S/PV.1653 Security Council

As was agreed at our meeting yesterday [1652nd meeting/, we shall first proceed to the vote on the draft resolution sponsored by the delegations of Guinea, Somalia, the Sudan and Yugoslavia contained in document S/10742. 2. The situation in the Middle East: (a] Letter dated 5 July 1972 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/l 0730); (b) Letter dated 5 July 1972 from the Charge d’affaires, ad interim of the Permanent Mission of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10731). 4. The representative of Panama has indicated his desire to speak.

On specific instructions from my Minister of External Relations I wish to report that we shall vote in favour of the draft resolution before US. My Government considers that principles are involved here which we respect and uphold constantly. Security Council resolution 316 (1972) is already a United Nations instrument and we comply with it even though we abstained in the voting, for reasons which were explained clearly at that time [ldSl)th meeting]. The meeting ws called to order at 1 I a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East: (a) Latter dated 5 July 1972 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations addrewd to the President of the Security Council (S/10730); (6) Letter dated 5 July 1972 from the Chargk d’affaires, ad interim of the Permanent Mission of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Resident of the Security Council (S/10731) 6. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to make a comment which I consider to be relevant Yesterday, when referring to the request for postponement by Panama and Belgium, the representative of Somalia as I understood it, was most respectful, indeed ceremonial, with the delegation of Belgium but rather caustic and indeed even disdainful toward my delegation. Why was this SO? My delegation did nothing more than exercise a right which it has because it is a Member of the United Nations and a member of the Security Council. I should like to express our displeasure to the representative of Somalia. We are extremely respectful of others and, accordingly, we are entitled to be treated in the same manner and with the same consideration, Even when we submitted our request for postponement because of our need for consultations, we did so by appealing to a spirit of understanding and co-operation. We did not even invoke rule 33 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Council.

In accordance with the previous decision of the Council [1651st meeting] I propose, with the Council’s consent, to invite the representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon to take places at the Council table in order to participate, without the right to vote, in the Council’s discussion of this item. At the invitation of the President, Mr. G. J. Tomeh (Syrian Arab Republic) Qnd Mr. E. Ghorra (Lebanon) took places at the Council table. 7. In conclusion, I would say that all the representatives here are entitled to the greatest respect. No one has the right to breach this elementary standard of courtesy. 2, The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): Similarly, in accordance with the decision taken by the 9. I regret that the representative of Panama chose to interpret my statement of yesterday as a statement of discourtesy. I should like to assure him that my Govemment and my delegation hold the Government and people, and the members of the delegation of Panama in the highest esteem, and that in no way was an act of discourtesy meant. If I have offended him in any way, I respectfully ask his indulgence.

When we adjourned last night it was the expectation, at least of the representative of Somalia, that a few hours delay would improve the degree of support that his draft resolution might receive. I also indicated that in spite of many of the shortcomings of the draft resolution my delegation would have been happy to co-sponsor it, but that I simply did not have the time yesterday to consult my Government. 11. The few hours which have elapsed since then have enabled me to consult my Government and I am happy to announce that the Government of India will formally co-sponsor the draft resolution which has been submitted by the representative of Somalia on behalf of Somalia, Guinea, Sudan and Yugoslavia. As I did not have a chance to discuss it with them, I announce my intention publicly at this meeting in the hope that the other sponsors will accept our association, and if that is so, Mr. President, perhaps you could agree formally to add our name to the resolution.

There appears to be no objection on the part of the co-sponsors and accordingly, the name of India will be included in the list of sponsors of the draft resolution.

1 should like to say that my delegation is very pleased with the explanation just given by the representative of Somalia.

The COUIIC~~ will now vote on the draft resolution sponsored by the delegations of Guinea, India, Somalia, the Sudan and Yugoslavia [S/10742]. A vote was taken by show of hands, In favour’ Argentina, Belgium, China, France, Guinea, India, Italy, Japan, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. Against: None.

At the outset, my dele. gation wishes to associate itself with other delegations h expressing appreciation of the persevering efforts exerted by you, Mr. President, by the Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, by the Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs, Mr. Roberto Guyer, and by the Inter. national Committee of the Red Cross to effect the early release of the captured Syrian and Lebanese officers. Those endeavours, as described in the statement made by &e President of the Security Council on 18 July [1651st meeting] and in the Secretary-General’s message to the President which was made available to the members ofh Council through you, Mr. President, on the same day, appear so far not to have resulted in a positive outcome, None the less, my delegation believes that these endeavours indeed deserve admiration and they meet with our wholehearted support. It is our ardent hope that every possible avenue should be continuously explored and pursued ia search of a settlement of this question. My delegation appeals to those concerned to continue to exercise their good offices to this end. 17. More than three weeks have passed since the adoption of resolution 316 (1972) without any tangible result. My delegation deplores deeply that the strong desire of the Security Council expressed in paragraph 3 of resolution 316 (1972) has not been complied with. At the previous meeting of the Council on the same subject-matter, my delegation stressed the importance of taking urgent steps to sever the vicious and deplorable cycle of action and retaliation in the area. No doubt the release of tie captured Syrian and Lebanese officers would have constituted an important step forward for the de-escalation of tension in this already highly sensitive sector. 18. All of us in this Council are very well aware that tbc case before us is how to implement resolution 316 (1972) and to effect the earliest possible release of the captured Syrian and Lebanese personnel. My delegation believes thal this question should be given urgent attention as a matter of first priority. That is the reason why it voted in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/10742, which is the follow-up of resolution 316 (1972). It is to be added, however, that my delegation calls for the return of the personnel in question without prejudice to the problem of the general release of prisoners of war. My delegation, as a matter of principle, favours release of all prisoners Of war a soon as actual hostilities have ceased in accordance with the spirit and provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. We certainly will be happy to see all the prisoners of war, now detained by the respective countries concerned, released through the good offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross or other third parties. 1 See resolution 317 (1972). 24, Since 1 said this was going to be a sort of farewell speech in this important body of the United Nations, I cannot but recall here that history works in strange ways, for it was in 1946 in London, just after I had joined our Foreign Service, that I attended there the first Security Council meeting at which the Council also was considermg a Syrian-Lebanese complaint. But I was sitting right at the back, and there were great and illustrious men who at that tine, as now, were discussing problems pertaining to Syrja and Lebanon, countries that by nature, history, tradition, hinguage and other basic factors were as one, like all other Arab States indeed, and this remains our feeling. Today in 197% as I say good-bye, it is also at a meeting on a Syrian-Lebanese complaint, sitting beside my brother and colleague, Mr. Ghorra of Lebanon. distinguished 20, My delegation regrets thiit it WllS llOt ~X’EXihk tl> reach sgreement on a text which incorporated SCxTlC language soveriag the possibility of progress towards a af prisoners of war. As I said in my statement before the Council on 26 June /165t?tii ttXV?titlg], my delegation believes that, if only on humanitarian gfOWIdS, there is a strong cas for such a general release of prisoners of war sad that it would contribute tOWCUdS the bXXIlin& of tension h fie area. At the same time, the language which we wcu]d have liked to see included in the resolution would have been non-prejudicial. It WOUld have made clear that this is a separate question not related to the events of 21 to 24 June which led to the adoption of resolution 3]6(]972), and that we do not consider agreement on a general release as a necessary prerequisite for the return of the personnel referred to in this resolution. ‘25. 1 wish to thank all the members who voted in favour of the resolution adopted this morning. There are, however, certain points which I should like to emphasize as a party directly involved in this issue. One is the sense of urgency. All the members who have taken the floor so far have emphasized the fact that the abduction took place on 21 June. That is exactly one month ago today. Resolution 3 16 (1972), with its paragraphs 3 and 4, was adopted on 26 June. In the resolution of today it is stated that the abducted Syrian and Lebanese personnel should be released in the shortest possible time. Paragraph 3 specifically, clearly and unequivocally calls on Israel for the “return of the above-mentioned personnel without delay”. Resolution 316 (1972) in its paragraph 3 also contains specific terminology emphasizing the immediacy of the problem. It states: “Expresses the strong desire that appropriate steps will lead, as an immediate consequence, to the release in the shortest possible time . . .“. The repetition of all these terms certainly has a purpose, and the purpose is to see that this resolution is implemented and that the unit of time does not become a year or a decade or even longer, because we have resolutions which also express a sense of urgency and which still have not been implemented by Israel. 21. Our views on this matter, therefore, do not affect the consideration which I mentioned at the beginning of this explanation of vote, and we therefore voted in favour. 22, The PRESIDENT (ir~terptutirv~ frm Spattid~j: I call on the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Mr, President, since this is going to he my last appearance before the Council prior to my departure, I wish once more to thank you for your untiring efforts up to the present day. I wish also to thank the Secretary-General, Mr. Waldheim, for his efforts and to thank the sponsors of the draft resoiution which was voted upon during our meeting this morning and which received 14 positive votes. I wish in particular to address the thanks of my delegation to Mr. Fur& of Somalia for his constructive efforts to bring this debate to a ceastmctive end. Mr. Farah has already distinguished himself, and I, as a former member of the Security Council, recall cur very happy co-operation with him, as indeed with d ether members of the Council, when Syria was 8 aea*Permanent member. In this connexion I might say that there should be three categories of membership in the COUJW the permanent, the nonqermtment and the non. Permanent Permanent, to which perhaps WC Arab delegations be]ong. I should be failing in my duty if I did not &e thank, most genuinely, warmly and sincerely, the representative of France, Mr. de Guiringaud, who immediately uPon his arrival at the United Nations plunged inta the diffiCult and Complicated problems of the Middle East a”d did his utmost, inside and outside the Council, taking the hitiatiVe with his colleagues and wjth members of his stafft to see to it that a constructive approach would be taken and that constructive work would be done. We would aho address special thanks to the representatives and 26, I cannot but draw attention here to the fact that testimony in the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations as well as in the International Red Cross has borne out that Arab prisoners of war have had very tragic experiences in Israeli gaols, We wish to put on record here our hope that the abducted Syrian and Lebanese personnel will be treated with decency, in accordance with the laws of man and in accordance with the agreed-upon civihzed behaviour of Member States of the United Nations. 27, The second point is that we should not COnfUSe this issue whh any other issue. We are dealing here with a specific complaint regarding the abduction of Syrian and Lebanese military personnel. I need not dwell on that at all except from the point of view of not COdUSing this kk? with any other issue. All the members who have cornmented at yesterday’s meeting or previously and those who “It is in the context of the need for present action and the past record of Israel’s persistent noncompliance with resolutions of the Council that we must view the straightforward issue of the return of the Syrian and Lebanese personnel abducted by Israel. No attempts should be permitted to confuse this issue with the other issue of the return of combatants captured by the different sides in the course of war. No amount of sophisticated and unnecessarily complicated argument can change such kidnapping to something else. We are, therefore, opposed to attempts to obscure this matter by linking it with issues which are not relevant to it.” /1652nd meeting, para. 18.1 And the representative of the People’s Republic of China, Ambassador Huang Hua, said the following: “The facts show that the Israeli Zionists had no desire at all to implement resolution 316 (1972). From the very beginning of the abduction, they have been propagating a so-called ‘general exchange of prisoners of war’ in an attempt to use the abducted Syrian and Lebanese personnel as prisoners of war in exchange for the Israeli prisoners of war now in the hands of Syria, Egypt and other countries. This is a sheer arrogant and baseless demand with ulterior motives.” [Ibid., para 23.1 28. It is our earnest hope that the Council, which has taken this responsibility upon itself, the Secretary-General and the President of the Council will impress upon Israel the urgency of the matter of releasing the abducted Syrian and Lebanese military personnel. 29. Now, the third point is this: some members of the Council have, as I said, euphemistically referred to the act of abduction as being “illegal”. I submit that the word “illegal” does not really apply here. Why? let me give an illustration. 30. To bulldoze a house or to raze a village to the ground is not against the laws of engineering, but it is a criminal act against the laws of humanity; To take penicillin when aspirin should be taken is against the laws of medicine, but to commit suicide is completely outside the science of medicine. To take prisoners of war in a battle could be stated as taking prisoners of war, but to abduct personnel on a visit is outside the realm of any law: it is lawlessness. Even to call it “illegal” would not be appropriate, any more than calling suicide “unmedical” or calling the razing of a village or house to the ground “a violation of the laws of engineering.” For what happened is that Israel, by its act, has placed itself not just against the law but altogether outside the realm of law, and I need not go far to illustrate that. 31. When the agenda was voted upon and adopted in the manner in which it was adopted, what did we see? All the members of the Council saw the representative of Israel 32. But I am addressing myself to the Council. And sc h very same people who call for peace and negotia(lon gild dialogue walk out, refusing a dialogue, even across &r chamber table. 33. YOU yourself, Sir, heard, as indeed did all the mhnbn of the Council, the representative of Israel commenthgm resolution 3 16 (1972) on 26 June (1650th rneet/trg/. ~)‘tugr did he say? He said of that resolution that it ~“gj “immoral”, and that “It belongs in the morgue of hjstcrylr Are those words to be said? 34. What party, standing before this forum, is guilty by iw own utterances and by its own behaviour? What pa* api0 in the face of international law and order? What pu? consigns the Charter of the United Nations to the bftcqn of its totem pole of values and loyalty? And this attiu& of Attila the Hun, of every conqueror in history and crap State that has ever put itself above the laws of nat&m causes small wonder, because for over 20 years now, brtia Israel, contemptuous of the United Nations, precisely 8p it was on the morning of 5 June 1967, has been relyingoa rfr: tradition of sheer power. But if there is one lesson to h learned from history, it is the powerlessness of power. 35. Therefore, in urging the implementation of the IWO resolutions-resolution 316 (1972) and the reseIr&~ adopted today-it is not alone for Arab rights that we pea It is not alone for Arabs that we plead now-and I beg ti members of the Council to be clear about this-but fcr tit life and integrity of the United Nations. 36. In all sobriety I say that unless Israel is prepared ta retract its outrageous comments on the resolution of tie Council and its reflections on the deliberations al ti Council, until and unless Israel shows its readiness-la ’ one gesture of goodwill only-to abide by the law u illustrated this very morning when 14 members v& favourably for the release of the abducted Syrian aa3 Lebanese personnel, then the Council, not for the Arabs 31 for Arab rights but for its own integrity, really .&crrJ~ ponder a little more deeply this very grave act. 37. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from flparrih!: k the world of the United Nations and outside, everytbiqti relative. Farewells too, I believe are relative. The repr~a~ tative of Syria has told us that the statement he hrss jut made would perhaps be his last statement in the CML& chamber. It seems to me that the relativity to Whkh 1 ht+‘f referred warrants our believing that on another occasion we shall once again have him among us. During his Seven Sem as the representative of Syria in the United l&t&~ : Ambassador Tomeh has won the admiration and resWa d all his colleagues, including, I am sure, even those hbe dQ i ] not share or who at times have not shared his points QI 1 j i I view. The defence of national interests, within the spifit ef 38, Mr. MIGLKJOLO (Italy): The affirmative vote I cast on behalf of Italy on the draft resolution contained in document S/10742 must be interpreted in the light of two positions of principle, consistently supported by the Italian Government, which inspired the attitude of my delegation throughout the Security Council’s deliberations on the issue before US. The first is that the enhancement of the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations must be constantly pursued, particularly through the implementation of the resolutions adopted by the Security Council. The second is that whenever and wherever a situation of conflict obtains humanitarian considerations should always lead the actions of Governments to the largest possible extent. Human lives are equally sacred irrespective of race, religious creed or social conditions. Human misery deserves compassion and relief under any circumstances. 39. Abiding by those principles, the Italian Government had extended its co-operation on previous occasions-as recently as the spring of last year-with a view to bringing about the release of prisoners of war and other persons kept in captivity in the Middle East area. In the same spirit, my delegation was instructed to support the drafting and adoption of resolution 316 (1972). The explanations of vote given on that occasion by the representative of Italy, Ambassador Vinci, and by the three sponsors of the draft of that resolution bear testimony to a deep concern both for the respect of law and order and for the plight of the people involved. 42. In the spirit of the resolution just adopted, and particularly of paragraph 4, we wish to renew our appeal to Israel for the release with the shortest possible delay of the Syrian and Lebanese officers. But we wish also to plead with all parties concerned for a general exchange of all prisoners of war in line with their declared policy of finding a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis.

First of all I should like to congratulate you, Mr. President, on the manner in which you have so far guided the debates of the Council. Once again, we have observed how very much we need your experience, your sound judgement and your spirit of co-operation, and on behalf of my delegation I wish to thank you. 40. The Italian Government did not stand idle after the Council adopted that resolution. It pledged full support to the good offices that had been requested both of you, Mr. President, and of the Secretary-General, to whose untiring efforts we today wish to pay a tribute. On a bilateral basis, diplomatic steps were taken in a pragmatic attempt to encourage the adoption and implementation in separate stages of a number of unilateral measures for the release of prisoners which seemed to us to be fully warranted on many grounds. Convinced as we are that public controversy can hardly be conducive to better understanding and compromise, we had hoped that more time would be allowed for the continuation of all the efforts undertaken. But fulfilling our obligation as members of this Council, we have accepted to resume our deliberations and to vote on a document which has been presented to us as the logical follow-up to resolution 316 (1972). It is no secret that my delegation, as well as some others, would have preferred a different text. We had appreciated the co-operation of the sponsors in accommodating some of our views through appropriate amendments of the original draft. I wish to state that we had no objections whatsoever to confiiing, if need be, resolution 316 (1972) in its entirety, including paragraph 3, which 44. I should like to tell the representative of Syria, Ambassador Tomeh, that I was very much moved by the very kind words he addressed to me. I am most grateful. Now as he himself is about to leave us, may I tell him how very much I regret not to have benefited for a longer time from his company, his vast experience and his wisdom in the Council, I sincerely hope that even after he leaves New York we shall be able to keep alive the very cordial relations we have established between ourselves in so short a time. 45. Now I come to the item under debate. My delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution submitted by Guinea, India, Somalia, the Sudan and Yugoslavia because we feel that in the present circumstances the text constitutes a logical foilow-up of resolution 316 (1972) which we ourselves co-sponsored. 47. We hope that the further efforts to be made by the President of the Council and by the Secretary-General will this time bring about a positive result. We trust that this new appeal of the Council will be heeded by Israel and that by agreeing to return these persons the Government of Israel will make an effective contribution to a lessening of tensions in the Middle East. 48. In the course of my statement on 26 June (1650th meeting] I indicated the very great interest of my Government in this more relaxed mood. Today I should simply like to say that as part of this process we should like another problem to be taken up in the near future, that is, the problem of a general exchange of prisoners of war by mutually agreed procedures. This would doubtless be the best way to contribute to this relaxed atmosphere which is a prior condition for the settlement of the Middle East situation.

I thank the representative of France for the very cordial and generous words that he was kind enough to address to me.

My delegation cosponsored and has voted for the resolution we have just adopted because we considered that the Security Council had to act again in the absence of Israel’s further refusal to implement the requirements of resolution 316 (1972) adopted on 26 June, almost one month ago. 51. The position of my Government on the subject under consideration was stated here by me three days ago [165lst meeting] and I do not think that I have to restate it today. Let me then very briefly state the immediate considerations that guided us in co-sponsoring and voting in favour of the draft resolution. 52. The text directly stems from resolution 31G (1972) as a logical follow-up in our common effort to obtain its implementation in its relatively limited and modest aim, namely, the speedy release of the abducted Syrian and Lebanese officers. It asks Israel to do it without delay as we are here dealing with an urgent matter and experience indicates that it is not good to let a bad situation fester if we can help it in any way. It does not complicate the situation by introducing any other matter, and it does not set any kind of conditions for its implementation. Besides 54. Before concluding, may I stress that this resolution represented the absolute minimum of what was required of us today and it merited the widest approval and mc& constructive approach of all members of the Council, It Is a realistic resolution. We can only have deep appreciation for those parties directly involved who in their statesmanship and co-operative approach, although faced with Israel’s intransigence, supported it. 55. Finally, may I just add that in our debate on 18 July [ibid.] I explained fully our view why the Security Counc& despite everything, has no alternative but to continue making its collective stand on the various aspects of the Middle Eastern crisis known and recorded, as it did again today.

My delegation was in a position to support the resolution which has just been adopted by the Council. Actually, Belgium has not limited itself to co-sponsoring draft resolutions, amendments and initiatives designed to bring about a settlement of the various aspects of the crisis in the Middle East. Both in the United Nations and within the context of European co-operation, Mr, Hamrel, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has constantly sought to bring about the elements of an equitable and lasting solution to this problem and to ensure a better understanding oftbc position taking by all parties concerned. It was as an apostle of peace that he went to the various capitals in tis disturbed area and it has been as an advocate of peace that he has acted in various international gatherings. 57. So it is that today Belgium in turn had expected a better understanding for the concerns it shared with the other European countries members of the Security Council. In point of fact, in recent weeks my delegation, with those of France, Italy and the United Kingdom, has fully co-operated in seeking a fair solution to the two items that we are now dealing with. 58. The resolution we have just adopted nevertheless calls forth certain serious reservations. First, there is the case of the Syrian and Lebanese military personnel abducted on 21 June 1972 by the Israeli military forces on the territory of Lebanon. As soon as news of this was out my Government declared without ambiguity that the request of the officials in Damascus and Beirut that these officers and security personnel be returned was a legitimate request to which the Israeli Government should accede immediately. It was fer that reason that my delegation became a co-sponsor of resolution 316 (1972) of 26 June 1972. We profoundly regret that until now this appeal of the Security Council was not heeded. It is for that reason that, in casting our 60. When drafting the text of resolution 316 (1972) the European sponsors were constantly mindful of the plight of the hundreds of prisoners of war who for so many years now have been living in a foreign land, separated from their families, their friends and their homekurd. It was for that reason that I indicated in my explanation of vote on 26 June [1650th meeting] that in the opinion of the Belgian Government paragraphs 3 and 4 of the resolution required dual action, namely, the release in the shortest possible time of the Syrian and Lebanese military personnel abducted on 21 June and, secondly, the general exchange of all prisoners of war according to procedures and terms to be agreed upon. 64. In conclusion, by way of terminating this explanation, I should like to refer very briefly to the outstanding statement which was made last Tuesday by the representative of Afghanistan (1651~ meeting]. Ambassador Pazhwak, who is a genuine authority on the United Nations because of the 25 years in which he has been actively involved in the work of the Organization, was quite correct in stressing the crisis now besetting the Security Council. Its credibility has been called into question and its effectiveness has been compromised. By its adoption of resolutions which are ambiguous, unrealistic and very often ineffective, the confidence of the international community has been affected and the international community is drawing away from the Organization. But if we did finally vote in favour of the resolution it was because in reaffirming resolution 316 (1972), the Council confirmed its hope that appropriate steps would immediately lead to the release of the military and security personnel which were abducted a month ago. This text therefore clearly stipulates that far-reaching consequences should flow from this, that is, the gradual exchange of all war prisoners. It is in this spirit that we voted in favour of this resolution and we hope that, over and above the text we have adopted, this spirit will preside over the efforts to be made in future to bring about the implementation of this resolution. 6 1. I should like clearly to stress that although these two actions are separate, it is nevertheless true that the Security Council, which bears main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, has the duty to eIiminate all the causes for tension among States and to ensure that the non-implementation of international conventions does not serve to foster a climate of insecurity. 62. We find it difficult to understand how the Security Council can, five years after the six-day war and two years after the cease-fire of August 1970, ignore the situation of the military personnel of every rank and service who have fallen into the hands of the enemy. It was for that reason that, together with the other three European members of the Council, we put forward an appeal in favour of these men. In actual fact we had drawn up a preliminary draft of a resolution which requested the immediate return of the military personnel abducted on 21 June, without prejudging-and I would repeat “without prejudging”-in any way the question of a general release of war prisoners. The omission of this reference, inspired as it was by humanitarian and juridical concerns, explains the reservations Belgium has about the resolution we have just adopted.

I wish to express my gratitude to the representative of Belgium and for his expressions of friendship toward me. 66. Mr. ISSRAELYAN {Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translation from Russian): The Security Council has completed its consideration of the situation which arose in connexion with Israel’s refusal to implement resolution 316 (1972) concerning the immediate release of the Syrian and Lebanese military personnel abducted by Israeli armed forces on Lebanese territory. The discussion of this matter in the Council on 18, 20 and 21 July has shown that the actions of the aggressors and Israel’s sabotage of Council resolutions, in particular resolution 316 (1972), have been condemned decisively, categorically and without reservation by all the members of the Council who have spoken and by a number of countries which have participated in the Council’s work. 63. Furthermore, other paragraphs in the resolution appear to us not to be responsive to the present situation and to be contradictory. For example, paragraph 1, which reaffirms resolution 316 (1972) is not in accord with paragraph 3. In reaffirming the resolution of 26 June, the Council expresses its firm desire that the Syrian and Lebanese military and security personnel abducted by the Israeli forces be released in the shortest possible time. However in paragraph 3 the Council requests this return without delay. In addition we would have preferred that in the last preambular paragraph no reference be made to the untiring efforts which have been made by Governments and other bodies in the course of recent weeks. For the same 67. Israel’s manoeuvres, which were designed to divert the Security Council’s attention from the substance of the matter and artificially, wrongly and illegitimately, to link the question of the release of the Syrian and Lebanese military personnel with the general question of prisoners of war and thus to prevent the Council from taking a decision 68. At today’s meeting of the Council some members have again referred to the question of prisoners of war linking it with the need to reduce, as they put it, tension in the Middle East, although they did stress that this question has no relevance to the item we were discussing, namely, the question of the abduction by Israel of Syrian and Lebanese military personnel on Lebanese territory. 69. In this connexion the Soviet delegation would like to make the following statement. 70. The fundamental cause of tension in the Middle East is the fact that Israel, which has committed aggression against the Arab States, disregards United Nations decisions concerning a peaceful settlement, stubbornly refuses to withdraw its troops from the Arab territories occupied in 1967, pursues a policy of racial discrimination, mass terror and persecution and commits other criminal acts against the Arab peoples of the Middle East and violates the lawful rights of the Palestinian people. That is the reason for tension in the Middle East. It is our view, therefore, that the United Nations and the Security Council must demand the strict and immediate implementation by Israel of United Nations decisions, especially Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and other resolutions, including resolution 3 16 (1972) and the resolution which we have adopted today. 71. What has the discussion of Israel’s abduction of Syrian and Lebanese military personnel and Israel’s failure to implement resolution 3 16 (1967) shown? It has shown that the longer Israel continues to refuse to carry out a full withdrawal of its troops from all the occupied Arab territories and delays a political settlement in the Middle East, the more its international isolation will grow, It is time for Israel to understand that it cannot enjoy the advantages of United Nations membership and at the same time refuse to carry out its decisions and sabotage those decisions. 72. The Soviet delegation voted in favour of the resolution which the Security Council has just adopted, although we consider that the condemnation of Israel for its failure to implement resolution 3 16 (1972) should have been couched in stronger and more decisive terms. The purport of the resolution adopted by the Council is to reaffirm. resolution 3 16 (1972) and to demand from Israel the unconditional return of the abducted Syrian and Lebanese military personnel. This is the mandate which the Security Council entrusts to its President and to the Secretary General in their efforts to ensure the implementation of Council decisions in this matter. 74. Ambassador Tomeh’s outstanding talents have been displayed in many United Nations debates. He 1s well known as a fine debater, a man of considerable learning and an experienced diplomat. His statements on questions relating to decolonization, both in the General Assembly and in the Committee on decolonization,z and his excellent statements on questions relating to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East will remain a superb example of a high-principled and consistent struggle for the fulfilment of the lofty purposes and principles of the United Nations. 75. Mr. President, in your kind remarks to Ambassadar Tomeh you said that he had won the admiration of many, including even those who did not share his point of view. I am pleased to state that we in the Soviet delegation are among those whose admiration Ambassador Tomeh has won and who have shared his point of view.

Wilh the permission of the Council, I shall now make a statelnent as representative of ARGENTINA in the exercise of my right to explain my vote. 77. Despite the complexity inherent in every aspect of the situation in the Middle East, the delegation of Argentina does not deem it necessary to refer in detail to the case we are examining, since this was the subject of extensive consideration by it in the course of the debate during June 1972. Accordingly, my remarks will be brief and to the point. 78. On 26 June 1972 the Security Council adopted resolution 316 (1972); votes in favour were cast by Argentina and 12 more Member States. In paragraph 3 of that resolution, as has been recalled repeatedly here, the Council “Expresses the strong desire that appropriate steps will lead, as an immediate consequence, to the release in the shortest possible time of all Syrian and Lebanese military and security personnel abducted by Israeli armed forces on 21 June 1972 on Lebanese territory”. 79. This clear and unequivocal desire of the Council has now been ratified by the resolution we have just adopted. My delegation trusts that the Government of Israel will proceed to release without delay all the Syrian and Lebanese personnel abducted in an operation which merited the express condemnation of the Council. The obligation stands. To submit to it will mean not only compliance with the decision of the highest executive body of the Organization but will also-as I hardly need emphasize-contribute to creating a more propitious atmwphere for solving other pending matters, which are nun&r- 2 Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the In@- mentation of the Declaration on the Granting of Indepandenca ta Colonial Countries and Peoples. 86. A very important and serious matter has been referred to here today by many delegations. We are gratified, as a matter of fact, to note that in resolution 316 (1972), in today’s resolution and in the statements made in the Council no connexion or link was established, nor any attempt made to establish a connexion or link between this act of abduction and the general question of prisoners of war. We are very grateful to the many delegations that have invoked this very important juridical argument, in keeping with the realities and with the facts. However, the raising of the question of prisoners of war in general, which is extraneous to this matter, has all along given us some difficulties and doubts, and I owe it to many delegations here and to our colleagues to state our position. 81. In my capacity as PRESIDENT I now call on the next speaker on the list, the representative of Lebanon.

There are many points that I should have liked to touch upon, but, seeing that we are approaching the noon hour, I shall try to make my statement as brief as possible. 83. There is one point that I should like to make very clear, because it has been the subject of some talk, even of some press reports-the suggestion that there was a difference of opinion between Syria and Lebanon in regard to this complaint and in regard to coming to the Council, and that Lebanon came to the Council to support the Syrian complaint. Nothing is farther from the truth than that allegation which has been spread around, for the Council knows that it has been seized of what was originally a Lebanese complaint. I am not trying to detract in any way from the complaint of my Syrian colleague but I submit that the Syrian delegation joined the Lebanese delegation to support our complaint before the Council because of the very important and basic factor that the act of abduction took place on Lebanese territory. It has been very amply demonstrated, and it has been stated here in the Council previously and during the meeting today, that the Israeli armoured unit entered Lebanese territory and captured the Syrian and Lebanese army and security personnel. All the ingredients of that criminal act of abduction took place on Lebanese territory. The breach of sovereignty was a breach of the sovereignty of Lebanon’s territory; that act was carried out in defiance of international law and of the General Armistice Agreement and took place behind the armistice demarcation lines which are still governed legally by the Israeli-Lebanese Armistice Agreement. Our complaint on 23 June [S/10715] was a complaint concerning an act of aggression by Israel against Lebanon, a part of which was the abduction of the Syrian and Lebanese officers. 87. This question of prisaners of war, until the act of aggression by Israel against Lebanon, had not been an urgent matter. Suddenly, Israel has sprung this question of the urgency of discussing the prisoners of war. Naturally, the delegation of Israel, like any delegation, has the right to come before the Security Council, the Human Rights Commission, or any other organ of the United Nations, and raise this question. But why has this question been raised and sprung in the face of the Council all of a sudden by Israel in connexion with the Lebanese complaint following an act of aggression by Israel against Lebanon-following a criminal act of abduction which, as I stated before, was similar to any other act of abduction, whether it be of an Italian executive officer in South America or any other diplomat in South America, but with one great difference: this abduction was committed by a State Member of the United Nations, under instructions from that Government, against another State Member of the United Nations. 88. During our consultations it was requested that mention be made, even without prejudice, in the draft resolution, which has now been adopted, to the general question of prisoners of war. Well, we had our misgivings; we did not see any juridical link whatsoever, and we felt that because Israel had taken advantage of our complaint and had come before the Council to raise as a matter of urgency this question which had never existed before, it was attempting to extort a ransom from the Council-from us, in this case-in this particular matter; we felt that any inclusion of this element in the resolution would be tantamount to acquiescing in the Israeli attempt. That is why in the Council we have rejected all Israeli allegations and were not in a position to accommodate some of our friends who were trying to be very helpful. 84. In this connexion, I should like to state that in my first statement before the Council on this matter, at its 1648th meeting on 23 June, I mentioned that in addition to abducting the five Syrian officers and the one Lebanese officer Israeli forces had surrounded a Lebanese gendap merie post in the vicinity of the village of Ramiah and had captured three gendarmes as well. In my statement at the 1651st meeting of the Council on 18 July I failed to mention this particular aspect of the abduction while recalling the details of the incident, and therefore I wish to mention it at the present time in order to set the record straight on this matter. 89. In that connexion, we agree with the general principles expressed in the Council today about humanitarian ques tions and matters of principle regarding prisoners of war. Naturally we agree that there are concerns; we understand that there are concerns in some quarters about prisoners of war. But I think the Council should also understand our 85. This particular aspect of the incident, as a matter of fact, reveals the intent of Israel. It was not, as the Israelis 91, Before concluding, I should like to join my dear brother and friend Ambassador Tomeh in expressing our deep thanks to Ambassador Farah of Somalia who so ably, as usual, introduced the resolution on behalf of his delegation and those of Guinea, India, the Sudan and Yugoslavia. At the same time, I should also like to express my delegation’s and my own personal gratitude to Ambassador de Guiringaud, who, as Mr. Tomeh said, plunged immediately into the complex and difficult work of the Council as soon as he arrived in New York. We did not, certainly, mean to make his arrival so difficult, but it was an opportunity for us to benefit from his co-operation, his wisdom and his friendship. These are characteristics of the traditional friendly relations existing between France and Lebanon, as also between France and Syria. Naturally, we are very grateful to him and to the Belgian, Italian and British delegations for having practically and spiritually sponsored resolution 316 (1972) which is the basis upon which the Council has acted today. 92. In this way, from different quarters of the Council and with the support the two resolutions have received from other deIegations, for which we are grateful, we feel that the Council has very strongly expressed its decision to have the abductees, the Syrian and Lebanese officers and security personnel, released according to the terms of the two resolutions immediately, without delay, without conditions and without any linking of this particular problem to any other aspect of the question of prisoners of war. 93. In conclusion, Mr. President, I should like to express to you my delegation’s thanks for the efforts you have deployed. We thank also the Secretary-General for the efforts he has deployed. We know you will be called upon once more to renew those efforts in accordance with the last paragraph of the resolution. We have great trust in the wisdom and ability of both you, Sir, and the Secretary- General, and we hope that the various calls upon Israel made here today by the various delegations will be heeded and that the abductees will be released as soon as possible. 94. Once more, to all the members of the Council, to all the delegations which supported the resolution, I wish on behalf of my Government and delegation to express our deepest gratitude.

I thank the representative of Lebanon for his kind words. 97. This is likely to be the last meeting my distmgui colleague and friend Ambassador Tomeh will be attendas representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. I should I to say that in the seven years I have know him ir. hs certainly been an inspiration to work with him. Hlje experience of knowing him over this long period and working closely with him has enriched me consider&@. 1 have always had the highest regard for his integrity md ability and for the judicious manner in which he has ap himself to all the problems with which he has confronted. I know that at his next post he will cerl discharge himself with the same credit as he has in & Council. I hope he will encounter much happiness in hb new post.

I WI sincerely grateful to the representative of Somalia for b% very warm words addressed to me. I can assure him thaz I feel exactly the same towards him.

Just a few WC& to say how very deeply I am moved and touched by ti most kind and extremely generous words personally de dressed to me by you, Sir, with your exemplary courtesy. by the representative of France, by the representative cf the Soviet Union in his comprehensive statement and, fan but not least, by my very dear brother and colleagw Ambassador Farah of Somalia, with whom I have wotw very closely for the last seven years of my career. 100. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spuuidd: Paragraph 4 of the resolution we have just adopted ‘Requests the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General to make renewed efforts to secure tti implementation of the present resolution”, Of course, I cannot speak on behalf of the SCC~NHY- General, but even in his absence I believe I can vali& affirm that both he and the President of the Council make the efforts requested by the Council so as to 5ecllr~ implementation of this resolution. The task is not an 0~ one, but that does not mean that our efforts will ~l”er because of the magnitude of the task awaiting us+ 101. That brings to an end the consideration of the a@nb item. i%e meeting rose at 12.50 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences d4positaires du monde entier. Informez-vous aupres de votre libraire ou adressez-vous a : Nations Unies, Sectian des ventes, New York ou Geneve. ICAEC IIOJIYUHTb H3~AHH.H OPl?AHEi 3A4MIl OBT.E.I&#fHEHHbIX HAqEIH EID~~HKR Oprann3anuw O~Z~~WH~HH~IX Haunti MOxHO xynnrb B rtnn~nbrx Mara- 3mrax u arenrc~sax no acex paitonax Mupa. HanonuTe cnpaeKK 06 W3AtLHKS4X K aamm KHHXMOM hrara3mie una n~u.m~e no agpecy: Oprarru3auna 06’bennneun~rx HaueR, Ce~qan no npogaxce n3gamiR, Hbroo-Hoprc wnw xeneaa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas e&n en venta en librerfas y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirfjase a: Naciones Unidas, Seccidn de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S 1.00 (or equtvalent in other currencies) 72-82146-January 19161,925