Nuclear disarmament – GA First Cttee debate – Press release (excerpts)

Fifty-first General Assembly
First Committee
17th Meeting (PM)

RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UNITED STATES ENCOURAGED IN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

EFFORTS IN FIRST COMMITTEE DRAFT RESOLUTION

Points to 'Step-by-Step' Approach to Disarmament, Says United States; Middle East, Nuclear-Weapon-

Free Zones among Topics of Ten Texts Introduced
  

/…

By the terms of a draft on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, the Assembly would urge all parties to consider the urgent steps required for its establishment.  It would call upon all countries of the region to place their nuclear activities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, and would stress the importance of rapid progress in the Middle East peace negotiations.

Introducing that draft, the representative of Egypt said that it bore on the current state of affairs in the Middle East peace process by noting that the agreement should be comprehensive and  should represent an appropriate framework for the peaceful settlement of contentious issues in the region.  The draft was a broader initiative than in previous years, highlighting not only the nuclear factor, but the chemical and biological dimension as well.

The representative of Israel said that although his country had joined consensus on that draft for the last 10 years, the current one was, in effect, a new draft that called for a new position. It  drastically diluted the importance of the peace process.  Israel supported a mutually verifiable nuclear-weapon-free zone in due course — "after peace is sealed", he said.

By another draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the Assembly would call upon Israel, as the only State in the region not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to agree not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.  It would call upon Israel to renounce possession of such weapons and place all unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA.

The representative of Egypt, introducing that draft, said that Israel's non-adherence to the NPT had aggravated security concerns over the risk of proliferation in the region.  Responding, the representative of Israel said that the draft should have been  removed from the agenda long ago.  Continued arraignment and name- calling directed at Israel in the draft did not serve the cause of peace and would no doubt have a detrimental effect on political developments in the Middle East.

/…

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its consideration of draft resolutions and decisions on disarmament.  It had before it three draft resolutions on nuclear-weapon-free zones, in the southern hemisphere, Africa, and the Middle East.  It also had before it drafts on: the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East; bilateral nuclear arms  negotiations and nuclear disarmament; prohibiting the dumping  of  radioactive wastes; the Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in  Africa; and the United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services.

/…

By a draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/51/L.27), the Assembly would call upon Israel, the only State in the region that was not yet party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to accede to it without further delay.  It would also call on Israel not to  develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to  renounce possession of nuclear weapons.

The draft would have the Assembly call upon Israel to place all unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards, as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.  The Assembly would also welcome Djibouti's accession to the NPT, as well as Oman's decision to accede to it.

The draft is sponsored by Egypt on behalf of Member States which are members of the League of Arab States.

A draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/51/L.28), sponsored by Egypt, would have the Assembly urge all parties directly concerned to  consider taking the urgent steps needed to establish such a zone, and invite them to adhere to the NPT.  Pending the establishment of the zone, it would call on all countries of the region that have not done  so to agree to place all their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards.

The Assembly would stress the importance of achieving rapid progress in the bilateral Middle East peace negotiations for the promotion of security in the region.  It would invite all countries in the region to declare their support for establishing a nuclear- weapon-free zone there.  It would invite them not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or permit the stationing on their territories, or territories under their control, of nuclear weapons.

In addition, the Assembly would invite all States to assist in establishment of the zone.  It would also invite all parties to consider appropriate means that might contribute to the goal of general and complete disarmament in the Middle East.  It would ask the Secretary-General to continue pursuing  consultations with the States of the region and other concerned States in order to move  towards  establishment of  a  nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

/…

Introduction of Draft Texts

/…

NABIL ELARABY (Egypt) introduced the draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, a region, he said, which had been the theatre of strife for over 40 years.  The consensus which had developed in the Assembly in favour of the proposal was eloquent testimony to the viability of the  concept.  Establishment of the zone would be an important  confidence-building measure indicative of the common desire of all States of the region to live in peace.

He said that in introducing the current draft he had exerted every possible effort to recognize two factors: the consensual dimension of the draft; and the inevitability of reflecting regional and extra-regional realities.

The draft, therefore, bore on the current state of affairs in the Middle East peace process, by noting that the agreement should be of a comprehensive nature and should represent an appropriate framework for the peaceful settlement of contentious issues in the region, he said.  It also included a global level, by taking note of the decisions taken by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the  Treaty for the NPT and its resolution on the Middle East.  The draft was a broader initiative than in previous years, highlighting not  only the nuclear factor, but adding as well the dimension of chemical  and biological weapons.  The time was now ripe to proceed towards the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  

/…

ABDULLA AL-MASSAD (Qatar), speaking on the agenda item on the nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, said that the zone would strengthen nuclear non-proliferation in an area of tension.  The zone was in keeping with the goals and principles of the NPT and with various resolutions, and reflected the responsibility of the States of the region.

Arab States, in particular, welcomed the establishment of such a zone, he said.  Israel was the only State of the region that had failed to adhere to the developing nuclear-weapon-free regime.   Nuclear activities, not used solely for peaceful purposes, still existed in the region.   In light of the new government of Israel, a nuclear-weapon free zone was vital.  A mutually and effectively  verifiable measure would build confidence, further consolidate economic development and enhance regional stability.

/…

Mr. ELARABY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of members of the League of Arab States, introduced the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

The adoption last year of a resolution under the same agenda item did not take into account the present political environment in the Middle East, he said.  Referring to the accession of Djibouti in August to the NPT, and the announcement by Oman that it would sign that Treaty as soon as possible, he said such developments underlined the fact that Israel was the only State in the region that had neither acceded to the NPT, nor declared its intention to do so in the foreseeable future.

Such a situation further aggravated serious security concerns over the risk of proliferation in the region, he said.  The Arab strategic option of a just and comprehensive peace required a corresponding commitment by Israel, particularly to the principle of  land for peace, and on agreements made in that framework.  A revised draft that would faithfully reflect the current realities in the Middle East was forthcoming, he said.

/…

YEHIEL YATIV (Israel), commenting on the draft resolution just introduced on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, said  that for the last decade his country had joined the consensus on that issue because it identified with the goal of establishing, in due course, such a zone.  However, the current draft resolution  represented a drastic departure from the consensus language on  which Israel's support had been based.  It was, in effect, a new draft that called for a new position.  Israel's position had always been that the nuclear issue should be dealt with within the full context of the peace process, as well as within the context of all security problems, conventional and non-conventional.

The present draft would give the resolution another direction and drastically dilute the importance of the peace process, he said.  Such changes would adversely  affect regional peace-making efforts and upset the delicate balance on which consensus was based.  Israel supported a mutually verifiable nuclear-weapon-free zone in due course "after peace is sealed".  The text adopted last year should remain unchanged, if consensus was to be maintained.

He said that the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East should have been removed from the agenda long ago.  The current text represented an upgraded version of a negative attitude.  The continued arraignment and name-calling directed at Israel in the draft did not serve the cause of peace and would no  doubt have a detrimental effect on political developments in the Middle East.

/…

MAHMOUD KAREM (Egypt) said that a few important conciliatory amendments had been made on the draft on the nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, which would be reflected in a revised draft.  Given the ongoing consultations, it was not healthy to negotiate drafts from the floor.

He was puzzled by Israel's comment that Israel had supported the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone for the last decade.  What Israel really meant, perhaps, was that it supported the draft, but dissociated itself from the modalities.  He was also confused by Israel's comment that it would support such a zone "after peace is sealed".  Could it be put in operational terms, or was that one more alibi or precondition for implementing the draft? he asked.

The parties had reached consensus agreement on the language of the draft since 1974, he said.  What always remained to be done was to find the political will to put the draft into operation.  Regarding the failure to make reference to the peace process in the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,  previous language referred to recent encouraging, positive developments.  In 1996, however, it was not possible to use the same language,  because the situation did not warrant it.  Would insertion of some mention of the peace process make Israel change its mind?  he asked.

* *** *