365. Editorial Note
On April 30, 1980, in a vote taken by the United Nations Security Council, the Tunisian-sponsored draft resolution S/13911 on Palestinian rights, proposed on April 28, was vetoed by the United States. Under the proposed draft resolution, introduction of which restarted the round of Security Council consideration of the issue of Palestinian rights that had occurred from March 31 to April 9, the Security Council would affirm “that the Palestinian people should be enabled to exercise the inalienable right to self-determination, including the right to establish an independent state in Palestine; the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors; and the right of those choosing not to return to receive equitable compensation for their property.” Moreover, the draft resolution reaffirmed the principle that Israel “should withdraw from all Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem; decide that appropriate arrangements should be established to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in the area, including the sovereign independent State of Palestine, and the right to live within secure and recognized boundaries; decide that these provisions should be taken fully into account in all international efforts and conferences organized within the United Nations framework for the establishment of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East; and request the Secretary-General to take all the necessary steps, as soon as possible, for the implementation of the resolution and to report on the progress achieved.” (Yearbook of the United Nations, 1980, page 380) For the full text of the draft resolution, see telegram 1672, from the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, April 29. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800262–0961)
With the introduction of the Tunisian resolution impending, the U.S. preference was to “avoid” a veto of the proposed text, as the perceived “decision” of the Palestine Liberation Organization to “force a vote” on the resolution “could provide a pretext for calling an emergency special session of the General Assembly.” “To do so” the Department of State observed, “it will be necessary to prevent the resolution from obtaining nine yes votes.” The United States could count on four abstentions, but some delegations previously thought to be abstaining, such as the Philippines and Mexico were “wavering” after revisions proposed by the resolution’s sponsors. The text, from the U.S. perspective was also problematic as it did not “specifically reaffirm Resolution 242,” though a paragraph critical of Camp David had previously been deleted. (Telegram 112025 to multiple posts, April 28; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800212–1008) In his statement to the Security Council issued in connection with the U.S. veto, [Page 1230] Representative to the United Nations Donald F. McHenry argued that given the search for a “comprehensive peace” in which the United States had taken an active role, “we should not be distracted by approaches that offer no prospect for making practical progress.” Further, the United States “should not adopt an approach that does not endorse UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the agreed basis for all peace efforts in the Middle East—an approach which, indeed, seeks to change Resolution 242. We should not allow the United Nations to be used in this way. The clash of opposites and the sharpening of contradictions has no place here, in this body dedicated to the maintenance of peace and the resolution of disputes through peaceful means.” For the full text of McHenry’s statement, see telegram 1714 from the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, May 1. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800216–0283)