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

Official Records

General Assembly

Fifty-third session

First Committee

11th meeting

Tuesday, 20 October 1998, 3 p.m.

New York

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

In the absence of the Chairman, Mr. Laptsenak (Belarus), Vice-Chairman, took the Chair.

The meeting was called to order at 3.05 p.m.

Agenda items 63 to 79 (continued)

General debate on all disarmament and international security items

Mr. Al-Ahmed (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): … The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is following with interest the efforts aimed at the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, including the Arabian Gulf. It participated constructively in the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was held in New York. It is also supporting the efforts of the League of Arab States, in accordance with the call made at its 101st session, to make that sensitive part of the world a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction —nuclear, chemical and biological.

In this regard, we are deeply concerned about Israel's refusal to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as well as about its maintaining its nuclear programme outside international control. This represents a grave threat to the security and stability of the region.

/…

Mr. Hashim (Bahrain) (interpretation from Arabic): Bahrain supports the setting up of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, which should also be free from weapons of mass destruction, because we want to live in peace and security in the region. We believe that the position of Israel, which refuses to subscribe to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and rejects the controls of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), refusing to place its installations under IAEA safeguards, impels other countries to develop such weapons and engenders an arms race that imperils peace and security. That is why we call upon the international community to exert pressure on Israel to accede to that Treaty.

/…

Mr. Al-Anbuge (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): The Middle East is currently experiencing a serious situation of military imbalance. Israel is continuing with its policy of expansion, occupying Palestinian territory as well as the territory of two Arab States. For this expansionist policy, it depends on a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical and biological — as well as conventional missiles. It is the only State in the area that has not yet acceded to the NPT. It persists in its refusal to implement Security Council resolution 487 (1981), which calls on Israel by name to place all of its nuclear installations under the comprehensive safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). with the marginal elements and the requirements of disarmament with other requirements.

/…

Mr. Sukayri (Jordan): …

/…

On the other side of the balance sheet, we regrettably find such negative developments and situations as the nuclear tests in South Asia last May; the ongoing reluctance by the only State in the Middle East with considerable nuclear-weapon capabilities — Israel — to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to place all of its nuclear installations and facilities under the full-scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency; …

/…

My country, Jordan, has always been committed to the cause of international peace and security. We have over the years advocated a peaceful settlement to the conflict in the Middle East, a settlement that could lead to a just, comprehensive and durable peace in the region. We realize, as do many others within and outside the region, that for a durable peace to be achieved, positive steps towards confidence-building between the parties have to be taken, on top of such steps as freeing the region of nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction.

Since we met here last year, Jordan has adhered to the Chemical Weapons Convention, ratified the CTBT, signed the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel landmines and signed with the IAEA an Additional Protocol for safeguards. By so doing, Jordan has completed its adherence to all international instruments providing for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as the prohibition of other weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons.

It is noteworthy in this context that the General Assembly has over the last two decades called upon all States in the Middle East that have not yet done so, particularly the only State in the region possessing considerable nuclear-weapon capabilities, to adhere without delay to the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty and to place all of its nuclear facilities under the full-scope safeguards of the IAEA. All States in the Middle East except Israel are now parties to the NPT.

Since 1974, the General Assembly has been calling for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region, and that resolution has since 1980 gained more momentum through its adoption by consensus. Furthermore, in paragraph 5 of its resolution on the Middle East, the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference called upon all States in the region to

“take practical steps in appropriate forums aimed at making progress towards, inter alia, the establishment of an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems, and to refrain from taking any measures that preclude the achievement of this objective” (NPT/CONF.1995/32 (Part I), p. 14).

Paragraph 6 of that same resolution called upon all States parties to the NPT, and in particular the nuclear-weapon States, to extend their cooperation and to exert their utmost efforts with a view to ensuring the achievement of that goal. Unfortunately, more than three years after the historic 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, no indication of such efforts has so far been felt in the region. Here, we cannot but reiterate our conviction, as we have done time and again, that the chances for a comprehensive, just and durable peace in the Middle East look too gloomy without confidence-building between the parties involved. Confidence, however, can never be attainable with the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the region.

/…

Mr. Al-Besbas (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (interpretation from Arabic): …

/…

Brazil's accession to the NPT pleases us, because it reduces the number of countries remaining outside the Treaty regime and reduces the nuclear threat facing the world. Nonetheless, we aspire to universality for the Treaty; this goal was adopted in the 1995 decision on the review and extension of the Treaty. Universality cannot be achieved so long as there are nuclear Powers outside the Treaty; here I would recall Israel's nuclear capabilities, which are not subject to any international safeguards and which pose a genuine threat to the Middle East. The implications of that threat are unforeseeable. We cannot ignore Israel's continued refusal to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards for its nuclear installations and the indifference of many Western States with respect to the whole question of Israeli nuclear weapons. The continued handling of the issue in this way, without attaching the necessary importance to it, reflects a double standard, which is precisely what we in the First Committee must avoid.

For several years, Arab countries have been working towards the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. That initiative is aimed at curbing all weapons of mass destruction. The major obstacle is Israel's refusal to participate in such a zone on the pretext of national security issues. That pretext has been used more than once to evade a commitment to create the zone and to avoid accession to the non-proliferation Treaty; it cannot and should not be accepted, because it harks back to the days of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, which we must go beyond. That pretext will force the States of the region to seek adequate means of protecting their own national security, which will lead to continued tension and conflict in the region.

/…

The Chairman (interpretation from French): I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in exercise of the right of reply. Mr. Abdelaziz (Egypt):  I regret to be obliged to exercise my right of reply in response to what was said in the morning meeting today by Ambassador Robbie Sabel of Israel. Why do I regret this? Because I have known Ambassador Sabel for many years, and he has been part of the negotiations between Egypt and Israel for even longer and knows better than what was said in this morning's meeting.

Ambassador Sabel, after citing long security arguments, trying to justify why Israel did not join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and did not subject its nuclear facilities to full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, chose to note with unhappiness that Egypt is one of the Arab States that has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) — as if it were the right of Israel alone to keep ambiguous nuclear capabilities and policies to protect its security while all Arab countries, and maybe Egypt in particular, should forgo their security concerns and ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). This is an unacceptable concept in our view and will not lead anywhere.

Egypt has repeatedly stressed that it is ready, able and willing to ratify the CWC and the BWC in a package that must include Israel's ratification of the NPT and subject all its nuclear facilities to full-scope IAEA safeguards. This was clearly demonstrated by the initiative to declare the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, launched by President Hosni Mubarak in 1991. This was stressed again in 1998 by President Mubarak, with no positive sign on the part of Israel.

/…

Israel must realize that security does not mean the security of Israel alone; it means the security of all States in the Middle East region and is an interrelated and integrated issue that cannot be dealt with in bits and pieces.

/…

Mr. Dehghani (Islamic Republic of Iran): In one of the statements this morning, reference was made to the military capabilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this connection, my delegation wishes to reiterate the position commonly shared by all States in the Middle East that the  sole threat to the security and stability of the Middle East stems from Israel's nuclear capabilities and its access to advanced missile technology. This position not only signifies a political notion; rather, it asserts a deep and serious concern based on facts and realities. Of course, Iran, like others in the region, cannot remain idle against the threat posed to the region by Israeli mass-destruction capabilities.

/…

Mr. Ri Jang Gon (Democratic People's Republic of Korea): Earlier this morning the Israeli delegation mentioned the so-called crisis. As for the crisis, we think it is on the side of Israel. There is a real crisis in the Middle East peace process because of Israel's continued defiance of the principle of land for peace. Continued occupation of Arab lands creates a crisis and constitutes a real threat to peace in the region. Israel should not deflect this crisis of its own onto other countries.

My delegation urges Israel to pull its troops out of all occupied Arab lands without condition, in accordance with General Assembly resolutions. My delegation advises Israel not to follow the United States blindly in addressing the Korean peninsula.

/…

Mr. Sabel (Israel): Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz and I have spent many hours trying — not always successfully — to improve the situation in the Middle East, and, although we do not always reach agreement, I am a great admirer of both his ability and his good humour. I hope we will be able to continue thus. I believe that his words reflect the need for peace to exist between States in the area, which would enable them to negotiate the issues we have been talking about — because they have to be negotiated between States at peace. In the same way that Jordan and the Palestinians followed Egyptian leadership and negotiated agreements, I sincerely hope and believe that other States in the area will follow suit, and that when we are at peace we will be able to negotiate the very difficult and dangerous issues that the Egyptian Ambassador referred to. They need to be negotiated; but the point we are making is that they need to be negotiated between States that recognize each other and are at peace with each other.

/…

The meeting rose at 6 p.m.