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

Official Records

General Assembly

Fifty-third session

First Committee

12th meeting

Wednesday, 21 October 1998, 10 a.m.

New York

President:  Mr. Mernier …………………………(Belgium)

Agenda items 63 to 79 (continued)

General debate on all disarmament and international security items

Mr. Erwa (Sudan) (interpretation from Arabic): …

/…

The Sudan, like other members of the international community, believes that transparency in the area of weaponry is the primary way to consolidate peace and international security. The Sudan supports the position that the League of Arab States conveyed to the Secretary-General regarding the need for transparency in the weaponry and the current lack of transparency in United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. The Register should be expanded so as to contain data relating to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, as well as to the military uses of sophisticated technologies.

Moreover, the Register does not take into account the situation in the Middle East, where we find Israel still occupying Arab and Palestinian territories and possessing the most destructive weapons.

In fact, Israel is the only State in the region which is not a party to the NPT and which has not endorsed the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Israel stubbornly rejects the appeals of the international community to accede to the Treaty and to subject its nuclear installations to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. If this situation persists, it could heighten tension in the region.

/…

Mr. Kunda (Zambia): …

/…

The Middle East region has been yearning to become a nuclear-weapon-free zone for a long time. Such a zone in the Middle East must, like the existing ones, be established on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned. In order for the Middle East to become a nuclear-weapon-free zone, Israel must join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and place its nuclear facilities under the International Atomic Energy Agency system of safeguards.

/…

Mr. Abou-Hadid (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from French): …

/…

… As my Minister for Foreign Affairs also said:

“Nuclear weapons, which are unparalleled in their destructive capability, have proliferated since the end of the cold war and have now reached India and Pakistan. This proliferation has also gained a sort of legitimacy based on the fact that Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons was not spoken of during the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. My country, Syria, Arab countries and most countries in the Non-Aligned Movement appealed to the five nuclear-weapon States during the review and extension conference for this Treaty not to exempt any country from adhering to this Treaty, so that the world will not face a new nuclear-arms race. Unfortunately that urgent call fell on deaf ears. Those who now assume that nuclear-arms proliferation will be limited to a few countries are mistaken. Syria and all Arab countries call for turning the Middle East into a nuclear-weapon-free zone, as a serious contribution to halting the nuclear-arms race.” (ibid., pp. 10-11)

/…

The successful establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones is a positive step towards a world free of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons. My country supports and welcomes the existing zones, and supports the establishment of the new zones proposed by a number of States. Regrettably, however, the Middle East, despite its strategic importance, remains far from achieving this objective. This is because the one State in the region that  has not yet acceded to the NPT — Israel — continues to refuse to sign the Treaty or to subject its nuclear facilities to international inspection, as all other States of the region have done with a view to joining together to make the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

At the 1989 Paris Conference, Syria launched an initiative, under the auspices of the United Nations, to make the Middle East a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical or biological. Israel has not responded to these calls nor to those made by the United Nations, the Security Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), or the summit conferences of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in our sensitive region will continue to be a source of concern and to pose a real threat not only to the peoples of the region but to international peace and stability.

We reaffirm once again the need for the international community to induce Israel to adhere to the NPT and to place all of its nuclear facilities and activities under the IAEA safeguards regime, in order for the Middle East region to be free from nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, taking into account the fact that Israel’s current position on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and all of its justifications are diametrically opposed and clearly contradictory to its professed desire to establish peace in the region.

/…

Syria believes that transparency in armaments is one way to promote international peace and security. We reaffirm our support for the Arab States’ response to the Secretary-General that the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, in its current form, lacks transparency. It must be expanded to include, first of all, information about weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, and on advanced technology with military applications, as well as detailed data on national military production. The choice of seven types of defensive weapons is unconvincing, discriminatory and confusing. In addition, it does not take into account the situation in the Middle East, which is characterized by a lack of qualitative balance in the field of armaments.

/…

Two days ago we heard a statement by Mr. José Bustani, Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Despite the fact that we welcome his achievements and his attempts to universalize the Treaty in order to serve the cause of disarmament, regrettably we must say that some of the points he made in his statement do not fit with the current reality in the Middle East. He said that the peace process is on track and that the efforts under way will lead to the achievement of a comprehensive solution. But the whole world, and in particular the State that has taken the initiative and sponsored the peace process, is aware that the peace process faces a real crisis and that it has been at a standstill for over two years on the Lebanese and Syrian tracks while being eroded on the Palestinian track.

The intransigence of the current Israeli Government, its rejection of the principle of land for peace and its attempt to impose a peace based on occupation and settlement on its Arab neighbours; its Prime Minister’s insistence on pursuing a policy antagonistic to peace and his rejection, under the pretext of ensuring Israel’s security, of the Arabs’ right to regain their occupied territories; and the fact that it possesses one of the largest and most sophisticated military arsenals in the world constitute a challenge not only to the Arab peoples but to the will of the international community as a whole.

The Director-General’s statement portrayed Israel as a dove of peace that is seeking to comply with international instruments on disarmament. Here we have to ask ourselves which instruments and international treaties he is speaking of. The 1968 NPT Treaty has become near-universal, with the exception of a very small number of States. However, Israel continues to refuse to accede to it, under flimsy pretexts, and persists in its refusal to place its nuclear facilities under international supervision. We had hoped that the Director-General would speak about that in his statement, in view of the destructive capability of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons in particular and of the grave consequences for humankind as a whole.

The appeal by the Director-General to some Arab States, including mine, to adhere to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was concluded in 1993, and the failure to call on Israel to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), concluded in 1968, smacks of clear selectivity, which is neither objective nor acceptable.

All Arab States have adhered to the NPT, in response to the will of the international community. However, Israel continues to refuse to adhere to that Treaty. Those who possess nuclear weapons and have a nuclear arsenal do not care much about other weapons, including chemical weapons. Nevertheless, yesterday morning the Israeli representative declared that the decision by his Government to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention is contingent upon adherence to it by some Arab States, totally disregarding Israel’s refusal to adhere to the NPT at a time when all Arab States have adhered to it.

The statement made by the Israeli representative yesterday was full of contradictions. He portrayed Israel as a small country no more than 20 kilometres wide, surrounded by neighbours that are threatening its very existence. He continues to give us these fictitious stories and myths that no one any longer believes. The whole world is asking how it came to be that Israel was established, why it is continuing its occupation of the Arab territories, why it has brought the peace process to a halt and why it is arming itself to the teeth with various forms of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, thereby disrupting the strategic balance in the region, threatening Arab national security and disregarding the Arab desire to establish a just and comprehensive peace.

/…

Mr. Sobel (Israel): I should like to speak in exercise of the right of reply in responding to the statement by the Syrian delegation.

The representative of Syria seemed to dismiss lightly the threat to Israel which we pointed out, and he made fun of Israel's small size, but frankly Syria's record on the peace process and arms control does not give us a great deal of encouragement.

Looking at some of the Syrian record, I see that Syria opposed the Camp David process; Syria then proceeded to oppose the Peace Treaty with Egypt; Syria then continued to oppose the Treaty of Peace with Jordan; Syria then opposed the Oslo peace talks with the PLO; it then continued to oppose the talks with the Palestinians. It continues today to object to and oppose the present, ongoing Wye Plantation talks. None of that points to a very encouraging Syrian attitude to the peace process in the Middle East. Furthermore, Syria has supported international terrorism. And we all recall the involvement of the Syrian Embassy in London in planting a bomb on an El Al civilian aeroplane.

Syria continues to occupy parts of Lebanon. Syria is one of the few States in the world which has poison gas in its standing military arsenal — again, not a very encouraging prospect for us in Israel. Furthermore, they have equipped ballistic missiles with poison-gas warheads that are stationed today in Syria and directed against Israel. Frankly, it does not give us a very warm feeling or encourage us.

Given that record, I find that the Syrian diatribe has a fairly hollow sound to it. The solution — the crux — remains that States, including Syria, must make peace with Israel, have normal relations and discuss and negotiate arms control directly with us. But it cannot work both ways. They cannot refuse to recognize Israel and call for its destruction yet at the same time call upon Israel to take unilateral steps. The key is direct negotiations: make peace with us and live in peace with us, and then negotiate issues, including arms control.

/…

Mr. Abou-Hadid (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): I do not wish to prolong this meeting, but the representative of Israel chose to refer to Syria’s record. I would like to recall that in his statement yesterday he said,

(spoke in English)

“Israel’s record is impressive, and we intend to continue to play our part in the arms control effort of the family of nations.” (A/C.1/53/PV.10)

(spoke in Arabic)

Indeed, Israel has an impressive record of defying international law, defying the United Nations and even defying international humanitarian law.

The meeting of the States parties to the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War — to be held in Geneva next month in response to the almost unanimous proposal of the General Assembly — provides but one example of that impressive record. I regret to have to remind representatives that yesterday the representative of Israel did not answer the direct questions posed to him in response to his statement regarding the concerns of some States in the region in connection with the Chemical Weapons Convention. We wonder what Israel's justifications are.

Secondly, he did not say anything about the attempt to assassinate Khaled Meshal with chemical agents by Mossad members using counterfeit Canadian passports. Nor did he offer Israel's explanation of the 1992 crash in the Netherlands of an El Al airliner carrying chemical agents. He did not say anything about the disappearance of 30 tons of these agents.

I believe that representatives have read what was published recently in Jeune Afrique magazine, in Paris, regarding Israel's manufacture of biological and chemical weapons. That article stated that diplomats and experts in the field of armaments have revealed the existence of a large factory in Israel devoted to the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons. The factory was established in 1952 near Tel Aviv. The magazine quoted those diplomats and experts as saying that the Israeli factory — the facilities of which take up a number of hectares and are strictly guarded — operates under the name “Biological Research Institute”. It is located in a suburb of Tel Aviv, but is not included in any aerial map of the region.

The magazine went on to say that the El Al airliner that crashed near Amsterdam in 1992 was carrying 190 litres of chemical agent to that Israeli factory, an extremely poisonous gas similar to that which was used by the Aum Shinrikyo sect in Japan in the terrorist acts committed in the Tokyo subway in 1995. The Israeli authorities have finally acknowledged the El Al incident and have said that the plane was carrying chemical agents that can become poisonous if other materials are added to them. But the magazine went on to say that this Israeli version is inaccurate, because a study shows that 700 people of the neighbourhood in which the plane crashed continue to suffer from many illnesses as a result of the leakage of chemical agents from the plane.

The article pointed out that Israel continues to deny the existence of its chemical weapons programme, but that Israel has prepared F-16 planes to transport the chemical agents made in its factory and that the El Al plane was carrying chemical agents from an American company to that factory.

The Israeli representative is well aware that the peace process could not have started without Syria's help. Syria responded to the initiative of the sponsors, the United States and Russia, on the grounds that this process must be based on the resolutions of international legality, Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and, as far as Lebanon is concerned, resolution 425 (1978).

The halt in the peace process is due to the position of the current Israeli Prime Minister, his refusal to accept the principle of land for peace, his rejection of withdrawal and his refusal to resume the negotiations from the point where they were suspended, on all tracks. What is taking place now at the Wye Plantation proves to all that the current Prime Minister is far removed from any faith in the achievement of a just and comprehensive peace. On the contrary, he is trying to kill the process, as he promised his voters he would do in his election campaign.

Let us set the record straight by not accepting lies and obfuscations from Israel.

/…

Mr. Sobel (Israel): I listened attentively to the reply by the representative of Syria. I failed, however, to hear his reaction to the point that I made. The point that I made was that Syria has poison gas in its military arsenal; that it has equipped ballistic missiles with poison-gas warheads; that Israel is within the range of those missiles; that those missiles are aimed at Israel; and that Israel, frankly, has something to fear.

/…

Mr. Abou-Hadid (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): People who live in glass  houses should not throw stones. Since, as we know, Israel possesses 200 nuclear weapons, since it possesses nuclear reactors not subject to international inspection, since it possesses chemical and biological laboratories and factories, since it continues to occupy the territories of others and since it is determined to perpetuate that occupation, I do not believe it is entitled to question other States. Under the Charter, States have a legitimate right to self-defence.

Our region does not need strategic alliances; rather it needs a just and comprehensive peace based on legally binding international resolutions. This means complete Israeli withdrawal from the forcibly occupied Syrian Golan to the lines of 4 June 1967 and from southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa in conformity with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the principle of land for peace. With regard to negotiations on the Palestinian track, we support the realization of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, including its rights of self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State of its own on its national soil.

As members know, the peace process is facing a real crisis; it has come to a complete halt on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks because of the election of the current Israeli Prime Minister. But Syria remains committed to peace as a strategic choice; this requires the resumption of negotiations. We have consistently affirmed our readiness to resume those negotiations from the point at which they left off on both the Syrian and the Lebanese tracks, and to continue to build on previous commitments and undertakings with a view to establishing a just and comprehensive peace in our region.

We have yet to hear from the representative of Israel any convincing answer to these arguments, which are in keeping with international legality.

The meeting rose at 12.25 p.m.