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

Official Records

General Assembly

Fifty-sixth session 

First Committee

21st meeting

Friday, 2 November 2001, 3.30 p.m.

New York

   The meeting was called to order at 3.40 p.m.

Agenda items 64 to 84 ( continued)

Action on all draft resolutions submitted under all items

  The Chairman : This afternoon, the Committee will take action on draft resolutions listed in informal working paper No. 4 before us. Some changes have been made in that working paper as we have moved on. I will be informing members about those changes, in terms of both sequence and of the existence or non-existence of drafts ready for action today.

  I call on those delegations wishing to introduce revised draft resolutions.

[…]

 Mr. Khairat (Egypt): This is a statement by my delegation and not an explanation of vote.

[…]

  In this vein, we recall that the Cairo Declaration, which was adopted on that same occasion, emphasized that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially in regions of tension, such as the Middle East, would enhance global and regional peace and security. Our strong determination to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East has been strengthened even further by this important achievement on the African continent. Not only would a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East provide important confidence-building measures among States in the region, but it would also enhance the security of Africa and the viability of an African nuclear-weapon-free zone.

[…]

 The Chairman : The statement of the representative of Cuba is duly recorded by the Secretariat. Before proceeding to action on draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25, “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in explanation of position or vote before the voting.

 Mr. McGinnis (United States of America): The United States opposes draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25, “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, as we have every year since this one-sided initiative took shape. Everyone in this room knows that the overriding political fact of the Middle East is the regrettable lack of a peace settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbours. My country’s deep concern about these circumstances and our efforts to promote an enduring reconciliation are likewise too well known to require further comment today.

  The draft resolution before us does not meet the fundamental test of fairness and balance. The text confines itself to expressions of concern about activities of a single country, whereas it omits any reference to other questions and issues that relate to the problem of nuclear-weapons proliferation in the region. For example, the draft resolution does not mention the Middle Eastern country that has been found to be not in compliance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It likewise does not allude to the steps that some nations in the region are taking to develop the capacity to acquire nuclear weapons, even though they are parties to the NPT. Further, we do not find any comment in the text on the failure of some Middle Eastern States to fulfil their NPT obligations by concluding safeguards agreements, nor do we find a recommendation that Middle East States sign the Additional Protocols to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safeguards Agreement. The United States regrets the draft resolution’s selective use of one-sided passages from the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. This political distortion does not enhance the NPT regime. In an overall sense, the draft resolution does not advance the cause of non-proliferation, and is more likely to impair it.

  For all these reasons, the United States will once again vote “no”. We call on others to join us in doing so.

 Mr. Durrani (Pakistan): I have asked for the floor to express our support for the draft resolution entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, as contained in document A/C.1/56/L.25. However, my delegation would like to express our reservations on the sixth preambular paragraph and on operative paragraph 3, which call for universal application of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Pakistan is not a party to the NPT. As a State that possesses nuclear weapons, we obviously cannot accede to the NPT or accept these provisions in draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25. 

  Mr. Goussous (Jordan): Jordan has always been committed to the cause of international peace and security. Over the years, we have advocated a peaceful settlement to the conflict in the Middle East — one that could lead to just, comprehensive and durable peace in the region. We realize, as do many others within and outside the region, that for durable peace to be achieved, positive steps towards confidence-building between the parties have to be taken. Additional steps must also be taken to free the region of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.

  We regret the continued reluctance of the only State in the Middle East with considerable nuclear-weapons capability to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to place all its nuclear installations and facilities under the full-scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Their unwillingness to do so poses a threat to international peace and security and to the peace in our region.

 Mr. Bar (Israel): The First Committee is again called upon to vote on a draft resolution entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, contained this year in document A/C.1/56/L.25 — a draft resolution that is blatantly one-sided, contentious and divisive, and undermines rather than enhances confidence among the States of the region.

  Since the time that draft resolutions on this topic were first introduced, many developments have occurred that are directly related to nuclear proliferation and to other forms of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, not the least of which is the sobering experience gained by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Action Team. In addition, efforts are under way to acquire weapons of mass destruction and missile capabilities in the region, as our delegation pointed out during the general debate.

  The bias of this draft resolution stems from it ignoring the fact that the real risk of proliferation in the Middle East emanates from countries that, despite being parties to international treaties, do not comply with their relevant international obligations. These countries are engaged in ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, efforts that have destabilizing effects not only on the region but on a global scale as well. The draft resolution chooses to ignore the profound hostility towards Israel on the part of these countries, which continue to reject any form of peaceful reconciliation and coexistence in the region. Adopting a draft resolution that does not reflect this reality will not serve the greater objective of curbing proliferation in the Middle East. Draft resolutions regarding the complex arms control problems in the Middle East should focus on objective ways to address them as they exist.

  This draft resolution focuses entirely on one country that has never threatened its neighbours nor has it abrogated its obligations under any disarmament treaty. Moreover, it singles out Israel in a manner in which no other United Nations Member State is being singled out in the First Committee. Singling out Israel is counterproductive to confidence-building and peace in the region, and does not lend this body any credibility.

  Israel’s supreme objective is to achieve peace and security. Its non-proliferation and arms control policy is aimed at supporting this objective. The constructive approach adopted by Israel over the years towards arms control and non-proliferation efforts was described in our statement in the general debate. It is best demonstrated by our attitude towards the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, despite substantive reservations regarding its modalities, and it is greatly undermined by the introduction of this biased draft resolution.

  Last year, new language was introduced into this draft resolution. This language is an unbalanced and selective representation of the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, using that Treaty for yet another political assault against Israel. The unbalanced approach remains despite the reference made to the need for compliance of countries with their international obligations, which refers to Iraq. The fact that for some countries the language of this draft resolution is considered balanced is a source of deep disappointment for us.

  The First Committee should not become a venue for political discrimination. We would like to call upon representatives to vote against this draft resolution.

 The Chairman : The representative of Iraq has asked for the floor.

 Mr. Matook (Iraq) (spoke in Arabic ): I do not intend to speak at length before voting on the draft resolution before us. However, may I suggest that one must ask the representative who speaks about compliance with international treaties and United Nations resolutions, which international resolutions his country complies with? And what is the nature of its nuclear arsenal, as well as its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and their position? The Zionist entity is the only party in the Middle East region that possesses these destructive weapons. It is the only party against which Security Council resolution 487 (1981) was adopted. It is the only party in the Middle East that has not acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is the only party that was cited by the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That Conference referred to the Zionist entity as the only party that had not acceded to that Treaty, and called upon that party to accede to it.

 The Chairman : I take it that this was an explanation of the representative of Iraq’s position on the draft resolution before us.

  The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25.

  A recorded vote has been requested. We will again vote twice, because we will have a separate vote on the sixth preambular paragraph of this draft resolution. Afterwards, we will have a vote on the draft resolution as a whole.

  I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.

 Mr. Sattar (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. This draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Egypt on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the League of Arab States at the 13th meeting, on 23 October.

  The Committee will proceed to take a separate vote on the sixth preambular paragraph, which reads:

 “ Recognizing with satisfaction that, in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Conference undertook to make determined efforts towards the achievement of the goal of universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and called upon those remaining States not parties to the Treaty to accede to it, thereby accepting an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all their nuclear activities, and underlined the necessity of universal adherence to the Treaty and of strict compliance by all parties with their obligations under the Treaty,”

    A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia 

Against :

India, Israel

Abstaining:

Bhutan, Cuba, Ethiopia, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Rwanda

    The sixth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25 was retained by 139 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions.

[Subsequently, the delegation of Ethiopia informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.]

 The Chairman : Now we will proceed to take action on the whole of draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25.

  I give the floor back to the Secretary.

 Mr. Sattar (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25 as a whole.

    A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal , Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia

Against:

Israel, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States of America 

Abstaining:

Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Marshall Islands, Rwanda 

    Draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25 was adopted by 139 votes to 3, with 7 abstentions.

 The Chairman : I shall now give the floor to those representatives who wish to explain their vote or position after the voting.

 Mr. Westdal (Canada): I take the floor to explain Canada’s vote on draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.

  Canadian policy regarding the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is well known. We call on all States to accede to, and abide by, this Treaty. Canada supports the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT, which calls on all States not yet party to the Treaty to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States. However, in our view, draft resolution A/C.1/56/L.25 fails in its operative paragraphs to deal with our concerns with respect to compliance with the NPT. Canada maintained its abstention on this draft resolution because, like last year’s text, the draft resolution fails to deal appropriately with both adherence to, and full compliance with, the NPT.

 Mr. Seetharam (India): The Indian delegation has requested the floor after the voting to explain its position on the draft resolution contained in document A/C.1/56/L.25.

  India abstained on the draft resolution as a whole, and cast a negative vote on the sixth preambular paragraph, which makes a reference to the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), on which our position is well known. Besides, we believe that the focus of this draft resolution should necessarily be limited to the region it purports to address. India considers that the multifarious issues in this draft resolution have received widespread consideration in the international community, and hopes that it will be possible to make progress on the issues involved in the coming years through positive contributions by the concerned States of the region.

[…]

   The meeting rose at 6 p.m.

This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of speeches delivered in the other languages. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and 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.