A/42/PV.97 General Assembly

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Fifth Committee which are before the Assembly today. It was so decided. The PRFSIDENT (interpretation from RUssian): Statements will, there1 .re, be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations regarding thE various recommendations of the Fifth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind members that, under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401, the General Assembly agreed that: -When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, i.e., either in the Committee or in plenary meeting unless that delegation's vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Conunittee.- The Assembly will now consider the reports of the Fifth Committee on sub-items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of agenda item 17. First, I invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Fifth Committee (A/42/864 and Add.l) on agenda item 17 (a), entitled "Appointment of members of the Advisory Conunittee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions". In paragraph 4 (a) of its report (A/42/864), the Fifth Committee recommends that the General Assembly should appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1988: Mr. Bagbeni Adeito Nzengeya; Mr. Even Fontaine-Ortiz; Mr. Richard Nygard; Mr. Tjaco T. van den Hout; and Mr. Viktor A. Vislykh. In paragraph 4 (b), the Fifth Committee also recommends that the General Assembly should appoint Mr. Ferguson O. Iheme as a member of the Advisory Committee for a term of office beginning today, 11 December 1987, and ending on 31 December 1988. Furthermore, in paragraph 3 of document A/42/864/Add.l, the Fifth Committee recommends that the Assembly should appoint Mr. Tadanori Inomata for a term of office beginning on 1 February 1988 and ending on 31 December 1989. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to appoint those persons? It was So decided.

We come next to the report of the Fifth Committee (A/42/865) on agenda item 17 (b), entitled "Appointment of members of the Committee on Contributions". In paragraph 4 (a) of its report, the Fifth Committee recommends that the General Assembly should appoint the following persons for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1988: Mr. Amjad Ali; Mr. Ernesto Battisti; Mr. Alain Catta; Mr. Yuri A. Chulkov; Mr. Mauro Sergio da Fonseca Costa Couto; and Mr. Wang r.iansheng. In paragraph 4 rb), the Fifth Committee recommends that the General Assembly should appoint Mr. Peter Gregg for a two-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1988. In paragraph 4 (c), the Fifth Committee recommends that the General Assembly should appoint Mr. Kenshiroh Akimoto for a one-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1988. May r take it that the Assembly wishes to appoint the persons recommended above? It was so decided.

I invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Fifth Committee (A/42/866) on agenda item 17 (c), entitled "Appointment of a member of the Board of Auditors". In paragraph 4 of that report, the Fifth Committee recommends that the General Assembly should appoint the AUditor-General of Ghana as a member of the united Nations Board of Auditors for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 July 1988. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to approve that appointment? It was so decided.

I invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Fifth Committee (A/42/867) on agenda item 17 (d), entitled "Confirmation of the appointment of members of the Investments Committee". In paragraph 4 of its report, the Fifth Committee recommends that the General Assembly should confirm the appointment by the Secretary-General of the following persons as members of the Investments Committee for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 1988: Mr. Jean Guyot; Mr. George Johnstoni and Mr. Michiya Matsukawa. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to confirm those appointments? It was so decided.

We come next to the report of the Fifth Committee (A/42/868) on agenda item 17 (e), entitled "Appointment of members of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal". In the last paragraph of its report, the Fifth Committee recommends that the General Assembly should appoint the following persons as members of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1988: Mr. Francisco Forteza and Mr. loan Voicu. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to appoint those persons? It was so decided.

. We turn now to the report of the Fifth Committee (A/42/869) on agenda item 17 (g), entitled "Appointment of members of the International Civil Service Commission". In paragraph 4 of its report, the Fifth Committee recommends that the General Assembly should appoint the following persons as members of the International Civil Service commission for a two-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1988: Mr. Miche1 Jean Bardoux and Mr. Ku Tashiro. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to appoint those persons? It was so decided.

That concludes our consideration of sub-items (a), Cb), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of agenda item 17. ',',/', The Assenhly will now consider the report of the Fifth Committee (A/42/697) on agenda item 113, enti tIed "Financial repor ts and audi ted financial sta tements, and reports of the Board of 1Iuditors". The Assenhly will nOrl take a decision on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee contained in paragraph 8 of its report. The Committee adopted the draft resolution, entitled "Financial reports and audited financial statements, and reports of the Board of Auditors", without a vote. May I consider that the AsseJlhly wishes to do the same? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 42/206).

The AsseJlhlyhas concluded its consideration of agenda item 113. The General Assembly will nOrl consider the report of the Fifth Committee (A/42/764) on agenda item 120, relating to the pattern of conferences. The Assembly will nOrl take a decision on the three draft resolutions recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. Draft resolution A was adopted by the Fifth Committee without a vote. The report of the Fifth Commit tee on the programme budget implica tions of that draft resolu tion is contained in document A/42/873. May I take it that the Assenhly wishes to adopt that draft resolution? Draft resolution A was adopted (resolution 42/207).

Draft resolution B was also adopted by the Fifth Committee without a vote. May I take it that the Committee wishes to do 1 ikewise? Draft resolution B was achpted (resolution 42/208).

we now come to draft resolution C, which the Fifth Committee also aoopted without vote. The report of the Fi fth Committee on the programme budget implica tions of that draft resolu tion is conta ined in document A/42/873. May I take it that the Assellbly wishes to ac ,pt that draft resolution? Draft resolution C was aoopted (resolution 42/209). The FREE mENT (interpretation from Russian): The Assent>ly has concluded i1 ; consideration of agenda item 120. We now turn to agenda item 121, entitled "Scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the Ulited Nations" (A/42/852). The Assembly will now take a decision on the reconmendation of the Fifth Coprmnittee contained in paragraph 6 of its report. The Fifth Committee adopted this draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the Assent>ly wishes to :10 likewise? The dr aft r esoI ution was adopted (resolution 42/210).

The General Assenblyhas thus oonc1uded its consideration of agenda item 121.

I now call on the representative of Zimbabwe to introduce draft resolutions A/42/L.42, A/42/L.43 all A/42/L.44. Mr. ZENENGA (Zimbabwe): On behalf of the sponsoring Member states, my delegation has the honour to introduce draft resolutions A/42/L.42, A/42/L.43 and A/42/L.44, all of which relate to agenda item 39, entitled "The situation in the Middle East". The draft resolutions have been prepared along the lines of previous resolutions adopted by the Assembly on the same item and all three reflect the views expressed by the vast major ity of speakers in the debate on agenda item 39 draft resolutions relates to the continued aggressive and expansionist policies of Israel, particularly the continuing Israeli occupation of Palestine and other Arab territories, and Israel's stubborn denial of the exercise by the Palestinian people of their legitimate and inalienable rights, which is the root cause of the conflicts and contradictions in the region. Draft resolution A/42/L.42, which is sponsored by Bahrain, Cuba, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe, is of an omnibus nature and provides an overview of the crisis in the Middle East, covering all aspects of the many conflicts which continue to threaten to rend the region apart. The draft is basically similar in wording and content to resolution 41/162, adopted by the Assembly last year on the same agenda item. The draft resolution reaffirms that the question of Palestine is the core of the conflict in the Middle East and once again declares that peace in ~at region must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of its relevant resolutions. Such a solution should also ensure the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and enable the Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), to exercise its inalienable rights, inclUding the right to self-determination, national independence and the establishment of its independent sovereign State in Palestine, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations relating to the question of Palestine. In this regard, in operative paragraph 13, the draft resolution reaffirms the call for the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East and, in operative paragraph 14, endorses the call for the establishment of a preparatory committee to take the necessary action to convene the Conference. Draft resolutions A/42/L.43 and A/42/L.44, relating to the implications of Israelis continued occupation and annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, and to Israelis occupation of the Holy City of Jerusalem, respectively, are identical t( the two resolutions adopted by this Assembly last year on those two subjects. Draft resolution A/42/t.43, which is sponsored by Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Ma1aysia r Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen and Zimbabwe, reaffirms the principle of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force, as well as the applicability to the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jer~salem, of the Geneva Convention relatin~ to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of war. It also, inter alia, determines once more that Israel's record and policies confirm that it is not a peace-loving State, that it has persistently violated the principles contained in the uni ted Na tions Charter, and that it has carried out nei ther its obligations under the Char ter nor its <X>tmIi tments under the relevant resolutions of this Assenbly. Draft resolution A/42/L.44 - co-sponsored by Alger ia, Bahrain, Cuba, oenocratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, SUdan, the Syr ian Arab Republic, the uni ted Arab E)nira tes, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia and zimbabwe - determines once more that Israel's decision to impose its laws, jur isdiction and admin istra tion 00 the Holy City of Jerusalem is illegal and null and void, and, in th is regard, deplores the transfer by some states of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of security Council resolution 478 (1980). Under operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution, the Assembly would call upon those states to abide by the provisions of the reI evan t resolu tions of the United Nations, in conformity with the Charter. The cootent of the three draft resolutions before us is a sad reflection of the lack of progress in the search for a solution to the problems that have plagued the Middle East for four decades now. Despite the fact that each year these resolutions have been adopted by large majorities, the situation in the region has continued to deteriorate owing to the intransigence of the Tel Aviv authorities. The sponsors of the present draft resolutions wish, therefore, to urge Ment>er States to register their concern once again at the deterioration of the already explosive situation in the Middle East and to continue to identify correctly the main causes thereof by rendering their full support to these draft resolutions. (Mr. Zenenga, Zimbabwe) representatives who wish to explain their votes before the voting on any or all 0 the four draft resolutions. Representatives will also have an opportunity to explain their votes after all the votes have been taken. I should like to remind the Assembly that under rule 88 of the rules of procedure liThe Pres iden t shall not permi t the proposer of a proposal or of an amendmen to expla in his vo te on h is own proposal or amendment It. May I also remind menbers that, in accordance with decision 34/401, explana tions 0 f vote are Hmi ted to 10 minu tes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. BIERRING (Denmar k) : The 12 Sta tes memer s of the Enr opean Cormnun it:l on whose behalf I am speak ing, have considered most carefully our posi tion on dra: resolution A/42/L.41/Rev.1. Our views on the principles which need to be applied to secure peace in the Middle East are well known and were again set out in our statement on this item on 1 Decent>er 1987. We strongly support all moves likely to improve the prospects for the early convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East. On 5 DecenbeI this year, the Heads of State and (bvernrnent of the '!Welve, assembled in Copenhagen, welcomed the endorsement given to such a conference by the Arab LeaguE sutrnli t in Pinman, under the chairmanship of King Hussein of Jordan, and called for renewed efforts by all concerned to reach agreement on arrangements for the Cooference to be held as soon as possible. We urge all the parties ooncerned to reach agreement on the way in which this could be done. While we welcome the clear intention of the authors of this draft resolution to facil itate the convening of the Cooference, we are unable, in the absence of agreement by all of the parties concerned, fUlly to endorse the terms of draft resolution A/42/L. 41/Rev.1. Regarding draft resolutions A/42/L.42, L. 43 and L. 44, which remain largely Wlchanged from the relevan t resolutions aoopted last year, the Twelve have previously made their position known. Mr. FERM (Sweden): Sweden will absta in in the voting on draft resolution A/42/t. 42. As in previous years, my Gcwernment has decided to refrain from casting a negative vote on this draft resolution. We did so only after considerable hesitation. The text suffers from a severe lack of balance. We have especially stroog reservations on operative paragraphs 10 and 11. As has been the case wi th similar resolutions in the past, we shall be compelled to cast a negative vote on draft resolution A/42/L.43, despi te our full support for its cen tral theme. We have strong objections to a nunber of paragraIils in the draft resolution - in particular, operative paragraphs 12 to 16. Our objections to these paragraphs relate to their substantive content as well as to the fact that they cannot be reconciled w1 th the divis ion of responsibil iUes between the General Assenbly and the security Council envisaged by the Charter. As for draft resolution A/42/L.4l/Rev.l, I wish to register my delegation's surprise at the proposal that the Assembly should ac:bpt yet ano ther resolution on the subject of an inter national peace conference on the Mi ddle Eas t. One such resolu tion was adopted only a few days ago. All the same, we shall, wi th some hesitation, vote in favour of the draft resolution because of our support for the idea of an international peace conference. Our affirmative vote, however, does not mean that we subscr ibe to every elemen t in the text. Specifically, we are not in a (Mr. aierting, Denmark) posi tion to support the fi fth preanbu1ar paragraph, for the simple reason that we have not had an oppor tunity of studying an author ita tive text of all the resolutions adopted at the Amman summit. As for operative paragraph 1, it is my Government's position that the Palestinian people must take part in negotiations on the ques tion of Pales tine, through representatives who enjoy the ir confidence. In our view, the Palestine Liberation organization (PLO) enjoys such confidence. It is with that understanding that we read operative paragraph 1. Mr. S'\OBOOA (Canada) ~ My de1ega tion will absta in on the draft resolution con ta ined in document A/4 2/L. 41/Re\1 .1. The (bvernment of Canada is heartened by the undertakings of those leaders in the Middle East who have demonstrated a readiness to take risks for peace. We fully support their efforts to convene an international oonference under the auspices of the Uni ted Na tions I wi th the par tici pa tion of the permanent menDers of the Security Council and of all the parties directly involved in the Middle East disp.1 te. Earli er this fall, Canada joined fellow memer Sta tes of both la Francophonie and the Commonwealth in backing an international conference. We therefore welcomed the call for such a conference made by the Arab States at their recent extraordinary sunmit meeting in 1lmman. The global community has a major stake in a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli dispute, with its Palestinian dimension. Since endorsement of an InternatiQ'lal Conference, under united Nations auspices, would provide impetus to, and be a tangible demonstration of the legitimacy of the peace process, we view such an endorsement as a posi tive development. With careful preparation and organization, an International Conference could fa c i11 ta te d irec t ne go t ia tions be tween the par ti es • SUch d irec t ne go t ia ti ons remain essential to a resolution of the confl ict and international supper t for such ne90tiations is a prerequisite to their taking place. We should like to emphasize that Canada oontinues to view the pr inciple of the exchange of land for peace, etrbodied in Securi ty COlUlCil r esolu tion 242 (1967), as the ne cessary bas is of any successful negotiation. My delegation had been well disposed to support the or i9inal ver sion of the draft resolution. We therefore regret that the draft resolution has been I1Pdified in recent days to include language which, in our view, prejudices the organization and outcome of the proposed Conference and, accordingly, prevents us from voting in favour. Canada's position on the substance of the other draft resolutions which are before us today is well known, and we shall vote accordingly. Mr. NEZERlTIS (Greece)~ During the debate on agenda item 39, the Permanent Represen ta tive of Denmark expressed the views of the 12 metrber sta tes of the :&.tropean Community on the situation in the Middle East, to which II'fj delegation fully subscr ibes. My Cbvernment's position on this question is well knCMn and it wasl again reiterated by the Foreign Minister of Greece, Mr. Karolos Papoulias in his intervention during the general debate. In oonfirrnity with this position, Greece will vote in favour of draft resolutions A/42/L.4l/Rev.l, as orally revised, L.42, L.43 and L.44. However, as in the past, my de1ega tion is unable to go along wi th some paragraphs of draft resolutions A/42/L.42 and L.43. More specifically, while,: as I said, we support and shall vote in favour of those draft reso1u tions, my delegation has strong reservations and disassociates itself from the contents of operative paragraph 12 of A/42/L.42 and operative paragraphs 8,13 (c) and (d) and 14 of A/42/L.43. We will also vote against operative paragraph 10 of draft resolu tion A/42/L.42. Mrs. REBONG (Philippines) ~ The Philippines maintains the view that a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Middle East conflict should be achieved on the basis of fundamental principles that we have repeatedly stressed \Dlder these and rela ted i terns. My delegation believes that draft resolutions on very important and complex international issues, such as the Middle East conflict, should be presented in a balanced manner. It is essen tia1 that the sOlJereign right of Sta tes to conduct their own in terna tional affa irs, in accordance wi th the Char ter, should be upheld. In view of the foregoing, my delegation will abstain on draft resolution A/42/L.43. My delega tion 101 ill vote in favour of draft resolu tion A/ 42/L. 42. However, for the same reason we have mentioned, we wish to state that we have reservations on the formulation of some of its provisions. Mr. TARUI (Japan): The Japanese delegation will vote in favour of draft, resolution A/42/L.41/Rev.1, as orally revised, because we believe that an international framework of some kind is needed in order to resolve the Middle Fast problem. The Japanese delegation has, on a nunber of occasions, made its views clear about the Middle East peace problem. Japan firmly believes that peace in the Middle East must be just, lasting and comprehensive. We further believe that such a peace should be achieved through the early and complete implementa tion of security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and through the reoognition of and respect for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination under the United Nations Charter. Each and every path towards the realization of such a peace must be explored wi th careful considera tion given to the legitimate security requirements of the countries in the region and to the aspirations of all of the PeOples in the region, which, of course, includes the Palestinian people. Japan is of the view that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) represents the Palestinian people. Thus, in order to advance the cause of peace in the Middle Fast, Japan believes that it is essential that Israel and the PLO ~ecognize each other's position and that the PLO participate in the peace process. Japan will be voting in favour of the draft resolution because of the great importance it attaches to the maintenance and cootinuation of the peace process in securing stability in the Middle East and the belief that the draft resolution will help provide an international framework of some kind and contribute to the solution of the Middle Fast problem, although the views expressed in the draft resolution 00 not necessar ily coincide wi th the Japanese views that I have just mentioned. Mr.ORTIZ GANDARn.LAS (Bolivia) (interpretation from Spanish): The delegation of Bolivia would once again like to repeat the profound desire of its Government that the delicate situation in the Middle East be resolved as soon as possible in such a way as to ensure a just and las ting peace in the region. Tha t solution should be within the framework of the purpose and principles of the Charter of our Organ iza tion and it should be based on respect for the pr inci ple of the inadmissibility of the aCXJuisition of territory by the use of force. In keeping with this principle, my Government, like the international conmunity, believes that the measures adopted by Israel regarding the occupied A~ab territories are null and void, especially those which apply to the Galan Heights, the legitimate territory of Syria, and the Arab Palestinian berritories. At the same time, we appeal for the wi thdrawal of the occupying forces from Lebanon and the occupied territories on the West Bank and Gaza. The delegation of Bolivia once again reiterates its support for the actions of the Secretary-Gener al to promote the conven ing of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East wi th the purpose of achieving a just and peaceful settlement which would allow all States in the region to live in peace, within their respective secure and guaranteed boundaries. For this reason, my delegation will support draft resolutions A/42/L.41/Rev.l, as orally revised, L.42 and L.44, because we consider that they contribute to the attainment of the Objective and principles just mentioned. Nevertheless, my delegation will abstain on draft resolutions A/42/L.42 and L.43 because of the approach taken in certain paragraphs which is not in keeping with the {Xlsition of my country. Mr. DELPECH (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish)~ In spite of the constant efforts being made by the united Nations for more than four decades in the search for a satisfactory solution to the complex problems of the Middle East, today, like yesterday, the problem before us is a constant source of tension. The Republic of Argentina, in keeping with its devotion to peace and justice, believes that a comprehens ive settlement of the si tua tion in the Middle East must not in any way preclude the satisfaction of the legitimate aspirations, yearnings and real in teres ts of the people of the region. The delegation of Argentina will vote in favour of draft resolutions A/42/L. 41/Rev.1, as orally revised, L.42 and L.44, because these draft resolutions contain principles which are supported by the RepUblic of Argentina. As regards draft resolution A/42/L.43, my delegation will abstain once again on this draft resolu tion because it contains certain ideas, par ticu1ar1y in operative paragraphs 2, 9,12,13 and 14, which, as has been stated on earlier occasions, are incomPl tib1e wi th the guiding pr inciples of the foreign policy of Argentina. However, my delegation would like to make it perfectly clear here that the Government of Argentina does not reoognize Israel's ocxmpation of the Syrian territory of the Golan Heights, which is in direct violation of security Council resolution 491 (1981) and other relevant resolutions. The (bvernment of Argentina does not reoognize that Israel, the occupying Power, can impose laws and administration on occupied Syrian territory. I should like to oonclude by reiterating the full support of my delegation for the jus t re turn of the Galan Hei gh ts to the Syr ian Ar ab Re public, so tha t tha t country may once again exercise full sOl1ereignty (Ner its entire territory. Mr. BORG OLIVIER (Malta): The delegation of Malta wishes to explain its vote on the draft resolutions before the General Asserrbly under agenda i tern 39, "The si tua tion in the Middle East". Malta firmly and actively supports the principle of the convening of the Interna tional Peace Conference on the Middle East, under Uni ted Na tions auspices, with the participation of all parties directly concerned, and we welcome the endorsement given by the Extraordinary Arab Summit Con ference, recently held in Amman, Jordan, to the principle of convening such an international conference. My delegation will therefore vote in favour of draft resolution A/42/L.41/Rev.l, as or ally rev ised. As to draft resolution A/42/L.42, my delegation regrets that it is not in a position to lend its support to certain provisions contained in the resolution and in particular operative paragraphs 10 and 12. If those two paragraphs were to be plt to a separate vote, Malta would have no alternative but to vote against the retention of those par agr aphs. Malta will absta in on the draft resolution as a whole. Wi th regard to dr aft resolution A/42/L.43, the delegation of Malta regrets terms which are potentially very far-reaching in their legal implications. we sincerely believe that a draft resolution formulated in this manner is not at all conducive to progress in the search for a comprehensive peaceful settlement of the Middle East situation and conflict. In these circumstances, Malta cannot lend its support to the draft resolution and we would find it necessary to vote against the proposed text in draft resolution A/42/L.43. Finally, my delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution in document A/42/L.44.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the votinq. I have been asked to inform the Assembly that Algeria has become a co-sponsor of draft resolution A/42/L.4l/Rev.l, as orally revised. We shall now turn to draft resolution A/42/L.4l/Rev.l, as orally revised. A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barhuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eauatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, traa, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambiaue, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swa7.iland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, uganda, ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, united Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Mam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, zimbabwe Against: Honduras, Israel, united states of America Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Draft resolution A!42/L.41/Rev.1, as orally revised, was adopted by 124 votes to 3, with 22 abstentions (resolution 42/209 A).

We turn next to draft resolution A/42/L.42. There is a reauest for a separate vote on operative paragraph 10 of that draft resolution. Is there any objection to that reauest? There is none. I shall therefore first put to the vote operative paragraph 10 of draft resolution A/42/L.42. A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraa, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Repuh1ic, Lebanon, Libyan Arah Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozamhiaue, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arahia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arah Republic, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet socialisl Repuh1ic, Union of Soviet Socialist Repuh1ics, United Arab Emirates, United Repuh1ic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimhabwe Against: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire;, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Spain, Sweden, Togo, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Zaire Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barhados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Chad, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eouatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gamhia, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Liberia, Malawi, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, singapore, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, uruguay, Venezuela Operative paragraph 10 of resolution A/42/L.42 was adopted by 64 votes to 33, with 41 abstentions.

The Assembly will now vote on draft resolution A/42/L.42 a a whole. A recorded has been reauested. A recorded was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussa1am, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Bye10russian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, njibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraa, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Ma1dives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambiaue, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, SUdan, suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad'and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United RepUblic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united states of America Antigua and Barbuda, ~ustria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burma, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Eauatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Japan, Liberia, Malawi, Malta, Panama, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Spain, Sweden, TogO, Uruguay, Zaire Abstaining: 33 abstentions (resolution 42 209 B). Draft resolution A!42/L.42 as a whole 99 votes to 19, with The PRES ID ENT (interpretation from Russian): The Assembly will n~ take a decision on draft resolution A/42/L. 43. A recorded vote has been requested • . A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhu tan, Batswana, Br unei Oar ussalam, Bulgar ia, Bur k ina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist RePlblic, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Cuba, cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Dj ibouti, Eth iopia, Gabon, Gambia, German DellDcratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republio of), Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People IS Derrocratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauri tania, Mauri tius, ~:Kioo, Mongol ia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, anan, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao 'Ibme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet SOcialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Rep,lblics, united Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe Jl.gainst: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, D:>minican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, wxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, uni ted Kingdom of Great Britain and lbrthern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cameroon, Colonbia, COte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Liberia, Malawi, Nepal, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Illcia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, SWaziland, Thailand, 'lOgo, Trinidad and 'Ibbago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire Draft resolution A/42/L.43 was aoopted by 82 votes to 23, with 43 abstentions (resolution 42/209 C) • to draft resolution A/42/L.44. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SOviet SOcialist Republic, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colorrbia, Cuba, OJ'prus, CzechoslOl7akia, Democratic Kanpuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Dj ibou ti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equa torial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Garrbia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Glatemala, Gl inea-Bissau, Glyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, lao People's Democratic ReFUblic j Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Illxenbourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozanbique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, N:>rway, anan, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint mcia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, seychelles, Sierra [aone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, sri Lanka, SJdan, Suriname, Swaziland, SWeden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, 'l\.misia, 'l\.lrkey, U3'anda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, U1ion of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nor ther n I r eland, Uli ted Republic of Tanz an ia, Uru guay , Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, zanbia, Zirrbabwe Against: Costa Rica, El. Salvador, Israel Abstaining: Cameroon, Cote d'lvoire, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Malawi, U'litel Sta tes of Amer ica Draft resolution A/42/L.44 was aoopted by 140 votes to 3, with 7 abstentions (r esolu tion 42/209 D). The PRES !DENT (in terpr eta tion from Russian) ~ I call n~ on representatives who wish to explain their votes. and CX\ the question of Palestine, which we consider to be the core of this rnul tifaceted problem, has been oonsis ten t all along, and has been sta ted in no uncertain terms on every relevant occasion, in the uni ted Na tions and elsehwere. It was in oonformi ty with that well known and unanbiguous stand that the Turkish delegation voted in favour of the four draft resolutions on the situation in the Midile East just aoopted by the General Assembly. However, we should like to place on record certain reservations as regards some elements in those resolutions. First, Tur key abstained in the vote on paragraph 10 of draft resolution !\/42/L.42. We have consistently indicated that the singling out of third parties 9ither by name or by designation, using accusatory language, is inappropriate and unh el.pful. Our reserva tion remains even in cases such as this, where Turkey pursues policies different from those of the third country to which reference is nade. Seoondly, 'l'Urkey would have abstained had there been a separate vote on .perative paragraph 8 of draft resolution A/42/L. 43. We are not of the view that :he General Assembly or any other organ of the United Nations should pass value IUdgements on votes cast by Member states. Thirdly, likewise it would not have been possible for the 'l\]rkish delegation :0 cast affirnative votes had there been separate votes on operative paragraphs 13 od 14 of the same draft resolution. Those paragraphs are, in our opinion, ifficult to reconcile with efforts deployed with a view to initiating in an ppropriate framework the loog-overdue negotiating process aimed at working out Lltually acceptable solutions to the problems in question with the participation of l~ the par ties o:mcer ned. In this oon text, I should 1 ike to note that my e~egation also has certa in hesi ta tions as regards opera tive paragraph 12. Mr. BADJiqI (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic)s Blypt clearly stated its posi Hon concerning the si tua tion ~ the Middle East and the ques tion of pales tine during the debates on those items. We have set out unaJlt>iguously the elements that should define any just and las ting settlement of the Middle East conflict, first and foremost the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. We have also affirmed that the Four th Geneva Conven tion should be applied to the occupied Arab territories, including the west Bank, Gaza, Al Quds Al Shar if and the Syr ian Galan Heigh ts. It is the firm position of EJ;JYpt that the Israeli occupation of the Syrian Galan Heights is illegal. All Israel's actions in that occupied terd tory, including the imposition of its laws and jurisdiction, are illegal, and thus null and void. * It was therefore only natural that Egypt should have voted in favour of three of the draft resolu tions just aoopted by the General AsseJlt>ly. Moreover, while appreciating certain positive elements in draft resolution A/42/L.43, Egypt was unable to support it because it includes several elements that we find it difficult to enoorse and lacks elements that would encourage the continuance of peace efforts. I ( I' Mr. FREUDEN;CHUSS (Aus tria): Austria had the opportunity to expla in its Ii! position on the situation in the Middle Fast during the recent debate on that , item. Our position is well known and has been consistent over the years. the basic concerns expressed in the draft resolutions on which the Assembly has just taken action and agree with many, but not all, of the elements in them. In particular, my delegation cannot support those elements which would not only aggravate the existing situation but also impede the search for peace. * Mr. Iegwaila (Botswana), Vice-Presiden t, took the Chair. we share I: r I Austria does not believe that measures aimed a t breaking rela Hons wi th Israel, thus leading to its isolation, can br ing us any closer t:o a solution of the Middle East problem. SUch attempts do not take account of the need of all parties to seek the negotiated solutions which are t:he very oondi tion of peace in that troubled regioo. We cannot support any formulation which could be interpreted as impinging on the principle of universality of menbership in the United Nations, a principle that Austria has consistently upheld. Therefore, Austria, while supporting draft: resolution A/42/L.44, felt canpelled to abstain in the votes 00 draft resolu Hons A/42/L. 42 and L.43. CMing to its loog-standing corrmi tmen t to the ear ly convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East, Austria voted in favour of draft resolution A/42/L.41/Rev.l, as orally revised. favour of draft resolution A/42/L.41/Rev.l, because we consider that the convening of an internatio~al peace conference would be an appropriate way of achieving a solutioo to the conflict in the Middle East. Nevertheless my delegation wishes to make it clear that it has certain reservations regarding the wording of the first opera tive paragraph of the draft resolu tion. Ms. RAClI (Finland): My delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution A/42/L.41/Rev.l in order to give our support to the important idea of convening a Middle East peace conference as a means of reaching a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in the area. However, we wish to put on record our reservation on certain formulations in operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution, which unduly prejudices the ccmposition of and participation in the prospective peace conference. We also wish to express doubts concerning the formula tion of the fi fth preanbular paragraph of the resolu tion. Mr. ARMS'1RONG (New Zealand): New Zealand holds that the bas is for a comprehens ive settlement in the Middle East is set out in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). We do not recognize the validity of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, the extension to the Galan Heights of Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration, or the establishment of settlements in the occupied terri tories. In New Zealand's view, any settlement must take account of the rights and aspirations of the Arab people of Palestine. Their rights include the right to self-determination. New zealand also recognizes and supports Israel's right as a sovereign State to exist in peace within recognized and secure borders, free from threats or acts of force. The reluctance of Israel's neighbours and the Palestine Liberation Organization to accept lUlequivocally that Israel has that right will have to be overcome if there is to be a durable settlement. New Zealand sees merit in the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the united Nations. We can support the participa tion in such conference of all par ties directly concerned and all others, incl uding the permanent menDer s of the Secur i ty Council, who have a contr ibution to make the successful outcome of the negotiations. We regret the refusal of Israel to give its clear enCbrsement to the convening of an international peace conference, since there appears to be no other way that shows promise of carrying forward the peace process. However, we also regret the inclusion of certain elements in the first revision of the original draft resolution A/42/L.41, in particular the revised first operative paragraph, which has prevented us from supporting the draft resolution. Accordingly, we have abstained in the voting on the draft resolution A/42/L. 41/Rev .1. A successful solution to the Middle Eas t situation can occur only once the parties have demonstrated.willingness to resolve this long-standing and canplex dispute by peaceful means as well as the flexibility and compromise that is necessary if the rights of all parties are to be respected. We are ready to support resolutions which reflect both the principles embodied in the security Council resolutions and the measured approach necessary for a just and lasting solution. Those elements are absent from draft resolutions A/42/L.. 42 and L.43. Consequently we have voted against them. Mr. SILJANDER (united States of America)~ The United states Government considers that the summit meeting of Arab leaders held in Amman last month to be a step in the direction of a peaceful, negotia ted settlement of the Arab-Israel i conflict. The united States welcomes the Arab leaders' call for a peaceful settlement of the conflict and implicit acceptance of negotiations with Israel when they call for an internati.onal conference, lU'lder the auspices of tbe United Nations, to settle the conflict in a peaceful manner. Draft resolution A/42/L. 41/Rev.l has the merit of emPtas iz ing the Arab leaders I step towards a conference and negotia tions rather than rei terating the unbalanced set of guidelines in General Assenbly resolution 38/58 C, which will never be the basis for br inging all sides to the table. Recently there have been significant and far-reaching changes in attitudes and policies among the parties to the Middle East conflict. More people and their leaders have renounced violence, terrorism and empty rhetoric in favour of pragmatic, concrete and creative approaches to resolving the conflict. The united states, a steady and active partner for decades in the search for peace, not only welcomes those changes but also has con tr ibu ted actively to shaping the means and the opporb.mities for the parties to reach the negotiating table. For more than two years the U'li ted States has worked wi th the regional parties to try and structure an international <xmference which would meet the needs of all parties and lead to meaningful negotiation. Indeed, in contrast to the empty rhetoric and unfounded accusations we have heard during this entire debate we and the parties have been directly and actively engaged in exploring the pa th to peace. Those efforts have made progress. The goal is peace. Ne gotia tions must be conducted to ach ieve peace and an in terna tional conference must lead immediately to direct negotia tions. A conference will not be permitted to impose a settlement or overturn agreements reached among the parties. Negotiations will be held in bilateral, geographic col1lllittees. Palestinians must be represented in order to help realize their legitimate rights, and Palestinians should be included in a Jordanian-Palestinian I All participants will be expected to accept United Nations security de1ega tion • Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), to renounce violence and terrorism. The United States voted against draft resolution A/42/L.41/Rev.l because that draft resolution did not address the criteria necessary to make concrete progress towards peace, or the issues which the parties have already addressed. That draft resolution makes no mention of bilateral or direct negotiations. It subsumes the un iversally accepted bas is of negotia tions - securi ty Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) - under an an'biguous uIl'brella formulation. If the JOOtivation behind this resolution is to contribute to the peace-making process in the Middle Fast, a process to which I am proud to Bay the United States had contributed mightily in the past decades, this body should commend and support the work of the parties to structure a workable means of bringing about negotiations. The tllited States will look forward to supporting fully such a realistic attitude on the part of this body. While draft resolution A/42/L.41/Rev.l has the merit of being a new resolution, reoognizing a new step'in the direction of acconmodation and negotia tion, draft resolu tions A/42/L.42 and L. 43, on the Middle East and the Galan Heights, are old and tired. The United States continues to view them as one-sided resolutions which do not contr ibute to efforts to achieve a peaceful setUement. My delegation will oppose draft resol ution A/42/L.42 because it is polemical and condenna tory in tooe wi th regard to Uli ted Sta tes rela tions wi th other Memer States. My Cbvernment will oontinue to try to maintain close relations with Israel and with the Arab States. We value those relationships for their own sake and because such relationships are instrumental to the pursuit of peace. My Government supported Security Council resolution 497 (1981) on the Galan Heights, which was balanced and helpful. The language of draft resolution A/42/L.43, however, is unbalanced and harmful, and the united States opposes it. My delegation will - as it has <bne on similar resolutions in the past - abstain in the voting on draft resolution A/42/L. 43, because we believe that the (Mr. si! jander, Un i ted Sta tea) status of Jerusalem should be determined by means of negotiations among the partiesconcerned and as part of an overall peaceful settlement. In Amman, Arab leaders took a step towards negotiations and peaceful settlement, rather than just repeating old slogans and formulas. Many more steps will be needed on all sides before the goal is reached. The United States hopes that the coming year will see more such steps and less stale slogans and condermations, such as those whi ch are to be found in draft resolu tions 'A/42/t.42 and r... 43, which tak.e the parties not one step closer to a settlement. Mr. MOYA PALENCIA (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish) \ The delegation Df Mexico voted in favour of draft resolutions A/42/L.4l/Rev.l as orally revised, L.42, Le 43 and L. 44. We have thus reaffirmed our suppor t for the resolutions of the Uni ted Na tions 00 the Middle East. The peaceful negotiated settlemen t of the conflict in the Middle Fast must be lought 00 the bas is of the pr inciples of the Char ter of the Uni ted Na tions and the 'esolutions of the General Assembly and the security Council. A just and final :etUement must respect the interests of all the parties involved and must Idequately meet the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. This is the ~ore of the conflict. The resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly offer a ramework for the settlement of the conflict in the Middle East. They appeal for eoognition of, and respect for, the sOI7ereignty, territorial integrity and olitical independence of all the States in the area and their right to live in eace within secure and recognized boundaries. The draft resolutions also reaffirm he right of the peoples of the regioo to self -determina tion wi thou t foreign ~terference and, in particular, respect for the inalienable rights of the alestinian peoples. The problem of the Middle Fast is one of the g'reatest challenges to the lternational communi ty. We must encourage the parties involved in the conflict to ~cept the possib il ity of n ego tia ting an agreement under inter national auspices. I the past, inflexibility has given rise to use of force, making even more rellOte le chances of a diplomatic settlemen t. We repeat our conviction that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East will , possible only if all the parties aoopt constructive positions demonstrating a Ue des ir e to nego Ha te • Hence, we abstained in the separa te vote on opera tive paragraph 10 of draft resolution A/42/L.42 for we consider that the judgments contained therein undermin~ the jurisdiction of the Gener al Assellbly. Also, we woul d rei tera te our serious reservations on operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution L.42. The partial aggreements reached thus far, though far fr011l a final solution to the problem of the Middle Fast, do nooe the less constitute an important step in that direction. Finally, my delegation would have abstained, had there been separate votes al operative paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of draft resolution A/42/L.43, which refer to measures which fall wi thin the jursidiction of the securi ty Council. Mr. ZMIF (Islamic Republic of Iran): Although my delegation voted in favour of draft resolutions A/42/L.42, L.43 and L.44, I should like to reiterate the reservations of my delegation on all terms conta ined in those draft resolutions that imply any recognition of the ziooist base of terror occupying Palestine. As we have stated on various occasions, the Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the Zicnist forces must withdraw unconditionally from all Palestinian territories, inclUding those occupied prior to 1967. ~garding the reference to an international peace conference contained in draft resolution A/42/L.4l/Rev.l, as orally revised, it is necessary to mention that we do not wish to see the inalienable rights of our Palestinian brothers and sisters become the slbject of negotiations with the Zionist usurpers. Since the so-called peace conference was the sole subs tance of this draft resolu tien, we did not par ticipa te in the vote. Mr. FMTAS (Libyan Arab Jamahariya) (interpretation from Arabich My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution A/42/L.42 CI'I the situation in the Middle East, for we believe in the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people. However, consistent with my country's position on the occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, we should like to express reservations on some of the paragraphs of the aforementioned draft resolution which lend themselves to interpretation and could be taken to mean, directly or indirectly, that violations of some of those rights may be possible. My delegation also has reservations regarding any paragraphs which, directly or indirectly, would imply that my country recognizes the de facto situation in occupied Palestinian lands. In our opinion, this situation is a flagrant violation of the national rights of the Palestinian people. The PRESIDENT~ We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda i tern 39. The next pi enary meeting of the Assemb ly will be announced in the Jour nal. The meeting rose at 5.30 p.m.