ASSEMBLY URGES PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF PALESTINE QUESTION DECLARES ISR"L"S JURISDICTION OVER JERUSALEM VOID

Press Release
GA/9674

ASSEMBLY URGES PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF PALESTINE QUESTION DECLARES ISRAEL’S JURISDICTION OVER JERUSALEM VOID

Adopts Six Texts; Concludes Discussion of Middle East, Palestine

The General Assembly this morning reaffirmed the necessity of achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which it identified once more as the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

It took that action as it adopted resolution 54/42, on the peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. The text stresses the need for immediate and scrupulous implementation of the agreements reached between the parties, and urges Member States to expedite the provision of economic and technical assistance to the Palestinian people during this critical period. It also stresses the need for parties to commit to the principle of land for peace and the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242(1967) and 338(1973). Adopted by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Marshall Islands and United States), with 2 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia and Uzbekistan), it was among six Middle East-related texts adopted this morning, each by a recorded vote, as the Assembly concluded its current consideration of its perennial agenda items on the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East. For details of the votes, see Annexes I to VI of this release.

Also this morning, by 139 votes in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 3 abstentions (Swaziland, United States and Uzbekistan), the Assembly held that Israel's imposition of its own laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem is illegal, null and void. The text containing those provisions, resolution 54/37, also deplores the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem, and calls on those States to abide by the provisions of relevant United Nations resolutions.

By a recorded vote of 92 in favour to 2 against (United States and Israel), with 53 abstentions, the Assembly also adopted resolution 54/38, by which it declared that Israel’s imposition of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void, and called on Israel to rescind that 1981 decision. Further by that text, the Assembly called the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan and its de facto annexation “a stumbling block in the way of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace” in the region, calling on Israel to resume talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and to respect the commitments and undertakings reached during the previous talks. Finally, it demanded once more that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967.

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9674 68th Meeting (AM) 1 December 1999

Also this morning the Assembly, by a recorded vote of 105 in favour, 3 against (Israel, Marshall Islands and United States), and 48 abstentions, adopted resolution 54/39, authorizing the continued work of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Although the text calls for the Committee to make adjustments in its approved programme in the light of developments, Israel and the United States both explained their opposition, and Finland (on behalf of the European Union) explained its abstention, in terms of the Committee’s approach being outdated and failing to take into account advances in the peace process.

Resolution 54/40, authorizing the continued work of the Secretariat’s Palestinian Rights Division, adopted by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to three against (Israel, Marshall Islands and United States), with 47 abstentions, drew similar criticism from those who explained their failure to support it.

By a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Marshall Islands and United States), with 2 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia and Uzbekistan), the Assembly adopted resolution 54/41, renewing the mandate of the Department of Public Information’s special information programme on the question of Palestine.

Statements in debate on those issues were made by the representatives of Chile, Indonesia, Lebanon, Oman, Syria, Republic of Korea, Argentina, Qatar, Senegal and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Statements in explanation of vote were made by Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Argentina, Bolivia, Benin, United States, Israel, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, the observer for Palestine and Burkina Faso.

Statements in exercise of the right of reply were made by the representatives of Lebanon and Israel and the observer for Palestine.

Also this morning, it was announced that on Thursday 9 December, at 10 a.m., the Assembly would take up issues related to: the 1986 aerial and naval military attack against Libya by the United States; Administration in 1986; armed Israeli aggression against Iraqi nuclear installations; the aftermath of Iraq’s occupation of and aggression against Kuwait; launching of global negotiations on international economic cooperation for development; and implementation of United Nations resolutions, generally.

The Assembly will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to act on draft resolutions recommended by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

Assembly Work Programme

The General Assembly met this morning to continue consideration of the situation in the Middle East and the question of Palestine.

The Assembly had before it the reports of the Secretary-General on the Situation in the Middle East and the Question of Palestine (documents A/54/457 and A/54/495); and the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/54/35).

Also before the Assembly were the following draft resolutions on which it expected to take action: a text declaring that Israel's imposition of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the city of Jerusalem is illegal, null and void (document A/54/L.40); a text that makes the same determination with respect to Israel's presence in the Syrian Golan (document A/54/L.41); a text calling for the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/54/L.45); and texts authorizing, respectively, the continued work of: the Palestinian Rights Committee (document A/54/L.42); the Palestinian Rights Division (document A/54/L.43); and the Department of Public Information's special programme on the question of Palestine (document A/54/L.44). (For background, see Press Releases GA/9672 of 30 November and GA/9673 of 29 November.)

JUAN LARRAIN (Chile) said his country recognized the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognized borders. He was pleased that the peace process had taken a positive turn with the signing of the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. Although there were many obstacles to overcome, it was evident that the Israelis and Palestinians were prepared to live in peace because they realized that only peace and good neighbourliness would secure the future of their children.

He hoped that the peace negotiations would continue without interruption and that no unilateral steps would be taken by either party while they were going on. The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations should act as impetus for talks between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights. Chile had excellent relations with Israel and the Arab States in the region. A triumph for peace in that region was a triumph for world peace. The Middle East was very dear to the hearts of Chileans; there were many Jews and Arabs living in Chile and they all wished to live in peace.

MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia) said the message of the international community over the past two days had been resoundingly clear. Lasting peace could only be established with the full and unfettered exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians and the complete withdrawal of Israel from all occupied Arab lands. At the same time, all aspects of the Middle East situation must be addressed, including the issue of refugees.

A just and final settlement of the Palestinian issue was imperative, he said. Lasting peace, however, required a simultaneous, comprehensive solution to the entire Middle East conflict. Fundamental unresolved questions must be addressed, especially on the Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli tracks. The United Nations bore the historical and moral responsibility for resolving the intractable conflict in all its aspects.

The appointment of the Special Coordinator was welcome, as it ensured integration and coordination between the United Nations and donors in delivering development assistance to the peoples of the occupied territories, he said.

SELIM TADMOURY (Lebanon) said a solution to the situation in the Middle East was still required. Israel continued to occupy the southern part of Lebanon through its policy of aggression.

Moreover, he said, it had destroyed many Lebanese facilities. Israeli jails in the occupied territory in Lebanon were full of prisoners. He called upon the international community and humanitarian organizations to make efforts to secure the release of those prisoners, who were exposed to all forms of torture, both psychological and physical, and to force Israel to close the jails in the occupied territories.

MOHAMMED ABDULLAH SALIM AL-SAMEEN (Oman) said the signing of the Sharm-el- Sheik Memorandum was a very important step forward in the Middle East peace process. It was now up to the concerned parties to implement the agreements that had been negotiated. He called on Israel to end its occupation of all the Arab territories. Expanded Israeli settlement activity, and attempts to renegotiate what had already been agreed would impede the peace process and provide those who opposed it with the means to obstruct it.

He called for the new Israeli Government to resume negotiations with Syria and to withdraw from the southern part of Lebanon and the western Bekaa. The international community must play a constructive role in the establishment of a comprehensive, firm and just peace in the Middle East. The most important directives for the peace process were the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 and 425, and the principle of land for peace. The Palestinian people must exercise its right to land and an independent State.

He said finding a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees was also a key element, as was full respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention. In that regard, he stressed the need to halt Israeli violations of the provisions of that Convention. He called upon Israel, the only country in the Middle East region that had not become party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to subject all its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The fact that those facilities were not safeguarded in that manner would have serious consequences for the region.

MIKHAIL WEMBE (Syria) said his country supported the peace process, based on the important principle of land for peace. The Madrid Conference had been followed by long peace talks between Syria and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin. In July 1994, Rabin had made a pledge, which had been deposited with the United States, that Israel would withdraw from the Golan Heights to the pre-1967 line. But the assassination of Rabin in 1996 had halted peace talks and Israel had since consistently denied the existence of Rabin’s pledge and squandered opportunities for peace. Syria could not therefore be blamed, it could not engage in a peace process under adverse conditions created by Israel. Although Rabin’s pledge did not in itself represent a peace agreement, it was nevertheless an important element.

Syria had been heartened by statements made by Ahud Barak upon taking office, but subsequent statements and actions had caused great disappointment, he said. Israel had waged a vicious settlement campaign in the Golan and had confiscated more land while Barak was saying he wanted to talk peace. He had also refused to acknowledge Rabin’s pledge. Israeli officials who spoke about resumption of talks without preconditions were refusing to recognize the state of the talks until March 1996. Israel had also continued to bombard South Lebanon on a daily basis, killing innocent citizens. Its actions were not conducive to peace.

He regretted that a draft resolution on the Middle East could not be presented to the General Assembly because Israel could not be convinced of the principle of land for peace. He thanked those States that had sponsored the resolution. He recalled a letter that he said former United States president George Bush had written to President Assad of Syria in 1991, stating that the United States supported the principle of land for peace, including the Golan Heights, and declaring President Bush’s non-recognition of Israeli’s occupation of the Golan.

He stressed that his country would continue to defend the just cause of the Palestinian people. Syria was committed to the peace process, based on the Madrid process. It was ready to match every step made by Israel with a similar step, but it would not give up one inch of its soil and would not be a victim of Israeli occupation. Syria and Lebanon would continue to stand together on the road to peace and no one should attempt to break up that partnership.

SUH DAE-WON (Republic of Korea) said that through direct negotiations the Israelis and the Palestinians had delimited a series of goals concerning security, the restoration of land and new economic possibilities. Those goals represented steps towards a partnership where trust would replace old antagonisms. Peace in the Middle East would contribute significantly to peace and stability throughout the world. The leaders who had risked their lives to achieve peace and to further negotiations were to be admired for their vision and courage. Moreover, the efforts by those who had struggled to advance the cause of peace against the odds must be applauded and encouraged.

The importance of economic development could not be overlooked, he added. For peace to be lasting and genuine, economic prosperity and growth must come to all the populations involved in the conflict. To that end, the Republic of Korea was firmly committed to economic cooperation with the Palestinian people. The Palestinian economy was growing at a rate of about 4 per cent and employment opportunities were expanding, as the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement and its implementation “were allowing people to believe once again that a comprehensive and lasting peace would be achieved”.

FERNANDO PETRELLA (Argentina) said that despite many positive developments concerning the peace process in the Middle East, there were still important questions to resolve. He called upon the parties to maintain the progress achieved since the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. Peace in the Middle East could be achieved by full application of the agreements and resolutions adopted. Within the framework of those instruments, the conflict could be resolved.

He said it was necessary to abstain from acts that would obstruct the negotiations, including the construction of settlements, acts of violence and terrorist acts. In that regard, bilateral negotiations were a driving force to find solutions for pending issues. The United Nations played an important role, in particular in the assistance of refugees. Progress in all the areas of conflict, was a prerequisite to a lasting peace in the region. He expressed concern about the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon. He called on the parties to continue to pursue mutual understanding.

NASSIR ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER (Qatar) said all the relevant resolutions of international legitimacy called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories. Nevertheless, Israel continued to intensify its settlement activities in those territories, particularly in Al-Quds al-Sharif, in violation of the texts. The occupied territories had witnessed a brutal increase in settlement activity which revealed a hidden agenda -- changing their demographics, especially in Al- Quds al-Sharif, and expanding the limits of that city.

He said if Israel were really seeking a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, it should respond to relevant Security Council resolutions and withdraw from the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967. The Fourth Geneva Convention was applicable in to all the occupied territories. Ensuring adherence to that Convention was the moral and ethical responsibility of all its parties.

His country supported the Middle East peace process on the basis of the Principle of land for peace, Security Council resolutions 242, 338, 425, and international law. He called on the Israeli Government to accelerate the resumption of talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and accelerate the implementation of its agreements with Palestine.

AHMAD HAJI HOSSEINI, of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said a dangerous situation continued to prevail in the Middle East because of Israel’s failure to comply with United Nations resolutions that called on it to accede to the NPT and to subject all its atomic facilities to IAEA safeguards. This would be an indispensable step in establishing a zone free of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, and for the establishment of a just and comprehensive peace in the region.

He said that the Organization supported the peace process, and condemned Israel’s acts of aggression against Lebanon and the Palestinian people. The question of Palestine constituted the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only solution would be the establishment of the independent state of Palestine with Al- Quds al-Sharif as its national capital. Israel should stop construction and expansion of its illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

Action on drafts on Middle East situation

The Assembly adopted the draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A/54/L.40) by a recorded vote of 139 in favour, to 1 against (Israel), with 3 abstentions (Swaziland, United States and Uzbekistan). Prior to the vote, the Assembly was informed that Togo had become a sponsor. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/54/L.41), of which Togo was also listed as a sponsor, was then adopted by a recorded vote of 92 in favour, to 2 against (United States and Israel), with 53 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex II.)

Statements in explanation of vote and right of reply

ANNA-MAIJA KORPI (Finland) explaining the vote of the European Union, said that the Union had abstained on the draft on the Syrian Golan because it contained geographical references which prejudged the outcome of bilateral negotiations. She regretted that it had not been possible to reach agreement on the resolutions on the Middle East peace process.

MATEO ESTREME (Argentina) explained that his country had voted in favour of the draft resolution on the Syrian Golan because its essential element related to the occupation of territory by force; it did not however agree with the paragraph that referred to the pre-1967 line.

Mr. TADMOURY (Lebanon) said he was surprised by Israel's interpretation of General Assembly resolution 2625 (October 1970). The paragraph previously cited in that text by Israel was relevant to terrorism and not to legitimate resistance. It addressed acts of terrorism and the preparation of such acts. It therefore did not apply to Lebanon. Israel on the other hand, had consistently refused to respect international resolutions and explicitly violated them. It also disregarded the principle that it was inadmissible to acquire territory by force or threat of force. There should be no recognition of any acquisition of territory achieved in such a manner.

The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon preceded the Lebanese resistance, he said. The failure of Israel to completely withdraw its forces from south Lebanon and allow the United Nations forces to operate had given rise to the Lebanese resistance.

AARON JACOB (Israel) said Lebanon continued to attack Israel rather than engage in constructive negotiation. The Government of Lebanon was responsible for the volatile situation in that country. Lebanon continued to wage terrorist campaigns against neigbouring States. According to resolution 2625, sovereignty carried the responsibility of not allowing terrorist attacks to be perpetuated in one's territory or launched from it.

Lebanon granted militia groups free reign, leaving Israel no option but to act in self-defence, he said. The Lebanese Government allowed the conflict to continue and was responsible for the rising death toll. He called on that Government to join Israel at the negotiating table to restore peace and stability along a common border.

ROBERTO JORDAN-PANDO (Bolivia) said he had voted in favour of the draft resolutions but his vote had not been recorded by the machine.

SELIM TADMOURY (Lebanon) asked Israel why there was movement of forces in the southern part of Lebanon. The occupation of the territory by Israel was in violation of United Nations resolutions and the principles of international law.

AARON JACOB (Israel) said that the appropriate forum for such issues was peace negotiations. He asked Lebanon to join Israel at the negotiating table to restore peace on their common border.

FRANCK SAIZONOU (Benin) said that if he had been in the Hall when the vote had been taken, he would have voted in favour of the draft resolution; he wished this to be recorded.

Explanations of vote before vote

PETER BURLEIGH (United States) said his Government opposed all the drafts on the question of Palestine. The first three supported institutions whose activities and approach to the issues were unbalanced and outdated, and barely took note of the considerable achievements that had been achieved in the Middle East peace process. The General Assembly should be in the business of supporting the attempt to reach agreements that could lead to a peaceful settlement of disputes. It should not be in the business of issuing one-sided criticism or authorizing the wasteful expenditure of funds for anachronistic committees and reports.

Further, he said, by adopting the resolution on “Settlement of the question of Palestine”, the Assembly sought inappropriately to interject its views into the negotiations. That was as unhelpful as it was ineffectual; it produced words, not results.

AARON JACOB (Israel) explained before the vote on the resolutions concerning United Nations Palestinian rights activities and the peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question, that Israel would vote against them because the “ritualistic recycling” of these resolutions year after year remained utterly oblivious to the burgeoning peace process and the new realities of the Middle East. The Committee and the Division had obstructed dialogue and understanding through a preset one- sided portrayal of the Arab-Israeli conflict. They engaged in activities that hindered peace.

He said that all diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East had been achieved through direct negotiations between the parties, but the draft resolution on the Palestine question sought to predetermine the issues even as the Israeli and Palestinians committed themselves to the permanent status talks now underway. The draft violated existing agreements and undermined the integrity and foundations of the peace process.

Action on drafts on question of Palestine

The Assembly was informed that Bahrain, Mali, Namibia, Oman, Togo and Viet Nam had become additional sponsors of the draft resolution on the work of the Palestinian Rights Committee (document A/54/L.42). The text was then adopted by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Marshall Islands and United States), with 48 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex III.)

Bahrain, Mali, Namibia, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Viet Nam were announced as co- sponsors of the text on the work of the Palestinian Rights Division (document A/54/L.43). It was adopted by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to three against (Israel, Marshall Islands and United States), with 47 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex IV.)

As the Assembly proceeded to take action on the draft resolution on the DPI programme on the question of Palestine (document A/54/L.44), it was informed that Bahrain, Mali, Namibia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Togo and Viet Nam were additional sponsors of the text. The resolution was then adopted by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Marshall Islands and United States), with 2 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia and Uzbekistan). (For details of the vote, see Annex V.)

Bahrain, Mali, Namibia, Saudi Arabia, Togo and Viet Nam were added to the list of sponsors of the text on peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/54/L.45), which was then adopted by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Marshall Islands and United States), with 2 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia and Uzbekistan). (For details of the vote, see Annex VI.)

Explanations of vote and statements in right of reply

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said that although he had voted in favour of the resolution on the question of Palestine, it would be risky to make the land-for- peace formula a universal legal principle to be applied as a norm in all conflicts. It was a general principle of international law that conquest did not grant territorial rights; the acquisition of land through the use of force was inadmissible. As a corollary to that universal principle, it must be concluded that the entirety of any territory occupied during an armed conflict must be returned to its legitimate owner without conditions.

Therefore, he said, while recognizing the political value of the basic understanding, he called for greater precision in the language used to what was not, and could not be, a universal legal principle. The word “formula” in English as in Spanish, was the one he would prefer to see used in draft resolutions on the matter.

ANNA-MAIJA KORPI (Finland), explaining the vote of the European Union, said it had abstained because the Committee and the Division had not taken into consideration the spirit of the peace process. Important progress had been made in the attempt to find a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region. However, she welcomed the ongoing dialogue between the Union and the Committee, which aimed to adjust the mandate and activities of the Committee in line with the spirit of the Madrid and Oslo Accords.

VITALIE ROBU (Republic of Moldova) said that if he had been present, he would have voted in favour of the draft resolution on Jerusalem and abstained on the one on the Golan.

NASSER AL KIDWA, the observer for Palestine, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that the overwhelming support received by the draft resolutions had sent a clear message that the international community was still committed to finding a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Israel should abandon its present policies and position especially with regard to Al-Quds al-Sharif. Once again, Israel was the only country to vote against the resolution on that city which signified that the rest of the international community could not accept its unilateral possession of a city that was regarded as holy by all three monotheistic religions. The international community expected States to abide by the Charter and to observe international law. Israel had consistently failed to do so, and instead of being ashamed of its position, it was proud. It was amazing that Israel was prepared to tell the whole of the international community that they were wrong and Israel was right. MICHAEL KAFANDO (Burkina Faso) said that had he been present, he would have voted in favour of the draft resolutions on Jerusalem and the Golan.

(Annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on resolution 54/37, on Jerusalem

The draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A/54/L.40) was by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 1 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel.

Abstain: Swaziland, United States, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Suriname, Tonga, Turkmenistan, and Uganda.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Resolution 54/38, on Syrian Golan

The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/54/L.41) was adopted by a recorded vote of 92 in favour to 2 against, with 53 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao Peoples' Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel and United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan.

Absent: Albania, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Suriname, Tonga, Turkmenistan, and Uganda.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Resolution 54/39, on Palestinian Rights Committee

The draft resolution on the Palestinian Rights Committee (document A/54/L.42) was adopted by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 3 against with 48 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, and United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.

Absent: Albania, Barbados, Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan, and Uganda.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on resolution 54/40, on Palestinian Rights Division.

The draft resolution on the Palestinian Rights Division (document A/54/L.43) was adopted by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to 3 against, with 47 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, and United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.

Absent: Albania, Barbados, Belize, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan, and Uganda.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Resolution 54/41, on Palestine information programme

The draft resolution on the DPI special information programme on the question of Palestine (document A/54/L.44) was adopted by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 3 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples' Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, and United States.

Abstain: The Federated States of Micronesia and Uzbekistan.

Absent: Albania, Armenia, Barbados, Belize, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Tonga, Turkmenistan, and Uganda.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on resolution 54/42, on question of Palestine

The draft resolution on peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/54/L.45) was adopted by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to 3 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, and United States.

Abstain: Federated States of Micronesia and Uzbekistan.

Absent: Albania, Barbados, Belize, Chad, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan, and Uganda.

* *** *