Text condemning Israel for 'interception and detention' of Libyan plane vetoed.

Text condemning Israel for "interception and detention' of Libyan plane vetoed

The United States on 6 February vetoed a draft resolution by which the Security Council would have condemned Israel "for its forcible interception and diversion' of a Libyan civilian aircraft in international airspace, and its subsequent detention of the aircraft. The vote was 10 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions.

In opposing the text (S/17796/Rev.1), the United States said that although it opposed Israel's action, the draft was unacceptable because it did not "take into sufficient account the need to address practically and appropriately the overriding issue of terrorism'.

Three Council meetings were held (4, 5, 6 February) at the request of the Syrian Arab Republic to consider what it called the "Israeli act of air piracy' against a private Libyan civilian passenger aircraft flying in international airspace on 4 February over the Mediterranean. The flight carried an official Syrian political delegation returning to Syria from an official visit to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Syria stated.

Those voting for the condemnation were Bulgaria, China, the Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Thailand, Trinidad and Tabago, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. Australia, Denmark, France and the United Kingdom abstained.

The text was submitted by the Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Arab Emirates. By it, the Council would have considered the Israeli act as "a serious violation of the principles of international law', in particular relevant provisions of international conventions on civil aviation.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) would have been called on to take due account of the resolution when considering adequate measures to safeguard international civil aviation against such acts.

Israel would have been called on "to desist forthwith from any and all acts endangering the safety of international civil aviation', and the Council would have warned Israel that, if such acts were repeated, it would consider taking "adequate measures to enforce its resolutions'.

Syria on 4 February informed the Secretary-General of the incident, which had occurred in international airspace between Cyprus and Syria. The Secretary-General later through his spokesman expressed deep concern "at what appears to be a serious infringement of freedom of civil aviation, and an act that could aggravate the already tense situation in the area'.

LETTERS: Among documents reviewed by the Council was a letter (A/41/135-S /17792) to the Secretary-General from Ali Abdussalam Treiki, Secretary of the People's Committee of the People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison of Libya; identical letters to the Council President (S/17788) and the Secretary-General (A/41/132-S/17785) sent from Farouk Al-Sharaa', Foreign Minister of Syria; and a letter to the Secretary-General (A/41/138-S/17797) from King Hassan of Morocco, in his capacities as Chairman of the Arab Summit, Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and Chairman of the Al-Quds Committee.

In his 4 February letter, Mr. Treiki said, "the Zionist entity', aided by the United States, had committed "an act of terrorist aggression' in intercepting the Libyan civilian passenger aircraft and forcing it to land at a military airfield "inside occupied Palestine'.

That "act of air piracy' represented an "established policy' of the United States "and its ally, the Zionist entity', and constituted an "irrefutable record of terrorism' to be added to the incident involving the Egyptian aircraft "hijacked by United States fighter aircraft and forced to land in southern Italy', he stated.

"If the international community permits such terrorist practices, which seriously jeopardize the safety of civil aviation, to go unpunished and undeterred, then it must expect reciprocal action from others, which would confer on every State the right to pursue any civilian aircraft in international airspace and thus transform the world into a jungle', Mr. Treiki declared.

The Syrian Foreign Minister on 4 February drew attention to the gravity of "this terrorist act against the peace and security of civilian travel in international airspace and the dangerous consequences deriving therefrom', which flagrantly violated the norms of international law and international conventions guaranteeing the freedom and safety of aviation.

In his 5 February letter, King Hassan said the action was not the first marked violation of basic human rights and of the rights of nations committed by Israel, which more than once had deliberately disregarded the most elementary obligations stemming from treaties and from all that underlay international law. Israel had discredited itself as a law-abiding State and had consequently excluded itself from the international community. Its "crimes of state' could, if not rigorously curbed, "involve all of mankind in an endless spiral of arbitrariness and lawlessness', King Hassan stated.

Debate

Dia-Allah El-Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic) said the incident was "a case of air piracy and international terrorism directed against international civil aviation'. If the Council did not condemn the action, Israel would be encouraged to perpetrate further such acts of aggression.

"If Israel continues its arrogant and mad conduct, if it continues to regard international airspace as a playing field for its American fighter aircraft, that will put an end to freedom of aviation and to the principle of the inadmissibility of committing illegal acts in international airspace. If that time comes, no one will be able to board an aircraft for a flight to or from our region', he said.

The Israeli act, he said, had violated all international agreements protecting international airspace and the aircraft in it; posed a very dangerous threat to the safety of civil aviation; and threatened the lives of innocent persons, and peace and security, not only in the region but throughout the whole world.

Rajab A. Azzarouk (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said Israel's "air piracy' was "utterly unwarranted' and had no basis whatsoever in customary international law. Israel had admitted the "terrorist, criminal act', which flagrantly violated the Charter, international law and relevant Conventions, in addition to constituting a violation of the sovereignty of the owner State and aggression against the freedom of the passengers, jeopardizing their safety and security.

The record of the "Israeli entity' was "replete with acts of piracy and terrorism'. The series of Israeli acts of aggression jeopardizing civil aircraft and the lives of innocent passengers-- beginning with the shooting down in 1973 of a Libyan civil aircraft over the Sinai peninsula, killing all 106 passengers--would not stop unless the Council fully assumed its responsibilities and resorted to the powers provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter. The United States was an accomplice of "the Zionist entity' in "every act of terrorism' the latter carried out. "The Zionist entity' could not have intercepted the Libyan civil aircraft and forced it down in "occupied Palestine' without the assistance of the United States Sixth Fleet, which monitored air traffic in the region.

The action also was a clear example of "systematic State terrorism'. The Council should deprive "the Zionist entity' of membership in the United Nations and impose deterrent economic sanctions against it to make it heed the will of the international community, comply with the relevant resolutions of this international body, and respect the Council's prestige.

Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel) said his country had suspected that a Libyan aircraft--an executive aircraft carrying a dozen people, not a civil airliner--was carrying "terrorists-- people involved in planning attacks against Israel'. Israeli pilots had intercepted that aircraft on its way from Libya, and brought it down to an Israeli airfield. The passengers were examined. It turned out that there were no such people aboard. After the passengers and crew had been given coffee and been "treated to a brief respite in Israel', they got back on the plane. They were no longer in Israel. Nobody was hurt, and "the aeroplane was retrieved'.

Terrorist States, he went on, invited and were subject to a response. When they used their planes to ferry terrorists, they could not expect that those planes would be allowed to fly uninterdicted at all times. He did not know why the matter had been a subject for an urgent Council meeting. The Council had not been asked to convene after the Rome and Vienna airport attacks, when quite a few people "were hurt--indeed, butchered'. Israel's suspicion or belief had not grown "out of thin air'. It had grown out of "the terrorist meeting' attended by 20 terrorist organizations held recently in Tripoli, "convened by Qaddafi himself under his personal sponsorship'. At that meeting, there were very clear declarations about continuing "the terrorist attacks against Israel--more killings, more raids, more bloodshed'.

Did members of the Council expect Israel to "sit idly by', while a terrorist conference planned attacks? Should Israel be expected to wait to absorb the attack?

International law did not permit States to wage "terrorist war'. In fact, classic international law allowed a country to stop ships in international waters if pirates were believed to be on board. There was no better way to fight international terrorism "than to try to catch its chief perpetrators'. That was the purpose of Israel's activity. A nation attacked by terrorists was permitted to use force to prevent or pre-empt future attacks.

International law did provide "a central stipulation' to allow for new ways to conduct war--the paramountcy of self-defence. That principle was one that "every Government here reserves to itself . . . one that every Government here will surely stand up for when its own interests are involved'.

The Council should and must adopt "a responsible and sober approach to ways of combating both international terrorism and the States that finance, organize and launch terrorists'.

COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mohammad Hussain Al-Shaali (United Arab Emirates) said Israel was the first State to use its air force to hijack a civilian airliner. On 12 December 1954, Israeli fighter planes had hijacked a Syrian civilian airliner and forced it to land at Lod Airport, where its passengers were detained for two days. Moshe Sharett, Israel's first Foreign Minister and Prime Minister from 1953 to 1955, called the hijacking an unjustified act of aggression. According to Israel, every State had the right to intercept any civilian airliner if it suspected that there were on board terrorists or enemies of its Government. If so, the world would be changed into a jungle in which hijacked aircraft and vessels would outnumber those flying or in transit.

Li Luye (China) said the international community could not but condemn Israel's "despotic act of terrorism'. Israel had plotted and conducted the interception with the excuse that the civilian airliner carried so-called terrorists. That was absurd and dangerous. Should all Governments act likewise and wilfully intercept other countries' civilian airplanes on their own "assumptions' and force them to land, would there be any freedom and safety of civil aviation in the world to speak of? Israel's "acts of hegemonism' conducted under the pretext of retaliation against terrorism must be resolutely stopped and strongly condemned. Otherwise, the sovereignty and security of the Middle East countries would be subjected to a grave threat.

Oleg A. Troyanovsky (USSR) said Israel had committed a "defiant act of air piracy', fully consistent with its policy of state terrorism against Arab States and peoples. The act was also an open breach of the conventions regarding civil aviation and threatened the principle of unimpeded use of international airspace for overflights by civil aircraft. Israel was "unabashedly assuming the right to commit unlimited, outright terror'. To the present Israeli leadership, it seemed there was no norm of international law that they would not be prepared to violate. The United States Administration had apparently decided to "match its junior partner in flexing its "military muscles''. It was high time for the Council to take effective measures to halt Israel's "crimes', which directly threatened peace and security in the Middle East and beyond the region.

James V. Gbeho (Ghana) said Israel knew that its action contravened international conventions and law but felt that it should be excused under the special circumstances that it adduced. That plea was singularly unconvincing. The Israeli action was clearly one of air hijacking, which could not be justified. To accept its suspicion and excuse its conduct would confer upon Israel the limitless right forcibly to arrest and detain any civilian aircraft whenever it alone suspected that any such aircraft was carrying persons wanted by Israel. What if other Governments should decide "to take a leaf out of Israel's book' by following that example?

The illegal Israeli act could easily result in war between Israel and its neighbours. Ghana condemned all acts of terrorism that took the lives of innocent civilians.

Boris Tsvetkov (Bulgaria) condemned Israel's act of "air piracy', an act of war in peacetime, an "insolent challenge' to the entire Arab world and the international community, and a threat to international peace and security. Two basic principles of aviation had been violated: the principle of freedom of flight in international airspace and the principle of the guaranteed safety of international civil aviation. Israel bore full responsibility for the consequences of those acts which, given the explosive situation in the Middle East, could bring about "uncontrollable and unforseeable events'. No claim to a right of "self-defence' could alter the dangerous nature of that act. Israel's principal motive was its inclination to intimidate the Arab countries through brutal demonstrations of armed violence in order to make them believe in its impunity and omnipotence.

Martin Adouki (Congo) said Israel had committed a condemnable and illegal act of hijacking that violated conventions governing civil aviation. The Israeli arguments were more embarrassing than convincing. No State Member should allow itself to interpret "so personally' basic rules of international conduct and international law. Congo disagreed with a theory that would make official terrorism a rule of conduct for modern States in their relations. It also did not wish to "foster prejudicial precedents for the efforts the international community might have to make to reduce tensions and to promote international peace, security and co-operation'.

Pierre Brochand (France) said "necessary action against terrorism cannot be legitimized through or by violations of international law'. Israel's act was clearly contrary to the rules of international law and could only exacerbate the existing tensions in the Middle East at a time when all efforts must be concentrated on the search for a process to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict. However, that action was taken in the particular context of serious acts of terrorism recently perpetrated in several European countries, which had greatly shocked public opinion. In those circumstances, the case before the Council could not be assessed in the usual manner. While France shared certain concerns expressed in the draft, it could not support the text, which included formulations that did not seem to reflect "the precise facts of the situation'.

Vernon Walters (United States) said terrorist violence, not the response to terrorist violence, had caused the cycle of violence which increasingly marred the Middle East and the world. As a general principle, the United States opposed the interception of civil aircraft and it would have voted for a draft that expressed support for protection of international aviation safety. However, there might arise exceptional circumstances in which an interception might be justified. The United States strongly supported the principle that a State whose territory or citizens were subject to continuing terrorist attacks might respond with appropriate use of force to defend itself against further attacks.

A State should intercept a civilian aircraft only on the basis of the strongest and clearest evidence that terrorists were aboard. Israel had not demonstrated that its action met that "rigorous and necessary standard', and therefore the United States deplored that action. Nevertheless, because the United States believed that the ability to take such action "in carefully defined and limited circumstances' was an aspect of the inherent right of self-defence recognized in the Charter, it could not accept a draft which implied that interception of an aircraft was wrongful per se, without regard to the possibility that the action might be justified.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) regretted that it was not possible to reach a consensus on a decision, despite efforts to that end. The text did not adequately reflect Denmark's position. The Israeli act was in clear contravention of the principles of international law and seriously infringed on civil aviation freedom. Israel should desist from such actions. Denmark was committed to combating international terrorism in all its forms. "We call on all States to co-operate to deny support, cover and refuge to terrorists, and we call on all countries that are supporting or have been accused of supporting terrorism to renounce such support.'

Cavan Hogue (Australia) deplored the interception of the Libyan aircraft over international waters by Israel. Such interceptions could hardly ever be justified and could not be in this case, although Australia understood Israel's motives in seeking to act against international terrorism. Australia had worked to secure a resolution that would have recognized that international civil aviation conventions should be scrupulously observed. It regretted that a vote had to be taken on the draft resolution in its existing form, although it contained much that Australia could support. Some references, for example, that to piracy, however, did not accord with Australia's position.

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom) condemned the forcible diversion by Israel of a private aircraft flying through international airspace on a legitimate journey. There was no evidence that it constituted a threat to Israeli security. The interception was without justification and set a dangerous precedent apparently in contravention of international law. Such acts could only endanger the lives of innocent persons. One of the draft resolution's preambular paragraphs specifically recognized that wrongful interference with civil air travel jeopardized innocent lives. That applied just as much to the kinds of incidents that had taken place recently at the Rome and Vienna airports as it did to aircraft in flight. Equally abhorrent were actions against innocent passengers at sea.

Other views: Samir Mansouri, of the League of Arab States, said Israel had openly confessed to having carried out its "act of air piracy' in defiance of all the norms of international law. Israel's policy aimed at continued Zionist hegemony and expansion at the expense of the Arab people. Its pretexts for the act were imaginary and unacceptable. Israel had been encouraged in its continued defiance of the international community as a result of "the unconditional protection' granted it by the United States. Claiming to resist "so-called terrorism', Israel intended to persist in its practice of state terrorism.

Zehdi L. Terzi, of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), said Israel's "act of piracy' was reminiscent of "the law of the jungle'. Was that not an act of abduction? By the Israeli logic, anyone could arrogate the right to down planes simply because it was assumed that terrorists were aboard. The Israeli act was an act of terrorism. Was it not the United States that had hijacked an Egyptian civilian airliner--another act of air piracy? The Council should impose sanctions against Israel under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Other speakers were the representatives of Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, India, Yugoslavia, the German Democratic Republic, Iraq and Iran.

Photo: Delegation of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Photo: Delegation of Syrian Arab Republic.

Photo: Delegation of Israel.