Page:United Nations Security Council Meeting Record 2933.pdf/32

NS/mh 42 (Mr. Alarcon de Quesada, Cuba) To justify this draft resolution, reference is now being made to the positions taken by various States or groups of States concerning this lamentable conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. But we cannot help recalling that for 23 years all the States of the region — Iraq, Kuwait and all the other States — all the non-aligned States and the General Assembly, almost unanimously, have condemned Israel's occupation of the territories which we have come to describe, by diplomatic tradition, as the occupied territories. Apparently those territories can be occupied for ever. There seems to be no need to impose sanctions against the occupier when it is Israel. Was any account taken of the opinions of the non-aligned countries and the countries of the Middle Eastern region, with proposals for more effective actions to compel Israel to withdraw its troops from the occupied territories and recognize the rights of other Arab people, the people of Palestine?

But all of us also know that some six months ago this same Security Council considered in informal consultations a draft resolution on the latest developments with respect to the occupied territories. What did the Council do? Was it able to act? Why was it not able to act? Is there anybody who does not know the reason? We all know that it was the opposition of the delegation of the United States of America even to a declaration that the occupation was illegal, let alone to sanctions or to more effective measures against the occupying State.

The territory of Angola — part of it — was occupied for some 15 years by the South African regime's troops. My delegation does not recall any occasion when anybody discovered the principle of non-interference and respect for territorial integrity, let alone urged the imposition of effective sanctions upon South Africa to compel it to abandon Angolan territory.