Egypt

It is a great pleasure for me to convey through you, Sir, to the President of the General Assembly our sincere congratulations upon his election. I am confident that he will lead the work of this Millennium Assembly most ably. I should also like to express our sincere appreciation to his predecessor, Mr. Gurirab, the Foreign Minister of Namibia, for his exceptional leadership of the fifty-fourth session. May I also express our high esteem for the Secretary-General for his most efficient preparation for both the Millennium Summit and Assembly. We appreciate his efforts to maintain and promote the role of the Organization and to strengthen its effectiveness and credibility. The convening of the Millennium Summit and Assembly is an important milestone in the international system and the future of the United Nations. The two occasions constitute a unique forum to review the state of the world and its developments and to take stock of the performance of the Organization so as to enable it to occupy its central place in the international system and hence lead the movement of change on the basis of a general consensus and a meeting of all minds. The goal of the establishment of a stable and effective system of collective security through dialogue and cooperation in the context of international democracy has been one of the most important objectives of the United Nations and those of the international community. It is thus necessary to allow the United Nations to achieve its objectives by adapting its work to the current international variables that must take the United Nations seriously. This might very well be the thrust of the Secretary-General's report to the Millennium Assembly. In our opinion, the first step down this road is to agree on a broad modern definition of collective security in the coming decades. Security in its most simple and realistic definition is based on three basic and organically linked rights, namely, the right to safety and stability and avoidance of the scourges of war, mass destruction and armed conflicts, the right to development and to a decent life free from poverty, destitution and want and the right to live in a healthy environment free from pollution, disease and negative social phenomena. A cursory glance at the state of those three rights would reveal that during the last decade of international transformations they have become exposed to new threats, while existing ones have been exacerbated in a manner threatening grave repercussions. After the end of the cold war and the end of tensions between the two super-Powers, international peace became exposed to a new kind of threat, the threat resulting from the disintegration of some States, the collapse of their national structures and the victimization of their people due to internal strife and negative foreign intervention. Globalization, world market, the information and communications revolution and the emergence of new kinds of economic activities all hold the promise of unlimited progress, yet they carry with them the dangers of widening the development gap between the developed and developing world. As for a healthy environment, whole continents are suffering from epidemics, environmental degradation, backwardness and the spread of ethnic wars as well as the increased tragedies of refugees. Africa is the region most affected by that horrible triangle armed civil conflicts, poverty and economic backwardness, degraded environment, natural disasters, deadly diseases and epidemics. There is a belt of tension encircling the continent and economic difficulties and problems continue. Africa has thus reached an untenable situation that requires immediate and firm attention in order to help it extricate itself from that quagmire. I must reiterate in this regard that the African States, through the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and other groupings, are discharging their responsibilities as best they can. They are taking necessary measures and steps to place themselves on the right path towards a better future. Special mention should be made here of the OAU Mechanism for conflict resolution, the efforts to strengthen peacekeeping capabilities through subregional groupings and the establishment of common markets and economic groupings, such as the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Our continent is moving towards a form of unity on the basis of the resolutions of the recent LomÈ summit, which will be followed up at the upcoming Sirte summit. An agreement was recently concluded in Arusha on the settlement of the Burundi conflict. A new President of Somalia, Mr. Abdi Kassim Salad Hassan, was elected after the constructive efforts of the Government of sisterly Djibouti. There are efforts under way in the Great Lakes region. All these examples prove Africa's ability to deal on its own with some of its problems. Yet it cannot be left alone without the support of the international community, particularly in the field of peacekeeping and peace- making. The United Nations must play its full role in that field. Meeting the new challenges faced by the international community and achieving the goal of establishing an effective system of collective security for future generations require, as I mentioned earlier, improving the United Nations performance and adapting it to the demands of these goals. In his message to the Millennium Summit last week, President Mubarak stressed the need to pay special attention to the maintenance of international peace and to support efforts for development, poverty elimination and narrowing the widening gap between the rich and the poor in our world. Allow me to address these priorities and to stress their linkage to a number of important subjects and necessary steps. First, there is an urgent need to strengthen and reform the United Nations in general. There is a similar need to reform and restructure the Security Council and to enhance its credibility. We are determined to continue our contribution to the current dialogue on a comprehensive and balanced package deal on the expansion of both the permanent and non- permanent membership of the Council. This would enable the Council to be more equitably representative. It would also reflect the overwhelming majority of the developing countries, members of the Organization. We are fully committed to the positions of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in this regard. We reiterate the need for expansion of the Council to be accompanied by reform of its working methods and a revision of the use of the veto power, with a view to rationalizing it. I wish to stress here what I mentioned earlier that Egypt has a long history of regional and international contributions. It plays a significant role on the African, Arab and Islamic levels, as well as in the Middle East and among the developing countries 19 and emerging economies. In addition, Egypt has made many contributions to support United Nations activities and achieve its objectives. It has also contributed to the Organization's peacekeeping operations. All this makes Egypt eminently eligible and qualified to shoulder the responsibilities of permanent membership in an expanded Security Council, within the framework suggested by the African heads of State and Government since 1997. Second, there is an equally urgent need to restore the role of the General Assembly in the maintenance of peace, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, especially when the Security Council fails to discharge its primary responsibility in this regard. This would ensure that any collective actions or measures enjoyed the international legitimacy represented by the Organization. There is a need to further develop United Nations peacekeeping operations and provide them with a rapid deployment capability. There is also a need for concerted efforts to increase the capacity of States, particularly African States, to participate in United Nations peacekeeping operations, or those of regional and subregional organizations which are mandated and financed by the United Nations. Egypt will address these important issues when the General Assembly considers the Brahimi report (A/55/305). These considerations must be kept in mind when we address how to develop the conceptual and practical framework of peacemaking and peacekeeping. New ideas, such as humanitarian intervention and the preventive deployment of forces, have, since the last session, begun to gain currency. We have called, and continue to call, for discussion of those ideas with the highest degree of frankness and transparency. Those ideas impinge on the concept of sovereignty. Some tend to belittle the value and importance of sovereignty when the matter pertains to the sovereignty of others. Those very same States tend also to consider it sacrosanct and inviolable when the matter pertains to their own sovereignty. Third, the sanctions regime, as one of the component parts of the measures taken within the current system of collective security, needs a thorough review. Sanctions cannot last indefinitely. They must not cause human suffering to tens of millions of people or result in massive and destructive harm to the economic infrastructures or social fabric of States. Sanctions must not lead to the creation of angry generations who will continue to be embittered by their suffering, even after these actions are lifted. Fourth, there is a need to recognize the importance of continued, serious consideration of the question of disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, which is the most destructive and poses the greatest threats. The priority of nuclear disarmament must not be overshadowed by the increased attention paid to small arms, light weapons and anti-personnel landmines. This is not to say that we do not recognize the importance of these subjects or the need to deal with them comprehensively and appropriately. In this regard, we reaffirm Egypt's initiatives for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. We welcome the results of the sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in the field of nuclear disarmament in general. We welcome in particular the Conference's recognition of the specificity of the situation in the Middle East and its reaffirmation of the continued validity and importance of implementing the resolutions on the Middle East adopted by the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995. Fifth, with the accelerated pace of globalization and trade liberalization, the gap between the rich and poor countries is widening in a manner that threatens grave dangers. The comparison between patterns of production and consumption and standards of living in the developing and developed worlds is both stark and shocking. Narrowing this gap and correcting this imbalance in the international structure is not merely a moral obligation, but is vital. An international partnership must be established to achieve this objective. The call for social justice within States must be accompanied by a similar call for justice in sharing the benefits of progress, globalization, the information technology and communications revolution and trade liberalization among members of the international family in the North and the South alike. We truly need to give globalization a human face and an equilibrium that will enable it to contribute to bridging that gap. United Nations literature is replete with studies on the problems of and obstacles to development and the elimination of poverty. This, however, is no longer sufficient. In several international conferences we have adopted plans and programmes of action containing 20 clear commitments to mobilize the financial resources necessary to implement them. Yet implementation has not been at the level of the commitments contained in those documents. A few months ago we reviewed progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the international conferences on population, women and social development. But what were the results of these reviews? What are the ways needed to face the obstacles that have impeded progress and made the implementation of the recommendations of those conferences fall below our expectations? We have adopted the objective of halving poverty in the world by 2015. What is the course charted for achieving this objective and what are the commitments made to mobilize the financial resources necessary for its achievement? What about the numerous programmes and initiatives for African development? Have their achievements been commensurate with the magnitude of the problems facing the continent? Is it not time for a clear commitment, going beyond the current initiatives, to lift the burden of foreign indebtedness that is crushing Africa? We need a genuine partnership between the North and the South. We need real and effective support by the donors and the international financial institutions to implement development efforts and attempts to eliminate poverty, not only as a moral value taking the form of freedom from want, as mentioned in the Secretary-General's report (A/54/2000), but also as a vital objective connected to the establishment of peace and stability. Sixth, in the same vein, an attempt to place responsibility for achieving development and eliminating poverty solely or even primarily on the shoulders of developing countries is both dangerous and short-sighted, because it would undermine the concept of international cooperation, which is one of the cornerstones of the world system, and ignore the repercussions of the widening gap between the rich and the poor in our world. That gap is now 16 times as large as it was in the 1960s. An attempt is also being made to link international cooperation and the North's support for the South with concepts and values that in themselves we support but whose new conditionality we reject. I am referring here to democracy, good governance and human rights. Questions of democratic transformation, improved governance and administration, increased transparency and accountability, and promoting respect for human rights cannot be dealt with in isolation from the questions of development, poverty and subsistence, for they too are vitally important subjects. Should not the call for democracy within States be matched by a similar call for democracy among States and international organizations? Should not the call for the rule of law be accompanied by a similar call for respect for international law, the sovereignty of States and the rights of peoples? Can good governance and administration be achieved in the absence of a parallel effort for the development of human resources and the capacity-building? Is it sufficient just to pay attention to the civil and political rights of people while ignoring their economic, social and cultural rights, foremost among which is the inalienable right to development? Seventh, the success of the development efforts of the peoples of the world at this stage depends on their efficient use of the tools of the new age, particularly information technology. The technological revolution has led to a widening of the gap between those who have those tools and those who do not. Nevertheless, information and knowledge technologies are of such a nature as to enable them to contribute to narrowing the gaps between the countries of the world. The attention Egypt pays to these global questions does not take away from the attention it gives to regional issues that are extremely sensitive. Among those questions, I would like to concentrate on the issues of peace in the Middle East and the situation in the Sudan, which are of the utmost importance to Egypt and, without a doubt, to many in the Arab world, Africa and the international community at large. The Arab-Israeli conflict entails vital issues related to the lives of peoples and to the future of nations. Those include recognition of legitimate rights, sovereignty over national soil, the inalienable right to self-determination, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and the right of all States to live peacefully within secure borders. All these issues are directly linked to international and regional peace and security. The logic that must govern the peace process in the Middle East should not stem from the assumption that one is dealing with a permanent foe or opponent. It must aim instead at turning past animosity into good- neighbourliness and normal relations among the peoples and the States of the region. What is at stake is 21 the security of the region and the security and prosperity of future generations, and not short-term political considerations. We face a clear choice between either settling the issue in terms of real estate in which one party demands metres, miles or tens of miles thereby keeping alive the seeds of tension and conflict, or by seeking through clear political will to establish a just and lasting peace by which the rights of all parties are secured and their obligations are well defined through necessary international guarantees. The latter option must be based on international law, something that applies to the Israeli/Palestinian track and to the Syrian/Israeli track alike. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of States, communities and individuals support the achievement of a just solution that does not favour one party at the expense of the other. Most people would opt for peace and justice and would prefer to look ahead to the future in a positive way. The overwhelming majority of the Palestinian and Israeli people also want peace, a peace that is clear and clean and not partial, distorted or absent something that, at the end of the day, would be more of a headache than a concrete peace. In that regard, I would like to say that President Arafat and the Palestinian people face one of two choices: either no solution or a bad solution. This is a policy that will never garner support or appreciation or ever lead to a viable solution. As to the so-called flexibility, which has been at the forefront of commentary lately, it should mean only flexibility within the realm of international law and not outside it. If we are talking about flexibility on Jerusalem, that cannot in any way mean accepting Israeli sovereignty over Al-Haram al-Sharif. It could instead mean arrangements for the new Palestinian State that would give it sovereignty over all its territories while respecting the holy sites and guaranteeing their protection and free access to them. That would assume that, as a full-fledged member of the international community, the sovereign Palestinian State would be in charge. The peace process is but a few miles away from the finish line. We hope it will not take many long years for Syria and Palestine to travel those few miles. We also hope that the sponsors of the peace process will be wise and able enough to propose honest solutions to the parties in order to enable the honest broker to lead the negotiations to a certain conclusion. At this juncture, I would like to salute President Clinton's enthusiasm and tireless efforts in steering the peace process during an eleventh-hour attempt to find a lasting solution during his Administration. In order to achieve that objective it is essential to uphold one guiding principle that cannot be circumvented, namely, full withdrawal from all Syrian and Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, in return for Israel's right to be integrated into the Middle East as a partner with equal rights to security, peace and cooperation. That is the essence of resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and of the principle of land for peace. Lasting peace and security can be established only on that basis. If Arab territories, or any part of those territories, remain under occupation or if any question is settled in a manner inconsistent with the principles of fairness and justice, it would create a time bomb that could explode at any time. The desired peace and security cannot be fully realized without the establishment of a full-fledged, independent Palestinian State. The stability of peace and security in the Middle East is tied to the need for serious consideration of the question of armaments in the Middle East. Permanently defusing tensions calls for dealing with the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles. This will also contribute directly to the maintenance of international peace and security. Peace and stability in the Middle East will not be complete or lasting without the establishment of a comprehensive regional security system that ensures control over the quantity and quality of armaments in the region and establishes a zone free from weapons of mass destruction, in accordance with President Mubarak's initiative, which enjoys global understanding and support. The Sudan is a State of unique character in regional relations. It is at once a major component of the Arab world and an integral part of the African community. Its stability is also vital for the security and stability of the Horn of Africa, the Red Sea and the Nile basin. The importance Egypt attaches to this brotherly country therefore stems not only from the fact that it is Egypt's strategic twin, but because it is a central factor to the security of a vast and vitally important region. Many efforts have been made, and many initiatives have been presented, to achieve peace in the 22 Sudan, most of which were made in good faith. However, they all dealt with the situation from a single perspective, that of the southern Sudan against the north. Consequently, Egypt and Libya saw the need to complement those efforts with a comprehensive programme aimed at achieving broad national reconciliation encompassing all the factions and all the parties. The objective is to create a new Sudan, where stability and harmony prevail within a basic framework of unity and territorial integrity, equality among its citizens, and consensual self-determination by all its citizens and component parts. This will bring comfort and reassurance to the Sudanese people and to all its neighbours. The Egyptian-Libyan initiative has gone a long way towards bringing the parties closer. The coordination of this initiative with that of the Inter- Government Authority on Development (IGAD) is possible. Efforts will continue to ensure the convening of a conference on national reconciliation to achieve peace in that important country. The achievement of peace in the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and in the continents of Asia and Africa as a whole is a necessary condition for world stability. The situation in Afghanistan, Kashmir, the Caucasus, Sri Lanka, the continued tragedy of Iraq, and the conflicts in Africa and their attendant social and economic problems all give rise to serious concerns about the new world order about its credibility and effectiveness. We must act quickly in order to resolve these problems in a context of international legitimacy and within the framework of the United Nations. Finally, amid all that, the United Nations stands as an expression of the will of the international community. The purposes and principles of its Charter are a guiding beacon. Let this Millennium Summit and Assembly be a new turning point that will put us on the right path towards a world of greater security, justice and stability, a world that builds upon the achievements of the twentieth century and closes the chapter on its grave errors.