At the outset, I
wish to convey the Egyptian Government's congratulations to the Presidency of
Bulgaria on the election to the presidency of the General Assembly of
Mr. Ganev and his assumption of that high post.
I should like also to put on record our appreciation of the capable
manner in which Mr. Samir Shihabi, the permanent representative of the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, conducted the work of the Assembly at its last session.
In addition, I want to congratulate the States that have recently joined
the United Nations. I hope that they will participate effectively and
constructively in the activities of the Organization and in defence of the
purposes and principles of its Charter.
This session, like past sessions and those that will follow in the 1990s,
is of great importance. It is being held at a stage of evolution and change
characterized by unprecedented dynamism and speed. It is a transitional stage
in the course of which new patterns of international relations are being
moulded. Hence, what the current session of the General Assembly is
witnessing is not a stable international situation but, rather, a phase in a
continuing process of evolution and change. Consequently, it is difficult to
predict with any certainty what the years and decades to come may hold for the
future of the world and its order.
This uninterrupted process of change, however, requires the reaffirmation
of certain matters which, in our view, constitute the basics which should
determine the image of the future.
The process of change should have a human content. No progress or
civilization could have a point of departure other than respect for man, his
rights, freedoms and dignity without discrimination because of colour, creed
or religion. Only in a context of respect for peoples' rights, cultures and
achievements and for their right to have their just demands met can there be
any change or progress.
International cooperation and interdependence based on justice and
fairness constitute the basis for salubrious change and for positive movement
towards any breakthrough of the future.
In the context of the existing challenges, international peace and
security are the collective responsibility of North and South, which should
shoulder their burdens and obligations and, thereafter, share the dividends of
success. Undoubtedly, the ever-increasing role of the Security Council
necessitates a review of its membership and the scope of its responsibility,
so that it may be a genuine reflection of international and regional forces.
In their new concept, international relations should be integral in
substance, rational in content and democratic in context. Therefore, the
formulation of those relations requires collective participation if they are
to reflect the interests of the international community, with all its
components, and of the balance between rights and duties and between power and
responsibility.
International relations, in their current state of evolution, reflect a
greater awareness and wider recognition of the relationship between future and
destiny. Similarly, they reflect constant movement towards realism in dealing
with inherited and nascent dilemmas. Nevertheless, they have been unable to
remove elements of suspicion and feelings of frustration. Rather, they have
helped to exacerbate such feelings in many places and about many issues,
especially in the third world.
While the seeds of change indicate a relaxation of global military
confrontations, at the same time, they have crystallized the inherited
sediments of regional and ethnic tensions and have transformed the equation of
rivalry between East and West into an equation between North and South that
has not taken final shape yet as it has not dealt, and does not seem to be
going to deal, rationally, with the massive historic imbalances between
regions of affluence and regions of scarcity, between regions of progress and
those of backwardness. Indeed, there is genuine concern that unless it takes
place under agreed controls, the ongoing process of change, will lead to the
codification of these imbalances and, thereby, make them a feature of the new
world order, with all that that would entail in terms of turmoil and chaos.
These features of today's world, and portents of tomorrow's world, give
rise to very real fears regarding the dominance of injustice and inequality in
international relations on the political, security, economic and social levels.
After this foreword, which reflects the feelings of the third world,
Egypt's delegation would like to discuss four issues: the state of affairs in
the United Nations; the situation in the third world; disarmament; and peace
efforts in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe.
It is highly important that the purposes of the Charter be made the
foundation of the new era, so that justice may be ensured, social progress
promoted and better standards of living achieved in greater freedom as
expressed by the Secretary-General in his Agenda for Peace. In our view, this
is the real core of positive development and of any world order that strives
for stability and peace.
The purposes of the Charter, however, cannot be realized, and the strong
desire to ensure justice and to promote social and economic progress cannot be
fulfilled, in an age in which acute racialist trends rear their heads anew, in
which dangers threaten the lives of whole communities, and in which there are
signs of a return to foreign intervention in the affairs of States and of
peoples.
Hence, foremost among the main goals highlighted by the Secretary-General
in his plan is action to deal, in a wider context, with the deepest causes of
tension economic deprivation and social injustice. Dealing with these banes
should be the cornerstone of the new world era. In this connection, I should
like to voice our strong support for a statement made by the
Secretary-General a statement that seems to have commanded insufficient
consideration and appreciation. The Secretary-General said:
"It is noticeable that there is a common moral concept which is
increasingly emerging and spreading among the world's peoples and
nations. It is reflected in international laws, most of which have
emerged through efforts made by the United Nations."
This statement deals with an issue on which, in our view, we should
reflect, for we are in real need of a common moral concept. For many decades,
the world has been plagued by policies of racial discrimination. Now is the
time, the opportunity, to rid ourselves of those policies. Unfortunately,
however, other racial conflicts have erupted, and there have been calls for
ethnic purity. This shows that the world still lacks a common moral concept
and the means of developing it in a rational and sound way.
Such a concept should be based on consensus among our various societies,
and it should be developed within the framework of our political experience
since the Second World War. It should also be based on an analysis of all
that has been achieved and all that has not been achieved, with a view to
assessing the role played by.existing human-rights instruments and deciding
whether to develop such instruments further or to replace them with new ones.
We need a new world social contract between various world communities,
cultures and civilizations. This new social contract should be based not on
one model, no matter how successful such a model may have proved to be, but on
rules upon which there is common agreement and which take into consideration
the intrinsic characteristics of various societies, with a view to devising
the best framework for the achievement of unity through diversity. In this
way, we would define "respect for human rights" with reference to a concept
shared and approved by all a concept that all would contract to implement.
The new world social contract for which we call a contract linking
parties from different civilizations and cultures should be constructed
within the framework of the new era in which neither globalism and nationalism
nor commonality and individuality should be regarded as opposing trends, but
should be discussed from the point of view of peaceful evolution, equilibrium
and respect for the purposes of the Charter.
I strongly believe that calling for a new social contract is linked
organically with the preventive diplomacy, participation in peacemaking and
contribution to peace-keeping called for in the Agenda for Peace.
The vision that the Secretary-General has put forth last June in his
Agenda for Peace reflects hope as much as it reflects challenges.
This vision embodies a call for the development of the role of the United
Nations from one of mere crisis management and conflict resolution to a more
comprehensive one which would embrace social, economic and humanitarian
issues. It is a vision that presents newly developed dimensions imposed by
the nature of the profound changes now taking place in the patterns of
international relations.
There should be a comprehensive and in-depth debate on this report and on
the quintessence of this vision of the future. This debate should take place
in the General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as in the various
bodies of the United Nations, side by side with intensive examination in many
other forums. It should involve research institutes in various States and
continents, and should be aimed at reaching an acceptable formula to meet the
political, security, economic and social requirements of the next stage in the
history of the world.
This Agenda for Peace keeps hope alive and sets concrete goals. It is
characterized by the fact that it does not ignore or overlook the realities of
the situation. It strikes a balance between the possible and the desirable,
and it constitutes a prelude to the major aim of adapting the existing
instruments to the new realities.
The international community, which accepts even calls for - greater
responsibility in the resolution of global and regional conflicts, also calls
for an effective role for the United Nations in preventing wars and making
peace.
Respect for the United Nations involves, by definition, respect for its
resolutions and the mobilization of its collective will to implement those
resolutions with a view to imposing peace, if necessary, or negotiating peace
if intentions are genuine and the parties concerned cooperate.
In the midst of all this, we find the problems nay, problem of the third
world which is one of the most important issues we have to discuss in this
forum that brings together all the peoples and nations of the world.
In recent weeks the third world has convened a summit meeting in
Indonesia, in the framework of the Non-Aligned Movement. President Soeharto
addressed the Assembly in detail, yesterday, on the meeting, in his capacity
as head of the Non-Aligned Movement. Today, I wish to dwell on a few points:
first, the new world order should be based on solid foundations of law and on
the principles of the Charter, as well as on an equitable sharing of
responsibility and a joint commitment to cooperation and solidarity; secondly,
the structure of that order should be dedicated to peace and justice, security
and development and democracy at the domestic national levels, and in
international relations, as well as to the promotion of the fundamental rights
and freedoms of individual human beings and peoples;
thirdly, respect for sovereignty and adherence to the principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of other States as a principle that
should not be impaired or diminished; fourthly, settlement of disputes by
peaceful means and through continued dialogue and negotiation; fifthly, peace
and stability are contingent on social and economic factors as much as they
are contingent on political and military factors. Therefore, the diminishing
prospects of economic development and social progress result in a serious
threat to stability, and hence, to peace; sixthly, support for holding a world
summit on social development that would put people and their social needs at
the forefront of international efforts, and provide an opportunity to deal
with the multi-faceted dimensions of social issues; seventhly, the United
Nations, as the world embodiment of multilateralism, has a unique opportunity
to be the international collective instrument for establishing a new world
order based on justice and equality.
Herein lies the link between the Agenda for Peace and the hopes and
aspirations of the third world for a positive role through which it would
contribute to building the new world order. We believe that the establishment
of this order cannot and should not be realized through imposition or
coercion, but rather through a democratic process in which all peoples and
States of the world would have a role and a say. This can be achieved only
through this Organization: the United Nations.
In today's world, there exists a great tide towards disarmament and
tangible progress towards agreement on its mechanisms and the achievement of
its aims which, for long, have been sought by developed and developing nations
alike. Third world States, represented by the Non-Aligned Movement and the
Group of 77, have made abundantly clear their determination to give priority
to disarmament issues, particularly nuclear disarmament, and the rechannelling
of released resources to the areas of development and to the achievement of
socio-economic progress.
Today, at this very same session, the new world is trying to take yet
another step in that direction by introducing the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical
Weapons and on Their Destruction. Egypt, which was one of the first States
that participated in drafting this Convention and which called for the
establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones and for the elimination of weapons
of mass destruction, should like to present to the General Assembly our
regional view of this Convention.
First, we are in favour of moving towards chemical-weapons disarmament in
the framework of an international Convention that would constitute a part of
an evolving and comprehensive process of disarmament towards general and
complete disarmament, particularly of weapons of mass destruction;
Secondly, we agree with the framework and content of the Convention as
presented by the Conference on Disarmament;
Thirdly, however, from our regional perspective, we consider that this
Convention should not be dealt with in isolation from other efforts related to
other weapons of mass destruction, mainly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons, the international system of safeguards and inspection, and
the provision of credible international guarantees;
Fourthly, we have a declared initiative regarding the establishment of a
zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, including
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and other delivery systems.
Therefore, our view of the Convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons
comes within this overall framework and is an integral part of it;
Fifthly, Middle East Arab and non-Arab States, with the exception of one,
have joined the international system of inspection or the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Thus their support for the disarmament
process is evident. However, the existing exception of one State gives rise
to many security concerns, particularly as we know that this exception enables
one State in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons without any
international restrictions. It also enables this State, which possesses a
massive arsenal of military industries, to be engaged in a process of missile
development in a manner that makes it an enshrined exception in the framework
of the disarmament process. This greatly negates the effectiveness of all
disarmament operational instruments and threatens the whole concept of
regional and even international disarmament. It also restricts the freedom of
the region's States in acceding to the Convention on the prohibition of
chemical weapons;
Sixthly, against this backdrop, the ministerial meeting of the League of
Arab States conducted an in-depth discussion of this issue in mid-September.
The meeting approved the following points as a basis for the Arab position
towards the Convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons: full
willingness to deal with all disarmament proposals that would provide security
through equal obligations applicable by one standard to all the States of the
region; reaffirmation of full support for the elimination of all weapons of
mass destruction from the Middle East, including nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons, as the best way to achieve security for all the States of
the region; and willingness to deal with the Convention on the prohibition of
chemical weapons and the framework of efforts aiming at the establishment of
the zone to the extent that the excepted State, namely Israel, would respond
to international calls to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons and to subject its nuclear facilities to the international
safeguards system.
That is our position towards the Convention on the prohibition of
chemical weapons. It is a position of support, but within the framework of an
integrated disarmament process at the regional level in order to maintain the
security of the Middle East States that are threatened by the existence of
nuclear weapons in their region without any international control or legal
obligation.
Still dealing with the Middle East region, I should like to say that the
stage through which the region is passing now is characterized by many
positive elements as well as negative ones.
In connection with the Middle East problem and the Palestine question,
negotiations are currently under way, bilaterally and multilaterally, within
the framework of a peace process based on the land-for-peace formula, and on
Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), adopted in the
framework of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. They
clearly provide for inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,
and thus safeguard the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of all,
through withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967; and for the right of
each State in the region to live in peace within its internationally
guaranteed borders, thus ensuring security for all, Israel and Arab States
alike.
In fact, the Government of Mr. Yitzhak Rabin has moved in the right
direction, dissipating clouds of uncertainty and clearing the way for hope and
optimism. A basis of credibility has thus been created for the negotiations.
That credibility was about to be lost indefinitely because of the actions of
the previous Israeli Government and the former Prime Minister's statement that
his intention was to procrastinate for 10 years.
However, it is not only the atmosphere of the negotiations that is
important but also the content of those negotiations, particularly in view of
the fact that the Arab parties, mainly Syria, have agreed to enter into
comprehensive peace agreements with Israel, provided that the latter adheres
to its obligations under the Charter, and international law as well as to the
unanimous international resolutions that stipulate withdrawal to the
international boundaries and the recognition of the legitimate rights of the
Palestinian people.
Egypt has set out in detail its integrated view of the components of a
comprehensive peace based on the elements of security and justice in
accordance with the following principles:
First, that the Arab-Israeli conflict in its entirety has four
components: land, Palestinian rights, security for all, and regional
cooperation in the framework of peace;
Secondly, the need to implement the Security Council resolutions which
represent the acceptable terms of reference for a negotiating process based on
the formula of land for peace;
Thirdly, the special status of Al-Quds city does not prejudice the fact
that East Jerusalem is a part of the territories occupied since mid-1967. The
principles of any settlement are as applicable to it as they are to any other
part of the occupied territories. Its future is not to be foreclosed nor
decided upon unilaterally. Consequently, it represents an area of the peace
negotiations, whether in the interim stage or in the final stage, of a
Palestinian-Israeli settlement;
Fourthly, a settlement should be comprehensive for all fronts, including
the Golan, Gaza and the West Bank, the Jordanian territories and South
Lebanon, under Security Council resolution 425 (1978), and the behests of
international legality.
Fifthly, interim arrangements in the context of the talks on full
autonomy should be made without prejudice to the right of the Palestinian
peoples to decide their own future and the exercise of their right to self
determination;
Sixthly, the problem of the post-1948 war Palestinian refugees and the
persons displaced after the 1967 war should be dealt with in conformity with
resolutions based on international law and consensus based on good faith.
The Egyptian view of a future Middle East within the context of new
international relations, as well as the context of cultural affinity and the
historical ties that bind all Arab States, together with Egypt's peaceful
relations with Israel, enable Egypt to play an active role in the peace
process and to provide some support for the negotiations to fulfill the
legitimate demands called for under Security Council resolutions 242 (1967)
and 338 (1973) and the land-for-peace formula. So much for the problem of the
Middle East and Palestine.
As for the Gulf region, which is part of the Middle East, we witness new
tensions caused by Iran's occupation of Arab islands, the latest of which was
Abu-Moussa. This is a development we can neither overlook nor ignore. We
therefore call upon Iran to reconsider its position on this issue, to adhere
to the principles of good- neighbourliness, to respect the norms of
international law and the sovereignty of States over their territories and to
restore the situation to the status quo ante. We hope that the course of
relations between Iran and the Arab peoples will be one of friendship,
brotherhood and cooperation. These peoples have much in common to make them
more united than otherwise.
Amidst these omens for the region, we in Egypt are concerned about the
fate of all segments of the the Iraqi people and all parts of its land.
Therefore, while we call upon the Iraqi Government to abide by the rules and
decisions of international legality, we call upon the international community
to safeguard Iraq's territorial integrity and the unity of its people. In the
same way, we support Kuwait's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its
international borders.
As we discuss the major issues facing the world of today, I cannot but
refer to the situation in Africa. The African continent, and particularly in
the Horn of Africa, faces a range of political, economic and social problems.
The situation cries out for increased attention to be paid to the continent on
the part of the international community. In the meantime, the democratic
changes in the continent and its States' awareness of the need for continental
and regional cooperation gives us confidence that Africa has the capability to
rise to the challenge. I therefore urge the international community to
shoulder its responsibilities towards implementing the Second Industrial
Development Decade for Africa in the 1990s in order to accelerate the
transition to democracy and the economic and social development in the
countries of the continent.
At the same time, progress in the process of eliminating apartheid is a
positive aspect amidst such drawbacks. It should not be hampered by the
attempts of racial extremists. The people of South Africa are on their way to
exercising their legitimate rights. Incidents of violence or apostasy must
not stop the positive evolution. Our responsibility is to support the process
of dialogue and negotiations in order to restore the momentum needed for
achieving a democratic non-racial society in South Africa.
Last but not least, the situation in Somalia requires more than the mere
humanitarian assistance to which we all contribute. What we need is to
intensify efforts to achieve national reconciliation. While we call on the
international community to continue its efforts in the humanitarian field, we
call upon the Somali parties to rise to the responsibility of forging sound
relations between them and discarding the tribal rivalries and power struggles
which show a lack of national awareness.
By the same token, we stand firmly against aggression and in defence of
respecting the sovereignty and independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and are
committed to stopping attempts at interference in its internal affairs, as
well as the practices of "ethnic cleansing" committed against its people,
which reflect an attitude of inherited racial bigotry, intellectual
backwardness and cultural regression. The demise of Yugoslavia, though
regrettable in view of its past contributions to international life, makes it
incumbent upon us to work for the respect of equal rights for all its peoples
and all the States that have emanated from it, as all of them, not only one,
are its successors in the world order. A view that has already been adopted
by the General Assembly.
These are the issues that are of concern to us in Europe, Africa and Asia.
We are at the threshold of a world which looks forward to stability, but
is in a transitional period in the course of which the map of tomorrow may be
redrawn. Chaos may erupt and States, ethnic groupings, and terrorists may
resort to force to an attempt to halt the march of history, civilization and
progress. But the collective will shall open the doors to the United Nations
and, thereby, will allow us to opt for a better tomorrow of unhampered
economic development and social interdependence wherein we shall protect the
environment, guided by the principles and obligations of the Rio de Janeiro
summit meeting; a better tomorrow of respect for human rights; a better
tomorrow that all of us will participate in bringing about for the sake of the
world we aspire after in the twenty-first century.