YouSaid · the spoken record

Sedat Jobe

lines on the record: 175
first: 1998-03-02
most recent: 1998-03-20
sittings or episodes: 4
sources: un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“In this respect, we would recall that the trial of Timothy McVeigh was transferred from Oklahoma City to Denver, Colorado, not because of any challenge to the fairness of the judiciary or to the law in Oklahoma but because the place in which the crime was committed no longer provided the conditions needed for due process and a fair trial for the accused. Also, we should not forget that the case of the two Libyans is one of suspicion only. As for the observers, they would be mere spectators, like other spectators who watch a play or a movie, in that they cannot interfere in or influence its events or scenes. Even if such spectators have views, their views would only be like those of a play or movie critic.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Fourthly, Libya has never cast doubt on the Scottish judiciary or Scottish law. It even sent an official letter to the Security Council in July 1997 confirming its appreciation of the deep-rooted history of Scottish law and judiciary (document S/1997/518). Moreover, Libya has urged the two Libyan suspects to appear before that judiciary. It has even accepted a trial for the two at the International Court of Justice in The Hague by Scottish judges, under Scottish law (document S/26523). What was said about Scotland in the letters sent to the Security Council by the attorneys for the two suspects relates to the venue and has nothing to do with the judges or the law: Scotland offers a climate which would not be conducive to a just and fair trial in view of the media campaign and the statements of government officials (S/26629).”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“It is no justice at all that a party to the dispute be adversary, judge and jury at the same time through its membership in the Security Council and its well-known privileges in that Council, where the parties to the dispute act in violation and contradiction of Articles 27, 33 and 36 of the United Nations Charter. Libya's observance of the Charter in all phases of this question confirms the extent of its dedication to and respect for the United Nations and all its organs, including the Security Council, and for international law. It also shows who does not respect the United Nations or its Security Council, Charter and covenants, and works by every means to manipulate them as tools in the service of their foreign policy, at the expense of the interests of the international community, and in violation of international law.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Thirdly, my country has affirmed, as confirmed by reality, by the two Judgments of the International Court of Justice, and as attested to by most members of the Council and the United Nations at large, that the problem is between my country and the United Kingdom and the United States, and not between my country and the Security Council. If their claims are true, why do they not leave the matter to us, the Libyans, and to the Council to try to find a solution to the question? And why do they continually hinder the work of the Council whenever it tries to consider it and find a solution? Why do they not observe the provisions of the Charter and abstain in the voting, since they are parties to the dispute?”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Secondly, as regards the implementation of the resolutions that have already been adopted, and despite our reservations about the manner in which they were adopted - under the threat of armed military aggression; despite the fact that they were adopted as an alternative to such aggression in order to spare my country an evil greater than the worst resolutions, which entail damages less than those of a military aggression; and despite the fact that they were adopted in violation of the Charter, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has responded in full to what was asked of it in accordance with these resolutions, as I have explained. Furthermore, all Security Council resolutions which were implemented, were carried out through negotiation and dialogue.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“First, Libya has done everything that it knows should be done. As I mentioned earlier, Libya has responded to all demands addressed to it and has endeavoured in every way possible to find a solution to the dispute, despite the fact that it has always been sure of the innocence of its two citizens.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“As a result of my country's strength of argument, sound reasoning, realism and flexibility in dealing with this issue, and its adherence from the start to the United Nations Charter, international conventions, agreements and law, it has received strong and firm support from the international community. What is now left for the other party to say and what is its reasoning? The other party says the following: that Libya knows what it has to do; that, so long as there are Security Council resolutions, Libya must implement them; that the problem is between Libya and the Security Council, and not between Libya and the United States and the United Kingdom; and that the two suspects would receive a just trial in Scotland and observers could be invited to attend the trial. Allow me briefly to address these points.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“This is collective punishment against the entire Libyan people in a blatant violation of paragraph 2 of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates that "In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence." [General Assembly resolution 2200 (XXI), annex] Thus, these sanctions violate the human rights of each and every individual Libyan, which have been guaranteed by the International Bill of Human Rights: the right of every person to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family; the right to be free from hunger; the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the right to education; the right to freedom of movement; and the right to work.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Therefore, the sanctions imposed by the Security Council clearly violate article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, to say nothing of the present case, which is based on no more than mere suspicion.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“As such, they represent a blatant violation of all international human rights instruments, which stipulate that punishment can be imposed only when an unlawful act has been perpetrated, when it has been proved by a fully independent and impartial investigation to have been committed and when the perpetrators have been tried and duly convicted by a fair and impartial court that considered the case in a fair and just manner. The two Libyan citizens are mere suspects who have not been accused, interrogated, brought to trial or convicted by a court of law.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Thirdly, my country has asked that the two suspects be accorded the same treatment accorded to American citizen Timothy McVeigh, the accused in the Oklahoma City bombing. Mr. McVeigh's trial venue was transferred from the state where the crime was committed to another - Colorado - because the environment of prior condemnation by public opinion in the place where the bombing occurred did not accord him his human right to a fair trial. Libya recalls that human rights have no nationality (S/1997/518). What we have stated demonstrates that the sanctions the Security Council adopted in accordance with its resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) constitute collective punishment against the entire Libyan people as a result of nothing more than a mere suspicion against two of its citizens.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“However, the two suspects categorically refused to do so because their defence lawyers advised them not to agree to a trial in the United Kingdom or the United States, since they had already been pre-condemned in those countries by the intensive and concentrated media coverage of the issue and statements made against them by officials of the two countries. Such a situation does not provide an environment suitable for a fair and just trial in accordance with human rights. The lawyers for the two suspects threatened to sue the Libyan State under local and international laws if it surrendered the two suspects against their will to either of the two States (document S/26629). It is noteworthy that the team of lawyers defending the two suspects includes two British subjects, one of whom is Scottish, and two American citizens.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“In addition to all that was stated with regard to the claims, offers, proposals and initiatives which were made, submitted or accepted by us, my country, out of its respect for this Council and in response to its resolutions, did the following: First, it declared that, as a State, it had no objection to the two suspects' presenting themselves before a just and fair court, in a neutral country, and even urged the two suspects to do so (documents S/24961, S/26313 and S/26523). Secondly, it urged the two suspects to agree to appear before a Scottish court in Scotland (documents S/26629 and S/26523).”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Libya has categorically denied any link to the tragic Lockerbie incident and any knowledge by Libyan authorities of the culprits. Libya has affirmed its condemnation of international terrorism in all its forms and expressed the sympathy and solidarity of the Libyan people with the families of the victims of the incident (document S/23226). Libya has immediately and effectively responded to the requests of the British Government relating to the Irish Republican Army. The British Foreign Ministry notified the Security Council that Libya's replies to its queries regarding the Irish Republican Army were satisfactory and conformed to its expectations (document S/1995/973). Of course, we all know that the Irish Republican Army is present at 10 Downing Street and at Pennsylvania Avenue.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Fifthly, Libya further declared that it had no objection to inquiries inside the Jamahiriya by the Secretary-General or one of his representatives in order to refute or confirm these claims, and committed itself to providing all facilities and information which the Secretary-General or his representative deemed necessary to uncover the truth (S/23672 and S/23417). Sixthly, throughout the last six years my country has called on the Security Council and the Secretariat to send a committee, an envoy or envoys to ascertain the fact that my country had nothing to do with terrorism (S/26500, S/26760, S/ 1996/73, S/1996/609, S/1997/378, S/1997/503, S/1997/518, S/1997/549, S/1997/875, S/1997/880). Once more, it reiterates those calls.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Libya repeated this declaration at various levels of responsibility. Secondly, Libya called for the convening of a special session of the General Assembly to consider the question of terrorism (A/46/840). Thirdly, Libya announced its readiness to formulate an agreement, or bilateral or multilateral agreements, which would define the methods required to eradicate international terrorism; it expressed its readiness to enter into bilateral or multilateral talks to achieve this end (S/23672). Fourthly, Libya announced that it would never allow its territory, citizens, or institutions to be used in any form to commit terrorist acts, directly or indirectly, and expressed its readiness to punish severely those proved to be involved in such acts (S/23417).”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“We also did that because they stood by our side and helped us when our country was colonized, and because they fought the hated racial discrimination exercised by the occupiers hailing from overseas. Now the whole world stands against racism, and we thank God very much for that. Thus, Libya has never supported terrorism but has assisted in the liberation struggle - and there is a big difference between the two. In full response to Security Council resolutions, and out of respect for the Council, Libya has undertaken the following: First, Libya declared its condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations in several letters to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Security Council, such as those contained in documents S/23396, S/24209, S/24961 and S/1994/900.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Suffice it to say that those who accuse us of terrorism used to label those struggling for freedom terrorists, or guerrillas. Now, having liberated their countries, securing victories which are a source of happiness for us, they are recognized and welcomed, and red carpets are spread out for them. They are addressed by the titles they deserve, such as "Your Excellency" and "Your Highness". Political relations are established with them and ambassadors exchanged. Several ambassadors and delegates in this Organization were among those who struggled for liberty. Libya has supported such people and stood by them, in the belief that this is its duty to them, and to the cause of freedom, as they fought against those who occupied and colonized their countries. They did not fight outside their countries.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“First, regarding so-called terrorism, if the file on terrorism is to be opened, we reserve the right to announce what is irrefutable. In this respect, the substance of our statements would cover all time, all human history and the breadth of the entire globe. We shall demonstrate how most peoples of the world, including the Libyan people, have been victims of terrorism. Some of these people, including Libyans, are still victims of terrorism. We can prove this irrefutably. We can even prove that the contemporary political problems of various countries and regions have been the creation, the product and the responsibility of those who now accuse us of terrorism. Needless to say, the struggle for liberation against occupiers and colonialists is not terrorism. Liberation movements are not terrorist movements.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Also rejected by the United States and the United Kingdom were the demands and appeals of most of the families of the victims, who called for trying the two suspects in a neutral country. Libya alone observed the Charter of the United Nations, international conventions and covenants. Please do not forget that my country was born of this Organization, as Libya's independence was declared as a result of a United Nations resolution. Libya has accepted the proposals submitted by regional and international organizations, out of its limitless respect for those organizations, their leaders, their Governments and their peoples. On this occasion, we would like to renew our continued adherence to our commitments and our respect for all the offers we have previously agreed to. My country has fully responded to all relevant resolutions.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“This situation continued despite all the appeals repeatedly adopted by those organizations, which were regularly presented to the Security Council and to the United Nations Secretariat in writing, and in person, by the Secretaries-General of those organizations, who came specifically for this purpose to United Nations Headquarters and the Security Council. Those decisions were adopted at the summit conferences of those organizations, represented by the Kings, Presidents, Emirs, and Heads of Government of the States members of those organizations. The statement of President Robert Mugabe, Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, before the Security Council on 25 September 1997 was but a reaffirmation of positions of the African Summit and the summits of all those organizations.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Those organizations, once their noble efforts of mediation or conciliation had failed, submitted proposals aimed at the judicial settlement of the question through one of three options. The two countries rejected all the offers and proposals put forward by those regional and international organizations, which together with some other countries that are not members of those organizations, constitute the international community. The position of the United States and the United Kingdom, by virtue of their permanent membership in the Security Council, where they enjoy veto power, prevented a response to these proposals in spite of their repeated submission.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Accordingly, the Court was obliged to review this aspect of the case and to postpone reviewing the original case, thus leading to a further delay in dealing with the dispute. In the light of all this, Libya applied the provisions of Article 33 of the Charter, resorting to regional and international organizations to seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement. Libya submitted the issue to the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement. These organizations established committees which contacted the parties concerned in search of a solution that would satisfy all parties. However, their noble endeavours were aborted through rejection, disregard and worse.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Furthermore, those resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, which deals with "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression". Everybody knows that the tragic Lockerbie incident took place in 1988, four years prior to the adoption of those Security Council resolutions, and that the suspicion involved two individuals, who could not constitute a threat to the peace, breach the peace or commit acts of aggression. How can two individuals threaten or destabilize the peace or commit an act of aggression? The two countries concerned challenged the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in handling this case, asserting that the Montreal Convention was not applicable.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“In so doing, Libya has met all its commitments made obligatory under applicable international law. In a belated attempt to pre-empt the Court's decision, and after Libya's submission of its claim to the International Court of Justice, the two countries concerned quickly resorted to the Security Council, pushing it into adopting resolution 748 (1992) on 31 March 1992 and Security Council resolution 883 (1993) on 11 November 1993, imposing sanctions on my country and expanding the sanctions. Those resolutions were based on Security Council resolution 731 (1992), which was adopted in clear violation of Articles 27, 33, and 36 of the Charter. Legal rules stipulate that that which is illegally based is likewise illegal.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Resolution 731 (1992) was also adopted in a clear violation of Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which states, "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice." Paragraph 2 of the same Article states, "The Security Council shall call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means." Resolution 731 (1992) was also adopted in a clear violation of Article 36, paragraph 3, of the Charter which states, "In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice." In view of this dangerous development which politicized a legal question and of the refusal of the other two parties to establish judicial cooperation, Libya unilaterally resorted to the International Court of Justice on 3 March 1992.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Ninth, resolution 731 (1992) did not address the Libyan Government except to urge the Libyan Government to provide a full and effective response to these demands in order to contribute to the suppression of international terrorism. That resolution was adopted in clear violation of the provisions and principles of the Charter of the United Nations whose Article 27, paragraph 3, states, "Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting." The parties to the dispute did take part in the voting and did not abstain, as is provided by Article 27.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Seventh, Libya declared its readiness to enter into negotiations with the States concerned, under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, for the purpose of conducting a trial in a neutral country. Eighth, the countries concerned immediately transformed the question from a legal to a political one by submitting it to the Security Council. Within one month, the Council adopted resolution 731 (1992) on 21 January 1992 under the threat of military aggression being launched against Libya. This forced the Security Council to adopt the resolution in order to save Libya from a greater danger which was looming. The United States of America, let us not forget, attacked Libya in 1986.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court." Fifth, the issue was brought before the Libyan legislative authorities - the General People's Congress - during its 1992 session, and it did not object to the investigation and the trial of the two suspects being taken up by the Committee of Seven established by the Arab League to deal with the dispute or by the United Nations before a just and fair court to be agreed upon. Sixth, Libya proposed that the Secretary-General should establish a legal committee composed of neutral and impartial judges to ascertain the facts.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Fourth, in a letter sent to the Secretary of State of the United States and the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of Libya called for the implementation of article 14 of the 1971 Montreal Convention, which states that "Any dispute between two or more Contracting States which cannot be settled through negotiations, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Further, the competent authorities in Germany also investigated the matter and found nothing to corroborate the story of the bag. Third, right from the start, Libya dealt with the suspicion of its two citizens, within the framework of the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, of which article 7 accords Libya judicial competence for trying the two suspects. Legal procedures provided for in article 6 of the same Convention were put into effect. On the basis of these procedures, the two suspects were apprehended and two judges were entrusted with investigating the case which they started.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“All of this suffering, of severe material and moral magnitude, is without a legal basis. Add to this the suffering of the families of the victims of this tragic accident, who are, like us, anxious to have the two suspects brought to trial in a just and fair court, to uncover the truth and to put an end to their suffering and that of our people. Allow me to describe the evolution and background of the dispute, which I shall summarize with the following points. First, the suspicion of the involvement of two Libyan citizens in the Lockerbie incident was based on the allegation that they placed an unaccompanied suitcase containing a time-bomb on an Air Malta flight that took off from Malta. Second, the Government of Malta investigated the matter and concluded that there were no unaccompanied bags on that flight.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“It is a well-known fact that Libya neither accused nor suspected the two Libyan citizens; it was the United States and the United Kingdom who accused the two Libyan citizens, and they, not Libya, therefore bear the burden of providing evidence. Strange as they are, all these demands are related to legal procedures and any dispute over them is a legal one. This is exactly what Libya has repeatedly emphasized, and it has thus dealt with these demands on that basis. Allow me at this juncture briefly to go over the developments of this dispute as is required by such an important situation for my country, which, having done no wrong and in the absence of a court judgement, has been suffering, together with its people, from collective sanctions for the last six years.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“It also runs counter to the 1971 Montreal Convention and even to the judgements of the United States Supreme Court barring extradition in the absence of an extradition treaty. This is precisely the case between Libya and the United States and the United Kingdom. The second demand was the payment of compensation, which is indeed an outrage for any legal conscience because it contravenes the law and encroaches upon the defendant's right to being considered innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, such a demand deviates from the right course of the law as regards civil liability, particularly the liability of the State, which attaches to a criminal act. The third and strangest demand was that Libya should provide the evidence proving the guilt of the two suspects.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Today's Security Council agenda item goes back seven years - "Letters dated 20 and 23 December 1991, S/23306, S/23307, 5/23308, S/23309 and S/23317". Some of these letters contained demands from the United States and the United Kingdom upon Libya. Those two countries chose to announce those demands first in a press conference, and not through accepted legal channels and judicial procedures. Those demands were, first, the extradition of two Libyan citizens suspected of being involved in the incident of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. This demand runs counter to Libyan national law and most laws in the world relating to jurisdiction and non-extradition of citizens. It runs counter to international customary law.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“We believe it is appreciated by the entire international community as represented by Member States of the United Nations, as it constitutes a signal of a commitment to compliance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. This meeting is being held in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter, in response to our formal requests contained in documents S/1998/179 and S/1997/857. I would also like to express our solidarity and sympathy with the families of the Lockerbie victims and our sadness at their suffering. We hope that a quick agreement will be reached on a resolution of the dispute over a venue for the trial of the two suspects in order to end their suffering and the suffering of millions of Libyan families.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“The first speaker inscribed on my list is the distinguished Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, His Excellency Mr. Omar Mustafa Muntasser, to whom I give the floor. Mr. Muntasser (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (interpretation from Arabic): Allow me at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on the assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. As an African brother, I am very pleased to see you guiding our debate. I wish also to express to you, Mr. President, and to the members of the Security Council our gratitude for your agreeing to convene this formal meeting. Undoubtedly, it is a step that we fully appreciate.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“I should like to draw the attention of the members of the Council to the following other documents: S/1998/190, S/1998/191, S/1998/192 and S/1998/242, letters dated 2, 2, 4 and 17 March 1998, respectively, from the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/ 1998/ 196, letter dated 4 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a letter of the same date from the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity addressed to the Secretary-General; S/1998/198, letter dated 5 March 1998 from the Acting Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/1998/200, letter dated 5 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/1998/201, letter dated 15 January 1998 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, transmitting the report submitted to him by the fact-finding mission to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; S/1998/202, letter dated 5 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, transmitting a letter of the same date from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Zimbabwe and Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Committee on the Dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom and the United States addressed to the President of the Security Council; and S/1998/239, letter dated 16 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Acting Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“The Security Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations, having before it the letter dated 2 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, document S/1998/179; the letter dated 4 March 1998 from the representatives of Algeria, Egypt, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, the Syrian Arab Republic and Tunisia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, document S/1998/195; and the letter dated 4 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Mali to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, document S/ 1998/ 199.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Kebe. There being no objection, it is so decided. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“There being no objection, it is so decided. I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 18 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Gabon to the United Nations, which reads as follows: "I have the honour to request that during the meeting of the Security Council devoted to the consideration of the question of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, the Council extend an invitation, under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, to His Excellency Mr. Amadou Kebe, Permanent Observer of the Organization of African Unity to the United Nations." That letter has been has been published as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/ 1998/253.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 16 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Bahrain to the United Nations, which reads as follows: "I have the honour to request the Security Council to extend an invitation, under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, to His Excellency Ambassador Hussein Hassouna, Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations, during the Security Council's formal open debate on Libya, which will take place on Friday, 20 March 1998." That letter has been has been published as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/1998/252. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Hassouna.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Abou. There being no objection, it is so decided.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“The President: I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 13 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the United Nations, which reads as follows: "I have the honour to request that the Security Council extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Mahamadou Abou, Deputy Permanent Observer of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations, during the Council's discussion of the item entitled, 'Letters dated 20 and 23 December 1991, from France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America (S/23306, S/23307, 8/23308, S/23309 and S/23317', to be held on 20 March 1998." That letter has been published as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/1998/251.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Da Gama (Guinea-Bissau), Mr. Sharma (India), Mr. Wibisono (Indonesia), Mr. Nejad Hosseinian (Islamic Republic of Iran), Mr. Hamdoon (Iraq), Mr. Abu-Nimah (Jordan), Mr. Abulhasan (Kuwait), Mr. Hasmy (Malaysia), Mr. Ouane (Mali), Mr. Saliba (Malta), Mr. Ould Deddach (Mauritania), Mr. Snoussi (Morocco), Mr. Andjaba (Namibia), Mr. Gambari (Nigeria), Mr. Al-Khussaiby (Oman), Mr. Kamal (Pakistan), Mr. Al-Khalifa (Qatar), Mr. Erwa (Sudan), Mr. Wehbe (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Hachani (Tunisia), Mr. Samhan Al-Nuaimi (United Arab Emirates), Mr. Manongi (United Republic of Tanzania), Mr. Kalaz (Yemen) and Mr. Mapuranga (Zimbabwe) took the seats reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. On behalf of the Security Council, I welcome the Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Co-operation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and invite him to take a seat at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Muntasser (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) took a seat at the Council table; Mr. Baali (Algeria), Mr. Forero (Colombia), Mr. Rodriguez Parilla (Cuba), Mr. Li (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), Mr. Abdel Aziz (Egypt), Mr. Wilmot (Ghana), Mr.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“I request members of the Council to stand and observe a minute of silence in honour of the memory of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 and of UTA Flight 772. The members of the Council observed a minute of silence. The President: I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Algeria, Colombia, Cuba, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen and Zimbabwe, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“In favour: Bahrain, Brazil, China, Costa Rica, France, Gabon, Gambia, Japan, Kenya, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America The President: There were 15 votes in favour. The draft resolution has been adopted unanimously as resolution 1157 (1998). The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council will remain seized of the matter. The meeting rose at 10.35 am.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3863 (1998) · source
“Members of the Council have before them the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA), document 8/1998/236. Members of the Council also have before them document 8/1998/254, which contains the text of a draft resolution prepared in the course of the Council's prior consultations. It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution (8/1998/254) before it. If I hear no objection, I shall now put the draft resolution to the vote. There being no objection, it is so decided. A vote was taken by show of hands.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3863 (1998) · source
“I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Angola in which he requests to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite that representative to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Van Danem "Mbinda" (Angola) took a seat at the Council table. The President: The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3863 (1998) · source