Mideast situation – GA general debate – Verbatim record (excerpts)

Official Records

General Assembly

Fifty-fifth session

13th plenary meeting

Wednesday, 13 September 2000, 3 p.m.

New York

President:   Mr. Holkeri…………………………(Finland)

The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m.

Agenda item 9 (continued)

General debate

The President: I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Tonino Picula, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Croatia.

Mr. Picula (Croatia): …

/…

The situation in the Middle East continues to shift between the brink of war and the brink of peace. The peace process between the Israeli and Palestinian sides must be maintained, and all of us should spare no effort to extend assistance and support to the accomplishment of this paramount task. From its own experience, Croatia is well aware of how important it is to strengthen the peace process through Security Council and General Assembly resolutions that are supportive of it, both in language and in political substance. Thus, Croatia advocates that forthcoming resolutions on the Middle East reflect all the aspects of the ongoing peace process, serving as an important impetus for its successful completion.

/…

The President: The Assembly will now hear an address by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium, His Excellency, Mr. Louis Michel.

Mr. Michel (Belgium) (spoke in French): Mr. President, I should first of all like to congratulate you on your election to the Presidency of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly. I wish you every success in this task which is both difficult and inspiring.

Allow me to include in this tribute the Secretary-General who has a crucial role in promoting international cooperation for peace, security, justice and development in the world.

I fully associate myself with the speech made by my French colleague, Mr. Hubert Vedrine, on behalf of the European Union. His declaration covered quite broadly European concerns regarding different regions of the world and the crises they continue to experience. Like my European colleagues, I will confine myself to repeating the encouragements of the European Union for the Israelis and Palestinians to seize this historic opportunity now within their reach to conclude a framework agreement in the coming weeks.

/…

Ms. Dlamini-Zuma (South Africa): …

/…

The self-determination of the people of East Timor, Western Sahara and Palestine must be a concern to all of us. To this end, we urge the United Nations to do all it can to expedite the processes in East Timor and Western Sahara. We commend the peace efforts in the Middle East and the role of the United States. We would like to pledge our support to the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships as they try to find creative solutions to their problems. They must be urged to take advantage of this unique historic moment, as it seems that a real possibility exists for a solution.

/…

Mr. Kono (Japan) (spoke in Japanese; English text furnished by the delegation): …

/…

… With regard to the Middle East peace process, Japan is very much encouraged by the commitment of both parties to continuing their negotiations and, together with the international community, will strongly support the efforts of the parties to achieve a lasting peace in the region.

Mr. Moussa (Egypt) (spoke in Arabic): …

/…

I wish to stress here what I mentioned earlier — that Egypt has a long history of regional and international contributions. It plays a significant role on the African, Arab and Islamic levels, as well as in the Middle East and among the developing countries and emerging economies. …

/…

… The priority of nuclear disarmament must not be overshadowed by the increased attention paid to small arms, light weapons and anti-personnel landmines. This is not to say that we do not recognize the importance of these subjects or the need to deal with them comprehensively and appropriately. In this regard, we reaffirm Egypt’s initiatives for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. We welcome the results of the sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in the field of nuclear disarmament in general. We welcome in particular the Conference’s recognition of the specificity of the situation in the Middle East and its reaffirmation of the continued validity and importance of implementing the resolutions on the Middle East adopted by the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995.

/…

The Arab-Israeli conflict entails vital issues related to the lives of peoples and to the future of nations. Those include recognition of legitimate rights, sovereignty over national soil, the inalienable right to self-determination, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and the right of all States to live peacefully within secure borders. All these issues are directly linked to international and regional peace and security.

The logic that must govern the peace process in the Middle East should not stem from the assumption that one is dealing with a permanent foe or opponent. It must aim instead at turning past animosity into good-neighbourliness and normal relations among the peoples and the States of the region. What is at stake is the security of the region and the security and prosperity of future generations, and not short-term political considerations. We face a clear choice between either settling the issue in terms of real estate — in which one party demands metres, miles or tens of miles — thereby keeping alive the seeds of tension and conflict, or by seeking through clear political will to establish a just and lasting peace by which the rights of all parties are secured and their obligations are well defined through necessary international guarantees. The latter option must be based on international law, something that applies to the Israeli/Palestinian track and to the Syrian/Israeli track alike.

There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of States, communities and individuals support the achievement of a just solution that does not favour one party at the expense of the other. Most people would opt for peace and justice and would prefer to look ahead to the future in a positive way. The overwhelming majority of the Palestinian and Israeli people also want peace, a peace that is clear and clean and not partial, distorted or absent — something that, at the end of the day, would be more of a headache than a concrete peace. In that regard, I would like to say that President Arafat and the Palestinian people face one of two choices: either no solution or a bad solution. This is a policy that will never garner support or appreciation or ever lead to a viable solution.

As to the so-called flexibility, which has been at the forefront of commentary lately, it should mean only flexibility within the realm of international law and not outside it. If we are talking about flexibility on Jerusalem, that cannot in any way mean accepting Israeli sovereignty over Al-Haram al-Sharif. It could instead mean arrangements for the new Palestinian State that would give it sovereignty over all its territories while respecting the holy sites and guaranteeing their protection and free access to them. That would assume that, as a full-fledged member of the international community, the sovereign Palestinian State would be in charge.

The peace process is but a few miles away from the finish line. We hope it will not take many long years for Syria and Palestine to travel those few miles. We also hope that the sponsors of the peace process will be wise and able enough to propose honest solutions to the parties in order to enable the honest broker to lead the negotiations to a certain conclusion. At this juncture, I would like to salute President Clinton’s enthusiasm and tireless efforts in steering the peace process during an eleventh-hour attempt to find a lasting solution during his Administration.

In order to achieve that objective it is essential to uphold one guiding principle that cannot be circumvented, namely, full withdrawal from all Syrian and Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, in return for Israel’s right to be integrated into the Middle East as a partner with equal rights to security, peace and cooperation. That is the essence of resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and of the principle of land for peace. Lasting peace and security can be established only on that basis. If Arab territories, or any part of those territories, remain under occupation or if any question is settled in a manner inconsistent with the principles of fairness and justice, it would create a time bomb that could explode at any time. The desired peace and security cannot be fully realized without the establishment of a full-fledged, independent Palestinian State.

The stability of peace and security in the Middle East is tied to the need for serious consideration of the question of armaments in the Middle East. Permanently defusing tensions calls for dealing with the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles. This will also contribute directly to the maintenance of international peace and security. Peace and stability in the Middle East will not be complete or lasting without the establishment of a comprehensive regional security system that ensures control over the quantity and quality of armaments in the region and establishes a zone free from weapons of mass destruction, in accordance with President Mubarak’s initiative, which enjoys global understanding and support.

/…

The achievement of peace in the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and in the continents of Asia and Africa as a whole is a necessary condition for world stability. The situation in Afghanistan, Kashmir, the Caucasus, Sri Lanka, the continued tragedy of Iraq, and the conflicts in Africa and their attendant social and economic problems all give rise to serious concerns about the new world order — about its credibility and effectiveness. We must act quickly in order to resolve these problems in a context of international legitimacy and within the framework of the United Nations.

/…

Mr. Petersen (Denmark): …

/…

Although the Camp David talks did not bring about an agreement in the Middle East, they represented a major step forward. They helped to narrow down differences on key issues. A breakthrough has never before seemed so close at hand. Time, however, is quickly running out. I urge the parties to seize this historic opportunity. I salute the political courage displayed by the Israeli and the Palestinian leadership in their efforts to achieve a durable solution. I welcome the recent decision by the Palestinian Central Council to defer the decision on the question of statehood in the interest of further negotiations.

/…

Mr. Ould Sid Ahmed (Mauritania) (spoke in Arabic): …

/…

Turning to the Middle East, my country, while reaffirming its support for the peace process, considers that a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region can come about only on the basis of the Madrid agreements, the principle of land for peace, and the full implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) to ensure complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories and from the Syrian Golan and the restoration to the Palestinian people of their legitimate national rights, foremost among them the right of self-determination and the right to the establishment of an independent State with the holy city of Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital. This requires us to intensify our efforts to overcome the obstacles to peace in the region, a region that so sorely needs a chance to realize its potential and to turn a new page in the history of its peoples. In that context, we note with satisfaction the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

/…

Mr. Djaló (Guinea-Bissau) (spoke in Portuguese; English text furnished by the delegation): …

/…

In the immediate vicinity of our continent, the Middle East peace process is entering a decisive period. This process and the quest for equanimity should be accelerated in order to ensure a lasting and just peace that respects the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to an independent State of its own, as well as the right of all States of the region, including Israel, to national independence.

/…

The meeting rose at 7.25 p.m.