellesand South Africa on 7 September and 5 htober1982, respectively. However, owing to the length ofthe South African transcript, the Commission hadnot yet been able to complete its work and, accord-in ly, had requested a further extension of the date oftsu mission of its supplementary report. The Presi-

dent added that, following informal consultations on

220 Chapter VIII. Maiatenmce of international peace and sccwlty

the matter, it had been found that no member of theCouncil had any objection to the Commission’srequest, and that the Chairman of the Commissionhad been informed that the Council agreed to anextension of two weeks until the middle of November1982.

On I 7 November 1982, the Commission submittedits supplementary report to the Council,46 pursuantto paragraph I2 of resolution 507 (1982).

In a letter dated 24 June 1983”’ addressed to thePresident of the Council, the Permanent Representa-tive of Seychelles to the United Nations requestedthat the Council: (a) terminate the work of theCommission; (b) keep the Special Fund operational;and (c) in keeping with past practice, maintain theitem of Seychelles on the Council’s agenda.

In a note dated 8 July 1983,4R the President of theCouncil stated that the members of the Council hadtaken note of the letter and had agreed, in consulta-tions held on that day, that the Commission hadfulfilled its mandate.

N OTES

ISt14783, OR, 36th yr.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1981.*For details, see chap. III of the present Supplement .I S/14769 and Corr.1, letter dated 26 November 198 I from the

representative of Seychelles. and S/14777, letter dated I December1981 from the same, OR, 36th yr.. Suppl. for Ocl.-Dec. 1981.

4 S/14793, adopted without change as resolution 496 (1981).‘2314th mtg., paras. 8-18.6 Ihrd., paras. 20-32.‘For the vote, see 2314th mtg.. para. 33.B 2314th mrg., paras. 46-54.

Pfhid., statements by China, France, the German DemocraticRepublic, Ireland. Japan, Mexico, Niger, Spain, Tunisia and theUnited Kingdom.

lo Ibid., paras. 81-85.I 1 Ibid., paras. 119-126.11S/14816, OR, 36rh yr,, Suppl. lor Oct.-Dec. 1981.‘JS/14850. ibid., 37th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1982.I4 SII 4905tRev. I I Ibrd., Special Supplement No. 2.“2359th mtg.. paras. 10-39.lb Ibid.. paras. 42-52.I’ Ibid.. paras. 55-64.

In Ibid.. paras. 67-74.Iv Ibid., paras. 78-94.10 /bid., paras. 96- IO I.zI Ibid.. paras. 194-207.I* 236lst mtg., paras. 4-14.II Ibid., paras. 17-27.I4 Ibid.. paras. 50-57.Is Ibid., paras. 62-83.*bIbid., paras. 101-l IO.*‘23651h mtg.. paras. 27-40.

2t ibid., paras. 42-56.2p Ibid.. paras. 59-7 I.

MObid., paras. 91-101.II Ibid.. paras. 104-I 13.I* Ibid.. paras. 190-206.I) General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV).‘4 2367th mtg.. paras. 14-29.I) Ibrd., paras. 120-I 33.)6 Ibid.. paras. I 36- I4 1.” Ibid., paras. 165-l 70.J( S/I 5 127, adopted without change as resolution 507 (1982).jP23701h mtg., paras. 16-25.u1 For the vote, we ibid.. para. 26.(I 2370th mtg., paras. 28-36.

41 Ibid,, paras. 38-45.

” St I5 138, OR, 37th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1982.u St 15359, ib id . . Supp l . fo r Ju ly -Sept . 1982 .” SII 5473. ibid.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1982.)6 s/I 5492 and Corr. I and 2. replaced by SJ I5492IRev. I, ibid.,

Special Supplement No. 3.” S/I 5845, ibid.. 38th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1983.Ia SII 5860. rbrd., Resolutions and Decisions o/ Ihe Security

Council. 1983.

9 . LEITER DATED I9 MARCH 19%2 FROM THE PERMA-NENT REPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUA TO THEUNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

IbilTl~L PROCEEDINGS

Decision of 2 April 1982 (2347th meeting): rejectionof a draft resolution submitted by Guyana andPanamaIn a letter dated I9 March 1982,’ the representa-

tive of Nicaragua transmitted the text of a note dated18 March from the Co-ordinator of the GoverningJunta of National Reconstruction of Nicaragua., whorequested an ur ent meeting of the Council in view ofwhat he descri % e d as the worsening of tension inCentral America and the increasing danger of a large-scale military intervention by the armed forces of theUnited States.

In a letter dated 25 March 1982,* the representa-tive of El Salvador, referring to the letter of 19 Marchfrom the representative of Nicaragua, cited ChapterVI11 of the Charter, recalled existing internationalinstruments with respect to inter-American mattersand maintained that the problems of internationalrelations and disputes in the Latin American regionin general and Central America in particular shouldbe solved through recourse in the first instance toappropriate procedures within the inter-Americansystem.3

At the 2335th meeting, on 25 March 1982, theCouncil included the letter dated 19 March 1982from the representative of Nicaragua in its agenda.Following the adoption of the agenda, the Councilinvited the following, at their request, to participate,without vote, in the discussion on the item: at thesame meeting, the representatives of Angola, Argenti-na, Cuba, Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua; at the2337th meeting, the representative of Viet Nam; atthe 2339th meeting, the representatives of Grenada,India, Iran, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic,Mozambique, Nigeria, Seychelles and Yu oslavia; atthe 2341st meeting, the representatives o7 Benin, ElSalvador, the German Democratic Republic, Mada-gascar, Sri Lanka, the United Republic of Tanzaniaand Zambia; at the 2342nd meeting, the representa-tives of Chile, Colombia, the Lib an Arab Jamahiri-

ia , Mauritius, the Syrian Arab t; epublic and Zim-abwe; at the 2343rd meeting, the representatives of

Algeria, the Congo and Costa Rica; and, at the2347th meeting, the representative of Ira .’ TheCouncil considered the item at its 2335th to 9 337th,2339th, 2341st to 2343rd and 2347th meetings, from25 March to 2 April 1982.

At the 2335th meeting, the Co-ordinator of theGoverning Junta of National Reconstrucfion ofNicaragua presented an extensive and deta+d ac-count of Nicaragua’s troubled relatlonshlp with the

Pul II 2 2 1- United States and warned that the recent escalation

in the United States endeavour to undermine andoverthrow the Sandinista Government constituted agrowing threat for peace and security in CentralAmerica. He summed up his presentatton by point-ing out that (a) neither Nicaragua nor any otherCentral American or Caribbean country could beconsidered as a geo

1olitical or strategic preserve of

the United States; ( ) Nicaragua could not representa threat to the security of the United States; (c)Nicaragua stood ready to improve relations with theUnited States on the basis of mutual respect andunconditional recognition of the Nicaraguan right toself-determination; (4 Nicaragua was willing to beginimmediately direct talks with the Government of theUnited States with the objective of reaching concreteresults; (P) the Farabundo Marti Front for NationalLiberation (FMLN) and the Revolutionary Demo-cratic Front (FDK) of El Salvador had authorizedhim to transmit their willingness to bcnegotiations without pre-conditions; (a

in immediatethe Govcrn-

ment of Cuba had authorized him to communicate tothe Council its willingness also to be

kin negotiations

immediately; (R) the Governments o Nicaragua andCuba as well as the Salvadoran FMLN-FDK backedthe Mexican initiative for negotiations proposed on21 February at Managua; (h) Nicaragua was willingto sign immediately non-aggression pacts with allneighbouring countries; and (i) Nicaragua had toreject the attempt by the United States to imposehumiliating restrictions on its prerogatives regardingnational defence.

He also conveyed his Government’s demand thatthe United States Government put a halt to itsdestabilization plans and the organization and fi-nancing of paramilitary forces advised and trained byUnited States military personnel; put a stop to theuse of Honduran territory as a base for armedaggression against Nicaragua; put a stop to the trafficin arms and counterrevolutionaries between theterritory of the United States and Honduras; ,put astop to the existence of counterrevoluttonary mtlttarytraining camps on United States territory; put a stopto the participation of the United States intelligencecommunity in the financing, training and organizingof forces and clandestine plans against Nicaragua;put a stop to the presence of United States warshipsIn the waters of Central America and off the coasts ofNicaragua; and put a stop to overflights by spy-planesviolating the airspace of Nicaragua.

In conclusion, he requested that the United StatesGovernment officially and explicitly voice its com-mitment not to attack Nicaragua and not to initiateor promote any direct, indirect or covert interventionin Central America and called upon the Council topronounce itself regarding the obligation to seek bypeaceful means a solution to the problems of CentralAmerica and the Caribbean, to refrain from acts offorce or threats and to repudiate any intervention inCentral America.!

The President, speaking in her capacity as repre-sentative of the Unrted States, rejected the charges bythe Nicaraguan spokesman and accused the Govem-ment of Ntcaragua of oppressive policies against itsown population and of aggressive moves against itsneighbours, in particular El Salvador. She pointedout that her Government had not attempted toprevent the Sandinista rise to power and its consoli-dation of power and that the United States hadinitially provided extensive economic assistance to

the new regime. She acknowledged that the UnitedStates had started to undertake flights over Nicara-guan territory after it had become aware of theactions and intentions of the Sandinistas towardstheir own citizens and nei hbours. She accused theNicaraguan authorities ok abusing the Council’smeeting to air baseless charges against the UnitedStates and asked why Nicaragua had not respondedto repeated American initiatives for the reduction oftensions.

She stated categorically that her Government wasnot about to invade any country and instead soughtpeace in Central America. She reiterated five pointsthat could serve as the basis for a substantialimprovement of American-Nicaraguan relations, in-cluding a commitment through reassertion of the RioTreaty engagements to non-intervention and non-aggression;, a United States commitment concerningthe actiwtlcs of Nicaraguan exiles and the enforce-ment of the Neutrality Act; a regional undertakingnot to import heavy offensive weapons and to reducethe number of foreign military and security advisersto a reasonably low level; a proposal to the UnitedStates Congress for renewed United States aid toNicaragua; and actions by the Nicaraguans to termi-nate their military involvement in El Salvador.

In concludin her statement, she noted that theGovernment o 18 Nicaragua, in submitting its appealto the Council, had ignored procedures well estab-lished in the Charter of the United Nations and thecharter of the Organization of American States(OAS).* She referred in that connection to Article 52of the Charter of the United Nations and to article 23of the OAS charter and argued that regional disputesshould be submitted to regional bodies for discussionand settlement before referring them to the Council.She recalled the various occasions when OAS hadbeen seized of the matter and underlined her Gov-ernment’s viewpoint that OAS was the appropriateand primary forum for the consideration of thematters addressed by Nicaragua.’

At the 2336th meeting, on 25 March 1982, therepresentative of Cuba, sChairman of the Group oP

eaking in his capacity asNon-Aligned Countries at

the United Nations, referred to the Political Declara-tion of the Heads of State or Government of theNon-Aligned Countries at its Sixth Conference, heldat Havana from 3 to 9 September 1979,* in which ithad recalled the long stru

vle of the peoples of Latin

America for their indepen ence and sovereignty andurged all States to respect fully the principles of self-determination, non-intervention and territorial integ-rity. He further expressed the satisfaction of theMovement at the victory of the Nicaraguan peopleover the Somoza dictatorship and transmitted itsappeal to all States to adhere scrupulousl to theprrnciples of non-use of force or of threat of orce andtynon-interference in the internal affairs of the Statesof the region. He underlined the seriousness of thesituation in Central America and called upon theCouncil to state its opposition to threats and hostileacts directed a

Qainst Ntcaragua and the other peoples

of the region.The representative of Honduras suggested that

matters such as the Nicaraguan request should, forprocedural reasons and in accordance with Article 52of the Charter, have been brought before OAS. Herecatled the numerous complaints and protests sub-mitted by his Government to the Nicaraguan side, toOAS and to the United Nations, but reiterated his

222 Chapter VIII. Mahtcnance of international m and security

Government’s wish for a peaceful solution of theregional problems and for the internationalization of

Feace. He quoted from the statement of the Ministeror Foreign Affairs of Honduras on 23 March before

the Permanent Council of OASIO in which proposalshad been made for basic steps towards eneraldisarmament in the region, for a reduction of Foreignmilitary and other advisers, for a scheme of intema-tional supervision and monitoring to verify thecompliance with obligations entered into by theCentral American Governments, for procedures tohalt the arms traffic in the regio?, for absoluterespect for the borders in the region and for aframework for a permanent multilateral dialo ueleading to a solution of the international issues a? d toa strengthening of democracy and pluralism wlthmthe various States. He issued anew an invitation tothe Foreign Minister of Nicaragua for a wide-rangingexchange of views with his own Government andother parties in Central America.”

At the same meeting, the re resentative of Angolaexpressed deep regret that a Ker the victory of theNicaraguan people over the repressive Somozaregime the liberated country had become the target ofthe wrath and intimidation of the United States, theimperialist Power of the region whose claim that itssecurity was threatened by that small Central Ameri-can country was plainly ludicrous. He emphasizedthat Nicaragua, as a member of the Movement ofNon-Aligned Countries, merely wished to pursue itsown economic, social and political development andfavoured a negotiated solution to settle any differ-ences with other States in the r e ion

%and with the

United States. It also agreed wit the proposal todeclare the area a zone of peace. He called upon theCouncil to prevent a wider conflagration in CentralAmerica and to pay close heed to the Nicaraguanposition stated at the meeting in the morning.‘*

In response to Nicaraguan accusations, the repre-sentative of Ar entina stated that his Government’srelations with E I Salvador and Honduras accordedwith the normal rules of international relations, inparticular the principle of non-intervention in theInternal and external affairs of other States. Chargesthat it was directly or indirectly interfering in theaffairs of Nicaragua were completely unfounded.”

At the 2337th meeting, on 26 March 1982, yherepresentative of Cuba, speaking in that capacity,reJected char es that the political and social upheavalin various 8 entral American countries had beeninstigated and controlled by the Governments ofCuba and Nicaragua and quoted a United Statesviewpoint, according to which the United States haddisregarded the origm of Central American insurgen-cy, arising from decades of economic inequalit

iiand

political oppression. He asked that the United tatesGovernment abandon its ambivalent policy of on theone hand proclaiming the wish to negotiate withCuba and Nicaragua, while on the other refusing torule out the use of force against them.

He categorically denied that Cuba had suppliedweapons to the Salvadoran revolutionaries and fullysupported the Nicaraguan request that the Counciltake up the growing threat of an American interven-tion in Central America. He rejected the attempt tointerpret Article 52 of the Charter as limiting thesovereign right of Member States and underlined thesupreme authority of the Council in the maintenanceof international peace and security. He called uponthe Council to reiterate the basic principles governing

the Organization and to emphasize negotiation as theonl tool in the settlement of the Central Americandi erences.14I-?

The representative of Mexico emphasized hiscountry’s vital concern with the developments in theneighbourinpointed to t1

countries in Central America ande time1 and urgent search for negoti-

ated alternatives to t e worsening crisis. He testifiedhto the nature of the struggle for change, which wasgeared towards the elimination of centuries-old pov-erty and exploitation, and mentioned the Mexicanwish to help prevent a new American intervention inthe area and to contribute to a solution that wouldsafeguard the rights of all parties. He referred, inparticular to proposals of 2 I February 1982 in whichthe President of Mexico had set out steps that wouldfavour a relaxation of tensions, stabilit and development in Central America and the 8aribbean. Headded that the solution could not be built upon theattempt to exclude Cuba and viewed El Salvador asthe most searing regional problem.

Mexico had further suggested that the UnitedStates should rule out any threat or use of forceagainst Nicaragua and that a system of mutual non-aggression pacts should be created between Nicara-ua and the United States on the one hand and

% etween Nicaragua and its neighbours on the other.The call for h&level talks had resulted in theagreement for a meeting of Mexican and UnitedStates officials at Mexico City in April. The path ofconfrontation and the path of ne otiation wereincompatible, and his Government %oped and ex-petted that the two parties would opt for the chanceto come to an understanding. He invoked the princi-ples of the Charter giving the Council jurisdiction inthe matter and, in referring to Article 52 of theCharter, suggested that every State had the right tochoose for itself whether to appeal to the supremeauthority of the Council or to use the mechanisms ofa regional organization. He urged the Council topromote a climate of dialogue that would encourage anegotiated solution to the Central American con-flict.15

At the 2339th meeting, on 29 March 1982, therepresentative of Panama endorsed the view that thestruggle of the peoples of Central America to over-come exploitation and to win social ‘ustice was thecharacteristic feature of the process of change in thatregion. He expressed strong support for the Mexicanpeace initiatives and recommended that the propos-als of Honduras and Nicaragua also be considered inthe pursuit of a negotiated solution. It was essentialto negotiate a system of non-aggression and non-interference with all Central American countriesparticipating without exception. A corollary accordshould envisage the transfer of resources devoted tothe arms buildup towards economic and socialdevelopment needs in all the countries. The solutionshould also entail the existence of a democraticpluralistic multi-party s stem with periodic popularelections. Panama wou d be ready to serve as thervenue of a conference devoted to a framework ofpeace, security and co-operation for CentralAmerica.16

The representative of France recalled a number ofsteps that his Government had taken in conjunctionwith Mexico and other Latin American countriesregardinendorse%

various aspects of Central America andnegotiation and the reduction of military

forces, together with economic assistance and struc-

Pm II 223-

tural reforms to benefit a more cooperative atmo-sphere in the area. He proposed that the Secretary-General follow the developments, investigate thecharges by Nicaragua and the United States andreport back to the Council within two or threeweeks. i ’

The representative of the Soviet Union expressedfull support for Nicaragua’s request to bring the tensesituation in Central America to the Council’s atten-tion. He also underlined the fact that the Co-ordina-tor of the Nicaraguan junta had unambiguouslystated his readiness to seek a political settlement tothe dangerous situation in the area. He observed thatthe re resentative of the United States had devotedhcrsel P extensively to thoughts about purely internalaffairs of Nicaragua and expressed hope that theUnited States would eventually turn to peacefulmeans to remove discord. The Soviet delegationsupported the specific proposals submitted by Nica-ragua and the initiatives put forward by the Presidentof Mcxico.in

The representative of Togo joined in the re uestthat the Council urge the parties to search or a?negotiated solution in Central America. He observedthat Article 33 in conjunction with Article 52 of theCharter envisaged that regional organizations wouldcndcavour to Initiate the peaceful settlement of adispute or situation before the Council got involved;but he acknowledged that Articles 34 and 35 provid-ed for direct access to, and an immediate role of, theCouncil regardless of the activation of the regionalmechanism. He expressed hope that the Councilwould act in accordance with its responsibilitiesi

At the 2341st meeting, on 30 March 1982, therepresentative of the United Kingdom asked whetherthe airing of the issues involving many extravagantcharges would really help to promote peaceful solu-tions and suggested instead that the parties con-cerned engage in negotiations on a bilateral orregional basis, or in co-operation with other States inthe region. He added that the Nicaraguan leadershipshould take note of the assurances given by theUnited States that it had no intention of invadingNicaragua and he emphasized that all the countriesin the region should abide by the principle of non-interference.20

At the same meeting, the representative of ElSalvador stressed that the problem of El Salvadorwas a matter of its exclusive purview and within itsinternal jurisdiction., that the international relationsin the inter-Amertcan sphere should be solvedthrou h

athe organs created by the regional system,

that t e Salvadoran Government maintained cooperative relations, based on international norms andinstruments, with countries that found that consis-tent with their interests, that El Salvador did notconstitute a threat for anybod , that it had been thevictim of acts of intervention r; ut had not submittedany formal complaints to competent internationalbodies, and that El Salvador would be compelled toactivate the machinery of the inter-American region-al system if those interventionist and aggressive actscontinued.?’

At the 2343rd meeting, on 31 March 1982, therepresentative of Chile invoked Articles 33, 52 and51, affirmed that in case of a dis ute betweenAmerican countries a solution shou d be soughtPthrough the available means of the regional organiza-tion before the issue was brought to the attention of

the Council, and reviewed instances of successfulhandling of such situations within OAS.22

At the 2347th meeting, on 2 April 1982, thePresident drew the attention of the Council to thetext of a draft resolutionz3 submitted by Panama andGuyana.

Under the draft resolution, in its preambular part,the Council would, inter alia, have expressed graveconcern at the deterioration of the situation inCentral America and the Caribbean, taken intoaccount Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter andother relevant provisions of the Charter concerningthe peaceful settlement of disputes, considered thatthe ongoing crisis in the region of Central Americaand the Caribbean affected international peace andsecurit and that all Member States had an interest inthe so ution of the crisis by peaceful means, andrrecalled General Assembly resolutions 2 I3 I (XX) of21 December I965 on the inadmissibility of inter-vention in the domestic affairs of States and theprotection of their independence and sovereignty,and 2160 (XXI) of 30 November 1966 on strictobservance of the prohibition of the threat or use offorce in international relations, and the right ofpeoples to self-determination.

In the operative part of the draft, the Councilwould have (a) reminded all Member States of theirobligation to respect the principles of the Charter,and in particular those relating to the following: (I)non-intervention and non-interference in the domes-tic affairs of States; (ii) self-determination of peoples;(iii) non-use of force or threat of force; (iv) theterritorial inte rity and political independence ofStates; (v) paci Bic settlement of disputes; (b) remind-ed all Member States that resolution 2131 (XX)condemned the use or threat of force in relationsbetween States as acts contrary to the purposes and

8rinciples of the Charter; (c) appealed to all Membertates to refrain from the direct, indirect, overt or

covert use of force against any country of CentralAmerica and the Caribbean; (d) appealed to allparties concerned to have recourse to dialogue andnegotiation, as contemplated in the Charter, andcalled upon all Member States to lend their supportto the search for a peaceful solution to the problemsof Central America and the Caribbean; and (e)re uested the Secretary-General to keep the Councilin ormed concerning the development of the situa-9tion in Central America and the Caribbean.

At the same meeting, the representative of theUnited States reaffirmed her Government’s commit-ment not to invade Nicarainternal affairs of other !!

ua, not to intervene in thetates, and to respect the

peaceful settlement of disputes and the principlesrelating to the use and non-use of force. She furtherpointed out that although Nicaragua had exercised itsright to appeal directly to the Council, Article 52together with Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Charterconstituted an obligation to seek the resolution ofregional disputes first of all in the relevant regionalorganization, an obligation that Nicaragua had delib-erately ignored.*’

The representative of Costa Rica, in a detailedanalysis of Articles 52, 54 and 103 of the Charter, asseen in relation to the provisions of the OAS charter,arrived at the conclusion that while the Charter ofthe United Nations clearly envisaged the primacy ofthe regional approach in inter-American dtsputes, thelegal principles of the OAS charter made it mandato-

224 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of intcrnatloaal peace and security

ry to seek recourse at the regional level before appealto the Council.*’

The representative of Guyana emphasized theconciliatory character of the draft resolution which ithad co-sponsored with Panama, summarized thebasic elements of the text and expressed hope that theCouncil, by consensus, would endorse the attempt tobring the parties to the negotiating table.26

Following the suspension of the meeting for con-sultations,* the President put the draft resolution tothe vote. It received 12 votes in favour and I against,with 2 abstentions, and failed of adoption owing tothe negative vote of a permanent member of theCouncil.**

After the vote, the representative of the UnitedStates indicated that his delegation had not been in aposition to vote for the draft, since it had failed to besupportive of the Council as well as of the regionalstructure of OAS and had disregarded certain keyelements of the Central American problem, namely,the intervention of the Sandinista junta in the affairsof its neighbours.29

The representative of the United Kingdom ex-plained his abstention by noting that the draftreferred to two General Assembly resolutions that hisGovernment had not supported when they wereadopted and about which it maintained its reserva-tions.‘O

The President, speaking in his capacity as therepresentative of Zaue, invoked Articles 52 and 33 ofthe Charter and regretted that the Council seemednot merely to disregard but even to re’ect theapproach to re

8ional agencies for the Centra1 Ameri-

can situation.’The representative of Nicaragua charged that the

United States had vetoed fundamental principles ofthe Charter.“*

NOTESI VI491 3, OR. 37th yr.. Suppl. fir Jan.-March 1982.‘s/14927, ibid.1 In a letter dated 30 March 1982 (S/14936, ibid.), the rcprcsen-

tativc of Nicaragua challenged the position taken by Honduras andconveyed his Government’s views on the competence and jurisdic-tion of the Council under the Charter of the United Nations vis-d-vis matters within the Organization of American States (OAS).

4 For details, see chap. III in the present Supplemenl.‘2335th mtg., paras. 7-88.6 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 119.‘2335th mtg., paras. 91-147.s A/34/542, annex.92336th mtg., paras. 3-14.1oS/14914. annex.II 2336th mtg., paras. 16-21.I* Ibid., paras. 25-40. For similar statements, see 2337th mtg.:

Viet Nam. oaras. 83-93: 2339th mm.: Lao Peoole’s DemocraticRepublic, paras. 84-96. koxambiqu< paras. 98-i 16. and Poland,paras. 7 I-82; 2342nd mtg.: the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, paras. 8699; and 2347th mtg.: the German Democrat ic Republ ic, paras. 83-93.

I1 2336th mtg.. paras. 42-49.l’2337th mtg., paras. 6-34.I’ Ibid., paras. 37-62. For similar statements, see ibid.: Guyana,

paras. 65-80; 2339th mtg.: China, paras. 130-135; 234191 mtg.:Spain, paras. 6-13; 2342nd mtg.: Ireland, paras. 23-52, andZimbabwe, paras. 73-81; and 2343rd mtg.: Madagascar, paras. 83-101.

I6 2339th mtg., paras. 6-30.

I’ Ibid., paras. 38-44.I1 Ibid.. paras. 45-56.rp Ibrd., paras. 59-68.*O 234lst mtg., paras. 17-22.21 Ibid., paras. 91-104.*I 2343rd mtg.. paras. 38-70.jJ s/I 4941, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. /or April-June 1982. The drafi

resolution was subsequently put to the vote and failed of adoption,owing to the negative vote of a permanent member.

I4 2347th mtg.. paras. 5-48.*’ Ibid.. paras. 5 l-78.z6 Ibid.. paras. 133-l 38.27 Ibid., para. 139.I( For the vote, see ibid., para. 140. See also chap. IV in the

present Supplfmenl.Ip 2347th mtg., paras. 142-148.y, Ibid.. paras. 149-152.3’ Ibid., paras. 154-l 58.jr Ibid., paras. 160-163.

10. LETTER DATED I APRIL 1982 FROM THE PERMA-NENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRE-LAND TO THE UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TOTHE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Decision of 3 April 1982 (2350th meeting): resolution502 (1982)By letter’ dated I April 1982 addressed to the

President of the Council, the representative of theUnited Kingdom requested an immediate meeting ofthe Council as his Government had good reason tobelieve that the armed forces of the ArgentineRepublic were about to attempt to invade theFalkland Islands.

At the 2345th meeting, on 1 April 1983, theCouncil included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council invited thefollowing, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote: at the samemeeting, the representative of Argentina; at the2349th meeting, the representatives of Australia,Canada and New Zealand; and at the 2350th meet-ing, the representatives of Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguayand Peru.* The Council considered the item at its2345th. 2346th, 2349th and 2350th meetings, from Ito 3 April 1982.

Opening the discussion, the representative of theUnited Kingdom declared that there had been differ-ences for many years between his Government andthe Government of the Republic of Argentina con-cerning the Falkland Islands. The United Kin domhad exercised sovereignty over the Falkland Is andsfsince early in the nineteenth century and continuedto do so today.

For several years, the uestion of the FalklandIslands had been discussed% y the General Assembly.In accordance with the recommendations of theGeneral Assembly, the British Government and theGovernment of Argentina had held a series ofmeetings to discuss the situation in the FalklandIslands. Representatives of the two Governments hadconfirmed m New York at the end of February theirwish to continue their discussions within the negoti-ating framework. But the Ar entine Governmentappeared to have decided, fol owing those discus-fslons, that it did not wish to continue on that course.

Part II 225Lately, relations between the United Kingdom and

Argentina had deteriorated as a result of an incidentin South Georgia, one of the dependencies of theFalkland Islands. The United Kmgdom had exer-cised sovereignty over South Georgia since 1775,when the island had been discovered by CaptainJames Cook. The Ar

7entine claim to South Georgia

dated only from 192 and was presumably based onthe island’s alleged proximity to the Argentine main-land. On I9 March 1982, an Argentine navy cargovessel had been anchored in nearby Leith Harbourand a large party of Argentines had begun setting upcamp. The United Kingdom Government had soughtimmediate clarification from the Argentine Govem-ment, both at Buenos Aires and in London, makingclear that it regarded the incident as potentiallyserious and asking the Argentines to arrange for theimmediate departure of the ship and party. TheAr entine Government had declared that no servingmi itary personnel were involved. It had also statedfthat it was, however, unreasonable to expect theArgentine Government to seek British authorizationfor their presence on territory claimed by Argentina.

It had been made clear to the Argentine Govem-ment that Britain could not allow even a smallnumber of men to remain on the island and that thecaptain of HMS Endurance had been instructed as alast resort to take the men on board, without usingforce, and to return them to Argentina via PortStanley, the capital of the Falkland Islands. TheArgentine Government had replied that it wouldregard such an action as gravely provocative.

On 25 March 1982, an Argentine naval transportvessel had arrived at Leith Harbour to deliversupplies to the men ashore.

After an extensive exchange of messages betweenthe two Governments, the Argentine Foreign Minis-ter, in his reply of 3 1 March 1982, had declined todiscuss further the problems occasioned by the illegalpresence of Argentine nationals on South Geor ia.He had specifically stated that he no longer wishe t touse diplomatic channels to discuss the situation inSouth Georgia.

All the naval and military activity and the state-ments by Argentine Ministers had given the BritishGovernment reason to believe that an attempt wasabout to be made to use force to change theAdministration of the Falkland Islands against thewishes of its inhabitants.

The British Government viewed the situation withthe utmost seriousness. It called upon the Council totake immediate action in order to prevent an inva-sion and to exercise its responsibility under theCharter to maintain international peace and security.It also asked the Council to call upon the Govem-ment of Argentina to refrain from the threat or use offorce against the Falkland Islands and to exerciserestraint.

He underlined that it was the fervent wish of theBritish Government to use diplomatic channels toresolve outstanding issues and to avert a crisis.’

The representative of Argentina stated that hiscountry had once again been the object of aggressionperpetrated by the Government of the United King-dom by the dispatch of vessels to its national watersin order to exercise force athe full knowledge of the J

ainst workers who, withnited Kingdom authori-

ties, had been engaged in peaceful commercial activi-ties on San Pedro Island, m the South Georgia group

of islands, a dependency of the Malvinas Islands.That aggression constituted one more episode in theviolence that had been perpetrated by Great Britainon 3 January 1833, when it had taken possession ofthe Malvinas Islands, seizing the Argentine authori-ties residing there and expelling almost all of theinhabitants.

The islands had been part of the national territosince the independence of the Republic, throu2natural succession of the unquestionable rights thatthe Spanish Crown had over them and which had hadgovernors there since 18 I I. In exercise of thoserights, Argentina in 1820 had sent the frigate LaHeroina, under the command of David Jewett, who,in compliance with instructions from the BuenosAires Government, had taken effective possession ofthe islands. On IO June 1829, the political andmilitary governorship of the Malvinas Islands hadbeen established.

At no time had Great Britain objected to theArgentine establishments in the Malvinas Islands.When, in February 1825, it had signed a treat offriendship, commerce and navigation with the dov-emment., reco nizing Argentine independence, noreservations wfi atsoever had been put forward con-ceming the islands. But in 1833 they had beenusurped by Great Britain, the foremost naval Powerof the era.

Since that time, the Argentine Republic had neverceased to call for the return of that part of its territorythat had been occupied illegally.

On I6 December 1965, by an overwhelminB

ma-jority, the General Assembly had adopted reso ution2065 (XX), in which it had taken note of theexistence of a dispute between the Governments ofArgentina and the United Kingdom concerning sov-eretgnty over the islands; and had invited bothcountries to pursue negotiations so as to find apeaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind theprovisions and objectives of the Charter and ofGeneral Assembly resolution I5 14 (XV) of I4 De-cember 1960, as well as the interests of the popula-tion of the islands.

The General Assemblin four consensuses reac h

had reiterated its positioned in 1966, 1967, 1969 and

1971, urging the parties to pursue negotiations inaccordance with the course and scope adopted inresolution 2065 (XX). In resolution 3160 (XXVIII),of 14 December 1973, the Assembl had added thatthe way to put an end to the colonia rsituation was bythe peaceful solution of the conflict of sovereigntybetween Argentina and the United Kingdom and hadur ed

fde ay.the parties to pursue negotiations without

In resolution 31149 of 1 December 1976, theGeneral Assembly had again recognized the contin-ued efforts made by Argentina to facilitate theprocess of decolonization and to promote the well-being of the population of the islands, and it hadagain requested the Governments of Argentina andthe United Kingdom to accelerate negotiations con-cerning the dispute over sovereignty.

The assistance provided by Argentina was limitedby all sorts of obstacles raised by the United King-dom. There had been systematic, arbitrary anddiscriminatory rejection of all legitimate attempts byArgentine citizens to purchase real estate in theMalvinas Islands, along with the prevention of the

226 Chapter VIII. Mdntcaanm of intermtiod peam aad secmrlty

settling of persons and the bringing of capita1 to thearchipelago.

The speaker said that his narration showed undeni-abl that for nearly I50 years the Ar entine Republichacr been and continued to be the o% ject of continu-ous acts of aggression perpetrated by the UnitedKingdom. It was nothing other than the maintenanceof a colonial situation which had originated in an actof force, which was then followed by illegal occupa-tion, usurpation, without the metropohtan Powerhaving demonstrated any desire to put an end to it,despite the repeated appeals of the General Assem-bly.

There was a serious and imminent threat by theUnited Kingdom to utilize force against Argentina’sislands, waters and mainland, leaving Argentina noother course than immediately to adopt the necessarymeasures to ensure its legitimate defence.

Argentina was thus facing a new act of aggressionon the part of the United Kingdom. The Charter hadprovided that members of the United Nations, whencomplying with its aims and purposes, should not beleft in a defenceless state against any act of aggressionperpetrated against its territory or population. Argen-tina would be obliged to utilize the appropriatemeans of defence to protect its territory and nation-als.

It was ironic and inadmissible for the Council to beconvened by the United Kingdom on that day toconsolidate the spoils of colonial plundering. Argenti-na rejected being accused when in fact what shouldbe judged, if justice was to be served and peacepreserved, was the conduct of the accusere4

After holding consultations with members of theCouncil, the President made the following statementson behalf of the Council:

The Security Council has heard statements from the represcnta-fives of the United Kingdom and Argentina about the tensionwhich has recently arisen between the two Governments.

The Security Council has taken note of the statement issued bythe Secretary-General, which reads as follows:

“The Secretary-General, who has already seen the representa-tives of the United Kingdom and Argentina earlier today,renews his appeal for maximum restraint on both sides. He will,of course, return IO Headquarters at any time, if the situationdemands i t .”The Security Council, mindful of its primary responsibility

under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance ofinternational peace and security, expresses its concern about thetension in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas). TheCounci l accordingly cal ls on the Governments of Argentina andthe United Kingdom to exercise the utmost restraint at this timeand, in particular, to refrain from the use or threat of force in theregion and I OI O continue the search for a diplomatic solution.

The Security Council will remain seized of the question.

The representative of the United States said thathis country enjoyed exceptionally close ties with bothArgentina and the United Kingdom and placed avery hi&h value on those ties of friendship andaffirmation of the principles that animated theUnited Nations. Therefore the United States delega-tion whole-heartedly subscribed to the statementread out by the President of the Council. It particu-larly stressed its principal part-its call on theGovernments of Argentina and the United Kingdomto exercise the utmost restraint at the time and, inparticular, to refrain from the use or threat of force inthe region and to continue the search for a diplomaticsolution.6

The representative of the United Kingdom reiter-ated that it was the fervent wish of his Governmentto use diplomatic channels to solve outstandingissues and to avert a crisis. He welcomed thestatement made by the President, and stated that hisGovernment would be guided by its terms; exercisethe utmost restraint; in particular, refrain from theuse or threat of force in the region; and continue thesearch for a diplomatic solutlon.7

At the 2346th meeting, the representative of theUnited Kingdom* accused the Ar entine Govem-ment of ignoring the appeals by the !i ecretary-Gener-al and by the President of the Council and char&edthat while the Council was meeting a massiveArgentine invasion of the Falkland Islands wastaking place. He called it a blatant violation of theCharter and of international laws, and an attempt toimpose by force a foreign and unwanted control.Then he Introduced a draft resolution,9 which wassponsored by his delegation.

The representative of Argentina informed theCouncil that his Government had proclaimed therecovery of its national sovereignty over the territo-ries of the Malvinas, South Georgia and SouthSandwich islands in an act that responded to a justArgentine claim, an act of legitimate defence inresponse to the acts of aggression by the UnitedKingdom. Ar entine jurisdiction extended through-out the islan s, an Argentine Governor being there.IfHe emphasized that in that manner an end had beenput to a situation of tension and injustice that hadbeen a constant element of disturbance to intema-tional peace and security. He added that his countrywould act in conformity with the principles andpurposes of the Charter and make every effort toreach a just and peaceful solution.‘”

The representative of France stated that it couldnot be denied that Argentina had used armed forcethat night in an invasion of the Falkland Islands inthe South Atlantic. It was clear that the armed attackdeserved condemnation. It was a violation of theprovisions of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter.In taking the decision to carry out the totallyunjustified armed attack, the Argentine Governmenthad deliberately disregarded the appeals for modera-tion made the day before bGeneral and the President o/

both the Secretary-the Council.

Faced with that breach of international peace andin order to prevent the situation from deteriorating,the Council should act quickly and effectively anddemand an immediate cessation of hostilities and theimmediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces fromthe Falkland Islands.”

The representative of Ireland declared that theissue before the Council was not that of the FalklandIslands/Islas Malvinas dispute. The question washow the Council should react to the armed actiontaken by Ar entina in contravention of a unanimouscall b the E ouncil on all parties to refrain from theuse orforce. If the Council ignored that flouting of itsappeal, then its whole effort to establish law ratherthan force as the guide in international relationswould be seriously weakened. The Council shouldrespond firmly to Arin dispute by force. P2

entina’s taking over the islands

The representative of Australia pointed out thatthe invasion of the Falkland Islands was a development that could aggravate an already tense situationand that constituted a threat to international peace

Pul II 227-

and security. Nothing could justify the act of aggres-sion committed by the Argentine armed forces inclear violation of Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, of theCharter. He supported the President’s call for re-straint issued the ni t before. The Australian Gov-ernment condemne 8”the use of force by Argentinaand supported the action proposed by the UnitedKingdom in the draft resolution before the Council.lJ

The representative of Canada expressed shock anddeep concern at the precipitous action of Argentinain its invasion and military occupation of the Falk-land Islands. He informed the Council that theGovernment of Canada, publicly and in privatecommunication with the Argentine authorities, hadexpressed its deepest regret that the Argentine Re-

Fublic had resorted to the use of force rather thanollowing the path of discussion and negotiation. The

unilateral action by Argentina was clearly inconsis-tent with the decisions of the General Assembly. Heexpressed the hope that the Council would approverapidly a draft resolution along the lines suggested bythe representative of the Umted Kingdom.i4

The representative of New Zealand said that hiscountry viewed with the gravest concern the situationthat had arisen as a result of the invasion of theFalkland Islands by Argentine armed forces. Whathad happened was a clear violation of the principlesof the Charter. It could only increase tensions in theregion and make the search for a peaceful resolutionof the dispute more difficult. The speaker urged theGovernment of Argentina to demonstrate respect forthe principles of the Charter by undertakm theimmediate withdrawal of its forces from the Falpk landIslands. He supported the call in the draft resolutionproposed by the United Kingdom for the immediatecessation of all hostilities and for the two Govern-ments to resume the search for a diplomatic solutionto the long-standing problem. He also hoped that as aresult of such negotiations a settlement could bereached, one that not only would be satisfactory tothe two Governments but would also reflect thewishes of the inhabitants of the islands.”

At the 2350th meeting, the Minister for ForeignAffairs of Argentina stated that the Council had beenconvened to consider the issue of the MalvinasIslands, which were a part of Argentine territory andhad been illegally occupied by Great Britain in 1833by an act of force. It was a colonial problem in themost traditional sense. The Argentine Republic hadnever consented to that act of usurpation of itsnational territory. He stressed that the action of hisGovernment did not represent an

7kind of aggression

against the inhabitants of the is ands, whose riand way of life would be respected. Troops woulP

tsbe

used only when absolutely necessary and they wouldprotect the institutions and inhabitants. That was amost solemn commitment by the Government ofArgentina to the international community.

The military preparations and the dispatch ofwarships to the region by the United Kingdomexplained and justified the actions taken by theGovernment of Argentina in defence of its rights.

In regard to the accusation of violating Article 2,paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Charter, the speaker saidthat no provision of the Charter could be taken tolegitimize situations that had their oriacts carried out before the Charter 1

in in wrongfulad come into

force. The speaker confirmed his country’s will-ingness to negotiate through diplomatic channels any

differences with the United Kingdom except sover-eignty, which was not negotiable.‘6

The representative of Brazil stated that his Gov-ernment had always supported the Argentine Gov-ernment in the territorial dispute over the MalvinasIslands. He appealed to both countries to act withmoderation and to refrain from any action thatwould further aggravate tension in the region.”

The representative of Japan declared that theaction of Argentina violated the principle of the non-use of force and its concomitant prmciple of thepeaceful settlement of disputes. The military actioncarried out by Argentina in clear violation of thatprinciple disturbed the peace and heightened thecurrent tension in the South Atlantic region, thusmaking it more difficult to obtain a peaceful solutionto the question pendinJapan urged that the d

between the two countries.iplomatic talks between the

two parties be resumed as soon as possible. TheCouncil should first take expeditious and effectiveaction to deal with the immediate situation andshould subsequently consider further means of facili-tating the talks between the parties so that a true,long-term settlement of the questions could be at-tained.lR

The representative of the United StatesI said thatthe use of force was deeply regrettable and would notproduce a just and lasting settlement of the dispute;therefore his delegation intended to vote in favour ofthe draft resolution.

The representatives of Bolivia, Peru and Panama,”speaking on behalf of all the Latin American coun-tries, expressed firm support of the Argentine claimand declared that it was the duty of the internationalcommunity to contribute by all proper means to there-establishment of Argentme sovereignty over theMalvinas Islands.

The representative of Panama submitted a draftresolution*’ under which, in its preambular part, theCouncil, would have, infer alia, heard the statementby the Minister for External Relations and Worshipof the Argentine Republic to the effect that thesituation that had arisen stemmed from the existenceof a problem of a colonial nature; considered that theintention of the United Kingdom to perpetuate itsillegal occupation and colonial domination of theMalvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwichislands affected the territorial integrity of the Argen-tine Republic and constituted a threat to intematron-al peace and securit *

vy*recalled General Assembl

resolutions 15 14 (X ), 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVII )rand 3 l/49; and borne in mind the paragraphs relatingto the question of the Malvinas Islands contained inthe Political Declaration adopted by the Conferenceof Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-AlignedCountries, held at Lima from 25 to 30 Authe Political Declaration adopted by the F

ust 1975,ifth Con-

ference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Colombo from 6 to 19August 1976, the Political Declaration ado ted bythe Conference of Ministers for Forei

%n Aifairs of

Non-Aligned Countries,.held at Belgra e from 25 to30 July 1978, the Political Declaration adopted bythe Conference of Heads of State or Government ofNon-Aligned Countries, held at Havana from 3 to 9September 1979, and the Political Declaration adopt-ed by the Conference of Ministers for Forei n Affairsof Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Del!I i from 9to I3 February 1981.

228 Chapter VIII. Maintenance 01 intcrnrtioaal peace and aecwity

In the operative part, the General Assembly wouldhave urgently called upon the United Kingdom tocease its hostile conduct, refrain from any threat oruse of force and cooperate with the ArgentineRepublic in the decolonization of the Malvinas,South Georgia and South Sandwich islands; andrequested both Governments to carry out negotia-tions immediately in order to put an end to theexisting situation of tension, duly respecting Argen-tine sovereignty over those territories and the inter-ests of their inhabitants.

The speaker requested that the debate be suspend-ed so that the Secretariat might translate the docu-m nt into all the working languages and circulate it,f o fi owing which the Council could meet again at asuitable time.

After a brief debate, a motion for suspension of themeetin was put to the vote. The result of the votingwas as kollows: 7 votes in favour and 3 against, with 4abstentions. One member of the Council did notparticipate in the voting. The motion was notadopted.

The representative of the United Kingdom**stressed that his only intention in calling for ameeting of the Council had been that the Councilshould act in such a wa as to pre-empt, to deter, anythreat of armed force, tiiereby defusing a growing butdangerous situation. He refused to accept the chargesadvanced by Argentina. Then he informed the Coun-cil that he had asked the Secretariat to prepare arevised version of the text with the words “lslasMalvinas” in parenthesis following the words “Falk-land Islands” wherever they occurred. The speakerfirmly insisted that once the revised version of thedocument was circulated the Council should hold animmediate vote on that text and thereafter theCouncil could consider the draft resolution presentedby Panama. He expressed his readiness to waive the24-hour rule and vote on the Panamian documentthe same day.

The representative of Panama23 pointed out thatthe Council could not proceed to a vote on therevised British resolution in accordance with rule 31of its provisional rules of procedure until the draftresolution had been distributed in writing in its finalform.

After a brief suspension of the meeting, the mem-bers of the Council had before them the draftresolution*’ submitted by the United Kingdom.

The representative of Panama*5 raised a point oforder and stated that it was essential that thePresident make a ruling on whether the draft resolu-tion fell under Chapter VI of the Charter relating tothe pacific settlement of disputes or under ChapterVII relating to action with respect to threats to thepeace, breaches of theHe underlined that iF

eace and acts of aggression.it was a draft resolution

submitted under Chapter VI then the delegation ofthe United Kingdom could not partici ate in thevoting and referred here to paragraph 3 oF Article 27.

The representative of the United Kingdom*6 de-clared that his delegation could not accept thatargument as that provision related clearly to deci-sions under Chapter VI and under Article 52,paragraph 3. The draft resolution related to a breachof the peace and had been proposed with Article 40of the Charter in mind.

The representative of Spain2’ said that the explana-tion given to the Council by the representative of the

United Kingdom sufficed for the Council to deter-mine that it was dealing with the matter underChapter VII and that accordingly the representativeof the United Kingdom did have the right to vote.

The representatives of Uganda and Togo2* inexplanation of vote before the voting reiterated theircountries’ recognition of the just claim of Argentinaover the Malvinas Islands, deeply regretted themethod that Argentina had employed in the mattersince 2 April and declared that their dele ations weregoing to vote in favour of the British dra If resolution.

The representative of the Soviet UnionI statedthat the issue of the Falkland-Malvinas Islandsformed a part of the problem of decolonization. Afterthe colonial and imperial empires had collapsed, theexistence of the roblem was an anachronism and incontravention oPthe basic documents of the UnitedNations. Stubborn refusal by the United Kingdom! asthe administering Power, to comply with the require-ments of the United Nations with regard to thedecolonization of the Territory had delayed negotia-tions with Argentina as called for by the relevantdecisions of the General Assembly. On that basis, theSoviet Union would not support the draft resolutionsubmitted by the United Kingdom inasmuch as itwas one-sided and fully disregarded that aspect of theproblem.

The re resentative of Ireland30 expressed someconcern, irst that the armed action by Argentina hadPbeen in direct contravention of an authoritative andunanimous statement by the Council and that the useof force at that stage by one party could lead to afurther use of force by the other and thus to a conflictbetween them. He urged most strongly that bothcountries should avoid force and instead negotiate.He stressed that it was the Council’s duty to vote forthe draft resolution before it as it did not condemneither side by simply asking for a cessation ofhostilities, an immediate withdrawal by Argentineforces and a diplomatic solution.

The President of the Council,3l speaking in hiscapacity as the representative of Zaire, pointed outthat the military occupation of the Falkland Islands(Islas Malvinas) by Argentina was not likely to createconditions propitious to a negotiated settlement andran counter to the principle of non-use of force ininternational relations.

The President then put to the vote the revised draftresolution, which was adopted by 10 votes in favourto I a ainst and 4 abstentions as resolution 502(I 982)!2

The Security Council,Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security

Council at the 2345th meeting of the Council on I April 1982calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdomof Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use orthreat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (IslasMalv inas) ,

Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 byarmed forces of AQentina,

Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the regionof the Falkland Is lands ( Is las Malvinas) ,

I. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces

from the Falkland Is lands ( Is las Malvinas);3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to seek adiplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully thepurposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Put I I 229

The President announced that the Council hadbefore it a draft resolutiorG) submitted by Panama,but that Panama did not insist on a vote on that draftresolution.

On 5 May 1982, followin consultations of theCouncil, the President of the Eouncil announced thathe had been authorized to issue the following state-mentj4 on behalf of the members of the Council:

The members of the Security Council express deep concern atthe deterioration of the situation in the region of the FalklandIslands (Islas Malvmas) and the loss of lives.

The members of the Security Council also express strongsupport for the efforts of the Secretary-General with regard to hiscontacts with the IWO parties.

The members of the Security Council have agreed to meet forfurther consultations tomorrow, Thursday, 6 May 1982.”

NC~ES’ s/14942, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982. See

Si 14940, ibid.

z For details. see chap. III of the present Supplemenr.‘2345th mtg., paras. 5-24.’ Ibid.. paras. 29-13.1 Ibid.. para. 74.bibid., paras. 79 and 80.‘Ibid., paras. 84 and 85.‘2346th mtg.. paras. 4-8.qS/14947, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982. It

subsequently slightly amended and adopted as resolution(1982).

also

was502

‘“2346th mtg., paras. 10-17.II 2349th mtg., paras. 5-9.I2 Ibid.. paras. 10-18.1’ Ibid., paras. 2 l-24.Ia Ibid.. paras. 27-30.1’ Ibid.. paras. 33-36.162350th mtg., paras. 5-45.II Ibid., paras. 50-55.1‘ Ibid.. paras. 66-70.Iv Ibid.. paras. 72-74.* Ibid.. paras. 77- 134.11 s/l 4950. OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982. The draft

resolution was not put to the vote.I1 2350th mtg., paras. 156-l 80.“Ibid.. para. 184.I4 s/I 4947IRev. I, adopted as resolution 502 (I 982).*’ 2350th mtg.. paras. 189-19 I.Z’Ibid.. paras. 193-197.I7 Ibid., paras. 200 and 201.2’ Ibid.. paras. 2 I O-224.Ip Ibid.. paras. 228-23 I.y, Ibid., paras. 233-244.Ifi Ibid., paras. 246-253.‘IFor the vote, see para. 255.J3SIl4950, OR, 37th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1982.

Y S/I 5041, ibid.. Resolutions and Decisions of the SecurityCouncil, 1982.

3J Prior to issuing this statement, the Council received a letterdated 4 May 1982 (S/I 5037, OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June1982) from the representative of Ireland, who had requested ameeting of the Council to give further consideration to thequestion of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas). In a statement ofthe Irish Government transmitted on the same date, an immediatemeeting of the Council was requested in order to prepare a newresolution calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and thenegotiation of a diplomatic settlement under the auspices of theUnited Nations (S/I 5044, ibid.). In a telegram dated 4 May 1982(S/15045, ibid.), the President of Colombia suggested that theCouncil should be immediately convened (see sect. I2 of thepresent chap.).

II. LETTER DATED 31 MARCH 1982 FROM THE PRESI-DENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA TO THE PRE!%DENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL ENCLOSINGTHE LETI-ER DATED 18 MARCH 1982 FROM THEPRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHAD TO THEPRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Decision of 30 April 1982 (2358th meeting): resolu-tion 504 (1982)In a letter dated 2 December 1981,’ the President

of Kenya, in his capacity as current Chairman of theOrganization of African Unity, referred to resolutionAHG/I02 (XVIII)/Rev.l adopted at the eighteenthsession of the Assembly of Heads of State andGovernment of OAU, held at Nairobi in June I98 I,calling for the establishment of a pan-African peace-keeping force for the maintenance of peace andsecurity in Chad, and requested the Council’s finan-cial, material and technical assistance to ensure thedeployment, maintenance and operation of thatforce.

By a letter dated 31 March 1982,z the President ofKenya transmitted the text of a letter dated I8 Marchfrom the President of Chad addressed to the Presi-dent of the Council, expressing his support for thesteps taken by OAU to soliclt from the Councilfinancial assistance for the pan-African peace-keeping force in Chad.

At its 2358th meeting, on 30 April 1982, theCouncil adopted the agenda item entitled “Letterdated 31 March 1982 from the President of theRepublic of Kenya addressed to the President of theSecurity Council enclosing the letter dated 18 March1982 from the President of the Republic of Chad tothe President of the Security Council (S/15012)“. ThePresident of the Council drew attention to the text ofa draft resolution1 drawn up during consultationsamong members of the Council. The draft resolutionwas adopted by consensus as resolution 504 (1982).’It reads as follows:

The Security Councrl,Having taken noreof the letters of President Arap Moi of Kenya,

current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, dated 2December 198 I and 3 I March 1982, and of the letter of PresidentGoukouni Weddeye of Chad dated I8 March 1982.

Bearing in mind the relevant resolutions of the General Assem-bly on co-operation between the United Nations and the Organiza-tion of African Unity.

I. Takes nole of the decision of the Organization of AfricanUnity to establish, in agreement with the Government of theRepublic of Chad, a peace-keeping force for the maintenance ofpeace and security in Chad;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to establish a fund forassistance to the peace-keeping force of the Organization ofAfrican Unity in Chad, to be supplied by voluntary contributions;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary measuresto ensure the management of the fund in liaison with theOrganization of African Unity.

NOTES

1 S/I501 I. OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982.

zs115012, ibid.

1 s/15013, adopted without change as resolution 504 (1982)4 2358th mtg., para. 4.

230 Chapter VIII. Mdote- of iotermtlad peace sod security

12. QUFSTION CONCERNING THE SlTUATlON IN THEREGION OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (ISWS MALVINAS)

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

Decision of 26 May 1982 (2368th meeting): resolu-tion 505 (1982)By letter’ dated 4 May 1982 addressed to the

President of the Council, the representative of Ire-land requested a meeting of the Council to givefurther consideration to the question of the FalklandIslands (Islas Malvinas).

In a letter2 dated 20 May 1982, the Secretary-General informed the Council that the time forreaching agreement through ne otiations that wouldrestore peace in the South At anticY was extremelyshort and, although substantial progress towards adiplomatic solution had been achieved in the preced-ing two weeks, the necessary accommodations whichwere still needed to end the conflict had not beenforthcoming. He added that, in his judgement, theefforts in which he had been engaged, with thesupport of the Council, did not currently offer theprospect of bringing about an end to the crisis or ofpreventing the mtensification of the conflict.

By letter’ dated 2 I May 1982 to the President ofthe Council the representative of Panama, on instruc-tions from his Government, requested a meeting ofthe Council to consider the serious situation thatexisted in the region of the Malvinas Islands.

At its 2360th meeting, on 21 May 1982, theCouncil included the three letters in its agenda underthe title mentioned above. Following the adoption ofthe agenda, the Council decided to invite the repre-sentatives of Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aus-tralia, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay and Vene-zuela to participate in the discussion without theri ht to vote. Similar invitations were extended at the2!62nd meeting to the representatives of Bolivia,Canada, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, EquatorialGuinea, Guatemala, Honduras, New Zealand, Nica-ragua, Paraguay and Peru; at the 2363rd meeting, tothe representatives of Belgium and Indonesia; at the2364th meeting, to the representatives of Greece,Kenya, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic andLiberia; at the 2366th meetinof Chile, the Federal 7

! to the representativesRepub ic of Germany, India,

Italy and the Netherlands; and at the 2368th meeting,to the representative of Yu oslavia. The Councilconsidered the item at its 2368th, 2362nd to 2364th,;;X&t!i and 2368th meetmgs, from 21 to 26 May

The Secretary-General gave the Council an accountof the actions he had taken in pursuit of theobjectives of resolution 502 (1982). In separatemeetings on 19 April with the representatives ofArgentina, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates, he had outlined the assistance that the UnitedNations could render if requested; a small presenceof United Nations civilians and military observerscould be used to supervise any agreed withdrawal ofarmed forces and civilian personnel as well as anyinterim administrative arrangements. United Na-tions auspices for such arrangements could also beprovided, as could a United Nations temporaadministration. In separate meetings on 2 May witxthe Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-wealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, Mr. FrancisPym, and with the representative of Argentina, he

suggested that the two Governments agree to takesimultaneously the following steps which had beenconceived as provisional measures, without prejudiceto the rights, claims or position of the partiesconcerned. In an aide-m&moire, he had specificallyproposed that at a specified time, “T”:

(a) The Aof its troops rom the Falkland lslan1

entine Government be in withdrawalds (Islas Malvi-

nas) and the United Kingdom Government redeployits naval forces and begin their withdrawal from thearea of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), bothGovernments to complete their withdrawal by anagreed dale;

(b) Both Governments commence negotiations toseek a diplomatic solution to their differences by anagreed target date;

(c) Both Governments rescind their respectiveannouncements of blockades and exclusion zonesand cease all hostile acts against each other;

(d) Both Governments terminate all economicsanctions;

(e) Transitional arrangements begin to come intoeffect under which the above steps would be super-vised and interim administrative requirements met.

On 5 and 6 May, the Secretary-General hadreceived responses from the Governments con-cerned, both of which had accepted the approachcontained in the aide-memoire as providing a basisor framework for an agreement that would bring thearmed conflict to a halt and make possible a peacefulsettlement. At the same time the responses had raiseda number of points on which agreement was needed.Since 7 May, the Secretary-General had had some 30separate meetings with the two sides. Essentialagreement had been obtained on the followingpoints:

(a) The agreement sought would be interim innature and would be without prejudice to the rights,claims or positions of the parties concerned;

(b) The agreement would cover: (i) a cease-fire; (ii)the mutual withdrawal of forces; (iii) the terminationof exclusion zones and of economic measures insti-tuted in connection with the conflict; (iv) the interimadministration of the Territory; and (v) negotiationson a peaceful settlement of the dispute;

(c) The initiation of these various parts of anagreement would be simultaneous;

(d) Withdrawal of forces would be phased andwould be under the supervision of United Nationsobservers;

(e) The interim administration of the Territorywould be under the authority of the United Nations.The United Nations fla would be flown. Argentinaand the United King om .would establish smalldk,ai;tw;ffices, on which their respective flags could

v) Thk parties would enter into negotiations ingood faith under the aus ices of the Secretary-Gener-al for the peaceful sett ement of their dispute andPwould seek, with a sense of urgency, the completionof the negotiations by 3 1 December 1982, taking intoaccount the Charter and the relevant resolutions ofthe General Assembly. The ne otiations would beinitiated without prejudice to tte rights., claims orposition of the parties and without preJudging theoutcome. The negotiations would be held in NewYork or its vicinity.

put II 231The crucial differences that remained concerned

the following points, on which various options werebeing considered, at the Secretary-General’s sugges-tion:

(a) Certain aspects of the interim administration ofthe Territory;

(b) Provisions for the extension of the time framefor completion of negotiations and the related dura-tion of the interim administration;

(c) Certain aspects of the mutual withdrawal offorces;

(d) The geographic area to be covered by the termsof the interim agreement.

On studying the drafts of an interim agreementreceived from both parties it was apparent that theydid not reflect the progress that had been achieved inthe previous exchanges and that the differences onthe four points remained.

On I9 May 1982, the Secretary-General hadspoken by telephone with President Galtieri andPrime Minister Thatcher and had suggested certainspecific ideas that mi ht assist the parties at thatstage. Both had agreef to give them consideration.He had subsequently presented to the two sides onthe same day a further aide-memoire listing thepoints on which essential agreement had beenreached and the four crucial questions that remainedunresolved. The Secretary-General had expressed hisbelief that an agreement along the lines developed inthe exchanges over the two weeks and suggested inhis aide-memoire of I9 May could restore peace inthe South Atlantic and open the way for an enduringsolution of the long-standing dispute between the twoMember States.5

The representative of Argentina declared that onthat very day his country had again been attacked byBritish air and naval forces and that regardless of theresults of fightinbend the firm wil7

on Argentine soil nothing couldof the Ar entine people to defend

to the end their rights to tae islands that were aninalienable part of their homeland. In spite of theserious shortcomings of resolution 502 (1982) Ar-

fentina was ready to comply with its provisions soong as the British Government adopted a corre-

sponding attitude. Argentina had agreed to explorethe paths of negotiation opened uaction of the United States, which P

through theun ortunately had

dropped that approach and openly supported thestand of the British. The British had insisted, how-ever, on their desire for domination of the region.The Argentine Government had welcomed6 a Peruvi-an truce proposal,’ which the United Kingdom hadrejected.

While the Council had been requesting a cease-fire,the British Government had been preparin todispatch its largest fleet constituted since 1956. Qhatmilitary activity had threatened Argentine securityand integrity, endangered the prospect of the negoti-ated solution required by resolution 502 (1982) andmade it impossible for Argentina to begin to imple-ment that resolution with respect to the withdrawalof its troops. However, the United Kin domdecided to create as of 12 April a bloc ade zone&

had

around the Malvinas Islands, which had caused theloss of human lives. The representative of Argentinainvoked Article 51 of the Charter, under whichunilateral actions should cease once the Council hadtaken measures to maintain peace and securit . Thedetermination of whether such measures haJ been

effective could not be left to the arbitrary judgementof the United Kin dom.United Kingdom oP

The speaker accused thethe repeated violation of resolu-

tion 502 (1982), which demanded the cessation ofhostilities. He stressed that his country had compliedin regard to the cessation of hostilities and had notthreatened the United Kingdom.

He expressed regret that a genuine effort for peacehad failed, and the generous offer of assistancesubmitted by the Secretary-General to both Govem-ments on 2 May had not led to the solution which thegravity of the crisis required. He insisted that Argen-tina had been the first to comply with the initiativetaken by the United Nations Secretary-General. TheUnited Kingdom had not accepted a cease-fire, eveninformally, and instead had during the negotiationsextended its blockade to I2 nautical miles from theArgentine continental territory. In spite of numerousacts of aggression the Argentine Government re-mained wrlling to negotiate in New York with a viewto fulfilling resolution 502 (1982). From the verybeginning of the steps taken by the Secretary-Gener-al, the United Kingdom had adopted a rigid attitudein respect of the ideas that had been put forward atthe suggestion of the Secretary-General, namely: (a)the mutual withdrawal of forces; (6) an interimadministration of the islands; and (c) the initiation ofnegotiations on substance under the auspices of theSecretary-General. All of the above had to be donesimultaneously and at a predetermined time. Inconnection with the mutual withdrawal of forces, theArgentine Republic had accepted the cease-fire sug-gested by the Secretary-General and had proposed amodus operandi for the mutual and gradual with-drawal of forces, under United Nations observation.Yet, new demands by the United Kingdom hadimposed disturbing conditions.

In connection with the establishment of an interimadministration in the islands, the Argentine Republicunderstood that an exclusively United Nations ad-ministration would be considered charged to carryout all legislative, executive, judicial and securityfunctions needed to ensure the normal administra-tion of the islands (coverin the Malvinas Islands andits dependencies, South t!!i eorgia and South Sand-wich) by officials who were neither British norArgentine subjects. The Argentine Government hadsuggested that many services provided by Argentinawould continue to operate. Although none of thoseideas had been accepted by the United Kingdom,Argentina had ex ressednegotiating with R

its willingness to keept e United Kingdom under the

auspices of the Secretary-General for a limitedperiod. Argentina was prepared not to place any pre-conditions on the negotiations in view of its confi-dence in its legitimate authority.

None the less, the United Kingdom had attemptedto place conditions on that negotiating process,, firstof all by insisting that a United Nations admimstra-tion retain the colonial administrative structure,thereby prejud ing substantive issues in the negotiat-ing process. lecondly, the United Kin dom hadaccepted neither direct nor indirect Pre erence toGeneral Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) or to thethree relevant resolutions of the Assembly on thequestion of the islands, disregarding 17 years ofbilateral negotiations and Assembly resolutions.Throughout the most recent negotiations, the BritishGovernment had attempted to divide the Territoryand to submit to negotiation the future of only one of

232 Chapter V111. Maintenance of iatcrnational peace lad secwity

the archipelagos, while keeping the two smallerdependencies.

It had also wanted the interim administration ofthe United Nations to exclude those de endenciesand had rejected any withdrawal of their orces fromPthose archipelagos. But some joint British-Argentini-an communiqu@ had proved that the three groupsof islands had been covered by the negotiations.Behind the recalcitrant attitude shown by Britainthroughout the length process, there had been anattempt on the part or a permanent member of theCouncil to maintain and increase its military pres-ence in the South Atlantic, a region that did notcorrespond to any of its legitimate interests.9

The representative of the United Kingdom statedthat in spite of Article 40 of the Charter Argentinahad rejected resolution 502 (1982) in practice. In-stead of withdrawing, Argentina had reinforced itsarmed forces on the Falkland Islands and imposed amilitary government on the islands. In that situation,the Umted Kingdom had no choice but to exercise itsinherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of theCharter. In its strong desire for a peaceful solutiov,the British Government had been prepared to ne otl-ate and to show flexibility in the negotiations wfl ichhad been undertaken first through the good offices ofthe Secretary of State of the United States andthereafter through the President of Peru. Then theBritish Government had welcomed the good officesof the Secretary-General.

Reverting to the latest round of negotiations, thespeaker set out some basic principles. The first onewas peaceful settlement. The Argentine invasionsconstituted violations of Article 2, paragraph 3, ofthe Charter and of Article 37. The Invasion had beencarried out by the use of force, contrary to Article 2,paragraph 4. Argentina had committed an act ofaggression within the meaning of the definitionsuggested by the General Assembly in its resolution3314 (XXIX). The military occupation of the Falk-land Islands had been and was illegal.

The speaker further mentioned the Declaration onPrinciples of International Law concerning FriendlyRelations and Co-operation among States m accord-ance with the Charter of the United Nations annexedto General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV). Thecontinued Argentine occupation was also contrary toresolution 502 (1982), paragraph 2. Argentina wasusing force to occupy British territory and to sub’u-

f?te the Falkland Islanders. Resolution 502 (19d 2 )

ad proved insufficient to bring about withdrawal.The United Kingdom was fully entitled to takemeasures in exercise of its inherent right of self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.

The speaker then turned to the question of self-determination for the people of Non-Self-GoverningTerritories and mentioned Article I, para

fraph 2, of

the Charter and the common article I oft e Intema-tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Ri

Pts, adopted by the General Assembly in

resolution 200 (XXI). The provisions about peace-ful settlement and the non-use of force appliedequally to Non-Self-Governing Territories. TheUnited Kingdom, as the administering Power, hadfulfilled its obhgations under Article 73 of theCharter. The speaker rejected the Argentine claimthat the people of the Falkland Islands were atransient expatriate population and stated that they

had been on the islands as long a+ or longer than,most Argentine families had been m Argentina andthat they were an entirely separate people with adifferent language, culture and way of hfe.

Under those conditions, Argentina could not denythe riIslan d

ht of self-defence to the people of the Falklands . Sovereignty of the islands was in dispute, but

the people were not. Speaking of the negotiationsthemselves, the representative of the United King-dom said that his Government had been prepared tocontemplate parallel mutual withdrawal underUnited Nations supervision, a short interim periodunder United Nations administration in order toenable diplomatic negotiations, and accepting Argen-tine representation in the democratic institutions onthe islands disproportionate to the size of the Ar en-tine community, as well as accepting an 02lcialArgentine observer during the interim period.

Paraphrasing the words of his Foreign Secretary,the speaker enumerated the conditions of the BritishGovernment: (a) to secure the withdrawal of Argen-tine forces, which had been demanded in resolution502 (1982); (b) to establish a cease-fire to avoidfurther loss of hfe as soon as the withdrawal could beagreed; (c) to make satisfactory provision for thedemocratic administration of the islands in anyinterim arrangements that might prove necessary;and (d) to ensure that the negotiations with Argentinaover the future of the islands included terms ofreference to make certain that the negotiationsshould not be such as to predetermine or to prejudgethe outcome on sovereignty or any other matters.

The response of the Government of Argentina hadbeen wholly unsatisfactory for the British Govem-ment and was seen as a further attempt to procrasti-nate in order to enable Argentina to consolidate itshold on what it had seized by force. The Ar entineGovernment’s insistence on including South E eorgiaand the South Sandwich Islands in the agreement wasunacceptable to the British Government, as theislands had nothing to do with the differences overthe Falkland Islands. Also unacceptable was thedemand for freedom of access with respect to resi-dents and property during the interim period. Thatwould have enabled Argentina fundamentally tochange the demographic status of the islands durmg ashort interim administration.

The Argentine formulation on how and when andby what means the negotiations should be concludedhad been also totally unacceptable to the BritishGovernment. The gulf had been so wide between thefinal British position and the response of the Govem-ment of Argentina that it would have been fruitless tocontinue. Meanwhile, although the British Govem-ment’s mind would never be closed to any avenuethat promised to bring about a peaceful solution tothe crisis. it could not allow itself to be in anv wavinhibited’from carrying out military action in alcord:ante with its inherent right of self-defence underArticle 51 of the Charter.‘O

The representative of Japan stressed his Govem-ment’s wish for resolution 502 (1982) to be imple-mented as soon as possible. At the same time, hisGovernment hoped that in order to avoid a worsen-ing of the situation, both parties, as well as all othersconcerned, would urgently ex loreevery possibility for the

in good faithpeace ul resolution of theF

dispute, includingood offIces of t%

the resumption of the use of thee Secretary-General.”

PVC II 233

The representative of Brazil recalled that hisGovernment had always viewed the situation as dej&to occupation by the United Kingdom and sup-ported the resolutions adopted by the General As-sembly in the framework of the broad issue ofdecolonization in 1965, 1973 and 1976, which rec-ommended ne otiations between the parties. TheGovernment ok Brazil had supported the Secretary-General’s peace efforts and could not fail deeply todeplore the interruption of those efforts by theUnited Kingdom. The Council was duty-bound todecide on measures, under the supervision of theUnited Nations, to prevent a worsening of thesituation and to give the Secretary-General a formalmandate to resume his efforts with the two parties toreach a just, honourable and lasting solution.‘*

The representative of Ecuador said that his countrycould not but regret the breakdown of negotiationsbetween two member countries under the auspices ofthe United Nations. Ecuador had unswervingly andresolutely supported the Argentine territorial claimto sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands both in theorgans of the United Nations and in those of OASand of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.Argentina’s right to those islands as part of it;national territory was clear since, on achievinindependence from Spain, it had succeeded to alf therights formerly held by that country. In the face ofthe unacceptable dispatch-which was as much abreach of the law as it was an anachronism-of anenormous naval force against the American conti-nent; in the face of the declared use of force in order

- to impose solutions; in the face of the announced andpublicized naval and air blockade through the arbi-trary seizing of ocean spaces; in the face of economicsanctions endorsed by various Powers in the Europe-an Community; and m the face of the resort to openwarfare, Ecuador completely repudiated those actsand invoked the principles of law to put an end toeconomic and armed aggression. That same view hadbeen expressed by the countries of the Andean Groupand those of the Latin American Integration Associa-tion. Ecuador had consistently advocated the elimi-nation of any colonialist presence from its continentand thus supported General Assembl resolutionI514 (XV). Together with Colombia anJCosta Rica,Ecuador had secured the adoption by consensus inOAS of the initiative of offering friendly co-opera-tion in the efforts to find a solution that would finallyavert the threat of war between countries and reiter-ated before the Council the demand for an immedi-ate cessation of hostilities. The speaker also referredto General Assembly resolutions 32176 and 32179concerning the Treaty for the Prohibition of NuclearWeapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco),which called for the implementation of the additionalprotocols in the territories within the geographiczone established in that Treaty, clearly includmg theMalvinas Islands.”

The representative of Australia declared that Ar-gentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands, in defi-ance of the Council’s appeal of 1 A

I?ril 198214 that

force not be used, was the cause o the breach ofpeace in the region and Argentina’s refusal to heed

- the mandatory call of 3 April by the Council” forwithdrawal of its occupying forces had sustained thecontinued crisis. Argentina had invaded the islandsin clear violation of Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, ofthe Charter, which laid down the fundamental princi-ples of peaceful settlement of disputes and non-use of

force. In moving to recover its territory, the UnitedKingdom had been acting legitimately under Article51 of the Charter in exercise of its inherent right ofself-defence. I6

The representative of Antigua and Barbuda de-plored Ar entina’s illegal use of force in seizing theFalkland fslands rather than negotiating a peacefulsettlement with Britain. He expressed satisfactionthat the United Kingdom Government had madeenuine attempts to put forward proposals that could

i ave led to a negotiated settlement with Argentina.The speaker appealed to Argentina to eschew need-less bloodshed and to turn instead to the conferencetable for a negotiated settlement of the dispute.”

At the 2362nd meeting, the representative ofUruguay indicated that his country had repeatedlystated its position regarding the sovereignty of theArgentine Republic over the Malvinas Islands andtheir dependencies. The present situation should beanalysed in the light of the fundamental principle ofthe territorial integrity of States, which was clearlyreaffirmed in paragraph 6 of General Assemblyresolution 1514 (XV). He called upon the Council tomake every effort to call for the following: (a) theimmediate cessation of hostilities; (h) a forma1mandate to be given to the Secretary-General toresume negotiations aiming at a peaceful settlementof the dispute; and (c) conservation of and respect forthe six points on which essential a reement had beenreached. The United Nations shou d act immediately7to find a just, peaceful and lasting solution based onrespect for the rules of international law.‘”

The representative of Venezuela, reaffirming hiscountry’s solidarity with the Argentine Republic,stated that the crisrs had been caused by the warlikeconduct of the United Kingdom against that countryin an area defined as a security zone by the Jnter-American Treat of Reciprocal Assistance. On theoccasion of the Jwentieth Meeting of Consultation ofMinisters of Foreign Affairs of OAS, convened atWashington on 28 April 1982, in accordance with theTreat , Venezuela had criticized the procedures ofthe i!ouncil, which had enabled the permanentmembers, with their right of veto, to enjoy a systemof concealment and impunity in order to w a e war orto protect the warlike adventures of their a lies withPthe certainty that no sanction or warning from theCouncil would affect them. The support given toUnited Kingdom aggression b the United Stateswould have an unpredictable exect on OAS and thehemispheric security system embodied in the Treaty.Although Venezuela considered resolution 502(I 982) as biased and pro-colonialist, it believed thatcompliance with that resolution by both the UnitedKingdom and Argentina would have made possible apeaceful settlement. The actions of the United Kin -dom since the adoption of resolution 502 (1984 )constituted clear violations of that resolution.

The speaker cited the decision of the UnitedKingdom to dispatch the fleet; the diplomatic activi-ties within the European Community to bring aboutthe imposition of trade sanctions against Argentina;the warlike presence of nuclear submarines in thearea defined by the Treaty as a hemispheric zone ofsecurity; the declaration by the United Kingdom of asea and air exclusion zone around the MalvinasIslands; the establishment of another JO@mile zonearound Ascension Island; and the declaration of a 12-mile blockade off the coast of continental Argentina.Unlike the United Kingdom, Argentina had tailored

234 Chrpter VIII. Maintenance of iotenmtioaal pace and security

its conduct to the lines set forth by the InternationalCourt of Justice in this connection. What the BritishGovernment was seekin was the restoration by forceof its colonial title in south America.19

The representative of the Soviet Union empha-sized the clear position of the United Nations infavour of an unconditional end to the colonial statusof the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands. The Soviet Unionhad seen substantial drawbacks in resolution 502(1982), mainly in the fact that there was no impor-tant anti-colonialist aspect in it. Open resort by theGovernment of the United Kingdom to the use ofarmed force and other activities cast doubt on itsprofessed willingness to comply with the provisionsof that resolution. Responsibility for the intensifica-tion of the armed conflict was clearly borne by theGovernment of the United Kingdom, which wasacting in the spirit of b gone colonial times. It wasquite clear that the 2ovemment of the UnitedKingdom would not have sought a solution of theissue by armed force had there not been agreementand direct support by the United States.

The economic sanctions imposed on 10 Aprilagainst Argentina by the Western European countrieswere in direct contravention of the provisions of theCharter and, in particular, Article 41, which pro-vided that it was the Council which might decidewhat measures not involving the use of armed force,and possibly including complete or partial interruption of economic relations, should be employed togive effect to its decisions. Some observers hadwritten that what was involved was not only puttingArgentina in its place but also showing other developing and non-aligned countries that the imperialistworld still had an arm long enough to stretch across16,000 kilometres. The Soviet Union favoured theCouncil’s scessation op”

edy adoption of a cease-fire and amilitary operations in order to put the

conflict on the road to a peaceful settlement.*OThe representative of Mexico, praising the efforts

of the Secretary-General, declared that the newmilitary escalation was unacceptable, as it was inblatant violation of resolution 502 (1982) and of thefundamental principles of the Charter. Demandingthat the hostilities in the South Atlantic be stopped,as well as any kind of threat or coercion, the speakerunderlined that in no case were there grounds forinvolving Article 51 of the Charter to ‘ustify the useof force. He reiterated Mexico’s appea 1’ to the partiesto begin negotiations to allow reason and justice toprevail over milita

;Ymight. He said that the Council

should make use o the willingness of Argentina andthe United Kingdom to continue negotiatin and totake into account the result of the efforts made by theSecretary-General in order to supplement and toreinforce resolution 502 (1982) and to specif aframework in which negotiations to end the con x ictcould take place. The Council should immediatelytake the ste s it deemed appropriate to avoid aworsening oF the crisis, encourage the negotiationswhich had been interrupted and keep the matterunder consideration until it was finally settled.*’

The representative of Cuba stated that the invasionof the Malvinas Islands by the United Kingdomsought to brin

tback the events in 1833 when Britain

had expelled t e Argentine population and its Gov-emment and had taken possession of that part of theterritory of Ar entina. Over the years, the Govem-ment of the & nited Kingdom had persisted inmaintaining its colonial domination over that territo-

r-y and had repeatedly dragged its feet rather thanenter into a serious negotiating process that wouldrestore Argentine sovereiislands. Supporting the ull implementation of reso-rk

nty over the territory of the

lution 502 (1982) in all its parts-despite its obviouslimitations regardin the colonial nature of theproblem-Cuba as 8 hairman of the Movement ofNon-Aligned Countries considered that it was theobligation of the Council to take effective measuresaimed at putting an end to the hostilities and to issuea formal mandate to the Secretary-General to resumehis efforts with the Governments of the UnitedKingdom and Argentina so as to achieve an honour-able, lasting solution respecting the sovereign rightsof the Argentine Republic.**

The representative of Canada said that his countryhad not made any judgement on the substance of thequestion of the conflicting claims to the sovereigntyof the islands, as it had always maintained that it wasa matter to be settled by negotiation between theparties directly concerned, with due regard beingpaid to the wishes of the islanders themselves.*j

The representative of the United States declaredthat her country stood behind the principle that theuse of force to settle disputes should not be allowedanywhere and especially in that hemisphere where asignificant number of territorial disputes remained tobe solved diplomatically. Unless the principle wasrespected that force should not be used to settledisputes, the entire international community wouldbe exposed to chaos and suffering. It was of funda-mental importance that both Argentina and Britainhad accepted resolution 502 (1982) in its entirety.For the United States the conflict continued to havea special poignancy. It did not take and never hadtaken any osition on the underlying claims. Thetragic con ictR was especially important for theUnited Nations as it was precisely the kind ofproblem the Organization had been created to re-solve. Her country would whole-heartedly supportany initiative that could help Argentina and Britainmake peace with honour.24

At the 2363rd meeting, the representative ofFrance expressed serious concern at the exacerbationof the conflict and said that every possible effortshould be made as a matter of urgency to bring abouta cessation of hostilities.2s

A number of representatives, expressing theirsolidarity with the peotion that there existes

le of Argentina and convic-an appropriate framework

both in resolution 502 (1982) and in certain relevantresolutions of the General Assembly on the subject ofdecolonization adopted in 1965, 1973 and 1976which recommended negotiations between the par-ties, pointed out that anCouncil in fulfilling the oi;

delay on the part of theligations laid down by the

Charter could lead to an even worse escalation of thesituation. They underlined that for the United Na-tions to fail to impose the rule of international law, tostop the use of force to settle a conflict and to preventwar between the two nations would make the Organi-zation appear to be powerless in the maintenance ofinternational peace and security. The Organizationwould emerge greatly weakened if it were unable toachieve its purposes. The speakers stressed theresponsibility of the Council to promote a cessationof hostilities and a resumption of the dialogue.26

At the 2364th meeting, the representative ofKenya, speaking on the colonial past, declared that

Put I I 235

Argentina was enga ed in a purely territorial claimagainst the United k ingdom based on history. Thebasic principle of the peaceful settlement of disputesbetween nations had been brushed aside by Argenti-na. That country had committed aggression and haddefied the call of the Council to wrthdraw its forcesfrom the Falkland Islands and to return to thenegotiating table with the Government of the UnitedKingdom in pursuit of its claims. Whether theseclaims were real or imaginary could be decided bythe International Court of Justice.2’

At the 2366th meeting, the representative ofIreland introduced a draft resolution,** which wassponsored by his delegation. Under the draft resolu-tion, in its preambular part, the Council would haverecalled its resolution 502 (1982), noted with thedeepest concern that the situation in the region of theFalkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) had seriously dete-riorated, referred to the statement made by theSecretary-General to the Council at its 2360th meet-ing, on 2 I May 1982,’ as well as the statements in thedebate of the representatives of Argentina9 and of theUnited Kingdom,l” noted from the Secretary-Gener-al’s statement the extent to which points of agree-ment between the parties had already been estab-lished through his efforts, and expressed concernabout achieving as a matter of the greatest urgency acessation of hostilities and an end to the conflictbetween the armed forces of Argentina and of theUnited Kingdom.

In the operative part, the Council would have a)expressed appreciation to the Secretary-General iorhis efforts to bring about an agreement between theparties to ensure the implementation of resolution502 (1982), and thereby to restore peace to theregion; (h) requested the Secretary-General, on thebasis of the resolution, to undertake a renewedmission of good offices consistent with resolution502 (1982) and in accordance with the approachoutlined in his statement of 21 May 1982; (c) urgedthe parties to the conflict to co-operate fully with theSecretary-General in his mission and, as a first step,to agree to a complete suspension of hostilities for aperiod of 72 hours; (d) requested the Secretary-General, within that period, to enter into contactwith the parties with a view to the negotiation ofmutually acceptable terms for a continuing cease-fireincluding, if necessary, arrangements for the dispatchof United Nations observers to monitor compliancewith the terms of the cease-fire; and (e) requested theSecretary-General to submit an interim report to theCouncil by the end of the period mentioned in (c)above.

He pointed out that the draft envisaged threes taen d

e s m the effort to bring the fighting finally to an, to get the Secretary-General’s negotiations back

on the track and to give them new authority. Hesingled out the followm important points of differ-ence: (a) the Secretary- E eneral would have a formalmandate from the Council; (h) the adoption of thedraft resolution would in some way help to preservethe measure of agreement that the Secretary-Generalhad already achieved and that might otherwisecompletely disappear; (c) in a changing situation, onecould always hope that a stage would be reachedwhere both parties would be ready to accept asettlement if a mission of good olIices were contin-ued; and (d) the new effort by the Secretary-Generalwould come when some elementa

7measure of

confidence had already been estab ished by the

parties suspending the hostilities, and b a morestable cease-fire negotiated with the he p of therSecretary-General.29

At the 2368th meeting, members of the Councilhad before them the text of a draft resolutionsubmitted by Japan,‘O and the text of a draft resolu-tion submitted by Guyana, Ireland, Jordan, Togo,Uganda and Zaire.ji

Under the Japanese draft resolution, in the pream-bular part, the Council would have recalled itsresolution 502 (1982) concemin the situation in theregion of the Falkland lslan s (Islas Malvinas),dregretted that resolution 502 (1982) had not yet beenimplemented, expressed grave concern at the stale-mate of diplomatic efforts to seek a peaceful solutionto the differences between the parties and the subse-quent deterioration of the situation in the area andreaffirmed the fundamental principles of the Charter,in particular the non-use of force and the settlementof international disputes by peaceful means.

In the operative part, the Council would haveurged once again that resolution 502 (1982) beimplemented in its entirety as soon as possible;reaffirmed its support of the good offices of theSecretary-General and requested him to renew theuse of his good oflices on the basis of his previousefforts as reported in his statement at the 2360thmeeting with a view to achieving the earliest possiblecessation of hostilities, realizinof the dispute and securing ta

a peaceful settlemente implementation of

resolution 502 (1982); and requested the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Council on theimplementation of the resolution.

The representative of Ireland explained the differ-ence between the initial draft resolution and therevised version, which did not explicitly ask theparties to cease hostilities for 72 hours, while it urgedthem in general to cooperate fully with the Secre-tary-General in his mission.32

The representative of Uganda3) introduced thedraft resolution sponsored by Guyana, Ireland, Jor-dan, Togo, U anda and Zaire.3i He pointed out thatthe draft souhad emerge#

t to express the areas of consensus thatin the debate.

The representative of Spain said that the draft didnot order the immediate cessation of hostilities andcontained only a general request under which theSecretary-General was to enter into immediate con-tact with the parties with a view to negotiatingmutually acceptable terms for a cease-fire. In theview of his delegation, it would have been preferablefor the Council to have ordered an immediate cease-fire and to have given a more specific mandate to theSecretary-General.34

The representative of Panama declared that thedraft resolution did not contain all the elementsnecessary for the attainment of a just and lastingpeace. The basic omission was that no reference wasmade to a question that was fundamental in theconflict: the decolonization of the Malvinas Archipel-ago. Mentionin other essential omissions, he pomt-ed out the din8tculties which the Secretary-Generalwould have to cope with.jS

The Council then proceeded to vote on the draftresolution and adopted it unanimous1 by 15 votes infavour as resolution 505 (1982). fhe resolutionreads is follows:

The Security Council,Reujlirmitrg its resolution 502 (1982),

236 Chapter VIII. Malntenmcc of international peace and security

Noting with the deepest concern that the situation in the region ofthe Falkland Islands ( Islas Malvinas) has seriously deteriorated,

Having heardthe statement made by the Secretary-General at its2360th meeting, on 2 I May 1982, as well as the statements madein the debate by the representatives of Argentina and the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Concerned IO achieve, as a matter of the greatest urgency, acessation of hostilities and an end to the present conflict betweenthe armed forces of Argentina and the United Kingdom,

1. Expresses appreciation to the Secretary-General for the effortsthat he has already made to bring about an agreement between theparties, to ensure the implementation of resolution 502 (1982),and thereby to restore peace to the region;

2. Requests the Secretary-General, on the basis of the presentresolution, to undertake a renewed mission of good offices, bearingin mind resolution 502 (1982) and the approach outlined in hisstatement of 21 May 1982:

3. Ilrges the parties to the conflict to co-operate fully with theSecretary-General in his mission with a view to ending the presenthostilities in and around the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);

4. Requests the Secretary-General to enter into contact immedi-ately with the parties with a view to negotiating mutuallyacceptable terms for a cease-fire. including, if necessary, arrange-ments for the dispatch of United Nations observers to monitorcompliance with the terms of the cease-fire;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to submit an interim report tothe Security Council as soon as possible and, in any cast. not laterthan seven days alter the adoption of the present resolution.

The Secretary-General urged the parties to recog-nize that a lastmg solution of the crisis in the SouthAtlantic could only be achieved through negotiationsand that the first requirement for negotiations was acessation of armed conflict.j6

Decision of 4 June 1982 (2373rd meeting): rejectionof a two-Power draft resolutionBy letterj’ dated 31 May 198?, the representative

of Panama conveyed to the President of the Councilhis Government’scation of the con R

rofound concern at the intensifi-ict in the Malvinas Islands and

requested an urgent meeting of the Council tocontinue to study the serious situation in the regionof the Malvinas Islands and to assume the responsi-bilities conferred on it by the Charter for intemation-al peace and security.

At its 237 1 st meeting, on 2 June 1982, the Councilincluded the letter in its agenda. Following theadoption of the agenda, the Council decided to invitethe representatives of Argentina and Brazil to partici-pate, without vote, in the discussion. A similarInvitation was extended to the representative ofHonduras at the 2372nd meeting, on 3 June 1982.The Council considered the item at its 2371st to2373rd meetings, from 2 to 4 June 1982.’

The President of the Council drew the attention ofits members to the interim report of the Secretary-General in pursuance of resolution 505 (1982) on thesituation in the region of the Falkland Islands (IslasMalvinas).Jn

In his interim report, which he read out at the237 1 st meeting, 39 the Secretary-General informed theCouncil that on 26 May he had met separately withthe parties concerned and had requested that eachprovide within 24 hours a statement of the terms itconsidered acceptable for a cease-fire. The responsewhich he received on 27 May from the BritishGovernment and on 27 and 28 May from theGovernment of Argentina made it clear that thepositions of the two parties did not offer the possibil-lty of working out a mutually acceptable cease-fire.

At the same meeting, the representative of Spainintroduced a draft resolution,W which was sponsored

by Panama and Spain. Under the draft resolution,the Council would have reaffirmed its resolutions502 (1982) and 505 (1982) and the need for imple-mentation of all parts thereof and would haverequested the parties to the dispute to cease fireimmediately in the region of the Falkland Islands(Islas Malvmas); authorized the Secretary-General touse such means as he might deem necessary to verifythe cease-fire; and requested the Secretary-General toreport to the Council on compliance with the resolu-tion within 72 hours.

The speaker pointed out that the draft resolutionwould not bring the Council’s action to an end, butwould allow it to adopt a draft resolution on theimmediate withdrawal of the forces, and from thatmoment negotiations could begin with the leastpossible delay on full compliance with resolution 502(1982), which was basic to the settlement of theconflict.41

The representative of Panama stated that theCouncil had not heard an encouraging and hopefulreport because of the domineering and intransigentattitude of the United Kingdom in continuing itscolonial aggression against Argentina. He vigorouslydeplored the fact that the United Kingdom persistedin its rash venture of trying by force to reimpose onthe Latin American continent an absolute colonialsystem. That action was an aggression, which theUnited Kingdom had tried to depict as self-defence,completely at variance with the spirit of the times.He appealed to the members of the Council toshoulder the responsibility that the internationalcommunity had entrusted to them, and to begin toact promptly and effectively.“*

The representative of Argentina stated that theexperience of his delegation throughout the negotia-tions conducted through the Secretary-General hadshown that the United Kingdom had no intention atany time to accept the appeal for a cease-fire and thatits only purpose had been to continue its militaryaggression against Argentina. The United Kingdomwas attempting to establish on the islands a militarypresence in order to control the South Atlantic. Thatunmasked the alleged defence of the wishes of theinhabitants. The Government of Argentina had re-sponded to the ap eal addressed to the parties inparagra

!!h P3 of reso ution 505 (1982) and had replied

to the ecretary-General by submitting its proposalrelated to paragraph 2 of that resolution, that slmul-taneously with the agreement on a cease-fire negotia-tions would begin as to the withdrawal of forces ofboth parties and the interim administration of theislands by the United Nations. Regarding the cease-fire, the following elements had been set forth byArgentina: (a it would be unrestricted, with thesuspension or’ all operations by troops, vessels andaircraft, which would remain in the places where theywere at the beginning of the cease-fire; (b) simulta-neously with the acceptance of the cease-fire by theparties, a United Nations mission would be dis-patched to observe compliance with it; (c) if neces-sary, disengagement zones would be established onland and sea; (d) in no circumstances would theparties be able to undertake military reinforcemento erations in the areas of operation and in the areaso f! communications of the respective forces: (e) theUnited Nations would facilitate operations for thesupply of food, clothing and health services to thepersonnel of the land, air and sea forces and theInhabitants of the islands, for the period of time the

Put II 2 3 7

negotiations would require; and v) the cease-fire- would be in at “H” hour, which would coincide with

arrival o fi United Nations personnel.On the other hand, in the view of the United

Kingdom, the primary condition for the cease-firewas the withdrawal of the Argentine troops within adeadline. Secondly, the concept of simultaneouswithdrawal of troops was not accepted. Thirdly, thewithdrawal of British troops would be consideredonly after the following objectives had been attained:(a) repossession of the islands; (6) restoration of theBritish administration, that is to say, a return to thesfutus quo ante; (c) reconstruction; and (4 consulta-tion with the inhabitants.

The withdrawal could take place once the fourconditions had been met and in the context of aninternational security arrangement for the islandswhich would include the participation of UnitedStates forces. The Council, the Argentine nation and,above all, the whole of Latin America should havethe assurance of the United States that it would notaccept the British proposal to build a military base onthe Malvinas and that it would not be dragged intothe dangerous adventure, which would widen evenfurther the serious breach in hemispheric relations. AUnited States decision to establish troops under abilateral arrangement with the United Kingdom onthe Argentine territory of the Malvinas Islands woulddisregard the resolution adopted on 29 May 1982 bythe Twentieth Meeting of Consultation of Ministersof External Relations of the States parties to theInter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance.43

The representative of Brazil declared that for hiscountry the Malvinas Islands would remain part ofthe territory of Argentina regardless of the immediateresult of the conflict. His Government had continu-ously supported the determined efforts of the Secre-tary-General. Resolution 502 (1982) was to havebeen implemented completely, not selectively orunilaterally. Brazil was convinced that a peaceful,diplomatic solution might still be found. As asolution based on force could not be a lasting one, theCouncil was duty-bound to find an honourablesolution, acceptable to both parties. As an initialmeasure, the Council should decide on an immediatecease-fire and envisage the participation of theUnited Nations as an essential element in the contextof a just, honourable and lastin

Ppeace. The ultimate

solution to the problem shou d be sought in thecontext of negotiations between the parties, as envis-aged in resolution 502 (I 982). The Brazilian Govem-ment rejected any attempts to impose formulas onthe future of the Malvinas Islands that might extendgreat-Power confrontation to the South Atlantic.”

The representative of the United Kingdom reiter-ated that Argentina had been the first to use forceand everything the United Kingdom had done sincehad been in exercise of its inherent ri ht of self-defence, for which no mandate from the 8 ouncil wasrequired by the terms of the Charter. Turning to thelatest negotiations for a cease-fire, he said that theUnited Kingdom would welcome a cease-fire if itwould be inseparably linked to the commencement ofthe withdrawal of Argentine forces and to the com-pletion of their withdrawal within a fixed period.That position was based square1 in resolution 502(1982). Until the Government otyArgentina changedits position, the conditions for a cease-fire would notexist.

Against that backtives of Spain an cf

round the call by the representa-Panama for an unconditional

immediate cease-fire was not acceptable to theBritish delegation as the call for an unconditionalcease-fire would leave Ar entine forces in position.He suggested that a reso ution better fitted to thefneeds of the situation should contain the followinelements: a reaffirmation of resolutions 502 (1982fand 505 (1982) in all their parts; an expression ofappreciation to the Secretary-General for his contin-umg efforts towards peace-making; a reiteration ofthe demand in resolution 502 (1982) for Argentinewithdrawal; and a call for a cease-fire, which wouldcome into effect as soon as watertight arrangementsexisted for Argentine withdrawal within a fixedperiod. Those arrangements would have to be agreedto by the military commanders of the two sides in theislands.4J

The representative of the Soviet Union pointed outthat the British representative had virtually rejectedthe approach supported by the Council and thenegotiations between the parties and had thrown outeverything positive that had been achieved throu

phthe efforts of the Secretary-General. The reason orthe failure of the negotiations was the unwillingnessof the British Government to settle the problem ofthe Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) by peacefulmeans and negotiations in good faith. The ma-noeuvring of British diplomacy, involving the Coun-cil and the Secretary-General, had proved to besimply a smoke-screen for the unleashing of large-scale military operations in the South Atlantic torestore by force the colonial status of the islands andto keep a land base for imperialism.

The British Government would not have venturedto issue such a bold challenge to Argentina and to allof Latin America had it not been assured of thecomprehensive support of the United States. Itseemed that British colonialism on the islands shouldbe supplemented by a permanent American militarypresence, thus adding to the many mihtary enclavesof the United States m Latin America another in theSouth Atlantic. The Council in fact was witnessingattempts to extend the sphere of activities of theNorth Atlantic bloc to conflicts taking place farbeyond the confines of Europe and involving theinterests and security of the developing, non-alignedcountries.&

The representative of China pointed out that theresort to a show of military might without any regardfor the persistent call of the international communityfor an immediate halt of the hostilities or to thenational sentiments of the people of Argentina andLatin America mi

I!?t gain temporary success for the

party concerned ut that course of action wouldentail far-reaching dire conse uences, which wouldultimately hurt the interests o its own people. The?Council should urge the parties concerned to halt allmilitary actions immediately, agree to an uncondi-tional cease-fire and the resumption of negotiationsand extend the Secretary-General’s mandate formediation.47

During the debate, the representatives of Spainand Panama expressed their wish that the draftresolution be put to the vote the same day. Inaccordance with the request of the delegation ofJapan, the vote was deferred until the next day.

At the 2372nd meeting, the representative ofPanama introduced an amendment to the draft

238 Cbap(cr VIII. Maistenaacc of international mace and security

resolution co-sponsored by Spain and his delegation.The amendment would have Inserted a new operativeparagraph 2, under which the Council would haverequested the parties to initiate, simultaneously withthe cease-tire, the implementation of resolutions 502(1982) and 505 (1982) in their entirety, and thesubsequent paragraphs would have been renumberedaccordingly.4B

The representative of the United Kingdom wel-comed the amendment; it improved the resolution,which now contained the concept of a cease-fire andsimultaneous implementation of resolution 502(1982), meaning as he understood it the withdrawalof Argentine forces, although that was not specificallymenttoned. He asked for some time (up to 24 hours)to consider the amended text since it radicallychanged the draft resolution.4p

The representative of Spain informed the Councilthat the co-sponsors had decided to request underrule 33 of the Council’s provisional rules of proce-dure a two-hour suspension of the meeting unttl 3.30p.m., following which a vote on the draft resolutionshould be taken.‘O

The President of the Council ave the floor to therepresentative of Jordan, but at e latter was inter-rupted by the representative of Spain, who recalledthat, the last paragraph of rule 33 read: “Any motionfor the suspension or for the simple adjournment ofthe meeting shall be decided without debate.” There-fore, he asked that no debate be held on thequestion.5’

The representative of Jordan explained that he wasnot proposing to debate the issue but was askin

ffor

an additional one and a half hours to enable de ega-tions not only to reflect but also to forward theamendment to their Governments and, it was hoped,to receive instructionss2

A procedural debate ensued regarding the point oforder and proper application of rule 31 and subpara-graphs I and 3 of rule 33.53 Finally, the President wasabout to put therepresentative o Spain requested that a vote be takenP

roposal of Spain to the vote, but the

on the amendment submitted by the representativeof Jordan, which was for a suspension of the meetinuntil 5 p.m. The result of the vote was as follows: svotes to I, with 10 abstentions. The proposal was notadopted because it had not obtained the requiredmajority.54 The meeting was suspended and resumedat 6 p.m. The President stated that at the request ofseveral members of the Council and with the consentof the sponsors of the draft resolution he wasproposing to adjourn the meeting and to convene thenext meeting of the Security Council the followingday. The proposal was adopted.‘5

At the 2373rd meeting, the representative of theUnited Kingdom declared that the revised draftresolution before the Council in no way met thecriteria of his delegation as there was no direct andinseparable link between the cease-fire and immedi-ate Argentine withdrawal within a fixed time-limit.The wording of the draft resolution would enableArgentina to reopen the endless process of negotia-tions, thus leaving Argentine armed forces in Illegaloccupation of parts of the islands. Thus the docu-ment was unacceptable to the British Governmentand its delegation would vote against it.56

The representative of Japan said that his delega-tion would vote in favour of the draft resolutionbefore the Council with the understanding that

Argentina would withdraw its military forces fromthe Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) wtthin a reason-able period of time. He therefore implored Argentinato comply in good faith with the appeal of theCouncil to withdraw its forces.57

Then the Council proceeded to vote on the reviseddraft resolution.58 The draft had been than ed oncemore in that operative para

fraphs I and 2 oP the first

revision had been combine as operative paragraph Iand the subsequent two paragraphs had been renum-bered accordingly. The result of the vote was asfollows: 9 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions.59 The draftresolution was not adopted owing to the negativevote of two permanent members of the Council.

The representative of Guyana, making a statementafter the voting, explained that his country in princi-ple supported the call for a negotiated solution. Inthat specific case, however, hts delegation wouldhave preferred to see an explicit link between theputting into place of a cease-fire and a precisestatement of intent from Argentina regardmg itsreadiness to implement the requirement contained inresolution 502 (1982) to withdraw its armed forcesfrom the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) within aclear1 defined time frame. The revised draft resolu-tion Jid not do that. The Council should not be seenas condoning the use of force for the settlement ofdisputes. For that reason his delegation had beenforced to abstain on the draft resolution.m

The representative of the United States declaredthat she had been requested by her Government torecord the fact that had it been possible for her tochange the vote, she would have changed it from anegative vote to an abstention.61

The representative of Panama pointed out thatthere was not the slightest doubt as to who wasresponsible for bringing the Council into a state ofabsolute impotence. It was not the third worldcountries, but some permanent members who weremakin

%a systematic and obstinate use of their veto.

Regar less of the final outcome of the MalvinasIslands episode, his delegation felt that it would haveresulted in an important credit balance for Argentinaand for Latin America. He also pointed out thatthough the Council had not been able to adopt thedraft resolution calling for a cease-fire, that fact didnot in any wa mean that the Council consented tothe United ITingdom’s continued aggression andpunitive action against A entine soldters. He con-cluded by stating that his 7elegation intended to askfor further consultations in the Council in order tocontinue consideration of the item.62

The President of the Council, speaking in hiscapacity as the representative of France, indicatedthe positive elements of the draft resolutton.j8 How-ever, France considered that negotiations on thedraft resolution should have contmued in order toarrive at a consensus on the effective implementationof resolution 502 (1982) and? within the frameworkof that resolution, at a genuine cessation of hostili-ties. Without such a consensus, which would havemade it possible to move towards a peaceful andhonourable outcome, the French delegation had beenconstrained to abstain from voting on a text thatcould have been further improved in order to gainthe agreement of a11.63

Put I I 2 3 9

NOTES

I SII 5037. OR, 37th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1982. !kc section10 of the present chapter for prior treatment of the issue.

1 S/l 5099. ibid.‘S/15100, ibid.‘For details, see chap. III of the present Supplement.’ 2360th mtg., paras. 4-23.‘See letter dated 13 April 1982 from the representative of

Argentina to the President of the Council, S/14975, OR, 37th yr..Suppl. Ji,r April-June 1982.

’ S/ 14966, annex, fbid.‘A/32/1 IO, Al3211 Il. A/34/66 and A/34/343.O2360th mtg.. paras. 26-96.I0 Ihtd.. paras. 99- 127.‘I Ibid.. paras. 174-176.I2 Ibid., paras. 180-192.I) Ibrd.. paras. 195-204.I4 S/14944, Resolutions and Derisions o/ Ihe Security Council.

1982.” Resolution 502 (1982).lb 2360th mtg., paras. 208-225.I’ Ihrd.. paras. 229-233.Ia 2362nd mtg., paras. 23-45.Ip Ibid., paras. 49-89.*O Ibid.. paras. 91-108.“Ihrd.. paras. 115-131.x lbrd., paras. I 34- I5 Iz1 Ibid.. paras. 207-2 16.I’ Ibid.. paras. 2 1 R-239.z’2363rd mtg., paras. 3-7.*6 See 2363rd mlg.. Equatorial Guinea, paras. 62-66; Paraguay,

paras. 69-80; Colombia, paras. 84-102; El Salvador, paras. IO?-119; Peru, paras. I54-180; and Panama, paras. 181-232.

~2364th mtg., paras. 61-73.2”SI15106. OR, 37fh yr.. Suppl. jar April-June 1982. The dratt

was not put to the vote.I9 2366th mtg., paras. 102-126.yI Sl I5 I 12, OR, 37th yr., Suppl. fir April-June 1982. The draft

resolution was not put to the vote.)I S/l 5 122, subsequently adopted as resolution 505 (1982).‘I 2368th mtg., paras. 33-46.‘I Ibid.. paras. 48-56.>a Ibid.. paras. 59-63.” Ibid., paras. 64-79.I6 /bid., paras. 87-89.u S/I 5145. OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982.3*S/15151. /bid.‘923?1st mtg., para. 7.*OS/1 5 156, OR, 37th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1982. The draft

was subsequently revised (S/l 5 I56IRev. I and 2). voted upon andnot adopted owing to the negative vote of two permanent membersof the Council.

‘I 2371~1 mtg., paras. 9-18.‘2 Ibid.. paras. 19-28.” Ibrd., paras. 41-75.u Ibid., paras. 77-84.” Ibid.. paras. 86-100.y Ibid., paras. IO2- I I 3.” Ibid., paras. 124-l 28.a) 2372nd mtg., paras. 3-6.49 Ibrd.. paras. 7-9.mlbid.. paras. IO and II.” Ibid., paras. 12-l 5.‘* fbrd., paras. I7 and 18.” Ibrd., paras. 19-29.“Ibid., para. 30.‘I Ibid.. para. 3 I.w 2373rd mtg., paras. 5-9.1’ Ibid., paras. 20-22.J’ SlI5156/Rev.2. OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1982.j9 2373rd mtg., para. 49.~JI Ibid., paras. 53-59.

*I Ibid., paras. 66-7 I.61 ibid., paras. 72-83.61 Ibid., paras. 85-91.

13. THE SITUATION BETWEEN IRAN AND tRAQ

Decision of 12 July 1982 (2383rd meeting): resolu-tion 514 (1982)At its 2383rd meeting, on 12 July 1982, the

Council included in its agenda the item entitled “Thesituation between Iran and Iraq”. Following theadoption of the agenda, the Council invited therepresentative of Iraq, at his request, to participate,without vote, in the discussion of the item.’ TheCouncil discussed the item at the same meeting.

Opening the discussion, the President stated that,as had been agreed in the course of the Council’sconsultations earlier on the same day, the Councilwas meeting in connection with the situation be-tween Iran and Iraq. He drew attention to the text ofa draft resolution,2 which had been prepared in thecourse of the Council’s consultations. He also men-tioned several documents issued by the Council thathad a bearing on the item.3

The representative of France expressed great con-cern about the unending battle between Iran and Iraqand warned that the war might take a turn for theworse if it became a confrontation between twocultures and two religions. He referred to the appealsissued recent1 b the Euro an Communit andnoted that it sz r rou d be possib e to settle the bi ateralYconflict throumate rights oP

negotiations recognizing the le@ti-both parties. He recalled the Al lers

Agreement of 1975’ and stated that the frontier axedtgin that legal document should be respected. Hewelcomed efforts at negotiation initiated by theOrganization of the Islamic Conference and by theMovement of Non-Aligned Countries and ex ressedthe hope that the Council and the Secreta

7- 8eneral

would contribute to making those and simi ar effortsmore fruitful. He strongly endorsed the drafi resolu-tion, which offered the political foundations for asettlement and promoted the co-ordination of ongo-ing mediation efforts by entrusting this task to theSecretary-General.’

At the same meetin4, the President put the draftresolution to the vote; It received 15 votes in favourand was adopted unanimously as resolution 5 14( 1982).6 It reads as follows:

The Security Council,Having considered again the question entitled “The situation

between Iran and Iraq”.Deep/y concerned about the prolongation of the conflict between

the two.countries, resulting in heavy losses of human lives andconsiderable material damage and endanRerhR oeace and security,

Reculling the provisions of Article 2 ofihe Charter of the UnitedNat ions, and that the establ ishment of peace and securi ty in theregion requires str ict adherence to these provisions,

Recalling that by virtue of Article 24 of the Charter the SecurityCouncil has the primary responsibility for maintenance of intema-tional peace and security,

Reca l l i ng i ts resolut ion 479 (1980), adopted unanimously on 28September 1980. as wel l as the statement of the President of theSecurity Council of 5 November 1980,

Taking nofe of the efforts of mediation pursued notably by theSecretary-General and his representative, as well as by theMovement of Non-Aligned Countries and the Organization of theIslamic Conference,

240 Chrpter VIII. Maiatenmce of intcrnrtkmal peace and security

1. Calls for a cease-tire and an immediate end to all militaryoperations;

2. Culls further for a withdrawal of forces to internationallyrecognized boundaries;

3. Drcide.~ IO dispatch a team of United Nations observers toverify, confirm and supervise the cease-f ire and withdrawal, andrequests the Secretary-General to submit to the Security Council areport on the arrangements required for that purpose;

4. Urges that the mediation efforts be continued in a co-ordinated manner through the Secretary-General with a view toachieving a comprehensive, just and honourable settlement,acceptable to both sides, of all the outstanding issues, on the basisof the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, includingrespect for sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity andnon-interference in the internal affairs of States;

5. Requesfs all other States to abstain from all actions that couldcontribute to the continuation of the conflict and to facilitate theimplementation of the present resolution;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the SecurityCouncil within three months on the implementation of the presentresolution.

Following the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the United Kingdom stated that hisdelegation had some doubts about the likely efficacyof the resolution as it was lacking the full support ofall the parties to the dispute, an important prerequi-site for effective peace-making. He complimented thePresident on his efforts to persuade the uncoopera-tive party to accept the resolution and the need towork with the Council and regretted that its co-operation was not yet forthcoming. He expressed thehope that the Secreta

7-General would consider

urgently the possibility o sending a representative tothe two capitals.’

The representative of China noted that mediationefforts had been undertaken by the Special Represen-tative of the Secretary-General and the non-ali nedcountries and stated his conviction that con a ictsbetween brotherly third world countries could andshould be resolved through consultation or negotia-tions.8

The representative of the Soviet Union reaffirmedhis Government’s support for all efforts to end themilitary action as soon as possible and to resolve theconflict by means of negotiations. He also endorsedongoing efforts to medrate the conflict and under-lined the principal role of the Council in promoting asettlement of the Iran-Iraq conflict.9

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq expressedthe hope that the Council’s action would generate anew momentum for peace. He reviewed in detail thenumerous offers for a cease-fire and for a peacefulsettlement of the dispute that had been made by thePresident of Iraq and the Iraqi Government, all ofwhich had been rejected by the other side. Heconcluded by stating that everybody should strive forthe faithful implementation of the Council’s resolu-tion and co-ordinate all actions to advance towardsthe comprehensive, just and honourable settlementof the issues underlying the conflict.1°

Decision of 15 July 1982: statement of the PresidentIn a letter dated I4 July 1982,” the representative

of Iran transmitted the text of his Government’sofficial position regarding Council action on thesituation between Iran and Ira

3, charging that the

Council, in its resolutions 479 (I 80) and 5 14 (1982).had tacitly supported the Iraqi position.

On 15 July 1982, the Secretary-General submitteda report,‘* in pursuance of paragra h 3 of resolution5 14 (1982), in which he stated that rl e had considered

it necessary, with the a reementconcerned, to send a f

of the partiessma I team of senior United

Nations military officers to ascertain the actualsituation on the ground and to assess the arran e-ments required for the implementation of the ‘freso u-tion. The Government of Iraq had informed theSecreta

7-General that it was ready to co-operate in

the imp ementation of the resolution. The Govem-ment of Iran had transmitted to the Secretary-Gener-al the text of its statement of 14 Jul~,~i dissociatingitself from any action taken to date by the Councilwith regard to the situation between Iran and Iraq.The Secretary-General reaffirmed that he wouldcontinue his Intensive efforts to put an end to thefighting and to achieve a settlement of the issuesunderlying the conflict.

On 15 July 1982, following consultations of theCouncil, the President of the Council, on behalf of itsmembers, made the following statement:lj

The members of the Security Council expressed concern at theserious situation existing between Iran and Iraq and at the fact thatresolution 514 (1982) had not yet been implemented. The Councilremains actively seized of this question. The President will remainin contact with the two sides concerned. with a view to exploringall possible means of advancing the efforts to achieve an end to thefighting and to secure a settlement of the underlying issues.

Decision of 4 October 1982 (2399th’ meeting): resolu-tion 522 (1982)In a letter dated I October 1982,14 the representa-

tive of Iraq charged that Iranian forces had launcheda major armed attack in an attempt to cross theinternational frontier and requested an urgent meet-ing of the Council to discuss the serious deteriorationof the situation concerning the conflict between Iraqand Iran.

At its 2399th meeting, on 4 October 1982, theCouncil included the letter in its agenda. FolIowingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council invited therepresentatives of Iraq and Morocco, at their request,to participate in the discussion without the right tovote.” The Council considered the item at the samemeeting.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq pointedout that the war between Iran and his country hadbeen going on for more than two years and that theIranian objective was to take over the whole Arabianpeninsula and particularly the Arab Gulf region. Hecharged that the Khomeini regime had started ex-portmg its fanatic revolution to Iraq and the wholeregion shortly after it had assumed power in Iran. Henoted that while his own Government had declaredits readiness to comply with resolution 514 (1982),the Iranian rulers had rejected the Council’s request,insulted the Council and misquoted the fundamentalarticles defining the authority and mandate of theCouncil in matters of peace and security. He in-formed the Council of new Iranian attacks in theBasra area and added that the Iraqi forces had beencompletely withdrawn from Iranian territory. In thatconnection, he called upon Iran to accept the arbitra-tion of the Council regardintory. He emphasized that f

contested border terri-ran stood alone in its

continued war a ainst Iraq and suggested that theCouncil mi

Pt aave to take effective measures

against the ranian side, which rejected peace.16The Minister of State in charge of Foreign Affairs

of Morocco deeply regretted that the Iranian Govem-ment had rejected the Council’s constructive resolu-tion 5 14 (1982) and paid tribute to the efforts of the

Pm I I 2 4 1

representative of the Secretary-General and thePeace Committee of the Islamic Conference tomediate in the conflict between Iran and Iraq. Hewelcomed Iraq’s readiness to initiate a peace processbased on the principles of the Charter and on theresolutions of the Council and urged the Council toremind the other party of the obligations incumbentupon it because of its membership in the UnitedNations.”

At the same meeting, the President put the draftresolution prepared in the course of the Council’sconsultations’* to the vote; it received I5 votes andwas adopted unanimously as resolution 522 ( 1 982).19It reads as follows:

The Securiry Council.Having considered again the question entitled “The situation

between Iran and Iraq”,Depploring the prolongation and the escalalion of the conflict

between the two countries. resulting in heavy losses of human livesand considerable material damage and endangering peace andsecurity,

ReoJlirming that (he restoration of peace and security m theregion requires all Member States strictly to comply with theirobligations under the Charter of the United Nations,

RecnllinR its resolution 479 (I 980). adopted unanimously on 28September 1980, as well as the statement of the President of theSecurity Council of 5 November 1980.

Furfher rerallrng its resolution 5 I4 (1982). adopted unanimouslyon I2 July 1982, and Ihe statement of the President of the SecurityCouncil of I5 July 1982.

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of I5 July1982,

I. UrRenrly culls ugarn for an immediate cease-fire and an end toall military operations:

2. Reuflrms its call for a withdrawal of forces to internationallyrecognized boundaries;

3. Welcomes the fact that one of the parties has alreadyexpressed its readiness to co-operate in the implementation ofresolution 514 (1982) and calls upon the other to do likewise;

4. A/lirms rhe necessity of implementing without further delayits decision lo dispatch United Nations observers to verify,conf irm and supervise the cease-fire and withdrawal;

5. Reu/lirms the urgency of the continuaoon of the currentmediation efforts;

6. ReajJGms its request to all other States lo abstain from allactions which could contribute to the continuation of the conflictand to facilitate the implementation of the present resolution;

7. Further reque.ysls the Secretary-General to report to theSecurity Council on the implementation of the present resolutionwithin seventy-two hours.

Following the adoption of the resolution, theSecretary-General stated that the effective deployment, as envisaged under paragraph 4, was contin-gent on the concurrence and co-operation of theparties concerned and on the existence of a cease-fire.If the parties concurred, he would immediatelydispatch the observers, in accordance with normatpractices of United Nations peace-keeping. He re-newed his determination to make every effort to finda peaceful solution.20

On 7 October 1982, the Secretary-General submit-ted a report,*’ in pursuance of paragraph 6 of Councilresolution 5 14 (I 982) and paragraph 7 of resolution522 (l982), in which he stated that the text of thelatter resolution had been transmitted immediatelyto the Governments concerned, with a request, inparticular, for comments in respect of paragraph 4.The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq had in-formed the Secretary-General that his Governmentsupported efforts to facilitate a peaceful solution ofthe conflict and would co-operate in ood faith in theimplementation of resolution 522 (1 6 82). The repre-

sentative of Iran had informed the Secretary-Generalthat, for the reasons indicated in the statement issuedby his Government on 4 October,2* it consideredCouncil resolutions relating to the situation betweenIran and Iraq to be non-binding on Iran. TheSecretary-General further stated that his SpecialRepresentative had visited the area five times sinceNovember 1980 and that he would continue to makeevery effort to facilitate a settlement of the issuesunderlying the conflict.

Decision of 21 February 1983: statement of thePresidentOn 2 I February 1983, followin consultations of

the Council, the President of the E ouncil. on behalfof its members, made the following statement:2)

The members of the Council express their deep concern at theserious situation between Iran and Iraq which gravely endangersinternat ional peace and securi ty and at the fact rhat resolut ions479 (1980). 514 (1982) and 522 (1982) have not yet beenimplemented.

The members of the Council continue to urge that all concernedbe guided by Member Slates’ obligarions under the Charter: tosettle their international disputes by peaceful means and in such amanner that international peace and security and just ice arc notendangered and to refrain in their international relations from thethreat or use of force against the territorial integrity or politicalindependence of any State.

The members of the Council express their profound regret at thecontinuation and the escalation of the conflict and deplore thegrave human losses and the considerable material damage result-ing therefrom. They reafirm the necessity of implementing theCounci l ’s previous resolut ions on the subject which were unani-mously adopted.

The members of the Council urgently call once agam for animmediate cease-fire and an end 10 all military operations as wellas the withdrawal of forces up to internationally recognizedboundaries with a view lo seeking a peaceful settlement inaccordance with the principles of the Charter.

The Council remains seized of this question and urges allMember States to exert all efforts to assist in the restoration ofpeace and security in Ihe region.

The members of the Council request rhe Secretary-General tocont inue his ef forts , in consultat ion with the part ies concerned.with a view to achieving a peaceful settlement and (0 keep theCouncil informed.

Decision of 31 October 1983 (2493rd meeting):resolution 540 (1983)On 20 June 1983, the Secretary-General submitted

a report?4 on the mission to inspect civilian areas inthe Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq that had beensubject to military attack. The Secretary-Generalinformed the Council that on 2 May the Iranianrepresentative had conveyed to him the request of hisGovernment that he send a representative to visitcivilian areas in the Islamic Republic of Iran that hadbeen subject to military attack by Iraq; he alsoindicated that the Government of the Islamic Repub-lic of Iran would welcome a visit by the Secretary-General’s representative to Iraq, if the Iraqi Govern-ment so wished. Following further discussions, whichresulted in an Iraqi agreement to receive a represen-tative for the inspection of civilian areas that hadbeen attacked by the other side, the Secretary-Gener-al had notified the Council on I2 May of hisintention to dispatch a small mission. As agreed withthe two Governments, the task assigned to themission was to survey and assess, as far as possible,the damage to civilian areas in the two countries saidto have suffered war damage and to indicate, wherepossible, the types of munitions that could havecaused the damage. The mission’s report was then to

242 Chmter VIII. M&II~.. AX of international m and security

IJ; transmitted by the Secretary-General to the Coun-

The Secretary-General reported further that bothGovernments had given anorooriate assurances re-garding the safety gf the r&s&i and that they hadsnecified the itineraries that thev wished the missionto- follow in their respective -territories; the twoGovernments had also agreed to provide appropriatemeans of transport for the mission outside thecapitals. The mission had been requested, havingcompleted its itinerary in the Islamic Republic ofIran, to inspect an additional site in the IslamicRepublic of Iran and, when it arrived in Iraq, hadoffered the same if the Government of Iraq sodesired. The mission consisted of two senior officialsof the United Nations Secretariat and two militaryexperts, a munitions specialist and an artillery off&cer, who had been seconded by the Government ofSweden. The Secretary-General expressed his appre-ciation to the members of the mission for havingcarried out such a difficult task under strenuousconditions and annexed their report to his report tothe Council.

At its 2493rd meeting, on 31 October 1983, theCouncil considered again the question entitled “Thesituation between Iran and Iraq”.

The President opened the meeting by drawingattention to a draft resolution25 submitted by Guya-na, Togo and Zaire.

Prior to the vote, the representative of Pakistanreviewed the efforts so far by the Council to bringabout an end to the fratricidal conflict between theIslamic Republic of Iran and Iraq and deplored thelack of success regarding all those initiatives. Hepointed to the Iranian perception that its viewpointwas not proper1 understood by the Council as onereason for the zouncil’s failure. He noted that hisdelegation had hoped that the Council would havemade an effort to enga e both parties in a processcombining the virtue ol@ an immediate containmentof hostilities with the prospect of a comprehensivepeace settlement to follow. He regretted that duringthe informal consultations the required sustainedeffort involving more time for exhaustive consulta-tions had not been made whereby the two partiesmight have been drawn into the process of consulta-tions with the promise of a meanin

Pful outcome. He

announced that his delegation wou d abstain in thevote on the draft resolution, which was not fullymatured and which lacked consensus.26

The representative of Malta stated that bothparties had responded with detailed written observa-tions to the working paper which had been the focusof the Council’s attention in the course of theinformal consultations during more than two weeks.His delegation had wished to build on the initialresponses and to undertake further efforts to bringthe two sides together, through the good offices of theCouncil, and guide them towards a constructive andhopeful1side had

positive dialogue. He added that since onenot considered that it had been given a

reasonable hearing and sufficient consultation by theCouncil, he had been in favour of continued consul-tations and opposed the rush for a vote. His delega-tion would therefore abstain in the vote.26

The representative of Nicaragua expressed similardoubts about the benefits of the draft resolutionbefore the Council and stated that his delegationwould have preferred extended consultations with a

view to arriving at a consensus encompassing also theview of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.26

The President then put the draft resolution to thevote; it received 12 votes in favour and none against,with 3 abstentions, and was adopted as resolution540 (I 983).*’ It reads as follows:

The Securify Council,Having considered again the question entitled “The situation

between Iran and Iraq”,Recalling its relevant resolutions and statements which, inter

alia. call for a comprehensive cease-fire and an end to all militaryoperat ions between the part ies,

Recalling the report of the Secretary-General of 20 June 1983 onthe mission appointed by him to inspect civilian areas in Iran andIraq which have been subject to military attacks, and expressing itsappreciation to the Secretary-General for presenting a factual,balanced and object ive account ,

A&o noting wi&h appreciation and encouragemen/ the assistanceand co-operation given to the Secretary-General’s mission by theGovernments of Iran and Iraq,

Deploring once again the conflict between the two countries,result ing in heavy losses of civi l ian l ives and extensive damagecaused to ci t ies, property and economic infrastructures,

Aj.7irrnrn.q the desirability of an objective examination of thecauses of the war,

I. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his mediationefforts with the parties concerned, with a view to achieving acomprehensive, just and honourable settlement acceptable to bothsides;

2. Condemns al l v iolat ions of internat ional humanitar ian law, inparticular, the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of I949 in alltheir aspects, and calls for the immediate cessation of all militaryoperations against civilian targets, including city and residentialareas;

3. Aflirms the right of free navigation and commerce ininternational waters, calls on all States to respect this right and alsocalls upon the bell igerents to cease immediately al l hosti l i t ies inthe region of the Gulf , including al l sea- lanes, navigable water-ways, harbour works, terminals, offshore installations and all portswith direct or indirect access to the sea. and to respect the integrityof the other littoral States;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to consult with the partiesconcerning ways to sustain and verify the cessation of hostilities,including the possible dispatch of United Nations observers, andto submit a report to the Security Council on the results of theseconsultations;

5. Calls upon both parties to refrain from any action that mayendanger peace and security as well as marine life in the region ofthe Gulf;

6. Calls once more upon all other States to exercise the utmostrestraint and to refrain from any act which may lead to a furtherescalation and widening of the conflict and, thus, to facilitate theimplementation of the present resolution;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to consult with the partiesregarding immediate and effective implementation of the presentresolution.

Following the adoption of the resolution, therepresentative of the Netherlands stressed the Coun-cil’s responsibility under the Charter for peace andsecurity and the serious state of the cruel warbetween the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq. Henoted that it was important for the Council not onlyto be as objective and balanced as possible in itsassessment of the conflict but also to secure theagreement of both parties to co-operate with thedecisions of the Council. For the Council to have anyreal impact on the bitter conflict, a certain measureof co-operation on the part of both parties wasindispensable. He therefore regretted that it againhad not been possible to explore the openings for apeaceful settlement.26

The representative of the Soviet Union deploredthe continuation of the armed conflict between Iran

Pul I I 243

and Iraq and renewed his Government’s call for acessation of military actions and a political settle-ment of the controversial issues by peaceful means.He expressed support for the mediation mission ofthe Secretary-General’s Special Representative andother international efforts to promote a peacefulsolution and warned against an armed interventionby external forces in the area. L

The representative of China underlined the impor-tance of bringing about the participation of bothsides in the process ofwelcomed the adoption oP

eaceful negotiations andthe resolution as it called

for steps that would allow the peaceful settlement ofthe conflict.2b

On 13 December 1983, the Secretary-Generalsubmitted a reportzs in pursuance of paragraph 4 ofresolution 540 (1983), by which the Council hadrequested the Secretary-General to report on theresults of the consultations with the parties concem-ing ways to sustain and verify the cessation ofhostilities, including the possible dispatch of UnitedNations observers.

The Secretary-General informed the Council thatin response to his inquiry the Government of Iraqhad a reedofficia sf

to receive a team of United Nationsto discuss the implementation of the Coun-

cil’s resolution, whereas the Iranian Government hadrefused to cooperate, basing its rejection on its deep-seated mistrust of the Council’s attitude towards theconflict. The Secretary-General further reported thatat the end of October 1983, the Government of theIslamic Republic of Iran had requested the dispatchof a new mission to inspect further attacks on civilianareas, but the proposal could not be pursued since theGovernment of Iraq had declined to agree to thatsuggestion. Under those circumstances, the Secre-tary-General saw considerable difficulties in seekingto implement resolution 540 (1983) but reaffirmedhis readiness, together with his Special Representa-tive, to assist in the achievement of a comprehensiveand just settlement of the conflict between Iran andIraq and noted that he would have an opportunity atthe summit meeting of the Organization of theIslamic Conference, to be held in January 1984, todiscuss with the heads of State of both parties furthersteps to be taken.

Decision of 30 March 1984 (2524th meeting): state-ment of the PresidentOn 26 March 1984, the Secretary-General submit-

ted a note, together with an annex containing thereport of the specialists appointed by him to investi-gate allegations by the Islamic Republic of Iranconcerning the use of chemical weapons.29 TheSecretary-General reported that the use of chemicalweapons had been alleged for the first time in aletterW dated 3 November 1983 in which the Govem-ment of the Islamic Republic of Iran had reiteratedits request for the dis atch of another missionregarding civilian areas. !!ince that request had beenreJected by the Government of Iraq, the Secretary-General had proposed that a mission be sent toascertain the authoritative positions of the partiesregarding the conflict and to examine the damages tocivilian targets.

He referred to communications from both parties3’containing their reactions to the Secretary-General’sproposal which could not be carried out. Under thosecircumstances, the Secretary-General had decided,. inthe light of numerous Iranian allegations and growing

concern in the international community that chemi-cal weapons had indeed been used, to ascertain thefacts and requested four eminent specialists fromSweden, Spain, Australia and Switzerland, accompa-nied by a senior official of the United Nations, toundertake a fact-finding visit to the Islamic Republicof Iran.

The Secretary-General submitted to the Counciltheir report about their visit to the Islamic Republicof Iran from I 3 to 19 March 1984 and expressed hisdistress that their unanimous conclusions substanti-ated the allegations that chemical weapons had beenused. He stressed the importance of strictly observingprinciples of international conduct accepted by theworld community for the purposes of preventing oralleviating human suffering and called upon theparties to satisfy those humanitarian concerns byputting an end to the conflict, for which he pledgedhis full support and assistance.

At its 2524th meeting, on 30 March 1984: theCouncil included the report of the specialists in itsagenda and considered the item during that meeting.

The President drew attention to a letterj2 from therepresentative of Iraq and two lettersl’ from therepresentative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, inaddition to the report of the s ecialists.

p4Then he read

out the following statement:The members of the Security Council, having considered again

the question entitled “The situation between Iran and Iraq”, andgreatly concerned about the conflict which endangers internationalpeace and security in the region, have taken note of the report ofthe special ists appointed by the Secretary-General to investigateallegations by the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the USC ofchemical weapons.

They note with particular concern the unanimous conclusions ofthe special ists that chemical weapons have been used. Further-more, they express their grave concern about al l reported viola-tions in the conflict of the rules of international law and of theprinciples and rules of international conduct accepted by the worldcommunity to prevent or alleviate the human suffering of warfareand aflirm strongly the conclusion of the Secretary-General thatthese humanitarian concerns can only be fully satisfied by puttingan end to the tragic conflict that continues to deplete the precioushuman resources of Iran and Iraq.

The members of the Council:-strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons reported by

the mission of specialists;-reaffirm the need to abide strictly by the provisions of the

Geneva Protocol of 1925 for the prohibition of the use in war ofasphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriologicalmethods of warfare;

-call on the States concerned scrupulously to adhere to theobligations flowing from their accession to the Geneva Protocol of1925;

-condemn al l v iolat ions of internat ional humanitar ian law andurge both part ies to observe the general ly recognized principlesand rules of international humanitarian law which are applicableto armed conflicts and their obligations under internationalconventions designed to prevent or alleviate the human sufferingof warfare;

-recall relevant resolutions of the Security Council, renewurgently their calls for the strict observance of a cease-fire and for apeaceful solution of the conflict and call upon all Governmentsconcerned to co-operate fully with the Council in its efforts tobring about conditions leading to peaceful settlement of theconflict in conformity with the principles of justice and intema-lional law;

-appreciate the mediat ion efforts of the Secretary-General andrequest him to continue his efforts with the parties concerned,with a view to achieving a comprehensive, just and honourablesett lement acceptable to both sides; and

-decide to keep the situation between Iran and Iraq under closereview.

244 Chapter VIII. Maiateasme of intematioml m and Marty

On 14 June 1984, the Secretary-General addressedthe following letter-” to the President of the Council:

As the Security Council is aware, in response to my proposal. theGovernment of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Governmentof the Republic of Iraq have given the Secretary-General undertak-ings that all deliberate military attacks by any means on purelycivilian population centres in either country will cease effective0001 hours Greenwich mean time on 12 June 1984. The relevantcommunications are contained in Council documents S/16609,s116610, s/I661 I. S/16614 and S/16615.

As I stated in my messages to the two Governments, I trust andexpect that both sides will scrupulously implement these undcrtak-ings. I am gratified that, so far, there has been no incident.

As, however, each of the Governments. in its response has madeindependent requests for arrangements to verify compliance withthe undertakings. consultations were held with the PermanentRepresentatives of the two Governments to the United Nations,with a view to working out the measures that might bc essential toverify that the commitments arc adhered to.

Understandings have now been reached with the Government ofIran and the Government of Iraq. Accordingly, it would he myintention, as an immediate step, to set up simultaneously, as at I5June 1984. two teams, each consisting of three oflicers drawn fromamong the military personnel of the IJnited Nations TruceSupervision Organization and one senior official of the UnitedNations Secretariat. Each team would be ready to proceed to therespective country as soon as so requested by its Government.

The mandate of the teams would be to verify compliance withthe undertakings given by the Governments of Iran and Iraq toend, and in the future refrain from initiating, deliberate militaryattacks, by any means, on purely civilian population ccntres. Theteams, following each inspection of a specific allegation of anyviolation, would report to me. and it is my intention 10 keep theSecurity Council informed of their findings as required and in atimely manner. I would, of course, request assurances from the twoGovernments that they will provide the necessary conditions ofsafety for the teams while they are in areas subject to hostilities.The concurrence of the contributing countries concerned will besecured.

These arrangements would be kept under constant review in thelight of circumstances and in further consultation with all partiesconcerned.

I should be grateful if you would bring this matter to the urgentattention of the members of the Security Council.

On 15 June 1984, the President addressed thefollowing replyJ6 to the Secretary-General:

I have the honour to refer to your letter of 14 June 1984, which Ihave discussed today with the members of the Security Council.

The members of the Security Councrl agree with the measuresproposed in your letter.

During the period under review, the Secretary-General submitted a note” dated 19 September 1984conveying the report of the United Nations team inBaghdad concerning an inspection carried out on 17September.

NOTESI2383rd mtg., para. I. For details. see chap. III of the present

Supplemenl.rs115285, adopted without change as resolution 514 (1982).‘The documents referred to were a letter dated 11 June 1982

from the representative of Belgium conveying the text of astatement issued on 24 May 1982 by the Ministers for ForeignAffairs of the IO States members of the European Communityoffering their participation in even, effort directed towards apeaceful solution of the conflict between Iran and Iraq (S/l 5219.OR, 37th yr.. SULWI. for April-June 1982); a letter dated 30 June1982, also-from tbe representative of Belgium, conveying the textof a statement issued on 29 June by the heads of State andGovernment of the IO States members of the European Commu-nity repeating the appeal of 24 May (S/I 5266. ibid.. Suppl.for July-Sept. 1982); a letter dated 1 July 1982 from the representative ofIran informing the United Nations about the continuing occupa-

tion of its territory by Iraqi troops and continued Iraqi artilleryfire across the border (S/15270, ibid.): and a letter dated 8 July1982 from the representative of Iraq denying the Iranian allega-tions and insisting that the United Nations verify the Iraqiwithdrawal through appropriate machinery (WI 5279. ibid.). Refer-ence should be made also to a letter dated 30 May 1982 from therepresentative of Jordan requesting an immediate meeting of theCouncil to consider the prolonged, ongoing and grave armedconflict between Iran and Iraq (S/15141. ihrd. Suppl. /or April-June 1982).

4 Joint Iranian-Iraqi Communique of 6 March 1975, UnitedNations, Treaty Serier. vol. 1017, No. 14903. p. 196.

) 2383rd mfg., paras. 7-14. Similar views were expressed by theUnited States, ihid.. paras. 17 and IS.

6See ibid.. para. 19. for the vote.‘Ibid.. paras. 23-25.

8 Ibid.. paras. 27-29.s Ibid.. paras. 32-38.

lo Ibid., paras. 42-55.II S/15292. OR, 37th yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1982.I2 SI 15293, ibid.‘1 Sf 15296, ibid., Resolurions und Decisions of the Security

Council. 1982.“S/I 5443, ibid.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1982.iJ For details, see chap. III of the present Supplemum.ib 2399th mtg.. paras. 8-28.

i’ Ibid.. paras. 32-46.I* S/15446, adopted without change as resolution 522 (1982).

is For the vote, see 2399th mtg., para. 48.

ZQ Ibid.. paras. 50-53.21S/15449. OR, 37th yr.. Suppi. /or Oct.-Dec. 1982.22 S/15448. ibid. The note verbale dated 4 October 1982

contained the statement issued by the Government concerning theCouncil’s deliberations; it stated that Iraq had started the war andthat Iran would not attend the Council’s meetings nor recognize itsresolutions unti l the Council had condemned the Iraqi aggressions.

21 St I56 16. OR, 38th yr.. Resolurions and Decisions of theSecurity Council, 1983.

2d s/l 5834, ibid., Suppl. for April-June 1983.2J S/16092, adopted without change as resolution 540 (1983).

26 2493rd mtg.2’See 2493rd mtg. for the vote. See also chap. IV of the present

Supplemenl .2a S/l 62 14, OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1983.29 S/16433, ibid., 39th yr., Suppl. for Jan.-March 1984.xI s/l 6 I 28, ibid., 38th yr., Suppl. for Ocl.-Dec. 1983.Ii See. in particular, S/16340, S/16342, S/l6352 and S/16354.

tbtd.. 39th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1984.I2 S/16438. dated 27 March 1984, ibid.13 Sll6446 and Sll6447. both dated 27 March 1984, ibid.w S/16454, ibid., Resohdions and Decisions of the Security

Council, 1984.JJ S/16627, ibid.MS/16628. ibid.Jr S/I 6750 and Corr.1, ibid., Suppl. for July-Sept. 1984.

14. COMPLAINT BY LESOTHO AGAINSTSOUTH AFRICA

De&ion of 15 December 1982 (2407th meeting):resolution 527 (I 982)By a letter dated 9 December 1982,’ the represen-

tative of Lesotho transmitted the text of a telegramfrom the Minister for Foreign Affairs of his country,in which he charged that the South African DefenceForce (SADF) had launched an attack that day on thecapital of Lesotho, Maseru, resulting in 31 deaths,and requested an urgent meeting of the Council toaddress the issue.

P m II 245

At its 2406th meeting, on 14 December 1982, theCouncil adopted the agenda; it considered the ques-tion at the 2406th to 2409th meetings, from 14 to 16December 1982.

The Council decided to invite, at their request, thefollowin

ato participate without vote in the discus-

sion oft e item: at the 2406th meeting, the represen-tatives of Algeria, Angola, Botswana, India, Lesothoand Zimbabwe; at the 2407th meeting, the represen-tatives of Egypt, Guinea, the Libyan Arab Jamahiri-a, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland,t ugoslavia and Zambia; at the 2408th meeting,, therepresentatives of Benin, Grenada, Kenya and Nrcar-a ua; and at the 2409th meeting, the representatives

Po the United Republic of Tanzania and YemenaAt the 2409th meeting, the Council also decided, at

the request of the representatives of Togo, Ugandaand Zaire, to extend invitations to Mr. JohnstoneMakatini and Mr. Ike F. Mafole under rule 39 of theprovisional rules of procedure of the Council.’

The Secreta -General described the attack bySouth African orces against targets at Maser-u as a7grave violation of the Charter and the territorialIntegrity of a sovereign Member State. Since many ofthe victims were reported to be refugees, a specialmission to Lesotho would be dispatched b theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Re ugeesr(UNHCR). Emphasizing that the Government ofLesotho had consistently endeavoured to ensure thatrefugees under its care were treated in accordancewith established international standards, the Secre-

- tar-y-General expressed his hope that the mtemation-al community would continue to provide generousassistance to Lesotho to strengthen the country’scapacity to provide care and maintenance to all thosewho sought asylum within its borders4

King Motlotlehi Moshoeshoe II of Lesothothanked the Council for the prompt reaction to hiscountry’s request for a meeting. Speaking of the“naked act of aggression against Lesotho by SouthAfrica”, he cited two explanations of the aggressiongiven by the Commander of SADF, Constant Vil-Joen, “as intended to pre-empt operations planned brefugees of the African National Congress of Sout BAfrica (ANC) resident in Lesotho agamst tar e t s inSouth Africa . . . and to avenge some acts of sa% otagewhich took place in different parts of South Africaduring the course of the year”. Lesotho totallyrejected that hollow explanation. He placed onrecord some facts with regard to the identity of someof the persons murdered during that criminal adven-ture.

He said that all manner of accusations had beenhurled at Lesotho by the racist Pretoria rt ime inpreparation for their aggression. A complete y unac-kceptable demand had been made of Lesotho toabandon its international obligation of givinto political refugees from South Africa. v$

asylumhen the

Lesotho Government, with the assistance ofUNHCR, had facilitated the departure of thoserefugees from Lesotho, it had been accused of actingas a clearing-house for people on their way to

- military trainmvery existence %

in bases abroad. As a nation whosead been founded upon diplomacy,

peaceful co-operation and coexistence, Lesotho ex-pected of its neighbours co-operation and partner-ship so that the Basotho nation could be apprised ofsituations that caused them concern, whereupon theywould seek common solutions. Lesotho had called

repeatedly upon South Africa to commit itself to thatpolicy. At the risk of impairing his image as anAfrican patriot, the Prime Minister of Lesotho hadconferred with the rulers of South Africa on bilateraland regional problems with a view to promotingpeaceful coexistence.

The King suggested some explanations for theSouth African attack. First, his country had oftenexpressed its abhorrence of the obnoxious policy ofapartheid. South Africa hoped to intimidate Lesothointo dissociating itself from the world-wide condem-nation of the policy of apartheid and from offeringmoral support to the op ressed people of SouthAfrica in their struggle or justice, freedom andPequality. South Africa resented Lesotho’s member-ship in the Southern African Develonation Conference (SADCC), the 8

ment Co-ordi-rganization of

African Unity (OAU) and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and was opposed to the veryexistence of a sovereign and independent AfricanState within its geographical boundaries. South Afri-ca would wish Lesotho to hand over the ANCfreedom fighters, but Lesotho was not prepared to dothat and sought the unanimous sup rt of theinternational community through the ouncil.t!?

He asked that those members of the Council whohad influence over the rulers in Pretoria be calledupon to exert pressure on South Africa to desist fromits policies of wholesale destruction and terrorism. Inthe King’s view, it was not enough to condemn SouthAfrica in resolutions destined to gather dust in thearchives of the United Nations. Lesotho was askingfor positive action from the Council. The expansion-ist policy, which South Africa arrogantly equatedwith the Monroe Doctrine, seemed to be encouragedby those of its powerful friends with vested economicinterests in South Africa.

On behalf of the Government and people ofLesotho, he appealed to the Members of the Organi-zat ion to expose and condemn the covert support forSouth Africa’s polic of expansionism and to restrainSouth Africa from Kouting the Charter, from violat-ing the sovereignt and territorial integrity of StatesMembers of the drganization and from pursuing astrate y of naked terrorism against a whole subconti-nent. k

At the 2407th meeting, on 15 December 1982, thePresident drew attention to a draft resolution pre-pared in the course of the Council’s consultations.6At the same meeting, the draft resolution was put tothe vote and was adopted unanimously as resolution527 (1982).’ The resolution reads as follows:

The Security Council.Taking no& of the letter dated 9 December 1982 from the

ChargC d’affaircs a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom ofLesotho to the United Nations addressed to the President of theSccurily Council,

Having heard the statement by His Majesty King Moshocshoc I Iof the Kingdom of Lesotho,

Bearing in mind that all Member States must refrain in theirinternational relations from the threat or use of force against theterritorial integrity or political independence of any State, or inany other manner inconsistent with the ~umoscs of the UnitedN&ions,

. .

Grave ly concerned at the recent premeditated aggressive act bySouth Africa, in violation of the sovereignty, airspace andterritorial integrity of the Kingdom of Lesotho, and its conse-quences for peace and security in southern Africa,

Grove/y concerned that this wanton aggressive act by SouthAfrica is aimed at weakening the humanitar ian support given byLesotho to South Afr ican refugees,

246 Chapter VIII. Maiatemocc of latereation~l peace and security

Deep/y concernerf about the gravity of the aggressive acts ofSouth Africa against Lesotho.

the principles of international law of the Charter andof civilized behaviour between nations.

Grieved at the tragic loss in human life and concerned about thedamage and destruction of property resulting from the aggressiveact by South Africa against the Kingdom of Lesotho,

I. Strongly condemns the apar the id regime of South Afr ica for i tspremeditated aggressive act against the Kingdom of Lesotho whichconstitutes a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorialintegrity of that country;

2. Demands the payment by South Africa of full and adequatecompensation to the Kingdom of Lesotho for the damage to lifeand property resulting from this aggressive act;

3. Reu/lirms the right of Lesotho to receive and give sanctuary tothe victims of apartheid in accordance with its traditional practice.humanitarian principles and its international obligations;

4. Reqquesfs the Secretary-General to enter mto immediateconsultations with the Government of Lesotho and agencies of theUnited Nations to ensure rhe welfare of the refugees in Lesotho ina manner consistent with their security;

He urged that Lesotho be given all possible support. South Africa should make

Bood the damage

caused by its attack by paying ull and adequatecompensation to Lesotho. The United Nations mustinsist that South Africa should henceforth complyscrupulously with the provisions of the Charter. TheBritish Government had alwa s deplored the use ofviolence from any quarter in t h e search for solutionsto the problems of southern Africa and believed thatonly through peaceful change and not through forceor repression could one hope to see the unhappysituation within South Africa and between it and itsneighbours improve. In conclusion, he expressed hisdelegation’s pleasure that the draft resolution hadbeen adopted promptly and unanimously.1°

5. Requesfs Member States urgently to extend all necessaryeconomic assistance to Lesotho in order to strengthen its capacitylo receive and maintain South African refugees;

6. Declares that there are peaceful means to resolve internationalproblems and that. in accordance with the Charter of the UnitedNations, only these should be employed;

7. Calls upon South Africa to declare publicly that it will, in thefuture, comply with provislons of the Charter and that it will notcommit aggressive acts against Lesotho either directly or throughits proxies:

8. Requests the Secretary-General 1 01 0 monitor rhe implementa-tion of the present resolution and lo report regularly IO theSecurity Council as the situation demands;

9. Decides IO remain seized of the matter.

At the same meeting, the representative of theLib an Arab Jamahiriya, speaking as the Chairmanoft h e Group of African States at the United Nationsfor the month of December, expressed his convictionthat that kind of naked aggression was not the firstnor would it be the last. In previous years, the SouthAfrican rCgime had committed many acts of aggres-sion against front-line States, particularly Lesothoand Mozambique, and had occupied a part ofAngolan territory, causing loss of life and destructionof property. That attack not only posed a seriouseconomic problem for the eople and Government ofLesotho and the other ront-line States, but alsoPconstituted a flagrant violation of the Charter and thebasic principles of international law. It threatenedpeace and security not only in that area but also inthe African continent and the whole world.*

The representative of Ireland carefully scrutinizedthe wording of the SADF statement and drew theconclusion that even by its own admission SouthAfrica had carried out a ruthless attack on a smalland defenceless neighbour with an eye to the future.For that reason it had, in the strict sense, been aterrorist attack-if not in the sense of indiscriminateterrorism then at least terrorism in the sense of anattack desi nedgroup, the !

to spread fear among a particularouth African refugees in Lesotho. It had

also been intended to frighten the Government ofLesotho, the country where the refugees had foundrefuge. Ireland considered it necessary for the Coun-cil to res nd both firmly and urgently to the clearbreach op”the Charter.”

The representative of Uganda stressed that the realthreat to the apartheid system lay within South Africaitself and not outside its borders. The Pretoria rbgimehad no choice but to come to terms with theoppressed people of South Africa who constituted theoverwhelming majority of the population. He alsoraised some questions related to the situation insouthern Africa. Specifically, he mentioned that therewere those who still cherished the notion of SouthAfrica as some sort of regional policeman for Africa.He asked what kind of policeman it was who wouldbecome the main instrument of terror throughout thesouthern region of Africa.

The representative of Togo deplored that theinternational community had often expressed itsoutrage over the attitude shown by South Africa andhad adopted resolutions desi ned to impose on thatcountry penalties meaningfuf enough to force it toabandon its policy of uparlheid. but that thoseresolutions had never achieved their aim, becausecertain States continued to co-operate with SouthAfrica in the economic and military sphere, thusindirectly supporting the racist regime of Pretoria.The speaker appealed to the international commu-nity to think about the imminent danger towardswhich the human race was rushin if no action wastaken to force the racist rCgime of b retoria to abolishthe criminal, vile policy of apartheid.9

The speaker underlined that if South Africa wasescalatinAfrican tates the Council had to ear some measure!?

its war of aggression ar

inst independent

of responsibility for that state of affairs. In his view,the Council had consistently failed to take an

raction

against South Africa for its repeated acts o aggres-slon. That had given South Africa the confidence topursue its adventures with complete impunity. Thespeaker expressed the fear that if the current trendwas not arrested soon, the whole of Africa couldbecome a free hunting-ground for the apartheidregime.‘*

The representative of the United Kingdom ex-pressed once again dee sympathy to the Govem-ment and the people oPLesotho, who had been thevictim of an unwarranted attack. The British Gov-ernment saw no ‘ustification for the action under-taken by SADF. 8outh Africa had wilfully breached

The representative of China expressed his Govem-ment’s strong indignation and condemnation overthe new crime committed by the South Africanauthorities. He called upon the Council not only tocondemn severely Pretoria’s wanton a ressionagainst an independent sovereign neighbour3ut alsoto adopt forceful and effective measures, such asstrict Implementation of the arms embargo andcomprehensive and mandatory sanctions underChapter VII, so as to prevent the recurrence of SouthAfrica’s aggressions against neighbouring States.‘]

Put II 247

The representative of the Soviet Union said that inrecent years the Council had frequently condemnedthe aggressive attacks by South Africa on Angola,Zambia, Mozambique and Seychelles. The new at-tack demonstrated once again that South Africa’spolicy was a growing threat to the sovereignty andterritorial integrity of the African States and tointernational peace and security in southern Africa.The Pretoria regime would never have dared to act soboldly and brazenly if it had not been able to rely onthe direct and indirect, open and covert, military,economic and diplomatic support of a number ofWestern countries, primarily the United States.Those States were advocating patience in dealingwith the South African racists, and were therebyencouraging them further to expand their aggressionin southern Africa.

He doubted that the resolution would compelSouth Africa to abandon its policy of a ression andterrorism against the neighbouring A rican States.POne could expect that South Africa would againignore the Council’s resolution and continue itsaggressive policies. The Soviet delegation suggestedthat in the event of the failure of one or anothercountry to implement a resolution of the Council, theCouncil should take the next step and adopt suchcoercive measures as would compel that State tocomply with its will. The Council should be ready toadopt measures under Chapter VII of the Charteragainst South Africa; otherwise all the talk about adesire to enhance the effectiveness of the UnitedNations as a whole and the Council in particularwould remain just talk.14

At the 2408th meeting, on 16 December 1982, therepresentative of the Umted States expressed supportfor the resolution as it embodied principles that hisGovernment wholly and unequivocally endorsed.i$

The representative of Angola accused the Westernallies of supporting Pretoria. He appealed to theworld public to express its outrage at the massacre atMaseru, and declared that if South Africa wasallowed to escape with nothing more than a mildcensure, then all of the Members of the UnitedNations would be guilty of making a mockery of theCharter, of international law and of basic respect forhuman life. Speaking of Western interests in the area,he stressed that there was no room in southern Africafor either the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) or a South Atlantic treaty organization.i6

The representative of Algeria stated that the inter-national community expected the Council to shoul-der fully its responsibilities under the Charter and torespond to the South African aggression by urgent,concrete measures in order to put an end once andfor all to the Pretoria regime’s defiant policy. TheCouncil, in addition to condemning the act ofaggression and demanding compensation for thelosses, should seriously consider strengthenin thearms embargo that had already been imposed andconsider what other sanctions could be imposed inthe near future against the uparlheid regime.”

The representative of Sierra Leone rejected asfallacious and untenable the theory of anticipatory orpreventive aggression construed by South Africa. Hemsisted that South Africa should be judged underArticle 39 of the Charter and measures should betaken against it in accordance with the provisions ofArticles 41 and 42 of the Charter. The problem underdiscussion should be viewed as a contmuation of the

rapid1r

deteriorating international situation in south-em A rica, which could become the Middle East ofthe 1990s. In his view, the adoption of a resolutionwhich merely confirmed South Africa’s misconductwas not an appropriate response to South Africa’sunilateral denunciation of the Charter and its princi-ples or to its blatant challenge to the internationalcommunity. The speaker reiterated his call upon theCouncil to impose comprehensive mandato sanc-tions against South Africa under the terms of t!hapterVII of the Charter. He said that the Organizationshould help Lesotho maintain its security by dis-patching substantial forces if it again fell victim toSouth Africa’s attack.‘*

The representative of Zambia stressed that as longas South Africa clung to the system of apurfheid itmust necessarily remain an international pariah. Inhis view, peace and security could come to southernAfrica only if South Africa took three importantsteps: (a) South Africa should forthwith sto

Pits

policy of aggression and destabilization o theneighbouring independent African States; (6) SouthAfrtca must as a matter of ur ency cease its illegaloccupation of Namibia so that fjreedom and indepen-dence could finally come to the people of Namibia;and (c) South Africa must face with courage anddetermination the contradictions of the system ofapartheid inside the country and recognize the imper-ative need to eliminate the scourge of that system.i9

At the 2409th meeting, on 16 December 1982, therepresentative of Botswana emphasized that theperpetrator of terrorism in southern Africa was noneother than the white minority regime in South Africawhich thrived on terrorism against black SouthAfricans, who would continue to refuse to be treatedas aliens in their own country. The speaker assuredthe Council that neither Lesotho nor the othermajority-ruled free nations of southern Africa wouldturn against South African refugees or turn them overto their persecutors for the sake of peace in servitude.It was the international obligation of those countriesto open their doors to victims of political and racialtyranny in South Africa, an obligation that theywould carry out regardless of the consequenceszO

The representative of Kenya said that while theproblems of aparrheid had been considered by theUnited Nations for many years effective measuresagainst South Africa’s regime had been frustrated bythe major Western Powers. The use, or misuse, of theveto had encouraged South Africa to defy demandsof the world community. Further condemnations bythe General Assembly and the Council would certain-Ir;

not make South Africa respect the demands of therganization. His delegation wanted the world com-

munity to take concrete steps against South Africaand urged those permanent members of the Councilwho were the friends of South Africa to declarewithout qualification that the situation in SouthAfrica posed a threat to international peace andsecurity within the meaning of Chapter VII of theCharter.*’

The representative of the United Republic ofTanzania viewed the Council’s action as no morethan a firm recognition that an act of aggression hadbeen committed by the Pretoria regime, and it wasclear that the remedy for the damage had yet to befound and that a permanent solution to the problemhad not even been considered. He expressed theconviction that with the comfort afforded SouthAfrica by certain Western Powers that regime would

248 Chapter VIII. Malntrnnnce of international ptacc and rccllrlty

not readily listen to the warnings. Those who collabo-rated with South Africa therefore had to bear a directresponsibility for the behaviour of the apartheidregime. He called upon the Western permanentmembers of the Council to reconsider their polictowards South Africa so that the Council could ful ?1 1its res

!Fnsibility regarding the future of southern

Africa.Mr. Ike F. Mafole said that no amount of South

African intimidation or terror by blitzkrieg-typeinvasions and attacks in neighbourmg States wouldreverse the irresistible course of history, nor wouldthose acts of aggression and wanton destructiondampen the spirtt of resistance of the dispossessed,oppressed and exploited African majority of Azaniaand of all those committed to the total liberation andunity of Africa.23

The representative of South Africa protested at theoutset against the manner in which the Council hadconducted its consideration of the matter and de-clared that his delegation had not been permitted tospeak before the Council adopted resolution 527(1982). He added that the action of the UnitedNations in endorsing the ANC resort to violencea

Painst a Member State was in direct contravention

o the principle of the Charter that internationaldisputes should be settled by peaceful means. Thespeaker open1 blamed the Unrted Nations and theCouncil for a ack of the impartiality required by therCharter in carrying out their functions. In response tothe calls for compensation he insisted that theGovernment of Lesotho should accept responsibilitynot only for that incident but also for the damagecaused in South Africa as the result of sanctuaryafforded to ‘*terrorists” by Lesotho.

He went even further to state that the LesothoGovernment had been repeatedly warned by theSouth African Government that murder and sabotageplanned and executed by ANC or other “terrorist”groups from within its territory would not be toler-ated and that it would have to bear the consequencesof harbouring those elements, Therefore, the solepurpose of pre-emptive action by the South Africanunit was thus to prevent an escalation of terroristactivity embracing the perpetration of bombings,sabotage and bloodshed in South Africa, Transkeland Ciskei. South Africa was determined to continuetaking whatever steps might be necessary to defendits territory and its citizens from unprovoked andcowardly acts. At the same time, it remained ready toco-operate in ensuring harmomous relations with allits neighbouring States, including Lesotho.

He further declared that South Africa should beregarded as one of the most si nificant stabilizingfactors in an area which suffered rom certain built-inkand externally imposed destabilizing factors, such asa lack of natural resources, a high population growthrate, ethnic diversity, traditional land tenure systemsand so on. Co-operation between South Africa and itsimmediate neighbours, includin

f@Lesotho, ranged

virtually across the whole field o human endeavourand brought Lesotho considerable material benefitfrom its proximity to South Africa. He stated categor-icall

rythat the South African Government ronsistent-

ly ollowed a policy of non-interference in theinternal affairs of all its neighbouring States.24

The President of the Council pointed out that inthe ofJicial letter to him the representative of SouthAfrica had not specifically requested to be allowed to

speak before the voting on the draft resolution; andthat during the informal consultations it had beenunanimous1resolution trst and to conduct deliberations on the?

agreed to have the vote on the draft

agenda item subsequently.25Mr. Johnstone Makatini stated that what Lesotho

was actual1ry

being asked to do bcr

South Africa was toalign itsel with the aparthei regime against theliberation movement, and added that ANC was notapologetic about waging armed struggle a ainst arbgime that was the only one since Nazi 8emanywhose policies had been accused of being a crimeagainst humanity. ANC regarded the struggle as itscontribution to the struggle for the preservation ofpeace in this world, in addition to its being anInescapable duty on the part of the South Africanpeople. Offering an analysis of the past and presentpolicies of the South African Government, the s

rak-

er suggested that the reasons for South A rica’shostihty towards Lesotho stemmed from the latter’sstrict compliance with United Nations resolutions.26

Decision of 29 June 1983 (2455th meeting): resolu-tion 535 (1983)On 9 February 1983, the Secretary-General sub-

mitted the report2’ of the mission that he haddispatched to Lesotho from 11 to 16 January as afirst step towards the implementation of resolution527 (1982). The report contained an account of themission’s consultations with the Government ofLesotho concerning its need for assistance from theinternational community following the South Africanattack. The report described in detail ways andmeans to strengthen the capacity of Lesotho toreceive and maintain South African refugees.

At its 2455th meeting, on 29 June 1983, theCouncil included the report of the Secretary-Generalin its agenda and considered the item at that meeting.The President invited the representative of Lesotho,at his request, to participate in the discussion withoutthe right to vote.2

The representative of Lesotho informed the Coun-cil about the problems confronting his country andexpressed his Government’s gratitude for the supportand assistance it had received in alleviating the mostimmediate needs of the victims of the South Africanattack whose peaceful lives had been disrupted.**

Following a brief suspension of the meeting, theCouncil proceeded to vote on the draft resolution29prepared in the course of the Council’s consultations,and adopted it unanimously as resolution 535( 1983).M The resolution reads as follows:

The S4turiry Council.Recoiling its resolution 527 (1982),Having examined the report of the Mission to Lesotho ap-

pointed by the Sccrctary-General in accordance with resolution527 ( I982),

Having heard the statement of the Char& d’affaim of thePermanent Mission of the Kingdom of Lesotho expressing thedeep concern of his Government at the frequent aggressive acts bySouth Africa against the territorial integrity and independence ofLesotho,

Reuflrming its opposition to the system of uparfheid and theright of all countries to receive refugees fleeing from apurrheidoppression,

Convinced of the importance of international solidarity withLesotho,

I. Commends the Government of Lesotho for its steadfastopposition to apartheid and its generosity to the South Africanrefugees;

2. Expreses its appreciation to the Secretary-General for havingarranged to send a mission to Lesotho to ascertain the assistanceneeded;

3. Endorses the report of the Mission lo Lesotho underresolution 527 (1982);

4. Rrquesfs Member Slates, international organizations andfinancial institutions to assist Lesotho in the fields identified in thereport of the Mission to Lesotho;

5. ReQuesrs the Secretary-General to give the matter of assist-ance to Lesotho his continued attention and to keep the SecurityCouncil informed;

6. Deckks IO remain seized of the question.

Noms

I Sf I 55 I 5. OR, 3 7th yr., Suppl. ./I)r Oct.-Dec. 19X.2.*See chap. 111 of the present Su~pl~wenf for details.J 24091h mtg.. paras. 3 and 113.

* 2406th mtg.. paras. 6-1 1.’ Ibrd.. paras. 16-37.6 S/15524, adopted without change as resolution 527 (1982).

‘For the vote. see 2407th mtg., para. 3.t 2407th mtg., paras. 6-17.p ibid., paras. 25-46.

lo Ibid.. paras. 5 I-68.IL ibid.. paras. X2-97.

I2 Ibid.. paras. I I I-125.I’ Ibid.. paras. 128-l 32.I4 Ibid.. paras. 149-161.

I5 2408th mtg., paras. 18-26.I6 Ibid., paras. 29-39.” Ibid., paras. 42-55.

J” Ibid., paras. 73-84.I9 Ibid., paras. 87- 100.

*O 2409th mtg., paras. 18-29.2I Ibid., paras. 33-46.

22 /bid., paras. 94-101.

23 ibid., paras. I 16-l 24.zd Ihid~. paras. 127-160.l’lbid., paras. 161 and 162.26 Ibid.. paras. 167-205.

*’ S/ 15600.

I* 2455th mtg.2p S/I 5846, adopted as resolution 535 (1983).

‘OFor the vote, see 2455th mtg.

1 5 . L E T T E R D A T E D 1 9 F E B R U A R Y 1983 F R O M T H EPERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LIBYANARAB JAMAHIRIYA TO THE UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITYC O U N C I L

IN IT IAL PROCEEDINGS

By a letter] dated 19 February 1983 addressed tothe President of the Council, the representative of theLiboft 6

an Arab Jamahiriya requested an urgent meetinge Council to consider the deterioratmg situation

near the Libyan shores that could jeopardize thesecurity and peace of the region and the world. Theletter stated that the situation had arisen from theprovocative military action of the United StatesAdministration’s moving its aircraft-carrier Nimifzwith some naval vessels close to the Libyan coast andsending four AWACS aircraft to one of the neigh-bourmg countries. In a letter2 dated I8 February1983, the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahl-riya had called to the attention of the Council the

seriousness of such provocations by one of itsmembers,

At its 2415th meeting, on 22 February 1983, theCouncil included the item in its agenda, Followingthe adoption of the agenda and in accordance withthe relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 ofits provisional rules of procedure, the Council invitedthe following, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote: at the 2415thmeeting, the representatives of Benin, DemocraticYemen, Egypt, Ghana, the Islamic Republic of Iran,the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Sudan and theSyrian Arab Republic; at the 2417th meeting, therepresentatives of Czechoslovakia, the GermanDemocratic Republic, Hungary, Madagascar andViet Nam; and at the 24 18th meeting, the representa-tives of Algeria, Bulgaria, Cuba and Ethiopia. At the2416th meeting, the Council invited Mr. ClovisMaksoud and at the 2418th meeting it invited Mr.Ike F. Mafole, under rule 39 of the provisional rulesof procedure.’ The Council considered the item at its2415th to 2418th meetings, on 22 and 23 February1983.

At the 2415th meeting, the representative of theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya reviewed Libyan-Americanrelations and discussed reasons for the present Amer-ican hostility against his country. Referring to severalprevious communications,4 he quoted numerous vio-lations of the Libyan airspace and territorial watersby the United States Air Force and Navy. Citingvarious American newspapers, he dismissed theAmerican claims that the movement of the AmericanSixth Fleet and the AWACS had been related to thealleged Libyan mobilization on the Sudanese borderswith a view to interfering in the affairs of thatcountry.

He quoted 7’hr New York Times, which said that“the plan, according to American officials, was tolure Libya into strikmg and then to destroy as muchof its air force as possible”. He condemned theUnited States’ strateof States that refused

y of intervention in the affairsto acquiesce in its

p”licies and

interests. He accused the United States o shirking itsresponsibilities as a major Power and a permanentmember of the Council. He charged that the UnitedStates was indeed at the vanguard of internationalterrorism which was part of the daily conduct of itspolicy.

He concluded that althouP

the Libyan ArabJamahiriya was convinced oft e goodwill of most ofits members it knew that the Council would beunable to adopt any effective measures in view of itsstructure. However, the Council had to face itsresponsibility and condemn the aggression. What hadhappened to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya mighthappen to other States unless an end was put to thearrogance and cynicism of the United States Admin-istration.’

The re resentative of the United States referred tothe lette lfdated 22 Februa 1983 to the President ofthe Council, in which the 3overnment of the UnitedStates had rejected the charges of the Government ofthe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and had called attentionto what was called a threat to international peace andsecurit

Gposed by the policies of the Libyan Govem-

ment . he United States Government and the Amer-ican people had never sought, and did not seek, anyconfrontation with the Government or the people ofthe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and had never engaged

2 5 0 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of hterm~ mace and dty

in acts of provocation. But there should be no doubtthat the United States would respond, as appropriate,to Libyan threats.

She described briefly the events that had led to thatsituation, beginning with the official announcementby Sudanese Radio of the discovery of a Libyan-backed plot against the Government of PresidentGaafar Nimeiry, and mentioned in particular theconcentrations of Libyan aircraft, which were ofconcern to the Sudanese and the Egyptians. Becauseof the situation, the United States had moved up thedate of an AWACS training exercise and had sentAWACS and tanker aircraft into Egypt, and had alsodeployed the United States naval forces in theeastern Mediterranean. Their presence in intema-tional waters seemed to have a deterring effect onLibyan adventurism in the region.

She added that a major fact of Libyan foreignpolicy had been and remained subversion and desta-bilization of moderate independent Governments inthe Middle East, Africa and elsewhere and men-tioned Chad as a recent principal victim of theaggressive policies of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.The United States representative warned that hercountry would intervene wherever and whenever itfelt that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was threateninga country that was friendly to the United States. AllStates with aggressive designs on their neighbourswould be discouraged by the lawful response ofothers such as the United States, and would desistfrom their unlawful plans5

At the 2416th meeting, the representative of theSyrian Arab Republic satd that the American provo-cations and acts of aggression against the LibyanArab Jamahiriya had drawn his Government’s atten-tion to the following: (a) they coincided with Wash-ington’s military and economic offensives to reim-pose its hegemony on the area as a whole; (6) thedirect American provocations by land, sea and aircame on the heels of the Israeli occupation ofLebanon and the aggression against the Arab forces,which proved that the provocations served thepurpose.qf impjementing the economic, geographicaland political dimenstons of the Camp Davtd Agree-ment; and (c) the provocations fell wtthin the world-wide American policy of creating tension at theinternational, regional, national and domestic levelsfrom Latin America to Asia. The latest threat againstthe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was another attempt tosubjugate the Arabs to the Camp David logic. TheSyrian Arab Republic urged the Council to considerthe complaint by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya withthe utmost responsibility and concern.’

The representative of Nicara ua stated that theactions taken by the United 8tates Governmentagainst the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya manifested de-rogatory rhetoric against Libyan leaders, destabiliza-tion plans, zealous intemattonal propa anda cam-paigns, attempts at economic &bloc ades andtechnology boycotts as well as threats and acts ofaggression. Such an aggressive attitude seemed toignore the fundamental principles embodied in Arti-cle 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter. But the peoples ofthe third world were on the alert to defend resolutelytheir independence and territorial integrity.’

The representative of Malta stated that his coun-try’s commitment to peace and security in theMediterranean had inspired it to propose at theEuropean Security Conference held at Madrid the

convening in Malta later that year of a meeting ofexperts to discuss questions relatin to security in theMediterranean as embodied in t f: e Helsinki FinalAct. Malta was particularly worried about the activedeployment in close proximity to its territory ofwarships and other mihtaty equipment. For Malta, itwas clear that the regional States themselves bore themain responsibility for safeguarding the peace andsecurity of their region. From the outside PowersMalta requested genuine cooperation to enable theregion to evolve the collective effort.’

The representative of China said that the thirdworld countries should and could find fair andreasonable solutions to their differences throughpeaceful consultations. No foreign infringement ofthe independence, sovereignty and territortal integri-ty of those countries, including the Libyan ArabJamahiriya, should be allowed, nor was outsideinterference in their internal affairs permissible.7

The representative of the Islamic Republic of Irancondemned the American military presence andintervention in the Middle East in general, and therecent American threat to the Libyan Arab Jamahiri-ya in particular. He deplored that no revolutionarypeople or Government could be immune from Amer-ican conspiracies and expressed his delegation’shopes that the Council could demonstrate its inde-pendence and its commitments to the Charter so asto exert pressure upon the United States as one of its

)!ermanent members in order to prevent it fromollowing such destructive policies in different parts

of the world.’The re

the brie Fresentative of Democratic Yemen said thatscenario produced and directed by the

United States Administration was actually part of acampaign in African and Arab capitals to bringpressure to bear on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya andto undermine the African Summit Conference sched-uled to be held at Tripoli.’

The representative of the Sudan accused the Lib-

Tan leadership of the attempt to prevent the Sudanrom exercising full sovereignty over its territory and

from pursuing foreign and domestic policies reflect-in the aspirations of its people. He also charged theLiE yan Arab Jamahiriya with disregarding the princi-ples governing normal conduct among nations, in-cluding the principle of non-intervention in theinternal affairs of States and the princi le of the non-use or threat of force in intemationa P relations. Heinformed the Council of acts of aggression andprovocation by the Lib an Arab Jamahiriya againstthe Sudan, including a l ib an plan to overthrow thelegitimate Government o r the Sudan. Faced withthose grave events, the Sudan had taken defensivemeasures to thwart that plan and to preserve its ownindependence and territorial integrity in co-operationwith all friend1 and fraternal countries. He ex-

Hressed support or the measures taken by the Unitedrtates Admmistration in that respect. He appealed to

the Council to follow close1 developments in thatarea caused by the Libyan Tpo icy, which had negativeconsequences for the programmes of developmentrequired by the countries of the region.’

The representative of EP

t made clear before theCouncil that Egypt was fu ly committed to defendingfraternal Sudan, in response to its re uest and to theextent that would be agreed upon. A 19 Egypt wishedfrom the Libyan Arab Jamahirtya was to work for theconsolidation of peace and security in the area.’

Part I 1 251At the 2417th meeting, on 23 February 1983, the

representative of Poland recalled that the Statesmembers of the Warsaw Pact for years had beenputting forward proposals concerning the lowering ofthe level of deployment of the naval forces of theopposing military blocs in the Mediterranean. Theywere in favour of withdrawing nuclear-equippedvessels from the Mediterranean and of renouncingthe deployment of nuclear weapons on the territoryof Mediterranean non-nuclear countries.R

The representative of Viet Nam mentioned theanachronistic position of the United States withregard to the extent of the territorial waters of coastalStates. Ignoring the new United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea, which had extended theterritorial waters to I2 nautical miles, the UnitedStates Administration persisted in recognizing a limitof only 3 miles.R

..-

At the 2418th meeting, on 23 February 1983, therepresentative of Pakistan said that the air and navalactivities in the eastern Mediterranean had createdfears concerning their impact on the securit ofStates of the region. Pakistan had taken note or theexpression of those fears and hoped that StatesMembers of the United Nations would have recourseto the Council whenever they perceived a threat totheir security, instead of resorting to the threat or useof force to achieve their objectives. Only in that waywould the Council be enabled to function as aneffective instrument for the maintenance of intema-tional peace and security as provided for by theCharter. He appealed to all the parties concerned toco-operate in taking steps to reduce tension in theregion and to avoid any precipitate action that mightendanger international peace and security.9

Then the President, speaking in his capacity asrepresentative of the Soviet Union, said that forsome years the authorities in Washington had beenpursuing a systematic campaign of threats and intim-idation a ainst the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and itsleaders. ?ghe United States was seeking to militarizethe region of the Middle East, to expand directAmerican military presence and to interfere in theaffairs of States in that area. In places beyond thereach of its strategic ally--Israel-Washingtonturned up as a self-styled arbiter trying to dictate itsconditions to other countries. There was anotheraspect of those recent events, which should not beforgotten: Was the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya the onlytarget of the United States attempts to wave the bigstick? It would be closer to the truth to say that theactions of the Administration were aimed against allnon-aligned countries, particularly those that did notwant to go along with the hegemonistic policies of theUnited States aimed at subverting the basis ofinternational relations, leading to a further exacerba-tion of tension in that already explosive region of theMiddle East. He called for an immediate end to suchacts of provocation against the Libyan Arab Jamahi-riyaBg

At the end of the 2418th meeting, the Presidentdeclared that the Council had concluded for the dayits consideration of the agenda item and adjournedthe meeting.

NOTES

I SI15615, OR, 38th yr.# Supplemenr /or Jan.-March 1983.I S/15614. ibid.

I For further details regarding participation in the proceedings ofthe Council, see chap. III of the present Supplement.

4 Sf 10939, OR, 28th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1973; s/14094,ibid., 35rh yr., Suppl. for July-Sepl. 1980; s/ 14636, ibid., 36th yr..Supp l . fo r Ju ly -Sept . 198 I ; s/l 4860, ib id , , 37 th y r . , Supp l . fo r Jan.-March 1982; and S/ I56 14, ibid.. 38th yr., Suppl. for Jan.-March1985.

’ 2415th mtg.b S/l 5617, OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1983.’ 2416th mtg.* 24 17th mtg.q 24 18th mtg.

16. LEITER DATED 16 MARCH 1983 FROM THE PERMA-NENT REPRESENTATIVE OF CHAD TO THE UNITEDNATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THESECURITY COUNCIL

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

Decision of 6 April 1983: Statement by the Presidentof the CouncilBy letter’ dated 16 March 1983 addressed to the

President of the Council, the representative of Chadrequested an urgent meeting of the Council in orderto consider the extremely serious situation resultingfrom the occupation of a part of Chad’s territory bythe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and from repeated actsof aggression by that country against the people ofChad. The letter charged that since 1973 the LibyanArab Jamahiriya had occupied a part of Chad’sterritory commonly known as the Aouzou Strip, andhad also oChad in If’

enly intervened in the internal affairs ofagrant violation of the Charter and of

relevant resolutions of the General Assembly.At its 2419th meeting, on 22 March 1983, the

Council included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council invited thefollowing, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote: the representa-tives of Chad, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the IvoryCoast, Senegal and the Sudan; at the 2428th meeting,the representatives of Benin, Democratic Yemen,Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, the Islamic Repub-lic of Iran, Niger, the Syrian Arab Republic and theUnited Republic of Cameroon; and at the 2429thmeeting, the representative of Ghana.2 The Councilconsidered this item at its 2419th and 2428th to2430th meetings, from 22 March to 6 April 1983.

At the 2419th meeting, the representative of Chadstated that the situation in his country was seriousand disturbing because of the outright intervention ofthe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in Chad and the occupa-tion by force of the part of Chad territory commonlyknown as the Aouzou Strip, which in fact representedthe Tibesti sub-prefecture of more than 150,000square kilometres. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya hadattempted to take over thatfar back as 197 1 and hacr

art of Chad’s territory as

since 1973.occupied that territory

In the view of the Government of Chad, thesituation endangered the very existence of Chad as asovereign State and as a member of the internationalcommunit

Band it constituted a serious danger to the

peace ancontinent.’

territory of that part of the African

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyastated that the Government led by the foxmcr

252 Chapter VIII. Maintenanct of Inttrnatioaal ptace and stcwity

Minister of Defence, Hissein Habri, had no legalright to represent the Chad nation. As for the AouzouStrip, there had never been any sovereignty by Chadover Aouzou throughout history. The Libyan ArabJamahiriya would not accept consideration of thatissue, which had to do with its sovereignty. But theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya was ready to consider anydispute: a ood-offices commission had been formedbetween Caad and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya andwas still in existence. It could be entrusted with thetask of considering any dispute. The Libyan ArabJamahiriya affirmed that it would be ready, as in thepa$,. to consider any dispute when there was alegltlmate Government in Chad recognized by theOrganization of African Unity (OAU). The LibyanArab Jamahiriya respected the freedom and territori-al integrity of Chad but rejected the notion that thereshould be interference in its affairs and rejected anyclaim to part of its land.’

The representative of Senegal said that the com-plaint by Chad against the Lib an Arab Jamahiriyawas timely. The argument of 8had was based on anumber of irrefutable historic and judicial facts.Senegal was a member of the Ad Hoc Commission setup in July 1977 by the Assembly of Heads of Stateand Government of OAU at its fourteenth ordinarysession in order to seek ways and means to bringabout a peaceful solution to the problem. From thestudy of the case, it had become clear that Chad hadlegitimate reasons to claim sovereignty over theAouzou Strip. At the time of the signing at Tripoli on22 March 1966 of the Agreement of Good-Neigh-bourliness and Friendship between Chad and Libya,that pad of territory was under Chad’sadministration, as indeed it had been under Frenchadministration in the colonial era. Unfortunately, theagreement, as well as the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance signed on 23 De-cember 1972, had been violated by the Libyan side.Indeed, unilaterally sending troops to Tibesti consti-tuted in itself a violation of the principles of territori-al integrity and sovereignty. The most appropriatesolution would be for the Council to prevail upon theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya to abide by the mostelementary norms of international morality and law.3

The representative of Togo stated that his Govem-ment recognized States, not individuals, and there-fore had recognized the Government of HisseinHabr& Togo was convinced that the territorialdispute between Chad and the Libyan Arab Jamahi-riya could be settled throu@ bilateral negotiationswith or without the mediation of third parties andadvocated that all means, including arbitration andjudicial settlement? be used to bring about a peacefuloutcome of the dlspute.3

The representative of Jordan said that the Africanborder .disputes were vestiges of colonialism. Heemphasized the danger of using those disputes m thecontext of strate ic and political conflicts betweenStates. He praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for itsreadiness to discuss the border dispute on a bilaterallevel as well as in OAU and called upon the twoStates to pursue a policy of restraint, good-neigh-bourliness and peaceful settlement.3

The representative of the Ivory Coast affirmed, interms of Article 33 of the Charter, the undeniableexistence of a dispute whose prolongation was like1to threaten the maintenance of peace in Africa an cf,therefore international security. The Council couldnot stand idle in the face of that dispute and adjourn

without recommending the use of one of the meansfor peaceful settlement provided by the Charter: interah, recourse to the International Court of Justice(ICJ).’

The representative of the Sudan said that the realsource of concern was to see the Council for thesecond time in less than a month take up Libyanintervention in the affairs of neighbouring countries,endangering their independence and sovereignty.The ille al occupation by the Libyan Arab Jamahiri-ya of Caad’s territory constituted a violation of theprinciples of OAU. The speaker accused the LibyanArab Jamahiriya of twice obstructing the conveningof OAU meetings at Tripoli and said that it shouldrespect the principles of OAU if it seriously wished toresolve its disputes through the OAU charter. TheSecurity Council should take the proper necessarymeasures to safeguard the independence and sover-eignty of Chad b calling upon the Lib an ArabJamahiriya to wit draw its forces fromB zhad.j

The representative of Egypt said that the Assemblyof Heads of State and Government of OAU hadconsistently called upon all its members to supportefforts aimed at maintaining peace and security inChad, to abstain from interfering in its domesticaffairs and to contribute towards creating the properatmosphere necessary for consolidating stability andChad’s newly found peace. Nevertheless, an integralpart of Chad was still under occupation by theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya. In the opinion of theEgyptian delegation, the Government of Chad wasfully justified In bringing its complaint to the atten-tion of the Council, and the least the Council coulddo was to call upon the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya torespect the territorial integrity of Chad and put anend to its occupation of Chadian territory.3

The representative of Chad rejected Libyan claimsfor that territory as ungrounded and revealed thecontent of the discussions that had taken place atN’Djamena and Tripoli regarding the occupation bythe Libyan Arab Jamahlriya of part of Chad’sterritory, and in particular three conditions set by theLib an Arab Jamahiriya that should have been metby zhad for those discussions to be successful: (a) theproclamation by Chad of an Arab Islamic Republic;(b) the fortnatlon of a strategic alliance with theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to destabilize thecountries near Chad-Cameroon, Ni er and Nige-ria-regarded by the Libyan Arab Bamahiriya asreactionary rCgimes; and (c) keeping of the historicfrontiers between the two countries. Once the threeconditions were met, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyawould then hand over to the Chadian Governmentthe members of the puppet Government. The Chadi-an Government rejected in foto those three unaccept-able conditions and the shameless bargain proposedby the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The representativeof Chad urged all the members of the Council toinvite the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahi-ri a to return to the question of Libyan occupation ofd d’a Ian territory. He demanded that the Lib anArab Jamahiriya withdraw its troops from C adhwithout any preconditions3

At the 2428th meetin , on 31 March 1983, there resentative of Zaire ca ledo P

If the defacro occupationthe disputed territory ille al and said that the

Council would do better to calf for the application ofArticle 96 of the Charter and to refer the dispute toICJ for an opinion. The second conclusion hisdelegation had reached was to request the Council to

Pul II 2 5 3

decide: first, that the Libyan occupation troopsshould immediately withdraw from the Aouzou Stripand from any other locality within Chadian territory;secondly, that a neutral force should be sent to theAouzou Strip in order to preserve peace and securitym that region pending a substantive settlement of thedispute between the two countries.’

The rements oP

resentative of France said that the state-Chad and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

confirmed the existence of a border dispute betweenthe two countries. From a legal point of view, France,as the former administering Power, must note thesoundness of the theses presented by the representa-tive of Chad. The Council could play a constructiverole by appealing to the two parties through thePresident. On the basis of that appeal, OAU couldresume its mediation efforts with a view to a finalsettlement.’

The representative of the Netherlands stated thatthe Council, acting under Chapter VI of the Charter,could call upon States Members of the UnitedNations to settle their disputes by peaceful means.The choice of government was, however, the soleprerogative of the people of the country. It wasessential that all foreign intervention in Chad ceaseand that economic assistance be provided by coun-tries in a position to do so. He appealed to bothparties to refrain from any action that might aggra-vate the situation and supported the recommenda-tion to submit the question to ICJ.’

The representative of Malta said that until theefforts through OAU were concluded, the Councilshould refrain from taking a definite stand on theissue. Instead, in accordance with Article 33, para-graphs 1 and 2, of the Charter it should encourage thecountries concerned, as well as OAU and otherinterested regional bodies, to seek a solution in theshortest possible time:

The representative of Democratic Yemen said thathis delegation had drawn the following conclusions:(a) the issue under discussion was a case of interfer-ence in the internal affairs of the Libyan ArabJamahiriya, especially because the Aouzou Strip wasan integral part of Libyan territory; (b) the LrbyanArab Jamahiriya had categorically rejected allega-ttons that tt was occupying any part of Chadtanterritory and had stated that it had no ambitionswhatsoever regarding the territory of other States; (c)the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had striven to maintainthe fraternal and good-neighbourly relations that linkthe Libyan and Chadian peoples; (d) the problem ofChad was being dealt with by OAU, which hadestablished an ad hoc committee at the level of headsof State; and (e) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya hadstated its readiness to discuss bilateral relationsbetween the two countries in the framework of thecommittee of good offtces established by OAU.’

At the 2429th meeting, on 31 March 1983, therepresentative of Poland stated that the efforts armedat overcoming the le acy of colonialism and under-development required an atmosphere of co-operationand stability in relations between African States. Theissues that might arise in the African continentshould be solved first and preferably, through bilater-al negotiations and within 0AU.j

The representative of Ethiopia urged the membersof the Council and all others concerned not toprolong the debate as there had been few if anyInstances in which public debates had contributed to

the resolutions of such disputes. He also urged theparties to the issue to exercise maximum restraintand to avail themselves of each and every peacefulmeans and in particular to give their regional organi-zation a chance to exhaust its possibilities andfinalize the efforts it had undertaken. He also ex-pressed the hope that the Council would exercisemaximum caution in the discharge of the responsibil-ity entrusted to it.5

At its 2430th meeting, on 6 A rilCouncil resumed its constderation o P

1983, thethe item. The

Council had before it a draft resolution6 submittedby the representative of Chad. In the operative partof the draft resolution, the Council would haverequested theand by P

arties to settle their dispute forthwithpeace ul means on the basis of the relevant

principles of the Charter of the United Nations andthe charter of OAU; would have taken note withsatisfaction that both parties had stated their will-ingness to examine their dispute and to settle it bypeaceful means and would have urged them torefrain from any action likely to asituation; and would have appealed to tBB

ravate theem to make

full use of the machinery for the peaceful settlementof disputes available to them within the regionalorganization, particularly the good offices committeeset up by OAU, and of the machinery provided for inArticle 33 of the Charter of the Umted Nations.

In the course of the meeting, the President madethe followin 9 statement on behalf of the member ofthe Council:

The Security Council has heard and taken note of the statementsmade by the Foreign Minister of Chad and by the representative ofthe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in the debate on the letter dated 16March 1983 from the representative of Chad.

The members of the Security Council express their concern thatthe differences between Chad and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyashould not deteriorate and therefore call on the parties to settlethese differences without undue delay and by neaceful means. onthe basis of the relevant principles of the Charter of the UnitedNations and the Charter of the Organization of African Unitv.which demand respect for political independence. sovereignty andterritorial integrity.

In this connection, the members of the Council have taken notewith appreciat ion of the wil l ingness expressed by both part ies todiscuss their differences and to resolve them peacefully and urgeboth sides to refrain from any actions which could aggravate the ,current situation.

The members of the Council also note that the Organization ofAfrican Unity, the regional organization, is already.seixed of thismatter. They appeal to both parties to make the fullest use of themechanism available within the regional organization for thepeaceful settlement of disputes, i&luding ihe Good OfficesCommittee established by the Organization of African Unity andof those provided in Article 33 of the Charter of the UnitedNat ions.

She added that the Council having completed thatstage of its consideration of the agenda item, thePresident of the Council would follow the development of the situation and would be in touch withinterested parties in the following days.*

The representative of the Soviet Union declaredthat as the last part of the statement was not agreedupon among members of the Council and was in factcontrary to the understanding of most members itshould be regarded as the viewpoint of the UnitedStates delegation.8

The President of the Council replied that the laststatement had been made in her presidentialcapacity.s

254 Chapter VW. Malnte- of inttmational peace aad atcnrity

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya sands of additional counter-revolutionaries plannedindicated that as President of the Council the repre- to infiltrate the country from Honduras in the nextsentative of the United States should have sum- few days. Nicaragua appealed to the United States tomoned the Chadian representative, as well as the cease its attempts to destroy the Sandinist People’sLibyan representative. However, she had not done Revolution, and to end the “secret” but widelyso, in disregard of the most rudimentary rules of recognized war against Nicaragua. The United Statesob’ectivity. He asked to put on record that the should renew all peace initiatives, such as those madeLiA yan Arab Jamahiriya would not recognize whathad been stated by the United States representative

by Mexico and Venezuela on the Honduras-Nicara-

beyond the text of the statement.* &ua border problem., and the proposal by Mexico,enezuela, Colombia and Panama on negotiated

NOTES

solutions to the main elements of the Central Ameri-can crisis. The Council members and the intemation-al communittowards the 6

should strive to develop a policyentral American region conducive to

1 s/l 5643. OR. 38th yr., Suppl. for Jun.-March 1983.*For details, see chap. II of the present SU&WWI~.J 2419th mtg.4 2428th mtg.3 2429th mtg.6 s/l 5672, OR. 38rh yr., Suppl. for Jan.-March 1983.‘s/I 5688, ibid., Resolutions and Decisions OJ the &c-wiry

Council, 1983.1 2430th mtg.

peaceful negotiated solutions.4

17. LE’ITER DATED 22 MARCH 1983 FROM THE REPRE-SENTATlVE OF NICARAGUA ON THE SECURITVCOUNCIL ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THESECURI-W COUNCIL’

INITIAL PROCEEDINGSBy letter* dated 22 March 1983, the representative

of Nicaragua requested an urgent meeting of theCouncil in view of the grave increase in acts ofaggression against Nicaragua.

The representative of Honduras stated that Nicara-gua had attempted to involved his country in eventsrelating to internal uprisings against the Sandinistri5 ime.re ated to increasing political and social tensionsB

The current situation in Nicaragua was

between the Sandinist Government and opposition

Koups. The situation must be resolved by theicaraguans themselves. Honduras had presented to

the Organization of American States (OAS) a propos-al for general disarmament in the region. It wouldresult m the reduction in the number of foreignadvisers who, in Nicaragua’s case, were extra-conti-nental. The mobilization of Honduran forces withinits territo

rto defend its democratic system was in

exercise o its sovereign right. Honduras adhered tothe principle of non-intervention and was preparedto submit to international controls to verify whethervarious countries had a defensive or offensive capa-bility.’

At the 2420th meeting on 23 March 1983 theCouncil included the letter on its agenda. At the samemeetin , followinCounci f

the adoption of the agenda, theinvited t e followmg, at their request, to!I

participate in the discussion of the question, withoutthe right to vote: the representatives of Honduras,Mexico and Panama; and, at the 2421st meeting, therepresentatives of Barbados, Cuba, Democratic Ye-men, Grenada, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya andSpain; at the 2422nd meeting, the representatives ofAlgeria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, !ndia, Mau-ritlus, the Philippmes, the United Re ubhc of Tanza-nia, Venezuela and Vlet Nam; at the P 423rd meeting,the representatives of Argentina, Bel ium,

$Bolivia,

Brazil, the Dominican Republic, the ederal Re!

ub-lit of Germany, the Islamic Republic of Iran, eruand Yugoslavia; at the 2424th meetin , the represen-tatives of Bulgaria, El Salvador, the derman Demo-cratic Repubhc, ltal

i+, Mongolia and the Syrian Arab

Republic; at the 24 5th meeting, the representativesof Cyprus, Czechoslovakia and Hungary; at the2426th meeting, the representative of Ghana; and atthe 2427th meetinla and Uruguay. 3 ?B

, the representatives of Guatema-he Council considered the item at

yG82:20th to 2427th meetings, from 23 to 29 March.

At the 2420th meeting, the representative of

The representative of the United States said thatthe people of Nicaragua had longed for .a democraticrevolution and had fought against the dlctatorshlp ofAnastasio Somoza because they had been promiseddemocracy. The Sandinist National Liberation Front(FSLN) had committed itself to respect human rightsand the freedom of all Nicaraguans, including minor-ities. It had committed itself to free elections and arule of regular civil law. The Council could not beindifferent to what had happened to those commit-ments. Nicaragua had been claiming for some timethat an invasion b the United States was imminent.On the contrary, IJicaragua was the country involvedin a major effort to destabilize other Governments inCentral America, like those of El Salvador andHonduras. Nicaragua had violated Costa Rica’sborder. It had also violated Costa Rica’s rights byattempts to deny it use of the San Juan River. TheUnited States was prepared to join with othermembers of the Western hemisphere, or the Council,or to stand aside while other members of thathemisphere-and of Central America specifically-worked out solutions which provided for thoseuarantees that had been promised by the Sandinista

& ovemment to its people; respect for human rights,good-nei bourliness and for the right of peoples tochoose tI?eir own Government through competitiveand free elections.’

Nicaragua said that his country was facing a newescalation of United States aggressive acts by way ofmassive infiltration of mihtafy units of Somozacounter-revolutionaries from Honduras. The Somo-zist groups existed only because of the financialassistance and direction by the United States. Ac-cording to Nicaraguan intelligence sources, thou-

The representative of Nicaragua proposed to Hon-duras that the proposal of peace and negotiationpresented by the Governments of Mexico and Vene-zuela in October 1982 be taken up and that theprocess of discussion between the two countriesmight thus begin. He repeated that Nicaragua wasdeveloping its defenses In an eminently defensivemanner in order to ensure the independence and

P8H II 255- territorial integrity and the very existence of its

revolution.4At the 242 I st meeting, the representative of Mexi-

co said that the current conflicts in Central Americacould be settled only by means of political negotia-tions, dialogue and economic and social development. Any attempt to impose a strict ideologicalstrategic strait jacket on what was ha pening

Pin

Central America was anachronistic. Al those in-volved in the incursion, which had just begun, shouldimmediately suspend their support and sponsorshipof such a dangerous enterprise. The General Assem-bly’s decision that it was necessary to end all militaryassistance to El Salvador must be reflected in theCouncil and be made to encompass the entire CentralAmerican region.5

The representative of Cuba said that the UnitedStates was trying to use Honduras as an outpost forAmerican intervention to put down the Nicaraguanrevolution. The Councii should ensure the preven-tion of any complication of the conflict, which couldlead to a larger conflict. The aggressive acts againstNicaragua were part of a premeditated plan todestabilize it.s

The representative of Panama detailed the out-come of the Contadora meeting, and said that therecent events in Nicaragua had confirmed the assess-ment of the situation by the Seventh Conference ofHeads of State or Government of Non-AlignedCountries, held at New Delhi from 7 to I2 March1983. Panama had made eve effort to restore peacein Central America and had axarmed the full applica-bility of the right to self-determination of peoples,respect for national sovereignty and territorial integ-rity of States, the sovereign equality of States, non-intervention in the internal affairs of States, non-useof the threat or use of force and the peacefulsettlement of disputes, as well as the right of allpeople to decide and freely to pursue their political,economic, social and cultural systems. Currentevents in Nicaragua did not constitute an internalaffair of that country, as claimed by some, but were aclear case of foreign intervention a

18”inst Nicaragua.

Panama appealed to all States to re rain from an actthat might contribute to a further worsening or thealready critical situation5

At the 2422nd meeting, the representative of Spainsaid that his Government viewed with great concernthe escalation of conflicts in the Central Americanregion and particularly in Nicaragua. The armedactions taking place inside Nicaraguan territory wereaimed at destabilizing the Government of that coun-try. The Government of Spain considered that nei-ther aggression nor armed intervention could beaccepted and that in no case could they constitute asolution to the grave problems afflicting the CentralAmerican region.6

The representative of Zimbabwe recalled the graveconcern expressed by the Ministerial Meeting of theCoordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countriesheld at Managua. He stressed that Nicaragua did notneed intervention and interference in its internalaffairs, but it needed financial, material and technicalassistance and support from the international com-munity.?

The representative of Colombia said the influenceof “military apparatuses” that had been involved inCentral America should be eliminated. At the meet-ings of foreign ministers at which it had participated,

a request had been made on a Colombian initiativefor the withdrawal of all military and securityadvisers in the region, especially from El Salvador,Honduras and Nicaragua.6

The representative of China said that an importantcause of the current tension around Nicaragua and,consequently, the deteriorating situation in all Cen-tral America, lay in the intervention by a super-Power. Such intervention was firmly opposed by thecountries of that region; to diminish and removetension in Central America it was essential that thesuper-Power should cease its intervention there. Theindependence, sovereignty and territorial integrity ofNicaragua and other States of Central Americashould be respected. Central American problemsshould be solved by the peoples of the regionthemselves.6

At the 2423rd meeting, the representative ofGuyana underlined that no State had the right todictate to the people of Nicaragua how they shouldorganize their internal affairs. In relations betweenStates, the principles of international law should beinviolate and scru ulousl respected. That was theonly guarantee oP rpeace ul and stable inter-Staterelations. The people of Nicaragua were striving fornothing more than their political, economic andsocial advancement. Appeahng for full respect for theindependence, sovereiNicaragua, he referred

nty and territorial integrity ofto the proposals of the Gov-

emments of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Vene-zuela and expressed support for that initiative.R

The representative of Pakistan said that Nicaraguadeserved help and support to complete the process ofchange in eace and to consolidate the foundations ofa better Ii e for their present and future generations.FThe Council might consider, as a first step, sending afact-finding mission to the region to assess thesituation on the ground and to report its findings tothe Council. The dispatch of such a fact-findingmission would in itself serve to reduce tension andwould be in conformity with the recommendation inthe Secretary-General’s report to the General Assem-bly at its thirty-seventh session on the work of theOrganization.9

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thatthe numerous facts demonstrated that the primemover behind the direct armed intervention againstNicaragua was the United States. The situation inthat area posed a direct threat to international peaceand security. The Soviet Union supported the appealof Nicaragua to the Council to call upon the UnitedStates to put an end to acts of provocation againstNicaragua and to halt the undeclared war beingwaged against that country by the United StatesAdministration.8

The representative of France said that his Govem-ment was appealing for moderation. It rejectedrecourse to force and wanted to see the establishmentof a climate of understanding, which would make itpossible to resolve all the problems of the region bydialogue and negotiation. He welcomed the Contado-ra Declaration and supported its principles, in partic-ular its condemnation of interference in Latin Ameri-can disputes.n

The representative of India emphasized that Nica-ragua had a rightful expectation that the Councilwould help it preserve its independence and territori-al integrity. The Council should not lose time inendless debate but should find ways and means of

256 Chapter VIII. Maiatenmcc of intcnmtiod peace rod samity

preventing a deterioration of the situation and adeepening of the conflict. It was imperative that allarmed intervention and action be halted immediate-Iry

. Any attempt to involve extraregional or globalorces could result only in exacerbating an already

difficult situation in Central America.At the 2424th meeting, the representative of

Honduras said that his Government had reclaimedits complete neutrality in the internal con Ricts afIIict-ing neighbouring countries and its sincere interestthat those fraternal peoples would enjoy the preciousgift of peace and democracy through dialogue, under-standing and mutual respect.lO

The representative of Nicaradelegation of Honduras an of+

ua presented to thelcial proposal of his

Government for the President of Honduras and theCo-ordinator of the Governing Junta of Nicaragua tomeet-, preferably in the presence of the Presidents ofMexico and Venezuela, to discuss relations betweenNicaragua and Honduras. The Government of Hon-duras should choose a place in Mexico or Venezuelaand the date for the meeting. The speaker alsoproposed that the United States and NicaraguaImmediate1

z;begin direct talks in a third country to

be chosen y common consent.lOAt the 2425th meeting, the representative of

Venezuela said that the peace efforts initiated by theForeign Ministers of Panama, ColDmbia, Mexico andVenezuela were hampered by the participation ofother interests that were more concerned with theirown he emonic

Bpositions than with the establish-

ment o peace. Moreover, interests of the super-Power inhibited Council action, and viewed theCentral American problem as an element of theirEast-West confrontation. The mutual accusations inthe Council were not a path towards the establish-ment of a dialogue. He invited Nicaragua andHonduras, along with other Central American coun-tries, to begin a frank dialo ue that would enable therestoration of trust, the 7on y effective path towardsthe achievement of peace. Latin American problemsmust be resolved by its own people, without foreigninterference.]’

The re resentative of the Dominican Republic saidit had ort!ered its territory as the site for a meeting ofall Central American countries. It would be folly forthe parties involved in the dispute not to negptiate.He also appealed to the countries concerned with thestrengthenmg of peace to exercise their good officestowards attaining that goal. The situation should notbe allowed to escalate further, thereby making itimpossible for reason, good judgement and civihzedcoexistence to prevail. The Dominican Republiccalled for an immediate meeting of all the parties.ll

At the 2426th meeting, the representative of Perumade a formal proposal, which he said could providea reasonable and acceptable basis for the partiesdirectly concerned in the dispute to initiate negotia-tions. It would include the following elements:

(a) A commitment to avoid in talks to be agreedupon any ideological and

rlitical polarization in the

general consideration of a I the problems confrontingCentral America;

(b) The exclusion of all interests foreign to thesubregion and alien to its overall problems, with thefocus on the well-being of the region’s peoplesthrough a genuine process of development in aclimate of peace and democracy;

(c) Strict respect for the principles and norms ofinternational law enshrined in the Charter and otherinternational instruments;

(d) An immediate cessation of all acts of hostilitybetween Honduras and Nicaragua by a Councildecision that could be implemented throu

Pma-

chinery established in Chapters VII and VII of theCharter;

(e) The Council miP

t wish to adopt provisionalmeasures concomitant y contributing to such a cessa-tion of hostilities and making possible an effectivedialogue between all the parties concerned-Hondu-ras and Nicaragua to begin with, and then the fiveCentral American nations;

v) With the prior consent of the parties, theCouncil might decide to send a Commission tosupervise the cessation of hostilities in the borderregion;

(g) Agreement on immediate measures to curb thearms race and the growing militarization of theregion’s countries. I*

The representative of Argentina said the Contado-ra initiative constituted the basis for settling aconflict which, should it worsen, would have unpre-dictable consequences that would seriously affect thesituation in Latin America and possible beyond.!*

At the 2427th meeting, the representative ofGuatemala said the five Central American countriesattached the greatest significance to unity but thatunity had been broken and must be restored. Guate-mala offered to host a conference of all CentralAmerican countries to seek a solution to theirproblems. Guatemala would not intervene in theInternal affairs of other countries or promote associa-tions for that purpose. However, it demanded thesame treatment in retum.13

The President of the Council drew attention to theserious situation and appealed to delegations, bothCouncil members and non-members, to exercise duerestraint in their interventions. The work of theCouncil would achieve success only if the Membersapplied themselves constructively to the problems.

Then, speaking in his capacity as representative ofthe United Kingdom, he suggested that the Councilcould recommend additional measures for resolvingthe problems of the region, for instance a dialogueamong the States of the region, perhaps in form of aconference to consider the problems of CentralAmerica, bilateral as well as multilateral, in whichother Latin American States might be asked toparticipate. The Council’s assistance and the goodoffces of the Secretary-General could be an effectivemeans towards that end. If a conference were toemerge as the most promising route, a number ofquestions, such as its terms of reference, its date andplace, its composition, and the status of the partici-pants, would need to be resolved. The Secretary-General should discuss those questions with theStates concemed.13

NOTESI No decision other than invitations issued in accordance with

the procedural rules of procedure was taken by the Council.1 S/ 15651, OR, 38th yr., Suppf. for Jan.-March 1983.I For details, see chap. III of the present Supplemenl.4 2420th mtg.J 242 I st mtg.

Put I I 257

6 2422nd mtg.’ Ibid. See also the statement by the representative of the United

Republic ol Tanzania.a 2423rd mtg.* GAOR. J7lh sess.. Suppl. No. I (A/37/I).lo 2424th mtg.II 2425th mtg.‘2 2426th mtg.I1 2427th mtg.

18. LEITER DATED 5 MAY 1983 FROM THE REPRESEN-TATIVE OF NICARAGUA ON THE SECURITY COLJN-CIL ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECU-RITY COUNCIL

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

Decision of 19 May 1983 (2437th meeting): resolu-tion 530 (1983)By letter’ dated 5 May 1983, the representative of

Nicaragua requested an urgent meeting of the Coun-cil in view of what he described as the launching of anew stage of the invasion of his country by counter-revolutiona Somozist forces operating out of Hon-duras and manced, trained and supported by the;YUnited States.*

,-

At its 2431st meeting, on 9 May 1983, the Councilincluded the item in its agenda and invited thefollowing, at their request, to participate, without theright to vote, in the discussion of the item: at thesame meeting, the representatives of Grenada, Hon-duras, Mexico and the Syrian Arab Republic; and atthe 2432nd meeting, the representatives of Al eria,Cuba, Ethiopia, Guatemala, the Islamic Repub ic of‘IIran, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali and Sey-chelles; at the 2433rd meeting, the representattves ofArgentma, Costa Rica, El Salvador, the Lao People’sDemocratic Republic, Mauritius, Panama, Sao Tomeand Principe, Spain and Venezuela; at the 2434thmeeting, the representatives of Columbia and VietNam; at the 2435th meeting, the representatives ofthe Congo and U anda; at the 2436th meeting, therepresentatives of the Dominican Republic andGreece; and,. at the 2437th meeting, the representa-tives of Indta and Yugoslavia.3

At the 2434th meeting, the Council also decided toextend an invitation to Mr. Ahmed Gora Ebrahimunder rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure.3The Council considered the question at its 2431st to2437th meetings, from 9 to 19 May 1983.

At the 2431st meeting, the representative of Nica-ra

plua stated that he had come before the Council to

in orm its members of the ever-increasin ma nitudea l!of the aggression against Nicaragua, whit ha begun

in late 1982, and of the grave damage, suffering,death and destruction caused by that aggression,which was directed, financed and armed by theUnited States. He asked that the Council adopt allnecessary measures to halt the aggression and reiter-ated his Government’s willingness to hold an imme-diate, unconditional dialogue with the United Statesin order to find genuine solutions to the criticalsituation caused by the aggression against his coun-tly.4

The representative of Honduras said that onceagain Nicaragua had given the Council distorted andtendentious informatlon with regard to what it calleda new stage of the invasion of Nicaragua by forces

acting from the territory of Honduras, that Nicaraguahad not presented any clear evidence to prove theallegations and that those fighting were Nicaraguanson Nicaraguan territory trying to obtain justice. Hestated that Honduras had a long list of violations ofits soverei nty and territorial integrity by Nicaragua.Those pro%lems could be resolved once and for all ifthe Honduran proposal calling for internationalsupervision and monitoring of border and strategicareas were accepted. The Council should recommendthat Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaraguaand Costa Rica, at the foreign ministers level, withother Latin American countrres present and collabo-rating, should begin a dialogue covering regionalproblems as a whole and resulting in solutions to theserious problems of Central America.s

The representative of the United States stated thatit was an extraordinary experience to hear Nicaraguainvoke the principle of non-intervention in internalaffairs and to accuse the United States of invasioninasmuch as the Sandinistas had been busy foment-ing war in the region, destroying the peace and thepossibility of progress in El Salvador, Honduras andother neighbouring States and forcing militarizationon the region. She referred to a magazine articleshowing the routes for arms traffic, and the regularflow of arms from Nicaragua through Honduras intoEl Salvador. Reviewing the charges regarding Nicara-gua’s infiltration of neighbouring Honduras andGuatemala, she stated that the United States Govem-ment had repeatedly sought to establish constructiverelations with Nicaragua and to achieve regionalpeace through peace

Froposals based on an end to

Nicaraguan sup rt or guerrillas in neighbouringcountries. She a trmed that the United States wouldR”support any agreement amon

?Central American

countries for the withdrawal o all foreign militaryadvisers as well as any verifiable reciprocal agree-ment among Central American countries on therenunciation of support for insurgent Govemments.5

The representative of Nicaragua stated that hisGovernment had asked the Council to considerexclusively the grave problems and the consequencesof the aggression to which his country was a victim.He also pointed out that no proof whatever had beenproduced of routes for a traffic in arms being used byNicaragua through Honduran territory in order tosend arms to El Salvador.’

At the 2432nd meeting, on 13 May 1983, therepresentative of Mexico stated that, to ether withColombia, Panama and Venezuela, hf exico h a dstepped up contacts aimed at the reduction of tensionand the search for practical mechanisms acceptableto all parties which could lay the groundwork for

Race. He added that Mexico and the United States

ad agreed to promote dialogues and negotiations inorder to avoid armed conflict and to advance peace-ful conditions and economic development. The cli-mate of threats and verbal aggression, however, hadintensified and the centres of confrontation hadmultiplied, therefore, the Council was duty bound tooffer a rapid and effective response to the problembrought before it and to contribute resolutely to anegotiated settlement6

The representative of Zimbabwe stated that unlessimmediately checked, the build-up of tensions on theNicaraguan-Honduran and Nicaragua-Costa Ricanfrontiers would soon lead to open military conflictsin the area. Welcoming the Contadora initiatives byMexico, Venezuela, Panama and Columbia, he said

258 Chapter VIII. Mai~tenmce of inttrmtiod peace and secmity

that the Council must exert maximum effortstowards ne otiated and peaceful solutions to theproblems. Ife believed that the first positive step inthat direction was for the Council to adopt aresolution iving the Secreta -General authority toinitiate wit!i out delay good-o2Ices efforts, preferablyin co-ordination wrth the Contadora group. TheCouncil should also warn all concerned, and especial-ly States outside Central America, to refrain fromany interference or intervention7

At the 2433rd meeting, on I6 May 1983, therepresentative of Nicaragua described new acts ofaggression against Nicaragua and reviewed the at-tempt to establish with Honduras a ‘oint patrol planfor their ‘oint border. He blamed

t’l-i onduras for the

failure o that initiative and stressed the need fordirect dialogue with Honduras in the presence of therepresentatives of the Contadora Group.*

Rejecting the Nicaraguan accusations, the repre-sentative of Honduras stated that Honduras had keptits word not to interfere in Nicaragua nor to mobilizeits troops and that its suggestron to establish ademilitarized zone on the Atlantic and the Pacificwas still pending. Honduras was read to arrive, incollaboration with the Contadora A roup, at anagreement as a result of a regional consensus involv-ing not only Honduras and Nicaragua but also CostaRica, El Salvador and Guatemala.9

At the 2436th meeting, on I8 May 1983, therepresentative of the United Kingdom stated thatjudging from some of the speeches, his delegation feltthat the Council should reafftrm theout in the Contadora Grou

Rbulletin o P

rinciples set12 May and

support the multilateral e arts of the Group withbilateral talks on the side.‘O

The re resentative of China said that meddling byoutside orces, and especially the attempts of theFsuper-Powers to extend their rivalry to CentralAmerica, had multiplied the complexity of the issueand constituted an underlying cause of the presenttension in the region. It was imperative to stop alloutside interventton, especially super-Power inter-vention or intimidation. Reafftrming the expectationthat differences and disputes amon various CentralAmerican States would be settle d peacefully andwithout outside intervention, he said that Chinahoped that the Latin-American countries, especiallythose of the Contadora Group, would achieve posi-tive results. China also lent its support to all UnitedNations efforts conducive to the easing and elimina-tion of tension in the region.lO

The representative of the Soviet Union pointed outthat the statement of Nicaragua showed incontrover-tibly that a second, more dangerous phase had be unin the armed intervention against Nicaragua. f hefact that the United States had discussed exclusivelythe internal affairs of Nicara ua, cast doubt on thelegitimacy of the Nicaraguan bovemment and madepluralism and a mixed economy preconditions fornegotiations with Nicaragua, was a clear example ofdirect interference in the internal affairs of a sover-eign State. The Soviet Union supported the Nicara-guan demand that the United States cease its unde-clared war a

fainst that country and advocated a just

settlement o international disputes at the negotiatingtable. He concluded by saying that it was the duty ofthe Council to follow closely the development of thesituation and to take all necessary measures to

safeguard the security, sovereignty and territorialintegrity of Nicaragua.‘*

The representative of Poland said that the Councilshould undertake decisive efforts to brin about anegotiated, peaceful solution of the prob emsIt thathad been created on Nicaragua’s borders. The firststep would be to adopt a resolution reaffirming theright of Nicaragua to live in peace and security, freefrom outside intervention and the threat or use offorce. The Council should warn all concerned torefrain from open or covert interference in Nicara-guan internal affairs. New possibilities should beopened for dialogue and a negotiated solution, withthe assistance of the Contadora Group and theUnited Nations.lO

At its 2437th meetin , on 19 May 1983, theCouncil had before it a raft resolutionl’ sponsoreddjointly by Guyana, Jordan, Malta, Nicaragua, Paki-stan, Togo, Zaire and Zimbabwe.

The representative of Yugoslavia said that thedraft resolution submitted by the non-aligned mem-bers of the Security Council complemented theefforts of the Contadora Group: it neither con-demned nor recriminated, and deserved the supportof the Securit

rCouncil. He urged that at a certain

point in the uture it might be necessary to drawupon the knowled e,

9authority and wisdom of the

Secretary-General.’The representative of Malta, a co-sponsor of the

draft resolution, announced that the sponsors hadagreed to replace “I 3 May 1983” in the sixthpreambular paragraph by “ I2 May 1983”, and toreplace the openmg words of operative paragraph4-‘4 Calls upon”- b y “Urges”. Noting that the draftresolution was the outcome of a sustained collectiveeffort, taking into account all the views expressed, hehoped that it would be adopted unanimously.‘*

The draft resolution as orally amended was adopt-ed by I5 votes in favour as resolution 530 (l983).lSThe resolution reads as follows:

The Security Council.Having heard the statements of’ the Minister for External

Relations of the Republic of Nicaragua,Having also heard the statements of the representatives of

various States Members of the United Nations in the course of thedebate,

Deeply concerned, on the one hand, at the situation prevailing onand inside the northern border of Nicaragua and, on the otherhand, at the consequent danger of a military confrontationbetween Honduras and Nicaragua, which could further aggravatethe existing critical situation in Central America,

Recalling all the relevant principles of the Charter of the UnitedNations, particularly the obligation of States to settle their disputesexclusively by peaceful means, not to resort to the threat or use offorce and to respect the self-determination of peoples and thesovereign independence of all States,

Noring the widespread desire expressed by the States concernedto achieve solut ions to the di f ferences between them,

Commending the appeal of the Contadora Group of countries,Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, in its 12 May 1983communiqu6, that the deliberations of the Council shouldstrengthen the principles of self-determination and non-interfer-ence in the affairs of other States, the obligation not to allow theterritory of a State to be used for committing acts of aggressionagainst other States, the peaceful settlement of disputes and theprohibition of the threat or use of force to resolve conflict,

Considering the broad support expressed for the efforts of theContadora Group to achieve solutions to the problems that affectCentral American countries and to secure a stable and lastingpeace in the region.

Part I I 2 5 9

I. Reaffirms the right of Nicaragua and of all the othercountries of the area to live in peace and security, free fromoutside interference;

2 . Commends the efforts of the Contadora Group and urgesthe pursuit of those efforts;

3. Appeals urgently to the interested States to cooperate fullywith the Contadora Group, through a frank and constructivedialogue, so as to resolve their differences;

4. Urges the Contadora Group to spare no effort to findsolutions to the problems of the region and to keep the SecurityCouncil informed of the results of these efforts;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Council in-formed of the development of the situation and of the implemcn-tation of the present resolution.

After the vote, the representative of Nicaraguastated that the very fact that the United States hadnot opposed the resolution was seen by Nicaragua asa mantfestation of its will to put an end to armeda$

ression against Nicaragua and to respect the righto its people to live in peace and security free fromany foreign interference. He said that if it provedotherwise, it would be Nicaragua’s duty once again tocome back to the Council.**

The representative of the United States said thatNicaragua had maligned and misrepresented thepolicies of the United States and of Honduras andthat once Nicaragua was willin to fultil its obliga-tions and promises to its nei8 bours and its ownpeople, there would be no further problems betweenthe United States and Nicaragua.‘*

NOTES1 S/l 5746. OR, 38th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1983.* For similar charges and counter charges, see s/l 5742 and

S/l 5145, ibid.r For details. see chap. I11 of the present Supp/emenr.4 2431~1 mtg. Similar views were expressed by Ethiopia (2432nd

mtg.), Syrian Arab Republic and Cuba (2433rd mtg.).J 2431st mtg.* 2432nd mtg. Similar views were expressed by Panama (2434th

mtg.) and Venezuela and Colombia (2435th mtg).r 2432nd mtn. Similar views were expressed at the same meeting

by Seychelles &td Algeria and at the 2633rd meeting by Mauritius,See also the letter dated 13 May 1983 (S/15762, OR, 38fh yr.,Supul. /or April-June 1983) from the representative of Panamatransmuting-the information bulletin issued at the conclusion ofthe meeting held on I I and 12 May 1983 at Panama City by theMinisters of External Relations of Colombia, Mexico, Panama andVenezuela (known as the Contadora Group).

1 2433rd mtg.9 Ibid. Similar views were expressed by Guatemala (ibid.), Costa

Rica (2435th mtg.) and El Salvador (ibid.).

lo 2436th mtg.II S/15770. subsequently adopted as resolution 530 (1983).I2 2437th mtg.I3 Ibid. For the vote, see also chap. IV of the present Supplement

19. LETTER DATED 2 AUGUST 1983 FROM THE PERMA-NENT REPRESENTATIVE OF CHAD TO THE UNITEDNATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THESECURITY COUNCIL

-INITIAL PROCEEDlNGS

By letter’ dated 2 August 1983, the PermanentRepresentative of Chad to the United Nations re-quested an urgent meetinthe grave situation in E

of the Council to considerhad resulting from open

Libyan aggression against that country.

At its 2462nd meeting, on 3 August 1983, theCouncil included this question in its a enda. Follow-ing the adoption of the agenda, the Eouncil invitedthe following, at their request, to participate withoutvote in the discussion: the representatives of Chadand the Libyan Arab Jamahinya; and at the 2463rdmeeting, the representatives of Egypt, the IslamicRepubhc of Iran, the Ivory Coast, Liberia and theSudan; at the 2465th meetin , the representatives ofBenin, Guinea, Kenya, the iger, Senk

7al and the

United Republic of Cameroon; at the 2 67th meet-ing, the representative of Somalia; and at the 2469thmeetin , the representative of the Con o.* TheCounci 7 considered the question at its 2 62nd tof2465th, 2467th and 2469th meetings, from 3 Augustto 31 August 1983.

Opening the discussion at the 2462nd meeting, therepresentative of Chad accused the Libyan ArabJamahiriya of stepping up its acountry. He charged that since 1 July 1983, whenT

ession against his

the Chadian National Armed Forces had retaken thetown of Faya-Lar eanLibyan Air Force a

in the north of Chad, thead been massively bombing the

town, causing many casualties among the civilianpopulation. Chad had come before the Council todayto allow it to assume its responsibilities with regardto that situation, which undoubtedly threatenedinternational peace and security.

The speaker recalled the previous discussions inthe Council relatin to the border dispute betweenthe two countries. I-fe charged that withm two days ofthe Council’s adoption, on 6 April, of a statement3calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict andurging the parties to refrain from any action thatmrght exacerbate the situation, the Libyan ArabJamahiriya had flouted that statement. In a message’dated 24 June 1983, the President of the Republic ofChad had informed the Council of a subsequentescalation of Libyan aggression. However, thanks tothe energetic reaction of the government forces,backed b logistical support from countries respond-ing to a t: hadian appeal, the Libyan forces had beenrouted and the central authorities had again takencontrol of the entire eastern part of the country.

Successive Governments of Chad had held talkswith the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in an effort toarrive at a peaceful settlement of the dispute, andChad remained willing to neg0tiate.j However, theLibyan intention contmued to be to destabilize thegovernment regime in order to set up another regimethat would be of its own persuasion. Thus, theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya would be able to perpetuateits occupation of the Aouzou Strip, to annex theentire country and to use it as a base for aggressionagainst neighbouring countries, and finally to carryout its dream of creating the “United States of theSahel”.

The representative of Chad accused the LibyanArab Jamahiriya of violating the principles of theCharter of the United Nations, the charter of theOrganization of African Unity (OAU) and the Move-ment of Non-Aligned Countries. He urged the Coun-cil to condemn the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for itsbombing of Chadian townships, to order an end tosuch bombings and to order the withdrawal ofLibyan occupation forces from Chad.6

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiri adenied the allegations contained in the letters dated 1and 2 August 1983 from Chad.’ He said that the

260 Chapter VIII. Mdntcnancc of iatemdioad pact d wcdty

position of his country had been clarified in previousstatements in the Council and in its communicationsdated 27 June 1983,* 5 July 19839 and 2 August1983.1° He stressed that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyahad not intervened in the affairs of Chad and sentneither planes nor troops to that country. Moreover,the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had declared its neutral-ity vis-&vis the current conflict in Chad and hadproposed that OAU send a fact-finding mission toChad to verify it.

He underlined that his Government did not recog-nize the current Government of Chad and regardedas extremely grave the direct intervention of theUnited States, France and Zaire in Chad, whichentailed risks for peace and security in the region andin the world. Speaking of the efforts of the LibyanArab Jamahiriya to bring about national conciliationin Chad, he elaborated on the Libyan view of thepost-independence events in Chad that had led to themstallation of Mr. Hissein HabrC in his presentposition. The speaker reiterated the readiness of hiscountry to work with other African States to help toachieve peace and security in Chad.6

The representative of Zaire said that the forces ofZaire were in Chad at the request of the Governmentof Hissein Habre and would remain there as long asthat Government wished.6

At the 2463rd meeting, on 11 August 1983, theSecretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Co-opera-tion of Chad stated that the Libyan aggression hadincreased considerably in the last few days and hadtaken “the form of virtual genocide of the people ofChad with indiscriminate bombing of sites in thenorth and east of the country by the Libyan AirForce”. He also described attempts by the LibyanArab Jamahiriya to obstruct a solution of the Chadi-an problem and produced documents and photo-graphs to prove the Libyan interference in Chad. TheLibyan army, he charged, included a ents of allnationalities, recruited primarily from 8 ubSaharancountries and sent to training camps in the LibyanArab Jamahiriya through Benin. He reiterated therequest of his Government and the people of Chadthat the Council strongly condemn the Libyan ArabJamahiriya for its armed aggression against Chad anddemand its withdrawal from Chadian territory.”

The representative of the Sudan characterized thestatement by the Libyan representative as a desperateattempt to deny the intervention of the Libyan ArabJamahiriya in Chad. No dispute over the legitimacyof Governments could serve as a pretext for occupa-tion, aggression, expansion or appropriation of theterrttory by force. The Sudan strongly condemnedthe Libyan a ression against the people of Chad and

PBcalled upon t e Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to put animmediate end to material and logistic assistance tothe insurgents aspeaker msiste %

ainst the Government of Chad. Thethat the two countries enter into

negotiations to end the dispute. He appealed to theinternational community and to African countries togive whatever assistance they could to the Govem-ment and people of Chad to bring about the neces-sary economic and social development.”

The representative of To ocountries concerned to P

appealed to bothapp y without delay the

statement of the Council of 6 April 1983.’ He saidthat the international community could not acceptthe occupation and bombardment of Chad as a faitaccompli since that would jeopardize the confidence

that militarily weak, small countries placed in theUnited Nations to ensure their independence, sover-cignty and territorial integrity.”

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,speaking in exercise of his right to reply, reiteratedthat the conflict in Chad was strictly an internalmatter and that imperialist forces were tryininternationalize the dispute by supporting one of

tothe

parties with weapons, troops and aircraft. He claimedthat the current Government in Chad was notlegitimate and did not enjoy the support of theChadian people, and that its army was composed ofno more than a few mercenaries of various nationali-ties; he cited newspaper articles in support of hiscontentions. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, he main-tained, was prepared to co-operate and enter intodialogue with any legitimate Government in Chad.”

In response to the statement made by the Libyanrepresentative about the legitimacy of the Govem-ment of Chad, the President of the Council (France)recalled the Council’s statement of 6 April,3 whichcontained references to the statement made by theForeign Minister of Chad and to the dispute betweenChad and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.”

At the 2465th meeting, the representative of theSoviet Union condemned the escalation of imperial-ist meddling in the internal affairs of Chad as a threatto international peace and security. He expressed hisGovernment’s full support for the efforts of OAU,which was seeking to bring about a peaceful settle-ment to the situation in that country.12

The representative of Benin flatly rejected as falsethe accusations of Chad against his country as being atransit point for mercenaries said to be recruited intoservice by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and addedthat Benin favoured a national conference of recon-ciliation under the auspices of OAU.12

The representative of Kenya said that the Councilshould examine the facts involved in the conflict andmake recommendations that would lead to thepeaceful settlement of the problem. For that purposehe suggested that the following steps be taken: (a) theincursion of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya into Chadi-an territory should be condemned and the Govem-ment of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should be asked,in the spirit of compromise, to withdraw its forcesfrom Chadian territory, immediately and withoutan conditions; (b) the Council should make everye f?ort to devise ways to bring about a Government ofnational unity of Chad, arranging negotiations thatcould be undertaken; (c)the Council should condemnthe acts of aggression against Chad; (d) the Councilshould employ all means available to halt any furtherhostilities in Chad and endeavour to restore orderand to ensure the safety of civilians. (e) the Councilshould respond to Chad’s appeal /or assistance inrecovering its territorial integrity in order that itmight resume its development programmes for thepeople of Chad; and v) the Libyan military forces inthe Aouzou Strip and Faya-Largean should be entire-ly withdrawn.‘*

The representative of the United Kingdom de-plored that the issues regarding Chad which had beenbefore the Council six months earlier and had beenthe sub’ect of a statement of the President on behalfof the A ouncil13 had now returned as if nothing hadbeen achieved earlier on. The only difference wasthat the situation seemed to have gotten worse. Inthat connection he recalled the comments of the

Put 11 261

Secretary-General in his annual report to the GeneralAssembly at its thirty-seventh session on the work ofthe Organization I3 for 1982 about the collectiveresponstbilities of the Council and about the wa inwhtch its members should all take those responsi cili-ties very seriously.

The President of the Council, speakinrepresentative of France, said that Chad ha d

as thebecome

the victim of outrievidence of which %

ht aggression by a foreign Power,ad been clearly submitted. In the

face of the extreme seriousness of the situation, theGovernment of Chad, headed by Mr. Hissein Habr6,had appealed to the French Government for imple-mentatton of the provisions of the co-operationagreement signed by the two countries in 1976.France had responded by adapting and apportioningits assistance in a manner consistent with the fight-ing. The French Government was pursuing no othergoal but that of allowing Chad to exercise fully itsright to self-defence, in full conformity with intema-tional law, as enshrtned in Article 51 of the Charter.France hoped that the problems of Chad mi

8ht be

resolved peacefully among Chadians. Any oreignintervention directed against the Government ofChad should come to an end and, consequently, thearmed intervention from outside should cease. Inthat way it would be possible for OAU once again toplay its rightful role m the issue in accordance withthe resolution adopted at the nineteenth ordinarysession of the Assembly of Heads of State andGovernment of OAU.12

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyaindicated that the tragedy of Chad was a directconsequence of French colonialism, as well as a resultof the continuation of France’s pohcy of interventionand that the sendin of French troops could not beviewed within the 7ramework of the treaty of co-operation between France and Chad and was nothingother than stark military intervention in the civilwar. He then challenged the comments of the Presi-dent at the 2463rd meeting regarding the legitimacyof the HabrC Government and stated that the LibyanArab Jamahiriya doubted that those comments re-flected the views of the Council and considered themas representing the point of view of France only. Hestressed that the Council did not compel any State torecognize the Government of another State, becausethat was the sovereign right of StatesI

The President remarked that he could not acceptthe statement by the representative of the LibyanArab Jamahiriya calling into question the acts of theCouncil. He pointed out that a statement of that kindmade in a debate on a complaint by the Governmentof Chad questioning the legitimacy of that Govem-ment had led to an absolute internal contradiction.‘*

At the 2447th meetin , on 16 August 1983, therepresentative of Zimba6we said that the externalinvolvement in Chad not only undermined anypossibility of national reconciliation there,. but wasalso bound to frustrate efforts by OAU to brmg abouta peaceful solution. Therefore, the best course ofaction open to the Council in the circumstances wasto throw its weight behind the initiatives of 0ALJ.l’

The representative of the Netherlands spoke of thenecessity to maintain the distinction between theprovision, at the request of the legitimate Govem-ment, of military assistance to a country acting inself-defence, on the one hand, and an Instance ofarmed intervention in the affairs of a neighbouring

State in clear violation of the Charter on the otherhand. The dispute between Chad and the LibyanArab Jamahiriya should be solved by negotiationsand not by force.14

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahirimentioned that some speakers had overlooked t Ii

ae

fact that French forces and United States militaryadvisers were present in Chad along with troops fromZaire and the Sudan.14

The reence of !T

resentative of the Sudan denied the pres-udanese troops in Chad and invited the

representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to co-operate with the Council and the internationalcommunity.14

At the 2469th meetin3

, on 3 1 Au ust 1983, therepresentative of the nited King om expresseddregret that the prolonged efforts by the members ofthe Council to secure agreement on some Councilaction had not succeeded. In his delegation’s view theCouncil should not drop the matter. He said that theappeal for a peaceful settlement and the call uponboth sides to refrain from any actions which couldaggravate the current situation had been defied byone of the parties. The Council could not honestlyconsider that it had discharged its responsibilitieswhile the conflict continued and while the membersof the Council had initiated no specific steps to bringabout a solution. He emphasized Article 2, para-graphs 3 and 4, and Article 33 of the Charter andmentioned in particular the principles of territorialintegrity and inviolability of national boundaries, aswell as non-interference in the internal affairs ofStates. He said that to equate the right of Chad toseek the help of friendly States in defending itssecurity with external intervention was a grotesquedistortton of the facts. His Government regrettedthat the Council had not demanded the withdrawalof the armed forces interveninend to attempts to f

against Chad, and andestabi ize that country by

military means and had not condemned the use offorce and the occupation of part of its territory by aneighbouring country.”

The representative of the Netherlands expressedthe opinion that it was high time that the debateresulted in appropriate actlon by the Council. Hethen proposed certain elements to which all partiesconcerned should be able to subscribe. First, hementioned the deep concern expressed by all speak-ers at the serious aggravation of the military situationin Chad; nobody had disputed that the conflictbetween Chad and the Libyan Arab Jamahiri ashould be resolved through negotiations and not gyforce. Secondly, he stated that negotiations could berenewed within the context of OAU in conformitywith the resolution adopted by the Assembly ofHeads of State and Government of OAU during itsnmeteenth ordinary session at Addis Ababa, invitingChad and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to seek anegotiated solution to their differences within thecontext of an ad hoc mediation committee establish-ed by OAU. Thirdly, the least the Council could dowas to request the Secretary-General to take appro-priate measures in order to follow actively thesituation in Chad and to keep the Council informedabout the developments in that country. He said thathis Government would be prepared to support a draAresolution of the Council containing the above-men-tioned elements. He invited those that had shownthemselves to be reluctant to support such a minimal,

262 Chapter VIII. Mdattmnct 01 inttrnational pact and stcwity

non-partisan and moderate stance of the Council tochange their minds.l$

The representative of Guyana said that a helpfulresponse by the Council could have been the estab-lishment and prompt dispatch of a fact-findingmission to assess the situation on the grounds and theextent to which the relevant principles were beingviolated and the goals and aspirations of the peopleof Chad were being obstructed, if at all, and bywhom. The mission would thereafter report to theCouncil. The speaker also asked for the applicationof Articles 34, 35 and 52 of the Charter in that case.15

The representative of the United States deploredthat the Council had not responded to the appeal ofChad unequivocally and immediately. On 4 Augustthe Council should have been prepared to vote on adraft resolution that condemned Libyan aggressionand that demanded the cessation of fightin and theimmediate withdrawal of Libyan forces zrom theterritory of Chad. In the absence of such a draftresolution there was little reason to be proud on thepart of the Council and the world Organization.ls

The reP

resentative of Pakistan said that the exter-nal inter erence in Chad’s affairs, in utter disregardfor its political independence and territorial integrity,was the central issue constituting the internationaldimension of the Chadian crisis. He regretted thatthe Council, despite its strenuous efforts, had notcome up with a decision that could full respond tothe conditions of intervention and con ict in Chad.xA proper response from the Council should includethe following elements: (a) an aflirmation of respectfor the political independence, sovereignty, territorialintegritprincip es of non-use of force, non-interference andr

and unity of Chad and observance of the

non-intervention in the internal affairs of States; (b)the termination of all foreign intervention, the with-drawal of foreign forces and a call upon the partiesinvolved in the conflict to disengage so as to allowthe process of peace to gather momentum; and (c)encouragement and support for efforts by OAU toachieve a peaceful solution of the roblem afflictingChad. As for a dispatch of a fact- Plnding mission toChad, that moment had passed and the Councilshould confine its role to encouraging OAU. Shouldthe efforts of OAU fail to bear fruit, the Councilshould resume its consideration of the situation andtake appropriate measures in the discharge of itsCharter responsibilities.‘5

The representative of the Soviet Union pointed outthat from the Council’s consideration two sepolicies had clearly emerged: one was “Africa or theP

arate

Africans’* -letting OAU settle the difficult problemitself. The Soviet Union supported that pol$y andwould continue to support It. The other @ICY was“Africa as a sphere-of-influence**-a pohcy upheldby those who would like to continue to resolveAfrica’s affairs by themselves, those who would liketo return Africa to the sad time of the BerlinCongress. But such a policy was the echo of a remotepast: it had also been re’ected by most of themembers of the Council. T herefore, the policy thathad been pursued by one narrow roup of States inthe Council had been obviously B oomed to failureand, accordingly, had fai1ed.15

The representative of the Congo brought to theattention of the members of the Council the Declara-tion of Brazzaville on the situation in Chad, adoptedon 16 August 1983 by the Heads of State of Central

Africa.16 According to the document, the currentChairman of OAU was requested to establish contactwith all the parties concerned with a view to achiev-ing, (a) a cease-fire; (6) the withdrawal of all foreigntroops in Chad; and (c) a prohibition of all countriesfrom interfering in the internal affairs of Chad.

The representative of Libya stressed once a ainthat the situation in Chad was the result o B aninternal civil war which had ideological, religious,tribal and ethnic roots and was being encouraged bythe imperialist countries. The Libyan Arab Jamahiri-ya stood ready to contribute to any initiative aimedat putting an end to the civil war and to bringingabout national reconciliation and believed that thebest solution was to leave the whole matter to OAU.ls

The representative of Chad stated that the text thathad been proposed by the President for adoption waspurely procedural and constituted the very least thatcould have been expected from the Council. Heexpressed regret that in spite of enormous conces-sions on the part of his delegation the non-alignedgroup in the Council was unable to arrive at acompromise text based on the Chadian draft resolu-tion. He called it a serious evasion of responsibilityby the non-aligned members of the Council. Heobjected to the-recommendations to refer the ques-tion to OAU. as the functioning of the Ad HocCommittee 06 the Chad-Libyan dGpute was blockedby the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. He concluded thatChad reserved its right to return to the Council at anytime.ls

The President, speaking as the representative ofFrance, recalled the position of his count withregard to the important roles of OAU and the7lJ nitedNations. He said that bearing in mind the initiativebeing prepared by OAU, his country a

%reed that the

Council, without evading its responsi ilities in thematter, should not take a position on that day.

N O T E S

I S/I 5902, OR, 38rh yr., Sup& for July-Sept. 1983.

* For details see chap. III of the present Supplemenl.

J s/15688, OR, 38th yr., Resolutions and Decisions of theSecurity Council, 1983. For further details, see in sect. I6 of thepresent chapter.

‘S/15843, OR. 38th yr., Suppl. for April-June 1983.y For relevant communications regarding those efforts, see

s/ 15809 and S/1 5897, ibid., Suppl. for July-Sept. 1983.

6 2462nd mtg.

J S/15897, S/15898 and 5/15902, OR, 38rh yr., Suppl. for Juiy-Sept. 1983.

* Sf I 5844, ibid.. Suppl. for April-June 1983.

9 Sf 15856, ibid.. Suppl. for July-Sepl. 1983.10 S/I 5903, ibid.

II 2463rd mtg.

I* 2465th mtg.

” ORGA. 37rh sess., Suppl. No. 1 (A/37/1).

I4 2467th mtg.

I5 2469th mtg.

‘6 S/ 15936, OR. 3&h yr., Suppl. for July-Sept. 1983.

Pul II 2 6 3

- 20. LETI-ER DATED 8 AUGUST 1983 FROM THE CHARGkD’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OFTHE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA TO THE UNITEDNATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THESECURITY COUNClL

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

By a letter’ dated 8 August 1983 addressed to thePresident of the Council, the representative of theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya requested an ur ent meetingof the Council in order to consider t e% situationresulting from the intensification of the United Statesintervention in the affairs of the Mediterranean, theMiddle East and Africa and from acts of intimidationand provocation directed against the Libyan ArabJamahiriya. Charging that the United States haddispatched forces and military equipment to the sardregton, he asked the Council to put an end to the actsof provocation and hostility by the United Statesagarnst the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

At its 2464th meeting, on 1 I August 1983, theCouncil included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council invited thefollowing, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote: the representa-tives of Cuba, Democrattc Yemen, the Islamic Re-public of Iran, the Libyan Arab JamahiriSyrian Arab Republic; and, at the 2466t h

a and.themeetin!,

the representatrves of Afghamstan, the Lao People sDemocratic Republic, the Sudan and Viet Nam; andat the 2468th meeting, the representatives ofCzechoslovakia, Egypt, the German Democratic Re-public and Indra.2 The Council considered this itemat its 2464th, 2466th and 2468th meetings, from 1 Ito I6 August 1983.

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyastated that international security in the Arab regionand Africa was threatened as a result of the landingof United States forces in the area, some of them onthe borders of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; thepresence of those forces constituted a direct threat tothe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which was compelled todefend itself. He said the United States Administra-tion had persisted in its aggressive policy a inst theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya and had Pesca ated thetension in the area, using all means and designs inorder to create the pretexts for an attack against theLibyan Arab Jamahiriples demonstrating rl

a and cited numerous exam-t e United States aggressive

policy against his country. Such aggressive practicesviolated the Charter and international Law, especial-ly the principles prohibiting the use or threat of forceand calling for non-intervention in the internalaffairs of other States. They were also a violation ofUnited Nations resolutions aimed at turning theMediterranean into a zone of peace and co-operation.The Libyan Arab Jamahiri a was ready to enter intodialogue with the Unitecr States to consider anyproblems. He concluded by saying that the Councilshould dischar e its responsibilities in full, condemnand put an en % to American provocations if it reallywished to preserve the prestige of the United Nationsas well as its reputation.’

The representative of the United States said thatthe gravest threat to international peace and securitcame in fact from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, whit iiwas engaged in flagrant, unprovoked aggressionagainst the legitimate Government of the sovereignnation of Chad. He termed joint training exercises mthe Middle East in which the United States forces

were engaged as a peripheral issue, in’ected into thedebate as a deliberate diversion; it ose exercisesposed no threat to the security of any country in theAfrican/Middle Eastern region.’ His Governmentalso rejected as an utter fabrication the allegationthat the United States had intervened in northernAfrica, as the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya bore theresponsibility for tension and conflict in and aroundChad. He urged the Council to label the unprovoked,flagrant Libyan aggression a direct challenge to theCharter and a grave threat to international peace andsecurity. Once the Libyan aggression was ended, theendurin problems of Chad could be addressed in aspirit o I@ reconciliation that would promote intema-tronal peace and security.j

The representative of the S rian Arab Republicsaid that training American solJiers in desert fightingon the eastern borders of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyaand sending AWACS spy planes over Libyan territo-ry posed a great threat to the people of the Africancontinent, to the Arab people as a whole and, indeed,to international peace and security. The seriousnessof those events justified the Libyan Arab Jamahiri-ya’s recourse to the Council. The baseless Americancharges that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had inter-vened in the internal affairs of Chad had paved theway for more AWACS spy planes as well as F-l 5

Cf dfi hter aircraft and increased military assistance to

a m an attempt to tighten the vise around theyoung Libyan revolution. The dispatch of Americanmilitary experts to Chad was an overt, flagrantchallenge to OAU, which was still in control of thesituation and exerts all possible efforts to find theappro riate

r:African solution to the situation in

Chad:The representative of Democratic Yemen said that

the provocative policies and practices of the UnitedStates were creating hotbeds of tension and entailedthreats of the use of force and of intervention in theinternal affairs of peoples and States throughout theworld. The policies pursued by the American Admin-istration were in contravention of the Charter and ofthe principles of international law and posed a threatto international peace and security.J

The representative of the Soviet Union said thatthe anti-Libyan nature of all the United Statesmilitary manoeuvres was quite clear. These militarypreparations were accompanied by a systematiccampaign of threat and intimidation by the Ameri-can Administration against the Libyan Arab Jamahi-riya and Its leadership. Events in and around theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya proved that what wasinvolved was in essence an attempt by imperialistforces to carry out their neo-colonialist plans againstdeveloping States and against the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries as a whole. United States claims ofa role of international “policeman” were in flagrantcontradiction of the main principles of the Charterand of the obligations of the United States as apermanent member of the Council. That clearlyexplained why the United States and other membersof the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)had voted against the Declaration on the Inadmissi-bility of Intervention and Interference in the InternalAffairs of States which the General Assembly hadadopted in its resolution 36/ 103 of 9 December 198 1.The Soviet delegation supported the appeal by theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya to the Council for theprotection of its sovereignty and national indepen-dence against imperialistic meddling.’

2 6 4 Cbaptcr VIII. Maintenance of latemrtlonal peace and mecuity

At the 2466th meeting, the representative ofAfghanistan stated that if the Council were to toleratethe American actions against the Libyan Arab Jama-hiriya and other States Members of the UnitedNations, the confidence of the international commu-nity in the Council would soon inevitably vanish. Hereminded the Council that very often it had becometotally paralysed whenever it had had to discuss asituation involving the United States. For the sake ofthe credibilit of the United Nations and especiallythat of the 6ouncil, the speaker called for promptaction to discourage the United States from itsactivities that endangered peace and security invarious parts of the world.5

The representative of Guyana remarked that inthat situation, it behoved the Council to seek ways ofexerting maximum influence for the exercise ofrestraint and for the promotion of inter-State rela-tions firmly rooted m the rule of law and theprinciples of the Charter.$

The representative of the Sudan called the requestof the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for an urgent meetingof the Council an attempt to deceive the Council aswell as the international community and to divertattention from the prevailing situation. He supportedthat attention should be focused on the aggressionperpetrated by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya againstthe people and Government of Chad, and that theCouncil should continue to consider Chad’s com-plaint against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Regard-mg the military exercises in the area, he stressed thatthey were not directed against any neighbouringStates but that their purpose was to train theSudanese armed forces and to raise the level of theirability and readiness to defend themse1ves.5

At the 2468th meeting, on 16 August 1983, therepresentative of India pointed out that the worldwas witnessing a sharp escalation of tension andconflict in the Mediterranean and North Africanregions, as the result of an increasing recourse to theuse or threat of force and to military intervention inviolation of the purposes and principles of theCharter. There was an urgent need for the exercise ofrestraint on all sides so that the fighting whichthreatened to engulf the whole area could be endedimmediately and the process of dialopeace and reconciliation begun wit out1

ue in search ofdelay. He

supported all efforts to promote a solution within theframework of OAU and in the Ii ht of the decisionstaken at the Assembly of Heads og: State and Govem-ment of OAU held at Addis Ababa in July 1983.6

At the end of the 2468th meetin , the Presidentannounced that the next meeting o B the Council tocontinue consideration of the item would be sched-uled after consultations with the members of theCouncil.6

NOTES1 S/15914. OR. 38th yr., Suppl. far July-Sept. 1983.1 For details, see chap. II of the present Supplemenr.’ 2464th mtg.4 See also the letter dated 22 July 1983 from the representative

of the United States to the President of the Council. S/ 15887. OR.38th yr., Suppl. for Jdy-Sept. 1983.

s 2464th mtg.b 2468th mtg.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

LETIXR DATED 1 SEPTEMBER 1983 FROM THEACTING PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THEUNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITEDNATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT. OF THESECURlTY COUNCIL

LEITER DATED I SEPTEMBER 1983 FROM THEPERMANENT OBSERVER FOR THE REPUBLIC OFKOREA TO THE UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TOTHE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

LETTER DATED L SEmEMBER 1983 FROM THECHAR& D’AFFAIRES A.]. OF THE PERMANENTMISSION OF CANADA TO THE UNITED NATIONSADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURI-TY COUNCIL

LETTER DATED 1 SEPTEMBER I!#83 FROM THEPERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF JAPAN TO THEUNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENTOF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

LEITER DATED 2 SEPTEMBER 1983 FROM THEACTING PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF AUSTRALIA TO THE UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TOTHE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

By letter’ dated I September 1983, the representa-tive of the United States requested, in associationwith the Republic of Korea, an urgent meeting of theCouncil to consider the shooting down on 31 August1983 of a Korean Air Lines commercial air lmerwhich had strayed into Soviet airspace.

By note2 dated I September 1983, the President ofthe Council transmitted a letter of the same datefrom the Permanent Observer for the Republic ofKorea to the United Nations requestin an urgentmeeting of the Council in accordance wit a Article 35of the Charter. In a letter3 of the same date therepresentative of Japan also requested an urgentmeeting of the Council, and by letters dated I and 2September the representatives of Canada’ and Aus-tralia,’ respectively, associated their Governmentswith the request made by the Government of theUnited States and the Republic of Korea.

At its 2470th meeting, on 2 September 1983, theCouncil included the letters in its a enda,considered the matter at its 2470th to Ji

and474th and

2476th meetings, from 2 to 12 September 1983. Inthe course of its meetin s the Council invited therepresentatives of the fo lowingf Member States, attheir request, to participate in the discussion withoutthe ri t to vote: at the 2470th meeting, Australia,CanaPa, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japanand New Zealand; at the 2471st meetindesh, Belgium, Italy, Liberia, Nigeria,

1, Bay+t e Phi up-

pines, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Spain and Sweden; atthe 2472nd meeting, Colombia, Egypt, the LibyanArab Jamahiriya and Malaysia; at the 2473rd meet-ing, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic,Ecuador, Fiji, German Democratic Republic, Guate-mala, Ireland, Kenya and Singa re; at the 2474thmeeting, Chad, Paraguay and Trailand; and, at the2476th meeting, the Ivory Coast, the Sudan andVenezuela.6 The representative of the Republic of

P8rl II 2455

Korea was also invited, at the 2470th meeting, inaccordance with Article 32 of the Charter.7

At the 2470th meeting, on 2 September 1983, theForeign Minister of the Republic of Korea stated thaton 3 1 August 1983 Korean Air Lines flight 007, aregularly scheduled Right, on an internationally de-marcated route, which was clearly and unmistakablymarked and carried only crew members, passengersand their authorized freight and baggage, had beentracked and shot down by Soviet military authorities.He asserted that no provision in international lawjustified the use of force against an unarmed civilianairliner under any circumstances and that the Sovietaction represented a threat to the safety of all civilairliners and to the future of civil aviation.

His Government believed that in order to resolvethe crisis and ensure the safety of civil aviation theSoviet Union must take at least the followin fivesteps: (a) provide a full and detailed account o18whathad happened; (6) apologize and provide full com-pensation for the loss of the lives of passengers andcrew members and the destruction of the aircraft; (c)punish those responsible; (d) guarantee representa-tives of international organizations such as theInternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), ofKorean Air Lines and of the Government of theRepublic of Korea access to the crash site and returnany remains or debris that were found; and (e) givespecific, concrete and effective guarantees against therecurrence of such actionR

The representative of the United States expressedsimilar views and charged that the Soviet Union hadcontinued to deny responsibility for shooting downthe airliner, had expressed no regret over the loss oflife and had indicated no readiness to punish thoseresponsible.R

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thatthere was no need or reason for the meetin of theCouncil and read a Tass statement about t fl e inci-dent, in which it was stated that an unidentifiedaircraft, flying up to 500 kilometres from the estab-lished international route, without navigationallights, had spent more than two hours over Sovietterritory, making no attempt to establish radiocontact and ignoring Soviet attempts to establishcontact. A Soviet aircraft had fired warning shotswith tracers along its route, soon after which theunidentified plane had left Soviet airspace, and wasbeyond radar observation after about IO minutes.The Soviet Union maintained that the Korean AirLines aircraft had deliberately violated Soviet air-space? with the knowledge of United States authori-ties, m order to attain special intelligence aims. Itregretted the loss of life and condemned those whohad allowed the deaths and were trying to use theevent for political purposes.*

The representative of Japan stated that the actiontaken by the Soviet authorities was out of proportionand in contravention of the Chicago Convention onInternational Civil Aviation9 which stipulated thatprotection of international civil aviation must be

fuaranteed and called for abstention from the use oforce.R

The representative of Canada suggested a three-part programme to prevent such incidents: (a) theSecretary-General should conduct an impartial inves-ti ation, reporting to the Council as soon as possible;(f$ the International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) should investigate the incident and make

recommendati.ons on improving the rules of intema-tional civil aviation; Canada took it for granted thatthe Soviet Union would cooperate m such aninvestigation; and (c) as an interim measure, theSoviet Union should, for urgent humanitarian rea-sons, pay compensation to the families of the vic-tims. He warned that an exercise of the veto thatwould prevent the Council from taking necessaryaction would be interpreted as an admission of guiltand a lack of conscience.*

At the 2471st meeting, the representative of theUnited States played a tape recording of the radiocommunications of the Soviet pilots who had inter-cepted the Korean Air Lines aircraft, supplied by herGovernment in co-operation with the Government ofJapan. After playing the tape, for which the UnitedStates dele ation provided a transcript in English andRussian, s e stated that the transcript establishedathat the intercepting pilot had seen the airliner’snavigation lights and had reported that fact to theground but had not mentioned firing any warningshots, and there was no indication that he had madeany attempt to communicate with the air liner or tosignal it to land. He had never questioned theidentity of the aircraft or referred to it as anythingother than “the target”, although he had come closeenoucoul B

h to identify it as a 747 passenger airliner andeasily have pulled up closer to assure its

identity.

She indicated that the attacking interceptor’s state-ment that “the tarthat the aircraft d

et isn’t responding to IFF” meantid not respond to the electronic

interrogation by which military aircraft identifyfriends or foes, which a civilian aircraft is notequipped to do. Observing that the Soviets hadrecently implied that the Korean Air Lines planemight have been mistaken for a United Statesreconnaissance plane, she stated that at the time theairliner had been shot down the reconnaissance planereferred to by the Soviets had been on the ground formore than one hour over 1,500 miles away. More-over, the United States did not fly reconnaissancemissions in Soviet airspace; the Soviet Union knewthe flight patterns of Umted States missions andcould readily identify them.

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thatthe Korean Air Lines aircraft had flown directly overa Soviet naval base and other military sites in an areaclosed to overflights by foreign aircraft, penetrating500 kilometres into Soviet territory. The plane hadsent a communication stating that its navigationalequipment was working normally and had beenequipped with three autonomous navigational com-puters which were hardly likely to have failed all atonce. Addressing suggestions that the plane’s radioequipment had been out of order, he stated thataccordinaircraft \

to the Japanese Kyodo News Service thead been in radio communication with

Japanese ground services up to the moment itdisappeared, and he noted that the United States andJapanese authorities had avoided publicizing anyrecordings of communications between the pilot andthe ground services. He indicated that the American

f!fess had reported that the United States had closely

ollowed the Korean Air Lines plane throughout itsflight, and questioned why neither the United Statesnor the Japanese ground services had warned the airliner of its violation of Soviet airspace or attemptedto contact the Soviet authorities.

266 Chrptcr VIII. Mdnttmmct of IattrmaUod pact and ttturity

A United States RC-135 reconnaissance plane thathad been in the same area, following a course exactly

Parallel to that of the Korean Air Lines plane and ateast in one instance intersecting that course, couldhave turned the Korean Air Lines plane back tointernational airways or informed the Soviet sidethrough the American services as to the reason for itspresence. He su ested, however, that the reconnais-sance plane mi3t have been determining the co-ordinates and activities of the radar stations set inmotion to observe the behaviour of the Korean AirLines plane. He stated that there had recently beendeliberate violations of Soviet borders by UnitedStates planes, and on the eve of the incident sevenflights by United States reconnaissance planes hadbeen recorded in the vicinity, including one that wasobserved carrying out manoeuvres in an area directlycontiguous to the point at which the air liner hadentered Soviet airspace.‘O

At the 2472nd meeting, the representative of theSoviet Union read a statement by his Government,according to which the attempts by the Soviet fighterplanes to establish contact with the Korean Air Linesplane had included the

Beneral call signal on the

mtemational emer encyd

requency, which the planemust have receive but had not responded to. Fromtime to time Soviet radio control had picked up shortcoded signals such as were usually used in transmit-ting intelligence information. The Anti-AircraftForces of the area, having analysed the actions of theintruder plane and taken into account the fact that itwas flying over strategically important areas of theSoviet Union, had concluded that a reconnaissanceplane was in Soviet airspace. The Soviet interceptorhad stopped the flight as ordered, but could not haveknown that it was a civilian plane because visibilityhad been poor and the plane had not responded tosignals. The sovereign right of a State to protect itsborders, and in particular its airspace, was a principleof international law; the Soviet Union would con-tinue to act in keeping with its legislation, which wasin accordance with international law. The intrusionof the Korean Air Lines plane had not been the resultof a technical error; the Soviet Union attributed theentire responsibility for the tragedy to the leaders ofthe United States. I

The representative of Belgium stated that there wasno justification for invoking self-defence as an excusefor destroying a civilian aircraft. Her delegationcould not imagine security interests that were soimportant as to call for a military attack against anunarmed civilian air liner, especially when so manytechnical means for risk-free collection of informa-tion existed. Accepting that circumstances justifiedthe action would introduce a factor of permanentinsecurity into international civil aviation. The So-viet Union must shoulder full responsibility for theincident, guarantee facilities for on-site investigation,punish those responsible, and take all measures toavoid the repetition of such incidents.”

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,recalling that on 21 February 1973 a Libyan civilianaircraft had been similarly shot down., maintainedthat the current incident should be studied objective-IE

and the causes of both incidents examined. Theouncil should consider what risks were involved in

the use of reconnaissance planes in conjunction withthe flights of civilian aircraft, what harm was causedby the use of reconnaissance and other aircraft to jamcivilian aircraft communications and disrupt civilian

air traffic, and draw the appropriate conclusions soas to put an end to such incidents.”

At the 2473rd meeting, the representative ofPoland expressed a number of doubts regarding theUnited States version of events. He noted that in thetapes presented by the United States (for which noproof of authenticity had been submitted) the Sovietpilots had at no time referred to the plane in a waythat indicated an awareness that it was a civilianaircraft carrying passengers, while the length of timethat the Korean Air Lines plane had been in Sovietairspace indicated that there must have beenrepeated attempts to establish contact with it. And ifthe Soviet pilots had established visual contact withthe Korean Air Lines plane as claimed, then thereverse would have to be true as well, giving rise tothe question of why the air liner had failed to followthe generally accepted rules that applied in suchcases. He called attention to the gradual manner inwhich the United States was revealing additionalinformation and expressed concern at the haste withwhich a number of speakers in the debate hadpronounced ‘udgement in the matter, before allinformation iiad been gathered and presented.12

The representative of Japan, responding to theSoviet statementlO criticizing Ja

Pan for not alerting

the Korean Air Lines aircraft be ore it had been shotdown, stated that Japan had been in no position todo so. Japanese surveillance radar visibility waslimited to the air space over and around Japan, andwhen the location of an aircraft could not be seen byradar air traflic control relied on communicationfrom the pilot on the assumption that such communi-cation was correct. He stated that the record of radiotransmissions between the pilot of flight 007 andJapanese air traf’lic control-which he read to theCouncil-revealed that communication had beennormal until, at 0327 Japan standard time, the signalhad become unintelligible. This was already after theaircraft had been shot down by the Soviet Union, at032621. A Japanese Air Self-Defence Forces radarstation had picked up an unidentified aircraft, whichsubsequent analysis indicated had been the KoreanAir Lines plane, but as the unidentified aircraft hadbeen monttored onl for the last I7 minutes of itsflight the Air Self-l3efence Forces could not haveknown then that flight 007 had strayed from course.The Japanese Government demanded that the SovietUnion prompt1good faith to th

retract its charges and respond ine incident.‘*

Decision of 12 September 1983 (2476th meeting):rejection of a revised 17-Power draft resolutionAt the 2474th meeting, on 8 September., the

representative of Thailand stated that available mfor-mation indicated beyond reasonable doubt that,whatever the intent and purpose of the action by theSoviet pilot, the act had been performed in the courseof offtcial duty, which, according to internationallaw, imputed the responsibility to the State.13

Following a brief suspension of the meeting, therepresentative of the Netherlands introduced a draftresolutioni sponsored by Australia, Canada, Fiji,France, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zea-land, the United Kingdom and the United States, bywhich, in the preamble? the Council would havedeclared itself ravely disturbed that a Korean AirLines civil air finer had been shot down by Sovietmilitary aircraft with the loss of all 269 people onboard; expressed its condolences to the families of

fbti II 267

the victims and urged all parties concerned to assistthem in dealing with the consequences of the tragedyas a humanitarian gesture; reaffirmed the rules ofinternational law prohibiting acts of violence posinga threat to international civil aviation; recognized theright under international law to appropriate compen-sation; and stressed the need for a full and adequateexplanation of the facts of the incident based uponimpartial investigation.

In the operative part, the Council would havedeeply deplored the destruction of the Korean AirLines air liner and the loss of civilian life therein;declared that such use of force against internationalcivil aviation was incompatible with the normsgoverning international behaviour and elementaryconsiderations of humanity; urged all States tocomply with the aims and ob’ectives of the ChicagoConvention on Internationa rl Civil Aviation;. wel-corned the decision to convene an urgent meetm ofthe ICAO Council to consider the incident; urge f allStates to cooperate fully with ICAO in efforts tostrengthen the safety of international civil aviationand to prevent any recurrence of such use of armedforce against international civil aviation; invited theSecretary-General, making use of such expert adviceas he deemed necessary and in consultation withappropriate international bodies, to conduct a fullinvestigation into the circumstances of the tragedy;further invited the Secretary-General to report hisfindings to the Council within I4 days; called uponStates to lend their full cooperation to the Secretary-General in order to facilitate his investigation; anddecided to remain seized of the issue.

The representative of the Netherlands observedthat the principal objective of the draft resolutionwas to contribute to the future safety of civil aviationand stated that the sponsors believed that such aclear statement by the Council would do much toallay the apprehension concemin

zthe future of air

safety caused by the incident andworld.”

elt throughout the

At the 2476th meeting, the President drew atten-tion to a revised text of the draft resolution’6sponsored by Belgium, Colombia, the Federal Re-public of Germany, Italy, Paraguay, the Philippinesand Thailand, in addition to the original sponsors.17

The representative of the Netherlands pointed outthat the changes in the draft resolution included thereversal of the order of the fifth and seventh pream-bular paragraphs, so that the paragraph recognizingthe right to appropriate compensation followed the

Paragraph stressing the need for an explanation of theacts based on an impartial investigation, and the

inclusion of an additional preambular paragraphrecognizing the importance of the principle of territo-rial integrit as well as the necessity that onlymtemationa ly agreed procedures should be used inrresponse to intrusions into the airspace of a State.”

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thata commission set up by his Government to investi-gate the incident had established the following facts:the Korean Air Lines plane had gone off courseshortly after takeoff. It had been within the ran e ofUnited States radar up to the time it had b eendetected by Soviet radar and had failed to passthrough the special control points along the normalroute, so it was not possible that the United Statesservices had not been aware of the plane’s deviationfrom course. The aircraft had been sighted on Soviet

radar in an area where United States intelligenceplanes were regularly on duty showing radar charac-teristics similar to those of an RC-135 intelligenceplane and had approached a previously sighted RC-I35 in the area until, for about 10 minutes, theimages of the two planes had become completelymerged on the radar screen. When the planes hadseparated and one of them had proceeded towardsPetropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, Soviet anti-air defencecommand had concluded that an intelligence planewas approachinproceeded direct yf

Soviet airspace. The plane hadto the most important base of the

Soviet nuclear strategic forces. Failing to respond towarning signals transmitted by Soviet interceptors, ithad started to manoeuvre towards an area and at aheight and speed different from those of the pursuingplane, had then suddenly changed course and hadflown around anti-aircraft missile bases and hadpassed over important military installations in thesouthern part of Sakhalin. The plane had ignoredwarning shots with tracers and had tried to escape, sothe Soviet interceptors had followed the order toabort the flight, using missiles.

The Soviet representative then drew attention to aWushington Post article of 7 September in whichUnited States Air Force sources had acknowledgedthat part of the job of United States intelligenceplanes was to determine how Soviet radar installa-tions reacted to the invasion of alien planes, howmany fighters they mobilized and from what bases, inorder to intercept them; he noted that such informa-tion could not be gained through artificial satellites.He claimed that the record of radio communicationsbetween the Korean Air Lines pilot and the groundservices made public by Japan constituted a mereextract, and that there were discrepancies betweenthe Russian text and the American translation of therecordings of the communications of the Soviet pilotspresented by the United States: for example, in theRussian text the pilot had said that the aircraft hewas pursuing was “not responding to the request”,which had been translated to read that the plane hadnot responded to “IFF”. Noting that the UnitedStates had recently acknowledged that the Sovietpilot had fired cannon bursts, he pointed to thepossibility of further corrections appearing in duecourse and concluded that if the Council were to takeany action it should be to prohibit the use of civilianaircraft for intelligence purposes in violation of theairspace of other countries. In view of the foregoinhis delegation would vote against the revised f

,dra t

resolution.”

The representative of France stated that his delega-tion was a sponsor of the revised draft resolutionbecause of France’s feelings of horror and indigna-tion and desire to ensure that similar tragedies wouldnever recur. The draft resolution stressed the need toenhance the safety of international civil aviation and,to that end, urged all States to cooperate fully withICAO, which was the context in which the necessaryimprovements in civil aviation law had to be estab-lished. For that reason his country had supported therequest for an urgent meeting of ICAO, at whichFrance would make specific proposals for preservingthe safety of civil aviation. 7

The representative of China stated that his delega-tion was deeply concerned over the safety of civilaviation and agreed to the proposal that mvestiga-tions be conducted, but in view of the serious dispute

268 c h a p t e r VIII. M8iat~ o f iatern8~ pace a n d 84cudty

over certain aspects of the incident, would abstainwhen the draft resolution was put to the vote.”

The representative of Jordan stated that severalparagraphs in the revised draft resolution contamedpre-judgements incompatible with the. call for .acomprehensive investigation, or contamed prove-sions beyond the scope of the issue. In particular,operative paragraph 2 made an absolute Judgementin the absence of full knowledge of the circumstances,included a moral condemnation when it was difficult,if not impossible, to identify moral responsibility inthe light of the discrepancies among the accounts ofthe incident, and betrayed the ideological rivalry ofEast and West, which was incompatible with thedesire for peaceful coexistence and the principles ofthe Charter. His country’s position on the reviseddraft resolution proceeded from Jordan’s acceptanceof its humanitarian and technical aspects only.17

The representative of Malta, observing that the fullstory might never be known, asserted that theCouncil’s primary concern should be to protect civilaviation. His delegation would vote for the reviseddraft resolution, as amended, because it had beenassured that the Secretary-General would work close-ly with ICAO at its upcoming meeting to exploreelements designed to safeguard civil aviation.

The President, speaking as the representative ofGuyana, stated that the air liner tragedy underscoredthe need for a reduction in international tension,particularly between the two super-Powers. His dele-gation would abstain in the vote on the revised drafiresolution because, although Guyana supportedmany of the elements it contained, it did not dealwith all of the issues and its Impartiality wasquestionable. He regretted that there had been noattempt to consult with members informally in orderto reach a broad consensus. The draft resolutionfailed to address the question of why the Korean AirLines aircraft was over Soviet territory and whetherit had been on an exclusively civilian mission, whilethe new fifth preambular paragraph fell short of theclear and unequivocal reaffirmation of the need forStates to respect the soverei nty and territorialintegrit

rof other States, which 8 uyana believed was

called or. The revised draft resolution stressed theneed for an explanation of the facts based on animpartial investigation, whereas the purpose of aninvestigation should be to ascertain the facts, notexplain them, and the imposition of a 14-day timelimit was restrictive and inconsistent.”

Resuming his function as President of the Council,he put the revised draft resolution to a vote. Itreceived 9 votes in favour, 2 against, and 4 absten-tions, and was not adopted owing to the negativevote of a permanent member of the Council.l*

Following the vote, the representative of theUnited Kin d o m asserted that by vetoing the draRresolution it e Soviet Union had demonstrated itslack of concern for the moral dimension of theincident and its possible repercussions on intema-tional civil aviation, and was relying instead on anarrow and legalistic defence of its action on thebasis of internal legislation, which it claimed was inaccordance with international law. His delegationconsidered the Soviet action a breach of internationallaw, a basic tenet of which was that a State could notinvoke the provisions of international law in order toavoid international responsibilities, and was stillwaiting for an assurance that the Soviet action was

not meant to be a signal of its intentions towardsinternational relations as a whole; moreover, even interms of the Soviet regulation presumably referredto, the Soviet defence was unsatisfactory. For allthose reasons, the United Kingdom had voted infavour of the revised draft resolution.17

The representative of the United States declaredthat the position of the Soviets had been bothinconsistent and contradictory. The Soviet Unionhad claimed that flight 007 had been on a spyingmission, but it had also stated that it had mistakenthe Korean Air Lines plane for an RC-I 35 reconnais-sance plane sighted earlier in the evening, thus tacitlyacknowledging that flispying mission after kh

t 007 had not been on aa I.

She cited the testimony give? to The New YorkTimes by a Korean Air Lines pilot whose plane, hadstrayed into Soviet territory in 1978 and been hit bya Soviet missile, when the Soviet Union had similarlyclaimed to have tracked the plane, flown around itand fired wamin shots. The Korean Air Lines pilothad stated that It e had seen the Soviet plane onlyonce, to his right, while international guidelinescalled for the interceptor to show himself on the left,where the pilot sits. He had immediately reduced hisspeed and flashed his landin lights in the mtema-tlonal signal that he would ollow the interceptor’sfinstructions, and had tried to establish radio contactbut the two planes were on different frequencies. Thenext thin he knew, a Soviet missile had shorn offalmost 1 feet of his plane’s ieft wing, killing twospassengers and forcing him to make an emergencylanding.

The United States representative concluded in’thelight of that previous incident and the fact that thepilot of flight 007 had failed to indicate that he hadbeen intercepted that there had been no communica-tions with the Korean Air Lines

Pilot on normal

emergentcl

frequencies; that the lring of cannonbursts di not alter that conclusion, since they mightwell have been regular, invisible rounds rather thantracers; and that even If the Soviet pilot had tried tocommunicate with the air liner and for some reasonhad failed to get through, it would not justifyshooting down a civilian air liner, especially within60 seconds of its leaving Soviet airspace, when itcould have done no conceivable harm.

She contrasted the Soviet Union’s reaction to thepresent incident with its response a couple of

Jears

earlier, when a Soviet W class submarine ha runaground near a Swedish naval base, deep insideSwedish waters. On that occasion the Soviet Unionmaintained that Sweden could not so much as detainthe intruding warship and must simply escort it outof Swedish waters. The Soviet Union would notaccept that flight 007 could have accidentally strayedinto Soviet airspace, despite 21 recorded incidents inwhich planes with similar navigational equipmenthad gone off course, yet it insisted that the Sovietsubmarine had found Its way into restricted Swedishwaters as a result of instrument failure and hadrefused to rule out the possibility of a future “break-down situation”.

Referring to a recent statement by the ForeignMinister of the Soviet Union that Soviet territoryand borders were “sacred”, she noted that UnitedStates borders had frequently been violated by Sovietplanes flying over sensitive milita

xinstallations

although those planes had not been s ot down, and

P u I I 269

- she questioned how the Soviet Union reconciled theprinciple of absolute Soviet sovereignty with thedoctrine of limited sovereignt

Bpropounded in a 1968

Pravda article, in which t e Soviet Union hadclaimed the rithat threateneP

t to invade any Soviet-bloc countryto deviate from loyalty to Moscow, as

well as the right to intervene in the affairs of Statesthat were not a part of the Soviet bloc.

She stated that, ultimately, the question before theCouncil was whether a country not at war had theright to shoot down planes that entered its airspacewrthout authonzatron; her delegation did not believethat the protection of its soveretright to shoot down any plane B

nty gave a State the

its territory in peacetime.”ying anywhere over

The representative of Zimbabwe stated that hisdele ation had abstained in the vote on the draftreso ution because it was not satisfied that all thePcircumstances surrounding the incident had beenmade known and fully explained, nor that irrelevantfactors had not been brought to bear upon theCouncil’s consideration of the matter.”

The representative of Japan, claiming that theevidence his country had provided through theUnited States delegation on 6 September provedconclusively that the Soviet Union had shot down aninnocent civilian air liner, stated that the Soviet vetoof the revised draft resolution was an abuse of theveto and that his country would not relent in itsefforts to uncover the facts and force the SovietUnion to accept its responsibility.”

The representative of the Republic of Korea statedthat the allegations he had made in his first statementbefore the Council had been irrefutably provenduring the ensuing debate and that the Soviet veto ofa revised draft resolution, which called for animpartial investigation could be interpreted only asan admission of guilt. His Government reaflirmedthe demands they had made on that occasion onbehalf of the future safety of all air travellers,whatever their nationality, in order to prevent the useof armed force against international civil aviation.18

NOTESt s/15947. OR, 3&h yr.. Suppl. fir July-Sept. 1983.z Y 15948 , ib id .’ s/ 15950, ibid.

1 s/ 15949 . ib id .‘Sl15951, ibid.4 For details, see chap. 111 of the present Supplement.’ 2470th mtg. See also chapter III of the present Supplement.1 2470th mtg.

* United Nations, Treufy Series, vol. 15, No. 102. p. 295.lo 247 I st mtg.

It 2472nd mtg.

IJ2473rd mtg.

~2474th mtg.

Ia SII 5966, OR. 38th yr.. Suppl. /or July-Sepl. 1983.I’ 2474th mtg.

I‘ S/l 5966/Rev. 1, OR, 38fh yr.. Suppl. fir July-Sept. 1983.I7 2476th mtg.

“For the vote, see 2476th mtg.

26. LETTER DATED 12 SEPTEMBER 1983 FROM THEREPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUA ON THE SECU-RITY COUNCIL ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OFTHE SECURITY COUNCIL

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

By letter’ dated I2 September 1983, the represen-tative of Nicaragua requested the President of theSecurity Council to convene an urgent meeting of theCouncil to consider what he termed as the situationbrought about by a new escalation of acts of aggres-sion against his country.

At its 2477th meeting, on I3 September 1983, theCouncil included the question in its agenda. TheCouncil considered the item at the same meeting.

At that meeting, the representative of Nicaraguacharged that his country was once again forced toalert the Council to the alarming escalation of theaggression a ainstweeks

Nicaragua during the past fewrevea ing that Untted States assistance tof

Somozist and mercenasaid that the latest attac7

groups was increasin . Hes against his country c earlyP

demonstrated that those groups were being suppliedwith an increasing amount of sophisticated equipment. He charged that the United States controlledall the counter-revolutionary activities against Nica-ragua and had been able to establish co-ordinationbetween the Nicaraguan Democratic Front (FDN)based in Honduras and the counter-revoluttonatyand mercenary forces operating along the southernborder. He accused the United States of attemptingnot only to destroy the Nicaraguan revolution and tooverthrow its Government but also to terrorize theNicaraguan peo le. Referrinsenior United i’ f

to the statements oftates offrcia s, he stated that war

continued to be the centre of the United States policytoward Nicaragua. He concluded by reiterating Nica-ragua’s readiness for dialogue and understandingwith the United States.2

The President of the Council announced that therewere no further s

p”akers and that the Council would

remain seized o the matter.2

NOTES’ Sll5975, OR, 3&h yr., Suppl. for Jul@epl. 1983.

1 2477th mtg.

27. THE SITUATION IN GRENADA

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

Decision of 27 October 1983 (2491st meeting):rejection of a three-Power draft resolutionB a letter’ dated 25 October 1983, addressed to

the t:resident of the Council, the Deputy Minister forExternal Relations of Nicaragua requested an urgentmeetin

dof the Council to consider the invasion of

Grena a by United States troops.At its 2487th meeting on 25 October 1983, the

Council included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council invited thefollowing at their request, to participate, without avote, in the discussion of the item: at the 2487thmeeting, the representatives of Cuba, DemocraticYemen, Grenada, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mex-ico and Venezuela: at the 2489th meeting, the

representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, An-tigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia,Dominica, Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran,Jamaica, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic,Mozambique, Nigeria, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, theSyrian Arab Republic and Viet Nam; and, at the249 1 st meeting, the representatives of Benin, Brazil,Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Czechoslo-vakla, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, EgGerman Democratic Republic, Guatemala, &

pt., theumea-

Bissau, Hungary, India, Mongolia, Peru, Saint Vin-cent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe,Singapore, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, theUmted Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia and Zam-bia.2 At the 2491st meeting, the Council also agreedto a request made by the representative of Jordan3 toextend an invitation to Mr. Clovis Maksoud underrule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure of theCouncil. The Council considered the question at the2487th, 2489th and 2491st meetings, from 25 to 27October 1983.

The representative of Mexico opened the discus-sion by statine that it would have been desirable tohold the meetmg before the events in Grenada. TheCouncil was not in a position to act as early as wouldhave been desirable, as it was facing fuits accomplis.A military force of the United States, supported byAntigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica,Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Samt Lucia,had landed on Grenada and had begun hostilitiesagainst its inhabitants for reasons which were unac-ceptable. It was a clear violation of international law,a flagrant act of aggression against the territorialintegrit

rof Grenada and obvious interference in its

interna affairs.He unreservedly condemned the military interven-

tion, which was totally un’ustified. He said that theevents were unquestionab y a violation of the basiciprinciples of the Charter, in particular Article 2,paragraph 4, as well as article I8 of the charter of theOrganization of American States (OAS). No conven-tion, agreement or subregional understanding couldrun counter to those rules. The Act of the Ortion of the Eastern Caribbean States (OK s

niza-) pro-

vided for collective defence measures only againstexternal aggression, based explicitly on Article 51 ofthe Charter of the United Nations. None of thoseinstruments authorized the intervention by anotherState in the internal affairs of the region.

He added that the efforts by various Latin Ameri-can countries to promote a peaceful negotiatedsettlement to the disputes in Central America and theCaribbean should be supported by the cessation offoreign interference and a total prohibition of thethreat or use of force. He urged the Council to takethe necessary measures to have foreign troops with-drawn immediately. He stressed that the people ofGrenada alone were allowed to decide freely theirown form of Government without foreign interfer-ence.4

The representative of Nicara uatreaty that established OECS cou d not justify inter-f

said that the

ventlon in Grenada’s internal affairs. He maintainedthat to prevent the State of Grenada and its peoplefrom exercisincharter of OAs

the rights conferred on them by the, in article 3, and to prevent them

from enjoyinfi

the protection of Articles 2 and 51 ofthe Charter o the United Nations and the protectionof other relevant provisions of international law, wasobviously unjust. The reasons given by the United

States Administration in that case, such as theprotection of the United States citizens on the island,the desiie to prevent greater chaos and to help torestore order, governmental institutions and democ-racy, were merely pretexts. The real purpose was tosubject the people to American control and to form aGovernment that met the strategic interests of theUnited States. The United States could have used anumber of legal instruments, treaties and conven-tions.

By intervening militarily in Grenada, the UnitedStates had violated the Treaty of Non-A ression andConciliation of Rio de Janeiro of IO %t tober 1933and the Convention for the Maintenance, Preserva-tion and Restoration of Peace of 23 December 1936.Furthermore, the United States had violated severalprovisions of the charter of OAS, namely articles 18,20 and 21 as well as Article 2, paragraph 4, of theCharter oi the United Nations. The United StatesAdministration had violated not only internationallaw but also the American Constitution. The speakerconcluded by reading out the communiquC issued bythe Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, inwhich it condemned the invasion and called for theimmediate withdrawal of the American troops.’

The representative of the United States suggestedthat it would have been more appropriate to start thedebate in the Council the next day in order to allowthe current Head of State, President of OECS, to bepresent while the Council considered the issue.4

The representative of Guyana declared that hiscountry was willing to participate in the mobilizationof forces of the Caribbean community (CARICOM)to defend the integrity of any CARICOM Stateagainst an external aparticipate in any CA!r

essor and no less willing toICOM peace-keeping force in

certain circumstances and under agreed terms ofreference. With re rd to Grenada, Guyana contin-ued to be oppose8 to participation in any militaryinvasion of the island since such action constitutedinterference in the internal affairs of that State.Guyana favoured instead the dispatch of a fact-finding mission, composed of CARICOM nationalsand based upon certain clearly defined principles. Noexternal elements should be involved in the searchfor a solution; the solution should be regional incharacter, formulated within the framework ofCARICOM. Any solution should be fully inaccordance with international law and with theprovisions of the Charter of the United Nations; andthe primary purpose of any regional solution wouldbe the restoration of normalcy in Grenada.4

The action taken against Grenada was in clearviolation of Article 2, parathe United Nations, as we1 P

aph 4, of the Charter ofas of the Declaration on

Principles of International Law concerning Friend1Relations and Co-operation among States m actordy-ante with the Charter of the United Nations,sadopted by the General Assembly in 1970; and theDeclaration on the Inadmissibility of Interventionand Interference in the Internal Affairs of States,‘jadopted by the General Assembly in 1981.

The speaker then introduced a draft resolution’sponsored by Guyana and Nicaragua, which approached the situation in Grenada strict1 from theperspective of the Charter of the United xations andthe obligations of all States strictly to comply withthose principles. Among other things, in the opera-tive part of the draft resolution the Council would

Pul II 2 7 1

have condemned the armed intervention in Grenadaand called for the immediate withdrawal of theinvading troops; called upon all States to showstrictest respect for Grenada’s sovereignty, indepen-dence and territorial integrity; and requested theSecretary-General to follow closely the developmentof the situation and to report to the Council within48 hours on the implementation of the resolution.

The representative of Grenada read out the text ofa telex dated 24 October 1983 sent from the Revolu-tionary Military Council of Grenada to the Embassyof the United States in Barbados, in which it wasindicated that Grenada would view any invasion ofthe country, whether based on decisions of theCARICOM Governments. or on that of any otherGovernment, as a gross violation of Grenada’ssovereignty and of international law. Grenadaviewed any threat or the use of force by anor group of countries as unwarranted

countryinter erence inry

its domestic affairs. The Military Council also reiter-ated that the lives, well-being and property of everyAmerican and other foreign citizen resident in Gre-nada were fullGovemmen t o fv

rotected and guaranteed by therenada.

The speaker added that the protection of UnitedStates citizens had been nothing more than a pretextfor intervening in Grenada. President Reagan hadpretended that he had intervened with United Statestroops under certain clauses of the OECS treaty,which the United States had never signed. Underarticle 8, an intervention could take place only ifthere were a request from a member Governmentand if there were a threat of external interventionagainst that particular Government. The article of-g;r; ‘usfification for intervention. by forces of

t! aribbean States rn association with theUnited States. Over 95 per cent of the forcesinvading Grenada were from the United States, inkeeping with the polic of the United States towardsthe people of Grenacla since the revolution of 13March 1979. Contrary to the statement of the UnitedStates President that he had acted at the request ofOECS, an Administration spokesman was quoted onradio and television as sa ing that actions aGrenada of both covert ancl cr

instovert character ha been

stepped up considerably two or three weeks earlier inanticipation of what had taken place in Grenada.

Finally, the speaker apfor an immediate with 8”

aled to the Council to callrawal of all foreign forces

from his country and to condemn in the strongestlanguage possible what had taken place in Grenada.’

Speaking of the American invasion under thepretext of helping five members of OECS to restoreorder and democratof Cuba indicated t h

in Grenada, the representativeat no Grenadian revolutionary

had appealed for help from the Caribbean countries.He categorically rejected the resort to article 8 of theOECS treaty and stated that Grenada, an indepen-dent soverei n and non-aligned country and a fullMember oftRe United Nations, had been the victimof an act of armed, unsion in violation of the 8

rovoked unjustified aggres-harter o/the United Nations

and of international law. Condemning the invasionagainst Grenada, the speaker stressed that the Coun-cil could not allow the United States policy ofaggression to ovem international affairs, whether inthe Middle &I st, in southern Africa or in LatinAmerica. The international community should giveserious thought to the risk involved for all Member

States if that act of aggression against a MemberState was left unpunished.’

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahirifirmly condemned the invasion of Grenada by tii

ae

United States. He demanded the immediate andunconditional withdrawal of the invading forces, andalso called upon the Council to establish a fact-finding committee. The speaker also demandedindemnity for the victims. Finally, he called upon thePresident and members of the Council to shouldertheir responsibilities at that crucial moment.’

The representative of the Soviet Union said thatthe massive invasion of the island carried out by theUnited States Administration was a flagrant viola-tion of the most elementa

t!rules of international law

and the principles of the harter. The United Stateshad tried to cover up its intervention against Grena-da with exactly the same excuses as its interventiona ainst the Dominican Republic in 1965. The actionsfo the United States Marines and the airborne troops

were designed to bring about a restoration of Ameri-can domination over the island and the return topower of an antidemocratic regime that had beenrejected by the people. It was an attempt by force ofarms to repress the will of the people of Grenada toindependence and its right to determine its fateindependently. That new act by Washington was onefurther element in the sharp exacerbation of tensionin the whole region of Central America and theCaribbean. The representative concluded that theSoviet Union categorically condemned the aggressionof United States imaligned country an8”

rialism against a small, non-called upon the Council to

censure the armed intervention against Grenada asan act of aggression and a violation of internationalpeace and security and to call for the immediatewithdrawal of the interventionist forces of the UnitedStates and of their vessels from the island.’

The representative of the United States stated thatthe United States troops were involved for thepurpose of protecting American citizens, to facilitatethe evacuation of those citizens who wished to leaveand to provide support for the Eastern Caribbeanforces as they assisted the peo lerestoring order and establishing F

of Grenada inunctionin

mental Institutions. Any continued politica fgovem-

involve-ment in that co-operative effort would be guidedwholly by the views of OECS and the Governmentbeing formed in Grenada. The United States Govem-ment believed that the support by the United Statesof OECS was justified on a number of grounds.

OECS had determined that conditions in institu-tions of authority had degenerated, that a climate offear, anxiety and acute danger to personal safetyexisted on the island and that that condition alsoposed an unprecedented threat to the

lTace and

security of the entire eastern Caribbean. e UnitedStates Government acce tedOECS as accurate and

that judgement bybe ieved that the action wasP

consistent with the purposes and principles of theCharters of the United Nations and OAS since itaimed only at the restoration of conditions of lawand order fundamental to the en’oyment of basichuman rights, which had been so Ain Grenada.’

agrantly violated

At the 2489th meeting, the Prime Minister andMinister for External Affars of Dominica and Chair-man of OECS said that the member Governments ofOECS had met at Bridgetown, Barbados, on 21

2 7 2 Cbter VI I I . Mdnte- of Lntemrtlonai mux and necurttv

October 1983 to consider and evaluate the situationin Grenada arising from the overthrow and subse-quent killin of the Prime Minister and of the killinof some of% is Cabinet colleagues and a number o7other citizens. The OECS members had been deeplyconcerned that the situation would continue toworsen, that there would be further loss of life,personal injury and a general deterioration of publicorder as the group in control attempted to secure itsposition.

They had also been greatly concerned that theextensive military build-up in Grenada over the pastfew years had created a situation of disproportionatemilitary strength between Grenada and the OECScountries. Therefore, they considered it of the utmosturgency that immediate steps should be taken toreverse that threatening situation. The speaker addedthat in fact the Governor-General of Grenada hadrequested assistance.

Under the provisions of article 8 of the OECStreaty concemm defence and security in the subre-gion, member 8 ovemments had decided to takeappropriate action, since the situation endangeredpeace and security in the region as a whole.

Lackin adequate military resources, the membershad sou&t assistance from friendly countries withinthe regon and subsequently from outside. ThreeGovernments (Barbados, Jamaica and the UnitedStates) had agreed to form a multinational force andto conduct a re-emptive defensive strike in order toremove the angerous threat to peace and securityc?and to restore normalcy in Grenada. Once the threathad been removed, the OECS members intended toinvite the Governor-General of Grenada to assumeexecutive authority under the provisions of theGrenada Constitution of 1973 and to appoint abroad-based interim Government pending the hold-ing of general elections. It was anticipated thateneral elections could be held within six months.

burther arrangements were to be made to establisheffective police and peace-keeping forces in order torestore and maintain law and order in the country.After normalcy had been restored, the non-Caribbeanforces would be withdrawn from Grenada. In conclu-sion, the speaker appealed for the support of allfriendly countries regarding that initiative.’

The representative of Poland demanded the imme-diate cessation of armed intervention and the with-drawal of foreign troo

Ps from Grenada. He said that

his delegation would ike to see the draft resolutionon the issue formulated in stronger terms.’

The representative of Jamaica claimed that theJamaican troops were part of a multinational peace-kee

Bing force intended to remove the threat to

an security in the area and to restore norma cy top”ace

the island of Grenada. The Jamaican troops werethere to assist the people of Grenada to free them-selves from a military dictatorshiconditions under which the will o!

and to establishthe o

7rPle could

be expressed in free and fair elections. e amaicantroops would leave Grenada as soon as it was clearthat such conditions had been established. He urgedthe Council not to call for the withdrawal of alltroops until the safety and territorial integrity of thepeople of Grenada had been secured.’

The representative of China said that in invadingGrenada the United States had committed undis-guised a ession against a small island State,, hadviolated t e indentndence and territorial integrity ofY

a sovereign State and had intervened in its internalaffairs, thereby undermining the peace and stabilityof the Caribbean region and threatening intemation-al peace and security. If that outright act of hegemon-ism, in gross violation of the Charter and the normsgoverning international relations, could not bechecked effectively, the same would happen to otherStates. He concluded by saying that the ChineseGovernment strongly condemned the invasion ofGrenada and demanded the immediate and totalwithdrawal of foreign troops from that country.*

The representative of Argentina pointed out thatthe invasion constituted a violation of internationallaw and of the Charter. The policy of intervention inthe internal affairs of sovereign Latin Americancountries was reaching alarming proportions. Argen-tina supported the restoration of Grenada’s fullsovereigntforces an B

as well as the withdrawal of the invadingbelieved that the draft resolution con-

tained the necessary elements for a satisfactorysolution.*

The representative of Al eria recalled that non-interference in the internal a8-airs of States, as well asstrict respect for the right of peoples freely to exercisetheir choice, was an inviolable rule. The overtinvasion of Grenada by foreign armed forces couldnot claim any le alit or legitimacy and should beduly condemned % hy t e Council as an act of unpro-voked armed aggression. With the same firmness, theCouncil, in accordance with Article 25 of the Char-ter, should re uire the immediate and unconditionalevacuation oF the occupying forces.*

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republiccalled upon the Council ur ently to condemn theAmerican aggression against 8 renada and to demandthe immediate withdrawal of United States forcesfrom the island. Compensation should be paid for thelosses sustained and a fact-finding mission should besent to the island. The dele ation u ed the Councilto adopt without an

0 %modi ications t e draft resolu-

tion sponsored by uyana and Nicaragua.”The representative of Cuba summarized the com-

munications between his Government and theUnited States Administration r eand fate of the Cuban advisers. R

arding the positione pointed out that

prior to the invasion his Government had suggestedthat the two countries should keep in touch on thequestion, to co-operate and ensure that any difficultyregarding the security and safety of those personsmight be resolved favourably. The rep1 had arrivedthree days later on 25 October when 6 nited Statestroops were already attacking Cubans on Grenada. Itsaid that the civilian reStates forces in Grena cr

resentatives with the Uniteda had instructions to keep in

touch with the Cuban Ambassador in Grenada toguarantee the security of Cuban personnel and toprovide the necessary means to the Grenadian au-thorities to facilitate their prompt evacuation. Whileintense fighting was going on, the United StatesGovernment had sent a message saying that theJctions of the United States troops in Grenada werenot aimed at Cuban personnel residin

%there, and

that the armed clashes between men o both coun-tries had happened because of the confusion andblunders arising out of the presence of Cubans inareas close to the operations of the multinationaltroops. On 26 October,. the Cuban Ministry ofForeign Relation had a

fa m repeated its readiness to

co-operate so that prob ems could be resolved with-out violence.*

Put II 273

The representative of France expressed distressand concern at the disturbances affecting Grenada.He deeply deplored the armed intervention and saidthat the reasons put forward relating to the internalsituation of Grenada did not meet the conditionsunder which an intervention of that nature andmagnitude could be justified. France had neveraccepted certain interpretations of the Charterwhereby other or ans could authorize armed inter-vention without tte approval of the Council. Every-thing should be done to allow the people of Grenadawithout any further delay to regain the right to decidetheir fate, independently and in full sovereignty.R

The representative of Antigua and Barbuda de-clared that in response to the situation in Grenada,which constituted a serious threat to the security andpeace of the region, OECS and its CARICOMpartners had met m urgent session and had agreed toassist their black brothers and sisters in Grenada, andhad invited the United States, whose citizens hadbeen threatened, to assist in the operation. OECSwanted to ensure that an interim Government wouldbe established in Grenada to carry out the people’smandate for free elections. Once that was done andthe constitutional right of the Grenadians had beenrestored, the OECS assistance would no longer berequired and would be withdrawn.*

At the be inning of the 2491st meeting, on 27October 1984 , the representative of the United Statesraised an objection to the credentials of the represen-tative of Grenada and questioned whether he wasentitled to take the place reserved for Grenada.9

The President of the Council informed the mem-bers that he had received a communication from theGovernor-General of Grenada and it had beendirected to the Secretary-General since he was theperson concerned with the question of credentials6At the same meeting Guyana, Nicaragua and Zim-babwe submitted a revised draft resolution.1°

The representative of Ecuador said that his Gov-ernment condemned the armed action carried outaP

inst Grenada, an action that had a ravated thea ready troubled situation in the CariI% ean. It appealed urgently for an end to the foreign interventionand for the establishment of the conditions necessaryto enable the people of Grenada to exercise theirsovereign right freely to elect their democratic Gov-emment.9

The representative of the United States mentionedthat some of the speakers had attempted to presentthe events as a classical invasion of a small countby an imperial Power. The Charter prohibited suexintervention. However, the prohibition against theuse of force in the Charter was contextual, notabsolute. It provided justification for the use of forceagainst force in pursuit of other values also inscribedin the Charter, such as freedom, democracy, peace.

The representatives of Hungary, Sao Tome andPrincipe, Bulgaria and the German DemocraticRepublic found the reference to the security treaty asa legal basis and all the attempts at justificationtotally unacceptable. There could be no legal, politi-cal or moral justification for such a premeditated andunprovoked act of aggression. The delegations sup-ported the draft resolution because its provisionscorrectly reflected the reactions and sentiments of theoverwhelming majority of the international commu-nity.Y

The representative of the United Kingdom suggest-ed that the common aim should be the emergence ofa constitutional Grenadian Government freelyelected by the people of Grenada. He revealed thathis Government had been approached as to whataction it would be willing to take in conjunction withcertain Caribbean countries. His Government hadurged on all those who consulted it prudence andcaution. But other views had prevailed. He said thathis Government could not go along with a draftresolution that did not take adequate account of theconcerns that had motivated OECS, Jamaica, Barba-dos and the United States.P

The representatives of Yugoslavia, Guinea-Bissauand Afghanistan joined the stance taken by themajority of the speakers condemnin the UnitedStates military intervention and inter erence in thekinternal affairs .of sovereign Grenada. Quoting therelevant provisions of contemporary internationallaw, they demanded an immediate cessation of theforeign intervention in and the withdrawal of allforeign troops from Grenada.9

The representative of Trinidad and Tobago saidthat though his country had been host to an emergen-cy meeting of the heads of 12 States members ofCARICOM at Port of Spain on 22 and 23 October inorder to discuss the Grenada situation, his Govem-ment considered it most unfortunate that efforts toresolve the Grenada situation could not have beenpeaceful and regional in nature. His Governmentmaintained its original position on the matter andcontinued to hold firmly to the view that it wasregrettable that a solution involving the non-use offorce, proposed durinCARICOM heads o f

the emergency meeting of theGovernment, had not been

pursued and that instead a military intervention of’such a nature had been imported into the common-wealth Caribbean.

He added that in pursuance of its original objec-tives, the Government of Trinidad and Tobagoremained committed to pursuing a course of actionthat would result in: (a) the earliest possible with-drawal of combat forces from Grenada; (b) theearhest establishment there, through appropriatechannels, of a CARICOM peace-keepmg presence; (c)the establishment of a broad-based civilian Govern-ment to arrange as early as possible for free and fairelections; (d) the establishment of a fact-findingmission com~risi~ eminent nationals of Statesmembers of AR1 OM; (e) the restoration of nor-malcy in Grenada; and v) the preservation of theunity of CARICOM.9

The observer of the League of Arab States drew theattention of the Council to the thesis advanced by theUnited States representative that the prohibition ofthe use of force was contextual and not absolute. Hestressed that under no circumstances could an inva-sion be an instrument of policing the destiny of anyState or any society.9

The representative of the Netherlands declaredthat although his delegation understood the concernsand preoccupations underlying the efforts of OECS,it was of the view that the action taken could not beconsidered compatible with the basic principles ofthe Charter. It was for that reason that the Nether-lands would vote in favour of the resolution in itsrevised form.9

The President of the Council, speaking as therepresentative of Jordan, characterized the invasion

274 Chapttr VIII. Mdnttnmcr of inttrartional pence and scrorlty

of Grenada as a violation of the principles of theCharter and the rules of international law, in articu-lar in respect of the non-use of or threat oP use offorce and of non-intervention in the internal affairsof other States. Jordan could not accept the occupa-tion of an independent State, a Member of theUnited Nations, under any pretext whatsoever. Themilita activities against Grenada constituted apave 7anger, for that precedent could be invoked tojustify similar occupation operations in the future.p

The representative of the Soviet Union said thathis delegation would vote in favour of a draftresolution calling for a hale to the abrupt andunceremonious high-handedness in international af-fairs, a halt to the military intervention by the UnitedStates.

At the end of the 2491st meeting, on 28 October1983, the three-Power draft resolution was put to thevote and was not adopted owin to the negative voteof a permanent member of the Eouncil. The result ofthe voting was as follows: 11 votes in favour, 1against and 3 abstentions.”

NOTES1 S/I 6067, OR. 38th yr., Suppl. for Ocr-Dec. 1983; !ke also

S/ 16072, ibid.*For details, see chap. II! of the present Supplemenl.‘S/16091, incorporated in the record of the 2491~1 meeting. For

details, see chap. 111 of the present Supplemenf.* 2487th mlg.‘General Assembly resolulion 2625 (XXV).*General Assembly resolution 361103.’ s/16077, OR. 38th yr., Suppi. for Oct.-Dec. 1983. Zimbabwe

joined subsequently as a sponsor of the draR resolution.’ 2489th mtg.q 249lst mtg.‘O S/l6077IRev.l, OR. 38th yr.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1983.II For the vote, see 249lst mtg.

28. LETTER DATED 3 FEBRUARY 1984 FROM THECHARGE D’AFFAIRES A.1. OF THE PERMANENTMISSION OF NiCAkAGUA TO THE UNITED NA-TIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THESECURITY COUNCIL

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

By letter1 dated 3 Februa 1984, the representa-tive of Nicaragua requeste7 the President of theCouncil to convene an urgent meeting of the Councilto consider the situation created by a new escalationin acts of a ession by Somozan and mercenarycounter-rev0 utionary forces trained and financed byrthe United States.

At its 2513th meeting, on 3 February 1984, theCouncil included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council invited therepresentative of Honduras, at his re uest, to partici-pate in the discussion without the ri 9 t to vote.’ TheCouncil considered this item at the same meeting.

At that meeting, the representative of Nicaraguastated that he had come to the Council greatlyalarmed by the most serious events over the past twoyears involving attacks a ainst Nicaragua by Hondu-ran military planes. aT ose events could be theprecursors of a war between Honduras and Nicara-gua provoked by the United States to justify inter-

vention and constituted the greatest threat to peaceand security yet in the region as it was the first timethat warplanes had been used to continue the chainof acts of aggression against Nicaragua. He chargedthat at the present time American and Hondurantroops were carrying out a joint military manoeuvrewith the objective of making war against Nicaragua.He also charged that the two countries underminedthe peace efforts of the Contadora Group while thecreated the impression that they supported them.Y

The representative of Honduras rejected as com-pletely unfounded allegations of its complicity in theevents referred to by Nicaragua and charged thatNicaragua had once again tried to involve Hondurasin Nicaragua’s internal problems through false infor-mation harmful to neighbouring States and aimed atprovokin

kconfrontations to divert attention from

those pro lems. Refuting the Nicaraguan charge thathis Government obstructed the efforts of the Conta-dora Group, he hoped that Nicaragua would notcontinue to foster a climate of distrust which affectedthe Contadora process. He reiterated his Govem-ment’s full support for that process.*

Responding to the Nicaraguan accusations, therepresentative of the United States said that hisGovernment had not engaged in aggression againstNicaragua. He added that the United States didintend to continue to co-operate with its friends inCentral America in defence of freedom, self-determi-nation and democratic pluralism. He charged that itwas the Sandinist rkgime’s betrayal of those princi-ples that had caused substantial numbers of Nicara-guans to take up arms against that rbgime. He furtheraccused Nicaragua of exporting revolutions and ofdestabilizing free and democratic Governmentsthroughout Central America and said that so long assuch a situation persisted, so would tension persist inthe region.2

The President of the Council announced that thenext meeting of the Council to continue the consider-ation of the item on the agenda would be fixed inconsultation with members of the Council.2

N O T E S1 S/16306, OR, 39rh yr., Suppi. for Jan.-March 1981.* 2513th mtg.

29. LETTER DATED 18 MARCH 1984 FROM THE PERMA-NENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SUDAN TO THEUNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENTOF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

By a letter’ dated 18 March 1984 addressed to thePresident of the Council, the representative of theSudan requested that the Council be convened inorder to consider the aggression committed by theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya against the Sudan on 16March 1984, which constituted a blatant attackagainst the sovereigntterritory and people or

, security and integrity of thea State Member of the United

Nations and a flagrant violation of the Charter of theUnited Nations, regional charters and the principlesof international law, and posed a serious threat to thepeace and security of the countries of the region andto international peace and security. Charging that a

Put II 275

Libyan bomber had carried out an air raid against thetown of Omdurman, he asked the Council to take allmeasures pursuant to its responsibilittenance of the security of States d

for the main-embers of the

United Nations and of the security and peace of theregion and of the world as a whole.

At its 2520th meeting, on 27 March 1984, theCouncil included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council invited thefollowing, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote: the representa-tives of Benin, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nigeria,Oman, the Sudan and Zaire; and, at the 252lstmeeting, the representatives of Chad and Indonesia.2The Council considered the item at its 2520th and2521st meetings, on 27 March 1984.

At the 2520th meeting, the Minister for ForeignAffairs of the Sudan reported in detail about an airraid alle edly carried out by the Libyan air force on

vi16 Marc 1984. The raid had resulted in the death offive citizens inside their houses, the wounding of areat

%number and the destruction of parts of a public

roadcasting station, some private houses and sev-eral vehicles. The Sudan viewed the Libyan air raidas a fla rant act of aof the !4 udan and aY

ression against the sovereigntyeinous attack against civilian

targets, as well as one more link in an uninterruptedchain of aggression, sabotage and flagrant interfer-ence in the internal affairs of the Sudan.

He enumerated the various acts of aggression andsubversion bhis country. k

the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya againstondering about the reasons that had

prompted the Libyan regime to persist in its acts ofaggression and intervention against the Sudan, heemphasized that his country had no dispute with theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya over borders or under-ground natural resources. The common links and themtellectual and cultural bonds that united the Lib anand Sudanese peoples went without sayin ; ht eycould have served to strengthen good, fruit ul rela-Btions between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and theSudan, had it not been for the interference of theLibyan Arab Jamahiri a in the internal affairs of theSudan? its denial of the Sudan’s legitimate right tosovereignty over its own territory and to adoptpolicies emanating from the ambitions and hopes ofthe people, and its rejection of the principles of good-neighbourliness, non-intervention in the internalaffairs of other States and the non-use or threat of useof force in international relations.

The reason behind the repeated Lib an acts ofaggression against the Sudan was the wis h to imposeits tutelage and hegemony upon the Sudan and todeprive it of its ri

tt to adopt independent positions.

The air raid had een a deliberate act of aggressionwhich could not be condoned. In view of that theCouncil should condemn the Libyan act and callupon the Li,byan Arab Jamahiriya to respect the;;FFui

ra;y independence and territorial integrity of

.I

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyadeclared that the allegation by the Sudan was un-founded and that not a single Libyan aircraft hadparticipated in any raid against the Sudan. Hechar ed that the incident had been fabricated tojusti y American intervention and the dispatch ofPttz;s%S and that the real culprit was the United

The representative of Egypt said that the wholeseries of acts of aggression carried out against theSudan had but one basis, namely, the uncontrollabledesire to destabilize the Sudan and to interfere in itsinternal affairs. He underlined that the SudaneseGovernment and people had been subjected toshameful acts of a ression and had the right tostrengthen their se1 -defence capacity and to ensurePtheir security.r

The representative of Zaire stated that the Sudanhad fallen victim to a barbaric and dastardly act ofaggression, which flagrantly violated the Charter andthe generally accepted principles of international law.The Governments of Africa had the right and theduty to unite their forces to guarantee the security ofthe States of the region against the barbarism thatwould replace the sacred principles of the Organiza-tion of African Unity (OAU). The speaker said thathis country expected the international community todenounce strongly such barbaric acts.’

At the 2521st meeting, the representative of Francesaid that his country could not but condemn the actof violence, which could indeed affect peace andstability in the Sudan. Such use of force, which wastotally unjustified, could only lead to a very danger-ous deterioration of the situation in an alreadytroubled part of the world.4

The representative of Upper Volta denounced theuse of force in international relations. The Charterhad laid down the procedures to be scrupulouslyfollowed by all States in settling disputes. For thatreason his country condemned the bombing on 16March 1984 of the town of Omdurman as well as theensuing loss of human life. Yet there remaineddoubts about the accuracy of these assertions regard-ing the supuestions tr

sed aggressor. There were far too many

8at remained unanswered. Therefore, the

ouncil should refrain from any hasty decisions andshould denounce any foreign intervention that mightinflame passions.’

The representative of the United States said thatample evidence was available to support the fact ofthe unprovoked attack against the Sudan on 16March, which had been witnessed by several quali-fied observers. Outlining the American views onLibyan foreign policy, she said that the world shouldtake note of the words and acts of the LibyanGovernment as they clarified the threats to peace,independence and self-government with which soman countries had to live. The Council should offerthe Hudan protection against aggression, to which itwas entitled under the Charter.4

The representative of Nigeria appealed to both theSudan and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to seeksolutions to their immediate differences within theestablished and recognized principles of internationalrelations as well as in accordance with the Charters ofth.e United Nations and OAU. He.urged both coun-tries to avail themselves of the existing mechanismfor the peaceful settlement of intra-African disputesas established by OAU. He also appealed to theinternational community not to exacerbate the ten-sion between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and theSudan by further exploiting and magnifying thedifferences that had given rise to it.4

The representative of the Netherlands stronglycondemned the bombing attack on Omdurman andstated that his country considered all outside inter-vention in the Sudan’s internal affairs as contrary to

276 Cbrpter VIII. Maintenance of international peace and security

the principles of the Charter and completely unac-ceptable. Referring to the Libyan allegations that thedecision of the United States Government to sendaircraft and weapons to a country adjacent to theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya constituted a violation ofthe Charter and represented a threat to internationalpeace and security, he stated that the complaint didnot seem justified. The Charter specifically men-tioned the right of individual or collective sclf-de-fence if a State was the object of armed attack-ashad been the case on 16 March-until the Councilhad taken measures to maintain international peaceand security. Regardless of the nature of the politicaldispute that had pitted two countries against eachother, they were duty bound by the Charter and theDeclaration on Principles of International Law con-cerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation amongStates m accordance with the Charter of the UnitedNations6 to refrain from threats or the use of forceand to settle their disputes bthe duty of the Council to in use these principles withry

peaceful means. It was

meaning by prevailing on the parties concerned tocease immediately all forms of outside intervention,In the interest of regional peace and stability, allparties should carefully avoid fanning the flames ofconflict with inflammatory statements and strive tosolve their disputes in a s

Pirit

liness and mutualof good neighbour-

respect.The representative of the Soviet Union stated that

the Western press reports had called into questionquite clearly the version of the events put forward bythe county that had ori inally brought the matter tothe Council. The events aad been immediately seizedupon by those who were anxious to step up theirmilitary presence and political control in that part ofthe world in order to interfere in the affairs ofsovereign States. The Soviet Union would like to seethe fraternal Arab countries settle their disputes anddifferences first and foremost in the framework ofregional organizations and, naturally, without anyimperialist intervention from outside.”

The representative of the United Kingdom con-demned the incident as a most de lorableviolence. The applicability of Article s

act ofof the Charter

in such a case was self-evident. The speaker said thathis delegation had sought to encourage an exchangeof views between the Sudan and the Libyan ArabJamahiriya through quiet diplomacy and through thePresident of the Council. His Government consid-ered that in that case, as in all others, it was the dutyof States Members of the United Nations to upholdthe Charter.4

The representative of Chad declared that denial ofthe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya of responsibility wasnothing but diversionary tactic. The Council shouldadopt appro riate

ffmeasures under the Charter to

ensure the e ective maintenance of peace and securi-ty in the region.

NOTES

‘916420, OR. 39th yr.. Suppl. for Jan.-March 1984.1 For details, see chap. III of the present Supplement.1 2520th mtg.4 252 I st mtg.

‘916425 and 16431 OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. f o r f o r Jan.-March 1984.6General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV).

30. LETTER D A T E D 2 2 M A R C H 1 9 8 4 F R O M T H ECHARGk D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE PERMANENTMISSION OF THE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA TOTHE UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESK-DENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

INITIAL PKOCEEDIN<iSBy a letter’ dated 22 March 1984 addressed to the

President of the Council, the representative of theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya requested an urbcnt meetingof the Council to consider the deteriorating situationresulting from hostile and provocative American actsagainst the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which rcpresent-ed a serious threat to the peace and security of theregion and of the world.

At its 2522nd meeting on 28 March 1984, theCouncil included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda, the Council invited thefollowing, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote: the representa-tives of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the DemocraticYemen, Poland, the Syrian Arab Republic and VietNam; and, at the 2523rd meeting, the representativesof Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia,the German Democratic Republic, the Islamic Rc-public of Iran, the Lao People’s Democratic Repub-lic, the Sudan and Mongolia; and, at the 2526thmeetin the representatives of Cuba and Hungary.2At the s 523rd meeting, in accordance with rule 39 ofthe Council’s provislonal rules of procedure, aninvitation was extended to Mr. Gora Ebrahim. TheCouncil considered the item at its 2522nd. 2523rdand 2526th meetings on 28 March and 2 April 1984.

At the 2522nd meetin , the Secretary of thePeople’s Committee of t ea People’s Bureau forForeign Liaison of the Libyan Arab Jamahiri a gavea detailed analysis of the reasons for the di erencesdbetween the United States and the Libyan ArabJamahiriya. The acts of aggression against the LibyanArab Jamahiriya were rooted in its position on thePalestinian question. The hostile United States poli-cy a&ainst the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had beenmamfested in the dls atch of AWACS aircraft to theregion. The policy oPthe United States Administra-tion was based on confrontation, adeplo

4ment of missiles and might ead the world toP

ression and the

war. he Libyan Arab Jamahiriya wanted a dialoguewith the United States and wished to establishbalanced relations on the basis of mutual interest. Hecalled upon the Council to shoulder its specialresponsibility for the maintenance of internationalpeace and security; it should not allow one of itspermanent members to pursue a policy of aggressiona

Bainst small countries. If that law of the jungle was

a lowed to continue, a very dangerous precedentwould be established and it would lead to nothing butwar and destruction.3

The representative of the United States declaredthat the actions of the United States had been whollyconsistent with international law and the provisionsof the Charter. The Libyan Arab Jamahiri a’sneighbours had the right to defend themselves; tiieirfriends had the right to help them as long as theiractions were consistent with the Charter and intema-tional law,3

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republicexpressed grave concern at the threats to which theLiboft

an Arab Jamahiriya had been exposed becauseKe United States military movements and provo-

cations designed to create a climate conducive to

put II 277

aF

ession against that State. He appealed to theouncil to carry out its responsibilities under the

Charter and to put an end to the threat of force by theUnited States on the pretext of protecting Americaninterests. Although members of the Council knew inadvance that the Council would not arrive at thecontainment of American military might, the Syriandelegation was confident that the discussions wereuseful because they promoted an understanding ofthe greatest problem since the Second World War,namely, the denial by the United States of theprinciple of the supremacy of law in internationalrelations and its adoption of force as an instrumentof foreign policy. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya wasthe tar

Bet of an all-out American threat in contraven-

tion o the Charter and United Nations resolutionsand of the most rudimentary principles of intema-tional conduct. That threat was an escalation ofprovocations that had betion to the principles oft

un in 1969 out of opposi-ae revolution of 1 Septem-

ber. The latest threats to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyaand the bolstering of the rapid deployment force inthe area had come in the wake of the failure of theIsraeli-American alliance to impose the agreement of17 May 1983 on Lebanon. There was every indica-tion that the United States was seeking to consolidateits military presence in the region. The speaker calledupon the members of the Council to do their utmostto put an end to the United States military presencein all parts of the Arab regi0n.j

The representative of Malta reminded the mem-bers of the Council that, irrespective of their ideolog-ical orientation or geographical location, they all hadto abide strictly by the obligations they had freelyassumed when they had joined the United Nationsand the respective regional organizations to whichthey might belong. It was the collective duty of theCouncil to reduce tension and military confronta-tion.’

At the 2523rd meeting, the representative of theSoviet Union said that his delegation had supportedthe timely request of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya foran urgent meeting of the Council. For a number ofyears, notwithstandingtional norms and the E

enerally recognized intema-harter, Washmgton’s policy

towards independent Libyan Arab Jamahiriya hadconsisted of overt military preparations, economicblockade,

-Fross provocations and military brinks-

manship. hose actions had been accompanied byconstant anti-Libyan campaigns and by a flood ofallegation concerning the internal and external poli-cies of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The actions ofthe United States in that re ion could not be seen inisolation from the generak policies of im erialistforces seeking hegemony in international atfairs. Allthe attempts to achieve hegemonial objectives werecloaked in a hypocritical propaganda campaign abouttheir fight against “international terrorism”. But theprincipal culprit was to be found not among thedeveloping countries but in quite different quarters.The United States was pursuing its policy towardsdevelopin countries under the cover of continuouspropagan a about a “Soviet military threat” but%what was hiding behind that smokescreen was anAmerican attempt to justify its own arbitrariness andviolence in the mtemational arena by references tothe “East-West conflict”. For its part, the SovietUnion had ceaselessly favoured an end to interven-tion in the internal affairs of youn

f lydependentStates so that their peoples could deve op m reedom

and independence in accordance with their ownaspirations.’

The representative of Viet Nam declared that theCouncil should condemn the provocative acts of theUnited States against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya aswell as the manoeuvres designed to exploit theinternal problems of the Sudan and to cause divi-sions between various African and Arab countries.The Council should demand an immediate halt to thedispatch of planes and weapons to States borderingon the Libyan Arab Jamahiriy?, as well as to allprovocative acts and threats agamst the sovereiof the Jamahiriya and the peace and security o%

ntythe

whole region.’Mr. Gora Ebrahim spoke of the detrimental effect

of the American involvement in Africa on the causeof liberation. He said that if the United StatesAdministration was concerned about peace andstability in Africa, it should direct its attacks athe enemies of peace in Africa, the racist co onialY

inst

rtk

ime of South Africa, and not against independentA rican states.’

The representative of Ethiopia stressed that theimperatives of international peace and security dic-tated that in the north-east of Africa all States shouldexercise maximum restraint and reject foreign inter-vention. Nothing should be done to a

BBravate the

aheadT

tense and difficult situation. T e introduc-tion o massive and sophisticated military hardwarecoupled with the active military intervention of theUnited States in the region was a source of greatconcern to Ethiopia. The speaker emphasized theneed for caution and for an action by the Council tobe based on adequate an cr verifiable data.’

The representative of the Islamic Republic of Iransaid that in 1982, the Council had held 29 meetings,18 of which had been related to direct or indirectinvolvement of the United States, which meant thatmore than 62 per cent of the Council’s work hadconsisted of consideration of the forei

fn

United States. In 1983, 23 out of 3policy of the

meetings hadbeen related to such American involvement; in otherwords, 71.85 per cent of the cases referred to theCouncil in 1983 had concerned American foreignpolicy. Then he indicated that with the presentcomposition of the Council it was far from practicalto anticipate any constructive action by the Councilto prevent American intervention and provocationsin the Middle and Near East.’

The representative of the Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic declared that the speedy dispatch of sophis-ticated aircraft to carry out espionage activities overthe territory of a State Member of the UnitedNations was a violation of the Charter and wouldonly further exacerbate the tension prevailing in thatpart of the world. In support of the Libyan struggle,he asked the Council to take appropriate action toput an end to the imperialist United States machina-tions.3

The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyareiterated his country’s willingness to enga e in adialogue and to establish sound relations wit all infaccordance with principles and mutual respect. Heinvited the Council to shoulder its responsibilitiesand tell the United States to,desist from violating thegtha:se; and to stop interfering in the affairs of other

2 7 8 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of international peace and security

NOTES1 S/ 1643 I, OR, 39th yr., Suppl. for Jan.-March 1984.*For details, see chap. III of the present Suppkment.’ 2522nd mtg.4 2523rd mtg.j Ibid. Similar statements in support of the Libyan position were

made by the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet SocialistRepubl ic ( ib id . ) and by the representat ives of Nicaragua, Mongo-lia, Afghanistan. Czechoslovakia. Cuba and Hungary (2526thmtg.)

6 2526th mtg.

31. I,EmER DATED 29 MARCH 1984 FROM THE PERMA-NENT REPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUA TO THEUNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENTOF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

Decision of 4 April 1984 (2529th meeting): rejectionof a Nicaraguan draft resolutionBy letter’ dated 29 March 1984, the representative

of Nicaragua requested a meeting of the Council as amatter of urgency and immediacy in order to consid-er the escalation of acts of aggression against hiscountry.

At its 2525th meeting, on 30 March 1984, theCouncil included the item in its agenda. Followingthe adoption of the agenda the Council invited thefollowing, at their request, to participate in thediscussion without the right to vote: the repre-sentatives of Guyana and Honduras; and, at the2527th meeting, the representatives of Cuba, Cze-choslovakia, Mexico and the Syrian Arab Republic;at the 2528th meeting, the representatives of Algeria,Democratic Yemen, El Salvador, Ethiopia, the Ger-man Democratic Republic, Hungary, the Lao Pea-ple’s Democratic Republic, the Libyan Arab Jamahi-riya, Seychelles and Viet Nam; and, at the 2529thmeetin

Ethe representatives of Af

Rica, uatemala and Yugoslavia.2 Panistan, Costa

he Council con-sidered the item at its 2525th, 2527th, 2528th and2529th meetings, from 30 March to 4 April 1984.

At the 2525th meeting, the representative ofNicaragua stated that his country had come to.theCouncrl to denounce further acts of aggression,which, owing to their level of sophisticatron, theequipment used and techniques employed, repre-sented a qualitative leap forward m the covertoperations against the Nicaraguan people. Intema-tional concern and repudiation had helped avoid aconfrontation with unpredictable consequences forCentral America. Regrettably, the efforts of theinternational communrty, as expressed in the Coun-cil, the General Assembly, the Contadora Group andthe Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, had notbeen sufficient to prevent resort to military solutionsin the region.

He expressed his country’s concern and alarm inthe face of the increased military presence of theUnited States in a neighbouring country, where itwas building an infrastructure for aggression; thelarge-scale military manoeuvres, which had beengoing on uninterrupted1 in the territories and watersof Central America an cr the Caribbean; the criminalmining of the Nicaraguan ports, endangering intema-tional navi ation and in fact amounting to fulleconomic b ockade; and the constant efforts of thefUnited States Administration to obtain funds neces-

sary to finance the mercenaries of the CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA).

He gave a detailed account of the United Statesmilitary presence in Honduras. He said that thevarious naval and military manoeuvres and exercisesby the United States and Honduras, which had aimedat intimidating the Sandinist popular revolution andthe Central American revolutionary movement, andthe construction of military bases and training cen-tres for the Salvadorian army and counter-revolu-tionary gangs all revealed the interventionist policyof the United States in the region. His Governmentwould continue to believe in the active neutrality ofthe Government of Costa Rica and, for that reason,would maintain its understanding that the campslocated on Costa Rican territory did not have theot’?icial support of its Government but that, on thecontrary the CIA and its mercenaries were trying tocreate political problems between the two countries.

The speaker gave a detailed list of the locations ofthe various mercenary camps on Honduran territoryand described the specific acts of aggression againsthis country since the last Council meeting on thesubject early in February 1984.’ The account rc-vealed not only the growing number of militarycamps on Honduran territory, but also attacks andviolations of Nicaraguan territory, its airs ace and itsterritorial waters. Nicaragua was aware oPincreasing-ly direct participation of the Honduran army in thoseattacks, sometimes even acting alone in support ofthe counter-revolutionary groups. Sophisticatedequipment, aircraft and boats far exceeded thetechnical capacity of the counter-revolutionary ele-ments, as well as the Honduran army and document-ed the involvement of the United States.

The latest American actions suggested that theReagan Administration intended to proceed with amilitary blockade of Nicaragua. The internationalcommunity had to restrain a Government that wasresorting ever more openly to force to resolveinternational conflicts. The Administration’s deci-sion to appropriate $21 million for the mercenariesof the CIA drsclosed not just its determination topress ahead with its criminal plans against Nicara-gua, but also its disregard for the American people,International public opinion and the peace-makingefforts of the Contadora Group.

The international community could not remainpassive in face of the build-up of the United Statesmilitary presence in El Salvador. The only reasonablesolution was a dialogue between all the representativeforces, the Farabundo Maxti National LiberationFront (FMNL), the Democratic Revolutionary Front

iFDR) and the Government, which should aim at theormation of a broadly representative national

dov-

emment. The speaker deplored that the Conta oraGroup’s work had been seriously impeded becausecertain Central American countries had refused onceand for all to remove the spectre of war that hadaflhcted the region in recent years. But the mainobstacle to its quest for peace was the United StatesGovernment. The situation had led Mr. D. OrtegaSaavedra, Co-ordinator of the Governing Junta ofNational Reconstruction of Nicara ua, to visit thePresident of Mexico, whose help he aad requested inthe implementation of urgent measures by the Conta-dora Group to prevent war in Central America.Similar missions had been sent to the other membersof the Contadora Group-Panama, Colombia andVenezuela-as well as to other countries of the

Put II 279

region. Nicaragua believed that peace in CentralAmerica required as a sine qua non condition theclear commitment of the United States, which so farhad in fact brought to bear all kinds of politicalpressures to prevent a genuine, just and lastingsolution to the conflicts of the region.

Nicaragua reserved the right to demand compensa-tion for the devastation resulting from the criminalpolicy of the United States President. The represen-tative of Nicaragua requested the Council to takeimmediate action to stop the war in CentralAmerica.4

The representative of the United States pointedout that the Nicaraguan complaint had been beforethe Council on some six occasions over the past twoyears and accused Nicaragua of initiating the processof militarization, the destabilization of its neighboursand the introduction of foreign advisers in CentralAmerica. She indicated that Nicaragua had some107,000 persons under arms and continued to receiveweapons from diverse places and to assist guerrillasin other countries, principally FMLN and FDR in ElSalvador, with arms and other supplies, with trainingproviding command and control centres.

The sole objective of United States policy inCentral America was a democratic solution as ~llus-trated by the report of the National BipartisanCommission on Central America chaired by a formerSecretary of State, Mr. Henmission had visited the five z

Kissinger. The Com-entral American coun-

tries and the four States comprising the ContadoraGroup. The Commission’s conclusions and recom-mendations formed the basis of the Central Ameri-can Democracy, Peace and Development InitiativeAct of 1984, which represented a far-reaching at-tempt to address the problems in Central Americacomprehensively.

The Commission had concluded that neither themilitary nor the political, economic, or social aspectsof the crisis should be considered independently ofthe others. The Commission had proposed a series ofmeasures to support agricultural development, edu-cation, health services, export promotion, land re-form, housing, humanitarian relief, trade, credit,insurance, small business and other activities. Specialattention would be given to increasing scholarships,leadership training, educational exchanges and support for the growth of democratic institutions.

The representative of the United States empha-sized the Commission’s call for a vigorous diplomaticstrategy and a negotiating effort designed to resolvethe conflict and to include Nicaragua in a regionalsettlement that would ensure lasting security guaran-tees, as well as national independence for all thenations of Central America. Such a settlement wouldbe squarely based on the principles contained in the2 l-point proposal of the Contadora Group, whichincluded respect for sovereignty and non-mterven-tion; verifiable commitments to non-interventionand an end to all attempts at subversion; limitationsin arms and sizes of armed forces; prohibition offorces, bases and advisers of forei n nations; commit-ment to internal pluralism and free elections in allcountries; provision for verification of all agree-ments; and the establishment of an inter-govemmen-tal council, to meet regularly and review compliance.

In drawing up those recommendations, the Com-mission had drawn heavily in its consultations withthe leaders of the Contadora countries. The Commis-

sion also recommended increased military assistance,under proper conditions, to the Governments of ElSalvador and Honduras in order to reinforce diplo-matic efforts by creating the conditions under whichpeaceful settlements might be reached and the objec-tive of a better life in freedom and national indepen-dence for all Central Americans successfully pur-sued.4

The representative of Honduras stated that hisGovernment had complained on many occasions tothe Sandinist Government about its systematic use ofslogans, groundless assertions and fanciful interpreta-tion that were at variance with proper internationalconduct. It hao also provided the Organization ofAmerican States (OAS), the Council and the GeneralAssembly with well-documented replies refuting falsecharges of responsibilittious interpretations o ty

for past events and tenden-actions carried out by Hon-

duras in exercise of its full responsibility over itsterritory.

The measures to improve the professional level ofthe armed forces of Honduras-Including joint exer-cises with the United States army-were defensive innature and designed to protect Honduran sovereign-ty. Military manoeuvres were not prohibited by thedocuments adopted by the Contadora Group. Peace,democrat ,ment in t!

security and co-operation for developentral America were aims of the foreign

policy of Honduras. The Sandinist Government wasIntervening in neighbouring countries by supportingthe promotion of subversion in Honduras and bysupplying the guerrillas in El Salvador with weapons.Those conditions had made it necessary for othercountries to make preparations for adequate defencein order to deter Nicaragua from an direct aggres-sion. *He concluded by reiterating xonduras’ posi-tion: m support of a comprehensive, peaceful solu-tion of reglonal disputes through the Contadorapeace process and within the framework of the inter-American system.’

The representative of Nicaragua referred briefly tothe fact that the history of United States policy inCentral America was characterized by its support fordictatorial regimes such as that of Somoza in Nicara-gua.4

The representative of the United States declaredthat she did not deny that the United States had fromtime to time made mistakes in its policy vis-&isCentral America. It might be even argued that it hadbeen an accomplice to the rise of a dictatorship inCentral America, even in Nicaragua.’

At the 2527th meeting, the representative ofFrance stated that his country strongly condemnedthe escalation of violence and the mining of theNicaraguan ports, which amounted to a kind ofblockade in dis uise,the principles of

in fundamental opposition tointernational law. Noting the posi-

tive gestures of Nicaragua, which were made inresponse to the concerns of those who desired anoverall settlement, he paid tribute to the efforts of thefour countries of the Contadora Group. The coun-tries of Central America should be permitted onceagain to solve their problems for themselves as theywere entitled to demand respect for their indepen-dence and peace and security for their peoples. Thecontinuing Contadora process should aim to trans-form those principles into an end to violence and tointerference in the internal affairs of Central Ameri-can States by countries from outside the region.’

280 Chapter VIII. Mdntenrace of intcrnathd peace and secdty

The representative of India quoted the text of thelatest communique on Central America adopted bythe Coordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, which had met in urgent sessionin New York on 15 March I 984.6 He pointed out thatpeace and progress could be constructed only uponthe foundation of political and socio-economic plur-alism, scrupulous observance of the principles ofnon-interference in the internal affairs of States andan appreciation of the deep-rooted problems t picalto the re

8ion; they could not rest upon the exe usionI

of one tate or another from the mainstream ofregional development, nor on pressures, threats orblandishments. He expressed regret that the endeav-ours of the Contadora Group had of late beenafflicted by a fla ing of will on the part of somecountries. Extema interference had also continuedYunabated and, from all available indications, hadeven intensified. India deemed it imperative thatmeans such as the use or threat of force be immedi-ately abandoned and that dialogue be given a realchance.s

The representative of Zimbabwe stated that theCouncil should express its grave concern at thedeteriorating Central American situation, seriouslythreatening regional stability and call upon thoseresponsible for the violation of international law todesist from their injurious activities and to observestrictly the provisions of the Charter requirin

%all

States to refrain in their international relations romthe threat or use of force against the territorialintegrity or political independence of other States.The Council should also demand the strictest respectby those concerned with Nicaragua’s right to developits own chosen political s stem, without an interfer-ence. The speaker urged t hat those responsir, le for themounting regional tensions reciprocate Nicaragua’sexpressed readiness and desire to search for genuinepeace in that region.s

The representative of China maintained that inorder to remove the tension in Central America itwas of vital importance to put an end to all interfer-ence and threats from outside and he urged thesuper-Powers to refrain from making Central Ameri-ca an arena for their rivalry. The independence andsovereignty of Nicaragua and of other Central Ameri-can countries should be respected and the affairs ofthe various countries of the re

kion should be left to

the respective peoples themse ves.JThe representative of Mexico pointed out that the

objectives agreed on by the Central American coun-tries included the prohibition of the stationing ontheir territory of foreign military bases or an otherforms of forei

t8n military interference, as wel r as the

prohibition o the use of their territory by persons,organizations or

c!roups seeking to destabilize the

Governments of entral American countries, as wellas the refusal to permit them or to provide formilitary or logistical support. It was not merely amatter of facilitating the trainin

I!of counter-revolu-

tionaries by providing them wit money and weapons, or of encouraging mercenary pilots to commitacts of aggression; what was being attempted appar-ently was nothing less than the imposition of a navalblockade against Nicaragua, in order to erode itseconomic infrastructure still further. Those actionswere in flagrant opposition to the peace-makingefforts of the Contadora Group.

It was universally agreed that the conflicts inCentral America originated in the economic and

social conditions of the peoples of the region. A justand lasting solution to the Central American crisiswould be achieved only through genuine commit-ment and participation bpermanent members oftx

all States, in particular thee Council, whose responsi-

bility for the maintenance of international peace andsecurity should be exercised in accordance with theprinciples of the Charter.5

At the 2528th meeting, the representative of Perustated that the Nicaraguan allegations had not beendenied and that his country rejected the intensifica-tion of hostile acts against Nicaragua, in particularthe new operations against its port installations andthe obstruction of Nicaraguan shipping trade whichamounted to a de facto blockade and de jure violationof free international navigation. Reaffirming thePeruvian support for Council resolution 530 (1983)and General Assembly resolution 38110, he men-tioned that both resolutions had been adopted byconsensus and accurately reflected the principles andcommitments that the international communityhoped would be honoured by the parties and factionsinvolved in the crisis. There was an urgent need forthe Council to express emphatically its support forthe efforts of the Contadora Group to reach anegotiated comprehensive settlement. The Councilshould call for strict respect for the principles andnorms of international law enshrined in the Charterand other international instruments. The principlesof non-interference in internal and external affairs ofStates, the right to self-determination, respect forinternational obligations, the peaceful settlement ofdisputes and the madmissibility of the threat or useof force against the sovereignty, independence orterritorial integrity of any State needed to be strictlyobserved.’

The representative of the Soviet Union stated thatthe leaders of the United States had not attempted tocover up their role in the terrorist activities a instNicaragua, but had actually boasted about it. Rerewas no need to dispatch a commission in inquirysince one State had openly acknowledged its partici-pation in acts of aggression against another. TheSoviet delegation considered that the Council wouldbe acting correctly and in fulfilment of its obligationsby condemning the mining of the ports and territorialwaters as an act of State terrorism. The actions of theUnited States showed that it was not interested in apolitical settlement in Central America and that itwas deliberately pursuing a policy intended to widenthe conflict. Those actions constituted a gross viola-tion of the fundamental principles of internationallaw and of the Charter.’

The representative of Cuba stated that it was notenough simply rhetorical to endorse Latin America’speace initiative. The Governments of the ContadoraGroup should take urgent steparties, especially the Unitedp

s to guarantee that allStates, gave real sup-

port to their efforts. Military and naval actions aimedat intimidating Nicaragua should cease. The Councilshould condemn the escalation of aggression againstNicaragua and the mining of its ports, which was aserious threat to international navigation and freetrade, and the attempts of certain States to bringabout the failure of the Contadora initiative.’

At the 2529th meeting, on 4 April 1984, therepresentative of Nicaragua informed the Councilthat some minor changes had been made regardingthe draft resolutions that his delegation had submit-ted.9 Under the draft resolution, in its preambular

Pul II 281

part, the Council would, inter alia, have recalled itsresolution 530 (1983) noted General Assembly reso-lution 38/10, reafftrmed all the purposes and princi-ples of the Charter, particularly the obligation of allStates to refrain from resorting to the threat or use offorce against the soverei nty, territorial integrity orpolitical independence o Pany State, commended thesustained efforts being carried out by the countriesthat made up the Contadora Group in the search fora peaceful and negotiated solution to the conflictsthat affected the region, recognized and welcomedthe broad international support expressed to theContadora Group in its efforts to bring peace anddevelopment to the region, noted with great concernthe foreign military presence from outside the region,the carrying out of overt and covert actions and theuse of neighbouring territories for mounting destabi-lizing actions that had served to heighten tensions inthe region and hinder the peace efforts of theContadora Group and noted also with deep concernthe mining of the main ports of Nicaragua.

In the operative part, the Council would havecondemned and called for an immediate end to themining of the main ports of Nicaragua, which hadcaused the loss of Nicaraguan lives and injuries tonationals of other countries as well as materialdamage, serious disruption to its economy and thehampering of free navigation and commerce, therebyviolating International law; affirmed the right of freenavigation and commerce in international waters andcalled upon all States to respect that right byrefraining from any action that would impede theexercise of that right in the waters of the region;reaffirmed the right of Nicaragua and of all thecountries of the region to live in peace and securitand to determine their own future free from a Irforeign interference and intervention; called upon allStates to refrain from carrying out! supporting orpromoting any type of mihtary actton against anyState of the region as well as any other action thathindered the peace objectives of the ContadoraGroup; expressed its firm support to the ContadoraGroup for the efforts it had so far carried out andurged it to intensify those efforts on an immediatebasis; requested the Secretary-General to keep theCouncil informed of the development of the situationand of the resolution; and decoded to remain seizedof the matter.

The representative of Costa Rica assured theCouncil that the forces responsible for security in hiscountry would not carry out any attacks that mightjeopardize the sovereignty and securit of Costa Rtcaor of neighbouring countries. Costa Rica was inter-ested in seeing that the mandate and support of theContadora Group was not weakened. The speakerasked the Council to appeal to the countries con-cerned to carry out their mission in keeping with theContadora guidelines and to appeal to the rest of theinternational community to refrain from divertingthe nine countries from their chosen path. He askedfor strict respect for the principles of internationallaw, in particular those referring to the freedom ofnavigation.0

The representative of the United Kingdom statedthat the draft resolution did not match the scope ofthe debate or indeed of the Central American prob-lem. In the opinion of his delegation, the draftresolution would have been im roved if the finalpreambular paragraph and the trst operative para-Pgraph as originally circulated in the provisional

version had been amended. He suggested that to thefinal preambular para

9raph “Noting also with deep

concern the mining o Nicaraguan ports and otherattacks, as well as overt and covert hostile acts andthreats against Nicaragua” be added “and otherStates in Central America”.

Similarly, in operative paragraph 1 of the provi-sional version, where the Council had called for “animmediate end to all threats, attacks and overt andcovert hostile acts against the sovereignty, indepen-dence and territorial integrity of Ntcaragua”, theBritish delegation would have preferred to say notjust Nicaragua, but “the States of Central America”.He also proposed to make the draft resolution morebalanced by addin

dto it some elements of Council

resolution 530 (I 9 3) and General Assembly resolu-tion 38/10. He indicated that his delegation hadhoped that the Council would have produced aresolution or a presidential statement that wouldhave been constructive and not vindictive. As allthose elements were missing from the draft resolu-tion, his delegation was going to abstain when thedraft was put to the vote.g

The representative of the Netherlands, in explain-ing his vote before the vote, stated that hts delegationcontinued to have reservations concerning the draftresolution. He made particular reference to thefourth preambular paragraph because it singled outone admittedly important, but ‘ust one, element ofGeneral Assembly resolution 1 8/10. He indicatedthat all the aims of the Document of Objectivestoshould form the basis for a peaceful settlement of theproblems besetting the region.p

The representative of Egypt declared that hisdelegation would have preferred to have some timefor consultations about the draft resolution. It hadhoped that a text could be arrived at that would begeneral1reflect 6

accepted by the Council and would betterouncll resolution 530 (1983) and General

Assembly resolution 38/10. He stressed that it washis understanding that the last two preambularparagraphs were closely linked. On that basis hisdeleggatton would vote m favour of the draft resolu-tion.

The representative of the United States stated thatthe draft resolution was seriously flawed, lackedbalance and fairness and was not well suited to thepurposes it sought to serve, notably the peace of thearea. The rush to a decision by the Council was itselfan example of seriously unbalanced concern. Theactions taken by the Council on that day did notadvance the cause of peace nor did they address theproblems of the region. The United States would notacquiesce in such a resolution9

The representative of Malta declared that hisdelegation would have preferred a little more time forconsultations on the text being put to the vote. Thetext as amended was positive enough to deserve theMalta’s support and the delegatton would voteaccordingly.9

Then the President put to the vote the draAresolution submitted by Nicaragua. The result of thevoting was as follows: 13 votes in favour, 1 againstand 1 abstention. Owing to the ne tive vote cast ba permanent member of the t?ouncil, the draKresolution was not adopted.”

2082 Chapter VIII. Mahtenane of labrnatlod pmet and sccvlty

NOTES

’ Sl I6449. OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. for Jan-March 1984.

1 For details, see chap. III of the present Supplement.

‘See section 28 of the present chap.’ 2525th mtg.’ 2527th mtg.bS/l 6422, OR. 39fh yr.. Suppl. /or Jan-March 1984.

’ 2528th mtg.a S/I 6463, OR. 39th yr., Suppi. /or April-June 1984. The draft

resolution was not adopted owing to the negative vote of apermanent member.

9 2529th mtg.lo SI 1604 I, OR, 3&h yr., Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1983.

‘I For the vote. see 2529th mtg.

32 . LE’ITER DATED 21 MAY 1984 FROM THE REPRE-SENTATIVES OF BAHRAIN, KUWAIT, OMAN,QATAR, SAUDI ARABIA AND THE UNITED ARABEMIRATES ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OFTHE SECURITY COUNCIL

By letter’ dated 21 May 1984, the representativesof Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia andthe United Arab Emirates requested an urgent meet-mg of the Council to consider Iranian aggressionsagainst shipping to and from their countries.

At its 2541st meeting, on 25 May 1984, theCouncil included the item in its a enda. The councilinvited the representatives of the ollowing countries,i@at their request, to participate in the discussionwithout the right to vote: at the 2541 st meeting,Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Panama, Qatar, Saudi Ara-bia, Senegal, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen;at the 2542nd meeting, Ecuador, Jordan, Somaliaand the Sudan; at the 2543rd meeting, the FederalRepublic of Germany, Japan and Morocco; at the2545th meeting, Djibouti, Mauritania, Tunisia andTurkey; and at the 2546th meeting, Liberia.* TheCouncil also invited, under rule 39 of its provisionalrules of procedure, Mr. Chedli Klibi, Secretary-Gen-eral of the League of Arab States (LAS), at its 2541stmeeting.’ The Council considered the matter at its2541st to 2543rd, 2545th and 2546th meetings, from25 May to 1 June 1984.

At the 2541st meeting, the Deputy Prime Ministerand Minister for Foreign Affairs and Information ofKuwait stated that between 13 and 16 May theIranian Air Force had attacked two Kuwaiti tankersand a Saudi Arabia tanker. Those attacks hadextended the Iran-Iraq war to countries that were nota party to it and were in violation of the GenevaConvention on the High Seas, the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea and the KuwaitRegional Convention. He stressed that a disruptionin the Gulf region, because of its economic andpolitical nature and its sensitive strategic location,would have economic and political consequencesaffecting the interests of the entire worId; therefore,in accordance with Article 35 of the Charter, Kuwaitdrew the Council’s attention to the situation andcalled upon it to exercise its jurisdiction underChapter VI of the Charter, while reservinto call for measures under Chapter VII oftet

the righte Charter

in the case of recurrence. Kuwait wanted a resolutionthat would identify the aggressor, condemn theaggression and warn against its recurrence, butremained eager to work together with all the parties,

including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to restorepeace and stability in the region.’

The representative of Saudi Arabia stated that theIranian attacks on Saudi and Kuwaiti tankers hadtaken place in Saudi territorial waters and adjacentwaterways, far from the area of military operations,and were in retaliation for Iraqi attacks on theIsiamic Republic of Iran. He pointed out that theclaim by a country at war of a right to attack a thirdparty would have dangerous effects on internationalrelations and peace and security everywhere unless itwas condemned and rejected by the internationalcommunity. Since the Council bore primary respon-sibility for crystallizing the position of the interna-tional community, it must firmly express its determi-nation not to permit any aggression against thirdparties in the Gulf area.

The representative of Yemen contended that theIran-Iraq war was being extended beyond the twobelligerent States because the Council had failed toassume its responsibilities towards impartially restor-mg international peace and security in accordancewith the principles of the Charter. He stated that theCouncil was now more than ever duty-bound to worktowards halting the war.3

The representative of Senegal stated that thesituation should be viewed in the wider context of thefour-year-old war. He urged the Council to call forunobstructed freedom of navigation in the interna-tional waters of the Gulf, to renew its call for thecessation of hostilities and the continuation of medi-ation efforts, and to reaffirm its appeal to thebelligerents to respect the territorial integrity andeconomic infrastructure of other coastal States andrefrain from actions likely to worsen or widen thec0nflict.j

Mr. Chedli Klibi indicated that the LAS Councilhad adopted a resolution on I9 May 1984, in which,inter ah, it appealed to the Security Council toadopt a clear and firm position on the Iranianaggressions. The League hoped that the Councilwould take appropriate measures to guarantee thesafety of international sea lanes, because the disruption of maritime traffic would affect the interests ofall nations and could lead to forei n intervention.The Council must assume responsibifity for restoringthe stability of the Gulf region and must contain theconflict as much as possible pending compliance withits decisions. Since Irawillingness to comply, eIT

had already indicated itsorts should be directed at

inducing Iran to heed the Council’s resolutions.3At the 2543rd meetin

Somalia asserted that the Ethe representative of

Auncil must demand thatIran end its attacks on sea traffic, comply withUnited Nations resolutions and respect the principlesof international law. The Council should also vi or-ously seek to bring both the Islamic Republic of ranBand Iraq into a process of peaceful negotiations:

The representative of Turkey stated at the 2545thmeeting that the Council should try to help theparties find a solution to the conflict but must notattempt to impose one. It should not ado tresolution which would be totally P

aunacceptab e to

either party and which, by its lack of balance, fairnessand justice, would lead to further intransigence;rather, it should seek to strengthen the hand of theSecretary-General, who had reaffirmed his will-ingness on I7 May 1984 to assist in the peacefulresolution of the conflict, and enable both the Islamic

Part II- 283

Republic of Iran and Iraq to co-operate with theSecretary-General while taking concrete stepstowards the reduction of tension in the Gulfe5

Decision of I June 1984 (2546th meeting): resolution552 (1984)At the 2546th meeting, the President drew atten-

tion to a draft resolution6 submitted by Bahrain,Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UnitedArab Emirates,’

The representative of Liberia noted that shipsflying the Liberian flag had also been hit anddamaged, causing a loss of revenue to her country’seconomy, and stated that her Government expectedthose involved to make reparations for their actionsand to desist from further attacks on ships flying theLiberian flag.’

The representative of the Netherlands stated that ifthe Iran-Iraq war continued to escalate the Councilmight have to consider appropriate measures underthe Charter. His delegation would vote in favour ofthe draft resolution and welcomed the fact that itunambiguously called upon all States to respect theterritorial integrity of littoral States that were not aparty to the conflict, as well as the call in operativeparagraph 3 for all States to exercise the utmostrestraint and refrain from escalating the conflict. Hisdelegation attached particular importance to opera-tive para raph I, calling upon all States to respect theright of ‘f ree navigation in the Gulf, a right which

- should not be interpreted selectively, and hoped thatthe Council’s call not to interfere with shipping enroulc to and from States not part to the hostilitieswould be scrupulously respected. 7

The representative of France reminded the Councilof the relevance of resolution 540 (1983). which alsodealt with the freedom of navi ation and commercefor the Gulf States. He stated tfl at it was essential toensure that that text retained its authority in spirit aswell as in its conclusions, and that it behoved theUnited Nations and the Secretary-General to followup on that resolution as provided for therein.’

The President, speaking in his capacity as therepresentative of the United Kingdom, noted that thedraft resolution reflected the Gulf States’ desire toisolate themselves from the Iran-Iraq conflict andwas directed at attacks aimed at involving them inthat war. But while the draft resolution concentratedon one particular action, that did not mean itcondoned others, and his delegation did not inte retthe draft resolution as in any wa intended to athe Council’s position expresseJ

?fectin resolution 540

(1983).’The representative of Egypt formally requested a

vote on the draft resolution, in accordance with rule38 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure.’

.-

The representative of India stated that the Coun-cil’s action should be directed primarily towardsdefusing tensions and preventing a widening of theconflict and the possrble intervention of outsidePowers. He noted that the draft resolution dealt withone aspect of the Iran-Iraq conflict, whereas hisdelegation believed that a broader, more generallyacceptable, more balanced resolution would be morelikely to lead to the security of international shippingand the freedom of navigation in the Gulf, as well asan end to the conflict. Nevertheless, they wouldsupport the draft resolution because of its unequivo-cal afirmation of the principle of the freedom of

navigation and free, safe access and transit for theships of all countries.’

The representative of Malta expressed his delega-tion’s view that the restrictive formulations appear-ing in operative paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the draftresolution could in no way be Interpreted to derogatefrom universally accepted norms of internationalbehaviour or general principles of international law.Malta’s interpretation of those paragraphs was thatthey applied equally to all commercial shipping in allregions of the world.’

The President put the draft resolution6 to the vote.’It was adopted by I3 votes in favour to none a inst,with 2 abstentions, as resolution 552 (198 ) andPreads as follows:

The Securiry Council.Having considered the letter dated 21 May 1984 from the

representatives of Bahrain, Kuwait , Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,and the United Arab Emirates complaining against Iranian attackson commercial ships en route to and from the ports of Kuwait andSaudi Arabia,

Noring that Member States pledged to live together in peace withone a n o t h e r as g o o d neighbours in accordance with the Charter ofthe United Nations,

Reaflrming the obligations of Member States with respect to theprinciples and purposes of the Charter,

Reafirming also that all Member Stales are obliged to refrain intheir international relations from the threat or use of force againstthe territorial integrity or pohtical independence of any State,

Taking inro considerdon the importance of the Gulf region tointernational peace and security and its vital role to the stability ofthe world economy,

Deeply concernedover the recent attacks on commercial ships enroute to and from the ports of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia,

Convinced that these attacks constitute a threat to the safety andstability of the area and have serious implications for internationalpeace and security,

I . C a l l s upon al l States to respect, in accordance with interna-tional law, the right of free navigation;

2. ReaJ.Twms the right of free navigation in international watersand sea lanes for shipping en route to and from all ports andinstallations of the littoral States that are not parties to thehostilities;

3. Calls upon all States lo respect the territorial integrity of theStates that are not parties to the hostilities and to exercise theutmost restraint and to refrain from any act which may lead to afurther escalation and widening of the conflict;

4. Condemns the recent attacks on commercial ships en route toand from the ports of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia;

5. Demunds that such attacks should cease fonhwith and thatthere should be no interference with ships en route to and fromStates that arc not parties to the hostilities;

6. Decides, in the event of non-compliance with the presentresolution, to meet again to consider effective measures that arecommensurate with the gravity of the situation in order to ensurethe freedom of navigation in the area;

7. Reques ts the Secretary-General t o report on the progress ofthe implementation of the present resolution;

8. Decides to remain seized of the matter.Following the vote, the representative of Zim-

babwe stated that the Council should have addresseditself to both parties equally and that his delegationhad abstained because the resolution failed to take aneven-handed approach to the conflict. They ho dthat in its effort to deal with the immediatethe Council had not made the search for a so ution toP

rob emr

the wider issue of the Iran-Iraq war more difflcult.7The representative of Nicaragua indicated that his

delegation had abstained because it did not believethat the formulation of the principle of respect forthe territorial integrity of States contained in theresolution would promote a peaceful settlement of

2 8 4 Chapter VIII. Mdnteouwe of international prace and security

the conflict. The appeal for respect for the territorialintegrity of non-belligerent States should have beenextended to include countries at war; as it stood, itleft the door open for foreign intervention in coun-tries party to the conflict.’

The De uty Prime Minister and Minister forForei n A

flIiairs and Information of Kuwait stated

that, aving adopted a resolution, the Council mustdo everything possible to ensure its implementation.Kuwait thanked the Secretary-General and antici-pated that he would follow up on the implementationof the resolution, in which he could be sure of theirconstructive co-operation.

NOTESI S/ 16574. OR. 39th yr.. Suppl. for April-June 1984.2 For details, see chap. 111 of the present Supplement.) 2541~1 mtg.’ 2543rd mtg.g 2545th mtg.6S/16594, adopted without change as resolution 552 (1984).7 2546th mtg.

33. LEITER DATED 4 SEWEMBER 1984 FROM THECHARCk D’AFFAIRES Al OF THE PERMANENTMISSION OF NICARAGUA TO THE UNITEDNATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THESECURITY COUNCIL

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

By letter’ dated 4 September 1984 addressed to thePresident of the Council, the representative of Nica-ragua requested an urgent meeting of the Council tobe convened immediately to examine the situationcreated by the new escalation of aggression directedagainst his country.

At its 2557th meeting, on 7 September 1984, theCouncil included the letter in its agenda and consid-ered it at the same meeting.

The representative of Nicaragua ex ressed concernabout the increasing involvement oPmercenaries ofthe United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)in the no longer covert war against his country.Nicaragua had been alerting the international com-munity and the Government and people of theUnited States to the consequences of the increasinginvolvement. In that regard, the speaker furnishednumerous relevant examples including the dispatchof mercenaries, the transport of military equipment,training and direct participation in combat withContras, the constant holding of military and navalmanoeuvres in the waters close to Nicaragua and thebuilding of airports and other military installationsin Central America; and permanent reconnaissance,in other words spy flights, over Nicaraguan territoryby United States aircraft.

The permanent United States military presence inCentral America amounted to 1,400 United Statessoldiers on seven United States bases. Politicalsolutions seemed increasingly difficult to achieve.High-level spokesmen of the United States Adminis-tration, including President Reagan himself, Secre-tary of State Shultz and Ambassador Kirkpatrick,continued to threaten the Sandinist People’s Revolu-tion and the Government of National Reconstmc-

tion. The sole objective of those statements was toisolate Nicaragua internationally and to prepare thepolitical terrain for the invasion. Various UnitedStates officials, including the President, had onseveral occasions made statements in which they didnot discard the possibility of direct intervention inCentral America, including Nicaragua. The UnitedStates constituted a real threat to the security of theSandinist People’s Republic, which the United Stateswas openly attempting to destroy through a war ofaggression.?

The representative of the United States rejectedthe statement by the representative of Nicaragua andstated that the United States was not trying tooverthrow the Sandinista Government. He allegedthat .United States relations with Nicaragua haddeteriorated because, instead of keeping their prom-ises about human rithe Sandinistas hacf

hts and pluralistic democracy,develo ed increasingly close

military ties to Cuba and the !!oviet Union, tightenedtheir internal repression, had supported guerrillainsurgency in El Salvador and terrorism in Hondurasand Costa Rica and had continued an extensivemilitary build-up that threatened the security of theirneighbours.2

The representative of Nicaragua in his reply men-tioned that his country was concerned and grieved tosee the United States, the greatest empire in theworld, applying a double standard: that it was goingthrough the motions of seeking a negotiated settle-ment to the problems of Central America while at thesame time committing acts of aggression againstNicaragua. Such duplicity revealed the lack of smcer-ity on the part of the United States Govemment.2

The representative of the Soviet Union called theAmerican declaration that the United States did notintend to overthrow the Government of Nicaraguawas fallacious from beginning to end, because inparallel with that and other similar statements theUnited States had virtual1 openly continued tofinance, arm, train and send mercenaries to Nicara-guan territo . The reason for acts of intervention bythe United tates against Latin American countries5was its consistent policy of not allowing the autono-mous, economic, political and social development ofLatin America and attempting to impose on LatinAmerican countries the kind of system preferred bythe United States.2

NOTES’ Sl16731. OR, 39th yr.. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1984.2 2557th mrg.

34. LETTER DATED 3 OCTOBER 1984 FROM THE PER-MANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LAO PEOPLE’SDEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC TO THE UNITED NA-TIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THESECURITY COUNCIL

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

Bof t K

letter’ dated 3 October 1984, the representativee Lao People’s Democratic Repubhc requested

an urgent meeting of the Council to consider theattack on and occupation of three Lao villages byThailand and the resulting tense situation along theborder between the two countries.

Put I I 2 8 5

At its 2558th meeting, on 9 October 1984, theCouncil included the item in its agenda and invitedthe representatives of the Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic and Thailand, at their request, to partici-pate in the discussion without the right to vote.2 TheCouncil considered the matter at the same meeting.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister forForei n

%Affairs of the Lao People’s Democratic

Repu lit stated that on 6 June 1984 several battal-ions of the Thai Army had attacked Lao territory andoccupied three Lao villages. Thailand was takingmeasures to absorb and assimilate the villages,forcibly isolating them from the surrounding areaand abusing the villagers. It justified its claim to thevillages on the basis of a map drawn up ‘ointly by theThai and United States Armies in 1 9 !I 8. despite afootnote on the map stating that the frontier lmes itrepresented were not to be considered offtcial. Heclaimed that Thai efforts to force a re-examination ofthe frontier in the area of the three villages weredesigned to create a precedent for a revision of theentire border, in fulfilment of Thai expansionistaims, despite the fact that there had been no borderdispute between the two countries since the frontierhad been laid down in 1904-1907.

In negotiations with a Lao delegation, Thailandhad inittally agreed to withdraw from the villages buthad ended by unilaterally breaking off the negotia-tions. Recent1 ,informed the 6

the Thai Foreign Minister hadeneral Assembly that the Thai Gov-

ernment would withdraw its military presence fromthe villages,’ but the Thai statement was untrustwor-thy as it contained no guarantee and no timetable, noacknowledgement of Lao sovereignty and no com-mitment to restore the stalus quo as it existed before6 June by removing the Thai administration, policeforce, para-military force etc. He declared that Thai-land must withdraw its troops and administrativepersonnel totally and unconditionally, return villag-ers who had been forcibly taken to Thailand, com-pensate villagers for losses of life and property andrestore the situation that had prevailed prtor to theoccupation. The Lao Government appealed to theCouncil to urge Thailand to respond quickly andpositively to the Lao demands and to abide by theCharter in its international relations4

The representative of Thailand pointed out thatthe villages in question were extremely small, im-poverished and remotely situated, and stated that inthe view of his Government the issue did not deservethe attention of the Council. He related that thematter had begun when a Thai road-building crewhad been harassed by Lao soldiers inside Thaiterritory, eventually prompting Thailand to sendtroops to protect the crew and ensure the continua-tion of the project. He noted that a study of availablemaps gave Thai authorities reasonable grounds tobelieve that the villages in dispute were partly orwholly inside Thai territory.

The two sides had entered talks but had beenunable to reach general agreement, although the hadagreed on the watershed principle. Thailand hadthensent a survey team to the area to determine the exactboundary line and had announced its willin ness toaccept an independent survey to verify Thai mdings,t8but harassment by the Lao side had preventedcompletion of the survey. Now, in the interest ofmaintaining good-neighbourly relations with the LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic, Thailand had with-drawn its troops from the villages. The Lao People’s

Democratic Republic should now have no reason forobjecting to a joint technical team establishing theboundary, but rf it did Thailand was repared to askthe Secretary-General to send a fact- Pmding mission.Meanwhile, both sides should refrain from assaultson the other, including verbal assaults, and shouldprevent any third-party interference in what was abilateral issue.

While Thailand naturally wished to renegotiate theborder between the two countries, the originalboundaries having been established at a time whenthe Siamese Government had been in no position toresist encroachment by the French colonial adminis-tration in Indochina, successive Thai Governmentshad given precedence to the larger interest of main-taining good-neighbourliness; Thailand did not wanta single inch of Lao territory or a single Lao nationaland looked forward to a future of peaceful andconstructive relations with the Lao People’s Demo-cratic Republic.4

Exercising his right of reply, the representative ofthe Lao People’s Democratic Republic stated that hisGovernment would not a ree to a survey of the areabecause it had already su% mitted definitive proof ofLao sovereignty. Doing so would mean giving up thatsovereignty, fatling to recognize the France-Siamesetreaties and thus the inviolability of the entireborder, and so destabilizing not only Laos, butCambodia as well. He further stated that Thailandhad not, so far, removed its troops from the area;instead, it had started bringing in reinforcements,forcibly conscripting young people, violating Laoairspace with reconnaissance planes and indiscrimi-nately firing cannon at neighbouring villa es. Herequested that the Council remain seized oftae issueuntil the matter had been resolved.4

NOTES’ 916765, OR. 39th yr . . Suppl. fir O c t . - D e c . 1 9 8 4 .z 2558th mtg. For details, see chap. 111 of the present

Supplemenl.’ ORGA, 39rh sess., plea mrgs., 17th mtg., para. 61.4 2558th mtg.

35. LETTER DATED 9 NOVEMBER 19B4 FROM THEPERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUATO THE UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THEPRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

By letter’ dated 9 November I984 addressed to thePresident of the Council, the representative of Nica-ragua re

9uested that the Council be convened as a

matter o urgency for the purpose of considering thevery serious situation created by the escalation ofacts of aggression, the repeated threats and new actsof provocation fostered by the United States Govem-ment.

At its 2562nd meeting, on 9 November 1984, theCouncil included the item in its agenda and consid-ered it at the same meeting.

The representative of Nicaragua gave an accountof numerous military provocations by the UnitedStates against his country. He referred to variousAmerican official statements and press reports con-taining serious threats based on unfounded andcontroversial suppositions. The announcements in

2 8 6 Chapter VIII. Malntcoaacc of iotemrtioml peace and security

the press and by the Pentagon about Americanmilitary moves in the region were seen with concernin Nicaragua. Manoeuvres of the navies of CentralAmerican countries supported by American advisersand the United States Navy in the Gulf of Fonseca, astate of alert at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, therelocation of the 101 st Parachute Division from ahinterland state to a coastal state, the threateningstatements of members of the Rea n Administra-tion, including the President himse f, and everydayPacts of a

!Yresston., jed Ntcaragua constantly to fear a

United tates mtlrtary intervention.These threats were part of the policy of aggression

by the United States a ainst Nicaragua. Statementsfrom the Pentagon anf the State Department con-firmed that further significant measures of aggressionwere being prepared by the United States. TheGovernment of Nicaragua denounced these ma-noeuvres and the manipulation of public opinion. Onvarious occasions Nicaragua had complained in theCouncil and in the General Assembly about thepolicy of the United States Government and haddone it once again because his country believed thatthe Council was obliged to take appropriate measuresto guarantee the purposes of the Charter.2

The representative of the United States pointedout that members of the Council should call formeetings only after reasonable notice had been givento other members, unless there was an emergencyrequiring immediate action. No such emergencyexisted in the present case. Insistence that a meetingtake place forthwith constituted a misuse of theCouncil. The allegations against the United Stateswere totally without foundation. Referring to theprocedure employed at the meeting he said thatunder the provisions of Chapter VI, Article 33, of theCharter, prior to bringing a dispute before theCouncil an effort should be made to exhaust certainother remedies, including the resort to regionalagencies. In the case of the Americas, that was theOrganization of American States (OAS).

NOTES

Is/16E25, OR. 39th yr.. Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1984.

l2562nd mtg.

Documents

Chapter VIII CONSIDERATION OF QUESTIONS … VIII CONSIDERATION OF QUESTIONS UNDER THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY CONTENTS PWt