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

Fifty-fifth General Assembly

First Committee

13th Meeting (AM)

MIDDLE EAST, ARMS CONTROL AND PROLIFERATION OF SMALL ARMS DISCUSSED,

AS FIRST COMMITTEE CONCLUDES GENERAL DEBATE

The situation in the Middle East, double standards in arms control and the proliferation of small arms were subjects of discussion as the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to conclude its general debate.

Instead of a cold war, the Middle East region had developed the notion of a “cold peace”, the representative of Israel told the Committee.  Normalization between peoples was vital for security and a dynamic vehicle for cooperation, but had, in itself, become contentious.  Over the past two decades, Israelis had witnessed a growing trend of directing conflict away from the conventional battlefield and into its population centres.  While peace had remained Israel’s overriding strategic objective, it could not ignore the security risks and threats inherent in its consolidation, as well as other dangers that were beginning to cast a growing shadow over the region.  Israel was now facing major challenges to the peace process itself.  A way must be found to overcome them.

/…

Statements

/…

ELFATIH MOHAMED AHMED ERWA (Sudan) said that … Transparency was an important way of consolidating international peace and security, he said.  Meanwhile, however, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was far from transparent.  It was high time to expand the Register to include data on weapons of mass destruction and advanced technology for military purposes.  The Register, for example, had not taken into account the situation in the Middle East, where Israel had acquired more destructive weapons, which it was using now against defenceless civilians in Palestine, including women and children.

Indeed, he said, the international community was facing Israel’s defiance and its continued refusal to accede to the NPT.  The final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference had emphasized Israel’s accession to that Treaty and the importance of placing its weaponry under the comprehensive safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Israel’s defiance and the encouragement it had received from a Super-Power –- as well as the silence of that Super-Power concerning Israel’s aggressive intentions and practices — had reflected a policy of hypocrisy and double standards.  At the same time, that Super-Power was placing all of its nuclear technology and experience at Israel’s disposal.  It was also exerting pressure on vulnerable States to join conventions less important than the NPT.

/…

JEREMY ISSACHAROFF (Israel) said that,in no uncertain terms, peace had remained his country’s overriding strategic objective.  While it could not ignore the security risks and threats inherent in the consolidation of peace, as well as the other dangers that were beginning to cast an ever-growing shadow over the region, his country viewed peace as the vital component of any regional stability.  Successive Israeli Governments had sought to advance peace and contend with a wide array of security threats emanating from various adversaries on different levels, some of which might remain even after the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  

He said that the relationship between the quest for peace and the need for security had assumed a complexity in the region that went well beyond the straightforward assumption that, in an era of greater peace, there should be fewer security concerns.  Israel was now facing major challenges to the peace process itself.  Those obstacles must be overcome.  The Israeli-Palestinian track was now dealing with the essence of the conflict; sensitive questions had so far defied resolution.  On the Syrian track, his Prime Minister had offered far-reaching proposals, which were unfortunately rejected in Geneva earlier this year.  In addition, his Government in June had fulfilled its commitment to remove troops from South Lebanon in complete accordance with Security Council resolution 425.  Israel had always been a partner in genuine peace efforts.

The relationship between peace and security, he went on, was also critical in view of the existing and evolving threats to the Middle East, particularly from Iraq, and in a different fashion, from Iran.  Those countries had not engaged in, and in fact had actively opposed, any compromise or resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Those two countries, through their own acts and declarations, constituted a significant threat to Israel and to other countries in the region.  Israel had no dispute with Iranians and sought no conflict with their Government.  It could not fail to be worried, however, about the overt hostility that country had projected towards Israel and its recent long-range missile tests.

The threat of weapons of mass destruction and longer range missiles was not theoretical, he said.  Those capabilities had actually been used in his area. Iraqi missiles had targeted Israel in the Gulf War.  That sobering experience had remained “fresh in our minds”.  The international community would also be well advised to consider current Libyan activities in the missile arena.  Other examples regarding the use of chemical weapons were a matter of historical record.  His country was profoundly concerned about the present situation with regard to Iraq and the lack of any monitoring or inspection mechanism there for the last two years.  

Saddam Hussein continued to constitute a real threat to his neighbours, and to the region as a whole, he said.  The United Nations bore a critical responsibility to the countries of the Middle East to ensure that Iraq was disarmed of all of its weapons of mass destruction and missile capabilities, in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions.  During the next decade, certain countries in the region could significantly expand their existing weapons of mass destruction and longer range missile capabilities, as they had done in recent years.  Those could also acquire capabilities that would threaten areas beyond the Middle East, such as Europe and South Asia.  Indeed, those threats continued to expand in gravity, range and scope.

Instead of a cold war, the Middle East region had developed the notion of a “cold peace” he said.  The normalization between peoples as a vital security component and a dynamic vehicle for cooperation had, itself, become a matter of contention.  Unfortunately, the level of rhetoric against Israel in certain Middle East media had increased, reinforcing Israeli perceptions of insecurity.  Indeed, the Israeli people did not feel safer or more secure.  Over the last two decades, they had witnessed the growing trend of directing the conflict to its population centres away from the conventional battlefield.

In addition, he said, other countries in the area were also conscious of the threats emanating from Iraq and Iran.  Thus, various countries in the region had also sought to improve their conventional capabilities to counter those threats.  They had the means to acquire state-of-the-art equipment, and the levels of sophisticated armaments had increased significantly over the last decade.  Armies in the region had not become smaller or less threatening.  Those factors had had an impact on the nature of Israel’s security environment and had increased the risk factors for the future.

Over the next decade, he went on, current trends indicated that countries in the Middle East could possess greater quantities of sophisticated conventional arms, and chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities, as well as longer range missiles.  It could well be “the worst of all worlds” and, most definitely, not the hoped-for Middle East.  Israel would remain committed to the peace process, even while the longer range threats to it and other countries in the region could become more profound.  At the same time, the reconstitution of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programmes and missile capabilities presented a threat to the entire region and remained a critical factor in the regional search to reduce levels of arms and possibly moderate Iranian military aspirations.

Continuing, he said his country had attached primary importance to regional security arrangements.  At the same time, it had supported global efforts to curb the proliferation of conventional and non-conventional weapons and, where appropriate, had endorsed such arrangements as long as those did not impair its vital security margins.  Over the years, it had consistently supported the principle of non-proliferation, yet the NPT could not be a substitute for a regional arrangement in the Middle East, where wars, armed conflicts, political hostility and non-recognition were prevalent.  Those political realities had mandated a practical step-by-step approach, bearing in mind the ultimate goal of achieving a comprehensive peace between all States of the region.

Accordingly, he said his country had supported the eventual establishment of a Middle East zone free from nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, freely and directly negotiated by the regional parties, emanating from, and encompassing, all of the States of the region.  Indeed, in the last 20 years Israel had joined Committee consensus regarding the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  At the same time, the agenda item on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was a transparent attempt to single out Israel in an amplified way.  The related draft resolution had diverted attention away from “real and pressing” proliferation problems in the area and had ignored the continuing efforts of Iran in the nuclear and missile arenas.  Such an agenda item had no place in an objective and professional body.

/…

MOHAMED AMAR (Morocco) said that the recent NPT Review Conference marked a positive point in the institution of practical measures to accomplish nuclear disarmament.  The Conference agreed, for the first time, to cite Israel as the only country of the Middle East that was not party to the NPT and made an appeal to that country to submit its nuclear installations to the guarantees of the IAEA.  Heeding that appeal could contribute to the concretization of peace and regional security in the Middle East.  It could also lead to the creation of a nuclear- weapon-free zone in the region.  Morocco expected the international community to apply the pressure required to ensure that that appeal was heeded.

/…

Rights of Reply

/…

HAMID BAEIDI NEJAD (Iran), exercising the right of reply, said that the accusations made by Israel were baseless and reflected the legitimacy problem which that country faced in the Middle East region.  The Israeli representative had accused his country of striving to develop weapons of mass destruction.  It was a fact that Israel was not a party to the NPT and had not placed its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards but operated them in secrecy.  The last Review Conference of the NPT called on Israel to accede to that Treaty.  Israel had also not joined or ratified the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Israel had developed fighters able to carry weapons of mass destruction.  All of Iran’s facilities were under IAEA safeguards and, last year, Iran submitted a resolution dealing with missiles to the General Assembly.  Iran had expected to hear apologies from Israel for its criminal act of killing innocent people.  The only lasting solution to the problem in the Middle East was to grant Palestinians their inherent rights as decided by the United Nations and other bodies.

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria), in a right of reply, said he wished to affirm that the Israeli delegation had said everything but the truth.  It was well known that peace was closely linked to truth, as truth was the basis on which peace and justice might be built.  Indeed, the insistence on distorting and reversing the facts was most irritating in the Israeli statement.  The Israeli delegation spoke of peace, whereas the entire world was witnessing how peace was being achieved in the Israeli fashion.  The Israeli way was the killing of innocent people and sending out the army to kill everything that was alive and moving.  

He said that the Israeli delegation spoke of peace and disarmament, whereas Israeli missiles and tanks were killing everything in their path, including women, children and elderly Palestinians and other Arabs.  In the course of two weeks, approximately 115 martyrs had been killed.  By all standards, this was a “massacre”, which was being perpetrated against an unarmed and defenceless people and against children suffering from Israeli oppression.  They had nothing with which to defend themselves, except their stones and their bodies.  Where was that peace with the Palestinians, when defenceless people were being killed?

The Israeli delegate had surprisingly spoken of the fact that its institutions were fully endorsing all international efforts concerning landmines and missiles, whereas those very weapons were being used now for destruction, and to kill innocents, he went on.  The level of untruth in the Israeli statement had reached a point where he said that Syria had not accepted offers of peace at the Geneva meeting.  The fact is that Israel had not made any offers at the meeting, except that Syria give up its territory, its regional borders, its land, its sovereignty, and its dignity -– that was the Israeli proposal.  He asked whether there was any delegation in the room — one single delegation — willing to accept an offer of that kind.  

As for the other lies, he recalled that the Israeli delegate had said that there were other countries in the region manufacturing other weapons of mass destruction and missiles.  Meanwhile, everyone knew that Israel had “set light” to the armaments race in the region and that it was “armed to the teeth” with traditional and nuclear weapons, and landmines.  Israeli scientists had declared that Israel had more than 300 nuclear bombs that could be carried by missiles and aircraft — enough to burn the entire region.  The Israeli logic, in itself, was aggressive.  The pretext of false security had allowed them to do what was banned at the global level.  It was Arabs who were being murdered.  They were without the weapons to defend themselves.  

The other allegation and untruth of the Israeli delegation was that they had fully agreed with the NPT, he said.  Meanwhile, the entire world knew that Israel had refused to place its nuclear arsenals under IAEA safeguards.  Peace in the Middle East would not be achieved by arsenals of weapons and threats to use them against others, or by an acceptance of the Israeli conditions imposed on Arabs.  Syria had made a strategic choice for a just and permanent peace.  The total withdrawal from all occupied territories since 4 June 1967, implementation of legal resolutions, the principle of land for peace, and the provisions of the Madrid Conference could achieve that.  

Mr. ISSACHAROFF (Israel), exercising the right of reply to the statement by Iran, said that his country’s concerns about Iran’s programmes in weapons of mass destruction were for good reasons.  Iranian officials, including President Khatami, had called for the destruction of Israel.

He said that, regarding the peace process, Israel and the Palestinians should be allowed to come to terms with the problems they had.  The Iranian record of trying to undermine that peace process had not brought much honour to that country.

In exercise of the right of reply to the statement by Syria, he said that the truth about the meeting in Geneva was that the Prime Minister of Israel submitted very far-reaching proposals for peace with Syria.  Those proposals were rejected.  Israel wondered whether the rejection of those proposals did not indicate that peace with Israel remained uncomfortable.  It was also not appropriate for Syria to lecture Israel on recent events in Israel.  His country did not start those events and had no interest in their continuation.

Mr. MEKDAD (Syria), speaking again in a right of reply, said it was well known that his country had exercised its strategic option for peace.  It had endeavoured, ever since the beginning of the peace process, to achieve a comprehensive and just peace in the region.  He had explained the basis on which such a peace could be achieved, and was surprised at what the Israeli delegate had said about the proposals made at the Geneva meeting.  At the same time, he said, he did not know everything about those proposals.  The proposals had not mentioned the total withdrawal of Israel from occupied Arab territories to the line established on 4 June 1967.  It would seem that the Israeli delegate was unaware of the policies and practices of his Government in that respect.  

Clearly, Israel was not willing or ready to achieve peace and what was taking place presently was witness to that fact, he said.  What was taking place all over the world did not justify the perpetration of massacres by Israel.  That Government had killed more than 115 Palestinians.  Those were true massacres perpetrated against a defenceless and unarmed people, which had been condemned by the international community.  Much was said by Israel about peace, but he had not seen any real measures taken to achieve such a peace in the territories, nor on the Palestinian or Syrian tracks.  Syria was totally committed to resolutions which had international legitimacy, and which Israel was trying to disregard.  Israel was also attempting to humiliate and oppress the Arabs, in what was taking place “before your very eyes” in the Palestinian territories.  When Arabs rejected an Israeli peace, they were bombed, destroyed and killed.  

* *** *