United States vetoes Security Council proposal concerning Israeli measures in Lebanon.

Under the draft resolution, submitted by Lebanon, the Council would have affirmed that the occupying Power in the territories designated was duty-bound to respect and uphold the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention and of other norms of international law.

The United States, in opposing adoption of the draft resolution, said it made no specific mention of all foreign forces or of the discord in Lebanon other than that in southern Lebanon.

The vote on the text (S/16732) was 14 in favour (Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, France, India, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe) to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions. The draft resolution was not adopted due to the negative vote of a permanent member, the United States.

Under the Lebanese draft, the Council would have called upon Israel, the occupying Power, "to respect strictly the rights of the civilian population in the areas under its occupation in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district, and to comply strictly with the provisions" of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

The Council would have demanded that Israel immediately lift all restrictions and obstacles to the restoration of normal conditions in the areas under its occupation in violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention, "particularly concerning the closing roads and crossings, the limitation of freedom of movement of individuals and the normal flow of persons and goods between those areas and the rest of Lebanon, and the obstruction to the normal conduct of Lebanese Government institutions and personnel".

The Council would have reiterated its call for strict respect for the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries, and would have urged all States parties to the 1949 Geneva Convention to make every effort to ensure respect for the compliance with the Convention's provisions in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district.

The Council held five meetings, beginning on 29 August, in response to a request for an urgent meeting "to consider all practices and measures taken by the Israeli occupying authorities in southern Lebanon, the western Beqaa and the Rashaya region" continued in a letter of 24 August from Lebanon to the Council President (S/16713).

Views of Lebanon and Israel

Rachild Fakhoury (Lebanon) said Lebanon had come before the Council on behalf of the more than 800,000 "tortured souls" in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya region, who suffered from Israel's occupation and injust arbitrary practices.

The population of southern Lebanon lived in a constant state of terror. Israeli tanks, weapons and guns were always pointed at them. Normal life in their region, which had become a paralysed part of Lebanon, had been interrupted. Towns and villages were stormed daily. Siege was laid to homes and private and official institutions. Children and the elderly were detained and arrested. Some of them were taken hostage. Roads between peaceful villages were closed. Shops were closed down. Curfews were imposed. Then, there was the destruction of crops and orchards and forced early harvesting.

All those acts were prohibited by customary law and by international instruments, particularly the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, the 1907 and 1899 Hague Conventions, the United Nations Charter and the Declaration on Human Rights. The occupying authorities had resorted to separating the south, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya region, completely isolating them from "the motherland".

He said those regions were being materially and militarily subjected to Israeli rule, despite the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention--to which both Lebanon and Israel had acceded unconditionally. Lebanon considered the Israeli presence on its territory as outright occupation to which the provisions of international conventions were applicable, in particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Israeli occupation forces had resorted to detaining and imprisoning countless thousands of people.

Special forces of the occupying authorities often resorted to the assassination of party officials and emient religious figures. The occupying forces often clashed with employees of the Lebanese State and army personnel. They often resorted to inhuman reprisals against the detainees. They also defiled places of worship. Israel disrupted the activities of the international forces and refused to provide the names of prisoners. The terrorist actions of the occupation authorities included firing above the heads of the village inhabitants.

Israeli barriers on the Awali River disrupted the transport of citrus fruits to Beirut, he stated. The occupation forces had destroyed an ancient Greco-Roman temple in the city of Sour, and their patrols continually plundered historical ruins. In Sidon, they had occupied the Government palace.

Israel had strengthened its stranglehold on movement between the occupied regions and Beirut. It now seemed that the occupying authorities had decided to prevent public transport vehicles from crossing from the south to the north, and vice-versa. The Israeli authorities had cut all telecommunications and postal communication. The movement of individuals from and to the south was subject to prior permission from the occupation forces. However, the Israeli authorities granted a pass to any student allowing him to leave the region, but it was only a one-way pass. That was a very clear indication of Israel's intentions to empty the occupied territories, in particular the south, of their inhabitants so that it could carry out its expansionist ambitions.

The occupation authorities attempted to inflict economic harm on the Lebanese. Forty villages were isolated by Israel every month. Collective detention was inflicted on their inhabitants. From time to time, Israel closed the ports of Sidon and Tyre. Israel had been digging a tunnel that could absorb all the water of the Litani River. Lebanon's suspicions and fears about Israel undertaking water-diverting activities had been confirmed. However, Lebanon was still awaiting the results of the investigations to be undertaken by the international forces.

Speaking after the vote, he said Lebanon deeply regretted the opposition of "a friendly super-Power", the United States, to a draft resolution limited purely to humanitarian aspects.

Yehuda Z. Blum (Israel) said the overall situation in southern Lebanon, including security, was far better than in any other part of Lebanon. There was and there could be no comparison whatsoever between the chaos prevailing to the north of the Awali river and the security situation to the south of it. To the south, Israel had made great efforts to ease the normal life of the inhabitants in the areas under its control. Israel's military presence in south Lebanon was only provisional. That was why it had been Israel's policy to leave the day-to-day administration of the area, wherever and whenever possible, in the hands of the Lebanese civilian authorities, while maintaining the security in the area pending its withdrawal. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was aware that Israel had been applying the Fourth Geneva Convention in the area of Lebanon under its control.

Israel would withdraw its forces, he said, as soon as adequate provisions had been made for ensuring Lebanese sovereignty in the south and for the security of Israel's nothern border from attack and harassment from Lebanese territory. Terrorism and chaos in the south had been contained by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). But their threat and the need to combat them entailed a certain amount of hardship for civilians. By closing the Israel Liaison Office in Debayeh, the Lebanese Government had removed the means and the machinery to assist the civilian population in the south. In order to prevent the spreading of "malignant terror" against the local population and the IDF, it was necessary from time to time to detain terrorist suspects and/or proven criminals. That was being done with the full knowledge of the ICRC, which was being kept informed of the identity of all the detainees.

There had been no arbitrary measures taken against any Lebanese village. Sporadically, searches and ad hoc security measures of a limited nature were undertaken to prevent outbreaks of violence. The IDF was out only engaged in the protection of life and property; it also greatly contributed to the renovation of past destruction. Allegations regarding plundering of archaeological sites and the blocking of movement to and from the south were false. There was also no truth to the allegation that Israel was in the process of diverting the waters of the Litani and Wazzani rivers.

If Lebanon was either unable or unwilling to prevent its territory from being used as a base of operations for terrorist activities against another State, it must be prepared to expect that State to take appropriate self-defence measures to protect itself and its citizens, he said.

Israel was prepared to negotiate with Lebanon to reach appropriate mutual security arrangements in the south. Pending their conclusion, Israel would continue to protect its interests to the best of its ability.

Council Members

Ahmed Tawfik Khalil (Egypt) said Lebanon was trying to reunify itself by drawing up a national security programme to be carried out in stages. Yet, Israel had directed its forces to carry out completely arbitrary actions in southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa, the purpose of which was to perpetuate a divided Lebanon stricken with internal strife. The policy of "peace in Galilee" did not bring peace to Galilee or to Israel. Occupation was continuing by means of force and violence and had entailed fierce resistance.

Israeli practices had become more diversified and had covered every segment of social, cultural, economic and human life, affecting primarily the civilians in southern Lebanon and Bekaa. There had been a whole series of flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

S. Shah Nawaz (Pakistan) said inhabitants of the occupied area were being subjected by the occupying Israeli authorities to a rule of terror and torture. The occupying Israeli forces shrank from no measure which could intimidate the population of southern Lebanon into total submission and acquiescence in Israeli expansionist aims.

The reported building of a tunnel with the capacity to absorb all the waters of the Litani River was a clear indication of Israel's ruthless resolve to divert the natural resources of the occupied territories to its own advantage. Israel's statement before the Council was an arrogant reassertion of its self-assumed right of unreastrained aggressiveness and expansion and unbridled repression in the occupied territories, which was sought to be justified on the basis of an unacceptable thesis that those were unavoidable for Israel's security.

Victor J. Gauci (Malta) said the incidence of conflict elsewhere did not justify Israel's occupation of a third of Lebanon's territory. Israel was even less justified in causing havoc and confusion through illegal harassment of Lebanese citizens. Israeli forces and practices were alien to the people of Lebanon.

The worst fears of Arab leaders about Israel's intentions in the past had all too often been proved right. Matla urged Israel to turn away from its militaristic policies, to respect internationally recognized principles and Council decisions, and to join others in a peace process which would restore full sovereignty to the people of Lebanon within its own internationally recognized boundaries and would also do justice to the rights of the Palestinian people.

Richard Ovinnikov (USSR) said Israeli aggrressors sowed undisguised terror and violence in Lebanon and openly sought to perpetuate their occupation of part of yet another Arab country. For the population of southern Lebanon the Israeli occupation meant daily mass repression, shooting of unarmed inhabitants, systematic raids and arrests, overcrowded prisons and concentration camps. The occupying forces were attempting to subvert the economic life of the areas under their domination. The broad experience of colonial development in the West Bank, the Gaza sector and the Syrian Golan Heights was now cynically being used by Israel in Lebanon.

The policies and practices of Israel in southern Lebanon demonstrated Tel Aviv's desire to turn that region into another field for creeping annexation, to isolate it and wrench it away from the rest of the country, to push further northwards the borders of Zionist expansion. Israel must rescind all the discriminatory political, economic and other measures it had introduced there with respect to the local people. Israel's attempts to dismember Lebanon, to undermine the economic life of the occupied regions, to exploit in a predatory manner the natural resources, must be rebuffed. Israel must, without further ado, put an end to its illegal occupation of Lebanon and withdraw its troops.

Without the support of the United States, "Israel's recent act of aggression itself and the entrenchment of Israeli forces in Lebanon would have been impossible". Attempts to impose on Lebanon systems from outside constituted not only a dangerous policy but a myopic and fruitless one.

Speaking after the vote, he said the United States' veto of the draft resolution gave the go-ahead for the continuation by the Israeli occupying forces of outrages in a third of Lebanese territory.

Vinay Verma (India) said torture, harassment, detentions, raids and other inhuman practices appeared to have become the order of the day in southern Lebanon. The serious economic dislocation resulting from Israel's closure of roads, destruction of crops, forced premature harvesting of fields and the like added to the untold human misery. The human rights of the Lebanese people in the occupied areas were being trampled upon mercilessly. The illegal occupation by Israel of Lebanese territory continued, and Israel's stranglehold was strengthened with each passing day.

Responsibility for the hardships and the inhuman treatment of the civilian population of southern Lebanon lay squarely with Israel. India fully supported Lebanon's just demands for the immediate implementation of Council resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982) and Israel's complete withdrawal to Lebanon's internationally recognized boundaries; for the immediate cessation of Israeli practices in the occupied territories; and for the need for Israel to respect the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the norms of international law and the 1949 Geneva Conventions, among others.

Liang Yufan (China) said his Government and people condemned Israel's forcible occupation of southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya region and the atrocities perpetrated against the Lebanese people in those areas, and supported the heroic struggle of the Lebanese people and the just position and legitimate demands of the Lebanese Government. Since its invasion of Lebanon, Israel had been reinforcing its occupation of southern Lebanon.

He stated that the "perverse acts" of the Israeli aggressor had reduced Lebanon to a devastated land where the people lived in dire misery. The Israeli military occupation of southern Lebanon constituted the biggest obstacle to the restoration of Lebanon's state sovereignty and territorial integrity and the unity of the nation. The key to the solution of the Lebanese question was the withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Vladimir Kravets (Ukrainian SSR) said the Israeli aggressors were pursuing a criminal policy in southern Lebanon. Israel had established a regime of ruthless terror and violence against the local people in southern Lebanon. The Israeli occupiers were seeking to fragment Lebanon, to isolate the seized regions from the rest of the country and to entrench themselves there.

Israel could not behave in a "defiant and brazen manner" in Lebanon and otther occupied Arab territories were it not for the "patronage and all-round support given it by its strategically from across the ocean". In fact, the United States had not concealed its concern that Lebanon should be bled white, weakened and turned into a United States-Israeli protectorate. The continuing Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and the gross interference by Israel and the United States in the affairs of that country were the fundamental causes for the crisis situation in and around Lebanon.

Philippe Louet (France) said the civilian population of southern Lebanon had already suffered far too much. Israel must respect the international conventions on humanitarian law applicable to armed conflicts, in particular the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. Those texts gave certain rights to the occupying Power, but that Power could not rid itself of all the obligations imposed on it by the provisions of that convention. "How can we be sure of that inasmuch as the Israeli armed forces periodically challenge the mission which the Security Council has entrusted to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)?"

The Council, in resolution 523 (1982) of 18 October 1982, had authorized "the Force during that period to carry out . . . interim tasks in the humanitarian and administrative fields . . . and to assist the Government of Lebanon in assuring the security of all the inhabitants of the area without any discrimination". However, UNIFIL had had to deal on a number of occasions with obstacles raised by the occupying Power to the accomplishment of its mission. That was behaviour on the part of Israel which the Council could not accept. "We must help Lebanon' to regain its sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity."

Daysi Moncada Bermudez (Nicaragua) said Israel's conduct in southern Lebanon was typical of its conduct in all occupied Arab territories. The policy practised daily by the Zionist regime in occupied southern Lebanon had as its objective the annihilation of the Palestinian people and the destruction of the sovereignty, independence and unity of Lebanon.

IF Israel had not yet heeded any of the Council resolutions demanding that Israel withdraw from Lebanon and had on the contrary strengthened its inhuman and illegal policies, it was not doing that on its own. It was supported by the military and political might lent it by a permanent Council member which, like Israel, "resorts to force nd intimidation to subjugate the peoples that valiantly struggle to obtain or maintain their independence". The Council must continue to demand that Israel adhere to the principles of the Charter and the provisions of international law and the Fourth Geneva Covention.

Leandre Bassole (Burkina Faso) said Israel's true intentions in its occupation of southern Lebanon were far from those of guaranteeing the security of the northern frontier of the Jewish State. Israel had flagrantly violated the provisions of the Charter and other international instruments, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The reprehensible acts of the Israeli forces were designed to artificially inflame and sustain tension in southern Lebanon in order to justify, in the eyes of the public, the perpetuation of the military occupation. He urged Israel to strictly comply with the relevant Council resolutions, particularly resolutions 508 and 509, and unconditionally to withdraw its occupation armies from southern Lebanon without further delay.

Elleck Kufakunesu Mashingaidze (Zimbabwe) said there was no sign that Israel intended to comply with the demand in resolution 509 that it immediately and unconditionally withdraw its occupying forces beyond the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon. Israel must be reminded in clear language that there was no justification under international law for any act which in any way threatened the territorial integrity, unity, freedom and sovereignty of another State.

The occupying authorities daily committed atrocities against the people of southern Lebanon. The road which Israel was following, with regard both to southern Lebanon and to the rest of the region, could only complicate further the already dangerous situation and risk an even bloodier conflict, the effects of which might be impossible to confine to that region.

Javier Arias Stella (Peru) said the practices and measures of the Israeli authorities in southern Lebanon were a flagrant breach of the human rights of the inhabitants of the region. The conduct of the occupation forces, besides being in violation of the Charter, breached many international legal instruments, including the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Coventions.

Peru demanded the immediate restoration of the right of the Lebanese people and Government to independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity and full exercise of their authority throughout the territory within the frontier universally recognized as being theirs. "All foreign presence" in Lebanon should be removed. There should be strict compliance with the provisions of Council resolutions, particularly resolutions 508 and 509. The occupation authorities and forces must put an immediate end to the measures and practices "that are so deterimental to the Lebanese people through which they seek to usurp the patrimony of that people."

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom) said the Lebanese would not be able to regain their sovereignty and independence while the greater part of Lebanon remained under the occupation of foreign forces. The withdrawal of forces ought to proceed hand in hand with national reconciliation. The Israeli Government should now withdraw its forces. There was an urgent need for early talks on the subject, through intermediaries if necessary. Those talks must recognize, however, that Israel had legitimate security needs. Security arrangements should ensure safety for citizens on both sides of the border.

Israel, as the occupying Power, might find it necessary to institute security precautions. But those must be designed to have the minimum effect on the lives of the local inhabitants and must not conflict with Israel's obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The key to a solution of the problem of southern Lebanon lay in constructive diplomacy, pursued actively but quietly. Both the Secretary-General and UNIFIL had a potentially important role to play in that. UNIFIL should be given a wider and more useful role in helping the Lebanese Government to maintain security in southern Lebanon. That would be particularly needed as Israeli withdrawal took place, in order to provide added protection for the Lebanese and Palestinian civilians who might be at risk.

Max van der Stoel (Netherlands) said his Government deplored the situation that had been created in southern Lebanon owing to the prolonged Israeli military occupation of that area in contravention of the relevant Council resolutions. Israel was duty-bound to respect and uphold all the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention, as well as of other norms of international law.

The territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon required the withdrawal of "all unauthorized foreign forces" from Lebanese territory. The Council's main objective should be to facilitate the early and complete withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanese territory "which is already long overdue". That objective was a necessary condition for the restoration of genuine peace and normality in southern Lebanon.

Warren Clark (United States) said no one could remain unmoved by the plight of the people of Lebanon. The people of the United States knew of their suffering and had shared in it. The draft resolution would not have advanced the goal of restoring "a normal, peaceful condition" in Lebanon. Lebanon desperately wanted and needed an end to the hostilities throughout Lebanon and peace in which to heal its wounds. The United States supported efforts which would achieve those goals. It strongly supported full respect for the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries. However, those objectives were hardly addressed in the draft resolution.

For example, an essential element in achieving those goals was the evacuation from Lebanon of all foreign forces. Yet the draft resolution made no specific mention of all foreign forces or of the discord in Lebanon other than that in southern Lebanon, he went on. It was silent about humanitarian concerns for the suffering of those elsewhere in Lebanon. There was no mention in it of the appropriate role available for international organizations, such as the ICRC. It was "unreasonable and unrealistic" for the Council to address the question of foreign forces in southern Lebanon and humanitarian and security problems there without dealing with those same problems in all of Lebanon. When the Council was prepared to look at the security and humanitarian problems throughout Lebanon, the United States would join in that effort. But it could not be a party to an "unbalanced draft resolution which takes a selective, myopic look at only one part of the problem".

Other Speakers: Other speakers in the debate were the representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic, Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, the United Democratic Yemen and Cuba; Massamba Sarre (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; and Clovis Maksoud, Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States.