Egypt

Mr. President, to you and your friendly country, I am pleased to extend my warmest congratulations on your election to the presidency of this session of the General Assembly. Your expertise on United Nations and world issues will undoubtedly assist you in wisely discharging the work of the General Assembly. At the same time, I wish to express our appreciation to your predecessor for the efforts he exerted in connection with the discussions relating to United Nations reform. The world is currently passing through highly interwoven and complicated circumstances, where progress and its horizons mingle with backwardness and its dangers while humanity takes pride in such achievements as economic progress and the development of technology and informatics, it is still suffering from the practices of terrorism, drug trafficking, organized crime, the spread of corruption, the overflow of refugees, the challenges posed by war criminals, crimes of genocide and mass murder, and the negative effects of racism and religious discrimination. All this gives rise to a situation which requires the international community to cooperate and become interdependent in its endeavours in a manner that helps it live in security and to progress confidently. This cannot take place unless the United Nations become the focal point and the centre of its concerted actions. This prompts us to accord priority in Egypt's statement to this session to the issue of United Nations reform. The outcome of this session, and probably subsequent sessions will constitute a true litmus test of the credibility of determination and the objectivity of resolve regarding the present and the future of the United Nations. Evolution of the United Nations relies on a number of facts and requisites. The principles of democratization and multilateralism are widespread, market economy mechanisms are growing, and scientific progress and information technology are accelerating. This necessitates reaching agreement on and drafting new rules for international conduct. It has been shown that the end of the cold war in no way sufficiently guarantees the non-eruption of conflicts, tragedies and wars. By the same token, the risks emanating from the outbreak of rampant international confrontations have not disappeared. The root causes of national and international disputes still persist. On the other hand, weapons of mass destruction are readily available and are even on the rise. In addition to the absence of any substantial progress in the field of nuclear disarmament, there exist clandestine military nuclear programmes not subject to any international supervision in strategically sensitive areas such as the Middle East region. While globalization is a rapidly growing phenomenon, and given its impact on the security and prosperity of various societies, national legislation and regulations are finding it difficult to cope with this phenomenon and to regulate international relations accordingly. Most of the developing countries do not possess the same capacity as the developed ones to speedily effect the necessary psychological, cultural and legislative adjustments. Therefore, the United Nations represents the proper mechanism for the formulation of an international consensus on the rules governing all these developments, and the provision of necessary assistance to the developing countries to meet and regulate their requirements. While we agree on the need to change the United Nations and increase its effectiveness, we might not be as agreed on the means to achieve that objective. In this context, I wish to state Egypt's view of the main principles and points on which the United Nations reform process should be based, in addition to a preliminary comment on some of the Secretary-General's recent proposals in this respect. It is important that the United Nations reform take place in conformity with the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter and the mandates accorded to each of the United Nations principal organs. The General Assembly, representing the general membership of the United Nations, has to adopt clear decisions which reflect the general consensus with regard to the proposals 13 contained in the Secretary-General's report. Such consensus should be built through serious intergovernmental dialogue characterized by maximum transparency and sense of responsibility. We concur with the Secretary-General's position that reforming the United Nations administrative machinery is not a substitute for the political will of the Member States to enhance the role of the Organization. Thus, the first step towards reform is the formation of a clear collective will to strengthen the United Nations system through a comprehensive approach in the interest of all. While we would generally welcome merging departments with similar activities as well as slashing a number of posts if the General Assembly so decides, we wish to stress that rationalizing expenditures must not be done at the expense of efficient performance. Administrative reform should not diminish the Organization's capacity to fully implement the programmes adopted by the Member States. Nor should it adversely affect the equitable geographic distribution in the composition of the Secretariat. We are also in agreement with the Secretary-General's diagnosis of the real threat facing the United Nations, namely the non-payment by some major Powers of their assessed contributions, be they to the regular budget or to the budget of peacekeeping operations. Since these arrears are part of the Member States' obligations under the Charter, their payment should be made in full, immediately and without conditions. Any attempt to make payment conditional will only complicate the entire reform process. The sharp and steady decline in the resources allocated to development, coupled with the absence of enthusiasm on the part of some for the fulfilment of their obligations, have negatively affected the implementation of many programmes adopted by Member States. This impels us to review the funding modalities of the United Nations operational activities for development so as to ensure their effective performance. We concur with the Secretary-General on the importance of achieving the system-wide integration of United Nations programmes that deal with development. We still look forward to hearing concrete ideas on how to achieve more comprehensive coordination throughout the United Nations system as well as on how to decentralize the working methods of the regional economic commissions. These commissions play a cardinal role in implementing the Organization's priorities, such as poverty eradication. Lastly, some of the other measures proposed by the Secretary-General, particularly those relating to how to address the financial crisis, should be studied further with a view to reaching arrangements which would enjoy general consensus and help overcome this crisis. Therefore, we invite the General Assembly to study the important proposals made by the Secretary-General. The Assembly should then come up with recommendations that clarify the Member States' aspirations and the modalities of implementing their specified priorities in the medium-term plan, together with means of promoting the vital role of the Organization in the coming decades. In the course of reforming the United Nations, the Secretary-General touched upon the elaboration of a new concept and structure of the Trusteeship Council. This is a matter that requires extensive discussion and study to clarify the impact and dimensions of the proposed concept, as it is totally different from the current mandate of the Council. Besides, it is imperative to discuss the significance of, and the need to put under collective trusteeship, topics set forth by the world community in well-established international agreements that express the will of the international community as a whole. Under those agreements, mechanisms and organs have already been set up to oversee their implementation. Also, within the context of changing the role of the Organization, we note that the Secretary-General's proposals entrust the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with many additional responsibilities and competencies at the expense of the functions entrusted to the Centre for Human Rights. In our view, this is not in line with what is important in the management of the human rights field. Here we recall some recent sagacious appeals for updating the approach and legislation of the international community in the field of human rights in order to better reflect the diverse contributions of various cultures and civilizations in our contemporary world to the promotion and enrichment of these rights and the protection of the freedom of individuals and societies. Although some political considerations stood in the way of including the valuable contributions of some of those cultures and civilizations in the main human rights instruments — foremost among which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — these sagacious appeals reflect the desire to enhance the 14 contribution of various world cultures in the protection of human rights. Such enhanced and diverse contributions, in the framework of a world consensus, could spare the international community any accusation of negligence, double standards or bias towards a single cultural concept. In the field of disarmament, I should point out that for 50 years, the United Nations has given due regard to disarmament issues. It has given high priority to matters relating to weapons of mass destruction in general and nuclear weapons in particular. A consensus on this high priority emerged in the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament and has been reiterated ever since. Egypt remains faithful to this high priority. I now turn to the Security Council. Past Assembly sessions, especially the fifty-first, witnessed protracted debates on the reform and restructuring of the Security Council. Undoubtedly, reaching agreement on this issue is one of the main pillars on which reform of the United Nations must be built. In this regard, Egypt reiterates its emphasis on and commitment to the key principles adopted at the ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in New Delhi, as well as the elements adopted by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Harare in connection with the Council's enlargement and the need for full conformity with the relevant provisions of the Charter. Therefore, first, there should be no partial or selective expansion or enlargement of the membership of the Security Council. Secondly, efforts at restructuring the Council should not be subject to any imposed time-frame. While recognizing the importance of treating this issue as a matter of urgent attention, no effort should be made to decide this issue before general agreement is reached. Thirdly, efforts should be made to rationalize the exercise of the veto. Fourthly, the improvement of the working methods of the Council should be given equal importance. Fifthly, any resolution with possible Charter-amendment implications as to the size, the composition or the allocation of the Council seats must be adopted in strict conformity with the provisions of Article 108 of the Charter. Sixthly, it is important to study the principle of rotation and to agree upon the eligibility criteria for it in connection with the proposed expansion in the permanent-membership category. Such an agreement could help avoid the divisions and feuds that have begun to surface. Lastly, if there is no agreement on the expansion of permanent membership, expansion should be limited to the non-permanent category. As to eligibility of States for permanent membership in the Security Council, and with a view to our commitment to what will be agreed upon within the OAU in connection with a system of rotation, we propose that the criteria for eligibility should include the degree of present and future economic development, historical weight, geographic location and size of population. They should also give due regard to the role played by a country in the maintenance of global and regional peace and security, including its ability to contribute to peacekeeping operations. Further, similar regard should be given to such a country's endeavours to preserve the interests of the region to which it belongs. Egypt's regional and international contributions within the framework of Africa, the Arab and Islamic worlds and the Middle East region, as well as among the developing countries and emerging economies, undoubtedly qualify it to shoulder the responsibilities of permanent membership in a new, expanded Security Council providing balanced and equitable representation. However, Egypt will remain committed to the African consensus in this regard. I listened carefully to the statement made by the Foreign Minister of Singapore, and I suggest that the points he raised should be studied and given due attention by the General Assembly and the committees working in the field of the reform and expansion of the Security Council. The non-aligned countries called for a reconsideration of the veto power, which contradicts the principles of democracy that must characterize contemporary world order and prevail both among and within States. As a first step towards that goal, we suggest that the use and scope of the veto power should be restricted to specific actions such as those which relate to threats to international peace and security and which are taken under Chapter VII of the Charter. We can also agree on excluding specific matters from the use of veto power, such as provision to the Council of the information necessary for exercising its competence; humanitarian issues, including respect for instruments of international humanitarian law and ceasefire resolutions; and the selection of the United Nations Secretary-General. Security Council reform and the improvement of its working methods require a re-evaluation of the sanctions regimes imposed by the Council, including their routine periodic review, their lifting and whether the regime in its current form achieves the goals for which it was instituted. If sanctions are intended to influence the behaviour of certain States so that they abide by 15 international legality, it would be only logical to amend the way these sanctions are currently implemented in order to take into account the related humanitarian aspects and the sufferings inflicted upon the peoples. And after compliance, these sanctions must be lifted. In all cases, it is important to consider setting specific time-frames for sanctions so that they do not end up being, in effect, a people's punishment. Discussions in this respect under “An Agenda for Peace” and the initial agreement reached thereon can be a viable basis for starting serious deliberations with a view to effecting positive changes in the current sanctions regime. I turn now to the situation in the Middle East, where the peace process faces a serious crisis. The most apparent manifestation of this crisis is that the concept, principles and bases of the peace process are being completely shattered and squandered. The vision spawned in the peoples' minds of the sort of peace, as agreed upon at the United Nations and in Madrid, has started to dissipate. Trust has been replaced by doubt, and hope by frustration and despair in a tomorrow where justice will materialize and peace will prevail. The peace process is based on governing principles, namely the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). At the heart of these principles are the land-for-peace formula and safeguarding the rights of the parties according to the balance struck by the Security Council and affirmed at the Madrid Peace Conference. This certainly applies to the three tracks of negotiations between Israel on the one hand and Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians on the other. The Oslo accord did not deviate from the same principles, nor did it challenge their terms of reference or binding nature. On the contrary, it led to the recognition that the Palestinian people are a people with legitimate national and political rights. It also recognized that the only way to establish peace and security in the region is through peaceful coexistence between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, based on equality, justice, and, of course, Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories and the establishment of normal relations between the States in the Middle East. These principles and concepts gave rise to a process of building bases for peace and its possibilities. In spite of the obstacles and the problems which confronted the process of negotiations, the credibility of the search for a peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict still existed. This quest for peace had become a strategic choice characterizing the policies and orientations of the region's Governments, impelling the peoples of the region to envision a future Middle East under a just and comprehensive peace. Various methods and mechanisms for cooperation which would enable the region to achieve the requisite levels of development and progress were discussed. Despite the frequent diversity of views and their conflicting nature at certain times, that trend represented a healthy phenomenon: it indicated that the peoples of the region are already convinced of the peace concept. The only thing that remained was how to reinvigorate the method of achieving it. Alas, confidence was lost, credibility was shaken and the peace process lost much of its momentum. For this, and for the present serious situation, the current Israeli Government' policy is responsible. Settlement activities, as well as Israel's reneging on agreements and commitments reached; making a mockery of legal accords; challenging the two sponsors of the peace process; pushing for confrontation; and giving rise to an overall feeling of despair could not but result in frustration and destruction. This will lead to a catastrophe whose responsibility, we hasten to underline here and now, lies squarely with the current Israeli policies. This serious crisis inflicted on the peace process by the Israeli policies was recently considered by the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the States members of the League of Arab States. The Council adopted the following points, which constitute a unified Arab position on the current situation. The first point is a rejection of the Israeli Government policies designed to undermine the peace process, its denial of the principles and bases of this process, its evasion of the implementation of the commitments, undertakings and agreements reached within the context of the peace process, and its unilateral measures aimed at imposing a fait accompli in Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan, along with its aggression against southern Lebanon. The second point is the upholding of a just and comprehensive peace as a strategic choice and objective on the basis of the principles of the peace process, and in particular of the relevant Security Council resolutions, the principle of land for peace and the attainment of the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people, and a reaffirmation of complete Arab solidarity with this position. 16 The third point reiterates that Israel's breach of the principles and the bases of the peace process, its backtracking on the commitments, undertakings and agreements reached thereon and its procrastination in implementing these commitments have resulted in the current setback of the peace process. These Israeli policies have also led to a reconsideration of the steps taken towards Israel within the framework of the peace process. Full responsibility for this lies with the Israeli Government alone. Fourth, negotiations on the three bilateral tracks should be resumed. On the Syrian track, negotiations should be resumed from wherever they ended. The two parties should commit themselves to what has already been achieved. On the Lebanese track, negotiations should centre upon the implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978). And on the Palestinian track, negotiations should be resumed on the basis of implementing the contractual agreements reached, including the commitments of the interim period. Parallel to that, final status negotiations should start in order to lead to the Palestinian people's exercise of their right to self-determination and to the establishment of their independent state. Fifth, the Council welcomed the American position as crystallized during the visit paid by the United States Secretary of State to the region this month. There was consensus regarding cooperation with United States policy as expressed by Mrs. Albright in her statement of 6 August 1997 to the National Press Club in Washington. That policy, which was reiterated during her recent visit to the Middle East and contacts with the States of the region, reaffirms the terms of reference of the Madrid Peace Conference, in particular the principle of land for peace, the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions, the realization of the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people, and the commitment to abstain from taking unilateral measures that undermine the permanent status negotiations. We stress the need to build on this positive position on the part of the United States, and call on Israel to respond positively to it. In this context, the steps that the Israeli Government is required to take to foster the peace process should be within the framework of key issues, not that of issues of a secondary or formalistic nature. Sixth, the European role played in support of the peace process is welcome and the importance of its revitalization should be stressed. Seventh, international legality in the context of the United Nations Security Council resolutions should be upheld and implemented. A stable and just peace must be built on a strong basis of comprehensive security arrangements that take due account of the apprehensions, concerns and viewpoints of all parties. This can materialize only when Israel accedes to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as it is the only State in the region that has not yet done so. We should proceed forthwith with the implementation of President Hosni Mubarak's initiative to free the Middle East from all weapons of mass destruction and their delivering vehicles. It is a source of regret for us that so far no practical steps have been taken to rid our region of the threat of nuclear weapons. This might lead to the proliferation of such weapons. Consequently, I call upon the General Assembly and the NPT depositories to take the necessary steps to ensure Israel's accession to the NPT and for the prompt undertaking of serious negotiations to establish a nuclear- weapon-free zone in the Middle East, in implementation of the resolution adopted by the Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the NPT held in New York in April 1995. Such a nuclear-weapon-free zone could be established as a first step towards ridding the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction. Before concluding my remarks regarding the Middle East, I would like to refer to the serious situation in Iraq. I would like to highlight the importance of respecting Iraq's sovereignty and of ending the suffering of its people. Furthermore, the islands of the United Arab Emirates should be returned, and the sovereignty of the United Arab Emirates over these islands should be respected. The Lockerbie issue should be brought to an end in conformity with international legality. The territorial integrity of the Sudan should be preserved and respected. A settlement of the problems of Somalia should be reached. A healthy climate for relations should be created in the Middle East between States of the region and neighbouring countries, based upon mutual and balanced commitments along with a common interest in maintaining positive relations for the benefit of everyone. Turning to Africa, I wish to refer to the ministerial meeting convened by the Security Council last week to consider the sources and causes of African conflicts and how to contain and resolve them. As I said in my statement before the Council, Africa has come a long way on the road of political and economic reform. What is needed now is to revitalize existing international 17 initiatives in support of development and stability in Africa. Such international support is also required to solve the problems of refugees, enhance democratization and strengthen regional and subregional integration. This requires the fulfilment of promises by the international community to establish a true partnership between Africa, on the one hand, and the United Nations system and the international donor institutions on the other. This also requires strengthening existing cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity in conformity with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Charter. Since the dawn of history, the Mediterranean dimension has been an important framework for Egypt, influencing and being influenced by the centres of civilization and enlightenment in the region. Inasmuch as Europe — Eastern and Western — has been the main partner with Egypt in trade transactions, tourist flows and cultural interactions, so has Egypt been and will continue to be a major active party in ensuring stability and regulating a veritable interaction between the European dimension of Mediterranean security and the Mediterranean dimension of European security, in the full meaning of the comprehensive concept of contemporary security. In this context, President Hosni Mubarak in November 1991 presented to the European Parliament his well-known initiative of establishing a framework for consultation and cooperation among the Mediterranean countries. By mid- 1994, this idea was crystallized when the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of 11 Mediterranean countries held in Alexandria their constituent session for the Mediterranean Forum, which convened its fourth session last July in Algiers, where the ministers unanimously agreed that the Forum was a unique gathering for frank dialogue and a mechanism for the formulation and testing of ideas and coordination of positions. Through its chairmanship of the cultural working group of the Mediterranean Forum, Egypt looks forward to contributing to strengthening cultural cooperation among the member countries and stressing the common cultural features of the Mediterranean personality, based upon the integration and interaction of civilizations, rather than conflict and confrontation between them. A similar exercise is currently under way with regard to Euro-Mediterranean interaction, in the framework of the Barcelona process. The second ministerial conference, convened in Malta last April, provided a good opportunity for frankness and an exchange of views to activate and correct the path of this historic process that brings together countries of the European Union and those of the south and the east of the Mediterranean. In so doing, this process will truly lead to the creation of a balanced partnership among all parties, as well as the establishment of a common zone of peace and prosperity in the Mediterranean basin. In this context, Egypt follows with keen interest current developments in the Balkans, a region closely linked to the Mediterranean region, especially with regard to developments relating to the situation in Bosnia. Egypt believes that the only way out of tension in that region is that of international legality, the full and speedy implementation of the Dayton Agreements and the trying of war criminals, which represents an essential step towards establishing justice and stability in this region. Egypt reaffirms its partnership with the international community, the United Nations system and the donor institutions in the development and reconstruction of Bosnia in order to help heal the wounds of years of war and destruction. I should not fail to address the concerns of Egypt and other developing countries regarding a number of challenges accompanying the process of trade and investment liberalization. These challenges are manifested in the continued pursuit by some of unilateral and arbitrary policies instead of abidance by the rules and regulations of the international trading system that we all worked so hard to adopt within the framework of the World Trade Organization. This is in addition to the growing trend we witness today on the part of some of our trading partners who resort to covert protectionist practices, which hide behind noble considerations such as environmental protection, respect for labour norms and human rights, in order to serve some narrow self-interests, to justify the restriction of access to markets and to impose trade sanctions. On another plane, we should be well aware that the liberalization of investment is not a panacea for every malaise besetting our economies. Despite our interest in attracting investments, and despite our efforts to create a climate conducive to the flow of investments, the fact still remains that investment agreements should strike a fair balance between protecting the rights of the investor, on the one hand and ensuring the rights and interests of the receiving States, on the other. 18 A year ago, from this rostrum, I called for concerted efforts against attempts to marginalize the role of the United Nations. If we are still awaiting the development of rules of international conduct under a new world order that is still evolving, we then urgently need to ensure the survival of a strong and effective United Nations that can lead the way for us in this nascent world order.