73. Bureau of Intelligence and Research Intelligence Note IN–111, Washington, June 3, 1975.1 2
INTELLIGENCE NOTE
BUREAU OF INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH
June 3, 1975
SUSPENSION OF ISRAEL FROM THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Since January 1975--and especially since the breakdown of the step-by-step negotiations in March--the Arab states, led by Syria and Algeria, have been pushing the idea of expelling Israel from the UN. Because expulsion requires a prior recommendation by the Security Council, the most likely Arab action, however, would be an attempt to suspend Israel from participation in the UN General Assembly. The prospects for the success of such a move--which are now estimated at about even--will be greatly enhanced if
--no progress is made toward an Arab-Israeli settlement before September;
--the full ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Countries (NAC), which meets in Lima on August 25, endorses a resolution to this effect; and
--the Arabs conduct an all-out campaign to isolate Israel in the UN and in other international organizations.
Disagreement at Havana. The suspension of South Africa from participation in the 29th UNGA highlighted the possibility of similar action against Israel at this year’s Assembly. In fact, a number of delegations tried to establish a parallel between Israeli and South African policies, and during the debate on the Palestine question, Syria and Iraq called for Israel’s expulsion. Since then the Syrians, backed by the Algerians, pursued the issue to the point of submitting an expulsion proposal to the Foreign Ministers’ meeting of the 17-member Non-Aligned Coordinating Bureau in Havana, March 17-19.
According to information provided to US officials by a Yugoslav UN mission official, Syria insisted that the issue be addressed not only in the Declaration of Havana but also in a separate resolution to be transmitted to the NAC ministerial meeting in Lima in August.
Syria’s proposed draft resolution (full text not available) had three operative paragraphs:
--exclusion of Israel from the UN;
--annulment of the UNGA Resolution of 1949 which admitted Israel as a UN member; and
--revision of Security Council Resolution 242.
These proposals represented difficulties, however, for a number of delegations, particularly India’s and Yugoslavia’s, which successfully prevented the resolution from being included among the official documents to be forwarded to Lima. Instead, it was decided to forward the resolution informally and to note in the Declaration that the Coordinating Bureau supported in principle the ideas expressed in the draft.
According to the Yugoslav official, the Declaration’s wording provoked much discussion. Syria and Algeria, backed by Cuba, Senegal, Tanzania, and Kuwait, wanted to call for Israel’s expulsion and for sanctions. Instead, with Yugoslav support, a compromise formulation was worked out, and the Declaration subsequently stated:
“The Bureau believes the time is ripe for the non-aligned countries to consider broader measures against Israel, in compliance with the UN Charter, including such measures as the implementation of sanctions, the dismissal from the UN, etc.”
The Bureau further recommended that the agenda for the Lima meeting include an item on the “Palestine question.”
Suspension Move Likely. The Yugoslavs maintain that the Declaration is still in draft form and that two versions exist: one as cited above and another calling for the “imposition of sanctions, other measures under Chapter 7 [of the UN Charter], suspension or exclusion from the UN, etc.” The Yugoslavs say that they were responsible for adding the word “suspension.”
In view of Syria’s reported request that Yugoslavia take the lead in introducing an expulsion resolution, the Yugoslavs may be thinking of following the South Africa precedent (suspension from participating in the UN General Assembly activities) as the only action likely to succeed. They well know that expulsion from the UN, suspension of the exercise of the rights of UN membership, and imposition of political and economic sanctions would require Security Council recommendation and would be vetoed by the US, and possibly by the UK and France, or would fail to get nine affirmative votes.
Faced with the prospect of certain defeat in the Council, the Arabs will direct their efforts to the UN General Assembly, where action does not require Council recommendation. Such action will probably follow last year’s pattern under which South Africa was suspended from the 29th UN General Assembly: that is, a successful challenge of Israel’s credentials. It may also take the form of a resolution charging Israel with failing to observe UN resolutions and with flouting the UN Charter.
To complicate matters for the Israelis, there is a possibility that the probable next President of the UN General Assembly, Prime Minister Thorn of Luxembourg, will not revive the Hambro ruling which Bouteflika reversed when he upheld the Assembly’s resolution suspending South Africa last year.* Also, Bouteflika, as outgoing President, will select the members of the Credentials Committee.
* Since 1970 the UNGA had voted annually to amend the Credential Committee’s report so as to reject South Africa’s credentials. Each year, however, beginning with Hambro, the UNGA President had ruled that GA opposition constituted a strong condemnation of, and a warning to, South Africa but that South Africa’s right to sit, vote, and participate in the Assembly was not affected.
Although the NAC Group at the UN tends to split its vote on political issues, USUN estimates that a vote on a resolution calling for Israel’s suspension from the 30th UN General Assembly would be extremely close. This assumes that Israel continues to be regarded by most UN members as intransigent, and that the Arabs conduct an all-out campaign to isolate it.
A suspension move in the UNGA would be greatly aided by endorsement of such action by the NAC meeting in Lima.
Such endorsement would be virtually assured if the Egyptians and other Arabs decide to give strong support to the Syrian-Algerian move.
The Arab Campaign. A campaign to expel Israel from international organizations seemed to be taking shape last March. After the collapse of the Secretary’s mission to the Middle East, Egyptian Foreign Minister Fahmi, in a speech to the Arab League Council in late March, urged escalation of the campaign to “isolate and reject” Israel from the international community, the UN, and other international organizations. On March 25, the Egyptian Ambassador in Oslo, apparently on instructions, told Norwegian Foreign Ministry officials that Egypt was consulting its allies about possible diplomatic and economic sanctions against Israel, including expulsion from the UN.
In recent weeks, however, the Egyptians have soft-pedaled their campaign to isolate Israel. And, at the recent meetings of the UNESCO Executive Board and the World Health Assembly, the Egyptians were cooperative in keeping extreme anti-Israeli items off the agenda. The Israelis had been concerned that the Arabs might move to suspend or expel them from these organizations, particularly the WHO, but such a move was not made. The possibility of an anti-Israeli move at the ILO General Conference (June 5-25) is unlikely because no draft resolution on this subject was submitted two weeks in advance as required. The major Middle East issue at the ILO concerns PLO observer status.
Despite the above-noted cooperative attitude displayed by the Egyptians, there is little doubt that the Arabs are keeping the expulsion/suspension option open. While some African and other non-Arab members of the NAC have reservations about the wisdom and effects of such actions on US and Western public opinion, probably most will honor their commitments to the Arab cause. Indeed, on May 27 Yugoslav Ambassador Petric insisted to Ambassador Scali that Israel must take some conciliatory step between now and the convening of the NAC meeting in August. Otherwise, Petric strongly implied, the Lima meeting would recommend expulsion or suspension of Israel from the UN, and Yugoslavia would have to go along with it.