Three texts - on Lebanon, Al-Aqsa, Libyan plane interception - vetoed in Security Council.

Three texts--on Lebanon, Al-Aqsa, Libyan plane interception--vetoed in Security Council

THE United States on 17 January vetoed a draft resolution by which the Security Council would have strongly deplored "Israeli acts of violence as well as abusive practices and measures against the civilian population in southern

Lebanon which are in violation of the rules and principles of international law, in particular the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949'.

The United States said the draft resolution (S/17730/Rev.2) could not bring closer a restoration of peace in Lebanon or relieve the suffering of the Lebanese. The text had failed to deal in "a fair and balanced manner' with the security problems of southern Lebanon, including the security of the Lebanon-Israel border, it said.

In recent weeks there had been rocket attacks on Israeli territory launched from Lebanese soil, as well as violence within southern Lebanon, the United States stated. Yet "this partisan draft resolution' ignored those facts. "Negative, one-sided draft resolutions . . . only serve those who wish to prevent progress towards peace in the region,' it concluded.

The Council vote--11 in favour to 1 against, with 3 abstentions--came after three Council meetings, on 13 and 17 January, were held to consider "continuing acts of aggression and abusive practices of the Israeli occupying forces in southern Lebanon'. Lebanon requested the meeting.

Bulgaria, China, Congo, France, Ghana, Madagascar, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela voted in favour of the draft. Australia, Denmark and the United Kingdom abstained. (Bulgaria, Congo, Ghana, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela replaced Burkina Faso, Egypt, India, Peru and the Ukrainian SSR as non-permanent members of the Council on 1 January 1986. Each new member will serve a two-year term.)

The text, submitted by Lebanon, would have had the Council reaffirm the urgent need to implement its previous resolutions on Lebanon, particularly resolutions 425 (1978), 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), which demanded that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon.

The Council would have reiterated its call for strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized boundaries, and demanded that Israel "desist forthwith from its practices and measures against the civilian population in southern Lebanon, which impede the restoration of normal conditions in the area and threaten the reconciliation efforts towards restoring peace and security in the whole country'.

The Secretary-General, in a 16 December interim report (S/17684) on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), warned there would be a "disastrous increase' in violence in southern Lebanon if UNIFIL were to be withdrawn (see UN Chronicle, February 1986).

Debate

Rachid Fakhoury (Lebanon) said Israel's escalating aggressive policy and arbitrary practices were exacerbating the situation in southern Lebanon. They could precipitate eruptions of violence that could threaten international peace and security, both regionally and internationally.

On 30 December 1985, a joint force composed of the so-called South Lebanon Army and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) entered the village of Kunin, where it destroyed several houses and commercial stores, and burned a number of vehicles. Several hundred people fled their homes in Junin. Some 30 persons were detained.

The death toll in the area over the past eight months had reached 173, most of whom were civilians. The Israeli air force had been carrying out mock and actual raids. The Israeli fleet daily violated the integrity of Lebanese territorial waters, stopping vessels and blockading ports. Israel had a premeditated intention to impede the peace process in Lebanon and endeavoured to maintain the status quo in Lebanon and in the region, Mr. Fakhoury charged.

Israel's rejection of Security Council resolutions calling for its complete withdrawal from Lebanon and of UNIFIL's deployment to internationally recognized borders, its insistence on a "security belt' within Lebanese territory and its use of "puppet illegal forces' to support its own armed forces in perpetrating attacks and inhuman arbitrary practices, was the direct cause for the deteriorating situation in southern Lebanon.

The party bearing the brunt of such arrogant Israeli policies was the civilian population in the south, he stated. Resisting the aggressor was a right of peoples enshrined in international norms and General Assembly resolutions.

Lebanon insisted on implementation of Council resolutions on Lebanon and on complete Israeli withdrawal from the country, without any restrictions or conditions. It rejected any direct or indirect Israeli presence in Lebanon and, hence, any "security zone' or "security belt', and did not recognize any illegal or illegitimate forces--especially the "South Lebanon Army' (SLA) or the "Lahd Army'. UNIFIL must be deployed in Lebanon along the internationally recognized boundaries, and must be allowed to assist Lebanon to extend its sovereignty throughout its territory and ensure that the southern part of the country was an area of peace and security.

Israel was seeking to destroy Lebanon and to dismantle its democratic system, which represented a challenge to "its racist regime'. If the Council were to condemn or deplore all acts of violence in the country, that would put the aggressor on an equal footing with the national resistance movement, Mr. Fakhoury concluded.

Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel) said recent events in Lebanon indicated not only a continuation of the reign of terror throughout the country, but also the "state of chaos' resulting from the loss of control by the Lebanese Government over its internal situation. In Lebanon today, terror and violence ran rampant--faction against faction, tribe against tribe, militia against militia. Lebanese and non-Lebanese were slaughtered and terrorized.

One class of Lebanese citizens was particularly vulnerable--the tiny, law-abiding Jewish community which abstained from all political activity. They had become "the preferred victims of all fanatics', with kidnappings and murders perpetrated by Syrian and Iranian agents. The days were over when Jews could be killed with impunity simply because they were Jews, he said.

The Lebanese Government was "totally incapable of providing any check on the murder and pillage of its citizens by the forces of terror', he went on. Much of the terrorism emanating today from Lebanon was nurtured, cultivated and controlled by Governments providing money, weapons and agents for that purpose. Those Governments were Libya, Iran, and, above all, "the overseer and occupier of Lebanon--Syria'.

Terrorists from all over the world trained today in the Syria-controlled Beka'a Valley. Lebanon was now Syria's "terrorism colony in which terrorist factories produce and spread the deadly virus in all directions'. Syria was dictating that Lebanon reject any security arrangement with Israel. South Lebanon, relatively the most tranquil part of the country, was to be turned into "another Beka'a, another Beirut, another Tripoli'--to be used as a launching ground for Syrian-directed terrorism against Israel.

The village of Kunin, like the rest of South Lebanon, he went on, was being forcibly turned into a battle zone by the terrorists. On 30 December an SLA patrol composed of villagers in that area had been ambushed near Kunin; two of its members were killed. The attackers were traced to Kunin, where it was found that the men of the village had fled fearing they would be held responsible for the killings. Not one of them had been expelled, hurt or killed, and they were free to return to the village any time they wished. Reports that the Israel Defense Forces or the SLA had expelled those villagers were an "utter fabrication'.

Lebanon should begin to act as a sovereign State--preventing the use of its territory, in this case the south of Lebanon, as a base of aggression against a neighbouring State. Preventing the use of southern Lebanon to attack Israel was Israel's sole interest in that area.

A serious dialogue was needed between the parties to enable both sides to live in peace. Israel offered Lebanon a simple policy: "live and let live'. Until Lebanon adopted a similar policy and freed itself from "Syrian shackles', Israel would continue to do what was necessary to protect its security and the lives of its citizens.

The people in South Lebanon wished to be left alone, Mr. Netanyahu observed. Peace could come to Lebanon in one of two ways: either by the total capitulation of Lebanon to Syria's dictates--"a kind of Pax Syriana, a Hama peace'--or, as Israel and fair-minded people in the Council hoped, by a Lebanon that freed itself of Syrian occupation.

Council members: Mohammad Hussain Al-Shaali (United Arab Emirates) said Israel wanted to invalidate the internal Lebanese accord and to maintain the current state of conflict. It wished to foster dissension among the Lebanese by subtle schemes of polarization, pitting one faction against another with the aim of keeping the upper hand inside Lebanon. Israel practised terrorism and torture against inhabitants of the area under its control to depopulate the areas in preparation for their annexation'. Israel's "proxy militias'--such as the SLA--implemented "Israeli schemes' in other parts of southern Lebanon from which Israel had to withdraw under the pressure of the Lebanese national resistance forces.

Vasiliy Safronchuk (USSR) said the main cause for the continuing tension in southern Lebanon was Israel's stubborn refusal to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and to end its "unceremonious interference' in Lebanon's internal affairs. Despite its withdrawal from certain areas under pressure of "the national patriotic struggle' of the Lebanese, Israel continued to occupy a significant part of Lebanese territory, and systematically repressed the civilian population of southern Lebanon. Israel was looking towards a "mass deportation' of the Lebanese. Israel wanted to compel UNIFIL to leave Lebanon; by getting rid of witnesses it would be easier to carry out its "unseemly actions' in Lebanon. By its actions in Lebanon, Israel had clearly laid bare its policy of state terrorism against Arab States and peoples.

Martin Adouki (Congo) said the situation in Lebanon was unstable and explosive. The civilian population in areas of southern Lebanon occupied by Israel was living in "total disarray'. Serious incidents in that area were "commonplace' and violated principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and international law. These acts were obstacles to peace, and contributed to the worsening of the already considerably tense situation prevailing not only in southern Lebanon but throughout the Middle East.

Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) said southern Lebanon continued to be subjected to Israeli occupation in spite of numerous United Nations resolutions. Israeli arguments to justify its state terrorism could not withdstand serious analysis. The Israeli presence in southern Lebanon did not ensure its security, since attacks against northern Israel had been carried out from a region which Israel stubbornly occupied and claimed to control. Israel's presence in southern Lebanon was part of its "regional strategy of intimidation, occupation and division'. Israel wanted to destabilize and permanently weaken the Lebanese State, because a Lebanon caught up in factions and dissension would be more satisfactory to Israel than a strong and united Lebanon. One way for Israel to maintain the status quo would be to maintain insecurity in southern Lebanon.

Boris Tsvetkov (Bulgaria) said that by using the "security zone' as a springboard for aggression inside Lebanon, Israel and its "puppets' continued to subject the local population to terror and violence. Israel had not abandoned its expansionist schemes against Lebanon, and was trying to recoup the failure of its large-scale aggression against that country. Israel should cease forthwith its repressive policy of state terrorism in southern Lebanon. All opportunities for effective measures against Israel had been blocked so far because of the all-round support given it by its "senior strategic ally' and the systematic use of that all's veto power in the Council.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) said tension in southern Lebanon was increasing. All involved parties should show the utmost restraint, working constructively together towards a satisfactory arrangement to maintain peace and security in the area and to promote a steady return to normality. Lebanon's full sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity should be restored. Israel should withdraw totally from Lebanon. However, Denmark recognized the legitimate right to security for parties on each side of the Lebanese-Israeli border. Recent developments demonstrated that the "security zone' and the continued presence of Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, which were contrary to Council resolutions, would not provide Israel with the security it sought for its northern settlements. The best option available continued to be the effective implementation of UNIFIL's mandate.

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom) said Israel's policy of refusing to withdraw from Lebanon and its continued obstruction of UNIFIL was "tragically misconceived'. Israel complained of instability in Lebanon, when its own actions did so much to cause that instability. It also complained that there was no effective Lebanese Government to control south Lebanon, when its own forces systematically denied that control and prevented implementation of UNIFIL's mandator. The Force could provide the security Israel required if given the chance. Israel should withdraw totally and cease support for irregular forces on the Lebanese side of the frontier. The Lebanese should put themselves or be put in a situation to ensure that no hostile action against Israel was taken from their territory. Both sides must act sternly against terrorists and desist from practices which adversely affected the civilian population on either side of the international frontier.

Li Luye (China) said the situation in southern Lebanon was further deteriorating and the area was fraught with great potential danger. The root cause of the situation lay in Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon. Israel's "security zone' in southern Lebanon was "a State within a State'. Measures to "bully' the civilians in the occupied area had been taken. The Lebanese Government and people had every right to employ all necessary means to drive out the invaders and occupiers. The only wise choice for Israel was to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Lebanon, and strictly respect that country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Richard A. Woolcott (Australia) called for strict respect for Lebanese sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity, within that country's internationally recognized boundaries. All existing Council resolutions on the situation in Lebanon should be implemented in their entirety and normal conditions of peace and security should be restored as soon as possible. He found "less than adequate reflection' in the draft resolution of several important elements that had been present in earlier Council resolutions on Lebanon.

Claude de Kemoularia (France) deplored any and all acts of violence, which could only make the search for peaceful solutions more difficult. Israel's belief that maintaining a direct or indirect presence in Lebanon could safeguard security along the border was incorrect. Under particularly difficult circumstances, UNIFIL continued to play a humanitarian role to benefit the civilian population, which must be protected and enabled without delay to return to their homes in full safety. France attached great importance to respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity, a basic principle of any peace settlement.

Patricia M. Byrne (United States) said the United States was saddened that it had to vote against a draft resolution put forward by the Lebanese Government, a close friend. The United States had repeatedly demonstrated its unwavering commitment to the restoration of Lebanon's unity, sovereignty and independence. It also continued to support agreed-on arrangements which would provide for stability in southern Lebanon and security for Israel's northern border.

Other views: Dia-Allah El-Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic) said Israel was using hirelings, mercenaries and traitors to perpetrate aggression against cities and villages in south Lebanon, inside and outside of what it called the "security area'. Its escalation of aggression served its interest in destabilizing Lebanon, which was moving with confidence towards national reconciliation, ending its civil war and starting the process of national reconstruction. Israel had artificially created crises throughout Lebanon and escalated military operations in the south to prevent the Lebanese from devoting themselves to saving their country from Israeli ambitions.

Israel wanted to create in south Lebanon another West Bank, to evacuate its population and occupy the south of Lebanon, to put Lebanon under its control and to "create the small sectarian states which had been Israel's dream since 1954'. It also wanted to direct the waters of south Lebanon for the use of colonialist Israeli settlements.

Israel was hostile to UNIFIL because it wanted to intensify its aggressive operations against Lebanon and ultimately usurp that country. Israel was attempting to export its crises and its terrorist aggressive nature and to pin these policies on others. At the same time, it tried to appear as the oppressed before the world to acquire even more assistance and aid.

Rajab A. Azzarouk (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said his country always condemned all acts that jeopardized the safety and security of innocent citizens. The "Zionist entity' wanted to strip Lebanon of its Arab character and force it to abandon all Arab commitments. The Zionist occupation in southern Lebanon was aimed at taking revenge on the Lebanese for their rejection of the Zionist agreement imposed on them by force of arms and their determination to resist occupation.

The "Zionist entity' had established Lebanese militias subservient to it to destabilize Lebanon and foment sedition. It was also deliberately precipitating clashes among members of the same people to impede the comprehensive national reconciliation achieved by the parties concerned in Lebanon.

Hamad Abdelaziz Al-Kawari (Qatar) said that as long as any part of Lebanese territory remained under foreign occupation, the Lebanese had the right to resist that occupation by all means. Israeli forces had no legitimate status; their existence violated international law and the principle of the right of States to sovereignty and territorial integrity. It was meaningless to describe acts of resistance as terrorism. If the situation in Lebanon continued to deteriorate, the security of the region and perhaps of the world could be jeopardized.

Samir Shihabi (Saudi Arabia) asked if there could be any aggression more heinous than that practised by Israel in southern Lebanon, which he described as "a military invasion and the establishment of a puppet army in defiance of the authority and sovereignty of the Lebanese State--terrorism directed against human dignity and the Lebanese population and all their vital interests and human feelings'. Lebanon was today the victim of an aggression that was not even denied by the aggressor.

Moulay Mehdi Alaoui (Morocco) said Israel was escalating its acts of terror in southern Lebanon to plant seeds of insecurity and entrench instability in Lebanon, so that later it could justify its occupation of that country and have the last word in any initiative aimed at rapprochment between the various parties and communities in conflict. A large part of the internal problem in Lebanon was directly linked to Israel's policies in Lebanon which aimed at implementing a plan to subjugate all peoples of the region and "once and for all annex Arab and Palestinian lands'.

Photo: Eleven nations voting in favour of proposed resolution on southern Lebanon in Security Council on 17 January. The United States voted no, the first of three vetoes it cast against Middle East texts in the first three months of 1986.

Photo: Mr. Netanyahu of Israel (above) and Mr. Fekhoury of Lebanon (below) during Security Council debate.

Photo: Children of Khiam village, southern Lebanon.

Photo: Boris Tsvetkov and Ivan Garvalov of Bulgaria (left and centre) with Security Council President for January, Li Luye of China.