S/PV.2073 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken previously by theCouncil, I invite the representatives of Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Syrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam and Yemen to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. 2. In accordance with the decision taken by the Council at the 2071st meeting, I invite the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Tu&ni (Lebanon), Mr, Herzog (Israel) and Mr. Terzi (Palestine Liberation Organization) took places at the Council table and Mr, Abdel Meguid (Egypt), Mr. Nuseibeh (Jordan), Mr. Kikhia (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr* Al-Hussamy (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Cu Dinh Ba (Viet Nam) and Mr. Al-Haddad (Yemen) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Guncil chamber.

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of the Sudan in which he requests to be invited to participate in the discussion. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite him to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in conformity with rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr, Medani (Sudan) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber.

Members of the Council have before them in document S/12610 a draft resolution submitted by the United States.

My Government has already made clear through a statement in the Canadian Parliament that we deeply regret, as do all around this table, the events which have caused the Council to discuss again the situation in the Middle East. As we have deplored the recent attack on Israeli citizens on the Haifa-Tel Aviv road, we must today equally deplore the large-scale military operations now being conducted on Lebanese territory. Such renewed violence can but exacerbate passions and must be regarded as a serious obstacle to the peace and stability in the region for which we have been striving for so long. 6. We believe that the Council should take effective measures to help to achieve two main objectives: first, to put an end to present hostilities and the resulting loss of life, human misery and material destruction; secondly, to create conditions in which the vitally important peace initiative which recently raised our hopes for a definitive negotiated solution of the Middle East problem can be resumed. 7. To achieve effective peace on the ground, the fighting must come to an immediate halt and Israeli forces must withdraw from Lebanese territory. But a call for withdrawal will not suffice if it is not accompanied by practical measures to prevent renewed violence in the border area. Means must be found to enable the Lebanese Government to exercise as soon as possible its full authority and control 8. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has already stated that Canada is concerned and willing to act. He has said that the Canadian Government will be prepared to consider contributing to a peace-keeping force provided we are satisfied that such a force would be able to carry out its mandate and contribute to a restoration of stability in an extremely troubled and perilous situation. We would, of course, have to consider what role Canada would be expected to play in such a force so as to ensure that this was within our capability. 9. Our long-term objective must be an all-embracing negotiated peace settlement for the entire region. The recent explosion of violence cannot but be regarded as a grave setback to the peace process. The tragedies of the past week and in particular the human suffering that has ensued, deplorable as they are, must not be allowed to stand in the way of renewed efforts towards peace. IO. We stand ready, together with our colleagues on the Council, to respond to the appeal of the Lebanese representative to act promptly.

The Security Council meets today against a background of tragedy but with an opportunity to play a constructive role in restoring security and stability in violence-torn Southern Lebanon. 12. The aim of the Council must now be to end as quickly as possible this new cycle of violence, and to deal with some of the immediate underlying causes. The only real solution lies in a comprehensive settlement of all Middle East issues. At the moment, however, our efforts must be focused on removing the sources of friction and instability in Southern Lebanon. 13. The United States approaches this debate, and the action which we hope will stem from it, with three fundamental principles in mind. First, we expect Israel to withdraw from Southern Lebanon, and we have made our views in this respect known to the Israeli Government. Secondly, the territorial integrity of Lebanon must be fully respected, Thirdly, the United Nations has a vital role to play in assisting the Government of Lebanon to restore in Southern Lebanon conditions that will facilitate the reestablishment of its authority and provide a return to security and a peaceful life for the people of the south. 1% Our consultations in the past two days lead us to believe that most Council members share our perception of the imPOrtanCe of these principles. Our view is that a United Nations peace-keeping operation is needed that would have two primary functions. First, the United Nations would have responsibility to establish and provide security in the southern border region of Lebanon and, secondly, it would assist the Government of Lebanon in lo, In order to give concrete expression to the principles that I have just outlined, the United States Government is introducing a draft resolution [S/12610] for consideration by the Council. That draft resolution, in operative para. graph l, calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. I would say that the statements made in this chamber leave no doubt that the preservation of Lebanese territorial integrity is the Council’s primary goal in this debate. That goal is made explicit in operative paragraph 3, which describes the purpose of a United Nations peace-keeping force as “confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area”. 17. Operative paragraph 2 calls on Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory. Immediate Israeli withdrawal is, in my Government’s view, one of the key conditions of restoring full political independence and territorial integrity to Lebanon. In operative paragraph 3 the Council would decide to establish immediately a United Nations force for Southern Lebanon. The mandate of such a force, in my Government’s view, should be of temporary duration. It should restore peace and security to the area and transfer effective authority to the Lebanese Government. When that is done, the objeo tives established by this draft resolution will have been fully achieved and, we fully expect, the cause of peace and justice in the Middle East substantially advanced. 18. We have consulted widely on this draft resolution and have tried to meet most of the concerns expressed. ‘The representative of the Soviet Union suggested the inclusion of a reference to the time frame for the United Nations interim force referred to in operative paragraph 3. It is our view and expectation that, in keeping with past practice any time frame the Council may decide upon will be included in the Council’s action on the report of the Secretary-General referred to in operative paragraph 4. 19. Mr. von HASSELL (Federal Republic of Germany): 1t is with utmost concern and deep compassion that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has witnessed the eruption of a new chain of violence in the Middle Fast. The Federal Government regards as Particularly deplorable the heavy toll these tragic events have taken among the civilian population. Moreover, these events gravely imperil all efforts aimed at achieving a Peaceful 21. As to the urgent problem at present before us, the Security Council should try, in the view of my Government, to outline a solution on the basis of the following: respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in the area, as spelled out in Security Council resolution 242 (1967). For the crisis at present afflicting Lebanon, this means, in particular, respect for the sovereignty, integrity and political independence of Lebanon and, consequently, the immediate cessation of military action by Israel on the territory of Lebanon, the political independence of Lebanon and Israel’s immediate withdrawal from the territory of Lebanon. In this context, we favour a stronger role for the United Nations in restoring peace and security and in preventing further violence in the afflicted area, For this purpose, an interim peace-keeping force should be set up immediately. 22. As for the composition of such a force, it should preferably consist of troops from countries which are not permanent members of the Security Council. We consider it essential that this force should be set up immediately in the territory from which Israel is asked to withdraw. We are also of the opinion that the interim peace-keeping force should transfer its security functions as soon as possible to the authorities of the Republic of Lebanon. 23. These elements having been spelled out, it follows that my Government firmly supports the draft resolution presented by the United States [S/12610]. Its text fully satisfies the basic principles which we deem necessary for a speedy solution and which we should decide upon without further delay.

The Council is meeting at the request of two Member States-Lebanon and Israel. We have heard both of them. 25. I must confess that I was deeply impressed by the poignancy of the request made by the representative of Lebanon. His country, which has always been a peaceloving country with an ancient culture whose contributions to civilization and the ways of peace have been substantial and significant, is once again the target of aggression, owing to circumstances not of its creation. The representative of Lebanon has requested the Council to uphold the Charter and prevent Israel from taking the law into its own hands. He has demanded quite simply that Lebanese sovereignty should be restored to Lebanon over all its territory and that Israel should withdraw from Lebanese territory. We strong ly support this request of Lebanon, and we trust that it will be endorsed unanimously by the Council as the first order of its business. 26. I take this opportunity to convey to the representative Of Lebanon my delegation’s profound sympathy in the “The Government of India strongly deplore Israeli transgression of Lebanese sovereign territory, The massive action by Israel cannot be justified on the plea that it is meant to safeguard Israeli security. Until such time as all occupied Arab territory is vacated by Israel, in accordance with United Nations resolutions, and the Palestinians are granted their legitimate rights, the danger to peace and stability in the region will remain. The international community has been impatient to see the process of peaceful negotiations on the Arab-Israel conflict getting under way. Meanwhile, punitive reaction on such a scale cannot but be serious and is likely to be strongly and widely condemned. It not only leads to loss of innocent lives but also hardens and embitters feelings, increases the danger of wider conflagration and jeopardizes efforts towards a negotiated settlement,.” 27. In considering the Lebanese request, the Security Council has to bear in mind the two points referred to by my Minister for External Affairs, which are fundamental for peace in the Middle East: first, that occupied Arab territory should be vacated by Israel and, secondly, that the Palestinians should have their legitimate rights restored to them. It is with reference to these two objectives that the process of negotiations should commence for a comprehensive peace settlement. Attempts to ignore or sidetrack these two basic objectives will result in a recurrence of the tragic cycle of violence and reaction which we have seen so often in the past. 28. My delegation has always been of the view that the fruits of aggression shall be denied to the aggressor and that, in principle, the aggressor should withdraw from occupied territories unconditionally and, preferably, unilaterally. Preconditions demanded for withdrawal are often excuses for delaying withdrawal or for continued occupation. 29. We should not like to see the United Nations drifting into the unfortunate position where in every case of aggression there has to be introduced a United Nations force in order to make the aggressor withdraw from the territory occupied by him. We realize, of course, that there may be exceptional situations where a United Nations force with a special mandate may have to be introduced for a very limited period of time. In all such cases, it is essential and, indeed, consistent with the sovereignty of a Member State that a United Nations force should not be introduced into its territory except at its request or with its prior approval. This is an indispensable condition. The United Nations should not add to the problems caused by aggression against a Member State by seeming to take advantage of any abnormal situation prevailing in its territory. It is equally important that the United Nations force should not become involved in functions and duties related to the maintenance of internal law and order, for that could have serious repercussions on the impartiality of the United Nations force. 31. I should like now to turn my attentioh to the statement made by the representative of Israel [2071st meeting]. It would seem that the purpose of Israel in asking for a meeting of the Council was mainly to criticize the United Nations. To begin with, the representative of Israel said that he was “sincerely convinced that this is an unnecessary debate”. He added that Israel and Lebanon should be left alone without United Nations interference to solve the problem. He went on to say that the Council had “forfeited its right to pass judgement”, that it had betrayed “its own principles and purpose”. He said more about the “craven submission” and the “cynical hypocrisy” of the United Nations. 32. I do not know what purpose the representative of Israel seeks to achieve by this unrestrained insult to the United Nations, of which Israel is a Member. If this is Israel’s official attitude towards the United Nations, it makes us wonder what respect any United Nations force can expect from Israel. On the one hand, he says that Israel wishes to receive adequate guarantees that the status quo ante will not be restored. Adequate guarantees from whom? Surely not from the United Nations, in which apparently Israel has no confidence. On the other hand, he has also said that Israel has “created conditions in which the Government of Lebanon can restore control over [its] territory and . . . re-establish its sovereign right”, to quote his own words [ibid., para. 591. That is truly an extraordinary statement. I hope it will be taken into account by those contemplating the introduction of a United Nations force.

The Security Council has met once again to discuss the direct aggression of Israel against Lebanon, a sovereign State Member of the United Nations, 34. The extensive intervention of Israeli troops in the territory of Lebanon, the barbaric bombardment of Lebanese cities and other inhabited points-as a result of which there have been numerous victims among the peaceful population-have caused the greatest possible concern and evoked the greatest possible condemnation. 35. This new attack by Israel on Lebanon is yet another link in the whole chain of Israeli acts of aggression against the Arab States. It is not out of place to recall that since 1968 the Security Council has had occasion to consider the question of Israel’s aggressive crimes against Lebanon 13 times, The Council in its resolutions has frequently condemned Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and has demanded that an immediate end should be put to them. However, Israel, in gross violation of the relevant decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, and at the same time flouting the elementary rules of international law, has pursued and indeed even stepped up its policy of aggression and expansion and continues its constant violations of the sovereignty of neighbouring Arab countries. We cannot fail 36. At previous meetings the Council has heard statements by the representatives of a number of Arab States, and also a statement on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization. These statements have convincingly demonstrated the barbarous nature of the premeditated attacks by the Israeli military on peaceful settlements, on Lebanese and Pafestinian women and children. The delegation of the Soviet Union fully supports the demands made in those statements that severe condemnation should be meted out for the criminal actions of Israel’s armed forces, that an immediate stop should be put to Israeli aggression and that Israeli troops should be withdrawn immediately from the territory of Lebanon. 37. The present act of open aggression has been dictated by Israel’s desire to fulfil its age-old design: to occupy Southern Lebanon and destroy utterly the Palestine resistance movement, which is a staunch champion of the legitimate national rights of the Arab people of Palestine. This is borne out by the resolution adopted by the Israeli Parliament just before Lebanon was invaded, calling for a merciless struggle against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the annihilation of its leaders. We can with every justification regard these as carefully premeditated and thought out acts on the part of Israel, aimed at the total destruction of the Palestine resistance movement, and thus as an attempt to undermine the struggle for the implementation of the legitimate aspirations of the Arab people of Palestine. It is becoming more and more obvious that Israel has elevated terror and the spreading of fear to the level of State policy. 38. Israel’s attacks on its neighbours under the pretext of strengthening its own security, its expansion under the pretext of seeking living space, the deprivation of a whole people or of whole peoples of their elementary rights, the practice of terror in occupied territories: all this is very familiar to those peoples of Europe that struggled against Hitler’s fascism. 39. The representative of Israel spoke here in a remarkably casual way, insulting not only individual members of the Security Council and individual Members of the United Nations, but also the Security Council and the United Nations as a whole. We share the views already expressed here that a decisive end must be put to these kinds of statements in the Council. 40. The aggressive actions of Israel against Lebanon give the lie to the public pronouncements made by Israeli leaders to the effect that they are desirous of a peaceful settlement of the Middle East problems. This aggression is one more convincing piece of evidence of the expansionist essence of Israel’s policies, which are aimed at redrawing 46. The Council should also take into account the views expressed by almost 90 States Members of the United Nations to be found in the statement of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries of 17 March [see S/12609]. Those countries unanimously condemned Israel’s blatant acts of aggression against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon. We cannot fail to agree with the opinion expressed by the non-aligned countries that the Israeli invasion has seriously complicated the task of reacting a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, which should be based on recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination and creation of their own independent and sovereign State in Palestine, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied in 1967 and strict observance of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. 42. Moreover, there can be no doubt but that responsibility for Israel’s aggression is borne also by those who condone Israel’s policies and who through their inaction are virtually encouraging Israel to undertake new adventures. 43. Developments in the Middle East show that there can be no peace in that part of the world until the removal of all the causes of the Middle East conflict, and first and foremost Israel’s occupation of the Arab territories and its deprivation of the Palestinian Arab people of their inalienable rights. As the Soviet Union has frequently said, by way of warning, failure to settle the Middle East question will create a situation fraught with serious consequences for international peace and security. 47. Nothing can justify the criminal aggressive actions of the Israeli military against the sovereign Arab State of Lebanon and the Arab people of Palestine, who are thus victims of Israel’s expansionism. 44. The Soviet Union has been and remains a consistent champion of a comprehensive settlement in that part of the world, a settlement involving all the parties concerned, Including, of course, the Palestine Liberation Organization. Such a settlement should provide for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories occupied in 1967 and for the exercise by the Palestinian Arabs of their inalienable rights, including their dght to self-determination and the right to create their own State. It should guarantee the right to independent existence, and the security of all States directly involved in the conflict and an end to the state of war existing between the Arab countries involved and Israel. As was emphasized by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Mr. Brezhnev, “only if those fundamental provisions are implemented will there be P genuinely durable peace in the Middle East rather than simply a fragile truce”, 48. The Soviet Union believes that the Security Council should severely condemn the new aggressive actions of Israel against Lebanon and take effective steps in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to put an end to Israel’s aggression against Lebanon and the Arab people of Palestine and immediately demand the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon’s territory. 49. The Soviet Union severely condemns Israel’s armed invasion of Lebanon and declares that full responsibility for the dangerous consequences of this new abrupt deterioration in the situation in the Middle East is borne by the Government of Israel. We can only remind those who sow the wind that they run the risk of reaping the whirlwind. T&e meeting rose at 7.35 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS Unite4 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 ddpositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous aupr&s de votre libraire ou adressez-vous B : Nations Unies. Section des ventes, New York ou Genkve. KAK IIO~8UHTL II3AAHXfR OPrAHZi SAl.@fH Ol3%EASIHEHHhIX HAyHlln COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estin en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Seccidn de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Lltho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1.00 (or equivalent in other currencies) 78-70005-February 1980-2,200