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

Official Records

General Assembly

Fiftieth session

First Committee

16th meeting

Wednesday, 8 November 1995, 10.00 a.m.

New York

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

In the absence of the Chairman, Mr. de Icaza  (Mexico), Vice-Chairman, took the Chair.

The meeting was called to order at 10.35 a.m.

Agenda items 57 to 81 (continued)

Consideration of draft resolutions submitted under all disarmament and international security agenda items

/…

The Acting Chairman (interpretation from Spanish): I now call on the representative of Egypt, who will introduce draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19.

Mr. Karem (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): …

/…

This statement was to be delivered by the Permanent Representative of Egypt, Ambassador Nabil Elaraby, in his capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group for November, but circumstances dictated otherwise. Allow me to deliver this statement in his stead.

My delegation is pleased today to introduce, in its capacity as Chairman of the Group of States members of the League of Arab States for the month of November, the draft resolution contained in document A/C.1/50/L.19, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.

For decades now the Middle East has been the scene of conflict and the theatre of devastating wars which posed a continuing grave threat to international peace and security. With the progress achieved by the peace process and the budding forth of its fruits, the latest of which was the second interim agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip which was signed in September 1995, the need is more pressing than ever to safeguard the region from the grave consequences of the existence in it of nuclear weapons and of the attendant perils of a nuclear arms race. There is no doubt that the total elimination of these threats would contribute to consolidating peace and to accelerating its momentum at this sensitive juncture in the region’s history. This desired aim cannot be achieved unless all States in the region undertake equal, balanced and reciprocal obligations and enjoy equal rights. The keyword here is equality, and I repeat: equality, across the board.

The realization of universal adherence to the non-proliferation Treaty remains the genuine and effective means of eliminating the threat of nuclear proliferation. The draft resolution now before us in document A/C.1/50/L.19 aims at achieving this universality at the regional level in a balanced manner, by calling on all States not yet party to the non-proliferation Treaty to accede to the Treaty and to fully place all their nuclear facilities, on an equal footing, under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

At the same time, the draft resolution addresses the nuclear capabilities of the States not yet party to the Treaty in a realistic fashion by reflecting a clear factual distinction that has to be recognized and redressed. There is only one State in the region, namely Israel, that is not party yet to the Treaty while it possesses advanced unsafeguarded nuclear capabilities, whereas the other States which are not yet party to the Treaty have no nuclear programmes whatsoever, let alone any advanced unsafeguarded nuclear capabilities.

The sponsors of the draft resolution have legitimate expectations. They expect the international community to apply one single standard where the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East is concerned and not to allow the use of any double standards. They expect complete unequivocal support for this draft resolution and, thereby, for the NPT itself. The issue at stake here is not a regional political dispute but rather the very credibility of the global non-proliferation regime. It is totally unwarranted and discriminatory to shelter any non-party to the Treaty from the need to acquiesce in the general and solid resolve of the international community to ensure universal adherence to the Treaty. Any exception will only cast grave doubts on the credibility of the results of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and on the sincerity and intentions of the States parties to the NPT vis-à- vis the Middle East region especially when the Conference has found it necessary to adopt a separate resolution on the Middle East wherein it voiced very clearly the concern felt by the international community vis-à-vis the present situation I have just outlined.

The stark reality is that the postures of all the States parties to the NPT must be consistent. Striving for the realization of universal adherence to the Treaty is a legal obligation as well as a moral principle. It is also a fact that many States parties to the NPT hesitate to support the principle of universality because the only State in the Middle East with unsafeguarded nuclear facilities is named in the draft resolution. To those parties I affirm that draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19 calls upon all the States in the Middle East, and I repeat: all the States of the Middle East, in a precise, balanced and objective fashion, to accede to the Treaty. This call constitutes an invitation to one of the most advanced countries in the nuclear field to accede to the non-proliferation Treaty on equal terms with all the other non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT whose number now exceeds 180 States.

Quite frankly, there is no selectiveness or singling out in the draft resolution. It is those who hesitate to support it that are being selective towards the Middle East by sending a clear message that says quite clearly that as far as the Middle East is concerned, nuclear proliferation is permissible and double standards do indeed apply.

The sponsors of the draft resolution sincerely hope that at this fiftieth-anniversary session the guiding principle will be the attainment of the lofty goals enunciated by Heads of State or Government in their solemn collective Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, and the translation of those goals into concrete reality by sparing the Middle East the horrific threat of nuclear destruction.

/…

Mr. Yativ (Israel): I wish to comment on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19 that has just been introduced. The draft resolution entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East” is, regrettably, once again on the agenda of the First Committee. Although its removal from the agenda on account of its singling out of Israel has been long overdue, the present text represents further escalation both in letter and spirit.

The draft resolution, as submitted, continues to single out Israel, is out of tune with the Middle East process and serves no other purpose than to discomfit Israel. The singling out of Israel and the phenomenon of name-calling in this draft resolution have not only been maintained but an additional operative paragraph, paragraph 2, has been inserted, singling out Israel, though indirectly and not by name.

Furthermore, the new fifth and sixth preambular paragraphs contain elements which go counter to the basic concept of Israel’s policy which underlines the regional approach, direct negotiations encompassing all States of the region, and mutual verification arrangements. Israel’s declared support of the extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does not detract from the fact that Israel is not party to that convention and is not bound by the decisions of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The entire draft resolution, with its additional paragraphs, does not change the oft-repeated valid argument that, substantively, this draft resolution is devoid of any message that is not included in other resolutions. Thus, its politically motivated purpose is exposed and befits the anachronistic past of the Arab-Israeli confrontation and not the spirit of reconciliation that prevails today in the region.

Israel has gone an extra mile to placate Arab concerns by generating remarkable progress in the peace process. It should be recalled that Israel is the one to take high risks in the peace process and its continued arraignment in United Nations resolutions will be counter-productive to peacemaking efforts. At the same time, Israel does not believe that the nuclear issue should be lifted from the context of peacemaking efforts either in priority or in timing.

No extraregional prescription or imposition of any kind will be conducive to the enhancement of peace in the region. The progress in the peace process, thus far, by direct negotiations, amply and remarkably proves this notion. The tone and content of this draft resolution can only serve to undermine the peace process.

Israel will continue to oppose this draft resolution on account both of its name-calling and of its overall adverse effect on the peace process. These two principles should not be ignored any longer, otherwise the delicate balance on this matter might be upset. Therefore, we call upon all those who abstained or supported this obsolete resolution to vote against it and, thus, to stretch out their hand to the ongoing efforts for peace and reconciliation in the Middle East.

/…

  The meeting rose at 1 p.m.