Official Records
General Assembly
Fifty-third session
First Committee
26th meeting
Monday, 9 November 1998, 3 p.m.
New York
President: Mr. Mernier …………………………(Belgium)
The meeting was called to order at 3.10 p.m.
Agenda items 63 to 80 (continued)
Action on all draft resolutions submitted under all items
/…
The Chairman: …
/…
(spoke in French)
The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.3, entitled “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East”.
The sponsors would like the draft resolution to be adopted without a vote. As I see no objection from any delegation, and as no delegation wishes to explain its position before a decision is taken, I call on the Secretary of the Committee.
Mr. Lin Kuo-Chung (Secretary of the Committee): Draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.3, entitled “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East”, was introduced by the representative of Egypt at the 19th meeting, on 30 October 1998.
The Chairman (interpretation from French): May I take it that the draft resolution is adopted?
Draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.3 was adopted.
The Chairman (interpretation from French): I shall now call on those delegations wishing to explain their positions on the draft resolution just adopted.
Mr. Becher (Israel): Israel joined the consensus on draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.3, in spite of what it views as the draft resolution's inherent deficiencies. Israel’s joining should therefore not be interpreted as agreement to all its provisions or modalities. Israel joined the consensus chiefly out of its conviction that the Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone will eventually serve as an important complement to the overall peace, security and stability of the region.
Israel firmly believes in the eventual establishment of a mutually verified nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. We would like to see such a zone free of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as ballistic missiles. We believe such a zone should be established in direct negotiations between States once they recognize each other and establish full and peaceful relations. It cannot be established by anyone other than the parties themselves, nor can it be established between States claiming to be in a state of war and refusing to maintain peaceful relations.
The zone would be directly negotiated and mutually verifiable, achieving on a regional basis the nonproliferation goal of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). As has been well proven in other regions, a step-by-step approach starting with modest confidence-building measures and the gradual forging of a peaceful environment will eventually lead to more ambitious plans such as a nuclear-weapon-free zone in our region.
Consensus on this draft resolution has been maintained since 1980 because all the parties concerned have found a way to respect each other’s interpretations and reservations regarding the draft resolution. My delegation hopes that this sense of responsibility will prevail in the discussion of other draft resolutions concerning the Middle East.
Mr. Dehghani (Islamic Republic of Iran): I wish to make a brief comment on draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.3, entitled “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East”.
We are convinced that the establishment of a nuclear-weapon- free zone in the Middle East at an early date is the most viable way to achieve peace and security in the region. This has been Iran’s consistent position since 1974, when it initiated what became General Assembly resolution 3263 (XXIX) of 9 December 1974 on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East.
At present the main obstacle to the realization of this initiative is Israel’s refusal to join the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to put its nuclear weapons programme under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.
The establishment of a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East is a separate issue and should not become hostage to other matters.
My delegation would have liked to become a sponsor of this draft resolution. Because of the unnecessary references to an unrelated matter in the tenth preambular paragraph and in operative paragraph 4, we were regrettably unable to become a sponsor. We nevertheless support wholeheartedly the contents of this draft resolution.
The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to consider draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.21/Rev.2, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A separate, recorded vote has been requested on the sixth preambular paragraph.
I call on the Secretary of the Committee.
Mr. Lin Kuo-Chung (Secretary of the Committee): Draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.21/Rev.2, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, was introduced by the representative of Egypt on behalf of the States members of the League of Arab States at the 25th meeting, on 6 November 1998.
The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on the sixth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.21/Rev.2, which reads as follows:
Does any delegation wish to speak in explanation of vote before the voting on the sixth preambular paragraph? If not, I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.
Mr. Lin Kuo-Chung (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to the vote on the sixth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.21/Rev.2.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Against: India, Israel
Abstaining: Cuba, Pakistan
The sixth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.21/Rev.2 was retained by 141 votes to 2, with 2 abstentions.
The Chairman (interpretation from French): Does any delegation wish to speak in explanation of vote after the voting?
I see none.
The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution as a whole.
I shall first give the floor to those representatives wishing to speak in explanation of vote before the voting.
Mr. Becher (Israel): The Committee has before it draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.21/Rev.2, the only draft resolution to single out a Member State.
This draft resolution, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, deals with an important issue but does not recognize or address the realities in the region.
Many developments have occurred in the nuclear realm in the Middle East in recent years, such as the sombre experience gained by the United Nations Special Commission and the Action Team and other dangerous proliferation efforts taken by some countries in the region. None of these developments involve Israel. On the contrary, Israel has never threatened any of its neighbours, nor has it acted in violation of international law. In fact, Israel has always demonstrated exemplary self-restraint commensurate with the sensitivity of the nuclear domain.
The motives that compel the sponsors of this draft resolution, in the opinion of my delegation, have nothing to do with the alleged specific purpose. This is emphasized by the fact that other draft resolutions concerning crucial issues are presented in a restrained and considerate manner, so as not to single out or offend any single State, whereas when it comes to baseless accusations against Israel, such restraint is nowhere to be found.
If this draft resolution truly addresses itself to the principle of universality, as its proponents cynically claim, it should be broadly applied, and Israel should not be singled out. If, on the other hand, this Committee wishes to highlight the current situation in the Middle East, it should target the real proliferators in the region, which are well known to this Committee and to the international community as a whole.
There is no factual justification for such a draft resolution, nor is there a reason to single out Israel again. It is the policy of Israel to negotiate the establishment, in due time, of the Middle East as a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and missiles. A regional nuclear-weapon-free zone should emanate from, and be supported by, all States in the region. Such a zone cannot be imposed on the regional parties. The draft resolution refers to the 1995 document but fails to quote a very relevant phrase from that document, which states that
This is a clear and sufficient statement on the subject. The draft resolution before the Committee deviates from these agreed principles and objectives.
There are also compelling practical reasons to oppose this draft resolution. It will certainly not lead to confidence-building and reconciliation, without which further positive developments are impossible. Such a draft will not change the situation prevailing in the region. Moreover, it is bound to be dangerous and counterproductive, because it implies that the regional process can be circumvented by majority resolutions in international bodies, The sponsors of this draft resolution openly admit that their purpose is to harass Israel by trying to coerce it to act on what is essentially a sovereign right and an independent and unilateral decision.
This draft resolution renders a great disservice to the cause of non-proliferation in the Middle East by creating the illusion that it tackles the real issue of proliferation. Unfortunately, the text of this draft resolution also does not reflect the positive developments in the peace process and the changes on the ground. My delegation therefore calls upon all delegations to vote against this draft resolution.
Mr. Grey (United States of America): Since the inception of this draft resolution, the United States has opposed the text, now entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.
We have always considered it inappropriate to single out for criticism one State for its failure to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The United States believes that no matter how much the draft resolution may be softened, it suffers from the defects of its underlying intent and does not deserve the approval of this body.
This year the draft resolution is even more objectionable. In a year when two countries that have tested nuclear weapons are not mentioned by name in a draft resolution that would criticize their actions, how can this body justify criticizing by name another State which has not tested nuclear weapons?
What is more, we have just witnessed the signing of the Wye Memorandum, which we hope will reinvigorate the Middle East peace process. Does a draft resolution like this, especially considering its origins, contribute to the peace process, or will it make that process more difficult? We believe the answer is clear.
In the light of the current situation, we urge other members to consider these arguments carefully and not support this draft resolution. For its part, the United States will vote against.
The Chairman: As no other delegation wishes to explain its position before the vote, I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.
Mr. Lin Kuo-Chung (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to vote on draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.21/Rev.2 as a whole.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Against: Israel, United States of America
Abstaining: Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Myanmar, Norway, Singapore
Draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.21/Rev.2 as a whole was adopted by 134 votes to 2, with 10 abstentions.
[Subsequently, the delegation of Angola informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.]
The Chairman (interpretation from French): Does any delegation wish to explain its vote after the vote?
Mr. Benítez Verson (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): The delegation of Cuba supports draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.21/Rev.2, which we have just adopted, because we believe that it contributes to the Middle East peace efforts. There is no doubt that the proliferation of nuclear weapons, far from reducing existing tensions, would be a major obstacle to achieving lasting peace in this delicate region.
At the same time, my delegation would like it to be known that its vote in favour of the draft resolution in no way changes the position of Cuba regarding the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which we believe to be a discriminatory and selective international system that legitimizes unacceptable privileges for the nuclear-weapon States. That is why my country abstained in the vote on the sixth preambular paragraph.
Ms. Kunadi (India): My country’s long-standing views on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons are well known. We therefore were obliged to vote against the sixth preambular paragraph, while abstaining on the draft resolution as a whole.
The Chairman: We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote on draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.21/Rev.2.
/…
The meeting rose at 4.10 p.m.
Document Type: Meeting record
Document Sources: General Assembly
Subject: Arms control and regional security issues
Publication Date: 09/11/1998