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

Official Records

General Assembly

Fifty-first session

First Committee

17th meeting

Thursday, 7 November 1996, 3 p.m.

New York

President:  Mr. Sychou ……………………. (Belarus)

The meeting was called to order at 3.20 p.m.

Agenda items 60, 61 and 63-81 (continued)

Introduction and consideration of draft resolutions submitted on all disarmament and international security agenda items

/…

The Chairman: I call on the representative of Egypt to introduce draft resolution A/C.1/51/L.28.

Mr. Elaraby (Egypt): The Middle East region is the cradle of civilization, rich in cultural heritage and spiritual enlightenment and the birthplace of three divine religions. It is normal for such a region to expound peace as a cornerstone of its contribution to human civilization. Yet the Middle East has been the theatre of strife and armed conflicts for over forty years.

It would therefore seem timely for us today seriously to embark on laying the solid foundations on which to proceed towards establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. The consensus that has emerged in the General Assembly in respect of this proposal and the steadfast support it has received in bilateral declarations as well as in various multilateral forums are no doubt cogent testimony to the viability and to the relevance of this concept.

The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East would greatly contribute to arresting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and strengthening the security of all States in the region and, consequently, would be deemed to be an important confidence-building measure indicative of the common desire of all States of the region to live in peace.

At the forty-fifth session of the General Assembly, the study on effective and verifiable measures which would facilitate the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East was presented for the consideration of this Committee. The study was generally well received as a useful and balanced approach to attain an important objective. In quoting the study, I would only refer to its conclusion, in which it is stated that:

“There … is no doubt that the goal can be reached; it is not an idle dream”. (A/45/435, para. 175)

The study goes on to state that:

“The effort required will be great, but so will the benefits of success”. (Ibid., para. 176)

Though we fully realize that peace, security and stability in the region of the Middle East will be achieved only when a comprehensive, just and lasting peace is attained, it is essential to create the necessary climate and conditions to facilitate the achievement of this end result. In our view, the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone would contribute substantially to such a result. It is important to emphasize that the zone should not be viewed as nor reduced to a mere subsidiary factor. On the contrary, the objectives that it serves are fundamental in their own right by virtue of eliminating the threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East region.

In introducing draft resolution A/C.1/51/L.28 under agenda item 67, entitled “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East”, I find it important to state that my delegation conducted wide consultations and exerted every possible effort to recognize two factors: the consensual dimension of the draft resolution, on the one hand, and the inevitability of reflecting relevant regional and extraregional realities, on the other.

In this vein, the twelfth preambular paragraph bears on the current state of affairs in the Middle East peace process by noting that the peace negotiations should be of a comprehensive nature and represent an appropriate framework for the peaceful settlement of contentious issues in the region. Furthermore, the thirteenth preambular paragraph develops a global level by taking note of the decisions adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its resolution on the Middle East.

It is our considered opinion that the time is now ripe to proceed towards the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. For this reason, paragraph 10 of the draft resolution endeavours once again to utilize the good offices of the Secretary-General to inject the required impetus into the process.

I would also like to invite the Committee's attention to the eleventh preambular paragraph and paragraph 9, in which reference is made to the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. This is a broader initiative that not only highlights the nuclear factor, but adds to it the chemical- and biological-weapons dimensions.

Since the announcement of this initiative by President Mubarak on 9 April 1990, it has been attracting an ever-widening degree of support. The Security Council adopted resolution 687 (1991) of 8 April 1991, which reiterates the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction.

It is our sincere hope that the States of the Middle East will work towards the implementation of both proposals simultaneously in order to eliminate the shadows of suspicion and mistrust.

Before concluding, in submitting draft resolution A/C.1/51/L.28, I would like to reiterate that we have conducted extensive informal consultations on its formulation with all the delegations belonging to our region and with other interested parties in order to accommodate different concerns. In this spirit, conscious of the need to preserve the consensus that this resolution has enjoyed over the years and as a demonstration of flexibility and of general understanding on the part of my delegation, I would like to announce the following amendments.

First, the fourth preambular paragraph should be deleted, despite the fact that it represents a direct quotation of consensus language derived from the decision adopted by the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.

Secondly, the phrase of paragraph 3:

“and the statement made by the President and accepted by the General Conference on 20 September 1996 regarding the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Middle East”,

should be deleted. We do so owing to the fact that the statement made by the President of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference on 20 September 1996 regarding the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Middle East is already reflected in the resolution adopted by the General Assembly last week under agenda item 14, entitled “Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency”.

Thirdly — and I wish to underline this point — we are still conducting consultations on the seventh preambular paragraph on nuclear safety. The result of these consultations with respect to the seventh preambular paragraph will be submitted by my delegation to the Committee in document A/C.1/51/L.28/Rev.1 in due course.

I therefore commend this draft resolution to the First Committee and sincerely hope that it will receive the same support as in previous sessions and be adopted without a vote.

/…

Mr. Al-Masaad (Qatar) (interpretation from Arabic): Since this is the first time I am speaking in the First Committee, I would like to congratulate you, Sir, on your election as Chairman of this body. I am convinced that, given your diplomatic skills and knowledge of the issues before us, the work of this Committee will be fruitful. I am also pleased to extend congratulations to your fellow members of the Bureau and wish them every success.

The State of Qatar, together with many States of the Middle East, have on several occasions confirmed their commitment to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, in keeping with the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session on disarmament and the relevant General Assembly resolutions, the most recent of which is 50/66, adopted by consensus on 12 December 1995. The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, particularly in tension areas such as the Middle East, is the result of countries' coming together to commit themselves to freeing their region of tensions. Such zones strengthen international efforts to achieve nuclear non-proliferation and pursue the objectives of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and are a major contribution to international peace and security. No one can deny the significant contribution to progress in nuclear disarmament of the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, South-East Asia and, more recently, in Africa, following the signing on 11 April 1996 of the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty.

The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones is in keeping with resolutions on the goals and principles of the NPT and nuclear disarmament adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the NPT, which affirmed that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones strengthens international peace and security. Pursuant to those resolutions, the State of Qatar supported the draft resolution adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and was among the first to sign it.

The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East is the responsibility of the States of the region. Arab States, in particular the State of Qatar, would welcome the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. All of those States are also Parties to the NPT and approved its extension for an indefinite period. Israel is the only State of the region that has failed to do so. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference of September 1995 highlighted the serious consequences for international peace and security of nuclear activities carried out in the Middle East not for exclusively peaceful purposes. That was a specific reference to Israel. Israel's adherence to the NPT and submission of all its nuclear facilities and installations to IAEA safeguards are vital to securing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region, especially since a new Government has come to power in Israel.

Such a zone is essential if the peace process is to progress towards the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region. It would lead to confidence-building in the region and to fruitful cooperation in all areas. It would further consolidate economic development, thus facilitating the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone covering the entire region. We have stressed the importance to the region's stability of establishing such a zone, given its contribution to peace and the economic and social stability of the region. The State of Qatar, under His Majesty the Emir of the State, has worked to strengthen its efforts and calls on other States to do their best to speed the establishment of such a zone in the region and to consider serious and mutually and effectively verifiable measures.

/…

The Chairman: I call on the representative of Egypt to introduce draft resolution A/C.1/51/L.27.

Mr. Elaraby (Egypt): The delegation of Egypt has the honour to introduce, on behalf of States members of the League of Arab States, draft resolution A/C.1/51/L.27, under agenda item 74, which is entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.

This draft text is based on the resolution adopted last year by the General Assembly under the same agenda item. It does, however, take into account the prevailing political environment in the Middle East. The most relevant developments are the accession of Djibouti on 22 August this year to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the decision of Oman to sign the NPT as soon as possible, as announced by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Oman in his statement to the General Assembly on 1 October 1996. Such developments underline a basic fact in the Middle East, namely, that Israel has become the only State in the region which has neither acceded to the NPT nor declared its intention to do so in the foreseeable future.

The achievement of universal adherence to the NPT remains a cardinal priority not only for the States Parties; but also for the international community as a whole. Universality consolidates the edifice of the NPT regime. This was underscored in the Treaty itself and was subsequently confirmed by the decision on principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament adopted on 11 May 1995 by the Conference of the Parties to the NPT, as well as by the provisions of the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Treaty. It is for these reasons that we consider Israel's refusal to accede to the NPT as an impediment to the realization of the lofty objective of attaining universal adherence to the Treaty.

Needless to say, the continuation of such an unbalanced situation cannot but further aggravate serious security concerns regarding the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. It will undermine the efforts deployed by various regional and extraregional parties aimed at establishing confidence-building measures, in particular those efforts aimed at the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East as the cornerstone for the achievement of a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

In a volatile region such as the Middle East, peacemaking deserves our collective support. When the foundations of peace have been laid down, it is our common responsibility to build upon these agreements to allow them to widen and spill over into other areas, hence contributing to defusing tension. With this view in mind, we must underscore that the Arab strategic option of achieving a just and comprehensive peace requires that Israel make a corresponding commitment, and that this commitment be seriously and scrupulously confirmed in accordance with the principles agreed upon at the Madrid Conference, in particular the principle of land for peace, and the faithful fulfillment of commitments, undertakings or agreements made in that framework. Reneging on commitments is unacceptable as well as illegal.

This draft resolution, contained in document A/C.1/51/L.27, consists of 10 preambular paragraphs and five operative ones. I will only call attention to the new changes that have been introduced. In the new seventh preambular paragraph, the General Assembly notes with satisfaction that since the adoption of the resolution on the Middle East on 11 May 1995 by the Conference of the Parties to the NPT, Djibouti and the United Arab Emirates have become parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and that Oman will become a party to the Treaty at the earliest date. In the new eighth preambular paragraph, the General Assembly notes with concern that Israel will be the only State in the Middle East — and this is a reality: the only State in the Middle East — that has not yet become a party to the NPT and has not declared its intention to do so. In the new ninth preambular paragraph, the General Assembly expresses its concern about threats posed to security and stability by the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region. And in the updated tenth preambular paragraph — which was the seventh preambular paragraph of resolution 50/73 adopted last year — the General Assembly stresses the importance of undertaking confidence-building measures, in particular the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, in order to consolidate the non-proliferation regime and enhance peace and security in the region.

As for the operative part, the General Assembly welcomes, in an updated paragraph 1, the accession of Djibouti to the NPT and the decision of Oman, as expressed by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Oman, to accede to the Treaty. In an updated paragraph 2, the General Assembly calls upon Israel, the only State in the Middle East region that is not yet party to the NPT and has not yet declared its intention to do so, to accede to the Treaty without further delay; not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons; and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons.

The General Assembly also calls upon Israel, in an updated paragraph 3, to place all unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.

Allow me to conclude by stating that the purpose of this draft resolution is simple and straightforward. It is to faithfully reflect the realities in the Middle East — the realities as they now exist. The draft resolution underscores the basic facts as we live them in the region: that following the decisions of Djibouti and Oman, Israel remains the only State in the region that is not yet or will not soon be a party to the NPT. This is a fact that cannot be challenged. Israel has not declared its intention to become a party to the NPT.

I believe that States of the area are justified and entitled to put questions to the international community. Are we expected to ignore realities and use what might be described as the ostrich approach, hiding our heads in the vast sand dunes of the Middle East? To whose interest would that be? It would not promote peace, stability or security. Or are we to conclude that in the Middle East, and only in the Middle East, double standards can be applied?

A few years ago, and as a token of our support for collective efforts, the title of this item was changed from “Israeli nuclear armament” to “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. This change by itself highlights the conceptual change from confrontation to confidence-building; this draft resolution does not aim at creating a confrontation between any delegations here. Now it is Israel's turn to make a positive gesture by joining all other States of the region in acceding to the NPT and adhering to the non-proliferation regime.

Egypt, on behalf of the States Members of the League of Arab States, hopes that this draft resolution will receive the overwhelming support of Member States. For this purpose — to make it possible for this draft resolution to receive the overwhelming support of members of this Committee — we have been and still are conducting intensive consultations with all the interested parties. We hope that our discussions will lead to a positive outcome at the beginning of next week.

/…

Mr. Yativ (Israel): Let me first present some of Israel's comments on draft resolution A/C.1/51/L.28 entitled “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East”, which has just been introduced.

As the members of this Committee are fully aware, Israel has for the past decade joined the consensus on the issue of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East. It did so because it identifies with the goal of establishing such a zone in the Middle East in due course. We have retained our position over the years while dissociating ourselves from the modalities contained in the draft resolution and maintaining serious reservations on its language and substance.

This year, draft resolution A/C.1/51/L.28 constitutes a drastic departure from the consensus language on which Israel's support was based. The new text is, in effect, a new draft resolution that calls for a new position.

I do not wish to elaborate on each change that was introduced. However, I do wish to make one fundamental remark in order to convey Israel's concern and apprehension. Israel's position has always been that the nuclear issue should be dealt with in the full context of the peace process in the Middle East, as well as within the context of all security problems, conventional and non-conventional. This has been a rudimentary concern on which our consideration was based.

The present draft includes several changes in the text that give it another direction. The strong reference to the importance of the peace process has been drastically diluted. Hence, we believe that such changes will adversely affect the peacemaking efforts in the Middle East and thus upset the delicate balance on which the consensus is based.

Israel continues to support the establishment, in due course, of a mutually verifiable nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, after peace is sealed. Thus, the text of the resolution that was adopted during the fiftieth session of the General Assembly should remain unchanged if consensus is to be maintained. Support for this position will greatly help in maintaining consensus on this item this year as well.

I wish to add only a brief remark on draft resolution A/C.1/51/L.27, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. This draft resolution is, regrettably, on the agenda of this Committee once again. It should have been removed from the agenda long ago on account of its negative political motive and in view of the fact that its substance is devoid of any subject not included in other resolutions. Therefore, I will not go into any substantive analysis of this draft resolution.

The draft resolution, as introduced today, represents an upgraded version of a negative attitude. On the one hand, my delegation has noticed a further proliferation of Israel's name in the text, thus escalating the singling out of my country. We have also noticed a deliberate omission of any reference to the peace process, which appeared in last year's text. Hence, I note with regret that this annual ritual has reached a new level. The continued arraignment and name-calling of Israel in this draft resolution does not serve the cause of peace and will no doubt have a detrimental effect on political developments in the Middle East.

We therefore call upon all those who supported or abstained on that resolution to vote against the draft and thus extend a helping hand to the peacemaking efforts in the Middle East.

/…

Mr. Al-Hariri (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): The draft resolution introduced by the Ambassador of Egypt under agenda item 67, entitled the “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East” and contained in document A/C.1/51/L.28, is of great importance to all countries of the region and of the world.

The establishment of such zones is indispensable to eliminating the risk of nuclear proliferation in an area that has experienced long-standing conflicts. Such a risk may persist if a single State continues to possess an arsenal of nuclear weapons, is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and refuses to submit its nuclear installations to the full-scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. These safeguards are an important confidence-building measure for all the nations of the region and enhance international peace and security. Israel's refusal to submit to them hinders the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. The international community and the General Assembly have supported this position since 1980 through the adoption by consensus of the resolution on the establishment of such a zone.

The international community is tending, in the light of the international changes taking place, to eliminate nuclear weapons through the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in several regions of the world, such as Latin America and elsewhere. In the Middle East, Israel is the only State preventing the establishment of such a zone, thus threatening international peace and security, in particular given the setbacks in the peace process created by Israel's failure to respect commitments concluded during previous stages of that process. This is impeding the establishment of a just and lasting peace based on the principle of “land for peace”. Israel is continuing to misrepresent reality, failing to respect its commitments and distorting the truth. The peace process is being blocked by Israeli practices, which are hampering the implementation of a resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

In its preambular and operative parts, the draft resolution before us emphasizes realities that cannot be denied or ignored but which we must seriously consider. It is not new, as some have claimed. The amendments made by the Egyptian Ambassador during his introduction on the draft resolution, in which he singled out Israel by name, reflect the reality that Israel is the only recalcitrant party and simply strengthens the language of the draft resolution.

My country attaches the greatest importance to the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, a measure that is indispensable for nuclear disarmament and to promoting the possibility of peace and international security. We hope that the draft resolution will be adopted by consensus, as in the past.

Mr. Karem (Egypt): A few moments ago, the Permanent Representative of Egypt, Ambassador Elaraby, introduced draft resolutions A/C.1/51/L.24 and A/C.1/51/L.28. We listened — with great interest, I must admit — to what was said by the representative of Israel, Ambassador Yativ, in his remarks on A/C.1/51/L.28.

I must admit at this stage that the statement of the representative of Israel surprised me in many regards and caused me a little bit of dismay on two grounds. First of all, in its presentation, this delegation made a few important conciliatory oral amendments to resolution A/C.1/51/L.28. Nevertheless, it seems that insufficient time was given to digest the importance and assess the significance of the Egyptian delegation's conciliatory remarks and amendments to this draft resolution. It is in that respect that we announce that revision 1 will soon be released; my delegation, I believe, presented the new amendments to the Secretariat.

We have announced that there is an ongoing process of negotiations and consultations with all, intra-regional as well as extra-regional parties — if not neighbours and partners — as we proceed towards the conclusion of the negotiations on this draft resolution. So I do not think that it is at all healthy to negotiate this draft resolution from the floor. I think what we need at this stage is quiet diplomacy and an open mind. I do not think that what has been mentioned by my friend Ambassador Yativ augurs well for what I have just mentioned.

Secondly, I find myself somewhat puzzled by certain things he said in his intervention. He mentioned that Israel has supported relevant draft resolutions on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone for the last decade. Actually, the consensus on such draft resolutions goes back to 1980. If my memory serves me correctly, the first draft resolution in this area was introduced and inscribed on the agenda of the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly in 1974. The farthest Israel went in voting on the draft resolution, before it was adopted by consensus in 1980, was an abstention.

They have argued on historical grounds that for the draft resolution on this subject to be implemented they needed to underscore that they should not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East. Secondly, they needed direct negotiations with the parties. Well, direct negotiations started in 1977 between Egypt and Israel. As a result of our 1979 peace treaty with them, it became possible for the draft resolution to be adopted by consensus in 1980. I think it is in our interest to preserve and build on the consensus on the resolution.

It is in that respect that I actually find myself perplexed in trying to understand what we really mean by saying that Israel supports the draft resolution but dissociates itself from the modalities. If we measure such a statement against a long period of support — from 1974 until now — I find myself at a total loss. I also find myself somewhat confused by language such as “after peace is sealed”. What do we really mean by peace being sealed? Can we put that in operational terms, or is that one additional alibi, if I may call it that, or precondition or caveat being placed on the long process of putting this initiative into operational terms, to implement the relevant resolutions?

We have supported the relevant resolutions for a long time; we have long had agreed language on them; we have adopted them by consensus since 1974; we have had paragraph 63 (d), of the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly, in 1978, agreed to by all the parties. What is left is the political will of the parties to put the resolution in operational terms — not necessarily by beginning with direct negotiations, though we are ready to do so.

The least we can do at this stage is to begin a structured discussion. Even a structured discussion on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East is not agreed to by Israel. I am not talking about negotiations; I am speaking of a structured discussion. If we take an example from the African initiative, for example, it is noteworthy that the initiative was started in 1964 and culminated, as the representative of South Africa mentioned, in Cairo on 11 April of this year, after a very long period of time.

Egypt is willing to work hand in hand with all the parties concerned, but we need to start a process of structured discussion.

Before concluding, let me just refer to another remark which was made by the representative of Israel. With regard to draft resolution A/C.1/51/L.27, on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, he stated that there was a deliberate omission of reference to the peace process. Let me just state that the deliberate omission was made because the original, previous language said “encouraged by the recent positive developments” in the peace process. If we are speaking in 1996, in the light of the developments since the last session of the General Assembly, it is not at all possible to use the same language because, unfortunately, history attests to the contrary of that statement, and we have to be realistic.

I will, however, end with a question to our Israeli friends and colleagues. If they like references so very much, and if they so much dislike the omission, would the insertion of a mention of the peace process in A/C.1/51/L.27 make them change their minds? I wonder.

The Chairman (interpretation from Russian): There are no further speakers. We have thus concluded the introduction and consideration of draft resolutions submitted on all disarmament and security agenda items.

/…

The meeting rose at 5.45 p.m.

____________

This record contains the original texts of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches delivered in the other languages.  Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only.  They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, Room C-178.  Corrections will be issued after the end of the session in a consolidated corrigendum.