Madam President, allow me today to pay a special
tribute to Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of our
Organization, for the important role he has played over
the past ten years in upholding the lofty principles and
values on which this Organization was founded.
During the same period, Mr. Annan dealt with many
trying international situations with profound wisdom
and clear vision. It is our hope that the candidate
elected for this important international post during this
session will display the same wisdom and vision.
The sixty-first session meets against the backdrop
of a complex international situation and unfortunate
international events that have uncovered many
contradictions in the work of this Organization. Those
contradictions require us to study in depth the extent to
which the United Nations has succeeded in
strengthening international understanding and
consensus when dealing with the threats and challenges
that face humanity. The current complex situation and
recent events make it incumbent upon us to draw on
past experience to strengthen the role of the
Organization in achieving the noble purposes and
principles for which it was founded.
The negotiations preceding the adoption of the
2005 Summit Outcome Document and the subsequent
negotiations on its implementation have made it clear
that the visions of the North and the South with regard
to the future of the United Nations and the nature of its
41 06-53005
role in the current and coming phases have become
more divergent than before. That was manifest in a
number of attitudes that have left visible marks on the
international environment.
There is a widening gap between, on the one
hand, those who pay the larger share of the budget of
the Organization and believe that their contributions
entitle them to a larger say in the conduct of its work,
and on the other hand the developing countries, which
pay their fair share as established by the methodology
and criteria adopted by the General Assembly and
believe that the Organization must remain the
international forum of democracy, equality and good
governance on the international level, as embodied in
the principle of “one State, one vote”.
Some States, with increasing insistence, believe
that the Security Council must hold the fate of the
Organization in its hands, taking precedence over its
other main organs. Those States are robbing the others
of most of their competencies and deal with them in
any way they see fit, without oversight, even if that
leads to the failure of the Council to discharge its
responsibilities to prevent the killing of the innocent or
the perpetration of crimes of genocide and other crimes
against humanity.
This insistence by a small number of States runs
counter to the view of the majority of Member States,
which believe that the General Assembly is the
inclusive democratic forum that brings the Members of
the Organization together. It is the Assembly that
mandated the Council to bear the responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security. The
Assembly alone has the right of oversight and review
of the work of all the organs of the Organization.
Indeed, the Assembly has the right to withdraw the
prerogatives of the Security Council, should it fail to
discharge its charter-mandated responsibilities or if the
narrow political interests of one of the parties to a
conflict prevent the Council from fulfilling its task.
This is a time when the international arena has
witnessed a growing tendency to misuse official
development assistance (ODA) by imposing conditions
on the national priorities of developing countries
without any regard to the agreements reached in the
relevant United Nations conferences and summits. At
the same time, the overwhelming majority continues to
believe that development is a human right and that
development assistance, along with the transfer of
technology, is an obligation for developed countries.
Last year was the sixtieth anniversary of the
tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Astonishingly,
some States continue to believe that their might and
dominance are based on their — and their allies’ —
continued possession of nuclear arsenals. These States
believe in the need to exercise strict control and
supervision of other States and to apply restrictions on
the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. At the
same time, the great majority of Member States believe
that their commitment under the Treaty on the
Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) not to
produce nuclear weapons was made on the basis of a
corresponding commitment by the nuclear-weapons
States to eliminate nuclear weapons under international
supervision within a specific time frame and to achieve
the universality of the Treaty. Not only does the
maintenance of the existing nuclear arsenals jeopardize
the credibility of the NPT, it also threatens humanity
with total destruction and annihilation.
Our peoples have a keen interest in the
achievement of a larger measure of democracy, human
rights and political reform. However, we now can see
that some seek to impose these concepts by military
force, based on their assumption that their principles,
values and cultures are superior and stronger and thus
worthy of being imposed on others. At the same time,
the overwhelming majority believe that democracy and
human rights are based on culture-specific values and
standards that emanate from their respective societies.
They simply cannot be imposed from outside.
Notwithstanding the increase in the number of
victims of terrorist operations, there is an increased
tendency to deal with terrorism through military force
alone, while ignoring its root causes. Some have made
it their mission to rid the world of the evils of terrorism
as they themselves define it. They ignore the
international collective work to conclude a
comprehensive convention on terrorism and to
implement effectively the General Assembly Global
Counter-Terrorism Strategy in a manner that strikes a
balance between the respective roles of the General
Assembly and the Security Council.
Last, but not least, the negotiations on the reform
of the Organization have proven that some believe that
the international collective security regime was
established to enable those who posses the military
06-53005 42
might to impose political settlements under
international protection. While the great majority
believes that the lessons of history, most recently in
Lebanon, have proven that military might cannot and
will not impose a political settlement. Such settlements
must be reached through negotiations alone.
The aforementioned are some of the main
elements that set our positions farther apart during the
past year. We must take these elements as a basis for
determining the premise of our work during this
session. We must develop a clear understanding of the
strengths and weaknesses of the performance of our
Organization. Together, we should chart the course
aimed at upholding the values of democracy, justice
and respect for law in international relations. We must
move resolutely towards the consolidation of those
values in the international community, in view of the
fact that they constitute the real, solid foundations of
international peace and security.
With the same constructive spirit that prevailed in
our work last year, together with a balanced mixture of
realism and ambition, and without the imposition of
impractical time frames or the acceptance of temporary
measures, we must proceed towards the achievement of
further reform and the strengthening of the
effectiveness of the United Nations. We must commit
to preserving both the principle of consensus and the
intergovernmental character of the Organization.
Together, we must work to increase the ability of
the collective security regime to deal swiftly with
international problems. We must stand up to the
arrogance of power of some so that we can protect the
rights and future of other countries and peoples. We
must also face resolutely any attempts to impose
temporary solutions through unilateral actions or
military solutions that might result in transient
victories that lack justice and a comprehensive vision.
Such actions only scratch the surface of the problems
without delving into the root causes. They lead to the
exacerbation of problems by fanning the flames of
hatred and rejection. This, in turn, feeds terrorism and
extremism and leads those who despair of the justice of
the international system to rebel against the will of the
international community.
Despite Egypt’s repeated warnings against
following the path of escalation and confrontation, the
huge loss of life and property incurred as a result of the
war between Israel and Lebanon has gone beyond all
limits. Lebanon has suffered the total devastation of its
infrastructure and the indiscriminate killing of
hundreds of innocent civilians, including children, as
the result of actions that contravene the United Nations
Charter and the basic rules of international law and
relevant international humanitarian law. And, despite
the fact that the Israeli war against Lebanon caused
untold devastation, it has proven that military might,
however great, will never be able to impose a political
solution. It has also proven that the solution lies in
ending the occupation and in negotiating a just political
settlement that will eliminate the feelings of enmity
and replace them with relations of cooperation and
peaceful coexistence.
Undoubtedly, Security Council resolution 1701
(2006), after having been amended to take into
consideration the Arab point of view, thanks to the
efforts of the Arab delegation mandated by the League
of Arab States to New York, is a step in the right
direction. However, this step will remain incomplete
and will not enjoy the success required unless it deals
with the core of the problem in the region — namely,
the Arab Israeli conflict.
The Arab-Israeli conflict has squandered the
resources and lives of the people of the Middle East for
many decades. In it, political, historical and religious
dimensions have fermented into a combustible mix that
carries the seeds of a conflagration that could go
beyond the region and reflect negatively on stability
and relations between the various cultures and faiths in
the world. Hence the importance for all of us, citizens
of the region and members of the international
community, to act in concert to reach an immediate,
just and comprehensive solution to this conflict.
In its endeavours to achieve comprehensive peace
between the Arab world and Israel, Egypt precedes
from a realistic vision of the events on the ground. In
this context, Egypt is exerting efforts to improve the
security situation between the Palestinians and the
Israelis through direct engagement with both parties,
with the aim of calming the situation, putting an end to
all acts of violence, killing and destruction and
encouraging confidence-building measures between the
Palestinians and the Israelis aimed at resuming
dialogue and negotiations. At the same time, Egypt
seeks to resume progress on the three tracks of the
settlement of the Arab Israeli conflict. This is the main
objective of the peace process, which has regrettably
been stalled for years. The deterioration in the security
43 06-53005
situation must not make us lose sight of that objective.
Experience has proven time and again that the success
of security measures will remain limited and fragile if
they are not made part of a wider political framework
that would ensure the basic rights of the parties and
encourage them to make the difficult decisions
necessary for the improvement of the security
situation.
The Quartet has drawn up a road map for peace.
It was accepted by the parties and the States of the
region. It was endorsed by resolution 1515 (2003) of
the Security Council. It was hoped that it would
constitute the political framework to which I referred
earlier. However, this did not happen, for reasons that I
will not list here. Yet, the road map remains a
cornerstone for the achievement of peace in the region,
since it establishes the principles of peaceful co-
existence between Israel and Palestine and determines
the general parameters of the final settlement between
Israel, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon — namely, an end
to the occupation that started in 1967, implementation
of the international resolutions on the Arab-Israeli
conflict, and implementation of the Arab peace
initiative that would ensure security, peace and
recognition for Israel by its Arab neighbours in return
for Israel’s ending its occupation of the Arab territories
and working out acceptable solutions for other pending
issues. There is now a need to build upon this
cornerstone in order to create an effective political
framework that would move the parties towards the
objective desired by the international community as a
whole — namely, the establishment of a
comprehensive peace that would put an end to
occupation and strife in this part of the world.
Egypt has closely followed the developments in
the Darfur crisis since its inception. It is one of the
troop- contributing countries to the African Union
observer mission in Darfur. Egypt participated actively
in the Abuja talks and has provided humanitarian
assistance to the people of Darfur.
There is no doubt that the international
community bears a major share of the responsibility for
reaching a swift and just solution to that problem. In
our opinion, efforts must focus on creating conditions
conducive to the success of the Darfur Peace
Agreement as the political framework agreed upon by
the main parties. That will require the launching and
strengthening of the Darfur-Darfur dialogue in order to
create a consensus on the Peace Agreement and to
convince the parties that have not yet signed it to do
so. In addition, there is a need to encourage the
Sudanese Government to carry out its commitments on
the development and reconstruction of the Darfur
region.
If the United Nations is to continue to play the
role entrusted to it, we must display a sense of
collective responsibility based on a strong resolve to
make the Organization an inclusive framework for
common international efforts to deal promptly and
effectively with regional and global issues and
problems. The call to disseminate democratic practices
and good governance among the States of the world
will be heeded only if coupled with the clear
commitment of all States to applying those concepts in
a multilateral framework and at the international level.
It will be valid only if accompanied by a reaffirmation
of the principles of partnership, the sharing of burdens
and responsibilities, equality of rights and duties, and,
above all, participation on an equal footing in defining
options and in decision-making at the international
level.
Let us work together to strengthen the principles
of democracy in an international multilateral setting.
Let us make dialogue and mutual respect the language
of our discourse. Let us give lofty human ideals and the
common good precedence over narrow selfish interests.
Let us cast aside our differences and be real partners.
In conclusion, allow me to convey our sincere
congratulations to you, Madam, on your assumption of
the presidency of the General Assembly at its sixty-
first session. We are confident that, as the first Arab
woman to assume that high position, you will meet
with resounding success. In that respect, allow us also
to express our sincere appreciation and gratitude to
your predecessor, Mr. Jan Eliasson, President of the
General Assembly at its sixtieth session, for his skilful
leadership of our work.