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

Official Records

General Assembly

Fifty-first session

First Committee

7th meeting

Friday, 18 October 1996, 10 a.m.

New York

Chairman:  Mr. Alyaksandr Sychou ……………………. (Belarus)

The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m.

Agenda items 60 to 81 (continued)

General debate on all disarmament and international security agenda items

Mr. Camacho Omiste (Bolivia) (interpretation from Spanish): …

/…

The adoption of the Treaty of Bangkok, establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South-East Asia, was equally encouraging. This instrument of great legal and political importance is a part of the efforts under way in other regions.  The treaties of Tlateloco for Latin America and the Caribbean, Rarotonga for the South Pacific, Pelindaba for Africa, and Bangkok for South-East Asia — being almost in full effect — together with the Antarctic Treaty, reinforce the concept of the nuclear-weapon-free zone. Internationally recognized and established on the basis of freely entered into arrangements, these zones contribute to world and regional peace and security.  We believe that the discussions and work of this Committee should take these positive developments into account and reflect them in the Committee's resolutions. In this context, my delegation supports the initiative of Brazil to ensure that the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas become a nuclear-weapon-free zone. This would have a positive effect on tension-prone regions such as the Middle East, and strengthen the international non-proliferation regime.

/…

Mr. Yativ (Israel): I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Sir, on your election as Chairman of this Committee. It is a well-deserved acknowledgment of your skills and competence. I can assure you of my delegation's fullest cooperation in steering the deliberations of this Committee to a successful conclusion.

The Government and the people of Israel have always been united in the quest for peace with all their neighbours. The new Government is also firmly committed to continue with the ongoing efforts on the road to peace. The Madrid Conference has established the framework of the peacemaking process in both its bilateral and multilateral channels. The pillars of this process are the peace treaties between Israel and its immediate neighbours, Egypt and Jordan. The dialogue with the Palestinians has resumed in continuous efforts designed to resolve the differences between both sides and to implement the agreements.

Progress is being achieved. It is also one of the immediate goals of this Government to resume the dialogue with Syria as an important component of peace in our region. This policy was recently reiterated by Israel's Foreign Minister, Mr. David Levy, before the General Assembly:

“I wish solemnly to reaffirm Israel's irreversible commitment and determination to pursue the path of peace.” (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first Session, Plenary meetings, 20th meeting, p. 13)

Israel has ascribed significant importance to issues of regional security and arms control as an integral component of the peacemaking efforts in the Middle East. Given the volatility of our region, addressing such issues requires utmost caution and careful consideration. Today more than ever before it is abundantly clear that security, as both a regional and national goal, cannot be achieved without a total and unequivocal renunciation of violence as a political means. Israel's Foreign Minister, in his statement before the General Assembly, also said that

“security is neither an obsession nor a blind belief. It touches upon our very existence in a region where, unfortunately, threats and instability still rage. Security must be the cornerstone in the architecture of peace. It cannot, under any circumstances, tag along behind a process in which terrorism and violence have not yet spoken their last word.” (supra, p. 83)

Likewise, it is important to stress once again that regional security problems can be settled only among the States of the region. Israel therefore supported the establishment of the Working Group on regional security and arms control as a regional forum within the peace process to complement the bilateral talks by seeking cooperative responses to security problems. It is Israel's fervent hope that this regional framework will be reconvened in order to address, with the active participation of all States of the Middle East, the regional security concerns of our region.

The concept of regionality is indeed the backbone of Israel's approach to issues of regional security and arms control. Israel's belief in this concept derives from one of the basic tenets of its foreign policy: the recognition that such problems can be addressed only by direct negotiations. This approach proved itself time and again, and was reiterated before the General Assembly by Israel's Foreign Minister, who said:

“The advantage of this regional approach is that it is based on direct negotiations between the States of the region. The first stage is to build confidence, and thereafter, we must put arms control and disarmament mechanisms into place.” (supra, p. 94)

These advantages outweigh the global approach which cannot provide a response to the unique security problems in general and of Israel in particular.

Regionality is one of the principles of Israel's policy on the nuclear issue, including the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones. With your permission, Sir, I wish to elaborate on the issue of nuclear-weapon-free zones, in both its global and regional aspects. The issue of nuclear-weapon-free zones has recently been the subject of much debate. Before outlining Israel's position on the matter, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that as early as 1974, an Ad Hoc Group of Qualified Governmental Experts under the auspices of the Conference on Disarmament had prepared a comprehensive study on the question of nuclear-weapon-free-zones that was subsequently submitted to the General Assembly. It would be pertinent to quote from that report, especially on the issue of the relevance of regional considerations in the context of the principles for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones. The report states:

“Conditions in which nuclear-weapon-free zones might be viable and might enhance security are bound to differ considerably from region to region. The security considerations and perceptions of States … vary, and it is not possible or realistic, a priori, to set out precise guidelines for the creation of zones, since it is for Governments themselves to decide on their own security requirements and to determine their immediate and long-term national interests.” (CCD/467, chapter III, para. 9)

Indeed, a study of the basic principles that guided the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in other regions indicate that all regional parties share a number of common interests. Whether in Latin America, the Pacific region or in Africa, the respective regional States enjoyed common denominators that constituted absolute prerequisites for the creation of regional nuclear-weapon-free zones. The conditions that prevailed prior to the establishment of the zones included, inter alia, peaceful relations and mutual confidence, economic cooperation and a general belief in the enhancement of common interests through institutional regional frameworks. The urge to embark on such an endeavour was, in all cases, a result of regional initiative and direct negotiations culminating in a consensus. Even then a long and arduous process was required to attain the goal of nuclear-weapon-free zones.

Turning to the Middle East, the situation is, unfortunately, different. At this time, several regional States are still in a formal state of war with Israel. Moreover, some regional States still refuse to forswear war as a means of settling disputes and are attempting, directly or indirectly, to impede the peace process, including by means of terror. Hence, it is evident that at the present time, many of the prerequisites for meaningful discussions on arms control in the Middle East, including the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone, are still missing.

Therefore, Israel's policy on the nuclear issue in the region of the Middle East is based on the following principles, the first of which is comprehensiveness. The nuclear issue should be dealt with in the full context of the peace process and of all security problems, conventional and non-conventional.

Secondly, as regards a regional framework, nuclear non-proliferation will be achieved only through the establishment, in due course, of a mutually verifiable nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

Thirdly, a step-by-step approach will be required. Practicality dictates beginning the process with confidence- and security-building measures, establishing relations of peace and reconciliation among all States and peoples of the region, and, in due course, complementing the process by dealing with conventional and non-conventional arms control, where priorities are assigned to systems that experience has proven to be destructive and destabilizing.

Fourthly, as regards the primacy of the peace process, negotiations on all issues concerning the security of the region must take place in a free and direct way, within the framework of the peace process, encompassing all States in the region.

Israel believes that the day will come when conditions in our area will be conducive to direct discussions on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Until such time, the notion that has to be inculcated is that in the process of peacemaking no issue can be settled in isolation, but that progress in one area, particularly that of political accommodation, can lead to progress in other areas as well.

In his report of 25 October 1993, on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (A/48/399), the Secretary-General said that

“a nuclear-weapon-free zone cannot be conceived of or implemented in a political vacuum, separate from the process of mutual reconciliation.” (A/48/399, para. 22)

Israel supports this concept in toto and therefore believes that a credible nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East can only set the seal on a durable peace; it cannot possibly precede it. Any premature attempt to discuss the establishment of such a zone or to apply an agenda that does not reflect the reality of the region is premature and is bound to fail. The right approach, therefore, must be to study and promote peaceful relations as a prerequisite for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

Notwithstanding its concept of regionality, Israel has manifested a continuing openness towards addressing issues of arms control in general. Israel believes that, where appropriate, global arrangements can complement regional agreements. In accordance with this approach, we have been engaged in discussions and negotiations on various subjects of arms control in New York, Geneva and elsewhere. In this regard, I wish to enumerate several examples.

First, Israel has reiterated on numerous occasions its support for the banning of nuclear-test explosions. Consequently, Israel took an active role in the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiating process at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Although the CTBT text does not satisfactorily address some of our major concerns, we supported the final text, cosponsored the General Assembly resolution adopting the text, and were among the first countries to sign the Treaty.

Israel attaches great importance to the attitude of its regional neighbours. Their decision to adhere to the Treaty will play a supportive role at the regional level and will contribute to peace and security in the Middle East. Furthermore, in considering CTBT ratification Israel will take into account, inter alia, developments in our region, including the adherence to the Treaty by key States from our region. We therefore call upon all States that have not yet done so to join in making the CTBT a truly universal Treaty, ending all nuclear explosions.

A second example is Israel's position on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) and on anti-personnel landmines. Israel supports the international effort being made to resolve the problem of the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of anti-personnel landmines, which results in casualties, mostly of innocent and defenceless civilians, United Nations peacekeeping forces and humanitarian aid personnel. In March 1995, Israel ratified the CCW, participated in the Review Conference that amended Protocol II of the Convention, and is currently reviewing that revised landmines Protocol. Israel supports the efforts being made to extend the accession of the CCW to as many States as possible, particularly in the Middle East.

Israel opposes the proliferation of anti-personnel landmines and, accordingly, adopted in 1994, a unilateral moratorium prohibiting their export. That moratorium was recently extended for an additional three years. However, due to Israel's unique situation in the Middle East, which involves the ongoing threat of hostilities and terrorist activities along the border, Israel is obliged to maintain its capability to use anti-personnel landmines for self-defence in general, and along the borders in particular. Such a use of anti-personnel landmines is in accordance with the requirements of the Convention.

Hence, Israel is unable at this juncture to commit itself to a complete ban on the use of anti-personnel landmines, until alternative and effective measures are available to ensure the protection of its security forces operating in regions still facing armed conflicts and of civilians facing a daily threat to their lives. At the same time, Israel supports a gradual process in which each State will undertake to cease proliferation of anti-personnel landmines, accept restrictions on their possible use and, once circumstances permit, ban their production.

Thirdly, regarding transparency in armaments, Israel was among the first countries to support the resolution on the establishment of the Register of Conventional Arms that was introduced in this Committee. Israel was also among the first to send regularly its reports to the Register in compliance with the relevant resolution. It is unfortunate that Israel is the only State in our region that has consistently done so.

The Secretary-General once described the Register as a “cooperative exercise in confidence-building”. Indeed, the Register is certainly an important instrument in a long process that aims to achieve the implementation of global confidence-building measures. However, transparency in armaments cannot achieve its goals unless all countries fulfil their obligations by complying with the prescribed requirements. This factor applies particularly to our own region, where States still refrain from joining the Register. It is our view that until regional participation in the Register is enhanced, further development or expansion of the Register would be premature.

Fourthly, Israel has consistently argued that the abolishment of chemical weapons and the creation of a region free from chemical weapons is important to the consolidation of the peace process and the stability of the region. Hence, Israel has consistently played a constructive and positive role in regard to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Israel was among the original signatories of that Convention in January 1993 in Paris. It took this stand in the hope that more States in the region would accede to the Convention. This did not happen, and, unfortunately, several Middle Eastern States continue to oppose the CWC while arming themselves with chemical weapons. Israel will have to take this into account when the ratification of the Convention comes up for consideration.

I wish to conclude by saying that it is Israel's desire to continue on the road to peace for the benefit of all States in the region. There is no substitute for this process or for its modalities: first and foremost, direct negotiations between the parties concerned. We call upon the international community to give this process its unqualified understanding and support so that the attainment of the long-coveted goal of peace and reconciliation in our region will be realized in this generation.

/…

The meeting rose at 12.35 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.