RESTRICTED
2
representatives in the General Debate, as well as by the press. But the idea almost misfired during the discussion of the formal conclu- sions of the debate when the Brazilian representative tried, without success, to exploit the occasion by inserting an unacceptable refer- ence to the New International Economic Order.
Saharawi Refugees or Displaced Persons
6. The main political clash came between Algeria on the one hand and Morocco and Mauritania on the other, over the treatment of refugees or displaced persons in the Tindouf region of the Sahara. Each side flung accusations of maltreatment and murder at the other. There were also arguments over the numbers of "refugees" involved, and over the use of the term "refugee" to describe the people concerned. The Moroccan/Mauritanian side stressed that these people should be re- patriated as soon as possible. There was no real need for international assistance, but if it were provided it should be directed at finding a permanent solution for these people in their repatriation. Algeria, they said, was only interested in providing relief assistance in such a way as to perpetuate the problem. The existence of such "refugees" could then be used by Algeria to further its other political aims in the region. This debate was extended to item 6 and to the consider- ation of the report at the end of the session. Save for one intervention by Iran in an attempt to resolve an impasse in the consideration of the report, no other delegation contributed to this discussion.
Cyprus
7. The fate of displaced persons in Cyprus had to take second place in the scale of political issues discussed at this session. Despite lobbying by the Greeks before the session began, no delegations apart from those of Greece, Turkey and Cyprus, referred to this issue in their interventions. At a meeting of the Nine, France and Italy sugg- ested that a statement on behalf of the EEC members of the Executive Committee might be appropriate in order to reduce. temperatures in the debate. However, they did not press for a Community intervention in the face of a majority of members being in favour of maintaining silence during these discussions. In the event, the exchanges between the two sides were less vitriolic than those at the 26th Session, perhaps due to the first appearance at the Executive Committee of the new Turkish Ambassador and his deputy. In addition to the familiar theme of encouraging the return of displaced persons to their homes, the Greek and Cypriot representatives laid special stress on the expulsions of Greek Cypriots from the Turkish occupied part of the island. Turkey denied that there were any expulsions.
Arab/Israel
8. An unusual feature of this session was a clash between Jordan and Israel. Jordan began by taunting Israel over its membership of the Committee and by expressing the hope that Israel would treat refugees in accordance with international legal instruments. Israel replied that it followed the 1951 Convention to the letter and that the Palestine refugee problem, to which Jordan was alluding, was irrele- vant in the forum of the Executive Committee. Israel also referred to a remark that the High Commissioner made in his main address about acts of terrorism committed by refugees (the High Commissioner's
RESTRICTED
/remarks
!