Egypt

This session is being held amid a very sensitive and delicate international situation which is generally characterized by political and socio-economic concerns. This is particularly evident all over the developing world, which is overpopulated and simultaneously overburdened with problems of backwardness and the challenges of development. The hopes that were raised with the end of the cold war, heralding the advent of a new era in which cooperation and détente would prevail, soon were shattered in the midst of these problems and these concerns. We are currently facing conflicting phenomena, where elements of complementarity and integration coincide with tendencies towards division and disunity. The technology and communications revolution runs parallel to the eruption of national conflicts and ethnic animosities. Ambitions of leadership overlap practices of hegemony. This has created a serious conceptual confusion which the international order, in its current form, cannot address in an effective or deterring manner. Indeed, this order, due to its obvious double standards, might have contributed to the intensification of the era’s negative aspects at the expense of its positive aspects and gains. Certainly, the logic of evolution and the rules of transformation indicate that the stages of change carry within them a potential risk as well as elements of rivalry, unless an objective and conducive environment exists, accompanied by a forward-looking vision and a set of highly advanced values that are crystallized through coordinated and concerted efforts. This is precisely what did not happen. The dichotomy between the North and the South is widening. The lack of common understanding among world cultures and civilizations is still present. This has caused discord in world thinking and created mutual suspicions that not only pose an overwhelming threat, jeopardizing the march of political progress and the activities of economic development as well as the fabric of social development, but also have raised questions as to whether the benefits of science and technology lead to world security and stability, or quite the opposite. In connection with contemporary international politics, it is really most alarming that attempts are being made to marginalize the United Nations at a time when the world is in need of further understanding, better coordination and accelerated interdependence. It would have been more logical to call for the strengthening of this Organization, so that it could perform its role in achieving these objectives in a truly democratic manner, with the participation of all the countries of the world with their diverse cultures, societies, sizes, orientations and achievements. This is particularly true since the United Nations Charter, in our view — a view shared by many others — still represents a major instrument governing international life, and since any international order, be it old or new, must be based on a solid foundation that respects rights, determines obligations and opens the door to an era of interaction among societies on the basis of acceptance and understanding, not imposition or oppression. We are definitely aware that the challenges of tomorrow are different from those of yesterday. We are also aware that the United Nations, in its current culture, may not be able, one way or another, to deal with future challenges. However, this must be a subject for discussion to build consensus among us, not a matter to be determined by a few or to be decided unilaterally. For these reasons, it is imperative to strive collectively to build a common political will to strengthen the United Nations, to enhance its effectiveness and to restore its credibility in order to maintain world stability and security. The annals of this Organization abound with historical achievements and it continues to make progress in dealing with the problems of our world. An in-depth reading of the Secretary-General’s reports on political, 17 economic and social situations in the world reassures us of this role and we urge that it be upheld, because it addresses the present and explores the prospects for the future through global understanding. The Secretary-General’s role in developing a rational basis for worldwide development activities has succeeded in focusing attention on the issues of our times through a series of conferences held over the past five years on the environment, human rights, population, social development, women and human settlements. These represent important reference points for global action based on international consensus in dealing with problems that were once marginal but are today substantial. We call on the Secretary-General to pursue this approach, which allows the United Nations to stand out in a distinctive and positive way in a world of growing negativity. A strengthened role, reform and enhanced efficiency are our common objectives for the United Nations. The historic Declaration issued last year by the Heads of State and Government on the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations constitutes a cornerstone for the future work of the Organization. The Declaration contained a clear conceptual framework for global action on the basis of the priorities upon which we all agreed: peace based on the principles and provisions of the Charter and supported by an effective regime of collective security; development in all its aspects in the social and economic fields; sovereign equality among States and respect for peoples’ rights; and justice in addressing the various issues on the international agenda. Egypt deems it necessary to translate these noble principles into clear programmes of action that take into consideration the interests of all without discrimination. When we met here last year to celebrate the United Nations fiftieth anniversary, we were dismayed by the events in the Great Lakes region in Africa, where horrendous massacres had left a painful humanitarian legacy. We were disturbed by the events in Bosnia, where United Nations “safe areas” had been overrun and innocent people had lost their lives in despicable ethnic strife. However, we were optimistic at that time about developments in the Middle East. The Interim Agreement had been signed between President Yasser Arafat and the late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, and described as an important step on the path to finding a solution to the question of Palestine. Has the situation changed or evolved for the better? Let us look into last year’s developments in that region. In recent months, the Middle East has undergone a crisis that has almost stifled the peace process, a crisis resulting from the reluctance of the Israeli Government to act in keeping with the agreed fundamentals of peace. This position has threatened a return to the language, concepts, policies and even practices that were on the eve of extinction in the region. Thus, action on all peace tracks was deadlocked and the peace process stagnated. This prompted Egypt, which initiated that process and believes in a just and balanced Arab-Israeli peace, to intensify efforts to rectify the situation and consolidate the fundamentals of this process, first among which is the “land for peace” principle. In this context, I would like to put forward the Arab position as contained in the final communiqué of the summit held in Cairo last June. The attending Arab leaders unanimously expressed their keen interest in the continuation of the process of making a just and comprehensive peace an Arab strategic option under international legality. This Arab position requires a corresponding commitment, seriously and unequivocally undertaken by Israel, to abide by the principles agreed upon at the Madrid Conference, particularly the “land for peace” principle and the assurances provided to the parties. The Arab leaders stressed that any breach by Israel of these principles or of the bases in which the peace process is anchored; any reneging on the commitments, undertakings or agreements made in the framework of this process; or any procrastination in their implementation would set back the peace process, with all the risks and repercussions involved. This could replunge the region into an atmosphere of tension and would force all Arab countries to reconsider the steps taken vis-à-vis Israel within the framework of the peace process. In such a case, the Israeli Government alone would assume full responsibility. The Arab leaders emphasized that there would be no recognition or acceptance of any situation resulting from Israeli settlement activity in the occupied Arab territories, since the settlements are considered an illegal measure that entails no rights and establishes no obligations. The establishment of settlements and the bringing in of settlers violate international law and the Madrid framework and impede the peace process, which requires Israel to halt all settlement activities in the occupied territories. The Arab leaders also emphasized that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East can be achieved only through a resolution of the questions of Al-Quds and the Palestinian refugees on the basis of their rights of return and to compensation, in accordance with international legality and United Nations resolutions. 18 A short while ago, the new Israeli Prime Minister met with the Palestinian President. Undoubtedly, their meeting represents progress towards their mutual recognition as partners on an equal footing in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. In theory, the peace process should proceed to implement the commitments made under the Oslo Accords in accordance with the agreed timetable, but that has not yet happened. We are interested not in handshakes or wide smiles for photo opportunities, but rather in substantive developments. Thus, what is required and what we should all strive for is the implementation of commitments, serious negotiation and time well spent. We call upon the entire world to follow up the matter with us with full vigilance and to allow neither retrogression nor the manipulation of very sensitive and serious matters, namely, the establishment of a permanent contractual peace between Palestine and Israel that fulfils the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and culminates in their exercise of their right to self- determination under international supervision and the establishment of a Palestinian State. This peace must also achieve security for Israel and all parties on an equal footing. Israel is called upon to desist from its settlement policy, including the expansion of settlements, and to end its policies of closing territories and besieging the Palestinian people. It is called upon to honour its commitments, redeploy its troops outside Hebron and resume without further delay the final status negotiations. Israel is also called upon to put an end to its practices in Al-Quds, a city where any rights that could be claimed by Israel are outweighed by Arab rights, which are more ancient, legitimate and authentic than any Israeli claim to the city. On the Syrian track, I can say in all honesty and with full confidence that Syria is ready to resume the negotiations suspended last February at Israel’s request. The negotiations should resume at the point at which they stopped, which is fair, and in accordance with the Madrid framework and the principle of “land for peace“, which is right. From this rostrum, Egypt calls for the resumption of these negotiations. Israel must refrain from pursuing policies and formulations that may be interpreted as squandering years of negotiations and that constitute a regression from principles that have become an integral part of the rules for peaceful work in the region and are backed by international legality and supported by broad international consensus. On the Lebanese track, we call for the implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978) and Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanon, to which Israeli officials have repeatedly stated they have no territorial claim. Peace in the Middle East will not be comprehensive or lasting until a strict regime for regional security is established, based on arrangements that provide equal security for all parties with minimum levels of armament. The region must be totally free from all weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical and biological — and their delivery systems. Peace and security cannot survive in the presence of any instability in the balance of power or serious discrepancy in the rights and obligations of the countries of the region. Furthermore, we are closely watching the huge Israeli arsenal, which includes weapons of mass destruction, missiles and anti-missile weapons. We wonder about the rationale behind it. We believe that it has, indeed, led to a reaction by a number of countries in the region to this serious escalation, at a time when we are all talking of peace. Given this fact — or, rather, to avoid its consequences — Egypt proposes the initiation of effective negotiations to establish a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. President Hosni Mubarak has been making such a proposal since April 1990. Egypt calls upon the permanent members of the Security Council and the depositary States of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which sponsored and adopted the resolution on the Middle East during the Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to take specific steps to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East in accordance with the Egyptian initiative, which has enjoyed the consensus of all the States concerned since 1980. While Egypt stresses the fact that arms control and regional security constitute one of the pillars of peace and stability in the Middle East, it also believes that economic and regional cooperation under a just peace constitutes another such pillar. Regional cooperation is inseparable from the establishment of peace: peace is its essence and 19 its framework. Two sessions of the Middle East-North Africa Economic Summit have been held, in Casablanca and in Amman, the capital of Jordan. Both were held in an atmosphere of optimism that the peace process would succeed. Indeed, there have been some successes, such as the signing of the interim agreement between Israel and Palestine, and the holding of direct negotiations between Syria and Israel. They took place against the background of a receding settlement policy and continuous discussion about peace and its objectives. However, today we see the exact opposite. This state of affairs threatens peace, its framework and all that is associated with it, including regional cooperation, which can prosper only in an atmosphere of peace and hope for the future. We therefore call upon Israel to return to the fundamental framework of peace in accordance with the agreements concluded, the terms of reference established and the principles approved. While Egypt is in favour of holding the third Economic Summit as scheduled — like others, we have a great deal to contribute in the fields of economic reform, investment and development — we call upon the sponsors of the peace process, especially the United States, to strive to create the conditions that could lead to the successful convening of the Summit. That can be achieved only by making serious endeavours on all peace tracks, in terms of both negotiation and implementation. We are making this declaration before the entire international community, so that every party will discharge its responsibilities and honour its commitments. If they do not, the balance will be disturbed and the issue will become meaningless. Peace in the Middle East is contingent upon justice, balance and honesty in negotiating and addressing the needs of peoples. From this stems the open Egyptian diplomacy that regards the current situation as a matter of utmost seriousness. We once again reiterate that Egypt rejects any measure that results in an unbalanced peace that satisfies the interests of one party at the expense of another. The peace that we aspire to is a balanced Arab-Israeli peace that reciprocates right for right, security for security, and commitment for commitment. A just and comprehensive peace is the cornerstone of stability in the Middle East. Despite the unpropitious attitude of the new Israeli Government to the peace process, right alone will eventually prevail. Peace will impose itself, propelled by the desire of the peoples of the region, including the people of Israel, to live in genuine peace, cooperation and stability. Egypt, whose people contributed to laying the foundations of human civilization, has for centuries accepted and continues to accept the imperatives of geography and history, which give Egypt special responsibilities for the affairs of our region and beyond. Egypt takes the initiative for peace, seeks prosperity, prompts enlightenment and is steadfastly involved in advancing the march of progress. Egypt therefore empathizes with the agony of the region and the repercussions of developments there. While peace in the Middle East is at a crucial stage, the Gulf region, which is part of the Middle East, is also undergoing a number of unfavourable developments. The stability of the Gulf region is, for more than one reason, linked to the ultimate interests of Egypt and its security. In particular, it is an area endowed with a potential and with characteristics that make its stability and security a matter of significance to all Powers concerned with international peace and security. The result of our review of the succession of events in this area leads us to several conclusions. First, strict compliance with Security Council resolutions on Iraq, without fail or divergences, is the only way to guarantee the end of the crisis that erupted in August 1990. Secondly, the use of force cannot restore rights or rectify wrongs. Thus, the rights of the Iraqi people, the maintenance of its unity and respect for the rights and well-being of Iraqis, whether Arabs or Kurds, will remain the major concern of all of us. We are equally concerned with safeguarding the rights of the people of Kuwait and the return of detainees and property. Thirdly, the memorandum of understanding on the oil-for-food resolution, which was reached after arduous negotiations, must be put into effect without any further delay to alleviate the suffering of our brothers, the Iraqi people. Fourthly, compromising territorial integrity and the unity of Iraq is not only a breach of international law but will open the door to major repercussions undermining regional stability and threatening the interests of neighbouring countries. Fifthly, the withdrawal of Iran from the three islands of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Musa, Tunb as Sughra and Tunb al Kubra — is a sine qua non condition for defusing another hotbed of tension. The Arab call to Iran to settle amicably any territorial claims to those islands is still valid. 20 Sixthly, the policy of intervention and the attempts to manipulate ethnic and religious minorities to destabilize other neighbouring countries cannot help to establish stability in the Gulf region or the wider region of the Middle East, or help ensure the interests of any of the parties concerned, in addition to its being a flagrant violation of the rules of international conduct. Before leaving the issue of the Middle East, I would like to refer to the dispute between Libya and some Western countries, a dispute to which we attach particular importance because of its repercussions for the region as well as the damage and suffering it inflicts on our brothers, the people of Libya, on the economies of the neighbouring countries and on the stability of the region in general. In view of our keen interest in averting an escalation of the problem and in expediting the attainment of an early settlement, we support the efforts and initiatives made by the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Non-Aligned Movement, and call for a positive response to those efforts and initiatives. Moving from the Middle East to Africa, we find stories of success and of failure — pictures both bleak and bright. While our sister country Rwanda has restored its stability and launched its reconstruction and development, its neighbour, our sister Burundi, is an example of the real turmoil which is affecting the entire Great Lakes region. Last year we expressed our extreme dismay at the situation in this important region; today we reiterate this, and stress the need for the Security Council to discharge its responsibilities to avert the recurrence of Rwanda’s tragedy in Burundi. There is, however, a positive element that we hope will not be lost in the disappointment over the deteriorating situation in Africa: the efforts of the OAU, which have started to take shape within an institutional framework that we hope will be successful. This was embodied in the establishment of the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution, which will play a role in resolving the problems of the continent. The countries and the leaders of the Great Lakes region, particularly former President Nyerere, have played a laudable collective role in reconciliation, dealing with the question of refugees and the rampant ethnic rivalries in the region. Serious efforts were also made by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to settle the Liberian problem, particularly by Nigeria, which has made continuing efforts during its current chairmanship of that subregional group. We commend the efforts made by Ghana during its chairmanship of ECOWAS over the past two years. We call on the international community, and the United Nations in particular, to support all of these efforts and to provide the necessary means for their success. This applies also to the numerous efforts made to achieve national reconciliation in Somalia, the implementation of the Lusaka Protocol in Angola and the settlement plan in Western Sahara. We hope that the parties concerned will benefit from these historic opportunities, so that stability will prevail in Africa and so that international support for these efforts will continue, particularly in terms of post-conflict rehabilitation and socio-economic reconstruction. In this context, I should like to draw attention to the gravity of the continued deterioration of the socio- economic situation in the African continent, which includes two-thirds of the world’s least-developed countries; one-third of its population is facing starvation. Despite this fact, the countries of the continent are tenaciously striving towards economic reform, structural adjustment, strengthening regional cooperation among themselves and dealing with the social situation in the continent in accordance with the Declaration issued in Cairo in March 1995. These efforts are still faltering as a result of diminishing international support and a lack of necessary financial resources. Thus we support the United Nations System-Wide Special Initiative for Africa presented last March by the Secretary-General based upon comprehensive mobilization of resources and full participation of international institutions. Hence, we call upon donor countries and upon the international community to take the necessary measures to deal with the critical economic situation in Africa, particularly the external debt problem, by providing the necessary resources and creating an environment that will enable the continent to join the march of development and to be able to address its socio-economic problems, which represent one of the root causes of political tension and instability there. The critical economic situation in Africa leads us to voice some of the concerns of Egypt and the developing countries vis-à-vis the world’s economy. Suffice it here to make a reference to the importance of the faithful implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements and the necessity to address the negative impact on the net food importing countries. We look forward to the success of the first ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO), to be held in Singapore. We would 21 like to highlight the importance of focusing on the implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements without attempting to raise new issues such as those pertaining to investment and the linkage between international trade, on the one hand, and labour and environment, on the other. Any proposed additional issues should be subject to in- depth study. We reiterate the leading and important role of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in this regard prior to bringing such issues to the WTO for consideration. Turning to Bosnia, there is hope of implementing the Dayton agreement to put an end to the appalling tragedy caused by “ethnic cleansing” and racist narrow-mindedness. The agreement will be implemented under international protection, represented by the Implementation Force (IFOR), to which Egypt and numerous other countries contribute. Despite all the circumstances associated with the election process, its results are still a source of optimism in the possible victory of the forces of moderation so that Bosnia can become a multi-ethnic State where Serbs, Muslims and Croats live together in peace. Egypt welcomes the election of President Izetbejovic as President of the tripartite Presidential Council. In this respect we would like to stress a number of points which we think can guarantee the stability of the situation and ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Dayton agreement. First, it is important to consolidate the territorial integrity of Bosnia, to reject vehemently and strictly any attempts at partition and to respect the democratic process and the results of elections. Secondly, it is necessary to assist the State of Bosnia in completing the necessary components of building its national army and to provide it with the equipment it needs to deter any external threat or face a new collapse of the internal situation after IFOR withdraws. Thirdly, it is necessary to provide the economic support Bosnia needs to rebuild and rehabilitate the country, since this will represent support for the foundations of coexistence and peace among its three ethnic groups. Fourthly, it is essential to punish the war criminals. Otherwise, talking about human rights in the world will be futile and will be considered as an entrenchment of double standards. The phenomenon of terrorism has become exacerbated and now knows no boundaries. We must all implement the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, which was adopted at the forty-ninth session. Terrorists must find no refuge in any civilized country. We must all cooperate in uprooting all sources of terrorism. We must construct a well-defined legal system that ensures the pursuit of those who are responsible for terrorism, and their prosecution and extradition to stand trial for the crimes they have perpetrated, crimes that terrorize peaceful people and threaten international stability. We must define clear criteria and rules that guarantee that the right of political asylum will not be extended to the undeserving, so that that right will not become a licence encouraging terrorists and protecting them from prosecution and punishment. Terrorism is an international phenomenon that is not linked to a particular geographic region or to a particular civilization, culture or religion. We have witnessed the evidence, ranging from the Far East to the Middle East, to Europe, and to America. Terrorism has even come close to this very building. The entire international community must harness the necessary resources to confront this vicious aggressive phenomenon, to eradicate its sources and to isolate whoever provides it with assistance and encouragement. In this respect, I call on the United Nations and the civilized peoples of the world to respond swiftly to the call of President Hosni Mubarak to hold an international conference to deal with the criminal phenomenon of terrorism and, as a contribution to peace and stability in the world at large — to mobilize joint international efforts to combat it. I began my statement with our perception of the role of this Organization. I conclude it by paying tribute and expressing my appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose expertise and insight have contributed, during his current tenure, to the identification of problems and challenges facing the international community and this Organization. He has drawn up the agenda on items under consideration as well as approaches for dealing with them. The implementation of this agenda is contingent upon the will and the interest of the Member States. As it reiterates its confidence in the Secretary- General, a confidence shared by members of two of the most prominent regional organizations — the Arab League and the Organization of African Unity — Egypt attaches high priority to seeing him preside over the United Nations Secretariat for a second term, during which he will have the chance to lead the Secretariat and to take part in implementing the programmes he devised, the reform process he designed and the solutions he initiated to the problems facing the Organization, problems that surface in an international arena witnessing the birth of a new order whose features are not yet defined, problems that occur as the United Nations passes 22 through a historic juncture, on the threshold of a new century and a new millennium.