Nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East – First Cttee debate – Verbatim record (excerpts)

Official Records

General Assembly

Fiftieth session

First Committee

19th meeting

Monday, 13 November 1995, 3.00 p.m.

New York

Chairman: Mr. Erdenechuluun ……………………….. (Mongolia)

The meeting was called to order at 4 p.m.

Agenda items 57 to 81 (continued)

Action on all draft resolutions submitted under all disarmament and international security agenda items

/…

The Chairman: Today the Committee will take action on the following: in cluster 1: draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10; in cluster 7: draft decision A/C.1/50/L.51.

Action on the other draft resolutions that were supposed to be considered this afternoon will have to be deferred because of ongoing consultations. We will therefore be taking action on one draft resolution and one draft decision. 

I now call upon delegations wishing to make statements in explanation of vote before the voting on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10.

Mr. Sukayri (Jordan): I should like to explain Jordan’s position on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10, “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East”.

Jordan attaches great importance to the establishment of such a zone in the region because we believe that the existence of unsafeguarded nuclear facilities in the Middle East is a major source of threat to regional peace and security. We also believe that the elimination of such a threat would serve a twofold purpose. On the one hand, it would enhance the efforts of all regional parties towards maintaining peace and regional security. On the other hand, it would positively and effectively contribute to the international nuclear-non-proliferation regime.

Mentioning the international nuclear-non-proliferation regime makes it imperative for us to recall the decisions and resolutions adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

In its resolution devoted to the Middle East (NPT/CONF.1995/32 (Part I), annex), the Conference, inter alia, recognized that efforts in the Middle East peace process contributed to such a zone as well as to a zone in which all weapons of mass destruction would be banned. It called upon all States in the region to take practical steps towards the establishment of a verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction. It also called upon States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and in particular the nuclear-weapon States,

“to extend their cooperation and to exert their utmost efforts with a view to ensuring the early establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery system”. (NPT/CONF.1995/32 (Part I), annex, p. 14)

In the course of the consultations that took place earlier last week on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10, my delegation indicated its wish to see the same language as that used in the NPT Conference resolution, which enjoyed the consensus of all States parties to the Treaty, reflected in this draft resolution. We believed that this was legitimate, and we therefore unofficially proposed an amendment to that effect. However, there was a concern that that might lead to a recorded vote, which would mean that there could be no consensus on this draft resolution at this session.

Given the fact that since 1980 the draft resolution on this subject has enjoyed consensus in the Committee as well as in the General Assembly, and taking into consideration the importance we, as well as many other delegations, attach to such consensus, my delegation decided not to pursue its proposed amendments. Nevertheless, my delegation wishes to take this opportunity to confirm its full support for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, as well as its commitment to spare no effort to achieve that goal — hence, our active participation in the multilateral negotiations within the arms-control and regional security group.

The Chairman: The Committee will now take action on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10.

I call upon the Secretary of the Committee.

Mr. Kheradi (Secretary of the Committee): Draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10, “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East”, was introduced by the representative of Egypt at the Committee’s 15th meeting, held on Tuesday, 7 November 1995, and is sponsored by Afghanistan and Egypt.

The Chairman: The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that it be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly.

Draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10 was adopted.

The Chairman: I shall now call upon those delegation wishing to make statements in explanation of vote.

Mr. Yativ (Israel): I would like to explain my delegation’s position on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10. Israel has advocated in the past and continues to support the concept of establishing the Middle East in due course as a credible and mutually verifiable nuclear-weapon-free zone, freely negotiated by all States of the region.

However, Israel has reiterated over the years its policy on both the modalities of such a zone and the timing of its negotiations and establishment. I should like briefly to restate our policy on this matter. It is based on the following principles.

First, the nuclear issue, as well as all regional security problems, conventional as well as non-conventional, should be dealt with in the full context of the peace process. It is Israel’s conviction that nothing should be done to separate the nuclear issue from the comprehensive framework of the peace negotiations and that the peace negotiations, bilateral as well as multilateral, should be respected and in no way eroded. In this regard, Israel subscribes to the statement made by the Secretary-General in his report A/48/399 of 25 October 1993, that:

“a nuclear-weapon-free zone cannot be conceived of or implemented in a political vacuum, separate from the process of mutual reconciliation.” (A/48/399, para. 22)

Secondly, a regional framework, regional confidence-and security-building measures and regional arrangements on conventional as well as non-conventional arms control, including a nuclear-weapon-free zone, will be negotiated in due course only at the regional forum, that is, the Working Group on Arms Control and Regional Security. This Group has achieved some tangible progress within the framework of the peace process, and Israel fully supports its activities. However, it should be emphasized that certain confidence-and security-building measures have not yet been implemented. However, it is through such measures and a step-by-step approach that the needed confidence among the regional parties could be achieved and thus promote the overall peace process, including arms control.

Thirdly, a step-by-step approach. Practicality dictates beginning the process with confidence- and security-building measures. Once agreed upon, they have to be tested over time in order to confer confidence. Meaningful arms-control negotiations, where priority is assigned to weapons systems that experience has proven to be destructive and destabilizing, can follow a proven and durable peace among the States of the region and reconciliation among the peoples of the region. These conditions do not exist as yet.

Unfortunately, several regional States are still in a state of war with Israel. Moreover, large regional States still refuse to forswear war as a means of settling disputes and attempt to impede the peace process. Therefore, at this sensitive juncture in the peace process in the Middle East, restraint and caution are strongly recommended in order to arrive at greater achievements in the future. What is needed now is to promote the bilateral peace process and creation of overall confidence in the region and not to address divisive issues.

It is through its unqualified support for the peace talks and their framework that the United Nations General Assembly can make its own contribution to enhancing confidence. Attempts by the United Nations to lift the nuclear issue out of its comprehensive context would be seen as detracting from the sovereignty of the peace talks. Such attempts in the past have blocked the road to peaceful accommodation and might shake the delicate balance achieved through direct negotiations.

While Israel supports the concept of establishing the Middle East as a nuclear-weapon-free zone in due course, it has never supported the modalities of this draft resolution. Israel is not bound by those provisions of the present draft resolution which are not in accord with its policy. We therefore do not consider the modalities of this draft resolution as relevant in future negotiations, including in the discussions of the Working Group on Arms Control and Regional Security. We hope that the consensus reached here, as modest as it is, will contribute to the good will and moderation so needed for the crucial effort we all have to invest in the ongoing peace process.

Mr. Hasan (Iraq): I should like to explain my country’s position on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10. My delegation welcomes the adoption of draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10 without a vote. The draft resolution contains important elements which, if implemented, would lead to the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Nevertheless, my delegation has some remarks to make with regard to the draft resolution.

First, we have reservations on the wording of operative paragraph 4.

Secondly, we consider that the draft resolution ignores the role of the Security Council and its resolutions on the matter. I refer here to Security Council resolution 487 (1981), in which the Council called upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and resolution 687 (1991), adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, in operative paragraph 14 of which the Security Council noted that measures taken by Iraq in dismantling certain categories of its weapons were steps towards the goal of establishing such a zone in the Middle East. In addition, in resolution 715 (1991), which was also adopted under Chapter VII, the plans the Security Council approved submitted by the Secretary-General and the Director General of the IAEA, thus reiterating the Security Council’s commitment to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

Thirdly, it is not logical to pretend that the establishment of the zone could come after the achievement of lasting peace in the region. No lasting peace can be achieved while Israel’s nuclear arsenal is exempted from international non-proliferation measures. The establishment of the zone is a step towards lasting peace in the region, and not the contrary.

Mr. Mubarak (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (interpretation from Arabic): I take the floor after the adoption of this resolution to explain my country’s position with regard to some of its paragraphs. My delegation joined in the consensus on the draft resolution, but that does not mean in any way recognition of what is called Israel or that we accept some of the elements of the so-called peace process in the Middle East.

While we welcome the establishment of a nuclear-weapon- free zone in the region of the Middle East, we should like to draw the attention of the international community to the fact that those hopes and aspirations, lofty as they may be, would never be achieved unless the huge nuclear arsenal of Israel is destroyed or eliminated, for it constitutes an obstacle to making the Middle East a zone that is completely free of all weapons of mass destruction.

Furthermore, the Israelis must be compelled to place all their nuclear facilities under the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Then, and only then, will the Middle East become a safe and nuclear-weapon-free zone.

Mr. Nasseri (Islamic Republic of Iran): Iran was one of the original supporters of the initiative to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been fervently pursuing that objective and hopes for its realization at as early a date as possible. It is in that light that we fully support draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10, which has just been adopted, and we continue to pursue its implementation with urgency.

My delegation would have liked to have been a sponsor of the draft resolution. Regrettably, however, because of a reference in the ninth preambular paragraph to the peace negotiations, about which we have reservations based on our principled positions in that regard, and because this is an unnecessary reference to an unrelated matter, we were unable to become a sponsor of the draft resolution. We nevertheless wholeheartedly support its content.

Mr. Karem (Egypt): Now that we have adopted draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.10 by consensus, I wish to extend, on behalf of the Egyptian delegation, our gratitude and appreciation that this initiative, which has been on the agenda of the General Assembly since 1974, is still alive and well and has been renewed and again endorsed by consensus.

To us and to many of our regional partners and friends in the peace process in the Middle East, consensus is extremely important, because this is in fact the spirit in which we cooperate. Consensus is necessary to translate and implement the provisions of this initiative. Consensus is necessary to activate and to translate into practical reality the provisions of the draft resolution.

It was with some amazement, however, that I listened to some of the remarks just made that a certain delegation is not being bound by the modalities of the draft resolution. I must pause here and place on record the fact that although we have worked together with many peace partners in the Middle East, we — for the first time in the First Committee — have heard a statement going so far as to say that the provisions or modalities of the draft resolution are not binding. I would ask: Which modalities are not binding? Is it the modality noting the importance of the ongoing bilateral Middle East peace negotiations and the activities of the multilateral working group? Is it noting the peace negotiations in the Middle East? Is it welcoming the initiatives leading to general and complete disarmament and, in particular, the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction? Is it reaffirming the inalienable right of all States to acquire and develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? I am simply reading from the consensus draft resolution.

Indeed, this statement brought me up short. I have been an attentive student of Israeli interpretations since 1974 and until today, and on the long road towards peace we have heard many statements to the effect that Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East. We have also heard arguments about a request for direct negotiations. All this has occurred and has been offered the peace process and the peace partners in the Middle East.

We have also heard other kinds of remarks, such as that this draft resolution or initiative will not be translated into practical reality until peace has been realized and that, even when that occurs, peace too must be tested before the initiative can become a reality. Today, much to my dismay, we heard a new argument — that we do not consider the modalities of the draft resolution either applicable to the peace process or to the multilateral Working Group on Arms Control and Regional Security, which we support and in which we work together, hand in hand, with all partners in the Middle East, including Israel, in support of this initiative, to help it succeed and to help the cause of peace in the Middle East.

/…

The meeting rose at 5.15 p.m.