A/42/PV.36 General Assembly

I snould like to draw the Assembly's attention to document A/42/563/Add.l, which contains a letter addressed to me by the Secretary-General informing me that, since the issuance of his communication dated 15 September 1987, Equatorial Guinea has made the necessary payment to reduce its arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the Charter. May I take it that the General Assembly decides to take note of this informa tion? It was so decided.

In previous years, the Assembly has taken note of the annual report of the Secretary-General. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Assembly wishes to take note of the report of the Secretary-General. It was so decided.

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 10.

The Assembly will now turn to the report of the International Court of Justice (A/42/4) covering the period 1 August 1986 to 31 JUly 1987. Mr. ORDZHONIKIDZE (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russ ian): The report of the International Court of Justice leads us to consider the role of the principal jUdicial organ of the United Nations and the potential for further enhancing it in the context of a comprehensive system of international security, the stability of which has become an urgent need of our time. In today's interrelated and interdependent world, comprehensive security, which means demilitarization, democratization and the humanization of international relations, is attainable only on the basis of a universal legal system that guarantees the primacy of international law over the political ambitions of States. The establishment of comprehensive equal security for all, of course, means the restructuring of political and legal awareneSs and the creation of a clear understanding that the use of peaceful means is an imperative requirement in civilized international relations. It requires a thorough analysis of ways of using more effectively all parts ot the Uni ted Nations machinery, including the International Court of Justice. The purpose of comprehensive security is that peace should be guaranteed by political means alone, through the United Nations, on the basis of strict compliance with the pr inciples and provisions of its Charter. An intrinsic element of this international machinery is, of course, the international jUdicial procedure, that is the United Nations International Court of Justice. Accordingly one needs to take a fresh look at the work of the Court and to outline new approaches for a more active use of its potential in the interests of international peace and legal order. The United Nations International Court of Justice could become one of the most important guarantors of peace, security and co-operation among States. The unique status of this principal judicial organ of the Organization makes that essential. The unique nature of this judicial body is clear. Together with the Security Council and the General Assembly, it is one of the principal organs of the United Nations. The Court possesses universal competence, not restricted by the confines of any region or any sphere of activity of States, which is one way in which it differs fundamentally from other international jUdicial mechanisms. The Court has great experience in investigating disputes in various areas of inter-State relations, and, of course, it makes a useful contribution towards discharging the primary task of the United Nations, the maintenance of international peace and the guaranteeing of security. However, the role of this principal judicial organ of the United Nations could be enhanced further - apart from the provisions established in the Charter of the United Nations and the Court's Statute - and promoted by the objective need to enhance the role of international law in world affairs so that a future non-nuclear, non-violent world could be based on a reliable platform of international law and order. One should not forget that enhancement of the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice would mean that it should co-operate closely with the other principal organs of the United Nations. The General Assembly and the Security Council could refer to it more often for advisory opinions on contentious questions of international law. We see the International Court of Justice of the future as an authoritative, effective mechanis~ for settling disputes, occupying, Inot only under the Charter but al~o in fact, one of the leading places in the United Nations system. If - to use the metaphor of Karl Marx - simple laws of morality and justice that guide private persons in their relations became supreme laws in relations among peoples, referring matters to the Court would become a normal practice widely used in international relations. One possible way to do that would be for all States to recognize that referring matters to the Court is binding, on mutually agreed terms. As is stated in the article addressed to the present session of the General Assembly by Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, "Reality and safeguards for a secure worldll , lilts compulsory jurisdiction must be acknowledged by all on mutually agreed terms". Thus, for all Members of the United Nations equal grounds would be established for referring matters to the Court. That would be in keeping with the United Nations Charter and would make possible fuller implementation of the principle of sovereign equalitYJ it would also be in keeping with the needs of the democratization of international relations. Of course it would not be easy to implement and in the initial stage that could be done by the permanent members of the Security Council. Such a step on their part would be in keeping with the special responsibility of those States for the fate of human civilization. Sir Crispin TICKELL (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland): I listened with interest to the statement just made by the representative of the soviet Union. I want simply to remind this Assembly that the United Kingdom has from the inception of the Court in 1946 been a strong supporter of the Court and of the wider establishment of an international legal system. from the beginning accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. We hope that the other permanent members will do so too. Indeed, we can only say that the greater the number of Members of the United Nations who can do likewise the stronger will be the international system of law and the sentiments expressed by tne representative of the Soviet Union. So I concur with what he has said. I remind all members of the Assembly of the importance of this issue and I commend the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court to all Member States who feel able to accept it.

May I take it that the General Assembly takes note of the report of the International Court of Justice? It was so decided.

We have concluded our consideration of agenda item 13.

The draft resolution recommended by the Credentials Committee, set forth 1n paragraph 21 of the report, reads as follows: "The General AssemblX "Approves the first report of the Credentials Committee." In this connection the Assembly also has before it an amendment to that draft resolution. The amendment has been submitted by 20 States and is contained in document A/42/L.3. I call on the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to introduce the amendment. Mr. TREIKI (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (interpretation from Arabic): There is no doubt that the enjoyment of membership of the United Nations is not merely a simple rightJ it is also a legal and moral obligation. It is also an obligation to fulfil the principles of the Charter and of human rights as well as the rules of international law, and also to implement the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Any violation of any of those principles or lack of respect for resolutions adopted by those organs would immediately cancel the rights of the party concerned. Based upon those rules, I have the honour of submitting the amendment in document A/42/L.3 on behalf of the Arab Group, of which we are Chairman this month, and on behalf of the following States: Algeria, Bahrain, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the united Arab Emirates and Yemen; and also the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). We question the credentials of the Israeli delegation for the following reasons: First, Israel has shown disrespect for the Security Council resolutions on the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East, thereby violating Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Second, Israel has not implemented the General Assembly resolutions on the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East, thereby preventing the Palestinian people from attaining its inalienable rights, inclUding the right to return to its homeland, the right to self-determination and the right to establish its independent State on its homeland in Palestine. Those resolutions also call for the end of Israeli occupation of all Arab territories, including Holy Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights, in accordance with the principle of the non-admissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. Third, Israel has not implemented the General Assembly resolutions on other items related to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East. Fourth, Israel is violating human rights in the occupied Palestinian Arab territories, and particularly is violating the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of August 1949. (Mr. Treiki, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) Fifth, Israel persists in its annexation of Palestinian and Arab territories, including Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights, thereby violating provisions of the United Nations Charter and rules of international law. Sixth, Israel continues to wage aggression against Arab countries. Indeed, it has expanded that aggression to Lebanon, Iraq and Tunisia. Seventh, Israel continues to collaborate with the apartheid regime of South Africa, particularly in the nuclear and economic spheres. That collaboration has been condemned. by the international community. Eighth, the credentials that the Israeli delegation has submitted to the forty-second session of the General Assembly were issued from Jerusalem, in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (19aO) and General Assembly resolution 35/169, of 15 December 1980. For all those reasons, and because Israel continues to show disrespect for and to defy the united Nations and its resolutions, we challenge the credentials of the Israeli delegation. We ask that the draft resolution recommended by the Credentials Committee be amended by the addition of the following phrase after the words "the Committee": "except with regard to the credentials of Israel".

I now call on the representative of Finland, who wishes to speak on a point of order. Mr. KORHANEN (Finland): I am making this point of order on behalf of the Nordic countries - Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland - in connection with the amendment in document A/42/L.3, just introduced by my colleague and friend Ambassador Treiki of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. That amendment proposes that the credentials of the representatives of Israel be rejected. On behalf of the Nordic countries, I formally move that no action be taken on the amendment. I ask you, Mr. President, to put this motion immediately to the vote. It is made wi thin the terms of rule 74 of the General Assembly's rules of procedure. I wish to emphasize that the only motivation of the five Nordic countries in· mak ing this .ootion is their dedi ca tion to upholding the capacity and the authority of the United Nations to act in fulfilment of its primary purposes.

The representative of Finland has ooved, within the terms of rules 74 of the rules of procedure, that no action be taken on the amendment circulated in document A/42/L.3. Rule 74 reads as follows: "During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immedia te1y put to the vote•••• ". Does any representative wish to speak on this motion? Mr. RAJAIE-KHORASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran): I wish to speak in favour of the very wise proposal put forward by Mr. Ali Treiki, the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and against the motion just made by the Permanent Representative of Finland. The papers accredi ting the illegitimate Zionist non-en tity to the United Nations are devoid of any validity. To recognize them as valid would amount to weakening the rational maturity of this body. (Mr. Korhanen, Finland) The validity of any claim must be inherent in the claim itself. It is never a conventional value that can be established through recognition, ballot boxes or other voting procedures. If a document is invalid, it remains invalid even if the whole world votes in favour of it. Hence, the entire procedure of trying to give recognition. to an invalid piece of paper is a false and invalid procedure. We are all aware that the non-entity occupying Palestine does not have any legitimacy - whether or not we take into account the crimes which it constantly perpetuates and to some of which Mr. Treiki has quite rightly referred. (Mr. Rajaie-Khorassani, Islamic Republic· of Iran) Furthermore, I believe that the substance of the very important amendment sUbmitted by the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya does deserve attention and that the General Assembly should for once kindly give it a chance. Of course, it is always easy to defeat that amendment through procedural methods. But I believe it would be wise, prudent and a good test of the global intelligence of the Assembly, so to speak, to give that amendment a chance. 1 therefore believe that the amendment submitted by the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should be considered substantively instead of just squashing it through procedural techniques. I therefore request the Assembly to vote against the motion, and I hope that the substance of this very important amendment, this time submitted by the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, will have a chance, if only once, in this Assembly. I wish to add that my delegation is co-sponsoring the amendment submitted by Hr. Ali TreikL Mr. AL-MASRI (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): The presence of the representative of the Zionist entity among us is a blatant defiance of the United Nations Charter and various resolutions of this Organization. There is no need for me to repeat the legal reasons given by the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in challenging the credentials of the Israeli representative of occupied Palestine. I appeal to this forum to adopt the appropriate legal action in keeping with the United Nations Charter and resolutions of this Organization and reject the credentials of that representative, whose presence here is a blatant defiance of the United Nations, international law and even human sensibilities. Therefore, my delegation places on record its strong opposition to the procedural motion submitted by the representative of Finland on behalf of the Nordic countries. We hope that it will be defeated in the vote.

Two members have spoken against the motion submitted by Finland. Since no member wishes to speak in favour, I shall now put to the vote the motion submitted by the representative of Finland that no action be taken on the amendment circulated in document A/42/L.3. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, ~taly, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire Against: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, German Democratic RepUblic, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen (Mr. AI-Masri, Syrian Arab Republic) The motion was adopted by BO votes to 39, witb 10 abstentions.*

The representative of Malta has asked to speak. Is it on a point of order? Mr. BORG-OLIVIER (Malta): The delegation of Malta wishes to explain its position on the motion just adopted. I know this is an unusual procedural request, but it has been granted in the past and we should like briefly to explain our position on the motion just adopted.

I call on the representative of Malta to state his position after the vote. Mr. BORG-OLIVIER (Malta): The delegation of Malta understands and fully shares the frustration of the Arab countries and of the Palestinian people as a result of the lack of progress in the efforts to find a just and lasting solution to the Middle East crisis and to the question of Palestine. At the same time, my Government believes that we must persevere in our efforts to solve these problems by encouraging negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations. In our view, a move to exclude from this forum a party directly involved is counter-productive and could seriously undermine the capacity of the United Nations to act in fulfilment of one of its primary purposes, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security. *Subsequently the delegations of the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and principe and Solomon Islands advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favourl the delegations of Afghanistan and Zimbabwe that they had intended to vote against; and the delegations of Ghana and Uganda that they had intended to abstain in the vote. For these reasons, and consistent with our adherence to the principle of universality, we have today voted in favour of the procedural motion proposed by the representative of Finland on behalf of the Nordic countries.

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their positions on the recommendation of the Credentials Committee. May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. VONGSAY (Lao People's Democratic Republic) (interpretation from French): My delegation wishes to express, on behalf of the delegation of the Socialist RepUblic of Viet Nam and the Government of the People's RepUblic of Kampuchea, our disappointment and reservations with regard to the report of the Credentials Committee, inasmuch as it has once again ratified the presence in this prestigious world Organization of the so-called Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. We regret this decision all the more since the international community knows full well that the bloodthirsty hangmen Pol Po~ and his close associates are controlling the so-called tripartite coalition. It is also well known that not long ago Prince Norodom Sihanouk himself openly condemned this genocidal clique as guilty of criminal acts and systematic violations of human rights against combatants and Khmer refugees in camps established in Thai territory. One can therefore understand why the Prince - having realized the fictitious nature and heterogeneous character of the so-called Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea in exile, which no longer represents anyone except those who dream of restoring Pol Pot and his genocidal regime to power in Phnom Pehn, the capital of the People's Republic of Kampuchea - is today seeking to dissociate himself from it. For us, and in the view of all those who cherish peace and justice, only the People's RepUblic of Kampuchea - the sole, authentic representative of the long-SUffering Kampuchean people effectively and undeniably exercising control over population within the territory - is entitled to occupy the seat that rightfully belongs to it in the United Nations as in other international forums. To continue ratifying the powers of this pseudo-coalition is tantamount to deliberately disregarding the positive developments that have occurred in the region, among which is the 27 August statement of the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea with regard to its policy of national reconciliation - a policy which was welcomed by various patriotic Kampuchean parties. The international community should have taken note of - indeed resolutely encouraged - this incipient process of national reconciliation in Kampuchea, as well as the efforts to restore peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia. It is this feeling of frustration that prompts me today, on behalf of my own Government and on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the People's Republic of Kampuchea, to place on record our formal reservations on the report of the Credentials Committee in connection with the representation of Kampuchea in this forum. Mr. lBAREZ FAJARDO (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): with regard to the first-report of the Credentials Committee (A/42/630), the delegation of Cuba wishes to express its reservations with regard to the credentials submitted by the spokesmen of the so-called Republic of Democratic Kampuchea. Encouraging tnis kind of fiction is not the best approach to solving the problem of Kampuchea, nor are we rendering a service to the Kampuchean people by allowing the Pol Pot representatives to occupy a seat in this Hall. For my country, only the People's Republic of Kampuchea represents its people, to whom it has restored the dignity, tranquility and status of human beings that had been denied them for years by those who are today attempting to set themselves up as their representatives. Mr. AL-ASHTAL (Democratic Yemen) (interpretation from Arabic): On behalf of the delegations of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab RepUblic, and my own delegation, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, we wish to place on record our reservations on the credentials of the delegation of so-called Democratic Kampuchea. We call for the termination of its illegal occupation of the seat of Kampuchea in the United Nations, so that the people of Kampuchea and its legitimate Government in the People's Republic of Karnpuchea may contribute positively to the work of this world Organization. Mr. ESZTERGALYOS (Hungary): On behalf of the delegations of the People's RepUblic of Bulgaria, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the German Democratic Republic, the Mongolian People's Republic, the Polish People's RepUblic, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and my own delegation, I wish to express our strong objections to the credentials of a group of persons claiming that they represent so-called Democratic Kampuchea. At previous sessions of the General Assembly our countries have repeatedly and clearly stated their position on this question. The seat of Kampuchea in the United Nations belongs to the legitimate government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea. The delegations on whose behalf I am speaking once again most resolutely reject the illegal participation of representatives of so-called Democratic Kampuchea in the work of the General Assembly. We consider their presence here ,to be a gross insult to the memory of the millions of victims of the genocidal Pol Pot clique and a violation of the purpo~es and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, which was established as a result of a general election, continues to exercise effective control over the territory of the country. Moreover, it is carrying out a policy of peace and co-operation and actively advocating the normalization of the situation in South-East Asia. The delegations on whose behalf I have requested to speak are of the firm view that only the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the representatives it has appointed have the legitimate right to represent the Kampuchean people in the United Nations and other international organizations. (Mr. Esztergalyos, Hungary) Mr. HUANG Jiahua (China) (interpretation from Chinese): rhe Chinese delegation supports the proposal of the Credentials Committee on the acceptance of the credentials of the delegation of Democratic Kampuchea and reiterates once again that the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea is the sole legal Government of Kampuchea and the genuine representative of the Kampuchean people. The so-called Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, which is .but a proxy of foreign authorities, has no right whatsoever to represent the Kampuchean people. At the same time, I should like to reiterate that the fact that the representative of Afghanistan has been permitted to participate in the current session of the General Assembly should in no way be interpreted as acquiescence in the situation created by the foreign armed invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Mr. AGHA (Pakistan): In regard to the first report of the Credentials Committee (A/42/630), dated 9 October 1987, my delegation wishes to record its formal reservation on the credentials of the delegation representing Afghanistan at. the forty-second session of the General Assembly of the United Nations This position is consistent with Pakistan's principled stand on tne situation of Afghanistan, where foreign military intervention persists, which constitutes a flagrant contravention of the Charter of the United Nations.

The Assembly will now take a decision on the recommendation of the Credentials Committee, which is to be found in paragraph 21 of its first report (A/42/630). The Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same. The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 42/2).

I call on the representative of Afghanistan, who has asked to speak on a point of order. Mr. ROSHAN-RAWAAN (Afghanistan): We notice that in the first report of the Credentials Committee (A/42/630) there are two paragraphs, 13 and 15, in which are recorded the statements of two delegations concerning the credentials of my delegation, and we have heard statements today in the same vein. In this connection, as in the past, I should like to reject the validity and relevance of such statements and to state that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan derives its legitimacy solely and entirely from its own people. Therefore I should like to put on record my delegation's total rejection of the statements in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the report to which I have just referred.

I call now on those representatives who wish to explain their positions on the resolution. Mr. SON SANN (Democratic Kampuchea) (interpretation from French): A few moments ago the General Assembly adopted by consensus the report of the Credentials Committee, thus confirming once again the capacity of my country as a fully-fledged Member of the United Nations, and its Coalition Government as the sole and authentic representative of the people of Kampuchea. On behalf of the Cambodian people and the Coalition Government, and on my own behalf, I wish to express our deep gratitude and to say how much we appreciate this act of justice, which demonstrates anew the international community's devotion to the rule of law and the fundamental principles that govern our Organization. That act is also a condemnation of those unrepentant expansionists who are seeking with impunity to challenge the standards of international law and impose a new world political order based on force of arms. The Khmer people sees in this a new confirmation of the correctness and legitimacy of the patriotic struggle which it has waged for nearly nine years to regain its independence, freedom and dignity. We find great comfort in this act and encouragement to persevere in this heroic struggle for as long as may be neces~~ry and despite all difficulties until we achieve final victory. A just cause always triumphs in the end. 1 take this opportunity to express our deep gratitude also to all the friendly delegations which I hope will adopt by an overwhelming majority draft resolution A/42/L.l, on the situation in Kampuchea, wherein the General Assembly reiterates its appeal for the complete and unconditional withdrawal of foreign- that is, Vietnamese - forces from my country so that our people may exercise in full sovereignty its sacred right to self-determination through truly free elections under United Nations control, and so that Cambodia can become again an independent, peaceful, neutral and non-aligned State, living in peace and friendship with its neighbours in the region. All oppressed peoples, victims of or threatened by a policy of expansion and conquest cannot but welcome and rejoice with us at these decisions by which the Assembly gives its support and solidarity to a small country, a Member of the United Nations, whose sovereignty and territorial integrity have been shamelessly violated by a more powerful neighbour, the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, in defiance of morality and international law. A return to a true and lasting peace will be possible only when Viet Nam withdraws all its troops from Cambodia and· the Khmer people can once again exercise its right to self-determination without foreign interference. In conclusion, on behalf of the Coalition Government and the Cambodian people, I wish solemnly to reaffirm our dedication to the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter and our determination to make our contribution, modest though it may be, to the maintenance of international peace and security. Mr. BADAWr (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation would like to place on record the following points. First, our support for the motion submitted by the delegation of Finland is in line with Egypt's position regarding the approach to the process of finding a peacefuL settlement in the Middle East and achieving a just solution of the question of Palestine by promoting negotiations among the parties through the convening of an international peace conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Secondly, it is Egypt's position that a just settlement in the Middle East should be based on the following elements: first, Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 5 June 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza and Arab Jerusalem; secondly, respect for the rights of all States and peoples in the region to live in peace and security; thirdly, satisfaction of the legitimate claims of the Palestinian people, foremost among which is their legitimate right to self-determination; fourthly, the establishment, while persistently pursuing a settlement, of conditions in the region that will encourage the parties concerned to achieve such a settlement. Egypt once again condemns all the practices adopted by the Israeli occupation authorities in the occupied territories, since such practices are in contravention of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. We call firmly upon the occupying Power to put an end forthwith to those coercive practices against the Palestinians. Mr. LAUTENSCHLAGER (Federal Republic of Germany): I should like to put on record our position on the credentials of the delegation of Afghanistan. Our vote in favour of the report of the Credentials Committee does not imply that we recognize the legitimacy of the regime in Kabul. Mr. FONDER (Belgium) (interpretation from French) : I wish to make it clear that the fact that my delegation participated in the consensus on the report on the credentials of representatives should in no way be interpreted as recognition by Belgium of the present regime in Afghanistan. Sir Crispin TICKEL1 (Dnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland): The fact that my delegation has raised no formal challenge to the credentials of the delegation of Afghanistan should in no way be taken to imply that the Government of the United Kingdom will deal with the present regime in Kabul on a Government-to-Government basis. Mr. GEBREMEDHIN (Ethiopia): My delegation joined in the consensus on the adoption of ,the first report of the Credentials Committee. I wish however to place on record the fact that that vote should in no way be taken as acceptance of the presence of the representatives of so-called Democratic Kampuchea.

The Assembly has concluded its consideration of the first report of the Credentials Committee. The meeting rose at 11.35 a.m.