A/43/PV.61 General Assembly

The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the Argentine Republic. Mr. Raul Alfonsin, President of Hle Argentine P~public, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the uni ted Na tions the Presiden t of the Argentine Republic, His Excellency Mr. Raul Alfonsin, and to invite him to address the General ~ssembly. President ALFONSIN (interpretation from Spanish): I have come before the Assembly with an open heart at a very special time in the life of my country. We are witnessing a new beginning in the world. Man, in his historic quest for perfection, has come to stake his ultimate claim: absolute respect for his dignity. His claim is urgent. There i~ no room for delaying rhetoric, nor is there impunity for procrastination. Wherever he may be, man feels the urgent need to struggle to achieve that which he knows is required for the enjoyment of full respect for his dignity. This is not a random quest, because he knows his objective. It does not define an ideology, because it is guided by ethics. It does not implement a stra~~9Y, because it is supported by the development of natural law. It is simply a vital impulse, or, better still, life itself. In brief, it is the immutable fact of his constant progress. Sometimes man lacks freedom, or the possibility of realizing the rights and individual privileges inherent to his human condition. SOmetimes man does not even have the possibility of. protecting his rights, because they are denied to him by social conditions. The peoples of the world who make history have decided to fight for a freer, more just and more egalitarian society. The developed world, in terms of the various philosophies that guide it, has started out on its quest for fundamental answers. This need to respond to man is more important in orienting political action than economic problems or technological gaps. In my view, it is even more important than the dangers of the arms race. This is the new peace, which is defined through ~~n, who is the protagonist of history and the ultimate subject of every imaginable norm. This new dialogue is aimed at bringing about orderly change without the need to sacrifice any part of our inalienable human rights. For this reason, disarmament, detente and solutions to regional conflicts not only ensure peace but also bring the industrialized countries closer to a new qualitative change in their societies. In fact, the industrialized world, without exception, is moving towards a new frontier of progress, which will not be stopped by the logical and, at times, tragic vicissitudes of life. The world needed peace. I think that peace can now change the world. However, this new peac~ requires new ways of thinking and acting. 'This is the time to lay down foundations, because man has so decided. The developed world is finding its answers, but this is not enough, because, at the same time, in the developing countries concrete answers cannot be giv' the demands of the times. Stagnation and poverty prevent the fulfilment ci i' needs, and man, out of respect for his own dignity, calls for a juster, fre, more egalitarian society. In the previous era of peace after the last war, the protagonists prepared themselves in the economic field to ensure reconstruction. Those were the times of Bretton Woods and of the agreements beteen the COMEOJN (Council for Mutual Economic Co-operation) countries. Surely in the Western world it was ',mde:stood that the implementation of tough economic policies had in the past generated abnormal dicta torships in Europe? In the new era of peace, it is equally urgent for the protagonists to reach basic agr<.ements to accompany its civil izing march. However, today (';e have different protagonists, and the peace of the future is not exclusively linked to East and West, there is a new find perhaps principal protagonist - the South. We may aehieve the necessary conditions for world stability, such as disarmament and the defusing of regional conflicts, but nobody can be certain of haVing achieved lasting peace if growth in the developing countries does not solve the problems which man poses in his quest for dignity. His Holiness Pope Paul VI was right when he affirmed that the new name for peace was development. In the pr9vious uncertain and dangerous peace, the perspective on problems and the image of two thirds of mankind was distorted for decades, during which regio~al conflicts were elotperienced as part of the East-~lest confrontation and, therefore, as problems the solution of which called for a military-strategic approach alone. This new peace must open up the way to a different kinc;:l of thinking about the relationships between peace, security and growth. It is clear today that the ecological imbalances which have come about in SOIM! countries can seriously affect other countries. In this instance, interdependence is clear. What seems to have escaped a ttention is that today the economy is as good a conductor of imbalances as is the atmosphere. This interdependence has turned the planet into a ship in which some societies travel first class, but that privilege will be of little use if there is a bomb hidden below. we must defuse that bomb, not only because it is a matter of justice, but also because it is in the concrete in teres t of all. Let us pLofi t by the exper ience which led us to the exceptional political situation which we witness today. Obviously, nothing could have been achieved by way of agreements b&tween the SOviet Union and the United States of America, and no regional conflict could have been defused, if some basic attitudes had not become part of the behaviour of the parties. These bas ic atti tudes are flexibility in their positions, the courage to de-escalate, imagination to find unconventional pa ths and boldness to initia te new dialogues. The same holds true here: there is a need to de-escalate and to use the imagination, ultimately, to enter into dialogue in order to find new paths towards a strategy for development. Often, the demands of some and the refusals of others have been expressed in terms of confrontation. Often, to initiate a dialogue was interpreted as a sign of weakness. ~day, it is clear, from recent events in the political and military spheres, that true strength lies in the readiness to maintain a dialogue on reasonable and rational grounds. This requires the support of all, not only of the countries in the North but also of those in the South. Dialogue requires only that we recognize the need to work together to solve a conmon problem~ indeed, new formulas for development do not mean that we should shirk any of our own responsibilities or renounce our national economic discipl ine. They will mean only bringing to the economic sphere what already exists in the political sphere. That is why the Organization, more than ever active and imaginative in the pursuit of peace, is formulating measures to deal with this necessary stage of international economic dialogue. The initiatives taking shape here, such as the idea of a special session on development and the proposal to begin work on defining possible areas of consensus, are extremely urgent~ I hope they will materialize wi thin the next few days. They are not put forward in a spiri t of confrontation~ ,they are based solely on the fact that, through dialogue, we can build a world that is, to put it simply, worthy of mankind. My country believes that such initiatives are of vital importance to guarantee the stability of achievements in the military and political spheres. I insist that this is not a concern of the SOuth only. It is a concern of all~ of all mankind. Next week the top leaders of the united States of America and the Soviet Union wil meet here in New York. That will certainly be an occasion for consolidating what the two su.per-Powers have already e]one together. I hope, however, that it will also be an oci:asion for thinking about what remains to be done. There IIlJst be no repeti tion of the events that followed 1945, 1r."hen it took so long to understand how to safeguard ~ace after the War. Indeed, more than 40 years ago Niels Bohr said that ·we are in a completely new situation which cannot be resolved through war". It has taken a perilously long time to grasp the meaning of his enlightened views. We have had to wait nearly half a century for the end of war and the beginning of the atomic era to make way for peace. Today, that peace also requires worthy standards of living for all. With that so obvious, we must avoid wai ting too long. It is time for new initiatives to mobilize the political will of States, with imagination and flexibility, to find the most appropr iate paths and the most fitting environments to begin a practical dialogue on growth and development. As I said, I am certain new irdtiatives will soon be taken in the United Nations, to whose Secretary-General, Mr. Ja~ier Perez de Cuellar, we express our special appreciation for his clearsighted and tenacious work for peace. For almost half a century, since the last war, we have lived in a precariously balanced world, where conflicts of all kinds have proliferated in the third world. To the third world's own burdens, we must add that of often being the ideological battle-ground of the East-West conflict. At the root of many difficult situations in ~ose regions are stagnation, marginalization and extreme poverty. In the last decade, many medium-sized and small countries have been crushed under the weight of servicing their debt, by a drastic fall in the prices of the raw materbls that are their main exports, by an unjust international economic order, by disriminatory policies in foreign trade, and by the absurd transfer of capital to more developed countries - which amounts to a reverse Marshall Plan several times over. Elcpectations unrret cause desperation, which always favours the adventurism of the authoritarians. Time and again we have told them they would not succeed. We must confront them wi th the same courage wi th which we carry out economic policies, without making opportunistic concessions. But I can say to all the poU tic.~ians ef all the developed coontries that the touching solidarity they express to those persecuted by dictatorships is not enough. It is post-mortem solidarity which has to be expressed because when the time came those countries could not stand in solidarity with dellDcracies. We want to be protagonists in this new peace. we want to respond to mankind as it de_nds respect for its dignity. Can anyone believe it too an'bitious to work towards what is to&ly the primary national goal of everyone of the <feveloped count&' ie91 The PRESmENT (interpretation from Spanish): On behalf of the General Assenbly, I wish to thank the President of the Argentine RepUblic for the important statement he has just made. Mr. Raul Alfonsin, President of the Argentine P.epubUe, was escorted from the General Assemb:y Hall. (President Alfonsin) The meeting was suspended at 3.50 p.lI. and resulled at 5 p.m. AGENDA lTDtS 131 and 8 (continued) REPmT OF THE ctMMITTEE ON RElATIONS WITH THE RCST mUMTRY, ADOPl'ION OF THE AGEl«)A AND ORGANIZATION OF WCIlK (a; RErollT OF THE SE~ETARY-G£NERAL (A/43/909) (b) DRAFT RfSOWTION (A/43/L.43) (c) REIURT OF THE FIFTH <DMK1'l"l'EE (A/43/910) The PR!L~ (interpretation from Spanish): Under agenda items 131 and 8 the Assembly bas before it draft resolution A/43/L.43 which has just been circulated a& document A/43/t.43. I have to announce that the following countries have added their names to the list of sponsors: Algeriau Bahrain, Cuba, Demcratic Yemen, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, ~banon, the Libyan Arab Jamehiriya, Mauritania, "brocco, Oaan" Olltar, saudi Arabia, soraalia, SUdan, the Syr!"n Arab Republic, Tunis i,\ v Yemen and zanb ia • Before proceeding to consideration of these items, I should like to remind the Assenbly of rule 18 of its rules of procedure which reads, in part, as follows: "As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to the vote at any meeting of the General AssenOly unless copies of it have been circulated to all delega tions not later than the day preceding the meeting. 11 In view of the Umi ted time available and the desire of Members to dispose of item 131 expeditiously, I suggest that we proceed to take a decision on draft resolution A/43/L.43 even though it has been circulated only this morning. If I bear no objection, I shall take it that the Asserrbly agrees to my proposal. It was so decided• The PRe;ID~T (interpretation from Spanish); I call on the representative of the United Atab Emirat~s, who will introduce the draft resolution, in his capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group, on behalf of the Arab Statea Members of the Uni ted HaHons 0 Mr. AL-SIiAALI CPnited Arab atIirates) (interpretation from Arabic) 1. As late as 7 o'clock last night the General Asselllbly still hoped that the U1ited States would give a favourable answer to our call for it to reconsider its decision and issue a visa to Mr. Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, so that he might participate in the meetings of the General AssenDly devoted to consideration of the question of Palestine. Despite successive American statements and refusals, we had indeed hoped that the voice of reason and a sense of commitment to the law would triumph OIler narrow self-interest. We had hoped that the United States would reconsider its decision in response to General Assembly resolution 43/4e. of 30 Naveooer last, by which the overwhelming majority of countries of the world declared that the decision of the United states not to issue a visa to Mr. Arafat was a violation of t.'le Headquarters Pgreement. Wi th the exception of the United States of Anter ica, which is the cause of the problem and a party to it, Israel, which is party to every United States foreign policy decision, and of the United Kingdom, whose position no one understands, menners of the General Assenbly - 151 of them - have deplored the American decis iOI1 and requested the United States to reconsider. We had hoped that the United States would abide by the behests of its legal system and its affirmation that its governJrent processes were ruled by law and not by personalities and that it ,",ould therefore respect the legal stipulations of the Headquarters Agreement and uphold international legality as clearly and unanimously called for in resolution 43/48. Howevor, the American administration has chosen not to respond to the opportunity affo~ded to it" persisted in its erroneous stand and continued to flagrantly violate the Headquarters Agreement, thus defying the unanimous will of the international community, clearly reflected in the Secretary~General'sreport of·1 December l~89 (A/43/909 and Core .1) • Faced with this intransigent American stance, the General Assembly of the United Nations, at this juncture has no alternative but to take the step which the United States of America has compelled it to take, namely, the interim measure of transferring consideration of the agenda item "Question of Palestine" to the United Nations Office at Geneva. In the light of all th is, I have the h.onour to present draft resolution A/43/L.43 of 1 Decemer 1988, on behalf of my delegation and as Cha lrman of the Arab Group, and on behalf of the delegations of the Arab countries members of the League of Arab States as well as the delegations of Bangladesh, Cuba, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe. The draft resolution consists of three preal'lbular and three operative paragraphs. The first paragraph of the preamble recalls resolution 43/48, which the General Assenbly has already adopted, and stresses two elements~ that the General Assent>ly has urged the host country to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Headquartera Agreement and has called upon it to reconsider and reverse its decision which denied Mr. Yasser Arafat the required entry visa. The second paragraph of the praamle states that the Assellbly has considered the report of the secretary-General, who had been requested, in resolution 43/48, to cantact the O1ited States GcwernMnt to ascertain any new positim it might have taken following the adoption of that resolution.. That second paragraph of the preaJlble indicates that the OrIit:ed States Government has persisted in its refusal to issue the visa. The third paragraph of the preaalble affirms 'the right of persons mentioned in section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement to enter the Olited,States of America without any impediments for the purpose of transit to or from the Headquarters district. This means that the United states Government is obllga.ted to grant visaa to such IJersans. It is clear that Mr. Yasser Arafat falls within tb'at category of persQns. I should like to turn no.'I to the operative paragraphs of the draft resolution. Operative paragraph 1 contains a moral judgement:, which th~ General Assemly must I1Iake, given the refusal of the United States Government to accept its request to reconsider its decisim. The least one can say here is that the refusal should be deplored. ~erative paragraph 2, prcwiding for the transfer of consideration of the item . on the question of Palestine frORl the O1i ted Nations Headquarters in New york to the Uni-ted Nations Office at Geneva, states that the consideration of that item shall take place in a plenary meeting, during the period from 13 fo.o 15 Decelllber 1988. That has two basic implications, first, that the transfer is not a result of a w,ish or choice on the part of the General Assellbly but is due to a case of force -;leu£! creaud by the united states decision which violates the Headquarters AgreementJ seccndly, that that transfer is wi thout prejUdice to or (Mr. Al-ShaaU, United Arab Emirates) change of the normal practice of considering all agenda i terns, including the question of Palestine, in plenary meetings in Hew York. In operative paragraph 3 the secretary-General is requested to make the necessary arrangements for implementation of the draft resolution and he is authorized to adjust the schedule of meetings at the O1ited Nations Office at Geneva during those days, so that the question of Palestine may be considered. I should like to thank all the Hemer States which voted in favour of resolution 43/48. In fact they have voted in favour: of the good of the United .. Nations and its universality. We hope that the present draft resolution will be adopted, &s was the earlier one. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish), I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes before the voting. May I remind delegations that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, egplanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be ml!de by delegations from their seats. '-.r. BEIN (Israel): As the Assembly may recall, Israel voted against resolution 43/48 of 30 Ncwember 1988. Since its inception in 1964 the PLO has operated as a terrorist organization dedicated to one go&h the destruction and liquidation of a State Hemer of the United Nations. The covenant of the PLO and its bloody acts of terror stand in complete opposition to the word and spirit of the U\ited Nations Charter. The PRESmmT (interpretation from Sparlish) , I understand the Observer of the Palestine' Liberation Organization wishes to raise a point of orde!:'. As an observer to this Organization he is not author: !zed to raise a (X)int of order. would the speaker continue, please. (Mr. Al-Shaali, united Arab Emirates) Kr. BEIN (Israel): In 1974 Israel strenuously objectad to the resolution of the General Assembly which unjustly accorded to the PLO observer status in the United Nations. The position of the Government of Israel has not changed. Accordingly, Israel will vote against draft resolution A/43/L.43, which "deplores the faUure of the host country to respcnd favourably to the request of the General AsseRbly contained in its resolution 43/48". The PLO has not abandoned terror ism. The nature of the PLO has not changed. As in the past, it is a terrorist organization in close contact with, and of assistance to, practically every insurgent and terrorist organization in countries throughout Europe, Africa, Asia and Central and South America. The killing of women and children in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is clearly condoned. The.burning alive of Jewish families is encouraged. Even as the PNC was meeting in Algiers, PLO terrorists of Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction were busy. Attempts were mt'de to infiltrate Israel to take hostages and carry out mass IIIJrders. One group was caught by the Israeli Defence Forces. The PRESIDENCl' (interpretation from Spanish): I apologize to the speaker but the rl!presentative of Syria has asked'to sreak, I understand on a point of order • Hr. AL-MASRI (Syr ian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): The statement now being delivered by the representative of the settler ziooist entity bears absolu~ly no relation to the item under c:onsU 1ration in the General As!:3embly) nor is it an explanation of vote. I therefore call upon the President to 'stop the speaker from continuing his statement. The PRESmmT (interpretation from Spanish): I thank the representa tive of Syr ia for. the informationo We take note of it, and I call upon the representative of Israel to take note of that observation and continue. Hr. BEIN (Israel): The representative of Syr ia has just demonstrated in miniature the problem facing us in the Middle East. They do not even want to listen to us. One group of those terrorists who came to our borders was caught by the Israeli defence forces. Another was confronted by a unit of the un1 ted Nations Inter im Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), and two Lebanese hostages were rordered in cold blood by the P~ terrorists. In Algiers, Abul Abbas, a member of the PLO's "executive committee", the mastermind behind the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985, evelo joked callously about the nurder of the 69-year-old Amer ican Jewish passenger, Lean Klinghoffer: "Perhaps he went for a swim", he said. The "covenant" of the PLO was adopted in 1964, three years pr ior to the Six Day War - The PRESml!! (interpretation from Spanish): I am sorry to interrupt the representative of Israel again. I understand that the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahir iya wishes ~ speak 00 a point of order. Mr. TAEIKI (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (interpretation from Arabic): Mr. President, I request you to ask the speaker to heed your observation, for we are now dealing with the draft resolution and not with any extraneous matters. "l.1ld you please l:eiterate your request that he abide by your observation.

We are dealing with a procedural resolution on matters which are obviously sensitive for the entire international community. Let us try to settle this question in the best possible manner, avoiding a climate of confrontation in this Hall, which is unnecessary and inappropriate, given our purposes. Taking those considerations inta account, and insisting on the procedural nature of the draft resolution before us, I call upon the Assel\i)ly to allow the representative of Israel to continue with his statemant. Mr. BEIN (Israel); Mr .. President, all I wish to do is to explain the reason for Israel's vote. I was speaking about the "covenant· of the PLO of 1964, which refer s to pre-1967 Israel only.. It clearly states that the boundaries of the Palestine which it lays claim to are not meant to be negotiated boundaries. Compromise with Israel is ruled out. Since then, the PLO's objective of ·liberation of the whole of Palestine· has not changed. On 22 October 1988, Abd Al-Rahim Ahmed, a senior men'ber of the PLO's ·executive committee· and head of the "Arab Liberation Front", explained in the united Arab Emirates Al-Biy~n, •••• U.N. (partition) Resolution 181 (of 1947) tore away part of Palestine in order to establish the 'State of Israel' ••• 'the acceptance of the decision to evacuate Israeli forces from the 1967 borders is the peak, but not the end, of the ongoing struggle. The Palestinians will continue to struggle until the whole of Palestine will become the state of all the Palestinians ••••• Some delegateslllllY wish to replace th~ shores of the East River wi th the picturesque "LaC, de, Geneve·~ even ~f only for a few days, but let us not forget that this depaE'turefroaa the routine course of our work, as 'appealing as it may seem to sane delegatee, would tax the burdened budget of the Organization with expenses of hundreds of. thousands of dollars. Moreover, the Assenbly is asked to pack its bags and travel to another continent just for the dubious pleasur,e of lending an ear to a person who deliberately conceived, instigated and organized some of this erais most cruel atrocities against innocent civilians of many nations. The delegation of Israel does not view the circumstances as compelling or justifl.ling the unprecedented convening of the General AsseJN)ly in Geneva. The debate 1.n question can take place in New York in such a manner that all views will be heard, thus avoiding the considerable financial implications which' would accompany a move to Geneva. we bave been told in th!:) chamber that Ule latest PNC decisions in Algiers harbour a new message of peace in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I should like to state here that there io no country in the Middle East which desires and strives for peace more than Israel does. Israel's unanbiguous and crystal-clear desire for peace with all its neighbours was stated in the founding document of the state of Israel. lt is part of Israel's very essence. Yet the Arab States as a whole avoided recognizing the right of the Jewish people to their homeland in Israel. Since Israel's rebirth, no Arab country, with the notable exception of Egypt, has unequivocally sought or proposed a viable concept of negot~ ltian and peace with Israel which would guarantee and take account of the interests of both sides in the conflict. All Israel wants is to coexist peacefully wi th all states in the region. It has signed a peace agreement with the IIOst prominent Arab State, Egypt, and is yearning and willing to negotiate directly with all its neighbours. The basis and CjOal of such neqotiations would be to reach peace agreements which will take account of the interests of both Israelis and Arabs. The only ;ollllllOn1y accepted bas is for pol i tica1 settlement of the confl ict is Secudty Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which take account of the interests of both sides. The PRmmPNT (interpretation from Spanish): I apologize for interrupting the representative of Israel. The represenc"jtive of saudi Arabia has asked to speak on a point of order. Mr .S!!,XHAElI (Saudi "rabia): It set>-{i!3 that the sPfj,;;,'ter does not realize that we are not discussing a draft resolution on the question of Palestine. This is a draft resolution concerning the question of moving the discussion to Geneva, under the item enti tied -Repor t of the Committee on Rela tions wi th the Host Country~ organization of work of the forty-third regular session of the General AssenOly·. I hope that the President will ask him to Umi t his discourse to tha t subject so that we do not waste our time listening to a m:>nologue that has no meaning at the present time. The PRES m~! (interpretation from Spanishh We take not'! of the point of order raise,d by the representative of saudi Arabia. The speaker has 30 seconds left. I would beg the representative of Israel to make use of his 30 seconds. Mr. REIN (Israel): The PLO speciaUzed in the hijack il'19 of aeroplanes and cruise ships. NQI it seea that they have expanded their activities and are tryl;\9 to hijack the General Assembly. I\ccordingly, the de~egation of Israel will vote against draft resolution A/43/L.43. that it does not favaur convening the General Assenbly in Geneva to consider the question of Palestine, agenda item 37, because we believe that the change of venue is unnecessary. None the less, we have said that we would not oppose such a move and that the United States would be represented if a meeting were held in Geneva. I wish to reaffirm that posi tien. We object to the draft resolution before the ABse.,ly today, however, because it inclueJas language that is unnecessary and unacceptable to my Government. This could have been a procedural draft resolution, but 80Ne were not content wHoh that: and drafted it: in substantive terms Q The draft resolution deplores the fact that the united States has declined to reverse its decision to deny Mr. Arafat a visa, a justifiable decision taken for compelling reasons. Moreover, as established procedure recognizes, the ·right of persons· to 4!nter the U'lited States I'nder section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement is subject to the right of the United States to deny entry to individuals in order to safeguard our national &9curity. Consequently, my Government must vote against this draft resolution. Mr. CANETE (Paraguay) (interpretation from Spanish): Draft resolution A/43/L.43, which my delegation will support, is consistent with the provisions of resolution 43/48, recently adopted by the General Assembly. My delegation regrets the intransigence that prevails, since this ls not conduciva to positive results.

The General AssenOly will nCM take a decision on draft resolution A/43/L.43. The report of the Fifth Commi ttee on the programme budget implications of this draft resolution has been issued as document A/43/910. A recorded vote has been requested. (Mr. OlUDI, united States) In favouu Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Renin, Bhutan, Boli"ia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Daru8salam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, ByeloruBslan Soviet Socialist Republic, CamerOCln, Canada, Cape Verde, Centr41 African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Coaorcs, Congo, Costa Rica, c&te d'Ivoire, Cuba, Q{pr us, CzechoslOlTakia, Demcratic Karlpu:hea, Del'lOcratic Yemen, Denmark, Dj ibout!, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gallb!a, Ger_n Demcratic Republic, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Biasau, Qlyana, Rdti, Handuras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic R3pubUc, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahidya, t.1xembourg, Madagascar, Halawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Halta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, MoZallbique, Nepal, Netherlands, New zealand, Nicaragua, Nigar, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Phil ippines, Poland, Portugal,. Qat&r, 'a)mania, Rlfanda, saint Kitts and Nevis, saint IAJc!a, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, sao 'fume and Pdncipe, saudi Arabia, senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, SUdan, SUriname, SWaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, 'lb9o, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, T.urkey, Uganda, Ukrdnian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uni ted Arab Bmiratesr OIited RepUblic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Ham, Yemen, Yu~slavia, zaire, zard3ia, zilTbabwe sainst~ Israel, United States of Ame,;oica Abstaining: Uni ted Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Draft rE!solution A/43/Lo 43 was adopted by 154 votes to 2, with one abstention (resolution 43/49). The PRmmENT (interpretation from Spanish): I call now on those representatives wishing to speak in explanation of vote. Mr. ZEPOS (Greece): In this Assembly, two days agov I stated on behalf of the 12 member States of the European Community that wc believed, as we still do, that, in accordance with the Headquarters Ilgreement and the opinion of the Legal Counsel of the United Nations, the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Mt. Yasser Arafat, should have been allowed to address the Assembly in New York. As far as the th ird preambular paragraph of the resoluUon just acbpted is concerned, we concur wl th the interpretation of the Headquarters Agreement given in the o~inion of the United Nations Legal Counsel. Mr. KAGAMI (Japan): My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution A/43/t.43, which has just been adopted. However, we regret that the third preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 1 still contain wording that is inappropr iate. We should also like to make our position clear at this juncture that, in principle. the Organization's New York Headquarters is the proper venue for General Assembly plenary meetings and that, in the interest of maintaining the strength of the Organization, this principle should be strictly observed hereafter. Mr. FORTIER (Canada): Canada voted in favour of draft resolution A/43/t.43 in keeping with our belief that, at this time in particular, all those voices which could make a contr ibution to resolving the difficult political situation in the Middle East should be heard in this forum. We regret, therefore, that the United States Government could not see its way to changing its decision with a view to granting Mr. Arafat a visa for the purpose of addressing the General Assembly in the headquarters city of the united T'~tions. We were pleased that the drafters of the resolution made reference in operative paragraph 2 to the decision to consider the question of Palestine in Geneva being made wi thout prejudice to normal practice. Canada sincerely hopes that in the future normal practice will be consistently followed and that all discussions of items on the agenda of the General Assenbly will take place in the headquarters city of the United Nations. Mr. BOREHAM (Australia ~; Australia voted in favour of the resolution just adopted by the General Assent>ly. As we have explained before, Australia regrets the decision of the United States Administration which has brought about this situation. However, we have reser'l1ations about the language in operative paragraph 1, which we believe is too strong. Australia would have preferred that operative paragraph not to have been included in this resolution. We would have preferred a wholly procedural text. The Australian Government would like to express the hope that adoption of this resolution will be the end of recdminations on this matter at the General Assembly. We are pleased to note also that operative paragraph 2 states mat this decision is wl thout prejudice to normal practice, and wish to state our view tha t this I1Dve to consider an item of the agenda away from United Nations Headquarters in New York should not set a precedent for the future. (Mr. POrtier, Canada) Hr e ARMS'!'RONG (New Zeal~nd): New Zealand voted for resolution A/43/Le 43 since we consider that there are compelling circumstances which, in the pres~at instance, call for the convening of the General Assenbly in Genevae It is particularly important at the present time that all the parties to the situation in the Middle East have the op,p'rtunit)' to be hearde We would have preferred some aspects of the resolution, in partiCUlar operative paragraph 1, to have been cDuched in JIIOre moderate lartguagee In view of our long-standing preference that the Gener'al AsseJrbly meet at Headquarters, we particularly endors,," the language of operative paragraph 2 of the resolution that the present decision is wi thout prejudice to 11ormal practice e

In accordance with resolution 3237 (XXIX) of 22 NO'I('!fIi)er 1974, I now call on the Cbserver of the Palestine Liberation ~ganizatione !!!.:... TERZI (Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO»: once again the international community, through the General Assent>ly, has, within hours, supported and stood firm on wat is right and has deplored what is wrong. I wish to assure the Asserrbly that the Palestine Liberation Organization would much rather have had the debate on the question of Palestine at the proper venue, heree It is only because of the intransigence of the host country 'and its lack of respect for international l~ and legal obligations that the international community has to pick up a bill of "'·te than Sl million, mooey which could have been used for something more' constructivee I say about S1 million because the report we have before us shows that the U1ited Nations will have to spend about half a million dollars and the remainder will have to come out of the pockets of delegations that will have to go to Geneva in order to discharge their duties in th is q ues tion e Mr. President, we are gratified by this manifestation of solidarity and would have hoped that in the short debate here, as you yourself mentioned, the representatives of one state would h~",e elevated the discussion to the level that it merits and not converted it into a dark alley of obscenities llnd name calling. The PiaPSIDJ!:'JT (interpretation from Spanish) ~ we do not yet have the repo,; (; of the Fifth Comlnittee on agenda i~m 36, entitled "Policies of apartheid of . . the GoY'ernment of South Africa-. If I hear no objection I shall suspend the meeting for a few minutes in order to aSG'ertain when the AssenOly ean have the report. (Mr. Terd, PLO) The meeting was suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resuw~d at 5.50 p.m. The PRESmENT (interpretation from Spanish): We shall not have the repor t of the Pifth Commi ttee for approxima tely an hour and fi fteen minu tes to an hour and a half. It is late but, as we know, next week may be our last week of deliberations here in New York, and we have a very busy schedule. Therefore, I favour continuing our work until late tonight to make sure we conclude our consideration of agenda item 36 today, as envisaged. I hope that we shall. have the report of the Fi fth Commi ttee by 7 p.m. Accordingly, I ini:.end to suspend the meeting until then, when we shall begin with explanations of vote. If t~ere are no objections to the procedure I have suggested, I shall take it tha t the Assemly agrees to it. It was so decided. The meeting was suspended at 5.55 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanishh First of all, I want to :thank representatives for their patience during this waiting period, which proved much longer than expected. Unfortunately, we have not made substantial progress and it is not yet possible for us to begin our work. We still have the same problem~ we do not have the report of the Fifth Committee on the financial implications of the var iaus draft resolutions that we have to vote on under agenda item 36. Indeed, the report of the Fifth Committee will not be available in all the languages un ti 1 very late th is even ing • I therefore suggest that we adjourn our meeting now and take up this item again at the beginning of our work on Monday. Since this means a considerable delay in our work, I am once again going to ask members for their understanding on two points. First, I suggest that we begin our Jreeting on Monday morning at 9.30 rather than at 10 oOclock. I know that this may cause some inconvenience, but I also know that all members understand the need for: us to speed up our work. secondly, may I ask members to be particularly punctual so that we can resume our consideration of item 36 at 9.30 a.m. FurtherlTOre, in order to make it J;X)ssible for us to make progress in considering the report of the Fifth Committee, and to have views thereon6 copies of the report in the various languages, will be available tolTOrrow, Saturday, between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., in the Division of General Assembly Affairs, in room 3670 or the Secretariat building. Thus, it will be possible for menbers to have the documen t 48 hour s be fore we beg in its consideration on Monday. If there is no objection to this proposal, the Assembly will meet on Monday at 9.30 a.m. It was so decided. The meeting rose at 8.05 p.m.