Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East – First Cttee debate – Press release (excerpts)

ELIMINATION OF MIDDLE EAST'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

STRESSED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE DEBATE

Several Speakers Cite Israel's Failure to Join NPT, IAEA Regime,

Say Treatment Reveals 'Double Standard' in Addressing Nuclear Threat

As the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) continued its general debate, several speakers this afternoon intensified their calls for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East and denounced the exclusion of Israel from international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The representative of Libya said that "the indifference of many in the West", to Israel's refusal to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to submit its nuclear facilities to the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) constituted a "double standard" that defied efforts by others in the region. The representative of Saudi Arabia also objected to the international community's "double standards" in addressing that grave threat to regional security and stability.

The representative of Bahrain argued that Israel's position had compelled other countries to develop those weapons, thereby generating a perilous arms race, while the representative of Jordan warned that Israel's reluctance to cooperate with the nuclear non-proliferation regime had imperiled its credibility.

The representative of Iraq warned of a serious imbalance in the Middle East, resulting largely from Israel's "expansionist policy", for which it depended on a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. He also cited that country's reluctance to accede to the NPT, as well as its refusal to implement the Security Council resolution of 1981 which called on it to place its nuclear installations under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. That situation had exposed the double-standard policy of the United States with regard to the implementation of United Nations resolutions, he said.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Israel said he had listened with a certain degree of incredulity at Iraqi calls for complete and total disarmament, in particular, to its calls to Israel. He hoped the delegations appreciated why, in the realm of arms control, his country treated Iraqi recommendations and intentions in the same way that "porcupines make love — that is, very, very carefully". Furthermore, peace in the Middle East was a prerequisite to negotiating those difficult and dangerous issues.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Malta, Jamaica (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Lao People's Democratic Republic and the Philippines. The representatives of Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Eritrea, Republic of Korea and Ethiopia spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 21 October, to conclude its general debate.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its general exchange of views on a wide range of disarmament initiatives and a number of international disarmament agreements.

/…

Statements

/…

ALI AL-JARBOU (Saudi Arabia), said the Committee was meeting at a time when international and regional efforts had been intensified towards the goal of complete and general disarmament, to ensure the final elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The end of the cold war had reduced the risk of the possible use of nuclear weapons, based on competing military alliances. His country was following with interest efforts aimed at the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East, including the Arabian Gulf.

He said his country supported the efforts of the League of Arab States to make the region a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical and biological. In that regard, he was concerned about Israel's refusal to join the NPT and to subject its nuclear programme to international control. That constituted a grave threat to the security and stability of the region. His country completely objected to the "double standards practised by the international community", which excluded Israel from efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That encouraged the arms race, he said.

/…

ABDUL RAHMAN HASHEM (Bahrain) said his country had favoured the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. That region should also be free from weapons of mass destruction. The Israeli position, namely its refusal to subscribe to the NPT and its rejection of the safeguards and regulations of the IAEA, had compelled other countries to develop those weapons, thereby generating a perilous arms race. His country, therefore, called on the international community to exert pressure on Israel to accede to the NPT.

/…

ROKAN HAMA AL-ANBUGE (Iraq) …

/…

The Middle East was a witness to a serious imbalance, he said. Israel persisted in its policy of expansion, occupying the Palestinian territory, as well as that of two Arab States. For its expansionist policy, it had depended on a tremendous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as the other missiles. Moreover, it was the only party in the region that had not yet acceded to the NPT. In addition, it had refused to implement Security Council resolution 487 (1981), which called on Israel by name to place its nuclear installations under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.

/…

RAJAB SUKAYRI (Jordan) …

/…

He said his country had always advocated a peaceful settlement to the conflict in the Middle East, leading to a just, comprehensive and durable peace. Towards that goal, positive steps aimed at building confidence between the parties should be taken. At the top of the list was freeing the region from all weapons of mass destruction. Since the last Assembly session, Jordan had adhered to the Chemical Weapons Convention, ratified the CTBT, signed the Ottawa Convention and signed with the IAEA an additional safeguards protocol. In so doing, it had adhered to all international instruments that provided for nuclear non-proliferation and the prohibition of other weapons of mass destruction.

In that context, the Assembly, over the last two decades, had called upon all States in the Middle East, particularly the only State in the region with considerable nuclear-weapon capability, to adhere without delay to the NPT and to place its nuclear facilities under full IAEA safeguards. All States in the Middle East, except Israel, were now party to the NPT. Since 1974, the Assembly had also called for the establishment of a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone. Similarly, the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the NPT had called upon the States of the Middle East to establish a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, and to refrain from taking any measures that ran counter to that objective.

He said that the chance for a comprehensive, just and durable peace in the Middle East "looks too gloomy" in the absence of confidence-building between the parties involved. Such confidence, however, could not be attained alongside the existence of weapons of mass destruction. It was also regrettable that the second Preparatory Committee meeting for the next NPT review conference had not achieved tangible results. All participants should work diligently to strengthen the review process and develop consensus recommendations.

Regarding the CTBT, all countries that had not yet done so should sign and ratify it, particularly those 44 States whose ratification was required for its entry into force, he said. The commencement of negotiations aimed at concluding a convention to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons was encouraging. Another important step forward was the decision by the Conference to re-establish an ad hoc committee on negative security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

He said his country had staunchly supported the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. The Register was an indispensable mechanism for achieving transparency in armaments leading to confidence-building, especially in such conflict-prone regions as the Middle East. That instrument would not be effective, however, unless its scope also included military holdings and procurement through national production, as well as information concerning weapons of mass destruction. Regrettably, the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms had failed to deal with that problem at its last session.

He said the time had come to reaffirm the commitment to eliminate the most excessively injurious and inhumane weapons — landmines. Queen Noor of Jordan had participated in the worldwide campaign to rid the world of landmines. All Member States, in particular those with the financial and technological resources, should join both demining and victim assistance efforts.

IBRAHIM AL-BESBAS (Libya), …

/…

The international community should aspire towards real universality in the field of nuclear disarmament, he said. There were, however, obstacles to be addressed. The nuclear capacity of Israel was not under any international control and that constituted a real danger to regional security in the Middle East. Israel's persistent refusal to adhere to IAEA safeguards and the indifference of many in the west on that issue was unfortunate. "We cannot be silent over that", he added.

That kind of double standard should be avoided in the work of the Committee, he continued. The League of Arab States favoured the establishment of a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone that would also exclude all weapons of mass destruction. The major obstacle to that ideal had been Israel's refusal to cooperate. That was unacceptable, because it forced others to seek ways of enhancing their national security in a manner that would increase regional tension.

/…

Rights of Reply

The representative of Egypt, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that the Israeli representative who had spoken at the morning meeting had been part of the Middle East negotiations for a long time and knew better than to say what he had said today.

After citing long security arguments in an attempt to justify why it had not joined the NPT and placed its nuclear arsenals under IAEA safeguards, the Israeli representative chose to note that Egypt was one of the Arab States that had not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. It was as if he was saying that it was only Israel's right to keep ambiguous nuclear policies to protect its security and all other Arab countries, in particular Egypt, should forego their security concerns and ratify the chemical and biological weapons Conventions. Such a statement was unacceptable and would not lead anywhere.

He said his country had repeatedly underlined its readiness to ratify those two Conventions as part of a package requiring Israel to ratify the NPT and submit its nuclear facilities to full IAEA safeguards. The initiative by President Hosni Mubarak to declare the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction had been met with no positive sign by Israel. At the same time, if Israel was really concerned about the Chemical Weapons Convention, it should clarify some of the ambiguities surrounding its activities in the chemical weapons field.

For instance, Israel should explain why an armed flight that crashed over the Netherlands a few years ago was carrying chemical agents to Israel and it should clarify the fate of the lost 30 metric tons of cargo on board that plane. Israel must realize that security was not the security of Israel alone, but of all the States in the Middle East. That was an integrated issue that could not be dealt with in bits and pieces.

The representative of Iran, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that a reference had been made to the military capability of Iran. In that connection, he wished to reiterate the position commonly shared among all States in the Middle East that the sole threat to the security and stability of the region stemmed from Israeli nuclear capabilities and its access to advanced missile technology. That position was not just a political notion, but a deep concern based on facts.

He said that Iran, like others in the region, could not remain idle against the threat posed by Israel's mass destruction capabilities. Iran was a party to all Conventions concerning weapons of mass destruction, without exception, and it considered its missile technology to be a legitimate conventional means of defence. Moreover, its missile technology served the sole purpose of self-defence. It did constitute a threat to any country and was not set for first-use.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that the Israeli delegation this morning had referred to what it called a "crisis". The crisis, in fact, concerned Israel. There was a real crisis in the Middle East peace process due to Israel's continued defiance of the principle of land for peace. Its continued occupation of Arab land constituted a crisis and a threat to regional peace.

/…

The representative of Israel, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that indeed he and the representative from Egypt had spent many hours trying to improve the situation in the Middle East. Although they did not always agree, he was a great admirer of the Egyptian's ability and good humour. His words had reflected the need for peaceful existence between the States in the area, in order to enable them to negotiate the issues being discussed. Once at peace, the very difficult and dangerous issues to which the representative had referred could be negotiated. Indeed, those needed to be negotiated, but between States that recognized each other and were at peace with each other.

He said he had listened with a certain degree of incredulity at the Iraqi calls for complete and total disarmament, in particular to its calls and recommendations about how Israel should behave. He hoped the delegations appreciated why, in the realm of arms control, Israel treated Iraqi recommendations and intentions in the same manner as "porcupines make love — that is, very very carefully".

/…

* *** *