Security Council condemns attack against UNIFIL as 'criminal', calls for end to 'any military presence' unacceptable to Lebanon.

Security Council condemns attacks agains UNIFIL as 'criminal', calls for end to 'any military presence' unacceptable to Lebanon

The Security Council on 23 Septembercondemned "in the strongest terms" the attacks committed against the United Nationas Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and expressed indignation "at the support which such criminal actions may receive."

Preliminary security measuresdecided on by Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar were noted, and he was asked to take any further measures needed "to enhance the security of the men of the Force in their peace mission."

The Secretary-General was alsoasked to make the necessary arrangements for a deployment of the Force to the southern border of Lebanon. The Council solemnly called on all the parties concerned to co-operate in the achievement of that objective.

In adopting resolution 587 (1986),the Council also urged all parties concerned "to co-operate unreservedly with the Force in the fulfilment of its mandate" and called again for an end in southern Lebanon "to any military presence which is not accepted by the Lebanese authorities".

The Council, in its resolution, notedthe Secretary-General's report (S/18348) on the mission of inquiry led by Under-Secretary-General Marrack I. Goulding to the area from 4 to 15 September, following a series of "serious incidents" n UNIFIL's area of deployment which resulted in the deaths of five UNIFIL soldiers and the wounding of 25 others.

The Council paid homage to the"courage, spirit of discipline and composure of the soldiers of the Force," and asked the Secretary-General to report to it within 21 days on the application of the resolution.

The vote was 14 in favour to noneagainst, with 1 abstention (United States). In explanation of vote, the United States said the resolution ignored the critical factor that had prevented the fulfilment of UNIFIL's mandate--the absence of agreement among the parties concerned on security arrangements that would protect their respective interests.

In his report, the Secretary-Generaloutlined the preliminary security measures taken by UNIFIL. (For details, see story on page 63).

France had requested the Councilmeet to consider UNIFIL's situation in light to the Secretary-General's report. The 15-member body held three meetings, on 19, 22 and 23 September.

On 19 September, the Secretary-Generaltold the Council that UNIFIL faces a "difficult, indeed intolerable situation", and that effective measures must be taken urgently to enable UNIFIL to fulfil its mandate, to ensure the security of the Force's personnel, and to resolve its financial difficulties.

"In the present situation", he said,"the only hope of progress lies in a determined effort by the Security Council itself." If substantial progress towards implementing Council resolution 425 were not achieved soon, which would be "the bst way of improving the security of the personnel of UNIFIL", the Council might be "compelled to give serious consideration to an alternative which could involve many grave dangers".

On 23 September, Lebanese PrimeMinister Rashid Karami, in a letter (S/18362) to the Secretary-General, said that the safety and security of UNIFIL soldiers could be ensured only by means of a complete Israeli withdrawal.

"The difficulties currently beingfaced by the international forces in southern Lebanon are a result of the continued presence of the occupiers and their refusal to implement" Council resolution 425, he said. The Council should take the necessary measures, by means of a collective decision, to ensure the safety of the international forces.

"The Government fears that it is theintention of certain elements to oblige the international forces to withdraw. This would create a vacuum in the region which would lead . . . to threats which could not be accepted or permitted by anyone", Mr. Karami concluded.

Debate

Claude de Kemoularia (France) saida new phase had begun in "the tragic deterioration" of the situation in southern Lebanon. For several weeks, France had been urgently drawing the attention of the United Nations to "the ever-worsening spiral of events" in UNIFIL's area of operations. Everyone Government.

Mohammad Hussain Al-Shaali(United Arab Emirates) said the Israeli representative had failed to talk about his dity concerning his country's position towards resolution 425 which, among other things, called for withdrawal of its forces from all Labenese territory. When the Council had adopted that resolution, "it had in mind Israel and not the Party of God". Clashes between local militias and UNIFIL were "only natural", because the local militias were trying to respond to Israeli acts of aggression against the civilian population and villages in southern Lebanon. UNIFIL's mandate was to prevent such incidents; in trying to do so, however, it was suffering casualties. Israel should not interfere in any way in Lebanon's internal affairs, he said.

Aleksandr M. Belonogov (USSR)said the situation in the UNIFIL-occupied zone in Lebanon was intolerable. The reasons underlying this "extremely dangerous situation" lay in Israel's continuing refusal to withdraw from Lebanon. The "armed acts of provocation" against UNIFIL must cease forthwith. The people of Lebanon and the international community as a whole were faced with the dangerous consequences of "the irresponsible policy of connivance with the aggressor being followed by Washington". The Soviet Union condemned Israel's continuing aggression in Lebanon and expressed solidarity with the people of Lebanon fighting for their legitimate rights. The alternative to implementing resolutions would be further escalation of tension in south Lebanon, "something which is fraught with very serious consequences for international peace and security in the region".

Li Luye (China) said UNIFIL's conditionshad drastically deteriorated as the result of "irresponsible and unprovoked attacks" against it. Although its continued presence was necessary, the Force faced serious difficulties, or even a crisis, which must be resolved at the earliest. Resolution 425 must be implemented. Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence must be strictly respected. Israel must withdraw from Lebanon and dismantle the so-called security zone. UNIFIL should be stationed along the international border of Lebanon. All parties concerned should work in co-operation with, and render the necessary support to the Force.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) said deliberateattacks against United Nations soldiers should be ended immediately. The solution to long-standing problems concerning UNIFIL's mission lay in complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon and UNIFIL's deployment to the international frontier. Denmark fully understood Israel's legitimate concern over the security of its northern border, but the present security zone was neither a legitimate nor an effective means of meeting Israel's security concerns. All efforts should be exerted to ensure substantial progress towards implementation of resolution 425.

Boris Tsvetkov (Bulgaria) said the"acts of provocation" against UNIFIL must be stopped immediately. The "abnormal and dangerous conditions" in which UNIFIL operated and which prevented it from fulfilling its mandate, and the deterioration in the situation in southern Lebanon, were due to Israel's continued occupation of southern Lebanon and "the constant, systematic acts of aggression directed by the Israeli occupier and its lackeys in southern Lebanon" against the Lebanese State. Israel should unconditionally withdraw its forces from Lebanon.

Richard A. Woolcott (Australia) saidall foreign forces in Lebanon should withdraw, except those which were there at the request of the Government of Lebanon. Armed attacks against a United Nations peace-keeping force were completely unacceptable, and Australia deplored them. Israel's refusal to withdraw all its forces from Lebanon had prevented UNIFIL from fulfilling its mandate. The Council was meeting at a critical time for UNIFIL, about whose future Australia was concerned. He hoped the resolution would help enable the Force to fulfil its mandate. Those more directly involved shoudl find the will to see that that happened.

James Victor Gbeho (Ghana) supportedthe arrangements made by the Secretary-General to meet the increasing escalation of violence in southern Lebanon. The continued illegal occupation of Lebanon was at the core of the problem in southern Lebanon. Because the presence of Isarael in the so-called security zone was "an act of lawlessness in itself", it had tended to encourage further lawlessness and had also made Israeli troops and representatives targets of violence in south Lebanon.

Vernon A. Walters (United States)said his country had consistently and vigorously supported UNIFIL, which had made a significant contribution to the stability of south Lebanon. The United States deplored the recent wave of attacks on UNIFIL soldiers, which had been carried out by "criminals". He strongly endorsed efforts by the Secretary-General and others to improve the Force's security. It was not Israel that was killing and wounding UNIFIL soldiers. Lasting peace and stability in south Lebanon could come only through agreed on security measures that ensured both the safety and the well-being of the people of south Lebanon and of Israelis who lived near the Lebanese border and who had also been victims of violence and terror originating in south Lebanon. Such measures must be agreed on by the parties concerned; they were not in the Secretary-General's power to impose. The attacks against UNIFIL would not cease if its area of deployment were changed. They occurred because of the absence of adequate Lebanese Government authority in the area where UNIFIL was already deployed.

Clovis Maksoud, of the League ofArab States, said Israel wanted to create a situation throughout south Lebanon and "the so-called security zone" in which Lebanon's central authority was unable to exercise sovereignty over its own territory. Israel had no intention of total withdrawal from Lebanon because, principally, it wanted to undermine the credibility and effectiveness of United Nations resolutions and mechanisms. Israel had disabled the United Nations forces in the carrying out of the Council's mandates in 1978 and in 1986.