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

MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION HIGHLIGHTED,

AS DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE CONTINUES GENERAL DEBATE

Conflicting views of the state of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East were highlighted this afternoon, as the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) continued its general debate.

Israel’s representative told the Committee international decisions should not be seen as substitutes for national controls because confronting proliferation “begins at home”.  Criticizing States’ “irresponsible behaviour” and reluctance to honour their commitments, the representative of Israel drew special attention to Iran’s “serial non-compliance”, the case of Libya, and Abdul Qadeer Khan’s proliferation network, whose magnitude had still not been fully revealed.  Declaring that there were discrepancies between some Middle Eastern States’ official statements and their actual behaviour, he warned that the resulting dangerous situation would have ramifications beyond the region.

In view of regional threats, Israel enforced strict controls over conventional weapons exports, including the export of technology, he said.  On the other hand, certain States were abetting the illicit traffic of small arms and light weapons in the region.  Such actions helped terrorists, he stated.  Other States in the Middle East were developing weapons of mass destruction capabilities, supporting terrorist organizations, and publicly threatening Israel’s very existence.  The combination of such policies was “leading our region far from the vision of peace and security”.

By contrast, the speaker from Libya noted that his country’s decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programme showed its belief that an arms race would not provide security to the Middle East, but would instead make the path to a peaceful world more difficult.  Expressing the hope that all States in the region would follow Libya’s lead, without double standards, he pointed out that his country had only sought non-traditional weapons because its security and independence had been threatened by other States in the region that possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Although the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) had entered into force long ago, nuclear Powers such as the “Zionist entity” still rejected the Treaty and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Calling on the international community to apply serious pressure on that entity to change its behaviour, he extolled the virtues of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

The representative of Iran noted that the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East had actually been originally proposed by his country, but there had been no papers on the issue because of Israel’s refusal to respond to claims about its clandestine programme.  In keeping with the spirit of such a zone, Iran had made sure that weapons of mass destruction had no place in the country’s defence doctrine.  Declaring that using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes was an inalienable right, enshrined in article IV of the NPT, he told delegates that his country had signed the IAEA’s additional protocol to enhance confidence, and had even gone so far as to implement it before ratification by Parliament.

Statements in the general debate were also made by the representatives of Myanmar, United Republic of Tanzania, Colombia, Republic of Korea, Viet Nam, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Uganda, Dominican Republic, Botswana, Angola, Croatia and El Salvador.  The representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee also heard from the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Tuesday, 12 October.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its general debate on the whole range of arms limitation and security arrangements.  (For background, see Press Releases GA/DIS/3271 and 3272.)

Statements

GEREMY ISHASHAROS, Deputy Director General, Strategic Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, said the Committee could not afford to operate in a vacuum, divorced from existing or emerging threats.  In that context, he reasoned that if it wished to preserve its integrity and retain its importance, it would have to address today’s most pressing challenges.  Because the multilateral community was both continuing to obstinately deal with outdated, irrelevant issues, and taking an unhealthy “all or nothing” approach to negotiation, the various disarmament bodies were locked in a stalemate.

One of the primary challenges facing the international community today was the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, he said. Criticizing States’ “irresponsible behaviour” and reluctance to honour their commitments, he drew special attention to Iran’s “serial non-compliance”, the case of Libya, and Abdul Qadeer Khan’s proliferation network, whose magnitude had still not been fully revealed.  He also stated that, over the past year, traditional verification mechanisms had been proven to be limited and unable to provide the necessary security assurances.

…

Noting that last week’s terrorist attacks in Sinai had killed Egyptians, as well as Israeli vacationers, he stressed that terrorists made no distinctions between countries or religions.  After all, they had attacked States as diverse as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Spain.  Rather, terrorism was fuelled by simple hatred –- hatred for the free world, democratic values, human rights, peace, and reconciliation.  Welcoming Security Council resolution 1540, he, nevertheless, stressed that international decisions should not be seen as substitutes for national controls.  In that regard, he stated that confronting proliferation “begins at home”, through clear policies and accountability.

In view of regional threats, Israel enforced strict controls over conventional weapons exports, including the export of technology, he said.  On the other hand, certain States were abetting the illicit traffic of small arms and light weapons in the region.  Such actions helped terrorists, he stated.  Other States in the Middle East were developing weapons of mass destruction capabilities, supporting terrorist organizations, and publicly threatening Israel’s very existence.  The combination of such policies was “leading our region far from the vision of peace and security”.  Declaring that there were discrepancies between some Middle Eastern States’ official statements and their actual behaviour, he warned that the resulting dangerous situation would have ramifications beyond the region.

…

MABRUK MILAD (Libya) said that this was the Committee’s first session since his country’s decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programme.  He said his country’s initiative showed its belief that an arms race would not provide security to the Middle East, but would instead make the path to a peaceful world more difficult.  Expressing the hope that all States in the region would follow Libya’s lead, without double standards, he pointed out that his country had only sought non-traditional weapons because its security and independence had been threatened by other States in the region that possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Listing five reasons why his country had decided to turn away from weapons of mass destruction, he said that, first, maintaining peace and security in today’s changing world was important.  Second, keeping weapons of mass destruction was not viable or feasible in the long run, and results could be tragic and unpredictable.  Third, weapons of mass destruction were dangerous for possessors, as well as potential targets.  Fourth, such arms, in addition to being a means for protection, actually needed protection themselves.  Fifth, building such an arsenal led to the “bleeding of funds”, which came at the expense of socio-economic development.

Although the NPT had entered into force long ago, disappointments still remained.  For example, nuclear Powers such as the “Zionist entity” still rejected the Treaty and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Calling on the international community to apply serious pressure on that entity to adhere to change its behaviour, he extolled the virtues of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  For its part, his country had ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention and the CTBT this year.  Its officials had also signed the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, received inspectors, and met with such figures as Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA.

…

BISHER AL-KHASAWNEH (Jordan) began by expressing solidarity with Egypt, in light of the recent terrorist attacks in Sinai.  He then turned to the state of the world’s multilateral disarmament machinery.  Declaring that reforming and revitalizing the First Committee and, indeed, the entire General Assembly was important, he expressed concern over the failure of the Conference on Disarmament to make any progress.  Looking forward to the next NPT Review Conference, he hoped it would be more fruitful.

Stating that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constituted a “present and clear danger”, he rejected all forms of terrorism.  In that context, he told delegates that, a few months ago, his Government had discovered a terrorist conspiracy involving weapons of mass destruction.  The clandestine plan had been stopped immediately, because his country believed in facing and confronting international terrorism.  In that regard, he appreciated Security Council resolution 1540, and noted that one of the best safeguards against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction would entail holding important negotiations on a relevant convention.

Complete nuclear disarmament was a necessity, he said.  In the meantime, all nuclear Powers should pledge not to use or threaten to use such arms against non-nuclear-weapon States.  Turning to his own region, he criticized Israel for refusing to adhere to the NPT.  Calling on Israel to do so immediately, and to subject its facilities to international inspections, he extolled the virtues of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  Regarding small arms and light weapons, he noted the link between such arms and drugs and crime.  In that context, he voiced support for an international convention on the marking and tracing of such weapons.

…

JAVAD ZARIF (Iran) said the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was a matter of serious concern for the international community.  Calling for a global ban on all weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, he said the NPT, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention should all be strengthened.  The reluctance of certain nuclear-weapon States to follow the 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament was disappointing.  What was perhaps more worrying, however, was news that one nuclear Power had plans to produce new types of nuclear weapons and had already allocated millions of dollars towards research in that area.  Possible efforts by other nuclear Powers to maintain balances might start a new arms race, he warned.

On the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, originally proposed by Iran, there had been no progress because of Israel’s refusal to respond to concerns about its clandestine nuclear programme.  Declaring that using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes was an inalienable right, enshrined in article IV of the NPT, he said his country had invested a lot of financial and human resources in that area.  Weapons of mass destruction, on the other hand, had no place in Iran’s defence doctrine. In line with its obligations and commitments, his country was cooperating with the IAEA.  Furthermore, having signed the body’s Additional Protocol to enhance confidence, Iran had even gone so far as to implement it before ratification by Parliament.

…

* *** *