Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East – First Cttee debate – Press release (excerpts)

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, LAND-MINE EXPORT, NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

IN MIDDLE EAST, ILLICIT SMALL ARMS TRAFFIC, AMONG TEXTS

APPROVED IN FIRST COMMITTEE

The General Assembly would pronounce itself on a wide range of disarmament questions, including nuclear issues, land-mines, small arms and the operation of regional disarmament centres, by the terms of eight draft resolutions approved this afternoon by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

Specifically, the Assembly would address the subjects of nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the Review and Extension Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), illicit traffic in small arms, moratoriums on the export of anti-personnel land-mines, the report of the Disarmament Commission, and regional centres for disarmament in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia and the Pacific.

/…

Addressing the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the Assembly would call on Israel and all other States of the region not yet party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty "not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to accede to the Treaty at the earliest date". They would also be asked to place all unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The draft was approved by 51 votes in favour to 4 against (Guatemala, Israel, Lesotho and United States), with 88 abstentions. (Annex V.)

/…

The Assembly would note that the States parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty decided this year, without a vote, to extend the Treaty indefinitely and to continue holding review conferences every five years, under another draft resolution. It would further note that they agreed to strengthen the review process on operation of the Treaty and that they affirmed the need to continue moving towards full implementation of its provisions. The draft resolution was approved by 155 votes in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Cuba, India and Israel). (Annex VI.)

/…

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue taking action on draft resolutions and decisions on disarmament. It had before it texts on nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons, the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the report of the Disarmament Commission, illicit traffic in small arms, a moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land-mines, and the NPT Review and Extension Conference.

A 16-Power draft resolution on nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/50/L.17/Rev.2) would have the Assembly urge States not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to accede to it at the earliest possible date. It would call for determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of their elimination, and for determined pursuit by all States of general and complete disarmament under effective international control. It would call on all States to implement fully their commitments in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Venezuela.

A draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1) would have the Assembly call upon Israel and all other States of the region not yet party to the NPT "not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to accede to the Treaty at the earliest date".

By other terms of the text, the Assembly would call upon the States of the region to place all unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards as an important confidence-building measure and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Egypt and Malaysia.

/…

Statements

STEPHEN LEDOGAR (United States), speaking on the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, said it was counter-productive and inappropriate. It singled out for negative attention a State that was actively engaged in the Middle East peace process. It was inappropriate because it was redundant since the draft on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East had been adopted. "In short, it's a bad resolution and the United States will vote against it." If any paragraphs were singled out for separate action, he would abstain because those paragraphs were embedded in a draft he opposed fundamentally. Any new language — regardless of how benign — would result in his abstention.

DYSANE ABDALLAH DORANI (Djibouti) said he was impatient to see the result of the vote on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Certain countries had provided moral lessons about the consequences of nuclear tests and the dangers of nuclear proliferation. One country distributed — before the voting on the draft to halt nuclear testing — documents that were out of the ordinary and which challenged the sovereignty of States by attempting to convince them to vote in favour of the draft. It would be logical of those States now to vote in favour of the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Explanation of Vote

The representative of Israel, speaking on the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, said he had hoped short-lived political considerations would give way to a genuine urge to turn the Middle East into a zone of peace. He had hoped for removal of the draft from the agenda, as a means to enhance the peace process. Unfortunately, he had to engage today in an old ritual conceived years ago and retained for political purposes, whose only aim was the arraignment of Israel in the Committee. A simple scrutiny of the draft would show it singled out Israel. The representative of Egypt, in presenting the draft, spoke of equality when Israel was still faced with tremendous security problems. A number of States still denied Israel's legitimacy and failed to endorse the peace process.

He said the draft was devoid of any substantive message that did not appear in other drafts and would oppose it because of its "hostile nature" and attitude towards the peace process. A negative vote on the draft would constitute a positive vote for peace.  The representative of Canada said all countries should sign the NPT. He congratulated the United Arab Emirates for such a step. All nuclear-weapon States should place their facilities under IAEA safeguards. The draft drew attention to the need for all States to accede to those instruments. While he agreed with certain terms of the text, he continued to have concerns about other parts — in particular the singling out of one State. Direct engagement between Parties was the most effective way to achieve peace. He was aware of the deep commitment and real effort under way to build lasting relationships. He would abstain on the draft .

The representative of Jordan said he would vote in favour of the draft because it was balanced and fair. It referred to all relevant resolutions and recalled the resolutions adopted by the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, particularly where the importance of universality was emphasized. It was also balanced in that it referred favourably to positive developments in the Middle East peace process and appropriately established a clear linkage between confidence-building measures and the consolidation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

It called upon all States, without exception, to accede to the NPT and to place all their nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA, he continued. It also was fair in calling upon Israel and all other States to renounce nuclear weapons. The only reason for mentioning Israel in operative paragraph 2 was because it was the only State in the region with unsafeguarded nuclear capabilities. If it was true that peace and security could not be maintained in the region unless confidence prevailed among all States, adherence by all States of the Middle East to the NPT was required.

/…

The representative of Israel, speaking on the draft on the NPT Review and Extension Conference, said he was not a party to the NPT, nor bound by its decisions. He did not call for a vote on the draft because he considered it to be a procedural one. He abstained because he could not support any resolution which detracted from the sovereignty of the peace process.

The representative of Lebanon, speaking on that draft, reiterated his view that the NPT would be a fundamental component of international peace and security as long as it was effectively universal. Israel remained outside the NPT regime, thereby constituting a grave threat to international security. Israel was the only country in the Middle East with unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. His position on operative paragraph 2 remained constant. As long as Israel did not accede to the NPT and did not place its facilities under IAEA safeguards — any measure concerning the NPT, particularly in the Middle East would fall short of its objective. That view also pertained to the draft on nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The representative of Syria, speaking on the draft on nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons, said he had voted in favour of the draft as a whole. He had abstained from voting on the fifth preambular paragraph because during the NPT Conference he had not agreed on the Treaty's indefinite extension as long as Israel did not adhere to it, and place its nuclear facilities under safeguards.

Regarding the draft on the NPT Review and Extension Conference, he said the indefinite extension of the Treaty had left nuclear programmes and weapons outside the regime of non-proliferation. That had left the security and stability of the Middle East and of the world in question. The terms of that Treaty were not taken by Israel, which acted as if it was above international law.

The representative of Australia said he had voted in support of the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East because it was consistent with his support of the peace process there, and of the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region. It also was consistent with his support of the indefinite extension of the NPT.

The representative of Spain, speaking on behalf of the European Union including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, the Slovak Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Romania, had abstained on the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. The international community now had a treaty of indefinite duration on non- proliferation. For that reason, the European Union had voted in favour of the sixth preambular paragraph. However, the draft continued to make a specific reference to Israel, which was not consistent with the spirit of the peace process under way in the Middle East and failed to respect the remarkable progress achieved there in the last year. He was therefore bound to abstain.

The representative of Libya said he had voted in favour of the two drafts; however, he had abstained on the fifth preambular paragraph in the draft on nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons because it welcomed the results of the NPT Review and Extension Conference. The Treaty had been extended in an unfamiliar way, through the unjustified pressures by one country that did not respect the free will of some countries. The Treaty perpetuated the discrimination between nuclear-weapon States and those who could not possess such weapons or their technology. No guarantees were provided to non-nuclear-weapon States that such weapons would not be used against them. In addition, it was meaningless unless all countries, including Israel, adhered to it and placed their nuclear weapons under IAEA safeguards.

He also had voted in favour of the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, although he had reservations acknowledging a so-called Israel at all, whose weapons posed a great threat to the Middle East and international peace and security.

The representative of Botswana, speaking on the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, said he had voted in favour of it. However, operative paragraph 2 constituted name-calling.

The representative of Iraq said he supported the noble aims of that draft, however the language of the text did not precisely affect the gravity of the situation. It did not refer to the risks posed by Israel's possession of more than 200 nuclear warheads. It did not refer to the responsibility of the Security Council for eliminating the risks of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, specifically resolution 487 (1981), which called upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Those who complain about the reference to Israel by name should ask the Security Council why it singled out Israel in that resolution of all the States of the world. Paragraph 14 of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991) also had addressed the issue of Israel's weapons. He had reservations on the last preambular paragraph of the current text because the current developments towards peace in the Middle East would not induce Israel to give up its weapons. If Israel sought a genuine peace in the Middle East, it should follow the example of South Africa in renouncing its nuclear weapons.

The representative of Turkey said he was aware that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would pose a serious threat to international peace and security. He shared the main thrust of the draft and voted in favour of the sixth preambular paragraph. However, he had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole because referring to a particular country was not compatible with the draft.

The representative of India said she would have voted against the draft on nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons, but could not because it sought to include language from the NPT, and to turn that language into customary international law. Inequality should not be translated into law, particularly since she had not been party to such a Treaty. She had called for a vote on the fifth preambular paragraph and on operative paragraph 1. None the less, since the draft was aimed in a misguided way for disarmament, she had abstained.

Regarding the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, she had voted against the sixth preambular paragraph and abstained on the draft as a whole. She did not support the singling out of any State in a draft. Regarding the draft on the NPT Review and Extension Conference, its language integrated the results and decisions of an intergovernmental Conference outside the United Nations.

The representative of Algeria said he had abstained on the draft on nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons. It duplicated, and even contradicted, the draft on nuclear disarmament, which his delegation had co-sponsored. He would have preferred efforts to try to match those two drafts. Some of the terms of the text were inconsistent with his view of nuclear disarmament — views which were reiterated at the Summit in Cartagena. The draft did not conceive of nuclear disarmament taking place through concrete measures and within a specific time-frame.

The representative of Libya said he could not continue to work under conditions which prevented Arabic translation of the meeting.

The representative of Colombia said he was a party to the Treaty of Tlatelolco and to the NPT. He supported the nuclear-weapon-free zone and believed in such a zone in the Middle East. He was pleased with the remarkable efforts being made to achieve peace between Palestine and Israel, and many States outside the region. The elimination of nuclear weapons in the region was one of the things that could help strengthen the right of all peoples of the region to live in peace.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said his country had abstained on the nuclear disarmament text. He was concerned it might mislead the public, since Japan's acts contradicted what was written in the text it had submitted. The text could not be taken at face value.

The representative of Iran said his country's views on nuclear disarmament were contained in L.46, approved by the Committee yesterday. Under the same title, today's text attempted to present a very broad view of the subject, primarily in the context of the decision taken at the NPT Review and Extension Conference. The draft did not open any doors; neither did it close any. As such, it could have enjoyed Iran's moderate and general support. However, in its present form, the text needed some improvement.

He said operative paragraph 3 called on States to fulfil their commitments in disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. However, it was not appropriate to skip commitments on the elimination of such weapons. The fifth preambular paragraph's reference to decisions taken at the NPT Conference was not an accurate reflection of the manner in which those decisions were taken. It was too early to welcome the decision to indefinitely extend the Non-Proliferation Treaty, depending on whether commitments which had been reached would be fulfilled in good faith.

He said Iran supported the text on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, as the region remained under Israel's threat. However, it had reservations on the references to the Middle East peace process.

The representative of Uruguay said he had abstained on the text on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. That text repeated the discriminatory practice of name-calling. The singling out of States was unacceptable in resolutions of a general nature. That applied in particular to resolutions concerning a specific region. Such language added no positive elements and maintained a divisive tone which might be detrimental to delicate negotiations.

The representative of Cuba said his delegation had difficulties with the text on nuclear disarmament. Its title and content could have been more objectively balanced. The title reflected one idea, while the text focused on a different matter, relating to the NPT. Cuba was not party to that Treaty and had abstained in the voting on that text.

The representative of Myanmar spoke to explain his position on the text concerning the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Such a country-specific resolution was not helpful. He supported the call on States of the region to accede to the NPT and to place their facilities under full- scope IAEA safeguards. Myanmar was also supportive of the draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (L.10), which was not country specific. However, it had reservations to operative paragraph 2, which singled out Israel.

The representative of Brazil, explaining his abstention on the nuclear disarmament text, said the sponsors had been unable to accommodate Brazil's concerns that the draft should take account of regional agreements, such as the Treaty of Tlatelolco. Speaking on the texts in general, he said he failed to grasp the notion, expressed here, that a treaty that was not universally accepted could be considered a part of customary international law.

The representative of Viet Nam said he had voted in favour of the nuclear disarmament text. However, he would have liked to see a text that was stronger in context and more in accord with the responsibility of nuclear- weapon States to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons. Viet Nam voted in favour of the Middle East text, in keeping with its desire to see a nuclear-weapon-free zone established in the Far East.

The representative of Fiji said he voted in favour of the Middle East text. The elimination of nuclear weapons there would be conducive to progress in the current peace process. However, it was regrettable that a single State had been singled out for mention in the text.

The representative of Gambia said that, had he been present, he would have voted in favour of the text on nuclear disarmament and on the NPT Review and Extension Conference. He would have abstained on the text on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

/…

ANNEX IV

Vote on Sixth Preambular Paragraph of Draft on Nuclear Proliferation in Middle East

The sixth preambular paragraph of the draft on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 3 against, with 27 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Against:

Guatemala, India, Israel.

Abstaining:

Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, El Salvador, Georgia, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Singapore, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Zambia.

Absent:

Albania, Angola, Armenia, Belize, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX V

Vote on Draft on Nuclear Proliferation in Middle East

The draft on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 51 in favour to 4 against, with 88 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Chad, China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, New Zealand, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Against:

Guatemala, Israel, Lesotho, United States.

Abstaining:

Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Myanmar, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia.

Absent:

Angola, Belize, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

* *** *