A/42/PV.101 General Assembly

Before calling on the first speaker, I should like to remind representatives that, in accordance with the decision taken at this morning's plenary meeting, the list of speakers in the debate on this item will be closed today at 5 p.m. I therefore request those representatives wishing to participate to inscribe their names as soon as possible. Mr. GHEZAL (Tunisia) (interpretation from Arabic): The General Assembly of the united Nations is meeting today, within the framework of its forty-seoond regular session, to resume consideration of item 136 relating to the "Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country", in keeping with General Assembly resolution 42/210 B of 17 December 1987 and at the request of a number of States Members of the United Nations. Mr. President, my delegation hopes that, thanks to your wise leadership, and your competence and efficiency, the General Assembly will bring about the desired results. We deeply regret that the Genera! Assembly has been obliged to resume its session owing to the serious measure taken by the host country, the united States, likely to lead to the clos ing of the Permanent Obser ver Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PlO) to the United Nations in New York. We are all aware that if this measure is implemented it will have adverse consequences not only for the PLO Mission's activities in New York but also for the Organization as a whole, thus threatening its inviolability and that of its Members and Observers and undermining the Organization's mission in the service of peace, security, co-operation and understanding aoong peoples, which is contrary to international law and incompatible with the duty of Member States to fulfil their obligations under the United Nations Charter. One of the major objectives of the united Nations, in Article 1 of the united Nations Charter, is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Because of their faith in these noble objectives all national liberation movements have had recourse to the Uni ted Na tions to express the aspira tions of the peoples they represent to freedom and self-determination, thus demonstrating that their preference for peaceful solutions and the emergence of an international community based on justice and solidarity. Not only have these movements found in the United Na tions the support they sought in achieving their independence, but they have also been invited to participate in the work of the organization, which was very instrumental in eliminating colonialism and fostering the concept of the rights of peoples to self-determination, fundamental human rights, freedom and dignity and further strengthened the prospects for peace, security and co-operation among peoples. In this context the General Assembly, in the course of its considera tion of the item on Palestine, has recognized that this is a problem of a whole people having been de pr ived of its legi tima te right to a homeland, to freedom, dignity and its own identity. The General Assembly has also recognized that the problem essentially stems from the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians; it has not dealt with the question of Palestine solely as one of colonialism, but determined that the Palestinian people were the party primarily concerned in this conflict and confirmed their right to struggle for self-determination. That is why the General Assembly under resolution 3237 (XXIX), da ted 22 November 1984, at its twenty-ninth session invited the Palestine Liberation Organ iza tion (PLO), the legi tine te repr esen ta tive of the Pales tin ian people, to participate in the work and sessions of the General Assembly as an Observer, and indeed in all international organizations under the auspices of the General Assembly or other organizations within the United Nations system. The Gener al Assembly conf irmed the legi tima cy of the PLO in its resolu tion 3375 (XXX), thereby inviting it to participate in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East which are held under the auspices of the United Nations, on an equal footing with all the other parties concerned. Recently the General Assembly reiterated this invitation in its resolution 42/209 A, in which it ca Ils for the convening of the International Peace Conference, with the participation of all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the PLO, the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. After 13 years of legitimate political activity, in accordance with the aforementioned General Assembly resolutions and fully in keeping with all its obligations vis-it-vis the united Nations and all the laws and decisions of the host country, including the special resolutions limiting the activities of its members and the ir movements, today the Permanent Observer Miss ion of the Pales tine Liberation Organization here in New York has been placed under the host country's Foreign Relations Authorization Act for the Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989. That is a grave step which constitutes a violation of international law and norms. Title X of this Act contains the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, which establishes a prohibition to establish or maintain an office, headquarters, premises or other facilities or establishments within the jurisdiction of the United States at the behest or direction of, or with funds provided by the PLO or any of its constituent groups, on territory under United states jurisdiction. Since this measure would lead to the closing of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO to the united Nations in New York, the Secretary-General sta ted on 22 October 1987 that the members of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3237 (XXIX), were invitees of the United Nations and, as such, covered by sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947. Consequently, the host country is bound to authorize officials of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO to enter the United states and with a view to discharging their official functions at united Nations Headquarters in New York. On 5 November 1987 you yourself, Mr. President, stated that General Assembly resolution 3237 (XXIX), and the relevant provisions of the Headquarters Agreement, concluded between the United States and the United Nations in 1947, constituted fully binding obligations pursuant to international law. Furthernore, in resolution 42/210 B, the General Assembly, reiterates that the Permanent Observer Miss ion of the PLO is covered by the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement and should be enabled to estalish and maintain premises and adequate functional facilities, and that the personnel of the Mission should be able to enter and remain in the United States to carry out their official functions. It also requests the host country to abide by its treaty obligations under the United Nations Headquarters Agreement and in this connection to refrain from taking any action that would prevent the discharge of the official functions of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the Uni ted Nations. (Mr. Gheza1, Tunisia) As we know, the General Assembly adopted that resolution on 17 December 1987 by 145 votes to 1 - Israel having been alone in voting aga inst it - with no abs ten tions • In the light of the United States position and statements made by senior Uni ted States Government officials following the congressional passage of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989, including its Title X, it appears that the Act could result in the closing of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO in New York. That would violate the international obliga tions of their Government under the Heacquarters Agreement. We had hoped that the host country would not renounce its international obligations but rather fully respect its commitments towards the united Nations - especially since it has been in the forefront in actually proroting the role of the Organization - and live up to its obligations under the Headquarters Agreement and relevant United Nations resolutions. But, having been adopted in accordance with the Constitution of the host country, the Act has become law. In the absence of any expectation of a positive response from the host country, and despite the secretarY~General'smany efforts to find a legal remedy in conformity with section 21 of the Heacquarters Agreement, as described in his reports submitted to the General Asserrbly in accordance wi th resolution 42/210 B, it has become clear that the Government of the host <;:ountry intends to implement this law. There can be no doubt that the purpose of granting inviolability to the United Nations was to enable the Organization to be independent and to do its work without restrictions. The host country is bound by the Heacquarters Agreement not to impose on the Organization, its Members or its Observers any provisions of its domestic legislation. The law adopted by the host country, which would close the offices of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO, violates provisions of the Headquarters Agreement by compelling the Organization, its Members and its Observers to accept restrictions that would limit, even neutralize, their activities, independence and freedom. If accepted, this law will set a grave precedent in international relations and in relations between parties to Headquarters Agreements; it would have serious effects on the inviolability of international law. Permanent Missions to the united Nations are not accredited to the host country; the situation is different from that with respect to diplomatic or consular missions accredited to Governments. The host country therefore has no right to refuse to Permanent Missions their rights as Merrbers or Observers of the international Organization. The peoples of the world have been following the ongoing heroic uprising by the Palestinian people, which has rejected oppression and asserted its human dignity and its identity, overcoming the forces of oppression. The whole world has seen this on its television screens. The world thirsts for a peaceful and just solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, guaranteeing the Palestinian people all its inalienable rights to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State on the soil of which it has been robbed. The United Nations and its Secretary-General are making concerted efforts to convene an international peace conference in the Middle East under united Nations auspices, with the participation of all parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, on an equal footing, and of the permament members of the Security Council. We are looking forward to welcoming the representatives of the Palestinian people as fUll-fledged Member s of the United Na tions. The wor Id is look ing to the United Nations and the organizations of the united Nations system to resume their role in the maintenance of international peace and security and in building a future based on right, law, justice and the solidarity of peoples. (Mr. Ghezal, Tunisia) But now, the law adopted by the host country strikes a blow at all those aspirations, and damages the credibility of the host country's eurren t peace efforts in the Middle East. Enforcement of the Act adopted by the host country would have very serious consequences for the United Nations~ there is no foreseeing its effects. It cannot curb terrorism, as a senior official of the host country has claimed it can. The PLO has never committed an act of terrorism in this countrYl in fact, the PLO has repeatedly condemned all acts of terror ism, of whatever kind and by whoever committed. If those who accuse the Palestinian people and its representa Uves of terror ism truly mean to combat the scourge of terror ism, they should work against those who are continually committing crimes against the defenceless Palestinian people in the occupied territories and those who make terrorism into an official declared policy and practice, as we witness daily on our television screens. That terrorism is carried out against young people, women and children, in camps, in private homes and in hospitals in the occupied territories. This terrorism has pursued the Palestinians and Arahs in foreign countries, even those far distant. ~he Tunisian people will never forget the aggression committed hy the Israeli Air Force on 1 Octoher 1985, which claimed a number of innocent and defenceless victims. We endorse the Secretary-Genera1's position with regard to the legal dispute between the united Nations and the host country concerning the applicability of the Headauarters Agreement. We also endorse the statements of those senior officials of the host country who consider the applicahility of Title X of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which would lead to the closing of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO to the united Nations in New York, as a violation of their country's obligations under the Headauarters Agreement. Similarly, we share the international community's view that the United Nations remains the expression of the aspirations of oppressed peoples and the hope of all mankind to live in a wor.1d of law, security and co-operation. We must spare no effort to maintain and guarantee its inviolability, independence and freedom of acti~ity, as well as all its powers. The Tunisian delegation calls on the host country, with which we maintain strong ties of friendship and co-operation and of which we know the commitment to constitutional principles, democracy and international law, given its international responsihi1ities as a super-Power and permanent member of the Security Council, to review Title X of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for the Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 with a view to preserving the inviolability of the United Nations and freeing it of all outside pressure. We hope that the host country will respond positively to the position taken by the Secretary-General pursuant to the applicability of section 21 of the Headauarters Agreement and to the reauest of the International Court of Justice, Mission of the PLO to the United Nations in New York, so that the inviolability of the United Nations and respect for international law may be preserved. We must devote all our efforts towards ensuring that justice be done to the Palestinian people, that they be freed from occupation and colonialism and that a just and lasting peace be established in the Middle East, if we sincerely wish to preserve human rights and the rights of peoples. Mr. SHlHABI (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): Mr. President, it is a pleasure to see you again amongst us presiding over the work of the General Assembly with the wisdom and capability we have witnessed during this session, as we gather today to address a serious matter concerning the united Nations as a global institution. It is serious matter when the host country decides that it has the right, by a unilateral decision, to violate the mandatory Headquarters Agreement; and it is equally a serious matter when it does not respond to the appeals of the Secretary-General, whom we pra ise for his sound and firm stand to preserve the foundation of the international Organization, when it does not respond to his appeals for arbitration as stipulated in section 21 of that Agreement. It is a double violation of the historic international Agreement that we have assembled today to discuss how to bring a halt to such violation and contain its immediate implications and far-reaching consequences concerning the relations between the international Organization and the host country and to find a way to preserve respect for international legitimacy in the organization of international legitimacy and protect its dignity in the citadel of international dignity. From this perspective we call upon the united States - the super-Power which was among the first to nurture the establishment and development of this international Organization in conformity with its principles and ideals and was one of its principal founders as an idea, a symbol and a Charter and as an executive body, and which played a tangible role in its various stages of development - to make of the sovereignty of international legi timacy a sacred code as much as na tional sovereignty is a sacred code. We call upon it to commit itself to what it has always preached in this regard and put aside any short-term considerations at the expense of a noble principle and of the basic rules whose acceptance it was itself a leader in promoting in the international arena. Why the PLO Mission in particular? The host country has many friends in the United Nations) there are others here as well in the category of non-friends. Why then is there an exception for the PLO, the sole, legi timate representa tive of and spokesman for the Arab Palestinian people, the subject of a great cause the United Nations has been addressing for the last 40 years? Why is the voice of Palestine the exception to them all? We know and representatives here know, and God Almighty above all knows, that this is a cheap zionist attack by which the Israeli authorities are undermining ita friends and benefactors, thinking that they are undermining its enemies and this international Organization, which witnessed its illegitimate birth and accOJ'llm:)dated it in the wrong place. Every Arab, every toDslem and every supporter of right and justice in this great gathering is a voice for Palestine in this United Nations. Zionists think that by their action they are silencing the voice of Palestine in the international Organization. They ignored and denied every element of the cause of the Palestinian people and still do. If they imagine that they are scoring a victory over the Palestinians, they are ignorant of where the arena actually is. Today it is on the land of martyrdom, in the heart of Palestine itself. Or do they think that by doing what they are doing they are scoring a victory over the host country itself, making it commit for their sake this violation which all people with knowledge and understanding here acknowledge to be illega 1. Maybe so - and maybe they have succeeded in that. The roaring voice of Palestine, the free and the proud, and of the Palestinians struggling and confronting oppression and tyranny is being heard today on the land of Palestine. Their calls are reverberating from the minarets of Jerusalem and Hebron, in the bells of Nazareth and on the llPunts of Nablus, Sa fad and the Golan. Those calls are echoing on the walls of Acre, the beaches of Jaffa, the meadows of Gaza and the valleys of the Jordan River. And they are being heard by the armies of occupation, the bands of settlers on the land of Palestine. These roaring voices are smashing their false dreams, their dreams of having become the masters and landlords of the country and having rid it of its own masters and owners. The roaring voice of Palestine, being heard today by Zionism, is shaking zionism's foundations and destroying its dreams. Zionism is fighting that voice in the United Nations and attempting to silence it here by preventing its representatives from taking their places in the international Organization. Zionism will certainly, in all circumstances, fail to suppress that voice in Palestine, despite all the terrorist and racist exercises in which it is engaging and the crimes of genocide it is committing. The people of Palestine will defeat Zionism on that people's solid ground, the land of its fathers and ancestors. The people of Palestine will turn Zionist despotism into defeats which will be inscribed in shame on the annals of crime. This is Zionism, sitting among the members of the Assembly wearing silk gloves, while its culprits try to bury individuals alive and break the bones of children on the ir own land. zion ism thinks tha t by doing this it is silencing the voice of Palestine on Palestinian soil~ and Zionism believes that by doing this it is silencing the voice of Palestine in the united Nations. But the voice of Palestine will rise from this rostrum and reverberate through the land of Palestine, shaking the pillars of oppression at their very foundations. Zionism has declared war on the Palestinians on all fronts - and one of those fronts is the attempt to exclude the Palestinians from this great rostrum. Zionism will be defeated on all fronts, including that of this great rostrum. Right will always prevail, and Zionism will be defeated by the determination of the Palestinian people~ its deceipt will be unfolded before, and its aims will be exposed to, everyone here. The Palestine Liberation Organization will remain in the United Nations until it becomes a full Member representing the Palestinian State - and, God willing, that will be on a not-too-distant day. Israel, the instigator of today's problem, knows this and resists it. Israel has also instigated the cases of espionage, the stealing of security documents and the embezzlement of the money of the taxpayers of its friends. We have no doubt that the great sense of responsibility will make the thoughtful, the responsible and the judicious in the host country re-evaluate the situation. Indeed, their previous generations enunciated on the basis of these principles ideals of which the succeeding generations have become proud. Let the host country fulfil its commitments and do what it itself calls upon otherS' to do, on both the international and the local levels. We hope that an opinion which bears the weight of the International Court of Justice will be sufficient to place (Mr. Shihabi, Saudi Arabia) matters in their right perspective and expose the dangers of continuing on this precar ious path - the pa th of disrespect for trea ties and obliga tions - so that we may achieve the adherence by all to the Headquarters Agreement. May I express thanks and appreciation to the upholders of justice here. May I extend greetings from here - which I trust will resound and echo in every house in Palestine - to the steadfast, to the Mujahideen there, to those who are confronting oppression, aggression and the weapons of the Zionist cowards with bare chests and whose determination is defeating those cowards. We extend greetings from this rostrum and we offer a prayer that God will inevitably lead His Mujahideen to victory. In the name of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we invite the General Assembly to uphold interna tional legitimacy, and we call on all members here to support and protect this international Organization from Zionist conspiracies. We earnestly hope that, despite the intrigues of zionism, the concern of the host country for the very efficacy of the Organization will remove a 11 obstacles from our path. Mr. SARRE (Senegal) (interpreta tion from French): Our ing the last week we have learned with sadness of a landslide following torrential rains which has cost a number of lives in Fez, the spiritual capital of Morocco. My delegation takes this opportunity of extending its condolences to the Moroccan delegation. It is a great honour for me to address this resumed session of the General Assembly as representative of Senegal and Chairman of the African Group, and as Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. We hope that the resumed session will be calm and fruitful and will deal with all due responsibility wi th a question of great significance to us - the closing of the Palestine Liberation Organization's Mission in New York. At the outset, I would say how greatly we value the Secretary-GeneralIs The General Assembly, in adopting resolu tion 42/210 B of 17 December 1987 by 145 in favour and one aga inst, an overwhelming ma jor i ty, requested the host country to abide by its treaty obligations under the United Nations Headquarters Agreement and in this connection to refrain from taking any action that would prevent the discharge of the official functions of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to the United Nations. The virtually unanimous vote in favour of tha t resolution demons tra tes the General Assembly's grave concern at non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the Head::}uarters Agreement. The proper functioning of the United Nations and its ability to fulfil its mandate under the Charter are at stake. Aside from the immediate problem of the proposed shutting of the PLO Observer Mission, many other questions arise as to the implications of this measure for the future of the Organization as a whole. Rela tions between the Uni ted Nations and the host country must be based not only on legal agreements but also on a willingness by the parties to live up to those agreements and to abide by the dispute-settlement procedure contained therein. The host country's adoption of the proposed legislation, in violation of the Headquarters Agreement, as reported in the Secretary-General's report (A/42/9l5), has caused considerable distress at the United Nations. In fact, it was only a matter of days after the General Assembly's adoption of resolution 42/210 B that the President of the United States signed and promulgated, on 22 December 1987, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for the Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989, Title X of which, the Anti-Terror ism Act of 1987, includes a prohibition "to establish or mainta in an office, headquarters, premises or other facilities or establishments within the jurisdiction of the united States at the behest or direction of, or wi th funds provided by the PLO or any of its (Mr. Sar re, Senega 1) We have noted with satisfaction the official position taken by the united States Department of State, which is that the United States is under an obligation to permit PLO Observer Mission personnel to enter and remain in the united States to carry out their official functions at the United Nations. However, we continue to be deeply disturbed by the fact that the United States Government has been unable to provide an assurance that the present arrangements for the PLO Observer Mission will not be curta iled or otherwise affected by the new legislation. Moreover, we are disturbed by the host country's continued unwillingness to enter formally into the dispute-settlement procedure set forth in section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement, as requested by the Secretary-General, that procedure clearly being the sole legal remedy ava ilable to the united Na tions in this case. Under the new law, the PLO Observer Mission would be closed down on 21 March - three weeks from now - and yet, as I said a few moments ago, we still do not know whether the Uni ted States Government intends to apply the law or whether it is prepared to agree to the arbi tra tion procedure stipula ted in the Hea dquarters Agreement. AS We all know, the PLO Observer Mission to the united Nations was established more than 13 years ago and has functioned unimpeded since tha t time, in keeping with the relevant provisions of the Headquarters Agreement, that is, with the assent of the united States Government. In resolution 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974 the General Assembly invited the PLO, with observer status, to take part in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and all international conferences convened under the auspices of the General Assembly and other United Nations organs. Its presence here is the result of the will of the international community, which feels that the participation of the PLO, the representative of the Palestinian people, in all efforts, deliberations and solution of the question. The implementation by the United States Goverment of the law to which I have referred would therefore prevent the PLO from exercising its right, as recognized by the interna tional communi ty, to participa te in the united Nations efforts to find a comprehensive and just settlement to the Palestinian question. Events in the occupied Palestinian ter ri tor ies since last December have made clear to everyone the tragic consequences of 20 years of Israeli military occupation and have shown that it is more than ever urgently necessary to move towards a comprehensive and lasting sOlution. In the opinion of the overwhelming major ity at the united Nations, such a solution must be based on the recognition and exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and on the full par ticipa tion of their legi tirnate representa tives in any determination of its future. The moment has come to show greater political will and, above all, to resort to conciliation as well as to confidence-building measures. Besides being contrary to present-day realities and united Nations resolutions, any attempt to minimize the participation of the PLO in this process would result in heightened tension and impede progress towards a peaceful settlement of the questions of the Middle East and Palestine. Nor would it be in keeping wi th the noble tradi tion of the united States of America, which has always been to uphold the right to freedom of expression and association and the right of peoples to self-determination. We strongly urge the host country to provide the assurances requested by the SecretarY-General with regard to the maintenance of present arrangements for the PLO Observer Mission and to take the necessary steps to defer the measures it has adopted against the PLO. If those steps are not taken quickly, the host country should agree to binding arbitration, as provided in section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement, for the (Mr. Sane, Senegal) settlement of disputes between the United Na tions and the Uni ted States in respect to interpreta tion or implementation of the Agreement. Meanwhile, we give our unreserved support to certain proposals, among which is that the General Assenbly request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice to determine whether the legislation in question is compatible wi th the United Na tions treaty obligations as host country. That opinion would guide the arbitral tribunal in its final decision. While awaiting such an advisory opinion from the Court, the host country would be under an obligation to take no steps to implement that law. It is clear to all here who have taken part over the years in the debates on the Middle East and the question of Palestine in the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and many other organs of the united Nations, inclUding the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, that the representatives of the PLO have played a unique and ir replaceable role as the legitimate and sole spokesman of the Palestin ian People. Their voice must be heard, and we must ensure that it is heard.

I now call on the representative of Zimbabwe, who will speak on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. Mr. MUDENGE (Zimbabwe): I wish to convey to you, Sir, the deep gratitude of my delegation, on behalf of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, for the expeditious and timely manner in which you have acted to reconvene the forty-second session of the General Assembly in order to resume consideration of agenda item 136, "Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country 11 • (l-1r. Mudenge, zimbabwe) It will be recalled that in paragraph 4 of resolution 42/210 B, adopted at its 98th meeting on 17 December las t, the Assembly wisely decided to keep under active review the disturbing developments pertaining to this item, which threaten to strike a body blow at the international legal order. Consequently, at its 99th meeting on 21 December, the Assembly decided, by decision 42/460, to retain this important item on the agenda of its forty-second session. In the light of current developments on this matter, Sir, your decis ion to reconvene the Assembly today in its forty-second session could not be more timely, and once again testifies to your wisdom and proven diploma tic sk ills, as well as the commitment to the preservation of the legal foundations of the international order for which your country, the German Democratic Republic, is well known. The Assembly has before it the reports of the Secretary-General (A/42/91S and Add.l) , submitted in pursuance of his mandate under resolution 42/210 B. I wish on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countr ies to pay specia 1 tr ibute to the Secretary-General, who has closely monitored the actions being considered by the host country which might result in the closure of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (Pill) to the united Nations. Our profound appreciation goes to him for the tireless efforts he has made to safeguard the Headquarters Agreement of 1947 and to ensure that the PLO Observer Mission is not impeded from discharging its official functions at the United Nations. The facts outlined in the Secretary-GeneralIs report, as well as the numerous press reports on the subject under consideration, indicate an undoubtedly high probability that the host country Government will proceed to apply the legislation that seeks to outlaw the PLO Permanent Observer Mission. What we are faced with today is a ticking bomb that has been set to detonate on 21 March 1988. (Mr. Mudenge, Zimbabwe) If that bomb goes off on 21 March it is not only the PLO Observer Mission that will be blown up. It is true that the immediate victim will be the PLO, but there will be other casualties as well. One will be the status of the Headquarters Agreement and its efficacy in protecting the integrity of the United Nations Headquarters itself so long as it remains here in New York. The implementation of the legislation adopted by the host coun try legisla ture will raise the crucial and vexing questions 0 f how safe the United Na tions Headquarter s is in New York and how effective the Headquarters Agreement is in protecting not only the PLO but all Missions accredi ted to the Organiza tion. The Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO to the United Nations was established 13 years ago on the basis of the Assembly's resolution 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974. That resolution invited the PLO to participate in the Assembly's sessions and work in the capacity of observer, as well as in the sess ions and the work of all international conferences convened under the auspices of other organs of the United Nations, also in the capacity of Observer. Resolution 3237 (XXIX) empowered the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps to implement that decision to grant observer status to the PLO. As an invitee of the united Nations, on the basis of that resolution, the PLO Observer Mission is consequently covered by sections 11, 12 and 13, in Article IV, of the Headquarters Agreement of 1947 between the United Nations and the host country, the United States of America. The combined effect of resolution 3237 (XXIX) and the Headquarters Agreement, together with Article 105 of the United Nations Charter, is to impose a clear legal obligation on the Government of the host country to permL t the PLO to ma inta in offices in New York accredited to the United Nations. As was mentioned this morning, the Secretary of State of the host country, Mr. George Shul tz, himself acknowledged the existence of this legal obligation in a letter dated (Mr. Mudenge, zimbabwe) 29 January 1988 addressed to the United States Senate. In that letter, Secretary Shultz advised the United States Senate that: "The PLO Observer Mission represents the PLO in the U.N. It is in no sense accredi ted to the U. S. The U. S. has made it clear that PLO Observer Mission personnel are present in the Uni ted Sta tes solely in the ir ca pacity as invitees of the united Nations within the meaning of the Headquarters Agreement. While we therefore are under an obligation to permit PLO Observer Mission personnel to enter and remain in the united States to carry out their official functions at U.N. Headquarters, we retain the right to deny entry to or expel any individual PLO representative dir ectly impl icated in terrorist acts" • The legal opinion expresed in the letter from Mr. Shultz was shared by the Secretary-General and the united Nations Legal Counsel, who, as recorded in paragraph 49 of the report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country (A/42/26), stressed that the key point of the letter by Secretary Shultz was that the uited States was "under an obligation to permit PLO Observer Mission personnel to enter and remain in the united States to carry out their official functions at United Nations". (A/42/26, para. 49) The Secretary of State also very accurately says in his letter that the PLO Observer Mission is accredited not to the United States Government, but to the United Nations. Therefore the presence of the Observer Mission in New York cannot be terminated at will by any entity in the host country. The present legislation by the host country legislature seeks to close down the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO on the grounds that The PLO Observer Mission has carried out its official functions in New York for 13 years now. For those 13 years we have not heard of, or seen, any reports implicating the Mission in activities of the nature alleged by the legislation. Neither has the Government of the host country presented to anyone any ev idence implicating the Observer Mission in such activities. In the letter to which I have referred the Secretary of State points out the right of the host country Government to expel any individual PLO representative directly implicated in terrorist acts. If the allegations made in the legislation in question were applicable to the PLO Observer Mission in New York, surely the host country would have invoked that right against the offending personnel of the Mission. But since the Observer Mission was established here there has never been a single case involving the expuls ion by the host country of any individual member of the Mission's personnel. As is clearly sta ted in the Secretary-General' s report. the issue is one of compliance with international law. Paragraph 7 points out: "The Headquarters Agreement was a binding international instrument the obligations of the united States under which were, in the view of the secretary-General and the General Asserrbly, being violated by the legislation in question." (A/42/915, para. 7) This gross violation of the Charter and the Headquarters Agreement gravely undermines the cardinal principle of international law: pacta sunt servanda - treaties must be honoured. Respect for the rule of law is a sine qua non for the continued existence of a rational international environment. Without it, the relative order we enjoy today evaporates. The planned action by the host country aga inst the PLO Miss ion would certa inly establish a dangerous precedent for the status and the fate of all Observer Missions at the united Nations. The presence of Observer Missions here is enormously useful in enhancing the effectiveness of the Uni ted Na tions as a forum for co-operation in solving international problems. The contribution of the PLO Mission in this respect has been second to none. The international community is acutely conscious of the obligation incumbent upon the united Nations to facilitate the attainment by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights. We are equally conscious of the right of the Palestinian people to present and defend their cause in international forums, and especially in the united Nations. It was in this context that the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, in its Communique issued on 16 October 1987, and circulated as United Nations document A/42/696, tI ••• found unacceptable and rejected any attempt to deny the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people its recognized right to participate effectively in the work of the United Nations " (A/42/696, p. 2) The move to close the PLO Observer Mission could not have come at a more inopportune moment. It comes at a time when the occupying Power is using its brutal "iron fist" to crush Pales tinian bones and protests in the occupied territories, and at a time when the international community, including the Secretary of State of the host country, is searching for a comprehensive, peaceful and lasting solution to the Middle East question. By seeking to close the PLO Observer Miss ion the host country is not only deny ing tha t organ iza t ion a ma jor non-violent structure with which to champion the cause of its people on the international stage but it is also casting a dark cloud over its professed desire to mediate in the search for a solution. We are profoundly disturbed that the intended closure of the PLO Office to the United Nations will result in this Organization being denied the opportunity to hear both sides of the conflict in the Middle East. In such a situation, some Member s may well ask whether it is fa ir to continue to give access to th is Assembly to only one side to the confl ict. Finally, since by closing the PLO Offices the host country is denying the PLO the use of this peaceful means of promoting the Palestinian cause, what moral justification, one may inquire, does anyone n<M have to call on the PLO not to use physical force or violence in the furtherance of its just cause? The closure of the PLO Offices at the Un i ted Na tions raises distur bing questions about the future and nature of the United Nations. This forty-second session of the General Assembly may be called upon to take some rather rromentous decisions. We know how powerful the host country is. We also know that it has the means to exercise its power over all of us. But this exercise of the host country's power should not be done in violation of international treaties. It does not do great honour to the integrity of the host country to act arbitrarily, whether by closing down the PLO Observer Mission, or by imposing limitations on the size of Missions accredited to the United Nations, or by seizing and detaining families of members of Missions enjoying diplomatic immunity. This arbitrary exercise of power renders worthless the Agreement between the host country and the United Nations. The Assembly has been convened today because in some ways the fate of the United Nations itself is at stake. In addressing the specific issue of the PLO Mission, we are seeking preventive measures to protect not only t.he PLO, but the United Nations as a whole and the Headquarters Agreement, and by extension, all Missions accredited to the United Nations. What the Assembly is called upon to do is to set into motion the mechanism to defuse the time bomb before 21 March. We are also here to try and convince the host country that we should work together, within the framework of the Headquarters Agreement, to defuse this bomb. The effort we are undertaking today should not be construed as a hostile act against the host country. It is a process aimed at inviting the host country to join the rest of the international community in the effort to stop the explosion it has set to go off on 21 March. The Secretary-General has pushed as far as he can in his efforts to negotiate an amicable settlement of the dispute whose existence we all acknowledge. The Assembly has already determined, as stated in resolution 42/210 B, that the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO is covered by the provisions of the Headquarter s Agreement and should be enabled to establish and ma inta in premises and functional facilities, and tha t the personnel of the Observer Mission should be enabled to enter and remain in the United States to carry out their official functions. The Assembly is today called upon to ensure that the host country honours its legal obligation to maintain the current arrangements which have been in effect for 13 years and whi ch ensures tha t the PLO Miss ion continues to exercise its rights under the Headquarters Agreement and under resolution 3237 (XXIX) and the Charter of the Uni ted Na tions. The Assembly is also ca lled upon to ensure that the host country also respects its legal obligation to enter into the dispute settlement procedure under section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement. The Secretary-General has stated in his report that the section 21 procedure is the only legal remedy available to the United Nations in this matter. The non-aligned countr ies fully endorse that position and trust that the Assembly will give its unanimous support to the Secretary-GeneralIs action in invoking that procedure by nominating an arbitrator. The Assembly should a 1so ca 11 upon the host coun try to proceed to nomina te its arbitrator in compliance with its legal obligation under section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement. The host country has informed the Secretary-General that it is not yet ready to make a decision with respect to whether or not to proceed to apply the legislation against the PLO Mission. The host country says it needs more time to consider the issue. But the host country has also triggered the mechanism for the explosion of the bomb and the clock is ticking; the day for the explosion is getting closer with each passing day. Time is not on our side. In the light of the constraints of time that we face, the non-aligned countries trust that the Assembly will proceed expedi tiously to empower the Secretary-General to approach the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion regarding how much time the host country should be allowed to take before nominating its arbitrator, considering the mandatory status of the section 21 procedure. We should stress that the International Court of Justice should make it clear that before the arbitration is completed the host country should respect and observe the rights acquired by the PLO as a result of the practice of the last 13 years. The Asserrbly should also proceed to ask the President of the International Court of Justice to appoin t irrunedia tely his arbi tra tor. Finally, we wish to urge the host country to act honour ably and to avoid any action that might frustrate the Secretary-General's efforts to apply the relevant provisions of the Headquarters Agreement to this dispute. At stake in this issue is not only the office of the PLO in New York. That is but an aspect of the problem. The core of the problem is the relationship between the host country and the united Nations. What is threatened by the proposed legislation is the Agreement between the host country and ''We, the peoples of the United Nations". If the host country can, with impunity, assert its power on this occasion, then the Members of this Organization will have to face the fact that the Headquarters Agreement is in effect brutum fUlmen, a toothless bulldog. The action the General Assembly is being requested to adopt is meant to prevent this from becoming a reality. We therefore urge all members to support the proposed resolutions. Mr. SALAH (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): Mr. president, allow me to thank you for your quick response and for making a long and arduous journey so that the forty-second session of the General Assembly could be resumed and we oould complete our consideration of an item of direct concern to the Uni ted Nations: item 136, IIReport of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country". In view of the success with which you have presided over the Assembly's deliberations at its forty-second session, we are confident that your efforts will be fruitful and that we shall achieve the des ired results. I should also like to thank the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his efforts and intensive contacts with the host country aimed at reaching a settlement of the dispute under consideration. We thank him also for reaffirming the need to respect the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement, and for the important, detailed and objective report (A/42/9IS) in which he sets forth developments concerning the legislation enacted by the host country, the United States of America, on the closing of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the united Nations in New York. On this occasion, I cannot fail to thank the Secretariat for contributing to the consideration of this issue and for the speedy and effective organization of this resumed session of the General Assembly. On 22 November 1974 the General Assembly adopted resolution 3237 (XXIX), in which it invited the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to participate in the sessions and work of the General Assembly in the capacity of Observer and further invited it to participate in conferences convened under the auspices of other organs of the United Nations. The united Nations is a universal Organization, as is affirmed in its Charter. The PLO is the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, the people most directly concerned in the Palestinian question, which is one of the most important and serious issues in the world, if not the most serious. The PLO has been participating in the sessions and deliberations of the General Assenbly as an Observer for 13 years. It has, further, contributed to many international conferences held under the aeg is of the Uni ted Na tions. Since 22 November 1974, the General Assembly has reaffirmed that the PLO is indeed the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. It has repeatedly reaffirmed the need for the PLO to participate on an equal footing in the peace process in the Middle East, particularly in the international conference that the General Assembly believes to be the appropr ia te means to reach peace in that region. When a dispute arose on the Headquarters Agreement as a result of the American legislation enacted at the end of last year, the General Assembly, in its resolution 42/210 B, reaffirmed that the Headquarters Agreement does cover the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to the United Nations, and that it therefore has the right to enjoy all facilities and privileges to enable it to carry out its official functions. That resolution was adopted by an overWhelming, near unanimous, majority. The only Member to vote against it was Israel, and Israel's position on the Palestine Liberation Organization is well known. As is stated in the Secretary-General's report, the American legislation we are considering was enacted in the Congress and passed into law following the signing by the President of the United Sta tes of America of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989, on 22 December last. If the host country does not refrain from implementing that legislative Act, it will come into force 90 days after its signing by the President - that is, on 21 March. There is a clear contradiction between the commi tment of the host country under its Agreement with the United Nations and the national legislation I have just mentioned. That is what has put us in this embarrassing situation. The legislation was included in Title X of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which contains the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987. That is truly regrettable. We bel ieve that the legislation itself, its being linked to the budget, and its being included in the chapter on terrorism - all were due to the internal political pressure some wanted to apply to external issues related to international agreements, particularly during a very busy political season in the host country. The Headquarters Agreement, which covers the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), is a binding international instrument and the host country must respect its provisions. Internal legislation should not be allowed to supersede it. It is even IIOre regrettable that in enacting th is legi s lation the AIDer ican Congress was fully aware it would constitute a breach of the Headquarters Agreement and chose to ignore that fact. That was confirmed by the chief of the legal division of the united states Department of State, who was quoted by The New York Times of 13 January 1988 as I having said, "It is clear that the Congress does not care whether or not this legislation is a breach of international law". We had hoped that the Executive Branch of the host country's Government would succeed in convincing Congress not to enact this legislation, enabling the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation organization to continue to enjoy the facilities and pr ivileges to which it is enti tled to allow it to carry out its official functions, especially since the legal opinion of the United States Depar tment of Sta te is that "The United Sta tes is duty-bound to permi t the per sonnel of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to enter and remain in the United States of America in order to carry out their official funct ions" • That position was reaffirmed by representatives of the host country during last December's Committee debate on this item; that led us to hope - albeit cautiously - that the current status of the Mission would remain unchanged. Moreover, the fact that the United States did not vote against resolution 42/210 B, but merely did not participate in the voting, fueled our hopes. But since then our hopes have evapora ted. Our disappointment at this Act and succeeding developments is all the greater because of the timing of the legislation. For the past 10 weeks Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been expressing their national feel ings, rejecting Israeli occupation and reaffirming their legitimate national rights. They have been expressing themselves through the overwhelming popular upr ising to which the whole world is witness. We had hoped that the uprising would correct the course of events, that it would lead to greater understanding of the Palestinian cause and, particularly, of the national rights of the Palestinian people. That would have helped create the condi tions for a peaceful settlement of th is question. No lasting peaceful settlement can be achieved wi thout direct participa tion by the party concerned: the Palestinian people, which has chosen the Palestine Liberation Organization as its representative. Any sincere, peaceful call to peace, any pr actica 1 rove towards peace must take account of th is. No other par ty can decide who will represent the Palestinians in any future peace process. The United States of America is a permanent member of the Security Council and carr ies the poli tical weight to play - if it so wishes - an important role in the desired peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question. United States political activities in the Middle East will not be viewed as serious so long as the united Sta tes ignores the Palestin ians I freely chosen legi tima te representa tive. We believe this legislation harms the present diplomatic mission in the Middle East of the United States Secretary of State. It prevents it from developing and from achieving its goals. That opinion is shared by many politicians, analysts and members of the media. By enacting this legislation, the United States is walking away from the pr incipal party to the Palestinian question, ra ther than taking even a single step nearer to it. Also, in our view this legislation ignores the Arab wor Id; indeed, it appear s to be directed against the Arab world. The Palestinian people are a part of the Arab Irotherland. The Palestine Liberation Organization is a member of the League of Arab States, a regional organization that supports and lends full assistance to the Palestine Liberation Organiza tion in its quest to rega in the legi tima te national rights of the Palestinian people. The Palestine Liberation Organization is also a full-fledged member of a number of international and regional organizations, including first and foremost the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement. All the world's Muslims support the cause of the Palestine Liberation Organization~ they constitute a quarter of the global population. The PLO is recognized and supported by a majority of States and peoples. We believe that any dispute - even a legal dispute - between the United Nations and the united States of America will have a serious impact on the effectiveness of the united Nations and its role in creating an umbrella for international action and in extending the principle of co-operation to all States and peoples. We are fully aware of the importance of the political role of the United States of America in the contemporary world. The Uni ted Sta tes was among the founders of the United Nations, whose Charter contains many political principles and democratic concepts cherished by the united States of America. Our worst fear is that this dispute will be interpreted as a diminution of United States support for the United Nations. That would certainly weaken the international Organization and harm the international community. For that reason, we appeal to the United States of America, the host country~ we think it firmly believes in the Charter of the United Nations and its principles, and intends to continue its support. We appeal to the United States to take action to stop the clos ing of the Permanent Observer Miss ion of the Palestine Liberation Organization in New Yor k and thus prevent the consequences thereof under the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement concerning disputes on the persists in its determina tion to implement this legisla tion, the Dni ted Na tions will be duty-bound to defend its rights by resorting to arbitration. Since the Government of the host country has not yet a cknowledged the existence of a dispu te about the interpretation and implementation of the Headquarters Agreement resulting from this legislation, it will be necessary to take the issue to the International Court of Justice and seek an advisory opinion on it. For that reason we believe that the General Assembly must now reaffirm the provis ions of its resolution 42/210 B and, fur ther, in order to place th ings in the right legal framework the General Assembly must reaffirm its conviction that this United States legislation is indeed a breach of the Headquarters Agreement. We hope that the Secretary-General will persevere in his efforts and good offices wi th the host country to ensure correct implementation of the Headquarter s Agreement. In order to keep the General Assembly directly apprised of any possible developments concerning this issue - which we hope will be positive - we believe that the General Assembly should keep agenda item 136 under active review and maintain the possibility of resuming this session again to conclude its consideration.

I now call on the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, who will speak on behalf of the States members of the European Community. Count YORK von WARTENBURG (Federal Republic of Germany): I have the honour to speak in this deba te on behalf of the 12 Sta tes member s of the European Community. The Twelve have already expr essed their view on this ma tter dur ing the debate on item 136 in the Sixth Committee. We regret that, despite a series of consultations between the United Nations and the host country, no satisfactory solution to the problem has so far been found. We share the concern expressed in the Secretary-General's reports of 10 February 1988 and 25 February 1988 in documen ts A/42/915 and Add.l, in which he informs the General Assembly of the most recent developments in accordance with the terms of resolution 42/210 B. With regard to the matter under discussion the Twelve reiterate their position: they fully share the views already expressed by both the Mr. George Shu1tz, to the effect that the united States is under an obligation to permit"PLO Observer Mission personnel to enter and remain in the United states to carry out their official functions at united Nations Headquarters. They therefore supported resolution 42/210 B adopted by the General Assembly at its forty-second session. The Headquarters Agreement is binding under international law, and the Twelve urge the host country to abide by its international legal obligations and not to implement its legislation in a way that would prevent the discharge of the official functions of the PLO Observer Mission to the united Na tions. At the very least, the host country should settle this matter through the procedure set out in section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement and therefore agree to the request of the Secretary-General to enter formally into the dispute settlement procedure and consent to the establishment of an arbitra1 tribunal. We expect that the pr esent arrangements for the PLO Observer Miss ion will not be curta iled or otherwise affected pending a decision by the arbitra1 tribunal. The Twelve express their hope that this matter can still be resolved in a way which corresponds to the Headquarters Agreement and would allow the PLO Observer Mission to establish and maintain premises and adequate functional facilities, and would enable the personnel of the Mission to enter and remain in the United States to carry out their official functions. Mr. BADAWI (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): The question being considered by this Assembly reminds Egypt of the events in which it is taking part in order to secure interna tiona1 recogn i tion of the 1egi tirnacy of Pales tin ia n resistance, a legitimacy which has now become an actual reality and whose recognition was the point of departure for the adoption by the united Nations of many major resolutions emphasizing recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinian people. (Mr. Badawi, Egypt) In 1974 the General Assembly decided to invite the PLO to participate in its deliberations and declared that the PLO, in its capacity as Observer, was entitled to take part in the work and meetings of all international conferences convened under United Nations auspices. Therefore its Mission to the United Nations acqu ired interna tional legi timacy, thus enti tling it to en joy all the provisions contained in the Headquarters Agreement of 1947 in order to enable it to make its contribution to the work of the United Nations. The host country was also thereby required to live up to its commitments under the Headquarters Agreement. The current arrangements concerning the PLO Observer Mission have been in force over the past 13 year s, but they are now threatened by the For eign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989, Title X of which, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, established certain prohibitions regarding the PLO, inter alia, a proh ibi tion "to establish or ma in ta in an office, headquarter s premises or other facilities or establishments within the jurisdiction of the United States at the behest or direction of, or with funds provided by the PLO or any of its constituent groups, any successor I to any of those, or any agents thereof ". The enactment of this legislation has jeoparidized the principle of international law, that is, the need to fulfil international obligations. Were one to argue the opposite, one would thereby jeopardize the stability of international rela tions. Under the Headquarter s Agreement the Uni ted Sta tes is bound to allow representa tives of the PLO to enter and rema in in the united Sta tes in order to discharge their official functions at the Dni ted Nations. By complying with that provision, the United States acted in accordance with the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Headquarters Agreement and its obligation to carry them out in good faith. That obligation is one of the established rules of law - in the implementation not merely of international law but also of national law. In accordance with that principle of good faith, the host country is required to make it possible for the personnel of the Observer Missio~ of the Palestine Liberation Organization (pm) fully to fulfil their official functions. The adoption of the aforementioned law has created a dispute over the implementation or interpretation of the Headquarters Agreement, and that Agreement itself lays down the legal procedure to be followed by the parties in such cases. Thus, section 21 of the Agreement provides for recourse to arbitration in the event of the failure of negotiations or other methods to solve the dispute. Paragraph (b) of section 21 states that liThe Secretary-General or the United States may ask the General Assembly to request of the International Court of Justice an advisory opinion on any legal question arising in the course of such proceedings. Pending the receipt of the opinion of the Court, an interim decision of the arbitra1 tribunal shall be observed by both parties". (resolution 167 (11), annex, section 21 (b)) The rule of good-faith implementation to which I have just referred, in emphasizing the obligations of the host country under the Headquarters Agreement, also requires that country to follow the legal path it approved as one of the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement that should be applied to resolve any dispu tes that might ar ise in connection wi th the implementa tion or interpreta tion of the Agreement. The international community shares that opinion expressed by Egypt. At its last session, the General Assembly requested "the host country to abide by its treaty obligations under the Headquarters Agreement and ..• to refrain from taking any action that would prevent the discharge of the official functions of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations" (resolution 42/210 B, para. 2) The General Assembly also emphasized the need to enable the officials of the PLO Mission to enter and remain in the United States to carry out their official functions. Today the General Assembly has resumed its work in order to repeat that request to the host country to respect the obligations it has entered into, including the obligations connected with the legal measures provided in the Headquarters Agreement for resolving disputes over the implementation or interpretation of the Agreement. That is the opinion of the international community on the question now under discussion. The opinion is based on logic and law - the law that we ourselves established and approved as a way of organizing our mutual international relations. All the members of the international community have the duty of upholding the maintenance of those relations. That can be done only if they refrain from seeking domination by their actions, only if they respect certain limits, only if they impose certa in restr ictions on their absolute freedom and base their relations with others on a recognized order and system. The gravity of this question lies not only in its immediate effects but also in its consequences for the future and in the fact that it can establish a precedent which could be exploited by others seeking to evade treaty obligations Since such situations can have grave consequences on the implementation of agreements to which an international organization with universal representation is one of the parties, the international legislators included in these agreements - am::mg them, the Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States - the principle that the arrangements set forth in them must be implemented regardless of the relations existing between the parties benefiting from those arrangements and the host country. In the event of a dispute, the path of the law accepted by the two parties must prevail~ only law can solve such a dispute. In accordance wi th the posi tion taken by the Uni ted Na tions, one of the parties to the dispute - a position confirmed by the Secretary-General - we hope that the host country will open the legal path to the solution of this question. Mr. BELONomv (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): The resumption of the forty-second session of the General Assembly, to consider agenda item 136, "Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country", has been dictated by weighty considerations. The United Nations cannot but feel concerned and alarmed at the abnormal situation regarding the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PID) to the United Nations in New York - a situation which can at any moment create impediments to the functioning and very existence of the Mission. As the Assembly is aware, the united Nations has already had occasion to deal wi th this ma tter. At the end of 1987, when the Uni ted Sta tes Congress was considering an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 1988 and 1989 - an amendment designed to ensure the closing of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO in New York - the host country, the Secretary-General and, finally, the General Assembly at its forty-second session were obliged to react to that in the appropr ia te way in order to forestall th is impending action, incompatible with the international treaty obligations of the United States towards the Un i ted Na tions . At a meeting of the committee on Relations with the Host Country in OCtober last year, the members of the Commi ttee drew the host country's a ttention to the illegality of this kind of action and called upon the host country to take all the necessary measures to prevent this lawless act. The Uni ted Na tions Secretary-General also took a clear-cut stand on th is matter. In his statement of 22 October 1987, he pointed out: "The members of the Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) are, by virtue of General Assembly resolution 3237 (XXIX), invitees to the united Nations. As such, they are covered by sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Headquarters Agreements of 26 June 1947. There is therefore a treaty obligation on the host country to permit Palestine Liberation Organization Observer Mission personnel to enter and remain in the united States to carry out their official functions at United Nations Headquarters." The Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO in New Yor k is not accredi ted to the Government of the United States or any of its institutions, but to the united Nations. It was established on the basis of a General Assembly resolution inviting the PLO to take part in meetings and work of the General Assembly and in all international conferences held under the aegis of the United Nations. Its location and activities in New York, like the location and functioning of all other Missions to the United Nations, does not and should not depend upon the discretion of the host country. It is covered by the Headquarters Agreement of 1947 concluded between the Uni ted Na tions and the United Sta tes of AIDer ica. Under that Agreement, the Uni ted Sta tes is bound to ensure the necessary conditions for the normal functioning of the PLO Observer Mission in New York, and, indeed, of all other Missions to the Uni ted Nations. Any action designed to create obstacles to the official activities of the Mission are illegal and incompatible with the obligations under the Headquarters Agreement and the United Nations Charter. On 17 December 1987 the General Assembly, in resolution 42/210 a, confirmed tha t the Pill Permanent Observer Miss ion to the Un i ted Na tions was covered by the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement. The General Assembly called upon the host country to abide by its obligations under that Agreement and, in that regard, to refrain from taking any action that would prevent the discharge of the official functions of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO in New York. At the same time, the United Nations Secretary-General was requested to take effective measures to ensure full respect for the Headquarters Agreement and to report, without delay, to the General Assembly on any further development in this matter. However, in spite of the appeals of the United Nations, the Act containing the provision affecting the status of the PLO Observer Mission is actually contrary to the international obligations of the United States, and on 22 December 1987 that bill of the Uni ted States Congress was signed into law. The secretary-General's report (A/42/915) rightly states that that law violates the obligations of the united States under the Headquarters Agreement. There is little need for us to probe into the subtle interrelationships between the various branches of Government in the host country. That is a matter of indifference to international law. It is a Sta te as a whole that becomes a party to an international treaty, and it is the State as such that bears the unconditional obligation to ensure compliance with the treaty obligations it has entered into. It is this with which international law is concerned. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties is a compilation of the interna tional legal exper ience of human civiliza tion and conta ins an unambiguous statement in this connection, which reads~ "A party may not invoke the provis ions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty." (A/CONF.38/27, article 27) The host country has an international obligation to ensure normal conditions for the work of the PLO Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations and has a responsibility to take all necessary measures to ensure unswerving compliance with that obligation. Illegal actions against any Mission accredited to the United Nations will inevitably, de jure and de facto, affect the remaining Missions and the Organization itself. We have every ground to feel that attempts to impede the activities of the PLO Observer Mission are, in all objectivity, directed against the Uni ted Na tions itself and make more di fHcul t the world Organ iza tion' s work of maintaining international peace and security. As we can see from his report, the Uni ted Na tions secretary-General, acting in accordance with the instructions of the General Assembly, has made great efforts, on the basis of strict observance of the Headquarters Agreement, to deal wi th the abnormal situation that has arisen with regard to the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO in New York. However, all his actions have so far not met wi th the necessary response from the host country. The threat to the PLO Observer Mission has not yet been dispelled. As we discuss this question, we cannot fail to see that behind it stands a fundamental political problem, namely, the fate of the Palestinian people. The current situation in the occupied Palestinian territories is the result of the lawlessness and acts of violence of the Israeli authorities. The mass demonstrations of Palestinians have now assumed the dimensions of a popular uprising, which has dispelled the myth that the conflict in the Middle East can be resolved wi thou t a just solution to the Palestin ian problem and a guarantee of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people. It is now clear er than ever that the key to a se ttlement of the explos ive situation in the area lies in the convening of an international conference, with the participation of the five permanent members of the security Council and all interested parties, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. It is apparent to all that the Permanent Observer Miss ion of the PLO should be playing, as it is now, an important role in the work being done at the United Nations to bring about a Middle East settlement on the bas is of the Secur i ty Council and General Assembly resolutions on the subject. There are no two ways about it: under the Headquarters Agreement the host country is obliged to guarantee the inviolability of the PLO Mission to the United Nations and normal conditions for its functioning. We support the secretary-General's efforts, which are descr ibed in h is report, dicta ted as they are by the wish to ensure observance of the Agreement and to protect the PLO Mission from wrongful infringements of its rights. We hope that the host country, the Un ited States of Amer ica, will immedia tely take the necessary measures to that end. Mr. TURKMEN (Tur key): My delega tion is arrong those of Member s of the United Nations that supported the request of the Arab Group to resume the current session to continue consideration of agenda item 136. We are all aware of the developments which have necessitated this request. We strongly feel that in the first instance the problem should have been avoided. It is unfortunate that just the opposi te has happened and that the problem has dri fted to a stage where the issues that now confront the General Assembly are in fact larger than the immedia te problem. The report of the Secretary-General (A/42/9l5) submitted on 10 February 1988 to the General Assembly in pursuance of resolution 42/210 B of 17 December 1987 sets out in very clear terms the important legal issues involved in this question, which pertain to the fulfilment in good faith of obligations under 'international law. We have felt obliged to speak in this debate because of the importance of the problem. As the secretary-General stresses in his report, the members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Observer Mission are, by virtue of General Assembly resolution 3237 (XXIX), invitees to the united Nations, and, as such, they should be in a position to discharge their official functions without any curtailment, irrespective of the nature of relations between the host country and the Palestine Liberation Organization.* In the light of both the letter and the sense of the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Headquarters Agreement, there is no doubt at all that, as the host country, the United states is under an obligation to permit PLO personnel to enter and remain in the United States to carry out their official functions. The si tua tion we face today obviously concerns not only the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations in New York, but the entire membership of this Organization, as a matter of principle arising from the proper implementation of the Agreement. Respect for obligations arising from this basic agreement is of profound significance, because its infr ingement can have serious repercussions on the abUi ty of the United Na tions to function effectively in New York as a universal Organization which remains * Mr. Jacobovits de Szeged (Netherlands), Vice-President, took the Chair. accessible in an unimpeded manner to the representatives of all parties to any in ternational dispute. It is too difficult in a debate such as this to refrain from expressing a position on the legal and technical aspects of the dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Headquarters Agreement. Still, I wish to do so only by referring to the bare essentials of the legal situation which is covered by the Secretary-General's report. I first wish to express firm support for the course followed by the secretary-General in seeking legal remedies wi thin the framework of section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement. Indeed, it is clear that any dispute between the United Nations and the United states concerning the interpretation or application of the Agreement falls under the arbitration procedure stipUlated in the section. We have taken note that the United States Administration itself has not lost sight of its legal obliga tion to ma inta in the current arrangements for the PLO Observer Mission, and in fact an effort has been under way to examine the possibility of interpreting the law in question in conformity with the United Sta tes obliga tions under the Headquarters Agreement. Despi te this, the legis la tion establishing prohibitions with regard to PLO offices in the United States directly contradicts the obligations of the host country, while action taken under the gO-day limit will clearly constitute a violation of the Headquarters Agreement. The tendency to keep the ma tter under examination for too long has not been helpful, and the secretary-General has felt the need to inform the General Asseooly in accordance with the terms of I." esolution 42/210 B. We feel that better use should have been made of the negotiations and consul ta tions between the United States and the United Nations by activating the dispute settlement procedure. The United Nations, represented by the Legal Counsel, has rightly insisted during the consultations that if the PLO Observer Mission is not to be exempted from the application of the law, the parties should proceed to the establishment of an arbi tral tr ibunal. Fa ilure to take that step has crea ted in the consul ta tions a vicious circle which in order to be broken now needs the intervention of the General Assembly. We are confident that the Assembly will be able to act in a harmonious, effective and consistent manner. We are considering in essence not a political but a legal problem relating to respect for the Headquarters Agreement. And there is certainly wisdom in confining the problem to legal considerations. While doing so, we cannot however fail to take notice of the sad irony involved in having to debate this problem aga inst a background of deepening poli tical unrest and tension in the Middle East, and of the inevitable consequences of the newly and dramatically emerging political realities. Mr. MAHBUBANI (Singapore): The issue before us is not the right of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to participate in the United Nations. The real issue before us is the viability of the United Nations Headquarters Agreements the United Nations has signed not just with one host Government but with several host Governments around the world. We would like to stress this point at the outset because, while our remarks today may upset the host Government in question, the issue we are raising is a universal one. It concerns all host Governments. These Headquarters Agreements between the host Governments and the United Nations are based on a very simple premise. If the United Nations is to function as a viable independent institution, one that genuinely reflects the aspirations of all its Member Sta tes r it has to be able to function independently of the policies and prejUdices of the host Government. To be true to itself, the United Nations cannot march to the beat of a single drummer. Hence, the Headquarters Agreements have been carefully crafted to ensure that the host Governments do not interfere with the essential work of the Uni ted Nations. These Agreements have functioned well, with only minor exceptions, for over 40 years. A body of practices and precedents has been built up. Under these practices, the Observers to the united Nations, which in New York include non-member States like Switzerland and the Holy See and other organizations like the PLO and the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), have not had any problems maintaining missions accredited to the United Nations in New York and enjoying immunities and privileges similar to those of Member States. Fundamentally, this practice is sanctioned by section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement, which draws no distinction between the rights of Member States and those of non-governmental organizations or "other persons" invited to the United Nations. As Professor Thomas Franck, editor of the American Journal of International Law, said in the latest issue of that Journal: "By closing the Palestine Liberation Oranization's Observer Mission to the United Nations" - he is referring to the host country here - "we will be violating the spirit and the consistent practice, if not the literal letter, of article 4, section 11 (5) of the Headquarters Agreement that we signed and ratified as a concomitant of establishing the United Nations in New York." Professor Thomas Franck then added: "That provision obliges the host Government to impose no 'impediments to transi t to or from the headquarters district of ••• persons inl/i ted to the headquarters district by the United Nations'." I commend to members Professor Thomas Franck's article, which is entitled "Taking Trea ties Ser iously". It is important for us to remember that this is not the first time the United Na tions has been challenged on the participa tion of observers in Uni ted Na tions conferences. In 1975 it had to change the venue of the United Nations Conference on Crime Prevention and Control because a certa in Government said that it could not invite the PLO to its territory. Four years later, the same Government agreed to admit the PLO and was therefore allowed to host the United Nations Habitat Conference. I stress th is point because the pr inciple that protects the participa tion of the PLO as an observer to Uni ted Na tions conferences, wherever they are held, is the same principle that protects the rights of all Member States, including Israel, to p3rticipate in United Nations conferences wherever they are held. Those who try to subvert this principle should bear in mind that they are wielding a double-edged sword. We are meeting today because the Congress of our host country has enacted a law entitled liThe Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987" which, if implemented on 21 March 1988, would effectively deprive the PLO of its right to participate in the work of the united Nations. We are pleased to note that Secretary of State Shul tz pointed out in his letter to the United States Senate on 29 January 1987 that the Uni ted Sta tes is "••• under an obligation to permit PLO Observer Mission personnel to enter and rema in in the united states to carry out their official functions at United Nations Headquarters.•• ". This was reiterated more recently by Ambassador Her ber t Ok un, who said in his letter da ted 5 January 1988 to the Uni ted Na tions Secretary-General tha t "••• the provisions concerning the PLO Observer Mission may infringe on the President's constitutional authority and, if implemented, would be contrary to our international legal obligations under the United Nations Headquarters Agreement ••• ". Given this clear understanding of the obvious dangers of the new law, it would appear logical for the host Government to agree to invoke the procedures for resolving disputes under the united Nations Headquarters Agreement set forth in section 21, which states that "Any dispute between the United Nations and the United States concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement •.. shall be referred for final decision to a tribunal of three arbitrators .•• " (resolution 169 II) The Uni ted Na tions has already agreed to do so and it has nomina ted Mr. Eduardo Jimenez de Arechaga as an arbitrator. Unfortuna tely, when that Agreement was wri tten the framers of the Agreement, working on the assumption that both parties would respect it in good faith, did not anticipa te the peculiar - and if I may use an American mataphor - Catch-22 situation we are facing today because the host Gover nment "had not yet concluded that a dispute exists between the United Nations and the United States". Unless the host Government agrees to do so, section 21 cannot be invoked. The united Nations will therefore not have recourse to a dispute settlement procedure even though I10st of the Member States here would agree that such a dispute exists. I suppose that if we did not believe this, 145 Mentler States of the United Nations would not have voted for General Assembly resolution 42/210 B on 17 December 1987. Nor would we be meeting here today at this resumed session. Hence the first appeal we would like to make is to call upon all parties concerned to abide by the United Nations Headquarters Agreement, which remains in force, and to apply section 21 to resolve the dispute we are discussing today. In the event that this cannot be done, the General Assembly should call upon the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the applicability of section 21 of the United Na tions Headquarters Agreement to the dispu te before us. Finally, it seems rather strange that we have to call upon responsible parties to abide by agreements that they consider valid and applicable. We remain astonished by the blatant violations of existing agreements, and we say this with some distress. It is easy enough to dennnstrate adherence to pr inciple when to do so is convenient and advantageous and when it costs nothing. The test of a country's adherence to principle is when it is inconvenient to do so. We find ourselves in such a situation today because, while we have friendly relations with the united States of America, we cannot approve or endorse its actions on this issue. I should also like to stress the main reason why we view this issue with extreme seriousness. If the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is forcibly evicted by the host Government from the united Nations, the United Nations cannot pretend that there has not been a major challenge to its independence and integrity. It cannot remain silent in the face of such a challenge. It will have to react strongly. When it does so, it ma y r un into the same forces tha t have been keen to provoke such a public confrontation between the host Government and the Uni ted Nations, a confronta tion which may seriously cripple the Uni ted Nations. We are therefore at a critical point today. We call upon all the parties concerned not to underestimate the gravity of the situation we face. We urge them to handle the matter before us with great care and sensitivity. Let us not undermine trea ties tha t have been in force for over 40 year s. Those who try to subvert long-standing and widely accepted inter national laws should bear in mind the words ascr ibed to Sir Thomas More in the play A Man for All Seasons: "This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast ••• and if you cut them down ..• do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" Mr. DJOUDI (Algeria) (interpretation from French): It is with renewed pleasure for the Algerian delegation to see Mr. Florin of the German Democratic Republic presiding over the proceedings of this Assembly. We take this opportunity to say how pleased we are with his conduct of the work of the forty-second session of the Assembly. The serious developments since last December have compelled the General Assembly to resume today the consideration of the question of the closing of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Observer Mission to the United Nations. Notwithstanding the virtually unanimous appeal of this Assembly, contained in resolution 42/210 B, the host country appears to be poised to overturn its international obligations. By the enactment on 22 December last - immediately after the adjournment of the forty-second session of the General Assemly - of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, particularly Title X, which would prohibit the PLO from . continuing its Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations, which it has had since 1974, the United Nations finds itself faced, for the first time in its existence, with a problem of this sort. This unprecedented, unilateral act by the host country is not only an outright violation of its obligations under the Headquarters Agreement; it is also certain to overturn a sovereign decision of the General Assembly guaranteeing permanent representation for the PLO at the United Nations. This measure is extremely grave, for its aim is to undermine the sovereignty of the United Nations in fUlfilling its mandate under the Charter. Coming as it does at a time of mounting hostility to multilateralism, this measure cannot be seen as a random isolated event. Rather, it is one additional link in a whole chain of events designed to do further damage to the United Nations repeatedly and in a variety of ways, such as the demands for weighted voting, or the practice of withholding mandatory contributions, or the failure to pay, for political purposes, assessments for particular activities, to mention but a few. All of these attacks fill us with deep foreboding as to the future of the United Nations - at a time when it is increasingly seen as an irreplaceable framework for recourse. The geographic location of the Headquarters of the United Nations should not cause it to be dragged in to domestic poli tics as an issue to be manipula ted for electoral purposes, nor should it mean tolerance towards sinister activ i ties that would hold it hostage to powerful and well organized pressure groups. The systematic harassment carried out aga inst the United Nations for several years has now taken the form of a violation of the Hea~uarters Agreement by the host country and disregard for the provisions of resolution 3237 (XXIX), which confers permanent observer status on the PLO at the United Nations. For 14 years the United Nations has benefited extensively from the permanent presence of the PLO in New York. By its responsible and exemplary contribution, the PLO has added a most valued dimension to its capacity to represent the aspirations of the Palestinian people, thus confirming its status as a necessary interlocutor in a genuine process towards the settlement of the question of Palestine. The Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO}, enjoying the protection provided in sections 11, 12 and 13 of article IV of the Headquarters Agreement, pursuant to resolution 3237 (XXIX), has found in the Secretary-General its staunchest and best qualified defender. Having duly established the facts and reaffirmed the status of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO, and hav ing procla imed the illegal nature of the decis ion of the host (Mr. Djoudi, Alger ia) the host country to give all the necessary assurances that the current arrangements concerning the PLO Observer Mission will not be curtailed or otherwise affected. These appropr iate assurances, mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Secretary-Generalis report, dated 10 February 1988, have not been forthcoming, and as there continues to be a dispute between the United States and the United Nations, there can be no further justification for delay in the implementation of the dispute settlement procedure conta ined in section 21 of the Head:Juarters Agreement which, according to the Secretary-General "is the only legal remedy available to the united Nations in this matter ... " (A/42/915, para. 9) Wh ile a deadl ine for implementation of that law roves inexorably closer, the Uni ted Sta tes au thori ties have still not broken their troubl ing silence and still refuse to enter into the arbitration procedure provided for in the circumstances. Hence, it is to be feared that a fait accompli may well be in the offing. Such an outcome would clearly be an outr ight violation by the host country of its international obligations. The closing of the PLO Mission in New York would set a dangerous precedent, the consequences of which will not be lost on any of the Members of the Organization. Faced with this threat, there is an urgent need for the Assembly to react vigorously to the gravity of the situation because no less than the preservation of the United Nations as an irreplaceable framework is at stake. It is clear that the ques tion is actually one of protecting the position of the United Nations as a universal framework - to which there is no alternative - for the prom::>tion of just, final solutions to many problems, the Middle East problem in particular. It is clear that this measure aimed against the PLO offices is a deliberate attempt to attack the represen1:ative status of the PLO, an organization identified by the United Nations as an indispensable partner in the determined quest for a solution that will satisfy all its legitimate national rights. The tragic events in the occupied terr itor ies highlight the urgent need for an authentic peace process in the Middle East as formulated by the General Assembly; against that background it is clear that this measure seeks to disqualify the United Nations from playing the role that is its very raison d'etre: the . restoration and maintenance of international peace and security. Thus, the General Assembly must solemnly reaffirm the inviolability of the principles underlying relations between the host country and the United N~tions. It must reaffirm the PLO's right to continue to maintain a Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations. Finally, in the light of the dispute between the host country and the United Nations, it must opt for arbitration as the immediate remedy and must request the International Court of Justice to provide an advisory opinion on this question. Mr. ZAPOTOCKY (Czechoslovakia): As early as last year the Czechoslovak' delegation expressed in the General Assembly the concern of the Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic at the fact that the Senate of the United States of America had approved Amendment No. 940, aimed at closing the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Today, when that legislation, having been signed by the President of the United States, is soon to become effective, we believe it necessary to reiterate our position. This act by the United States is yet another highly exaggerated link in a chain of measures by which the host country is interfering in various ways with the regular activities of a number of Permanent Missions to the United Nations. The incompa tibili ty of the decision to close the PLO Observer Miss ion wi th the international legal obligations assumed by the United States in its capacity as host country under the Headquarters Agreement of 1947 is beyond any doubt. A legal analysis of this question has been convincingly made by a number of delegations in the Commi ttee on Rela tions wi th the Host Country and dur ing the discuss ion in the Legal Commi ttee, as well as at a plenary meeting of the General Assembly at its forty-second session in connection with the consideration last year of a draft resolution on agenda item 136. The PLO Observer Mission was established as a consequence of General Assembly resolution 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, which invited the PLO to participate as an Observer in the sessions and work of the General Assembly. That Mission is accredited solely to the United Nations and has no relationship to the United Sta tes Government. According to the Headquarters Agreement, the United States is obliged to permi t PLO Obs erver Miss ion personnel to en ter and rema in in its terri tory to can y out their official functions at United Nations Headquarters. Indeed, those facts were recognized unreservedly in a letter sent to the United States Senate on 29 January 1987 by Mr. George Shultz, Secretary of State of the United States. The United states made the decision to close the PLO Observer Mission in full awareness of those facts, and in disregard of the spontaneous demand of the entire communi ty of na tions tha t the Uni ted Sta tes as host coun try abide by its trea ty obligations under the united Nations Headquarters Agreement and refrain from taking (Mr. Zapotocky, Czechoslovak ia) any action that would prevent the discharge of the official functions of that Mission. Thus, this is not only a deliberate violation of international obligations that concerns each and every Member of the Organization, but also a gesture of arrogance towards the opinion of the inter national commun ity, one that calls into question the united states commitment to the ideals and principles underlying the united Nations Charter. By its decision to close the PLO Observer Mission, the united states has grossly interfered with the normal functioning of the Organization and has inadmissibly misused its status as host country, conferred upon it in good fai th by the Uni ted Na tions 42 years ago. Moreover, this pratice creates a dangerous precedent, since there are no guarantees that the United States is not going to act in a similar manner in future as regards other Missions also. The illegal practice of the United States, attempting to discredit the PLO in the eyes of the American pUblic, contradicts not only international law but also the efforts of the whole world community to ensure peace and security in the Middle East, as well as the struggle for the implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. In recent months, the united Nations - and particularly the Security Council - has redoubled its efforts aimed at achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful settlement of the Middle East situation and at a solution of the question of Palestine. In the context of discussion in the Security Council of the tense situation in the occupied Arab territories, urgent attention was again called to the proposal that an international Middle East conference be convened wi th the participation of all parties concerned, inclUding the permanent members of the Security Council. The developing situation increasingly confirms that this requirement is fully justified. (Mr. Zapotocky, Czechoslovakia) We are convinced that no illegal acts or unilateral, partial diplomatic interventions can stop the just struggle of the Palestinian people for their right to self-determina tion or the endeavours of the Uni ted Nations and other international organizations to reach a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict by peaceful means. The revolt in the occupied territories has quite convincingly shown aga in that there is no other way to resolve these complex problems, and that the determination of the Palestinian people is not diminishing over time or because of violence and terror by the occupying Power. In conclusion I should like to stress once aga in that the host coun try should contribute, through its policies, to the positive efforts of the United Nations in the solution of disputed questions and global problems and that it should refrain from any illegal or obstructive steps against the United Nations and Missions accredi ted to it. We see no way out of th is situation other than the one to which the Organization has always unambiguously subscribed throughout its existence: the United Nations must prove again its faith in the primacy of law. Bearing in mind that the host country refuses to seek a just solution through negotiation, we fully endorse the proposal that the dispute between the United Nations and the host country over this crucial issue be submitted to arbitration under article VIII, section 21 (a) of the Headquarters Agreement. We also share the opinion that if the host country maintains its negative position the General Assembly should resort to the International Court of Justice in The Hague with a request for an advisory opinion in this matter. Mr. AL-MASRI (Syr ian Arab Republic) (interpreta tion from Arabic): The most serious challenges the United Nations has ever faced, one that calls into question, perhaps for the first time, the Headquarters Agreement and the credibility of the host country. The closing of the office of the PLO Observer Mission to the united Nations in New York would be an extremely serious matter beca use it would undermine the fundamenta 1 pr inciples on which the wor Id Organization is based, foremost among which are its freedom and independence of action, its right to invite any parties to participate in its work regardless of their acceptability to the host country, and its support for liberation movements and the right of peoples to exercise their inalienable national rights over their land and resources. When, at its twenty-ninth session, the General Assembly decided to invite the PLO to participate in the sessions and work of the General Assembly and international conferences convened under its auspices in the capacity of observer - several interna tional organiza tions already extended similar invi ta tions - it was acting in conformity with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement concluded between the Uni ted Nations and the host country on 26 June 1947. Under that Agreement the host country has many international legal obligations that are incumbent upon it regardless of domestic positions and trends. As the host country the United States has an obligation to permit PLO personnel to enter and remain in its territory to carry out their official functions as they participate, wi.th observer status, in the work of the united Nations. Moreover, under the Headquarters Agreement, it is incumbent up:>n the United States to maintain the current arrangements relevant to the PLO Observer Mission, An amendment was introduced affecting the powers of the Uni ted States Sta te Department, and it has become part of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989. It imposes a series of prohibitions regarding the PLO, inclUding a prohibition "to establish or ma inta in an office, headquarter s premises or other facilities or establ ishments within the jurisdiction of the United States at the behest or direction of, or with funds provided by the PLO or any of its constituent groups, any successor, to any of those, or any agents thereof". The rrotivation behind the amendment is spite dictated by an extremist, racist group - the Zionist lobby - working within and outside the united States Congress in a frenzied campa ign aga inst the Palestinian people's struggle to liberate its occupied homeland and to exercise its inalienable national rights, foremost among which are its right to return to its homeland, its right to self-determination and its right to establish an independent, sovereign State. The United Nations enjoys the right to independence in carrying out its functions and undertaking its activities. Without that right it would be impossible for the Organization to perform the functions set forth in its Charter, for which it was founded. The new united States Act is a deliberate, blatant violation of that right and breaches the international legal obligations of the Uni ted Sta tes of America under the terms of the Hea dquarters Agreement. Insistence on its implementation places the future of the Headquarters of the United Nations in New York in jeopardy. Furthermore, the Act is a blatant violation of the provisions of the United Sta tes Consti tution guaran teeing freedom of expression. If it is designed to stifle the voice of the Palestinian Arab people at the United Nations, it is doomed to failuret the voice of that militant people is too strong to be stifled by an Act, by the most sophistica ted weapons or even by the brutal nazi, terrorist methods practised by the Zionist occupation forces in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories. The problem now before the Assembly is political in all respects~ its objectives are political. Its solution requires that an appropriate resolution be adopted by the Assembly. While elCpressing great appreciation to the Secretary-General for his efforts to guarantee the maintenance of the current arrangements for the PLO Observer Mission, we cannot but share his sorrow at the failure of those efforts. We look to this forum to take the necessary measures to secure respect for the independencE and universal character of our Organization and to protect it from any external interference or pressure. me thods seen Mr. LEWIS (Canada): Mr. President, I shall be addressing these brief remarks to you and the General Assembly on behalf of my own Government as well as the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. Our posi tion on this question is clear. We believe that the conbined effect of article IV of the Headquarters Agreement and subsequent State practice imposes a legal obligation on the host Government to allow the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to ma inta in a United Nations office in New Yor k - an office which we see as essential to the carrying out of its functions as an invitee of the General Assembly. Moreover, we are concerned that implementation of legislative action recently taken by the host Government as it affects the PLO Observer Mission could set a most unfortunate precedent for the status of all observer missions at the United Nations. At stake at this point are the effective functioning of the United Nations and the right of the Organization to hear the views of those invited to a ttend as observer s. The three Governments on whose behalf I speak had hoped that, follow ing the adoption last December of General Assembly resolution 42/210 a, the legislative br anch of the Un i ted Sta tes Gover nment would not pr oceed with any action dir ected at closing the PLO Observer Mission. These hopes have not been realized and the da te for implementa tion of legislation to close the PLO office approaches. It is essential that consultations within the united states Administrat.ion resolve this matter quickly and satisfactorily, in accordance with the United states obligations under the Headquarters Agreement. Given the current situation, it is opportune to consider the mechanism specifically provided for the resolution of such disputes between the united Nations and the host country. As everyone knows, the procedures for dispute settlement are set out in section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement. These provide for the establishment of an arbi tral tr ibunal and, if necessary, the seeking of an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. Should the circumstances require it, the utilization of an arbitration tr ibunal would not only be a practical solution to the problem at hand but be evidence of Member sta tes' determina tion to govern the ir activi ties by adherence to the principle of the rule of law in international relations. In this context, we are naturally grateful for the useful information contained in the Secretary-General's report of 10 February 1988 and its addendum of 25 February 1988. For our part, we have a strong and enduring commitment to international dispute settl ement procedur es and mechanisms, especia lly when they are part and parcel of an interna tional treaty or legal instrument. I wish to close by expressing the hope that our work here will avoid poli ticization and reference to wider issues. We should instead seek the broadest possible consensus on the legal issues involved and reaffirm in the process respect for the rule of law in international relations. Mc GARVALOV (Bulgaria)~ The Bulgarian delegation shares the concern of other Member States of the united Nations over the future of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to the world Organization. This concern is also expressed in resolution 42/210 B, which the General Assembly adopted under agenda item 136, entitled "Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country", The issue now under consideration arose following the adoption by the United States Congress and the subsequent signing into law by the President of the United States, on 22 December 1987, of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which established certain prohibitions regarding the PLO - specifically concerning the closing of its Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations. In anticipation of this Act of the United States Congress, the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/210 S, whereby it reaffirmed its position that the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the united Na tions In New Yor k was covered by the provisions of the Heqdquarter s Agreement and should be enabled to establish and maintain premises and adequate functional facilities. Therefore, the General Assembly requested the host country to abide by its treaty obliga Hons under the Headquarters Agreement and in this connection to refrain from taking any action that would prevent the discharge of the official functions of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO to the United Nations. The Bulgarian delegation would like to convey to the Secretary-General its appreciation for his efforts aimed at arriving, jointly with the host country, at a solution to this problem. As can be seen from the Secretary-GeneralIs report, however, no solution has been found as yet even with regard to the procedural aspects of the matter. In view of the tangible danger that the United Nations may be presented with a fait accompli owing to the aforementioned Act's imminent entry into force, Member States should reiterate their positions in a clear-cut manner and the General Assembly should, accordingly, take a decision concerning this matter. The PLO has been invited to participate with an observer status in the work of the General Assembly by virtue of General Assembly resolu tion 3237 (XXIX). That resolution, together with the respective provisions of the Headquarters Agreement, constitutes the international legal basis for the establishment and maintenance by the PLO of a permanent observer mission. Hence, the host country is under an obligation to permit PLO personnel to enter and remain in the United States in order to carry out their official functions at the United Nations, including the establishment and maintenance of a permanent observer mission. The legislation enacted by the United States Congress is thus in contravention of the provisions of (Mr. Garvalov, Bulgaria) the Headquarters Agreement, and its implementation would constitute a breach of the obligations undertaken by the host country under that Agreement. Obviously, a dispute exists between the Uni ted Nations and the Uni ted States concerning the implementa tion of the Headquarters Agreement. Therefore, the dispute-settlement procedure set out in article VIII, section 21 of the Agreement should be invok ed. At the same time, it is clear that this question is not just a legal one: it is above all a political issue. There can be no doubt that this action, which is contrary to international law, is aimed at creating difficulties for the PLO to participate in the peace process in the Middle East. The PLO enjoys enormous, allOOst unanimous, support and recognition among the Member states of the United Nations as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Past exper ience has unequivoca lly shown that any decision made without taking into account the posl tion of the Palestine Liberation Organiza tion is unavoidably doomed to failure. It is universally recognized that the unresolved Palestinian problem is at the core of the explosive situation in the Middle East and that without a solution to this problem, without the restoration of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, there can be no peace in that part of the world. Due to the tireless efforts of the international community there are now, more than ever before, real prospects and an extremely broad international consensus concerning the ways of revers ing the dangerous turn of events in the Middle East and of achieving a comprehensive and just settlement of the Middle East conflict. The overwhelming majority of Member States are convinced that the only sensible and practical way of achieving a comprehensive and just settlement of the Middle East conflict is to convene an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation, on an equal footing, of all the parties concerned, including the Palestine Libera tion Organization, as the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and all the permanent menbers of the Security CounciL The Bulgarian delegation views in the same way the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization Permanent Observer Mission in the work of the General Assembly, as an indispensable element in the process of searching for and finding just and comprehensive solutions within the united Nations. For that reason the Bulgar ian delegation believes that any a ttempt at legal and/or factual res triction of the participa tion of the PLO Obs erver Miss ion in tha t process would have an adverse effect upon the political prospect of resolving the Middle East problems as a whole. Mr. DASGUPTA (India): The forty-second session of the General Assembly has been reconvened to continue consideration of agenda item 136. We regret the developnents leading to this, for, in fact and in law, the status of the Observer view of my delegation, established beyond doubt. Indeed, as the secretary-General has noted~ "The members of the Palestine Liberation Organi,zation Observer Mission are, by virtue of resolution 3237 (XXIX), invitees to the United Nations. As such, they are covered by sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947. There is therefore a treaty obligation on the host countyry to permit Palestine Liberation Organization Observer Mission personnel to enter and remain in the United States to carry out their official functions." We had hoped that in view of that absolutely clear position taken by the Secretary-General, a view that was endorsed by 145 States Members of the United Nations last December, the matter would have been resolved. However, the unfortunate episode continues. My delegation takes this opportunity to express its grati tude to the Secretary-Gener al for his sincere and untir ing endeavour s to resolve this issue. His reports made in pursuance of resolution 42/210 Band outlined in A/42/9l5 and Add.l, document those unremitting efforts. Those reports are revealing in many respects. The reports first of all clearly set out the view of the United Nations on this issue. At the same time they also refer to the posi tion taken by the Uni ted States Department of State that the United States is, indeed, under an obligation to permi t PLO Observer Miss ion personnel to en ter and rema in in the Un i ted sta tes to carry out their Official functions. Document A/42/915 quotes a letter from the Acting Permament Representative of the United States to the United Nations who, in response to the Secretary-General's letters of 7 and 21 December 1987, stated; "Because the provisions concerning the PLO Observer Miss ion may infr inge on the President's constitutional authority and if implemented would be contrary to our interna tional legal obliga tions under the Uni ted Nations Hea dquarters Agreement, the Admin istr ation intends dur ing the 90-day per iod before this (Mr. Dasgupta, India) provision is to take effect, to engage in consultations with the Congress in an effort to resolve this matter." In view of the deadline of 21 March and the fact that no reassurance has been forthcoming from the United States Administration on the Observer Mission, the Secretary-General has had to conclude that a dispute exists between the United Nations and the United States concerning the interpretation and obligation of the Headquarters Agreement. The Secretary-General was subsequently constrained to invoke the dispute-settlement procedure set out in section 21 of the Agreement. The United Nations has nominated Mr. Eduardo Jimenez de Arechaga, former President and Judge of the Interna tional Court of Jus tice, as arbi tra tor in the event of an arbitration under section 21. The Legal Counsel of the United Nations has urged the Legal Adviser of the Department of Sta te to inform the Uni ted Na tions as soon as possible of the choice made by the United States. The Secretary-General' s report of 25 February states that no communication has thus far been received in this regard from the United States. The General Assembly has had no alternative but to meet in resumed session to continue its consideration of agenda item 136. The present situation is most unsatisfactory. We would appeal to the host country to honour its obligations in accordance with the Headq:uarters Agreement of 26 June 1947. We would appeal, too, that this matter be settled through the procedures envisaged in that Agreement. If we cannot come to an acceptable solution, we would have little alternative but to seek advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice and to confirm that remedial measures be taken according to procedure. In the meantime we call upon the United States to take no action that would be prejudicial to the other party. Wh He the rna tter at hand is urgent, it cannot be totally divorced from the occupied territories are ample testimony to the vigorous nationalism that 20 years of Israeli occupation has failed to dim. The situation is fraught with serious consequences for the entire region. The situation demands that an immediate negotiating process be put in place so that what in fact might be the last chance for a peaceful settlement of this long-standing Arab-Israeli dispute is not lost. The elements for a solution to this dispute are well known and well understood and do not need repetition here, but we cannot over-emphasize the fact that the first step is to face the facts. The fact is that only a just and comprehensive settlement of the Middle East problem can bring lasting peace to the region. The fact is that for the Palestinians and for the overwhelming ma jor i ty of the international community the Palestine Liberation Organization is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The fact is that no credible negotiating process can take place without their full and equal participation. Those are realities that cannot be changed by putting impediments, such as a ttempts to close the PLO Observer Miss ion in New York, along the way. My delegation hopes that we can put this incident behind us as soon as possible so that the Mission can continue to function here as it has for the last 13 years and that we seriously get down to the business of working towards a resolution of the Palestinian issue so that peace returns to a region that has seen so much strife and turmoil, death and destruction. - Mr. BIERRING (Denmark)~ I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries: Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Denmark. It had been the hope of the Nordic countries that subsequent to the adoption of General Assembly resoluton 42/210 B the question of the presence of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Observer Mission to the United Nations would have found a solution in strict accordance with the United Nations Headquarters Agreement. The intervening events demonstrate - as reflected inter alia in the report of the Secretary-General (A/42/915 and Add .1) - that such a solution has not yet been found. The Nordic countries fully share the views on this question already expressed by both the Secretary-General and the Uni ted Sta tes secretary of State, George Shu1tz, to the effect that the united States, as host country, is under an obligation, in accordance with the united Nations Headquarters Agreement, to permit the PLO to maintain its Observer Mission at the United Nations. The Nordic countries continue to hope that the question can be solved in a satisfactory manner. In our view, in the circumstances the question should be submitted to an arbitration tribunal, in accordance with section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement, as proposed by the Secretary-General. Mr. MOUMIN (Comoros): The Headquarters Agreement signed on 26 June 1947 by the United States, the host country, and the united Nations is very clear in its stipulations about the obligations of the host country. Therefore, the question under discussion is a straightforward legal one. I do not intend to dwell on the relevant legal arguments, which have already been ably presented by previous speaker s. The delegation of the Islamic Federal Republic of the cameras is very disturbed by the thought that the host country believes that it can with impunity (Mr. Moumin, COlOOros) take a unilateral decision to violate its international legal obligation and to refuse the application of the arbitration clause in section 21 of the Agreement, which provides for arbitration in the event of a dispute. By enacting a law to close the offices of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Observer Mission to the Uni ted Nations, the Uni ted States Congress has flagrantly violated the Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, which the United States willingly contracted wi th the united Nations. The host country cannot hide behind contradictions inherent in its Constitution to abrogate its international legal obligation. The United States executive branch has signed a binding international agreement, and the legislative branch has authorized its ratification. Therefore, the executive branch is obliged to call to order the legislature when the latter enacts laws contrary to the contracted international obligations. My delegation holds the United States Administration responsible for any breach of its international obligations. The Administration has the obligation to seek, while it is still possible, the annulment of the legislation that is the cause of this debate. In all civilized societies an international treaty or agreement duly ratified takes precedence over any national legislation. The United States being a respectable member of civilized society, we call upon its Administration to abide by its legal obligations, by seeking the annulment of the part of the Foreign Rela tions Au thor iza tion Act, Fiscal Year s 1988 and 1989, which establishes certain prohibitions regarding the PLO Permanent Observer Mission. Otherwise, the Administration should promptly accept the Secretary-General's assertion that a dispute exists between the United Nations and the United states concerning the interpretation and application of the Headquarters Agreement. The host Government's legal obligation to maintain the current arrangement for the PLO (Mr. Moumin, Comoros) Observer Mission, which has been effect since 1974, should not depend on the whims of either the United states Congress or its jUdicial branch. My delegation supports the view that the Assembly should request an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, under Article 65 of the Court's Statute, on the applicability of section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement. Mr. MOYA PALENCIA (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish)~ The Mexican delegation is taking part in this debate in order to contribute to a peaceful and orderly settlement of a dispu te on the legal interpreta tion of the Hea dquarter s Agreement between the United Nations and the United states of America, a dispute that arises as a result of domestic legislation. A just solution would not only determine the right of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), but would also establish the scope of the Agreement and would be an important precedent. An unjust solution would not merely be detr imenta 1 to the Palestine Liber ation Organ ization but would cause continuing concern to other Observers and Missions. On the creation of the United Nations we, the founding members, made clear our desire to see the new Organization operating on the basis of the principle of universality, involving the largest possible number of States in its activities and in the pursuit of its goals. It is because of that pr inciple of un iversali ty that we established the practice, which has been followed many times, of the Assembly and other organs inviting as Observers a wide range of non-member States, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, national liberation movements, societies, other bodies and even individuals to take part in the work of the United Na tions. Such invi ta tions are extended in order to enable the Organ iza tion to learn the views and opinions of Observers and give them an opportunity to exercise their rights, as well as enable the Assembly to have access to J'lPre documents, advice and assistance. (Mr. Moya Palencia, Mexico) We would recall that this invi ta tion extended to observers to participa te is basically founded, on the one hand, on fundamental human rights - that is, the right to expression and the right to a hearing - and, on the other, on the purpose spelled out in the Charter that the United Nations task is not confined to maintaining peace and co-operation merely among Member States but also within the international community as a whole. In 1974 the General Assembly invited the Palestine Liberation Organization to take part as an observer, and the host country agreed to the PLO establishing its presence in New York and recognized its status as Observer Mission. From this sta tus flow a number of logical and legal consequences. For purposes of our deba te these are~ the right to maintain offices and communications, and free transit of its representatives within the territorial jurisdiction of the host country. The host country promulgated a law, dated 22 December 1987, which, if interpreted and applied broadly, would inter alia curtail the Palestine Liberation Organization's right to maintain a Permanent Observer Mission and, consequently, impede or render wellnigh impossible the PLO's participation in the activities of the organs of the uni ted Nations in session throughout the year. Poli tical considerations of alleged securi ty or na tional interest, or of any other kind, invoked by one of the parties to a treaty cannot exempt it from living up to the requirements of an agreement if these constitute limits to its power or judgement. Furthermore, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the recent Vienna Convention on the Law of Trea ties between Sta tes and International Organizations clearly establish that the parties to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of domestic legislation as grounds for non-compliance with that treaty. On the other hand, from the reports of the Secretary-General and the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, we see reflected the view of the united States Secretary of State that if the new legislation were to be applied it would "be contrary to our international legal obligations under the United Nations Headquarters Agreement ". Sect}on 21 of the Uni ted Na tions Headquar ters Agreement establishes .. as do other Headqua rters Agreements wi th in terna tional organ iza tions, the binding dispute settlement procedures which are to be appl ied. The recourse to arbitration, which the Secretary-General has invoked, is in the view of my delegation the appropriate path for resolving disputes between parties. The Secretary-General has appointed the eminent Uruguayan jurist Eduardo Jimenez De Arechaga as arbitrator on behalf of the United Na tions. We would today urge the host country to agree to th is binding procedure and refer the dispute to the prescribed legal procedures. My delegation, furthermore, considers that pending a definitive resolution, in accordance wi th the procedures la id down in section 21 of the Headquarter s Agreement, the parties are obliged to refrain from any action detrimental to the fa ir and orderly settlement of the dispu te. To seek an advisory opin ion from the International Court of Justice could also contr ibute to the technical clarification of this matter and to the proper interpretation of the Headquarters Treaty. In conclusion, may I be permitted to express my delegation's serious concern at the potential implications of this matter, arising as it does while a process of administrative reform is under way in the united Nations. This will inevitably be discouraged if the functioning of the Organization is itself further hampered. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this debate offers us some encouragement in thE sense that the arguments and views expressed here have been concil iatory in their nature and basically of a legal character. Appeals have been made to the supremacy of international law and to the appropriateness of Member States honouring their bilateral and multilateral commitments without exception. In this debate we are having recourse to principles which serve to shape international order and which gave birth to the united Nations, principles such as universality, legal equality of States, peaceful settlement of disputes and respect for human rights, among others, instead of continually referring to unjustified use of force for purposes of hegemony and domination and to other grave aspects of the current situation in whioh the international community finds itself as a result of growing disregard for international law. Let us take the opportunity offered us by this regrettable dispute and rechannel our activities towards the path of law, principles of coexistence, and the enhancement of our institutions, in order to derronstrate the genuine political will in our ranks that can preserve multilateralism and strengthen the community of nations. Hr. B<RG OLIVIER (Malta): It is indeed regrettable that we are assembled here to deliberate not on how to initiate the urgently needed negotiating process for a just and comprehensive solution to the Middle East conflict and to the Palestinian question, which is the very core of that conflict. Instead, the membership of the United Nations has been convened to meet at this resumed session as a result of legislation adopted by the host country which is clearly in Violation of its obligations under the Heacquarters Agreement entered into in 1947 by the United Nations and the United States of America. This is an issue that should not have arisen and which the membership almost unanimously wishes to have resolved satisfactorily and set aside as expeditiously as possible. The legislation in question, concerning the Permanent Observer Mission of th Palestine Liberation Organization in New York, has been passed by the United Stat s Congress notwi thstanding appeals by the Secretary-General at an early stage of th legislative process and a clear determination by the United States Secretary of state that the United States is under an obligation to permit the PLO Observer Mission personnel to enter and remain in the United States to carry out their official functions at United Nations headquarters. This position has been reiterated repeatedly by senior officials of the United States State Department wi thin the United Na tions, in the Commi ttee on Rela tions wi th the Host Country, the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, and also in the course of internal deliberations involving the various branches of the United States Government. The legislation was signed into law by the President of the United States on 22 December 1987, and is to become effective on 21 March 1988. Every effort has been made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and by the Legal Counsel to express to the United States authorities the position of the United Nations on the legislation, and various appeals have been made, without success, for wisdom 0 prevail in this unfortunate state of affairs. The membership is alrrost unanilOOus in the view that application of this ill-considered and unnecessary piece of legislation would consti tute a viola tion f treaty obliga tions which are legally binding on the host country. The adoption b h the General Assembly of resolution 42/210 B last December provides clear evidence of this. No fewer than 145 Member States expressed their support for that positi ri by voting in favour of the General Assembly's resolution. Strict adherence to the Headquarters Agreement is of paramount importance to the Organization and to its Members both individually and collectively. The legislation adopted by the host country does not concern only the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It directly affects the United Nations as a whole, since it constitutes a serious and grave impediment to the capacity of the united Nations to carry out its functions and responsibilities under the Charter and as provided for under the Headquarters Agreement. It is a basic and fundamental principle of multilateralism reflected in all consti tuent instruments of mul tila teral interna tional governmental organizations and in all the relevant host country agreements that the host country must permit free and unimpeded access to all official participants and invi tees of the organizations concerned. Domestic considerations and interests within the host country simply cannot be permitted to erode this most essential principle. otherwise, the very concept of multilateralism would be very seriously threatened. This responsibility to respect the overriding obligations arising out of membership in an international organization such as the united Nations applies to each and every Member of the organization, and more especially to the host country where the wor k of the organization actually takes place. In 1974 the General Assembly, by its resolution 3237 (XXIX), invited the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the sessions and work of the General Assembly and in all meetings and conferences held under its auspices, as the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Accordingly, it has permanent observer sta tus in the Uni ted Na tions and as an official invi tee of the United Nations it is covered by the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Headquarters Agreement. The practice followed uninterruptedly for over 13 years by mutual agreement between the authorities of the host country and the United Nations confirms that the PLO is entitled to have unimpeded access to the United Nations and to maintain an office with facilities to enable it to perform its official functions at the Uni ted Nations. The Secretary-General informs us in his reports of all the efforts he has undertaken with a view to obtaining assurances that arrangements in force for the PLO, pursuant to the Headquarters Agreement, would be maintained. we deeply appreciate the efforts undertaken by the secretary-General and his colleagues and we fully support their actions. Unfortunately, no such assurances have been given by the host country's authorities, and at the same time the deadline for the law to become effective in fast is approaching. In these circumstances, the Secretary-General appropriately invoked the provisions of section 21 of the HeaCkIuarters Agreement, which provide a mechanism for settling disputes which may arise with regard to the interpretation and application of the HeaCkIuarters Agreement. The mechanism expressly provided to govern precisely the situation that now exists, since negotiations have failed to produce a solution, requires the parties to the Agreement to submit any differences they might have to an arbitration panel for a final and binding decision. This procedure for settling disputes cannot properly be frustra ted by the re fusal of one of the parties to acknowledge formally the existence of a dispute. If one of the parties considers that a particular action would viola te its rights under the Agreement and negotiations fa il to resolve the matter, then clear ly a dispute within the terms of the agreement exists and the dispute settlement procedure can properly be invoked by either of the parties. My delegation strongly appeals to the host country to consider all possible options so that further unnecessary complications may be avoided. (Mr. Borg Olivier, Malta) If this course of action does not produce the desired result, we appeal even more strongly to the authorities of the host country to facilitate resolution of the matter through the dispute settlement procedure provided for in the Headquarters Agreement. Since the 21 March time-limit is approaching, it is necessary and entirely appropriate, in the absence of an immediate indication of the host country's intentions, for the General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice so that it may clarify the legal issues and indicate the remedies available to enable the United Nations to preserve its rights under the 1947 Headquarters Agreement. The Palestine Liberation Organization is the target of this particular legislation, which will become effective on 21 March 1988. The PLO is the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. It represents the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and it is a principal party to one of the mst important questions on the agenda of the United Nations. It is entitled to and must be permitted to continue to perform its important official function at the United Nations. The current events in the Gaza Strip and in the west Bank have convinced the entire world community of the necessity and urgency of a just and comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict which will allow the Palestinian people to live freely in control of their destiny in their own land. No settlement will be possible without the participation of all parties directly concerned, including the Palestinian people, through their chosen representatives. Those who still refuse to accept this reality are delaying progress in the search for a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict, including the question of PalestinA.

In accordance with General Assembly resolution 31/152 of 20 December 1976, I now call on the Observer of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). Mr. ANGUIA (South West Afr ica People's Organization (SWAPO)): I feel honoured to participate on behalf of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) in the deliberations of the Assembly on a very crucial and important matter. Allow me to thank the President and the secretary-General for convening this resumed session. This debate is taking place at a very crucial time in the history of the oppressed, dispossessed but fighting Palestinian people and of the United Nations. Could it be a coincidence that at the time when the United States of America has stepped up its attack. against the united Nations, and in particular its Charter, that the Israeli regime has launched a massive campa ign of brutal murder of unarmed Palestinians? we do not think it is a mere coincidence. It is a well co-ordinated strategy of the allies, the United States and Israel. The mass killings in the occupied Palestinian territories, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have come in the wake of the united States decision, which itself was orchestrated by the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington to close the Palestine Information Office in Washington, and the PLO Observer Mission to the United Nations. In this regard, the international conununity is faced not only with the attempt by Washington and Tel Aviv to silence the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people, but, more than that, to annihilate the Palestinian nation as a whole through masS murder and starvation. We condemn the illegal and unilateral decision of the United States Administration to violate the international Hea~uarters Agreement. Such unwarranted and un Ha teral abrogation of an interna tional treaty, if allowed to succeed, will have dangerous repercussions in international relations. Such illegal action threatens the preservation of the fundamental rights of peoples, multilateralism and the very purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. If States were to be allowed to dictate which countries or organizations they would permit to enter, or prevent from entering, their territory to attend international gatherings merely on the basis of their likes or dislikes, that would spell the end of the rule of international law and reversion to the law of "might is right 1'. The PLO Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations and its delegation are in the United States at the invitation of the United Nations and in accordance with the Headquarters Agreement and subsequent resolutions and decisions of the interna tional body. The terms of reference of such invi ta cion were accepted by the United States when it signed the Headquarters Agreement. The action of the United States Government therefore is not directed against the PLO alone but against the very pr inciples for which the United Nations stands. In fact, it is out perception that the United states has lost faith in this international Organization; it treats the United Nations as if it were a menu, choosing to observe those decisions that it feels protect its interests while violat.in9 those that seek the universal protection of all. Its decision to close the PID Observer Mission and many other unilateral actions are of great concern to all of us. The United Nations is the most appropriate international forum for the maintenance of peace and security and the peaceful settlement of disputes and crises; the protection and achievement of the exercise of the right of self-determina tion and independence by peoples still under colonial domination and foreign occupa tion ~ the strengthening of international co-operation in all fields on the basis of the sovereign equality of States~ the strengthening of peaceful ooexistence~ and striving for universal disarmament. Therefore, any attempt to turn the United Nations into a subservient body serving the interests of one State oonsti tutes a serious threat to all and must be resisted in every way p:>ssib1e. The Uni ted States decision to close the PLO Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations will discredit the image of the United Nations and will constitute a serious setback, particularly for the Palestinians and other oppressed peoples. It will certa inly exacerbate the er isis in the Middle East, as is delllOnstrated by current Israeli atrocities aga inst the Palestin!an people. The behaviour of the United states Administration has encouraged Israeli conduct in occupied Gaza and the West Bank. As Palestinian Perspectives puts it, "Israel's guilt is clear, because it has its finger on the trigger. What is less clear, but no less real, is the guilt of those who create the hospi table env ironment for I arael i repression, those who contr ibute to the myth structure in which Israel lives. They include those who equate Palestinian resistance to injustice with terrorism, who glodf)' Israeli greed and violence as self-defence, who portray Zionist apartheid as democracy, who call the Israeli albatross a strategic asset, and those who subsidize it all with arms, money, diplomatic protection and disinformation. This is the vast myth structure which has enabled Israel to lead a barbarous existence Secure in the knowledge that all will be understood and forgiven". We, the oppressed but fighting people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO, deeply understand and feel the plight of the Palestinians, Eor we have been subjected to enslavement for the past 104 long years. Moreover, our oppressor today, apartheid South Africa - whose leaders have been faithful followers of Adolf Hitler, who killed millions of human beings in cold blood, particularly the Jewish people - has formed a political, economic, military and strategic alliance with the Israeli regime. That alignment defies any logic of human compassion. While Israel, the long arms of its intelligence services and its front organizations spare no effort and spend money and energy to track down Nazi collaborators, Israeli leaders wine and dine with the Vorsters and the Bothas, well-known Hi tieri tes who wasted no time in rebell ing aga inst the anti-Hi tler i te axis. Furthenoore, Zionist Israel continues to play a crucial role in the building up of the South African air force and navy in particUlar. For example, the Philadelphia Enquirer of 16 November 1987 reported that South African war-planes were using Israeli electronic anti-missile systems and that Israel had helped south Africa convert a Boeing airliner into an airborne electronic warfare centre to guide air strikes against Angola. Israel Foreign Affairs, quoting the sunday Telegraph, said that South Africa had reciprocated Israel's military support by supplying it with G-S lS5rnm howitzers, guns capable of firing nuclear shells. (Mr. Angula, SWAPO) It is no wonder that Israel has adopted the South African prescription of shooting demonstrators to kill - what they call mob-control methods. In Namibia, the national resistance has reached an advanced stage, a stage at which the armed struggle has reached semi-conventional levels. In this regard, suffering defeat ( the hands of the People's Liberation Army of Namibia, the racist army, instead of negotiating, has decided to reduce the population of Namibia before the inevitabll debacle. The 20 February 1988 bombing of the First Na tional Bank - formerly knoWl as Barclays Bank - at Oshakati by South African agents, where as many as 25 Namibians were killed in cold blood and over 90 maimed in the blast, demonstrates how desperate the enemy has become. Bishop Cleophas Dumeni of the Evangelical Lu theran Church - who during the past four mon ths alone has himself lost two fami members at the hands of the racist usurpers in separate incidents - described the prevailing repressive situation in Namibia in the following words: "Killing of people in cold blood, bea tings, throwing people in gaol, destruction of property, torture wi th electric shocks, bomb blasts on roads and other cruel oppressive measures have made the situation far more dangero than ever before. People are being arrested on their way to church, and som are being beaten up as the South African Defence Force tries to extract information about the whereabouts of SWAPO guerrillas from the local commun i ty "• We have an earnest desire to see this terrible suffering of our people broug t to an end. Our policy for the past 28 years of SWAPO'S existence has been one of wanting to find a negotiated solution to the Namibian problem. Bu t the racist minority regime in Pretoria has persistently refused to let our people go free. What else can we do in the present circumstances? We are left with no alternath but to sacrifice what we love most dearly, so that one day our children may be (Mr. Angula, SWAPO) free. In his message of condolences to the bereaved Namibian nation on the occasion of the mass funeral of the Oshakati bombing victims, Comrade President Sam Nu joma sa id , "Let not the tragic loss of so many compatriots strain the power of our endurance and our determina tion to resist the illegal occupa tion of our country. Let not our tears blind us to our set objective of liberating our mtherland. We must persevere in our resistance to colonialism". In conclusion, I should like to extend our support and revolutionary salutations to the brave and courageous Palestinian brothers and sisters who, under the leadership of the PLO, are asserting their inalienable rights by challenging Zionist bullets with a determined will. At the same time we want to express our apprecia tion for the suppor t progressive mank ind has extended to the PLO and other liberation movements, notwithstanding strong opposition from imperialism and its lackeys, who seek to recolonize the world. The struggle continues~ victory is certain. The meeting rose at 7.10 p.m.