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

Official Records

General Assembly

Fifty-first session

First Committee

13th meeting

Thursday, 24 October 1996, 10 a.m.

New York

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

The meeting was called to order at 3.10 p.m.

Agenda items 60 to 81 (continued)

General debate on all disarmament and international security items

/…

Mr. Hamdoon (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): …

/…

We also witnessed last year the conclusion of conventions and the submission of initiatives to establish or to expand nuclear-weapon-free zones. Regrettably, the Middle East region remains an exception to this trend, despite the declared intention of the countries in the region and international support for the idea. This is because Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, refuses to abandon the nuclear option and to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Israel insists on intimidating the countries of the region with its nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. It does so with disregard for the resolutions of the General Assembly, the Security Council and various regional and international bodies that call upon it to renounce the nuclear option. The fact that Israel remains the only country in the Middle East to be outside the non-proliferation regime, even though Security Council resolution 487 (1981) called upon it urgently to place its nuclear facilities under safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is a clear example of the double standard present in international policies and in the implementation of these policies. It is well known that Israel’s position on, and development of, nuclear weapons and its insistence on maintaining these weapons without any blame or accountability, let alone sanctions, would not have been possible without the assistance and support of the United States of America, a depositary of the NPT and an influential permanent member of the Security Council.

/…

Mr. Abulhasan (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic): …

/…

Establishing the Middle East as a nuclear-weapon-free zone is a noble objective shared by all the Arab countries. In that connection, the Secretary-General reports that

This is indeed a source of anxiety and concern. Responsibility for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons lies with the major nuclear Powers. Therefore, my delegation calls on the international community to place pressure on Israel to sign the NPT and to subject its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards. Israel is the only country in the area with a nuclear capability that has not yet signed the NPT.

My delegation does not call only for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. We call also for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, including biological, chemical and other such weapons; this would help defuse the tension and instability in that vital part of the world. That region has suffered from brutal and savage conflicts for many years, most recently Iraq’s wanton and brutal invasion of Kuwait, and the continuous threat to neighbouring countries posed by the Iraqi regime’s use of chemical and biological weapons against its own people in northern Iraq.

I commend the efforts of the Special Commission established in accordance with Security Council resolution 687 (1991), and in particular to commend and thank its Executive Chairman, Ambassador Rolf Ekéus.  These efforts are laying the foundation for security and stability in the Gulf region in order to guarantee the rights of the peoples of the area to live in real peace and security.

Mr. Abou-Hadid (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): …

/…

Syria was among the first States in the Middle East to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), in 1968; we were also among the first to ask in 1989 for the creation in the Middle East of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical or biological — under United Nations auspices. However, Israel has lent a deaf ear to all those appeals and to the appeals of the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons in our crucial region is in itself a source of concern and a real danger, not just to the peoples of the region, but also to the peoples of the world. We and other States in the region have cautioned against the dangers inherent in Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons and in its refusal to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to submit its nuclear facilities to international safeguards. Syria welcomes the accession of the United Arab Emirates and Djibouti to that Treaty, as well as the recent decision of the Sultanate of Oman to accede. The fact that, alone among the States of the region, Israel remains outside the framework of the Treaty and refuses to submit its nuclear facilities to international safeguards is, to our great regret, a source of concern and among the factors for instability and insecurity in the region.

We reaffirm that the international community must urge Israel to accede to the NPT to enable the States of the Middle East truly to transform their region into a nuclear-weapon- free zone and a zone free of all other weapons of mass destruction.

It is time that the Middle East enjoyed peace and stability and was able to focus on economic, social and environmental development in the region. That cannot be achieved through piecemeal solutions or a piecemeal peace; nor can it be achieved through agreements that are contrary to the interests and rights of peoples and nations. Israel is turning its back on the resolutions of the international community and on the rule of law, in spite of negotiations of more than 5 years. That is an affront to the Organization and to the international community.

The recent developments in the peace process, especially following the Israeli elections, have reconfirmed the current Israeli Government’s rejection of a just and comprehensive peace that would end conflict, occupation and settlement policies, enabling the restoration of rights to the legitimate owners.

We support peace and stability for all. The United States initiative that gave rise to the Madrid Conference was aimed at the attainment of a just and comprehensive peace in the region based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978) and the principle of land for peace. On that basis, Syria helped open the doors to peace. My country has repeatedly reaffirmed at the highest level its strategic decision to devote itself to peace on the basis of the peace process. Leaders of the meeting at their recent Cairo summit reaffirmed before the world that their choice for peace is a strategic option that required Israel’s prompt and unambiguous commitment as well: a commitment by Israel founded on the bases and principles of commitments entered into during negotiations over the past five years.

The refusal of Israel in absolute terms, and in the face of all the bases for peace, is a threat to the peace process — a process that has been anticipated and encouraged by States the world over. International public opinion will not allow, and should not allow, these activities and practices on the part of the Israeli Government, which are hindering the peace process and may put the region on the brink of explosion.

/…

The meeting rose at 5.35 p.m.