General Assembly Session 52 meeting 76

The Acting President

The General Assembly will now consider the report of the Credentials Committee under sub-item (b) of agenda item 3, entitled "Credentials of representatives to the fifty-second session of the General Assembly". The report is contained in document A/52/719.

The draft resolution recommended by the Credentials Committee in paragraph 13 of its report reads as follows:

"The General Assembly,

"Having considered the report of the Credentials Committee and the recommendation contained therein,

"Approves the report of the Credentials Committee."

In connection with the consideration of this item, I would like to give the floor to the representative of the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Samhan Al-Nuaimi (United Arab Emirates)

At the outset, allow me, Sir, in my capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group for this month, to express our thanks to the Chairman and members of the Credentials Committee for the report submitted to the Assembly at its current session.

The report of the Credentials Committee, like any other report or document issued by United Nations committees, must clearly comply with the principles of international legality, rules of international law, provisions of the United Nations Charter and resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly.

The Security Council has adopted some 25 resolutions in which it reaffirmed, inter alia, a number of important principles regarding the Arab territories occupied by force by Israel in June 1967, including Jerusalem. Those principles stressed, first and foremost, that the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 applied to all of the latter occupied territories.

Certain Security Council resolutions have also affirmed in specific terms the inadmissibility and illegality of any measure taken by Israel with a view to changing the legal status or demographic composition of the city of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the General Assembly has adopted, at its regular and special sessions, most recently at the tenth emergency special session, a number of resolutions that stressed that the legal status of the occupied Arab territories is subject to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Accordingly, the participation by Israel in the proceedings of the General Assembly must be based on demonstrating respect for the rules of procedure of the Security Council and the General Assembly and the resolutions and decisions adopted by those two bodies, as well as the rules of international law. Furthermore, that participation should not constitute any violation of those resolutions or rules of procedure. Given that background, it must be understood that the credentials submitted by the delegation of Israel have no relation whatsoever to the Arab territories occupied by Israel by force in 1967.

As we have decided not to take specific action regarding this matter at the current session, despite our conviction that Israel, through the policies pursued by its current Government, does not respect the rules of international law, the Charter of the United Nations or the resolutions of the Security Council and is not working towards achieving a just and comprehensive peace in the region of the Middle East, we hope that this will be used as an opportunity to intensify the efforts under way in order to revive the peace process and put it back on the right track.

The Acting President

We shall now proceed to consider the draft resolution recommended by the Credentials Committee in paragraph 13 of its report.

Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of vote before the voting, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Mr. Samadi (Iran)

My delegation would like to express its reservations regarding those parts of the report of the Credential Committee contained in document A/52/719 relating to the credentials of Israel. In line with the position of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the issue, my delegation wishes to disassociate itself from the parts of that report referring to the approval of the credentials of Israel.

Mr. Kamal (Pakistan)

My delegation would like to comment on the report of the Credentials Committee that has been submitted under agenda item 3 and is contained in document A/52/719 of 11 December 1997. Our comments relate to paragraphs 4 and 5, as well as 9 and 10 of the report. We hope to get answers to our comments and questions in due course.

Before taking up those paragraphs one by one, I would like to remind the Assembly that for the last two years the Credentials Committee has been unable to take a decision on the credentials of the delegation of Afghanistan.

I will now address paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report. In paragraph 4, the Assembly is informed, as detailed in subparagraphs (a) and (b), that two sets of credentials have been received from Cambodia, presenting two delegations to represent that country. Paragraph 5 conveys the decision of the Committee to defer a decision on the credentials of Cambodia on the understanding that:

"pursuant to the applicable procedures of the Assembly, no one would occupy the seat of that country at the fifty-second session."

In paragraph 9 we are informed of another situation, analogous to the one described in paragraph 4. According to paragraph 9, the Legal Counsel pointed out that two sets of credentials had been received, presenting two delegations to represent Afghanistan at the fifty-second session of the General Assembly. On the pattern of paragraph 4, the Committee then lists in paragraph 9 (a) and (b) the details of the credentials received.

In accordance with the first part of paragraph 5, the first half of paragraph 10 informs us that the Committee, having considered the question of the credentials of Afghanistan, decided to defer a decision on the credentials of representatives of Afghanistan. The second part of paragraphs 5 and 10, while dealing with two similar situations, contain a glaring contradiction in the Committee's conclusions. In paragraph 5, the Committee, pursuant to the applicable procedures of the Assembly, decided that no one would occupy the seat of Cambodia in view of the two sets of credentials enumerated in paragraph 4. In paragraph 10, only five paragraphs later, this understanding has been reversed. The second part of paragraph 10, therefore, stretches the same applicable procedures of the Assembly, to allow the current representatives of Afghanistan to continue to participate in the work of the Assembly.

I would draw the Assembly's attention to the Credentials Committee's earlier reports, submitted under agenda item 3, contained in documents A/51/548 of 23 October 1996 and A/51/548/Add.1 of 13 December 1996.

In paragraph 5 of the first report, of 23 October 1996, the Legal Counsel pointed out that the Secretary-General's memorandum related solely to the Member States that had submitted formal credentials for their representatives in accordance with rule 27 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. He pointed out that formal credentials had been submitted for the representatives of Afghanistan on 15 September 1996 by "Professor Burhan-u-ddin Rabbâni, President of the Islamic State of Afghanistan". He reminded the Committee that at the fiftieth session of the General Assembly, the Committee and the Assembly had accepted the credentials for the representatives of Afghanistan signed by the same authority. It was also pointed out that on 7 October 1996 a representative listed in the credentials of 15 September 1996 spoke in the general debate of the Assembly as "Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan". The Legal Counsel indicated that no challenge was made to the presence of the speaker or to his credentials. He thus concluded that no challenge was made to the credentials of Afghanistan within the terms of rule 29 of the rules of procedure.

We were told in paragraph 7 of the same report of 23 October 1996 that the Secretariat had received two communications, on 3 and 10 October 1996, respectively, from the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kabul, Afghanistan". These two communications stated, inter alia, that the statements, actions and views of the delegations whose credentials were issued by President Rabbani were not authoritative and legally valid and that the said delegation was not the legitimate representative of the State of Afghanistan and must not to be given the opportunity to speak in sessions of the General Assembly. The second communication made it clear that the delegation of the previous regime was not acceptable to the new ruling Government of Taliban. The Government in Kabul added that the Afghanistan seat must be reserved for the representative of the new ruling Government of Afghanistan.

One of those communications was received before 7 October 1996, when, as noted by the Legal Counsel, the representative of the previous regime spoke in the Assembly. We therefore do not understand the Legal Counsel's contention that there was no challenge made to the credentials of the speaker representing the ousted Government of Afghanistan.

The Legal Counsel had concluded from those two communications, and also on the basis of his own conclusion, that no challenge had been made to the credentials of the representative of the previous regime, that neither communication contained a list of purported new representatives of Afghanistan nor did either constitute provisional or formal credentials of representatives. The Legal Counsel relied on linguistic ability or ambiguity to make that inference.

Coming back to this year's report of the Credentials Committee, we know from paragraph 9 that in 1997 the Legal Counsel had a different and clearer legal situation to face. In the past year, the popular, widely supported Government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan duly met the technical and linguistic objections of the Legal Counsel. They submitted the credentials of the genuine representatives duly signed by Alhaj Mullah Muhammed Rabbani, "Head of the Government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan". We note with satisfaction that this year the Legal Counsel did not find the credentials of the legitimate Government of Afghanistan lacking in either form or intent.

The report, then, makes it clear that the Committee is a technical body. If the technical requirements were met, the Legal Counsel should have amended his opinion accordingly.

That is where the contradiction reflected in paragraphs 5 and 10 of this year's report becomes even more difficult to understand. How have the same applicable procedures, led the Committee to reach two diametrically opposed decisions in paragraphs 5 and 10? Rule 29 applies in both cases and should apply equitably, across the board.

Finally, we regret the use of the term "the current representative of Afghanistan accredited to the United Nations". The credentials of a non-representative, ousted and non-existent Government have been challenged by the legally constituted Government of Afghanistan. The Government in Kabul is in control of more than two thirds of the territory of the Islamic State of Afghanistan, and this fact is known to the Legal Counsel as it has been duly acknowledged by the United Nations. The Secretary-General's report in A/51/682, of 14 November 1997, is clear on the subject. The Legal Counsel might also benefit from the Secretary-General's report, which recognizes the existence of the Government in Kabul de facto. The report also highlights the fact that the Governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognized the legitimate Government of Afghanistan in May 1997.

The Secretary-General's report also brings out beyond doubt that if the Kabul authorities are not the Government, there is also no other Government in Afghanistan. Paragraph 36 states that responsible local political authorities, let alone a central Government, have virtually ceased to exist. The Secretary-General defines Afghanistan as a classic situation in failed States.

We will not comment on these observations. We recognize the Government in Kabul. We appreciate the position and the initiatives taken by the Government in Kabul, such as the exchange of prisoners with other factions. Mr. Pino Arlacchi, the head of the United Nations Drug Control Programme, quite recently witnessed some other positive developments of interest to the entire international community.

Several paragraphs in the Secretary-General's report, taken at face value, would totally discredit the ousted faction, as it has failed to carry out its obligations under Article 4 of the Charter. It cannot fulfil any obligation whatsoever. The Legal Counsel would agree that they do not in any way satisfy the criteria for continuing to occupy the Afghanistan seat in the Organization. I would painfully refer the Assembly again to the briefing by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on 16 December concerning the massive massacres of prisoners that took place in the areas where these factions have influence and which are outside the control of the Kabul Government.

For the information of the Legal Counsel and the Credentials Committee, there is another sad reminder that the present so-called representatives represent nothing that possesses any attributes of a State or Government. The Secretary-General's report makes it clear that, in the terms of paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Charter, they are totally and absolutely, factually as well as theoretically, not in any position to give the United Nations "every assistance in any action that it takes" in accordance with the Charter.

We have been informed of the Secretary General's visit to Tehran to attend the summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) from 9 to 11 December this year. The Secretary-General had hoped that the OIC and its members would use that opportunity to adopt unanimously a strong decision in favour of peace in Afghanistan. The Secretary-General, in his next report, will certainly inform Member States that the OIC adopted, unanimously, a resolution on the situation in Afghanistan.

The Acting President

I am sorry to have to interrupt the representative of Pakistan, but the ten minutes for his intervention is up. May therefore ask him to be kind enough to conclude his statement.

Mr. Kamal (Pakistan)

Thank you; I will conclude. Like several matters, the submission of credentials is an internal matter for the people and Government of Afghanistan. We cannot but seriously regret that the Credentials Committee has been partial, inequitable and unjust in its consideration of the credentials of the legitimate Government of Afghanistan. We hope that the Organization will be able to follow the OIC practice of keeping the seat of Afghanistan vacant, and we reiterate our hope that answers will be provided to our comments and questions in due course.

The Acting President

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote.

We shall now take action on the recommendation of the Credentials Committee set forth in paragraph 13 of its report (A/52/719).

The Credentials Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Acting President

I call on the representative of Afghanistan, who wishes to speak in exercise of the right of reply.

May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to 5 minutes for the second and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Mr. Bazel (Afghanistan)

The Islamic State of Afghanistan, presided over by Professor Burhan-u-ddin Rabbâni, is the only holder of national sovereignty in Afghanistan. It represents and personifies the continuity of Afghanistan as a State. The internal disturbances, tensions and civil war cannot be considered the cause for extinction of the political entity of a State.

In the situation actually prevailing in Afghanistan, the existence of foreign military personnel and the mercenary nature of the Taliban are well known to the international community.

Last year, Pakistan preached for the transfer of Afghanistan's seat to their stooge installed in Kabul. This year, due to the considerable amount of information in the international media and in the reports of the Secretary-General on the physical presence of Pakistani military personnel in Afghanistan, Pakistan is not legally and morally in a position to chant the same song.

The vacant-seat formula presented here is another attempt by Pakistan to fragment Afghanistan and to use the United Nations to achieve their hegemonistic scheme in the region.

The Islamic State of Afghanistan is firmly convinced that the affirmation or adoption of such a formula would create a dangerous precedent and would encourage hegemonistic countries to invade and send mercenaries to occupy part of another country and then try to legitimize its aggression.

I should also like to mention that the representative of Pakistan referred to the briefing by an officer of the High Commissioner, Mr. John Mills, on 16 December, but he omitted the first part of the briefing, which stated:

"The first was in a number of villages near Mazar-i-Sharif where advancing Taliban forces in September had massacred civilians of the Hazara tribe. In one village 53 people had been killed when Taliban entered the village demanding weapons and shooting civilians whether or not weapons were provided. In the second village 30 elderly people who had stayed behind when others fled the Taliban advance were killed. The Special Representative was told that similar killings had occurred in two other villages."

Mr. Kamal (Pakistan)

It is not my intention to enter into a debate with people who do not control even 20 per cent of the territory of Afghanistan and even with that 20 per cent, are in no position either to fulfil the criteria of statehood or to prevent the type of massacres to which the High Commissioner for Human Rights has made reference in the most horrendous terms that we have seen since the sad events of the Second World War. I would merely like to repeat that the vacant-seat formula to which my delegation has referred is a formula accepted by 55 member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. They feel that this group of gentlemen does not fulfil the criteria for statecraft, which is why the Islamic Conference has adopted the vacant-seat formula which has been in place for more than a year. We urge the United Nations to consider that, because people who cannot fulfil the criteria of statehood do not have the right to continue to sit in this Organization.

The other point that I made -- and I am not entering into a debate with people whose legitimacy or ability to fulfil the functions of statecraft we do not recognize -- is that the Credentials Committee has taken two decisions that are not in conformity with each other. We look forward, at some stage, in due course, to an explanation as to how in two totally analogous cases decisions have been taken on the basis of two understandings which are diametrically opposed to each other. That is something which this Assembly needs to consider at some future date so that the legitimacy of the decisions that we take is based on principles, principles that are followed across the board, and not on the basis of double standards or of selectivity.

The Acting President

We have thus concluded this stage of our consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 3.