Lebanon

 At the outset, allow me to congratulate Ambassador Razali on his election as President of this session of the General Assembly and to wish him success in his noble task of enhancing and strengthening the role of the United Nations. I would also like to express our thanks and appreciation to the former President of the General Assembly, Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral, for his efforts during his presidency. Half a century has elapsed since the birth of the United Nations. Mankind wanted the United Nations to be a bastion of justice, peace and human rights. It is meant to be an authority where problems are solved and truth upheld, where mankind can find an organization to defend its rights when they are usurped and stand by its side when it is threatened. In founding the United Nations, mankind wanted to put an end to wars and usher in an era of peace, of respect for the principle of State sovereignty and of safeguarding peoples’ independence and their right to self- determination and to the fulfilment of their aspirations. With the telecommunications revolution and the fall of political, economic, demographic, cultural and security boundaries and barriers, States and their peoples need an effective machinery for consultation and constructive dialogue. The scientific and technological revolution has increased our need for a greater synergy to face the complex problems of our time and to bridge the gap between the countries and nations of the world so as to enable them to implement jointly subregional and interregional projects that none can do alone. The world population explosion and the concomitant ecological degradation have made the environment incapable of meeting rising demand. Competition for natural resources and for the protection of vital interests have risen sharply. The increased number and growing sophistication of lethal nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons of mass destruction and the further development of their intercontinental delivery systems heightens the threat of annihilation for many countries and peoples, especially when some of the countries which possess them lack even minimal credibility. Some societies are overwhelmed by the degree of sophistication of the media, by its role and by the speed with which political, economic, social, cultural and scientific news flows through it. These societies may not be ready to assimilate and absorb this flow of information, so they react by isolating themselves, by withdrawing into seclusion, or by hiding behind the veil of tradition to protect their identity. This manifests itself in the extremism and fundamentalism these societies use to shield themselves from what is often perceived as a threat to their identity. These and other problems and challenges require invigorating the United Nations machinery and renewing confidence in its credibility, justice and efficiency, to free its decisions from hegemony, eliminate its imbalances and bring consistency to the standards it uses for the implementation of its resolutions. We must do this if we want the United Nations to remain a valuable global authority and the alternative to destructive and violent confrontation. The world has witnessed a succession of local and regional crises. Lebanon, which has suffered immensely, plagued by the wars of others on its soil, follows with concern the developments in different parts of the world. The crisis over the sovereignty of the United Arab Emirates on the Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa islands has not yet been settled. We hope referring the case to the International Court of Justice will result in a settlement reaffirming the United Arab Emirates claim of sovereignty. We also support arbitration of the case of the Greater and Lesser Hanish islands between Yemen and Eritrea; both parties have agreed to such arbitration. Support for the unity, security and stability of Liberia and Angola remains a primary objective to put an end to the suffering of their peoples. Lebanon likewise supports the Republic of Cyprus in its efforts to build unity and sovereignty over all its territory to put an end to the suffering of its people and to the effects of the problem on the Government of Cyprus with respect to the reunification of the island. Lebanon has been following with grave concern the recent deterioration of the situation in Iraq and the suffering of the Iraqi people, who still lack food and other basic needs. We do not believe that the recent events 16 represent the best way to address the Iraqi problem. We call rather for the implementation of Security Council resolution 986 (1995), and for a commitment to the unity and sovereignty of Iraq, which would guarantee the inviolability of the geopolitical map of the Middle East. If a breach were to be opened in Iraq, the consequences would definitely extend to other extremely sensitive regions, which would further complicate the situation. Our support of the sovereignty of the State of Kuwait over all its territory prompts us to appeal for a permanent guarantee of its sovereignty and security so that we can turn the page on this bitter chapter of history once and for all. The credibility enjoyed by international law is based on its ability to find just and complete solutions to important questions. This is the mission of the United Nations and it therefore should be spared from having to intervene in less important crises. The credibility of the United Nations is still called into question and this, in turn, undermines the role of the Organization in the field of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has been extended despite the reservations expressed by some States, including Lebanon, on the circumstances of its extension, including Israel’s refusal to become a party to it. Israel is allowed to maintain a formidable nuclear arsenal in one of the most sensitive and volatile regions of the world without any safeguards or controls; this poses a threat to all the peoples of the region. The cessation of nuclear testing has been presented as an alternative to the NPT. Despite the many promises made prior to the extension of the NPT that Israel would ultimately accede to it, this has yet to happen. Using double standards in dealing with States can only create imbalances, which in turn increases the number of exceptions to the rule. The effectiveness of the Organization depends on the equal treatment of all States, and the United Nations remains the means to implement such policies. In this context, Lebanon enthusiastically supports enhancing the functioning and management of the Organization in all areas, particularly with regard to the scope of representation of the world’s peoples and the countries in the Security Council. Recent changes and new requirements demand more realistic geographic and numerical representation in that body. We need to eliminate the perception of hegemony that some have developed about the role and decision-making power of the Council, which they seem to believe has been seized by certain major Powers. Lebanon believes that all proposals in this regard must be carefully studied, particularly those that are compatible with the approach I have outlined and that enjoy broad support among States. I am thinking in particular of the proposals of the non-aligned countries and of Italy. In recent years, and despite the many difficult circumstances that have accompanied his years in office, the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, has made commendable efforts to further global peace, security and stability. He has worked to solve problems of social and economic development as well as those of health in many parts of the world. Furthermore, he has undertaken numerous reforms within the Organization. His term has been distinguished by dynamism towards the achievement of the Organization’s primary goals. Despite the obstacles, his accomplishments are many and the world bears witness to them. This continued course, as seen in a renewed mandate, would be a basic guarantee of the stability of United Nations policies. Lebanon believes that the renewal of the Secretary-General’s mandate would make it possible to complete many projects and measures undertaken during his first term. We therefore call upon States to support his bid for a renewed, strengthened mandate. We would have very much liked our participation in this session, several years following the Madrid conference, to be an occasion for gratitude for the restoration of peace in the Middle East. We had hoped to express our gratitude to the countries, peoples and organizations which have tried to bring about this peace. Five years have passed since the Madrid peace conference, not counting the preparatory year. At the time, we welcomed the initiative and believed in the sponsorship and the subject matter of the conference. The sponsors were two influential Powers, and the substance was geared towards the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace on the basis of the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), and with regard to Lebanon, Security Council resolution 425 (1978), as well as the principle of land for peace. We accepted the invitation and thought that the others who accepted it had also agreed to its substance, and that the only pending issues would be implementation, scheduling and mechanisms. But years have passed, and instead of moving forward towards implementation, Israel has reneged on its commitments and has tried to move away from what was already done. As soon as the new Israeli Government was in power, it adopted its manifesto: “The four No’s” — no to the withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan; no to 17 the withdrawal from the occupied West Bank; no to the settlement of the question of Jerusalem; and no to recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people in a State of their own. To the contrary, the principle of land for peace has been replaced by the principle of peace for security, meaning refraining from waging a new war. Instead of fulfilling commitments, formulas must be changed. Instead of Madrid, there is the unknown. Instead of putting an end to settlements, settlements are being expanded. A tunnel is now being built under the Al-Aqsa Mosque, in a clear act of provocation to the people’s sensitivities. We were asked to shake hands, to offer recognition and to normalize relations without knowing what will happen to our rights. We, the victims of aggression, are asked to give security guarantees to the aggressor. Those who do not possess weapons are asked to give assurances to those who have one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world and who could not be convinced to accede to the NPT when other countries have been forced to accept its indefinite extension. Since the new Israeli Government came to power, it has backed away from the peace process, although occasional misleading steps are made. The new Government of Israel has resorted to a meaningless media campaign to disguise its rejection of peace. We first heard the “Lebanon first” slogan, but this too was void of any meaning except as an attempt at isolation and to serve the purposes of the media campaign. We then heard of the meeting between the Palestinian and Israeli presidents. Once again, the occasion was exploited, but meaning remained absent. It has become clear that the objective of the Israeli Government was to numb world public opinion and undo what was agreed upon at the peace conference and the ensuing negotiations. It is perfectly clear that Israel does not have a policy for peace. It only has a policy of changing formulas, a policy of threats and challenges, a policy that Israel can use to further its expansionist and settlement schemes. Just as the world was on the verge of believing that peace had become possible in the Middle East region, here we are facing the unknown, facing the worst. Some States in the region wanted to precipitate the earlier optimism by moving to normalize relations. Now they bear the burden of Israeli logic. Now the peoples of the region have been thrust back into an era of inevitable confrontation, violence, and resistance. No sooner had the development plans of the Middle East region been put into place and the world was showing interest in a future of peace than mistrust and pessimism returned to prevail. No sooner had the historic opportunity for the realization of a great dream begun to crystallize than this opportunity started to fade, leaving the peoples of the region with only one alternative — to confront occupation, arbitrary rule and obstinacy — since all international peace efforts are failing. Today’s violence in Palestine and in southern Lebanon is a direct result of the negative positions of the Israeli Government. It presages dire consequences should the peace process collapse. Since the Madrid Conference, the United States has tried, through two successive presidencies, to push the peace process forward towards settlement. In order to do so, the United States requested that the peace process be taken out of the context of the United Nations and the Security Council and be confined to the mechanisms defined at Madrid. The United States sought to reassure Israel by all military, material and economic means available, even to the detriment of the Arabs, with the idea of reviving the confidence of the Israelis. Then the United States imposed concepts to increase guarantees given to Israel to consolidate the peace process, which were provisionally accepted, despite the fact that they were unsound. Today, these efforts are threatened by the party that benefited from them in the first place. Today, the President of the United States will try to bring together the parties concerned, pursuing his responsibility to salvage the peace. Israel will continue to manoeuvre, and will exploit the occasion provided by United States presidential elections to undermine the steps that were already in place. They will foil the efforts of the United States, which we supported even though these called for a continued and somewhat iniquitous tolerance of Israel, despite the fact that Israel’s excesses had always been covered by assurances for the sake of peace. We must return to the foundations of peace as announced at Madrid, resume the negotiations from where they were interrupted and realize that the opportunity for peace which had started to crystallize still presents a historic opportunity. It must be recognized that what was achieved at Madrid is the only foundation acceptable to the people of the region. If peace is ever to be salvaged in the Middle East, this is the only way to achieve it. Lebanon has for many years suffered the aftermath and consequences of the Middle East crisis and has paid 18 a heavy toll. Today, through domestic political measures, security, development and economic achievements, Lebanon is once again proving that it can confront difficulties and face challenges. Lebanon is showing that its national unity, the restoration of full sovereignty over its territory and respect for its independence are inevitably more solidly inherent in its existence than some might believe. In the future, if peace is safeguarded, Lebanon will prove that its history is larger than its geographical borders and that its role by far exceeds its size. When Lebanon regains its sovereignty over all of its territories now under Israeli occupation, when the United Nations has restored its credibility by implementing Security Council resolution 425 (1978) on an equal footing with resolutions relating to other parts of the world, when Lebanese citizens are released from Israeli detention camps where they are imprisoned with only minimal human rights, then and only then will the bleeding stop and the wound heal. The Middle East is tired of being an active volcano threatening world peace. We have for too long been robbed of peace to the detriment of the entire world. Opportunities will not forever remain for those seeking peace. The peace which we sought and for which we have long appealed is threatened today. The failure of our endeavours to achieve peace will close the door to any new attempt in the foreseeable future. If reviving peace is a difficult job, the ramifications of failure will be even more difficult for the whole world. The days when problems were confined to national boundaries are well over, and so are the days when boundaries were walls keeping crises contained. We hope that peace is still possible. But it must be a just peace, not a despoiling one; a real peace, not a theatrical one; an equitable peace not an iniquitous one. It must be a peace that calms rather than one that fans the anger of peoples. May God forever guide the steps of those who seek and work for peace, and inspire those who still oppose it.