S/PV.1750 Security Council

Members of the Council will recall that at our last meeting a draft resolution (S/11046] sponsored by Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia was introduced by the representative of Kenya. This draft resolution has been revised [S/ZI046/Rev.I/. Present: The representatives of the following States: Australia, Austria, China, France, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Yugoslavia.

When I introduced the draft resolution contained in document S/ 11046 on behalf of the delegatjons of Guinea, India, Indonesia, Panama, Peru, the Sudan arid Yugoslavia and my own delegation, I pointed out that we wanted to expose the draft to the widest consultation in order to allow wide support for and consensus on the draft to emerge. I am glad to say that during the past 12 hours members of this Council have consulted very Gdely on the draft. As a result of these Collsultatic;n!;, certain amendments have been introduced which I wish to accept on behalf of the sponsors of the draft resolution. The amendments have been included in document S/ 1 1046;Rev. 1. Provisional agenda (§/Agenda/ II 750) 1, Adoption of the agenda. 3.. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 7 October I973 frorn the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the IJrlited Nations addressed to the Resident of the Security Council (S/I 1010). 5. In operative paragraph 1 of the initial draft, which read as follows: The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 7 October 1973 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/ 110 10) “Demands that imrnedialt’ and complete cease-fire be observed and that the parties withdraw to the positions occupied by them at 1650 hours GMT on 22 October 1973” the word “withdraw” has been replaced by the word “return”. We accepted this amendment, because the word “return” describes more accurately than the word “withdraw” the moves which have to be undertaken by the parties to the conflict along the cease-fire line as required by the draft resolution.

In accordance with the decision taken at the 1743rd meeting, I propose now, with the consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of Egypt, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic to take their places at the Council table in order to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. 6. The revised text of operative paragraph 3 now reads as follows: At the invitation of the President, Mr. A. E. Abdel- Meguid (Egypt), Mr. Y. Tekoah (Israel) and Mr. M. Z. Ismail (Syrian Arab Republic) took places at the Council table. “Decides to set up immediately, under its authority, a LJnited Nations Emergency Force to be composed of personnel drawn from States Members of the United Nations except the permanent members of the Security Council, and requests the Secretary-General to report within 24 hours on the steps taken to this effect”.

In accordance with further decisions taken at previous meetings, I propose also, with the consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of Nigeria and Saudi Arabia to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. I shall ask them to take the places reserved for thetn at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding that they will be called upon to be seated at the Council table when it is their turn to address the Council. 7. The revised text of operative paragraph 5 now reads as follows: ‘%lequests all Member States to extend their full co-operation to the United Nations in the implementation of the present resolution as well as resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973)“. At the invitation of the President, Mr. E. Ogbu (Nigeria) and Mr. J. Baroody (Saudi Arabia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. I 9. I should like to appeal to those members who still have some reservations about one or two of the operative paragraphs kindly to join hands with us to give this draft resolution unanimous support in order that the objectives we want to attain in the Middle East may be achieved as soon as possible.

In his statement at the 1748th meeting of the Security Council, on 23 October, the Chairman of the Chinese delegation pointed out that, like the resolution concocted by the United States and the Soviet Union on 22 October, the so&led resolution calling for the implementation of the cease-fire decision presented jointly by the United States and the Soviet Union at the meeting of the same day was a scrap of paper that could solve no problems. The facts show that what we said was right. After the second so-called resolution on a cease-fire was adopted and became “operative”, the Israeli Zionists once again launched military attacks to seize new positions. The vivid facts before us have fully shown that the two so-called “resolutions on a cease-fire” which the two super-Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, hurriedly asked the Security Council to force through have had the actual effect of sapping the fighting will of the Arab people and shielding Israel’s further expansion of aggression. At the meeting on 23 October, Mr. Malii pretentiously said that he was instructed by his Government to issue a “solemn warning” to Israel. It is apparent now that this was an obnoxious, ugly performance. 11. Through their prolonged struggle against foreign aggression over the past century and more, the Chinese people have come to realize that a scrap of paper cannot drive away the aggressors. The two super-Powers wiI1 never and cannot possibly help us oppressed and aggressed countries and people. to achieve what they call “just and durable peace”. On the contrary, they will only take advantage of our temporary difficult position to seek their own gains and achieve their imperialist purpose of dividing spheres of influence. 12. With regard to the draft resolution before us, the Chinese delegation understands the good desire of the sponsors. However, we deem it necessary to point out that the dispatch of a United Nations emergency force will be of no avail. Instead, it will leave infinite evil consequences in its wake, turning sovereign Arab States in the Middle East into an area of irlternational control. Did not the Soviet representative say that the dispatch of Soviet troops to this area would be entirely correct, just and in accord with the Charter of the United Nations? Then he should dispatch them right now. Why not send them now? Is it not merely because it is afraid of the opposition of the other super-Power? What “United Nations emergency peacekeeping force”? TO put it bluntly, this is an attempt to 14 I should like to express high appreciation for the just attitude taken by the non-aligned States members of the Security Council at yesterday’s meeting. They disapprove of the malicious practice of surprise attack resorted to by the two super-Powers at the Security Council meetings of 22 and 23 October. That is fair.

I now call on the representative of Israel.

Israel’s policy has been, and continues to be, founded on three principles: cease-fire, negotiations, peace. At this stage it is necessary to direct all our endeavours to ensuring the observance of the cease-fire. Israel will view with favour all constructive efforts to strengthen the cease-fire. Those are the considerations that will guide my Government in examining the draft resolution before us and will determine its position regarding the provisions of the draft resolution.

The representative of Saudi Arabia has indicated that he wishes to address the Council. I now invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

The draft resolution submitted last night by eight members of the Council and ably presented by our colleague from Kenya is laudable in its intent and purpose. However, some other Council members thought that the text raised some points that needed clarification, especially in regard to the immediate setting up of a United Nations Emergency Force, as spelt out in paragraph 3 of the draft resolution. From which countries should that Emergency Force be selected? Who will pay its expenses, who will foot the bill-the United States and the Soviet Union? I say that in view of the fact that the emergency force may have to be there for many, many years. 19. Furthermore, I would be failing in my duty if I did not bring to the attention of the CounciI the following points. First, the war has taken place on Egyptian soil. In consequence, the United Nations Emergency Force would function on Egyptian territory. Second, to judge by the negotiations on wars in Indo-China and elsewhere, negotiations might last many years without conclusive results; thereby Egypt’s sovereignty over its own territories would 23, I have one last word. What happened to the Russian- American detente? We were told that this dgtente was for the welfare of humanity, so that there might be peace in the world, lest through misunderstanding there should be a confrontation between those two Powers which could spell the end of the world. 24. The hour is not late, and the Sixth Fleet, whether it is in the Mediterranean or elsewhere-I do not know whether the Seventh Fleet is in the Pacific; I am not a military man-will not intimidate us. What about your Monroe Doctrine? That was laudable. “You Europeans keep away from the Atlantic. We left the shores of Europe, we Americans to be free from the entanglements of Europe”. As we say in Arabic, “Praise be to God who is eternal and never changes”. But the fickleness of human beings and the acquisition of power makes individuals as well as nations drunk. Which reminds me of the ancient Greek proverb: “Those whom the gods destroy, they first make strong”; and there is another version-“they first make mad”. And too much strength and madness are synonymous. 20. The present draft resolution refers in its preamble to Security Council resolution 242 (1967) a resolution which proved from the beginning to be abortive. It is not in the interests of Israel to relinquish territories. On the contrary, Israel needs additional land in order to carry out its expansionist policies. Of course, one might say that the primary purpose of the draft resolution of which the Council is seized is to ensure the stopping of the fighting. What if negotiations were protracted for 10 or 20 years? Israel would then succeed in annexing territories, in line with what it did in the war of 1948, when it extended its deficto frontiers beyond the partition lines of 1947. That is why I believe the sponsors of today’s draft resolution should have taken into account the fact that some provision should be made not to create a situation which would put in jeopardy Egypt’s sovereignty over the occupied territories. I believe that our colleague horn China was right when he said that in effect the draft resolution, if adopted, would be “a scrap of paper”. I repeat that some provision should have been made in the draft resolution so that a situation would not be created which would put in jeopardy Egypt’s sovereignty over the occupied territories. 25. You all rose against Mussolini when he said “mare nostrum”-our sea-about the Mediterranean, and rightly so. But in fairness to Mussolini, he did not mention the Atlantic. 26. And now you, the American Government, want to do the same thing as Mussolini: the Mediterranean is “our sea”. This reminds me of the British when they had their empire. Gibraltar was necessary for the route to India, and Malta was necessary to ensure the communications with India. Suez also was necessary for them, they said, and they drew a circle around the world. That was necessary for protecting their interests. 21. This morning the news media referred to what may be considered as sabre-rattling by the super-Powers, and more so by the United States Government. Whether or not it is true that the Soviet Union might dispatch some troops to the Middle East to see to it that the United Nations cease-fire resolutions would be respected, the powerful United States of America, or rather its Government-or was it President Nixon, I do not know; maybe my good friend Ambassador Scali would clarify the situation for us-saw fit to ask the Pentagon to alert the armed forces for any emergency that might occur. If all this disturbing news is true-and I hope that it is not-1 must declare that we will not be intimidated. We would rather perish than be subjugated to a policy that might is right. We will not be intimidated by a show of force, by super or lesser Powers. And should miscalculation push the super-Powers to the brink of war, we are confident that the American people will rise against any misadventure that may end up in the annihilation of the human species on this planet. 27. But you, the United States, who is threatening your interests? Are the Arabs threatening your interests? IS that sea, the Mediterranean sea, a mare nostrum? You choose to be silent. We are talking for the world, not for American people only. You give us answers. When Europe has, we hope, disentangled itself from future wars, and is setting up a Common Market, you come and say-and you not only say it but act as if were true-the Mediterranean is your own swimming pool. 28. Beware, American people, you are a great people. Do not be misled. Why do you not tell the Arab people that they are misguided? We can tell you that if we are, we will change, perhaps taking into account your advice. But people who hail from any country, small or big, they have a tongue, they have two eyes, they have two ears. You are not the chosen people of the world-leave aside the chosen people of God, who are sitting here on my left: you are human, like us. You extol the freedom of speech, and I am giving you a dose of that freedom of speech. 22. I do not know much about the Soviet people because I never went to Russia in order to assess how they feel about such miscalculations. I said that I am confident about the American people because I have spent over three decades in this country. The American people have been fooled time and again about Israel and how necessary it is for the well-being of the United States. We have warned the United States, time and again, and indeed I have been doing SO 29. Answer me, my dear friend Mr. Scali. That Ambassador sitting behind you said in the corridors how sorry he 3 # 30. Do not be up to your old tricks again, interrupting me, for heaven’s sake.

Freedom of speech. I was speaking to my colleagues.

No, you were speaking to me.

No, to my colleagues. Unless you want direct negotiations with Israel.

I do not want to negotiate until you haul down the flag of Israel. Mr. President, why do you not appeal to this gentleman not to interrupt me? He wants to drag me into an altercation with him. I feel sorry for him because it seems that all the nicotine in his pipe is not enough to quiet his nerves. I am sorry in a way that I was impolite and told him to “shut up”. I do not like to say “shut up” to anybody, including him. After all, I stand on his human rights. But I was about to finish. Whenever I am about to finish he creates an incident. People laugh. I will be the first to defend the Jews as such-not the Zionists-if they continue to live as Jews and not as Zionists in the land of Palestine. 35. My last word is this, The Security Council seems to be neglecting the Palestinian people-with the exception of Ambassador Huang, who always refers to them. From the beginning they have been the core of the question. But nobody talks of them any more. We all talk about occupied territories, but remember that the core-1 repeat, the core-of the problem is the Palestinian people. They have fermented the Arab world and to a large extent the Muslim world, which extends from the Atlantic to the confines of China, from the so-called northern tier of Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan down to Pakistan and down to Africa-leaving aside those African countries that have many Muslims in their own lands. If you want to arouse the Muslim world, that is your privilege, my good friend Mr. Scali. We are not finished yet. “Allah Akbar”: God is great. Men are guests in this world. Today they are here and tomorrow the earth inherits them. They go down into the ditch and only God eternal will in his wisdom judge the evildoers.

The United States supports the eight-Power draft resolution submitted to this Council last night, as revised as a result of our consultations this morning. 37. We have from the first advocated an immediate cease-fire at the positions occupied when resolution 338 (1973) came into effect at 1650 GMT on 22 October. We agree on the need to increase the number of observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization immediately. We approve of the establishment of a new United Nations Emergency Force to be composed of 38. We believe that the draft resolution now before us will, if faithfully implemented by all concerned, result in the prompt and effective establishment of a true cease-fire in the Middle East. Nothing could be more important as a step towards peace. We urge that the Security Council adopt this draft resolution as a matter of highest priority.

The delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has carefully studied the draft resolution submitted to the Security Council by eight sponsors representing the non-permanent members of the Council, namely, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia. On the whole, this draft resolution is aimed in the right direction. It includes condemnation of the aggressor who has perfidiously violated the two previous decisions of the Council concerning the cessation of firing and of all military action, and the return of the forces of the two sides to the cease-fire line existing at the moment when resolution 338 (1973) became effective. 40. The discussion of this item has shown that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Council categorically condemns the aggressor, namely, Israel, for its failure to carry out these resolutions. 41. In its statement yesterday the Soviet delegation called for stronger and more decisive measures to curb the aggressor, even including the application of sanctions in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter as well as an appeal by the Council to all States Members of the United Nations to break off diplomatic relations and all other ties with Israel as an aggressor which has systematically violated United Nations decisions and is continuing its policy of international brigandage in the Middle East. We note with satisfaction that many African countries are already following this course and arc breaking off diplomatic relations with Israel as a protest against its policy of aggression. The delegation of the USSR also stated that Egypt’s request, put forward by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, at yesterday’s meeting of the Council, to the effect that the Soviet Union and the United States should send their armed forces to ensure compliance with the cease-fire was reasonable and justified and that the Soviet side took a positive view of it. At the same time the Soviet delegation takes account of the important considera. tion that the draft resolution at present before the Council was introduced by a majority of the members of the Council-the eight representatives of non-aligned COW tries-and that the draft is aimed in the right direction. It contains an unambiguous, even though somewhat oblique, condemnation of the aggressor for its failure to CO@~ with the Security Council resolution. The draft also provides for the adoption of effective measures to enstm that the Council’s decision concerning a cease-fire is carried out, i.e., by increasing the number of United Nations 42. We have also studied the revised version of this draft resolution which contains a provision to the effect that the United Nations Force in the Middle East should not include contingents provided by the permanent members of the Security Council. Our position on this question is well known. However, taking account of all the circumstances and the position and request both of the delegations of the eight non-aligned countries which are non-permanent members of the Council and of the delegation of Egypt, the Soviet delegation has decided, by way of an exception in this particular instance, not to object to the provision in the draft resolution to which I have referred. With these reservations, the delegation of the USSR will vote in favour of the revised draft resolution. 47. The eight-Power draft resolution takes the same approach. The provision of this draft resolution to the effect that the United Nations Emergency Force is to be set up under the authority of the Security Council means that the Security Council itself will take all decisions concerning the establishment of the Force and the carrying out of the peace-keeping tasks entrusted to it. 43. It goes without saying that if the aggressor continues t0 violate the decisions of the Council, the Council will then have no alternative but to resort to the more effective means provided for in the Charter, i.e., the application of sanctions in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. 48. In conclusion, a few remarks about the latest anti- Soviet statement by the representative of China. 49. I have already drawn the attention of the Chinese representatives to the fact that anti-Soviet nonsense and frantic anti-Sovietism cannot really help the Arab people and the peoples of Egypt and Syria. I pointed out that if China had sent missiles, rifles, tanks, guns and other kinds of weapons to Egypt and Syria in the same quantities as the Chinese representatives pour out anti-Sovietism in the United Nations, then the Arabs would feel more confident, and China’s assistance would be more real. I think that in time the Chinese representatives will understand this simple, elementary truth, which is understood by all Members of the United Nations. 4-4. As to the question of observers, the Soviet delegation would like to reaffirm the statement it made yesterday that, in forming the United Nations observer force in the Middle East, the principle of equitable geographical representation should be strictly observed. It is essential to put an end to the anomalous situation in which, as has already been pointed out, the entire staff of the United Nations permanent observer force in the Middle East, numbering more than 200 members, consists, with the exception of a few from two Latin American countries, entirely of representatives of Western countries, that is to say, representatives of only one political and geographical group of States Members of the United Nations. I think that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Council and of 0ur distinguished colleagues here present-the permanent representatives to the United Nations of the countries that are Members of the United Nations-will agree with this view of the Soviet delegation. In supplementing the observer force it is essential to include representatives of the socialist countries and representatives of non-aligned States. 50. We have again listened to a statement by the representative of China concerning his intention not to take part in the vote on the draft resolution submitted by the eight non-aligned countries. What does this mean? It is a challenge to the non-aligned countries, since their position is diametrically opposed to the position of China on this question. And the amiable words which the Chinese representative addressed to the sponsors of the draft resolution do not alter the situation. It was a hypocritical statement, China did not take part in the voting when the Council was adopting the resolutions submitted by two Powers, two permanent members of the Council-the Soviet Union and the United States, On that occasion its pretext was that the resolution was being imposed by the two “super-Powers”. That is the usual form of demagogic slander to which the Chinese representatives resort in the United Nations. But it is already old hat, and representatives do not wish to hear it. 45. In view of the fact that the present United Nations observers in the Middle East all come from countries comprising only one geographical group within the United Nations-the countries of Western Europe and such other States as Australia and New Zealand-the need arises, for the purposes of maintaining a proper balance and complying with the principle of equitable geographical distribution, to provide additional observers from among the group of socialist countries and the group of non-aligned States. 51. The present draft resolution was introduced not by two permanent members of the Council, not by the “super-Powers”, as China and certain other countries call 46. It is self-evident that a sim:bar approach should be adopted in establishing the Unned Nations Emergency Force. Due and serious attention must also be given not only to the question of the composition of the Force but 52. Nor did China take part in the vote on the two resolutions submitted by the United States and the Soviet Union which were adopted by the Council on 22 and 23 October. China is taking the same position now when the eight non-aligned countries that are non-permanent members of the Council have introduced their draft resolution. Thus, it is not a question of who introduces resolutions; it is a much more serious and deep-seated matter than that. China does not support proposals aimed at strengthening peace in the Middle East. Such proposals are not in accord with China’s goals and aspirations. That is the essence of the matter, and the Soviet delegation’s analysis of China’s position on this important international question at the previous meeting of the Council has been fully borne out today. 53. Consequently, let me repeat that no anti-Soviet nonsense or frantic anti-Sovietism on the part of the Chinese representatives can conceal China’s true purposes and intentions, and it is high time the Chinese representatives understood this. 54. Mrs. Jeanne Martin CISSE (Guinea) (interpretation from French): The most recent developments in the conflict in the Middle East have given rise to two Security Council resolutions 48 hours apart, adopted successively on 22 and 23 October as resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973). The adoption of those two resolutions by the Security Council reflected the very firm determination of its members to reach the final soIution of a war which has lasted too long and which has cost many innocent human lives. 55. It remained obvious, however, that the haste, or rather precipitateness, with which those two resolutions were adopted would entitle people to entertain some doubts about their effectiveness. And we must say this for no one was unaware of the fact that the resolutions submitted jointly to the Council by the two States which we have come to call the two super-Powers-the United States and the Soviet Union-contained a few gaps: their shape was not clearly defined and the lines of demarcation on the terrain of operations were not very clear, The absence of any control organization for the cease-fire in the area of hostilities certainly encouraged confusion; but, from that to extending the conflict to its present limits reflects a deliberate intention on Israel’s part to set itself up with a chimerical empire. 56. We agreed to adopt those two resolutions without going into depth in our consultations which probably 58. In a concern to fiid an adequate solution to the painful problem which is before us and to succeed in stopping the bloodshed and to lead the Security Council to assume its full responsibility, my delegation, together with the non-aligned countries members of the Security Council, proposed the draft resolution in document S/l 1046/Rev.l, which was brilliantly introduced last night by our colleague the representative of Kenya. This draft resolution, which has been the subject of long but fruitful consultations, will, we are sure, receive the support of all the members of the Security Council. Its application, in particular operative paragraph 3, will give the Security Council an opportunity to attain its objectives in the Middle East and will rekindle hope for all those who have faith in the United Nations and in its most important organ, the Security Council, whose primary task is the maintenance of international peace and security. 59. My delegation hopes that, despite the reservations that paragraph 3 has evoked from certain delegations, all members of the Council-and in particular the permanent members-will take care to ensure the strict application of the draft resolution that we are about to adopt and that the fmancial implications will not prevent the Secretary General from implementing it.

In my previous statement I mentioned the apprehensions of my delegation when we voted in favour of resolution 338 (1973). We suppressed those apprehensions and preferred to think that the two super-Powers which jointly sponsored the resolution certainly must have considered and agreed on the necessary arrangements for its effective implementation, experienced as they are in matters of war and peace. Developments have, however, led my delegation to a different conclusion when resolution 338 (1973) had to be followed by resolution 339 (1973). After the adoption of resolution 339 (1973)-again, jointly sponsored by the two super-Powers-which solemnly reiterates the request to the parties to observe strictly the cease-fire on the basis of resolution 338 (1973), we thought that the cease-fire would be enforced, backed as it was by the authority of the two powerful sponsors. 61. We have been informed, however, that the reality is different: that Israel has ignored the cease-fire, that Israel-in the words of the Foreign Minister of Egypt-even started a new war after the cease-fire based on resolution 338 (1973) was supposed to have come into effect. 62. If the provision in paragraph 1 of resolution 338 (1973) cannot be enforced, then there is no realistic only of the two super-Powers. My delegation has constantly expressed the view that the effective enforcement, the effective implementation, of any resolution on the Middle East will depend very much upon the political will and co-operation of the permanent members, especially of the two super-Powers, but this does not mean that we are abdicating our responsibilities as a member of the Security Council to them. 68. I want to make it clear, however, that the specific exclusion of forces of the permanent members from the present Emergency Force is in the view of my delegation without prejudice to the composition of the peace-keeping force which will be needed to guarantee a final peace agreement in accordance with resolution 242 (1967). There is a distinction between the Emergency Force at present being set up to assist in ensuring the effectiveness of the cease-fire and the later peace-keeping force to which I have referred. As regards the latter, members of the Council will know that my Government has intimated that it would be willing to participate in such a United Nations peacekeeping force in the Middle East. That remains our position. 64. It is upon the basis of those considerations that my delegation has participated in the efforts of the non-aligned members of this Council to try to make a positive contribution to the implementation of resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973) initiated by the two super- Powers, None of us wants the fighting in the Middle East to last a second longer than necessary. Indonesia’s position with regard to the Middle East problem is known. I do not need to repeat it. But we realize that in order to stop the fighting it is essential that the contribution we make should be acceptable to others who are not exactly of the same view. That is why we agree that the wording of the draft resolution should be as realistic as possible, avoiding putting the blame on any party, though my delegation has its own views concerning where the blame should be put. My delegation is happy to be able to join the other non-aligned members of this Council in sponsoring the draft resolution. 69. I wish to add one further point about operative paragraph 3. My delegation interprets the phrase “under its authority” in this paragraph as referring to the ultimate responsibility of the Council for policy and not as assigning to it the day-to-day operational control of the Force. It would clearly be an impracticable arrangement for it to attempt to exercise operational control. 70. Today we are dealing with an emergency situation. In our understandable preoccupation with the cease-fire, the reinforcement of the truce observers and the establishment of an emergency force in the area, we must not lose sight of our prime objective; this is to open the way for the urgent pursuit of a just and lasting peace. Securing and maintaining the cease-fire is no more than the first step towards the implementation of resolution 242 (1967). It is essential that an immediate start be made with this task, and I should like to reaffirm that my delegation attaches the highest importance to the provisions of resolution 338 (1973) in which this task is defined. I welcome the request ln the present draft resolution that all Member States extend their full co-operation to the United Nations in implementing resolution 338(1973). This request my delegation fully endorses. It will be a reflection on the capacity of this Council to discharge its responsibilities if we allow the momentum towards peace to slacken. 65. With regard to the setting up of a United Nations Emergency Force, my delegation has agreed that others rather than the two super-Powers and other permanent members of the Security Council should provide units for the Force. We hope that the non-aligned countries will be able to contribute ln providing the necessary personnel. Exclusion of permanent members from participating in the force should not lead to difficulties with regard to the fmancing of the operation. The operation should not suffer from lack of funds, and we are looking especially to the super-Powers to help provide the United Nations with the necessary funds to guarantee the effective functioning of the United Nations Emergency Force. 66. As was said by my colleague Mr. OderoJowi of Kenya in his brilliant introduction of the draft resolution, the draft certainly cannot entirely satisfy everybody in all its details, but my delegation would like to express the hope that the members will consider it acceptable in its totality arld will vote unanimously in favour of it.

On behalf of my delegation I should like once again to express our grief and sorrow over the deaths and bloodshed that have been occurring since war broke out in the Middle East on 6 October last. In particular, we have deplored the loss of innocent lives. On the very night of Saturday, 6 October, we advised the President of the Security Council that we would support a statement on his part that would stress the concern of the Council at the outbreak of hostilities between Egypt, Syria and Israel.

My delegation agrees with the sponsors of the draft before US as regards the immediate priorities. First, it is essential that the cease-fire should be scrupulo~~~~ly observed. Secondly, there is a clear need for additional United Nations observers in whatever numbers the Secretary-General and the Chief of Staff of UNTSO consider necessary. I suggested in the 73. This is no time to engage in recrimination. The world is aware of the present dangers. What it hopes for from us is action that will halt movement towards a wider conflagration. 74. At the Security Council meeting on 14 June 1973, the position of Panama on the problems of the Middle East was set out in very clear terms. On that occasion we said: “We know that in matters of war and peace it is very difficult to avoid an exacerbation of passions, while we prudently try to find acceptable solutions. The Government of Panama, guided by the fundamental principles that have always dictated our behaviour in the international field, principles such as that of the non-use of force and the refusal to accept the negative results that such use might produce, and as a good friend of the parties in conflict, is desirous that a solution be reached that will avoid future explosions of violence in the Middle East. “That is why we repeat that the Latin American draft resolution seems to us to contain the necessary ingredients and constructive suggestions which might, in our opinion, help us to interpret resolution 242 (1967) in a clear and balanced way so that a just and equitable solution can be found to the problems confronting the Middle East. [1726th meeting, paras. 40 and 41.1 “Surely sufficient time has already elapsed for us to feel deeply concerned over the fact that this objective has still eluded peaceful achievement, and Panama firmly believes that a just settlement of controversies of this nature must be achieved without resort to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.” [ibid., para. 47:] 75. I am speaking today as the representative of a peace-loving people whose only wish is to contribute to calling a halt to this bloody war which has already taken a considerable toll. We were greatly encouraged by the statement made a few months ago by the representative of Israel, Ambassador Tekoah, in favour of a cease-fire, negotiations and a peaceful agreement. We would add: a just and equitable peace agreement would mean a lasting solution to the delicate problems of the Middle East. We now have an opportunity to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East if we follow the provisions laid down by the resolutions that we have recently adopted. In particular, I refer to resolution 338 (1973), paragraph 3. 76. We cannot, however, fail to mention today’s alarming news that the United States strategic forces have been put 77. If a portion of the money devoted by the super. Powers to armaments sent to the Middle East were instesd spent on financing peace operations such as the Emergency Force that we are going to establish, the possibility of a satisfactory agreement by the parties to the dispute would increase considerably. 78. With respect to the draft resolution in documeal S/l 1046, sponsored by Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia, which was so eloquently introduced on behalf of all the sponsors by the representative of Kenya, Ambassador Odero-Jowi, there is every reason to believe that it will be adopted. If that should prove to be the case-and that appears to be the desire of the vast majority of the members of the Council now-1 wish to state on behalf of my Government that the Republic of Panama is ready to contribute actively to tile peace force for the Middle East. To that end, we are prepared to send a company, that is to say a military force of approximately 200 units, made up of officers, troops and other staff, which could be incorporated as quickly as would be desired into the United Nations Emergency Force that we are abo’ut to establish. In conformity with the principle of geographical distribution, we trust that this offer will be accepted. We were gratified to hear tlie statement made along these lines by the representative of the Soviet Union, Ambassador Malik.

Since the early hours of 22 October the Security Council has initiated a numbu of urgent steps, thus fully assuming its primary task for tilt maintenance of international peace and security. Resole tion 338 (1973), adopted in the first hour of 22 October. was an urgent call by the CouIlcil upon all parties to tllr” present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all militav activity. The resolution furthermore stipulated that sew efforts should be made towards a just and lasting ~L’xI’, referring to the implementation of Security Council rcs& tion 242 (1967) and the start of negotiations betweell the parties concerned under appropriate auspices. 80. Austria gave its full support to that resolution and welcomed the speedy manner in which it was adopted. r\s my delegation stated on 9 October, the immediate cessatil!a of hostilities was the primary concern of my Governmciil. in order to stop bloodshed and destruction and a further increase in the terrible toll of human life that the reedit fighting had already taken. Our firm support for resolutitin 338 (1973) also resides in the conviction that no time mm1 he lost in substituting fur the military confrontation 3 peaceful arid constructive confrontation; which orlly th 81. It was a matter of deep regret for my delegation that the call for a cease-fire made in resolution 338 (1973) was not heeded. We therefore again gave our support to a resolution seeking to put a definitive end to the fighting. Resolution 339 (1973) provides for the first time adequate machinery for supervising a cease-fire, and my Government has welcomed the continued use of the objective and impartial services of a group of highly qualified military observers, dedicated to the single ideal of keeping the peace.

Am I to understand that the representative of the Soviet Union wishes to supplement his earlier remarks on the draft resolution?

1 shall refer only to the question of the financial implications of the draft resolution if it is adopted by the Council, One of the speakers raised the question of the financial implications being borne by two permanent members of the Security Council. I cannot agree with such an approach to this question, which seeks, as they say, to put these two permanent members of the Council “in the same boat”. 82. The debate in the Council last night again focused on the tremendous task ahead in ensuring full respect for the cease-fire resolutions of the Council and the departure from there, immediately and concurrently, to the concerted search for peace, which is the second and equally vital command of resolution 338 (1973). 83. We shall not fail, therefore, to support the draft resolution which is now before us, the principal aim of which is the full mobilization of United Nations machinery to restore and keep the peace in the Middle East. As we welcomed the earlier initiatives in resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973) we particularly welcome the present constructive initiative which is at the heart of the present draft resolution and we would like to express our appreciation to the sponsors for the long and painstaking efforts they have made. We have no hesitation, as far as the terms of the draft resolution are concerned, in supporting the widest use of United Nations observers on both sides of the lines as may be necessary to perform their task. In this respect we have taken note of the detailed reports that the Secretary-General has already provided to the Council, which reflect the very careful and conscientious efforts made by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization over the past few days. 88. My second comment is that the cost to the United Nations of maintaining the observers and the Force should be borne by the aggressor who is to blame for the Council being obliged to take these emergency measures. g9. The PRESIDENT: May I ask the representative of Guinea if she is insistent on speaking now? I have two more names on my list of speakers. 90. Mrs. Jeanne Martin CISSE (Guinea) (interpretation from Bench): If you will allow me to speak, Sir, I shall be very brief. I would quite simply like to offer a correction to what the representative of the Soviet Union said. I never said that the responsibility lay especially with two permanent members, I still have my text here. I said the responsibility was that of all the members of the Council, and more particularly of the permanent members of the Security Council. 84. We have no hesitation in supporting the decision for the setting up immediately of a United Nations Emergency Force. The history of United Nations crisis management shows that past United Nations emergency forces have rendered valuable services on many occasions and have not failed to keep the peace over long periods. There is, however, a lesson to be learned from the previous experiences-that the keeping of the peace must go hand in hand with the relentless search for the basis of permanent peace, and resolution 338 (1973) points to that double objective. In this respect I do not have to stress the most positive and favourable attitude my Government has always taken in the past in regard to United Nations peace-keeping operations and peace-keeping forces and the willingness my country has never failed to express to make such contributions as appear necessary. 91. Mr, MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translation ji-om Russian]: I should like to make it clear that I was not referring to the statement by Mrs. Cisse.

Now that the representative of the Soviet Union has made it clear that it was not Mrs. Cisse that he had in mind I feel it is perhaps necessary to clarify my remark. I said, that my delegation was “looking especially to the super-Powers to hip prbvide the United Nations with the necessary funds to guarantee the effective functioning of the United Nations Emergency Force.” It is certainly not my intention to ask the two super-Powers to foot the bill for the emergency force.

The draft resolution that we are about to vote upon, co-sponsored by Peru, by strengthening the measures for the application of the cease-fire, serves to fill the gaps in resohrtions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973), which we voted on hastily on 22 and 23 October. We feel that the setting up of 85. It is the sincere hope of my delegation that with the adoption of the present draft resolution the moment of peace in the Middle East will come nearer. It is our sincere hope that the abyss of mistrust which was so much at the 94. It seems to us, in line with the strict precepts of logic, that the same reasoning which has led us to, exclude contingents of the permanent members of this Council should lead us to considering, preferentially and in so far as possible, contingents of countries that are not committed to the large military political blocs. 95. In this connexion, my delegation is sure that the report of the Secretary-General will give us further evidence of his prudence and his skill. 96. Mr. DE GUIRINGAUD (France) [interpretation from French] : At the request of Egypt, the Security Council met yesterday to consider developments in the Middle East. The consultations which took place yesterday evening culminated in the submission by eight delegations of the draft resolution before us now. My delegation is ready to vote, subject to the reservations I shall now explain, in favour of the draft resolution, whose provisions are essentially in keeping with the will expressed by the Council to put an end once and for all to the fighting and to avoid any resumption of it. 97. The first prerequisite is that the cease-fire established by resolution 338 (1973) and reaffirmed in resolution 339 (1973) be scrupulously observed, and that the parties withdraw to the positions they occupied on 22 October at the time when the cease-fire became effective. 98. Secondly, the authorization given the Secretary- General to increase the number of observers of UNTSO, will enable the emergency establishment of an observer mechanism which is of unquestionable utility. 99. Finally, my delegation fully supports the idea of setting up, under the direct authority of the Security Council, a United Nations Emergency Force whose mission would be to ensure compliance with the cease-fire until such time as other arrangements may be made within the framework of a general settlement of the conflict. 100. Referring to the second amendment mentioned this morning by the representative of Kenya-that is to say, the provision which would exclude participation by the permanent members of the Security Council in the composition of the force-1 would like to say that my Government considers that failure to involve the responsibility of permanent members may weaken the impact of the Council’s decisions. 101. As we see it, the dispatch of an emergency force is not only military in significance; it represents a formal commitment on the part of the permanent members and thus an effective guarantee of the cease-fire. That is why, when it comes to dispatching a force responsible not only for ensuring compliance with the cease-fire but also for 102. For those reasons, my delegation requests a separate vote on the part of paragraph 3 of the revised draft resolution which deals with the composition of the forceto be quite specific, the words “except the permanent members of the Security Counci”. We would have pre. ferred not to see these words in the text. 103. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that this request is motivated by reasons of principle only, which are of great importance in our eyes, and that it in no way seeks to hamper or delay the decision to establish the Emergency Force. I do not think that it is for the Council to decide today on the conditions in which this Emergency Force will be established and set up. It is for the Secretary-General to make proposals to us on these various points in the report he is to submit tomorrow to the Council. I have no doubt that the Secretary-General’s proposals will be the subject of unanimous agreement. 104. In conclusion, my delegation would like to express the hope that the provisions that this Council is about to adopt will be such as to bring about a final end to the fighting and to facilitate the initiation in the near future of over-all negotiations on the basis of the provisions of resolution 242 (1967). The implementation of that resolution and all of its provisions offers the best guarantee against any further exacerbation of the conflict 51 the Middle East which, as we now see clearly, constitutes a serious threat to the peace and security of us all.

1 call on the representative of Saudi Arabia.

In order that I may be able to report to my Government on something which still seems to be undecided, I should like to ask a question, in view of what happened at the nineteenth session of the General Assembly-and I do not have to go into details. To be precise my question is this. Are all the Powers willing to contribute to the financing of the United Nations emergency force? If all are not willing, we may have a situation similar to that which obtained at the nineteenth session. Could the Secretary-General give us an idea of what the initial expenses would be-the initial expenses, I am not talking about the year-in year-out expenses-perhaps for a year, because I have to tell my Government. Maybe my Government would take the same attitude as that assumed by Mr. Malik, our friend from the Soviet Union. 107. He said that the aggressor should bear the brunt. And you know whom he means by the aggressor-not me of course. So this is a very important question which should not be taken lightly, in view of what happened during the nineteenth session. I had to intervene when our erstwhile colleague Mr, Budo-who died, may God rest his soul in In favour: Australia, Austria, France, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia. Against: None. 108. I should like to know what the situation is. You are rushing into something that you might regret. Will the Secretary-General give us an idea of how much this Force The draft resolution was adopted by 14 votes to none.2 One member (China) did not participate in the voting. will cost the United Nations? Have they consulted with the Fifth Committee? Those are pertinent questions. I am talking as an old-timer. We do not want to have an impasse like the one we had during the nineteenth session,

I now call on the Secretary- General, who wishes to make a statement.

I have noted the request contained in the resolution which has just been adopted that I should report within 24 hours on the steps to be taken to set up immediately the United Nations Emergency Force under the authority of the Security Council. I wish to assure the Council that I shall do my utmost to respond to that request within the time limit set by the Council. I hope that my report may form the basis for the agreement of this Council on the establishment, task and conduct of the United Nations Emergency Force.

I call on the Secretary-General. 1 IO. The SECRETARY-GENERAL: In reply to the question of the representative of Saudi Arabia, I just want to say that in my report to the Council tomorrow I intend to give a first, approximate estimate of the expenses involved.

May I ask the representative of Kenya whether he is prepared to accept, on behalf of the sponsors of the revised draft resolution, the request made by the representative of France for a separate vote on the words “except the permanent members of the Security Council”? 117. With reference to paragraph 2 of the resolution, the Council will find in paragraph 8 of document S/7930/ Add.2219, the measures which have been taken so far to increase the number of United Nations military observers on both sides. I shall be reporting to the Council further on this matter.

I have no objection, and I am sure that the sponsors of the draft resolution have no objection, to complying with the request of the representative of France. 118. I have already circulated to the Council an exchange of letters with the representative of Israel concerning the observation of the cease-fire in the Syrian sector [see S/11047]. From this correspondence it will be seen that both parties have now agreed to the adjustment of the observation machinery in the Syrian sector to the present situation. I have instructed General Siilasvuo to proceed immediately to implement the agreed plan.

The Council will now proceed to the vote on the draft resolution proposed by eight members and contained in document S/11046/Rev.l. In accordance with the request of the representative of France, which has been acceded to by the sponsors, there will first be a separate vote on the words “except the permanent mem bers of the Security Council” in operative paragraph 3.

A number of representatives wish to speak-some to explain their votes after the voting, others to make statements, and still others to exercise their right of reply. If there is no objection, I propose to suspend this meeting until 4 o’clock. A vote was taken by show of hands. in favour: Australia, Austria, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Union of Soviet Sociahst Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IreIand, United States of America, Yugoslavia. The meeting was suspended at 3.15 p.m. and resumed at 5.05 p.m.

I call on the representative of Egypt. Against: None. Abstaining: France.

The Security Council has just adopted a resolution which in our delegation’s opinion is of major importance. We believe that, in so doing the Council is beginning to face me member (China) did not participate in the voting. me words “‘except the permanent members of the Security Council” were adopted by 13 votes to none, with I abstention. 2 See resolution 340 (1973). 122. At this stage I should like to state on behalf of the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt that we accept this resolution in the hope that it will be able to make an effective contribution to bringing into force the decisions already. taken by the Security Council. 1 should also like to inform you of the decision taken by Egypt, in the context of its territorial sovereignty, to grant the Emergency Force set up in this resolution all the assistance and co-operation necessary in order to enable it to discharge the tasks flowing from its responsibility to put into effect the two resolutions previously adopted by the Council. 123. I would recall that resolution 338 (1973) states that the Council: /l%e speaker read out the text of the resolution.] 124. But following Israel’s violation of the cease-fire, the Security Council adopted resolution 339 (1973) in which it “confirms its decision on an immediate cessation of all kinds of firing and of all military action, and urges that the forces of the two sides be returned to the positions they occupied at the moment the cease-fire became effective”. 125. This, in our opinion, is the first task which should devolve upon the United Nations Emergency Force-since the Israeli forces went beyond the cease-fire lines when the cease-fire began, under resolution 338 (1973)-in pursuance of the resolution that has just been adopted by the Council, which requires that an immediate and complete cease-fire be observed and that the parties return to the positions occupied by them at 1650 hours GMT on 22 October 1973. 126. In giving its consent to the entry and operation of the United Nations Forces, Egypt is acting within the framework of the purposes and principles of the Charter and of its various provisions. Our consent is given taking into account the statement made by the representative of Kenya, Ambassador Odero-Jowi, in the Council meeting of 24 October when he introduced this draft resolution on behalf of the sponsors. We are convinced that the Security Council, by the resolution that it has just adopted, has embarked on a course designed to put an end to the aggression committed by the Israeli armed forces since 5 June 1967 against Egypt and the Arab countries, which still consider themselves bound by all of the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council.

I give the floor to the representative of Yugoslavia, who wishes to speak in explanation of vote.

Having been, as the representative of Yugoslavia, one of the eight sponsors of the non-aligned resolution just adopted in the Council, I shall now state very briefly our views on some major aspects of the text submitted by the non-aligned countries, members of the Council, on some of its basic elements, and on the Council’s adopting it so promptly. 130. The text of the resolution introduced so ably and with such dedication by the representative of Kenya and seconded by the representative of Guinea, reflected both the requirements of the situation and the feelings of the sponsors, that mere repetition of the provisions of resolu. tion 339 (1973) was no longer sufficient. We stated also yesterday what we thought the appropriate auspices should be-namely, that the framework and responsibility of the United Nations, of this Council, must be involved. 131. It is for those reasons that, after demanding the immediate and complete observance of the cease-fire in place as it existed at 1650 hours GMT on 22 October 1973, the non-aligned resolution requested the Secretary-General to increase the number of United Nations Military Observers on both sides, decided to set up immediately a United Nations Emergency Force, requested the Secretary General to keep the Council urgently informed at ali times on the implementation of this resolution and resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973), and requested all Member States to co-operate with him in their implementation. Obviously, the setting up of a United Nations Emergency Force is a major step, and one that brings back the United Nations to a more active and direct role in one of its primary tasks, peace keeping and peace making. In addition to everything else, that is in conformity with the views of the non-aligned countries expressed most recently at their Algiers summit on reinforcing the role of the United Nations in strengthening international peace and security. 132. The resolution that has been adopted at the same time introduces a political and physical United Nations collective presence which will serve as an jnstrument preventing possible major complications and confrontations. In proposing their resolution, which was adopted unanimously by the Council, the non-aligned members did not indulge in any propaganda game. They wanted as effective an action by the United Nations as possible in the gravest of situations. That is why, despite their well-known and well-founded feelings over Israel’s aggression and their strong support for the right of Arab peoples to fight for the liberation of their occupied territories they couched their draft in very restrained language in order not to add any difficulties or any obstacles to its timely, prompt adoption, because that was our very first and most important consideration. 133. We are gratified at the positive response of the Council-of all the members of the Council who voted for our resolution and all of those who have made it possible for the Council to take this important step. It is now for US all, with the invaluable assistance of the Secretary-General and his able and dedicated associates and staff, to make the 142. The second part is the financial issue. My delegation would be very happy if assurances could be given that there will be no financial complications or controversy. 143. Finally, we agree with the United States delegation that we should all consider the resolution just adopted as a matter of highest priority, and we trust that the United States of America wiI1 spare no effort in removing impediments to the realization of the aims and intentions of the resolution. We need not remind the United States delegation and the Council that Israel has placed and continues to place such impediments in the way of peace. At the same time, we know that those who help it in its vicious endeavours can also control its vicious ambitions.

I give the floor to the representative of the Sudan in explanation of vote.

I shall be very brief in explaining the vote of the delegation of the Sudan on the resolution which was just adopted by the Council. 136. f entirely agree with the explanation given by the representatives of Kenya and Guinea of the eight-Power draft, of which my country is a sponsor. I agree also with them that this is a mild resolution, in the sense that it does

Little doubt exists inside or outside the Council of what has happened in the last three days since we adopted resolution 338 (1973): Israel has occupied still more Egyptian territory, ominous and frightful war clouds have gathered in many continents and no effective measures have been taken to implement what we understood to have been an understanding between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. In these circumstances, the Council met to discuss, on Egypt’s initiative, measures it could take to restore peace in the area and simultaneously to begin negotiations in terms of resolutions for which we voted and which were adopted during the last three days. In attempting to achieve those objectives, we also wish to ensure that no party, taking advantage of the cease-fire simply declared or actually carried out, should increase its territorial gains, its negotiating position or its publicity campaign, either in what are described as “enlightened media of information” or in any other way. not name names, especially with reference to the words “repeated violations”. We all know that they have all been committed by Israel, which has taken advantage of the cease-fire called for by this Council and committed more than one aggression since the adoption of the cease-fire resolution. 137. We voted for the resolution just adopted because, first, we think it is an attempt to reach an effective cease-fire on both sides and it calls for the return of Israeli forces to the positions occupied by them at 1650 hours GMT on 22 October; secondly, it authorizes the Secretary- General to provide an adequate number of observers; and, thirdly, it calls for the establishment of an emergency force. 138. Those are what one might call primary objectives, as they were described by the British delegation. But we think that there are certain elements which ought to be satisfied in this process. One of those elements is the complete and total withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories they have occupied since the first aggression in June 1967, and also the rights of the Palestinian people should be restored. 145. We the non-aligned countries members of the Security Council could easily assess the degree of blame of those who went against the Council resolutions, but our supreme consideration was that at this particular moment we should concentrate on measures that would bring about less tension, which has dangerously been generated. Our resolution, presented in most moderate language, seeks first and foremost to serve this immediate aim without in any way detracting from the essential need to find a just, peaceful and durable solution with utmost speed. We are glad, therefore, that the draft resolution submitted by the eight Powers and so convincingly introduced by my friend and colleague the Ambassador of Kenya was unanimously adopted. 139. Finally, we agreed to this resolution because it seeks to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and to save a situation which has already become dangerous not only for the Middle East but for the entire world. The objective of this resolution is to remove the impediments which Israel has created and continues to create in spite of all the efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace. 140. In all the aforementioned processes, the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Counciland more particularly of two of them, the United States of America and the USSR, which initiated those processescannot be overemphasized. 146. My deIegation would like to make two comments on the operative part of this resolution. It is our understand. ing-although it hardly requires repeated emphasis-that the United Nations military observers and the United Nations Emergency Force will be operating on the sovereign territories of Egypt and Syria and that nothing the Council may do will detract, except with their consent, from the exercise of that sovereignty. We are glad that, by implication and now by explicit statement of the delegation of Egypt, such consent is forthcoming. 141. I should like now to comment on the composition of the United Nations forces--whether they be observers, the United Nations Emergency Force or other types of forces which might be placed in the region. We think that they should be selected-as suggested by the USSR and supported by others-on an equitable geographical basis. At the 148. My second comment relates to the financing and other practical arrangements for the United Nations observers and the forces. We are confident that money will be forthcoming. Those who initiated the move in the Council to bring about a cease-fire in the present conflict, in conditions and circumstances we discussed a few days ago, have some special responsibility in this respect, and in several other respects as well, regarding the Middle East problem. 149. In the last paragraph of the resolution, which calls on all States to co-operate with the United Nations in this urgent and delicate task, the sponsors had this aspect of financial assistance of our decision very much in mind. 150. We are also hopeful that the Secretary-General will give us concrete and practical proposals for the implementation of the Council’s decision. We regret that we have given him only 24 hours to make his recommendations, but we are confident that, with his usual sensitivity and promptitude, he will fulfil his mandate. We look forward to the Secretary-General’s initial proposals in a matter of hours, so that the Council can continue to keep this difficult and dangerous problem under close and constant examination and supervison and take action as the everchanging situation requires.

I invite the representative of Nigeria to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement.

Upon instructions of my Government, I have the honour to bring to the attention of the Security Council the following statement made by His Excellency General Yakubu Gowon at 8 o’clock this morning New York time. “Since the outbreak of war in the Middle East on 6 October 1973, the Federal Military Government has maintained contact with all the parties, including the two super-Powers, with a view to lending its support to all efforts which would re-establish peace in the regio% The Federal Military Government was, therefore, particularly gratified to learn of the acceptance by the parties to the conflict of Security Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, calling for a cease-fire. The Government was particularly pleased to note the magnanimous and far-sighted action of President Sadat of Egypt in readily accepting the cease-fire proposal in the interest of genuine peace in the Middle East, and with a high sense of responsibility and outstanding statesmanship. The Federal “The Nigerian Government had repeatedly stated that it could not subscribe to any policy that confirms le8ti. macy on the possession of territory by force of arms. 11 also recognizes that no people, and no nation, can tolerate in silence the occupation of territory by foreign forces. In this regard, the Nigerian Government has repeatedly called upon the Government of Israel to respect international opinion and morality, to withdraw from the territory of Egypt, a member country of the Organization of African Unity, which Israel forces occupied by their pre-emptive sudden attack upon Egypt in 1967. “Since the outbreak of the most recent hostilities, the Nigerian Government has also made it abundantly clear to the Government of Israel that Nigeria could not tolerate a situation in which the territory of a sister African country would continue to be further violated. The Israeli Government was specifically informed that, while the Nigerian Government was, for the moment, prepared to continue to maintain contact with Israel in the hope that such contact would provide opportunity for counselling, moderation and restraint, in the circumstances, Nigerian opinion would not accept a situation in which Israeli forces either attack the civilian population and urban centres in Egypt, or any further incursion on Egyptian sovereignty by an attempt to establish Israeli military presence on the West Bank of the Suez. “In the last few days, confirmation has been received of the extent of Israeli incursion into the West Bank of Suez and the occupation of a further area of nearly 500 square miles of Egyptian territory, to which Israel could not, by any stretch of imagination, claim a legitimate right. This confirmation has now necessitated an immediate review of Nigerian relations with Israel, since the action of the Israeli Government, in this regard, in further occupying large areas of Egypt and investing them with substantial military forces indicates its contempt for African and world opinion. “The Nigerian Government has made it abundantly clear that Nigeria is interested in supporting all legitimate moves designed to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, provided that the legitimate rights and prerogatives of Egypt and all other Arab countries are adequately protected in the arrangement for such a lasting peace. Nigeria is convinced that the recent action of Israeli forces in crossing the West Bank of the Suez aad in taking advantage of the early stages of the cease-fire to further extend and consolidate its hold on large areas of Egyptian territory is not conducive to the promotion of a peaceful and just settlement in the area and constitutes ample evidence of bad faith on the part of Israel. “Consequently, the Federal Military Government of Nigeria has decided to break diplomatic relations with the Government of Israel with immediate effect.” 161. Does any member of the Council have any objection to the Secretary-General’s proposal, which is, as he has said, without prejudice to the more detailed and comprehensive report on the Emergency Force which he will submit to the Council on 26 October? Since there is no objection, I shall take it that the Council now authorizes the Secretary General to proceed in accordance with his proposal. $54. Mr. Malik has again tried to sow discord in the relations between China and the non-aligned countries. This is of course futile. The Chinese delegation has clearly stated its principled position today, during the Council’s discussions of the Middle East question in June, and during the vote on the relevant draft resolutions. The numerous Arab countries and people as well as the people of the third world countries fully understand all this. The more lies Mr. Malik tells, the more they reveal the ugly imperialist features of the Soviet Government in giving sham support It was so decided. 162. Speaking now as representative of AUSTRALIA, I wish first of all to recall that when I spoke in the Council on 22 October [I 747th meeting] after the adoption of resolution 338 (1973), I stressed the need for urgent, diligent and faithful work to implement that resolution and urged that the Council should stand ready at all times to render the parties to the dispute all the assistance they might need to attain the objective of the resolution, which is peace in the Middle East. to the Arab and Palestinian people while actually selling them out and in giving sham aid while actually trying to control them.

I spoke earlier today on behalf of the eight sponsors of the draft resolution which the Council has now adopted as resolution 340 (1973). In that statement I commended the non-aligned draft resolution to the unanimous support of the Council. I now take this opportunity to thank all members of the Council for their support in making it possible for that draft to be adopted. I also thank the parties to the conflict for graciously going along with the thrust and spirit of the text. 163. Resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973) resulted from initiatives-very welcome initiatives-by two of the permanent members of the Council. We have just adopted a further resolution, this time at the initiative of the eight non-aligned members of the Council. My delegation was glad to be able to vote in favour of that resolution and was especially pleased that it gained such wide support. We congratulate the non-aligned States for their willingness to take up the work of moving forward from the foundations of resolutions 338 (1973) and 339 (1973) and, of course, resolution 242 (1967). Their resolution is moderate and objective in tone and balanced and sensible in outlook. It will be of material assistance in the primary task at this stage of stabilizing and supporting the fragile cease-fire ordered by the two earlier resolutions. 1.56. What now remains necessary is a determined effort on the part of all concerned, including the Council, to implement immediately resolution 340 (1973), along with other pertinent resolutions of the Council on the present crisis. We trust that there will not be any complications and we hope that no complications will be introduced in any way in the path to its genuine implementation, whether on financial or any other grounds.

The delegation of the USSR will ignore the latest instalment of the Chinese representative’s slanderous fabrications and does not consider it necessary to respond to it. 164. My delegation has heard one line of reasoning in this Council which has a good deal to commend it, that is, to the effect that in ideal circumstances it would be possible for us to sit down and negotiate and finally draft a resolution of greater precision and perhaps greater long term value. But, of course, the circumstances are not ideal and time is not on our side. The Council has to act rapidly to make sure that the cease-fire becomes fully effective and in this situation to aim for too much precision could prove to be counter-productive.

I low call on the Secretary- General who wishes to make a statement.

This afternoon I sent a letter to the President of the Security Council which I shall now read out. f The Secretary-General read out the text of the letter, which was subsequently circulated as document S/110491 165. My’ delegation believes that the real merit of the resolution lies in its practical approach. To us, the steps it requires are the right steps in the current situationimmediate observance of the cease-fire allied with additional measures likely to make it effective.

Members of the Council have heard the proposal of the Secretary-General as contained in his letter of 25 October 1973 to me as President of the 168. As there are no other speakers, I propose, as PRESIDENT, to adjourn this meeting. The Council wilt remain ready on immediate call as occasion demands, The meeting rose at 5.55 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS Unite:1 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 depositaires du monde entier. Infotmez-vous aupr&s de votre libraire ou adressez-vous Q : Nations Unies, Section des ventes. New York ou Geneve. KAK IIOJIYWXTb I13AAHHJl OPI’AHII: BAIJ.NEI OB’liEAMHEHHMX HAU(ZIA EI3AaHm OpraHuaaquu 06ze~memmx HauuR ~omno rcynurrb B KNWKHLIX Mara- JWH~X A aretrrc~sa~ no ncex panonax ~npa. HaaoAuTe cnpan~w 06 a3Aannax a m.merd KHB~~OM Mara3mre WIIN: naumre no anpecy: Opranusauun 06~eamtenHbrx Haqwn, Cewqna no nponame w3~anuA, Hbia-Hopx mm Xeueaa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estin en venta en librerfas y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Seccidn de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 2.00 (or equivalent in other currencies) 73.82001--July 1979-%200