I UtfII0 eng General Conference Eighteenth session, Paris 1974 18C 18 C/122 20 November 1974 REPORT OF COMMISSION III SOCIAL SCI’qCES, HUMANITIES AND CUL’TRE INTRODUCTION Detailed consideration of Chapter 3 (Social Sciences, Humanities and Culture) of the L’aft Programme and Budget for 1975-1976 GENERAL DEBATE SUB-(’ 3.1 - PHILOSOPHY AkTD IN’SCIPLIN’Y CO-OPERATION SUS-’ 3.2 - SOCIAL SCI’CES Section 3.21: Development of the social sciences Section 3.22: Social science methods and analysis Section 3.23: Applied social sciences SUB-CHA’ 3.3 - CULTURAL ACTIVITIES Section 3.31: Studies and circulation Section 3.32: Cultural development SUB-’ 3.# - CULTURAL H’ITAGE Section 3.41: P’eservatlon and presentation of monuments and sites Section 3.42: Deve!opment of museums; establishment and application of international standards conceynlng the culi’al heritage Item 28: Desirability of adopting an international instrumen’ on ’ne exchange of original objects and specimens among institutions in different countries. 18 C/122 - page 49 the sciertifin and the commercial aspects of the issue. He ":as in favour of the Internstlonal instrument on the excl’nge of cultural objects because he was for legitimate ways of restitution. Another delegate had reservations on the dra’ resolution because it seemed to imply that all objects should go back to their cotmtrles of origin: at might be desirable to have national cultures well-represented abroad to enable othe’, peoples to see and under’ stand the art and culture of foreign countries. 327. The delegate of Canada expressed considerable sympathy with the draft resolution and proposed orally to add the word "illicit" before the word "traffic" in the last but one paragraph and to delete the term "Just:' in paragraph i2, since these amendments could make the resolution more widely acceptable. 328. The Assistant Director-General for Social Sciences, Humanities and Culture in his reply underlined the hi’ quality of the discussion, durins which a very large degree of basic sympathy’md been expressed with the spirit behind the dra’% resolution. 329, The delegate of Senegal, on behalf of the sponsors, accepted the amendments proposed by the delegate of Canada and the Commission reeo.u’ended by 55 votes to none, with 15 abstentions, that the General Conference adopt draft resolution 18 C/SHC/DR.1 as amended. Item 61 -Implementation Of the resolUtions of the Oeneral Conference and decisions of the Executive Board concernin5 the protection of cultural property in Jerusalem: Report of the Director-General 330. Document 18 C/106, entitled "Implementation of the resolutions of the General Conference and decisions of the Executive Board concerning the protection of cultural property in Jerusalem", was introduced by the Deputy Director-General in the absence of the Direetsr-G’r’ral, who was indisposed. 331. The Commlsslonwas Infor’ed that since the 94th session of the Executive Board (May-June 1974) the representative of the Director-General-for Je.’usalem, Professor Lemaire, had gone to Jerusalem in September 197’. It was explained that, in accordance with the Director-General's statement to the Executive Board at its ghth session, document 18C’I06 contained on’„ a brief report, purely factual, on certain resolutions adopted or deelsio,’ taken by the C’.neral Confel’nce or the Executive Board eonoernlng the protection of cultural prope.’ty ’m Jerusalem and that the Director-General res3r’ed the ri’qt’ as soon as olrcumstances permitted, to make a personal declaration on the subject. 18 c/l’ - ’se 5o 332. The Commission had before it · "mamoA’udum" (document 18 C/’F.15) submitted by 12 Member States on the "implementation of the resolutions of the General Conference and the decisions of the Executive Board concerning the protection of cultural property in Jerusalem" and · draft resolution (18 C/SHC/DR.2) presented by 34 Member States. 333. One delegate informed the Commission that in order not to prolong the discussion some of the co-authors of 18 C/SHC/DR.2 had arranged for one delegation to present the document and four other delegations subsequently to put before the Co’mission: (a) the historical and social aspects and the alterations by which Israel has changed the features of the city of Jerusalem; (b) the legal aspects; (e) the politi’.al aspects and (d) the religious and spiritual aspects of the problem of cultural property in Jerusalem. He also informed them that 13 other Member States h’d joined the 34 co-authors of 18 C/SHC/DR.2. 334. Reference was made to the various resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly or the General Conference of Unesco and the numerous de- cisions of the Executive Board concerning the protection of cultural property in Jerusalem by the dele’te who presented the draft resolution and also by many other delegates. The delegate of Iraq proposed addlnE the following sentence to the end of paragraph 7 of the draft resolution (on Jerusalem): "’ey also asserted that Israel was not complying with these resolutions and persisted in violating them". 335. Throughout the discussion, whatever position they adopted, speakers constantly and generally alluded to the unique character of the city and site of Jerusalem. The historic buildings situated in it were representative of the various civilizations that had succeeded each other there. They were especially valuable inasmuch as they were related to great and noble beliefs widely spread throughout the world. More than any others, they belonged to the cultural heritage of mankind. 336. The part which Unesco, with its universal character, should play in the protection of eul’ property and which was entrusted to it by its Constitution was recognized by all delegates. Almost all of those who spoke said that the Organization had to be actually present in Jerusalem if it was to play that part. 337. When draft resolution 18 C/S’/I)R,2 was introduced, it was emphasized %hAt since no action ha’ been takes on the previous resolutions and decisions, it devolved upon the General Conference to take effective measures to implement those resolutions and decisions by adoptinE the tlu’e paumgrmphs of the operative part of 18 C/SHU/DR.2, those paraEr’phs beiz’ c’plementary and constituting a whole. The measures taken could be reconsidered as soon ·s Israel had complied with these resolutions and decisions. 338. With re’ to the hlatori’l and social aspects of the problem of Jerusalem and the Israeli alterations of the features of the city of Jerusalem, at was pointed out! (·) %hat archaeoloEic·l e’oavations Were bein’ continued, in particular, in the neiEhba’rhoed of ’l Harm el 8he’if’ (b) that the tunnels due underground constituted · ’knK1r to moaumen%s and ’wellin’s above ’,ound’ and (o) that the features of %he site and the demographlo chaxlcter of the city, including the Old Oity, had been radically altered by new buildings and displacements of Moslem and Christian commmlties. 339, With regard to the le’l aspects, It was stated that the Executive Board had taken all Dosslble measures to secure compliance with its decision’ and that it had "submitted the matter" to the General Conference to take "fuz’hher measures", of a more stz’nuo’ ms%ere, designed to secure compliance with ’he decisions of the OrEanlzation and the provisions of its Constitution. It was lu fact incumbent upon Unesco to safeguard · cultural legacy which did not belong to Israel. 18 c/122 - pa’e 51 340. Speaking of the political aspects of the question, one delegate emphasized the relationship between the question of Jerusalem and Unesco's broader ob- jectives with regard to the elimination of colonialism, the right of peoples to self-determlnatlon and human rights. The political aspects were bound up with the cultural aspects, and Unesco could not fall tc take account of them. According to him, the objective of Zionism was the total armexation of Jerusalem and, consequent- ly, the destruction of the true character of the Holy Places. But for imperialism and Zionism, the Arabs and Jews would have been able to live together in peace. Measures similar to those taken against South Africa should be taken against Israel. 3hl. With regard to the religious and spiritual aspects of the question of Jerusalem's cultural property, one delegate belonging, he declared, to a country of both Islamic and Christian persuasion stated that the Israeli occupying forces were continuing to destroy the features of Jerusalem by carrying cut excavations and putting up new buildings which dlsflgu’ed the clty’ Immigrants were housed in those buildings, which were erected on sites that were both ancient and renowned. ne cultural and spiritual heritage of Christianity and of Islam was denied by the occupying forces, whereas toleranae and peace had formerly reigned in Jerusalem. The safeguarding of Jerusalem should not be merely a matter of the conservation of hallowed stones, but also of preserving all the spiritual and moral values which had made Jerusalem an exceptional site. 342. Very many delegations spoke in support of draft resolution 18 C/SHC/DR.2. Some of them stressed the danger which, in their view, Zionism - as distinct from the Jewish religion - constituted. All of these expressed regret that the decisions and resolutions of the General Conference and the Executive Board and the resolutions of the United Nations and the Security Council had not been complied with by Israel. Several referred to the Constitution of Unesco and to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954). Many strongly condemned the archaeological excavations carried out in violation of the decisions of the Executive Board and of the terms of the 1956 recommendation, as also the urban development operations effected by Israel in Jerusalem. One delegation stated that the purpose of draft resolution 18 C/SHG/DR.2 was not to expel Israel from the Organization but to abstain from furnishing any assistance to a Member State which, for many years, had failed to respect its resolutions and decisions. 343. The delegate of Israel stated that while Jerusalem had been the focus of Jewish l’fe and history, his Government was deeply conscious of the universal interests in Jerusalem and the Holy Places located in it. Israel was whole’ heartedly committed tc preserving the unity and peace of the city, safeguarding its cultural heritage and the protection of the Holy Places. Israel would continue to ensure the freedom of access to them and their administration by their respective religious leaders. He stressed the fact that, in developing the City of Jerusalem, the authorlties of his country were careful to ensure the preservation of %’%e city's eultUral heritage. The Israeli Goverament complied with and applied The Hague Convention of 1954, which did not prob!bi’ archaeological excavations. Commlssionmrs-General were at work, and none of them had ever reported any violation of the Convention. The delegate of Israel refuted Arab allegations concerning Jer’u’alem. israel was co-operatlng with Unesco in the preservation of Jerusalemts cultural legacy, in particular by accepting the missions of the Director-General ts representatives. He then quoted passages from the Direc’or-General's reports tc testify to the scholarly standards of the arohaeologloal excavations, which had contr’b%’ted m’ch to the history of Jerusalem in all its periods and to the state of wol’k in the tunnels, whleh in no way endangered the stability of "the set, merits in the Haram-el-Sharlf area. Unesco shculd en’ourage archaeological excavations, which led to major scientific discoveries, rather than hamper them. 3h’. One delegate reiterated that there eould be nc qu’stlon of concessions by Unesco on the substance of %he p’oblem’ wt’11 regard to a city which was an object of concern 1o the whole Moslem world and to Christianity in its entirety. le Orgardzatlonts prestige and authcr'’ty were at stake in a matter ’lich con- 18 C/122 - page 52 corned the cultural heritage of all mankind. Nevertheless, he wondered whether the adoption of paragraph 3 of 18 C/SHC/DR02 might net Jeopardize all that had been achieved so far. The time for appeals was past, but the missions undertaken by the representative of the Director-General had been a step forward, and he suggested that consideration mi’t be given to the possibility of consolidating such action by appointing a permanent commissioner or observer, or perhaps even an international committee, to report to the E’ecutive Board or the General Conference. Such measures would, he believed, be more effective than the action reco’ended in 18 C/SHC/DR.2. He proposed that if the co-authors of 18 C/SNC/DR.2 agreed, a working group should be established to examine in conJunction with the main parties concerned, ways and means of ensuring that Unesco was actually represented in Jerusalem. 345. Another delegate, supporting that proposal, expressed the hope that a drsft resolution wou’d be prepared which would secure a consensus in the Commission, not only with regard to objectives - on which there appeared to be agreement - but also with regard to ways and mea’s of attaining those objectives. He requested the co-sponsors of draft resolution 18 C/SHC/DR. 2 to include in the operative part a solemn appeal to Israel to cease forthwith the Mazar archaeological excavations, which were likely to endanger the foundations of religious or hlstorieal monuments. Furthermore, he pointed out that it was United Nations practice for Member States to condemn a country's action or failure to take action, and not the country itself. He therefore proposed that the wording used in operative paragraph 2 should be that of the corresponding part of the Executive Boa[’'s decision. The effective presence of Unesco in Jerl/salem must be continued, and the Executive Board must receive reports from the Director-General in order to be able to take the steps whloh were required. 346. On behalf of its co-authors (the delegate of Nep’ stated that his Government was no_’ a co-sponsor of this draft resolution), a delegate then submit- ted draft resolution 18 C/SHG/DR.6, which sought to replace paragraph 3 of 18 C/SHC/DR.2 by the following two paragraphs: "’ the Director-General to take all measures, in particular by intenslf’Ing Unesco's presence and action in Jerusalem, to achieve, with regard to the cultural interests of different religions, the objectives specified in the resolutions and decisions mentioned above; Requests the Director-General to report to the Executive Board at its 97th session on the results achieved, and invites the ExecutiveBoard to consider, if necessary and in the light of the experience acquired, what means of pressure might be proposed to the General Conference at its nineteenth session with a view to safeguardlngthe interests of the international eonmmnity which call for the scrupulous respect by ’srael of the decision of Unesco." 347. Supporting the proposal for the creation of a working group, as well as the principle of draft resolution 18 C/SHG/DR.6, one delegate said that care should be taken to ensure that a situation did not arise, as the result of action taken in respect of lsrael, in ’TdahUnesco was no longer able to exercise a certain measure of control over the situation in Jerusalem. He shared the concern of Moslems and Christians alike in that connexion. 8. Other del’gates, whilst fully sharing the views of the co-author’ of 18 C/SHC/DR.2 concerning the substance of the matter, nevertheless wondered whether p’ragraph 3 of that document, according to which Unesco would withhold assistance f’om ’srael in tile fields of education, science and culture, would in fact have the desired results. ’ey suggested that o’ler measures might be exsnined. 349. Two delegates said that they would be obliged to oppose 18 C/SHG/DR.2 and hoped that some way cou!d be found of enabling Unesco to pursue its action in Jerusalem. One of those delegates stressed the Importmuee of a dialogue between al! ’le par’les concerned. 350. Several members of delegatlo’ co-sponsorlng dra’ resolution 16 C/’HC/DR,9 pointed out that the First paragraph of the draft resolution reaff’rTned all the resolutions previously adopted by Unesco ’Id inslsted on thei’ application, with particular refereh’ to the need for a continued effective presence of Unesco in Je’ [e’. 18 C/122 - page 53 351. Three delegations exercised their right of reply to the declaration made by the delegation of' Israel, which also replied to statements made by a number of delegations. 352. The Commission hea:cd statements by the representatives of the Arab Educational. Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO) and the Palestine Liberation Organization w The representative of ALECSO stressed the international responsibility of Israel for its violations of United Nations and Unesco resolutions, notwithstanding the Hague Convention. He indicated also that tile Director-General of Unesco had reported in paragraphs i15 and 116 of document 18 C/16 on the situation of education and culture in the occupied Arab territories. The representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization laid particular emphasis on the repressive action taken by the Israeli authorities with regard to cultural and trade union mov’nents and in Journalistic circles, and also on religious persecution and the destruction of Arab d’elllngs in Jerusalem. 353. The Commission aL’o heard staten’nts "from two international nongovernmental organizations (the Jewish World Con’-ress and tlm B'nal B'rith International Council). 354. The Commission rejected the proposal to set up a working group (48 votes against, ’ in favour, with 17 abstentions). 355. A procedv’al motion was submitted for the adjournment of t’ meeting or the debate until the Director-General was in a position to make in person the statement referred to in document 18 C/IO6, but the Commission rejected it, after a vote by roll-call: 30 votes in favour and 50 against, with 28 abstentions; 22 delegation,s were absent. 356. The DepUty Director-General, replying to the questions raised, remarked: (a) that the reports of the Direetor-Ge’eral's z’p’esentative, Professor Raymond Lemaire, were confidential and that it was for the Director-General to submit reports to the Executive Board in the light of the information supplied by Professor Lemalre; and (b) that the re.presentative of the DirectorGeneral was responsible for considering only technical problems concerning the preservation of the city and site of Jerusalem. Those problems related, _In tort alia, to archaeological excavations, the pre’ervatlon and restoration of monuments, the protection of sites, and urban development in the city of Jerusalem. 357. On his last mission to Jerusalem, in September 1974, the Director-General's representative had continued to receive all the help required from the Iaraeli authorities, and had been able to hold discussions, in Jerusalem, with all those mainly concerned. Nevertheless, it was not always easy to establish all the facts and to assess all their implications in situations of t’t kind. 358. With regard to excavations, it should be noted, firstly, that T’ Hague Convention contained no express provision forbidding archaeological excavations. It was, however, true that a recommendation adopted by the General Conference in 1956 did contain a clause recommending occupying powers to refrain from marrying out excavations in oocupled territory. The interpretation of those texts was not a matter for the Director-General or the Secretariat. 359. In general, Professor Lemaire's latest report ’dieated that some progress had been made in Jerusalem with regard to the preservation of ’e cultural heritage (a) So far as archaeological exoavatlo_____’nswere concerned, those earrled out by Professor Mazar near El’el'Sharlf Were open to certain erltlei’-ms in es’ect of tl’e methods used, The excavations in the Jewish quarter oontlnued to b- carried out on sound scienhIflc principles. (b) Tim dangers of collapse due to tunnel’In’stillexlsted, and the DirectorGeneral's rep’sentatlve .had dra’ tlm at’entlon of the ’sraell authorities 1o them. The authorltleshad ’ert’ken to remedy the s’tuatlon’ and had given the necessary Lnstructlo,’ for relnforelng the tunnels. 18 C/122 - page 5£ (c) The work on the r’storation of certain so__t}k_£s appeared to be satisfactory. (d) Work on the E1 Aksa moso’ue’ was going ahead. It was a case of r’o nstzuc-tion" rather than "restoration':. (e) Technical asslst’ncc appeared to be necessary to facilitate the installation of the Islsmlc ’useum, and Unesco was prepared to provide such assistance. (f) Building operations in Jepusalem and the urban development of the city appeared to Imve slowed do’ somewhat. 360. The Deputy Director-C’neral then made the following statement, which circumstances had prevented the Director-General from making in person: 'The presence, the action and the influence of Unesco In Jerusalem must be reinforced. A policy of absence would be a policy of renunciation. And how could Unesco continue to concern itself with education, science and cultare in the occupied territories if it were no longer present in Jerusalem, the city cherlsh’d above all others by so large a part of mankind? There are various possible ways of proceeding to be considered. The Direetor-G’neral puts the matter to the General Conference. It is essential that Israel should be aware, and be constantly aware, that luternatiorml pUblic opinion is concerned, on strictly cultural grounds, about the preservation of Jerusalem; and should abstain, until a pea0eful settlement is reached, from mAY unilateral decisions on this subject. Unesco is the only Organization which has authority: (a) to represent the conscience of tl’ international com’nunity in this matter; to restrain the process of ’lilateral declsion-maklng." (b) 361. The Legal Adviser, In answer to a question, reminded the meeting that, in other clroumstanoes, the General Conference Imd, at a previous session, been led to reaffirm its right, as the so’el’Ign body of Unesco, to interpret the provisions of the Constltutlon. ’t was thus not for him to interpret the Constitution at a time when the General Conference was actually in session. 362. One delegate Dointed out that on the preViOUS oeoaslon allbded to by the Legm! Adviser, the General Conference had taken its decision bas’ itself on decisions of the United Nations General Assembly to withheld assistance f’om a particular government. There was ns suohdeoisionoftheUnltedNatlonslnihe present instance. 363. The Commission %ookupd’aft resol%’tion 18 C/Sh’/DR.6w’Zch put forward a pro· posed new text for paragraph 3of18 C/SHe/DR.2 and an additional paragraph 4 to thls same dragb resolution. On a request from the floor, %’tes were taken separate’.v by ’oll-call onthes’two paras-’aphs. The Commlsslon re’ebted both the proposed n%-’ text for pal'’ph 3ofdra’t ’esolutlon 18 C/SHC/DR.2 (30 votes in favour, 49 against, 25 abstentions, ’und ’6 absent) and the proposed additional na’a£a.aph h (16 votes in favour, 53 against, 35 abstentions and 26 absent). 364. The delegates of%he Federal Republlo of Germmny) Chile andthe United i(’n’dom explained their votes on the proposal contained in d’aft resolution 18 C/SHC/DR. 6, to add a new para’'aph4to dra’ resolntion 18 C/SH0i’R.’. They Indleatedthat, slnee the proposed new text of paragraph 3 had not been accepted by the CO’T’ission, it as illogleal to add a new pa’.ag’aph h as p’oposed in draft resolution 18 Ci’}{O/’)R.6, a’d they had therefor’ voted agalns’ %hls proposaL. 18 0/122 - page 55 365. The Chairman then asked the Commission to consider draft resolution 18 C/SHC/DR.2. The delegate of Spain proposed that the word "barefacedly" be deleted from the seventh paragraph of the preamble. This was accepted by the delegate of Algeria on behalf of the sponsors of the draft resolution. 36G. The text of the preamble, with the exception of the last paragraph on which a separate vote would be taken, was approved by the Commission by 66 votes to 9, with 23 abstentions. The last paragraph of the preamble was approved by the Commission by 63 votes to ii, with 25 abstentions. 367. Following proposals from the floor the Commission voted on the operative portion of draft resolution 18 C/SHC/DR.2 paragraph by paragraph, the first paragraph by show of hands and the second and third paragraphs by roll-call. 368. The Commission approved paragraph 1 of the operative portion of draft resolution 18 C/SPIC/DR.2 by 65 votes in favour, 10 against and 25 abstentions. Paragraph 2 was approved by the Commission (60 in favour, 15 against, 28 abstentions, and 2? absent). By 52 votes to 30, with 21 abstentions and 27 absent, the Commission approved paragraph 3 of the operative portion of draft resolutJon 18 C/SHC/DB.2 369. The Commission then recommended by 54 votes to 21, with 23 abstentions, that the General Conference ’ draft resolution 18 C/SHC/DR.2 with the amendment proposed orally by the delegate of Spain. Explanation of vote 370. The delegate of the U.S.A. stated that his country had consistently supported Unesco's programme for the preservation and protection of the cultural heritage. The United States had voted against and opposed this resolution, as it would the resolutlon's implementation, because the United States considered it a politically motivated and unjustified sanction against a ’Mmber State which might turn Unesco into a purely political forum and a place of bitter confrontation. The United States deplored the passage of a resolution it considered unjust and which would not contribute constructively to protecting cultural property in Jerusalem or to the fragile negotiating process among parties to the ’liddle Eastern dispute. 371. The delegate of Senegal stated that though his country condemned the attitude of Israel, he had doubts on the efficacy of this draft resolution, the implementation of which would pose difficulties for the Organization. 372. The delegate of Uruguay stated that they had abstained from voting on 18 C/She/DR.2 as they thought thaz withholding assistance from Israel would not serve the Imrpose of the draft resolution. 373. The delegate of Sweden remarked that his country was against any aetlon by Israel that aimed at making permanent its occupation of the territories acquitted by force. But they were against thls draft resolution as it came close to deprlvin’ a MemBer State of participation in the Organization's work. They thought that Unesco's presence in Jerusalem sbnuld be strengthened and not weakened. 374. The delegate of Norway also stated that paragraph 3 of the operative clause of 18 U/SHO/DR.2 would not serve the purpose invoked, as it was llk’ly to interfere with the presence of Unesco in Jerusalem. 375. The delegate of Switzerland Justified his opposition to the draft resolution on the same grounds. His mount’j eonsldered that international organizations had to provide a forum for dialogue between all those concerned in disputes. 18 C/122 - pace 56 376. The delegate of Malawi who had abstained from voting on this draft resolution thought that the discussion made it clear that the proposal was tantamount to the expulsion of Israel from Unesco which would be a political decision. He considered that a decision of that natu’e was outside the competence of Unesco and should more appropriately be taken at the United Nations. 377. The delegates of Yugoslavia, Syria and Egypt, whilst explaining their votes, observed that as co-sponsors of this draft resolution, they firmly believed that, in spite of many earlier resolutions and warnings, the attitude of Israel was not constructive. The delegate of Yugoslavia felt that the Member States were there not only to accept aid from Unesco but also to conform to the principles of the Organization. He pointed out that, unfortunately, adoption of the draft resolution was inevitable because Israel was persistently neglecting resolutions on excavations in Jerusalem which were passed by the United Nations bodies and Specialized Agencies. The third paragraph was conditioned by the changes in attitudes and activities of Israel towards Unesco and General Assembly resolutions regarding the preservation of the cultural property and heritage in Jerusalem. 378. The delegates of Syria and Egypt expressed their profound appreciation to those States who had supported the draft resolution. The S’ian delegate particularly stated that his delegation's support to oondenm Israel and to stop Unesco's aid was based purely on cultumal and humanitarian grounds and not on political grounds. The Egyptian delegate maintained that the purpose of 18 C/SHG/DR.2 was to uphold Unescots prestige and to ensure the implementation of its resolutions. Paragraph 3 of the operative clause of this draft resolution was a conditional clause and subject to the observance of certain demands which were made by earlier resolutions. As such, it did not go beyond the mandate of Unesco and should, in fast, prove helpful in aohievlug its objectives of peace in the world. The delegate of Iraq proposed adding the following to the end of paragTaph 48: "Explaining his vote, the delegate of Iraq expressed his profound appreolatlon of all those who had voted for 18 G/SHU/DR.2. He pointed out the motives which had induced the delegation of Iraq to co-sponsor it, namely esteem for Jerusalem's position from the point of view of civilization, the importance of shielding it from Israeli military annexation, and the importance of preserving the prestige of international organizations and respect for their resolutions. He than repeated his interpretation of the resolution, endorsing the statement in its first paragraph to the effect that the Executive Board and the Secretariat should continue to work for the implementation of the resolutions of the General Conference, and partioulsmly of that concerning the presence of Unesco in Jerusalem Itself.". 379. ’he Deputy Director-General consulted the Commission on the interpretation and application of the r’aolu%ion which the Commission had adopted, as its recomnendations to the plenary were not simple matters whether viewed from a practical, ps’ahologloal or political point of view as in fact had been noted by several delegations. Careful note had been taken of the statements made both before the vote and in the explanations of vote a’d the interpretations placed upon the resolution by a number of delegations. In particular, paragraphs i and 3 of the operative part of the resolution were interrela’d. He stated that the DirectorGeneral accepted that para’raBh I reaffirmed all the resolutions mentioned above in the preambulam ’phs and that it insisted ’n their implementation. One of the resolutions referred to and reaffirmed was resoluti’ 3.’22 of the seventeenth session of the Genez’xl Conference which invited the Direetor-’eneral to continue efforts to establi’, an effective presence of Unesco in the city of Jerusalem. The DirectorGeneral would oon’ider that even in ne’ circumstances, he shotMld continue his efforts to act upon that r’solution. 18 c/122 - page 57 380. The Director-General was studying those resolutions again in their ensemble in the light of the 1.ecommended resolution, to make sure he saw all the implications; he may wish at a later stage to state his interpretation or to seek clarification as to the s i’J.ficanoe and the practical actions which he was called upon to take, some of which of course may not be susceptible of full interpretation or explanation at that time and may lead to subsequent consultation with the Executive Board in the carrying out of any such resolution. 381. In the case of operative paragraph 3 for which there may also be implications An respect of the implementation of all the resolutions referred to, there was also the question of ’terpretin’ the phrase "withholding" and in particular of the meaning of the word "assistance". At t’e moment, under normal circumstances, assistance would refer to the Participation Programme under the Regular Programme and would also refer to the administration of projects under the United Nations Development Programme and other extra-b’tary programmes.