Official Records
General Assembly
Fiftieth session
First Committee
26th meeting
Friday, 17 November 1995, 3 p.m.
New York
Chairman: Mr. Erdenechuluun ……………………….. (Mongolia)
The meeting was called to order at 3.50 p.m.
Agenda items 57 to 81 (continued)
Action on draft resolutions submitted under all disarmament and international security agenda items
/…
Mr. Ledogar (United States of America): I wish to address draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. As my delegation has said more than once in the past, this draft resolution is, in our view, counterproductive and inappropriate. It is counterproductive because it singles out for negative attention a State that is actively engaged in the Middle East peace process. It is inappropriate because it is redundant upon the draft resolution on a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone, which this Committee adopted by consensus just the other day. In short, this is a bad draft resolution, and the United States will vote against it, as it has against similar texts in the past.
/…
Mr. Dorani (Djibouti) (interpretation from French): It is difficult for me to decide whether my intervention is a statement or an explanation of vote, because it relates to two draft resolutions, one which we adopted yesterday — draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.3, on “Nuclear testing” — and another which is still under consideration by the Committee, namely, A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. Perhaps what I am offering is simply food for thought.
I am eager to see the result of the vote on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, and I am above all eager to note the votes of countries that in recent years have repeatedly used their statements on draft resolutions on nuclear testing to try to teach us moral lessons about the consequences of nuclear testing and the dangers of nuclear proliferation throughout the world. Before the vote, one of these countries even went so far as to hand out documents that were out of the ordinary in the normal discourse between States. And unfortunately, these documents challenged the sovereignty of States in taking a position on the draft resolution on nuclear testing. This was done in an attempt to convince us to vote in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.3.
For our part, we would say that if those countries are to be consistent in their actions, they should, logically, vote in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. If they do not, I can only tell them, “You are sovereign States and, after all, I understand and respect the position you have taken.”
The Chairman: I call now on those delegations wishing to explain their vote or their position before the vote.
Mr. Yativ (Israel): I should like to explain Israel’s vote on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1. Ever since the Madrid Conference was launched, laying the ground for the ongoing peace process, Israel has hoped and expected that the impact of that historic process would leave its mark on the deliberations of this Committee. We had hoped that short-lived political considerations would give way to a genuine urge to encourage a process that could turn the entire region of the Middle East into a zone of peace. We had hoped that all those regional parties that are involved in the quest for peace in the region would manifest, in this Committee, the kind of attitude that would be conducive to removing this draft resolution from the agenda, thus enhancing the peace process.
To our dismay and to the dismay of other peacemakers, none of this has happened. Unfortunately, we have to engage today in an old ritual that was conceived years ago and retained over the years for political purposes. It has no other aim than to perpetuate, directly or indirectly, the arraignment of Israel in this Committee. An attempt was made to convince the members of this Committee that this draft resolution does not single out Israel. I regret to state that it does just that. A simple scrutiny will indicate that there is a deterioration in the language, both in letter and in spirit, thus maintaining an anachronistic phenomenon of the past.
In presenting this draft resolution, the representative of Egypt referred to “equality” as a key word for regional obligations to attain peace and security. Is it really conceivable that equality can serve as a yardstick when Israel is still faced with tremendous security problems. It must be recalled that a number of well-apportioned regional States still deny Israel’s legitimacy, let alone agree to negotiate peace or endorse the ongoing peace process. Therefore, in the absence of comprehensive peace, the right equation for security and peace is not “equality across the board”, but first meaningful political accommodation and then equal margins of security. Israel is determined to exhaust the ongoing peace process to achieve the coveted infrastructure for the enhancement of progress towards a comprehensive peace and security in the region.
In all candour, we fail to understand the motive for submitting this draft resolution. It is devoid of any substantive message that does not appear in other resolutions. Therefore, Israel will oppose this draft resolution because of its hostile nature and its overall adverse effect on peace in our region. It is time for this Committee to demonstrate its unqualified support for peace in the Middle East and thus reflect in its resolutions the new and hopeful reality evolving in our region. Hence, we strongly urge the members of this Committee to cast a negative vote on this draft resolution, that will naturally constitute a positive vote for peace.
Mr. Benjamin (Canada) (interpretation from French): Regarding draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, which we have before us today, Canada has decided to take into account all of the possible effects of this draft resolution, particularly — and this was emphasized by the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin two weeks ago —the effects on the efforts now being undertaken to promote and to establish a lasting peace in the Middle East.
The draft resolution deals with one of the essential elements for establishing lasting peace in the Middle East: the question of nuclear proliferation.
(Spoke in English)
In many areas of regional tension, in order to deal with the very real security concerns posed by weapons of mass destruction, we need to deal with the broader context — the root causes of tensions, problems and conflicts. We need to build confidence, promote understanding and reconciliation as the basis for true security.
Canada believes that all countries should sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). We were pleased to see that the United Arab Emirates recently added its name to the global list of NPT adherents. We congratulate the United Arab Emirates on this step. The NPT is a vitally important foundation for peace and security. Canada also believes that all non-nuclear-weapon States should place their nuclear facilities under full-scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This would be an important contribution to building confidence at the regional and global level.
The draft resolution before us draws attention to the need to work to ensure the adherents of all States of the Middle East to these instruments. This is a worthy aim — one we fully share. However, notwithstanding the positive elements contained in this draft resolution, we continue to have concerns about other parts of the text. In particular, the singling out of a State is not seen by us as a helpful way of dealing with the problem. Direct engagement between and among concerned parties is the most effective way of developing and implementing lasting solutions. As a country committed to contributing positively to the Middle East peace process, we are very aware of the deep commitment and real effort being made to reach understanding and build new relationships. We believe that the encouraging progress being made in the peace process should be reflected in our consideration of Middle East issues within this Committee.
(Spoke in French)
Canada would like all parties directly concerned to continue to work together in all available forums to achieve this common goal, the establishment of lasting peace in the Middle East. We believe that this is the ultimate goal to be achieved and for that reason Canada has decided to abstain on this draft resolution.
Mr. Sukayri (Jordan): I have asked to speak in order to explain Jordan’s vote on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1 entitled, “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. My delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution because it believes that it is balanced and fair. It is balanced in the sense that it refers to all relevant General Assembly as well as International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions and, more important, it recalls the resolutions adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, particularly where they emphasized the importance of the universality of the Treaty. It is also balanced in the sense that it refers in a favourable way to the positive developments in the Middle East peace process and appropriately establishes a clear linkage between confidence-building measures among the States in the region and the consolidation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
On the other hand, the draft resolution as it stands is fair in the sense that it calls upon all States of the region without exception or discrimination that have not yet done so to accede to the NPT and to place all their nuclear facilities under full-scope safeguards of the IAEA. Further, it is fair in both welcoming the recent accession to the Treaty by the United Arab Emirates, and calling upon Israel and all other States that are not yet party to the Treaty, to refrain from developing, producing, testing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons and also to renounce possession of such weapons. The only reason for mentioning Israel in operative paragraph 2 is simply because Israel, as is well known, is the only State in the region with significant unsafeguarded nuclear capabilities.
My country, Jordan, has, as is known, signed and ratified a peace Treaty with Israel and we are committed, as we believe Israel is, to implement in good faith all of the provisions of that Treaty. That being confirmed, and if it is true that peace and security cannot be maintained in the region unless confidence prevails among all its States, it is our deep conviction that such steps as adherence by all States in the Middle East to the NPT, along with all the fulfilment of requirements of adherence, such as the renunciation of nuclear weapons and the placement of all nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards, will undoubtedly contribute to confidence-building and pave the way for a comprehensive and durable peace in the region.
/…
The Chairman: May I remind delegations that explanations of vote are given on clusters rather than on each and every draft resolution. All delegations wishing to explain their votes after the voting will be given an opportunity to do so after all draft resolutions in the cluster have been voted on.
A separate recorded vote on the sixth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1 has been requested.
I now call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.
Mr. Kheradi (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to act on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Egypt, in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of Arab States for the month of November 1995, at the 16th meeting of the Committee on 8 November 1995. It is sponsored by the following States: Afghanistan, Egypt — in its capacity as Chairman of the Group of Arab States for the month of November 1995 — and Malaysia.
In favour:
Against:
Abstaining:
[Subsequently, the delegation of Thailand informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.]
Mr. Kheradi (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now take action on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1 as a whole.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Against:
Abstaining:
[Subsequently, the delegations of the Gambia and Guatemala informed the Secretariat that they had intended to abstain.]
/…
The Chairman: I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes. There are 14 speakers so far.
Mr. Yativ (Israel): I should like to explain Israel’s vote on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.49/Rev.1. Israel is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and is not bound by the decisions and resolution of the Extension Conference. Israel did not call for a recorded vote on this draft resolution because it considered it to be a procedural one, merely stating facts. However, once a vote was called for, Israel had to abstain because it cannot support any draft resolution that detracts from the sovereignty of the peace process. In this regard we must also emphasize that we do not accept operative paragraph 2 of this draft resolution.
/…
Mr. Moubarak (Lebanon): My delegation wishes to explain its position concerning the draft resolution just adopted on the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Last May during the Review and Extension Conference of the NPT we stressed our position and we hereby stress again that the NPT is a fundamental component of international peace and security as long as it is effectively universal.
At the time, the Conference did not seriously address the Israeli nuclear programme, which remains outside the circle of the NPT regime. Neither did it address Israel’s refusal to adhere to the NPT and to submit its nuclear facilities to the full-scope safeguards regime, thereby constituting a grave threat to regional and international security and undermining the credibility and universality of the Treaty.
Maintaining the Israeli position as a fait accompli represents a grave imbalance that seriously threatens peace and stability in the region. Our insistence that Israel should adhere to the NPT is consistent with the principle of universality. The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East remains great, especially since Israel is the only country in the Middle East with significant unsafeguarded nuclear capabilities. That is why we of necessity call for all nuclear facilities in the region to be placed under the full-scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Our position on operative paragraph 2, relating to the resolution on the Middle East adopted on 11 May 1995 by the parties to the Treaty, was explained at length during the NPT Review and Extension Conference. Our position remains constant in this regard. No exception should be allowed. As long as Israel does not accede to the NPT and does not place its nuclear facilities under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, any measure concerning the NPT, particularly in the Middle East, would fall short of its objective.
Mr. Hallak (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): …
/…
My delegation voted for draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.49/Rev.1, submitted by Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and entitled “1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”. My delegation is of the view that the indefinite extension of the Treaty has left some nuclear programmes and weapons outside the non-proliferation regime, and by this we mean the Middle East region, the security and stability of which is an integral part of international peace and security.
The Extension Conference provided a rare historic opportunity, which was not taken by Israel, to accede to the Treaty and to contribute with the States of the region to turning the Middle East into a nuclear-weapon-free zone and free of all weapons of mass destruction. Therefore we could not agree to the indefinite extension of the Treaty unless Israel would accede to it and agree to place its nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards and inspection system.
The position of the Syrian Arab Republic emanates from its non-acceptance of the presence of nuclear weapons in Israel, which might endanger peace and security in the region and throughout the world. That situation should be rejected by the international community.
As to paragraph 2 of the draft resolution, relating to the Middle East, we emphasize that even though Syria clearly adheres to the process of peace, and despite our bilateral talks and efforts with a view to reaching a just and durable peace in the region, we cannot agree with the decision taken in the Conference on Disarmament concerning the Middle East unless Israel agrees to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in implementation of the numerous General Assembly resolutions adopted on this matter and in spite of Security Council resolution 487 (1981), in which the Council called upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA, a resolution which has thus far not been implemented.
Mr. de Icaza (Mexico), Vice-Chairman, took the Chair.
Mr. Starr (Australia): Australia voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1. We did so because we believe it to be consistent with our support for the Middle East peace process, which has continued to make clear progress in the last year.
The draft resolution is also consistent with our support for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.
/…
Mr. Martínez-Morcillo (Spain) (interpretation from Spanish): I am speaking on behalf of the European Union as well as of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.
Those States decided to abstain on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1 entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.
We welcome the efforts made by the sponsors to achieve consensus and to improve the draft resolution over last year’s in order to ensure that it reflects important events that have taken place in the field of nuclear non-proliferation.
The international community now has a non-proliferation Treaty of indefinite duration, one which is gradually achieving its goal of universality. The 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the States Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty also adopted a resolution on nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East. For this reason, the European Union voted in favour of the sixth preambular paragraph. However, despite all these endeavours, the draft resolution continues to make a specific reference to Israel. As a result we were obliged to abstain in the vote inasmuch as the submission of a draft resolution that singles out Israel is not consistent with the spirit of the peace process now under way in the Middle East and fails properly to reflect the remarkable progress achieved in the region this year.
Mr. Mubarak (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (interpretation from Arabic): …
/…
My delegation also voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, concerning the risk of Israeli nuclear armaments in the Middle East, and would like to explain its position. While we supported draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, my delegation has reservations concerning anything that gives the impression of acknowledging what is called “Israel” and we alert the international community to the seriousness of the large arsenals of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction possessed by Israel, which pose a serious threat to the States of the Middle East and to international peace
and security.
We call upon the international community to urge Israel to accede to the NPT and impel it to do so and to place all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards and to establish a timetable for destroying its arsenals of nuclear weapons. Then, and only then, can we talk seriously about peace and security in the Middle East.
Mr. Hasan (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): I would like to explain my country’s position regarding draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, which has just been adopted. At the outset, I must acknowledge the efforts made by the delegation of the sister State, Egypt, in the preparation of the draft resolution. My delegation supports the noble aims set forth therein. However, we feel that the wording of the draft resolution does not fully reflect the gravity of the matter, for the following reasons.
First, the draft resolution does not refer to the risks that the positioning by Israel of more than 200 nuclear warheads poses to regional and international peace and security.
Secondly, the draft resolution does not refer to the responsibility of the Security Council for eliminating the risks of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, especially the implementation of Security Council resolution 487 (1981), in which the Council called upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under full-scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Israel is the only State that was called upon by the Security Council to do so. Hence, those who complain about the reference to Israel by name should ask the Security Council why it singled out Israel, among all States of the world, in the aforementioned Security Council resolution 487 (1981). Reference must also be made to paragraph 14 of Security Council resolution 687 (1991), the only paragraph in this resolution, on which no action has been taken because it has to do primarily with Israel’s weapons, while the rest of the resolution deals with Iraq.
Thirdly, my delegation has reservations on the last paragraph of the preamble because we do not think that the current developments in the peace process in the Middle East will induce Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. In this regard, we feel that the experience of South Africa is a model worth noting. No substantive progress was made towards ridding the African continent of the risks of nuclear proliferation until South Africa renounced its nuclear weapons. Israel should follow this example if it is seeking a real peace in the Middle East.
Mr. Esenli (Turkey): I would like to explain my delegation’s vote on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1. My delegation is fully aware of the fact that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would pose a serious threat to international peace and security. Therefore, we have been calling insistently on all the States in the region to adhere to the international instruments on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in particular to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). We hold that practical steps in that direction would make an important contribution to confidence-building in the region. With this in mind, we share the main thrust of the draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. Therefore, we voted in favour of the sixth paragraph of the preamble. However, we abstained in the vote on the draft resolution as a whole, since we believe that referring to a particular country under such a general title is not compatible with the objective of the draft resolution. Had that not been the case, we would have voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1.
Ms. Ghose (India): My delegation would like to explain its votes on draft resolutions A/C.1/50/L.17/Rev.2, A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1 and A/C.1/50/L.49/Rev.1.
/…
We have a similar problem with draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19 and the use of language and decisions from NPT in this particular draft resolution. We were therefore constrained to vote against the sixth preambular paragraph. However, we abstained on the draft resolution as a whole even though we do not support any State being singled out in a resolution such as this.
/…
Mr. García (Colombia) (interpretation from Spanish): My country voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.
My country is a party to the Treaty of Tlatelolco and also to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It supports the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone and, like other Member States of the Organization, it reaffirmed the need to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, as called for in a draft resolution which was adopted without a vote just a couple of days ago by the Committee.
My delegation is pleased to note the progress that is being made in the peace process in the Middle East. The remarkable efforts being made to achieve peace between Palestine and Israel, with the cooperation of many States both inside and outside the region, deserve our resolute and enthusiastic support. Day by day, with increased hope, we see that results are being achieved despite those that still try to stifle these efforts by violent means.
We believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons in the region is one thing that could help to strengthen the right of all States and all peoples of the Middle East region to live in peace.
/…
Mr. Alvarez (Uruguay) (interpretation from Spanish): The delegation of Uruguay abstained in the vote on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1 because that text repeats the discriminatory practice of name-calling, which we thought had been done away in General Assembly resolutions. Uruguay has repeatedly stated that it regards as unacceptable the singling out of States in resolutions of a general nature, particularly those that refer to the situation in a specific region.
The peace process in the Middle East is of far-reaching importance to international peace and security. Uruguay has unreservedly supported this process. Language such as that contained in the draft resolution just adopted adds no positive elements but maintains a divisive tone that could be detrimental to such sensitive negotiations.
/…
Mr. Than (Myanmar): My delegation wishes to explain its vote on draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.
Myanmar has been a consistent and ardent advocate of nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and related nuclear arms limitation measures. However, my delegation is of the view that a country-specific draft resolution such as the present one is not helpful to efforts to achieve these goals. We are sympathetic to, and supportive of, the main thrust of the fifth preambular paragraph calling upon States that have not done so to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as soon as possible, and operative paragraph 3, according to which the General Assembly:
We are also supportive of the main thrust of another draft resolution —A/C.1/50/L.10 —entitled “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East” which, without being country-specific, encompasses positive elements similar to those mentioned above.
My delegation has reservations about operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, which singles out Israel. For this reason my delegation abstained in the vote on that draft resolution. representative who spoke earlier. My delegation fails to grasp the notion that a treaty which is not universally accepted can somehow be considered a part of customary international law.
/…
Mr. Ngo Dinh Kha (Viet Nam) (interpretation from French): I wish to explain Viet Nam’s vote on draft resolutions A/C.1/50/L.17/Rev.2 and A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1.
/…
With regard to draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1, Viet Nam’s affirmative vote is fully in keeping with the desire to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
/…
Mr. Leung (Fiji): My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1 because we believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would produce an atmosphere conducive to success in the current peace process. As Fiji is a signatory to the Treaty of Rarotonga, its support for this draft resolution is also consistent with its view that the total elimination of nuclear weapons should be our ultimate goal. However, we should like to record our regret at the fact that a State has been singled out for mention in the text.
/…
The meeting rose at 6.35 p.m.
Document Type: Meeting record
Document Sources: General Assembly
Subject: Arms control and regional security issues
Publication Date: 17/11/1995