Egypt

Allow me at the outset to convey my sincere congratulations to Mr. Opertti upon his election as President of the General Assembly at this session and to express my full confidence that he will lead its work wisely and ably. It gives me pleasure as well to pay tribute to the wise leadership of the former Foreign Minister of Ukraine, President of the Assembly at its last session, particularly in promoting the efforts for reform and renewal in the United Nations. 14 I would like also to salute the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, who displayed his wisdom and expertise in dealing with world crises and for his outstanding contribution to increasing the efficiency of the Organization in order for it to keep pace with the changing times, contribute to the building of the new international order and avoid the pitfalls. This is the next-to-last session of the General Assembly in this century. Let it be a session for reflection and preparation for the last session of the twentieth century, next year. Let us take stock of the international work of a whole century, its positive and negative aspects alike. Let us evaluate the achievements and innovations of mankind, where it failed and why. Let us list and analyse the work done and the progress made by the United Nations to create constructive international cooperation and establish peace. Let us also talk about what remains on the international agenda and what will be left for succeeding generations to finish and accomplish. In the Charter of the United Nations, we determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Have we done so? Where did we succeed, where did we fail, and why? We also reaffirmed our faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity of nations and human beings. How far have we gone in translating this solemn reaffirmation into a reality? We committed ourselves to promoting social progress and better standards of life, and to using the United Nations for the promotion of the social and economic advancement of all peoples. Have we honoured that commitment? We determined to practise tolerance and live together in peace and neighbourliness. Have we achieved that? We determined to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security and not to use armed force except for common interest. Has this determination come true? Have we achieved what we determined to do? Immediately after the end of the cold war in the late 1980s, some spoke of “the clash of civilizations”. This is a dangerous theory that concerns humanity and the course it will chart for itself — whether conflict and conflagration or coexistence and peace. We, the representatives of the international community, cannot, at this historical juncture, ignore such a dangerous argument and a destructive theory that runs counter to the common work and collective obligations we agreed upon for international life. We, the children of the twentieth century, must deal with this theory and respond to it clearly. We cannot let such a negative call go without a response or correction. What President Clinton said in his address before the Assembly, rejecting this theory and expressing respect for Islamic civilization, is really worthy of consideration and appreciation. In our opinion, we must offer the next century our confident view that we are one community based on pluralism — intellectual, religious and cultural pluralism and diversity. We must reaffirm that this diversity does not prejudice the unity of the international community. Rather, it strengthens that unity, making the international community a dynamic whole based on healthy competition, positive coexistence and a common appreciation for the achievements of the many societies that constitute the international community. Our community cannot be dependent on the achievements of one single society or tend to follow one single culture. The true path lies in positive interaction, complementarity and coexistence among civilizations. It does not lie in the creation of causes for conflict or in fanning the flames of confrontation and of clash between civilizations. If this is allowed to happen, it will create a dangerous hotbed of world tension and will ultimately result in a grave loss for one and all. Once again we are at a historic juncture where a strong message from this generation is indeed necessary. We want to see the rights of people and nations upheld without differences as to priorities and definitions. We want rational disarmament and an end to the arms race without distinction or discrimination. We want genuine development that does not entrench poverty or ignore its causes. We want a clean environment, a science that benefits all and a technology whose achievements and applications are beneficial to all. We want a common position in the face of international terrorism. We want freedom and liberation for all peoples and a firm stand in the face of the forces of oppression, racism and occupation. We want a commitment to the rule of law and respect for established norms and for the purposes and principles we consensually consecrated in the Charter of the United Nations. In order to evaluate the experiences of the past and to chart our future course, I propose that this session create a committee to commence drafting a clear statement to history to be issued at the close of the next session. This statement should include our assessment of the past and our vision of the future. It should be issued a few days before the end of the century and the beginning of the new millennium. The world today is passing through a stage of chaos, and there is a general feeling of discontent. Wars, 15 terrorism, backwardness, racism, religious intolerance: are these the remnants of past eras? Or are they the result of practices that continue to plague our societies? Or are they an integral part of the fabric of human life? Or are they the result of globalization and the factors of tension and instability contained in the new world order? I believe we all sense the instability in international life. We have witnessed and continue to witness widespread acts of terrorism throughout all continents of the world. We have witnessed widespread extremism in various faiths and widespread injustice in various societies. All this points to the fact that richness and poverty, despite their undisputed importance as two of the facts of life, do not constitute the only causes of world instability. There are other causes, foremost among which is the policy of double standards, the lack of democracy in international relations, the brazen call for a clash of civilizations and the varying interpretations of the principles of legality. All these elements lead to the feeling of discontent, indeed, to the general feeling of insecurity. I believe it is incumbent upon us to consider this matter. These questions call for a clear answer because the challenge is enormous, and the results could therefore be grave. We are all in the same boat. This responsibility is not the responsibility of any one society. If globalization and universality are much talked about, this should mean that they call for a sharing of responsibility. I would like to deal briefly with some of the central issues that occupy our minds at this stage. I shall start with terrorism. Some note, and rightly so, that this international crime against all societies is perpetrated using tight organizations, facilitated sometimes by circumstances in which some have misguidedly supported certain groups by encouraging and dealing with them until those groups turned against them. This is a lesson we must learn in order to avoid its repetition. Furthermore, some have noted, and rightly so, that the hand of terrorism has struck more than one place at the same time: Nairobi, Dar-es-Salaam and Omagh in Ireland. Before then, that hand of terrorism struck many places in the world, for different motives, certainly. But the phenomenon is one and the same, and it is intolerable. We must reflect upon this matter together. In this regard, I would like to underline the importance of the legislation enacted by the British House of Commons on dealing with the acts of conspiracy committed on British territory, of the proposal of President Jacques Chirac of France on controlling the financing of terrorist groups, and of what was said by President Clinton in his statement before the Assembly in this regard. I find it important also in this connection to put before the Assembly the call of President Hosni Mubarak to convene an international summit under the auspices of the United Nations. The summit should direct the international community to deal with terrorism legally, politically, economically and technologically. This call was supported in the final communiqué of the recent summit of the Non- Aligned Movement. I suggest that the General Assembly consider the Egyptian call for the proposed summit. I also call upon the Secretary-General to start working towards its convening. Turning to disarmament, allow me to say that recent developments have proved the shortcomings of the nuclear non-proliferation regime in its current form, which lacks universality. This reaffirms the need for urgent and serious steps to remedy that shortcoming, and to strengthen the efficiency of the regime through achieving its universality and avoiding the policy of double standards; otherwise, we will end up with a state of deep mistrust and an arms race that would in turn lead to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. For the last three decades, Egypt has consistently called for making the Middle East free from nuclear weapons. This call was further reinforced by its 1990 initiative to make the region free from weapons of mass destruction. Today, we reiterate this call with a view to maintaining peace and security in the region. Starting from this same premise, Egypt, together with seven other States, recently proposed a new agenda to strengthen the international commitment towards a world free of weapons of mass destruction, an initiative we invite the Assembly to support. In this connection, allow me to place on record the call of President Hosni Mubarak to convene an international conference to consider the elimination of those weapons from the whole world within an agreed time-frame. I invite members of the Assembly to work together in order to translate that call into a reality. I now move to the question of the reform of the United Nations. Here, the premise of the Egyptian policy is the same as that adopted by the summit of the Non- Aligned Movement in Durban: we call for commitment to the principles of the Charter and international law as a common position on the agenda for reform. 16 Here, I would like to pay tribute to the Secretary- General for his ideas and initiatives in this regard. I would also like to reaffirm what the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement adopted concerning the importance of taking into account the views of the Member States of the United Nations in the implementation of the reform policies and the reaffirmation of the pivotal role of the General Assembly in the decision-making process, as the main democratic framework of the United Nations. Concerning the Security Council, the position of Egypt is based on the same elements adopted by the non-aligned States as follows: first, the need to deal with the questions of the reform of the working methods of the Security Council and the expansion of its membership within an integrated framework; secondly, increasing the membership of the Security Council by no fewer than 11 members and the allocation of a number of permanent seats for developing countries, with strict observance of the principles of equitable geographical distribution and equality of States; thirdly, the unacceptability of any attempt at a partial or selective expansion of the membership of the Security Council; fourthly, the inadmissibility of any predetermined time-frame to complete the process of restructuring the Security Council; and lastly, the need for any resolution that would result in amending the Charter, the so-called framework resolution, to be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the States Members of the United Nations, in accordance with Article 108 of the Charter. In addition, Egypt is committed to the decision of the summit of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in Harare in 1997 on the allocation of five non-permanent seats and two permanent seats for the African continent, to be rotated in accordance with agreed criteria of the Group of African States. On the subject of the reform of the United Nations, I would like to refer to a matter that was the subject of extensive deliberations in the United Nations and in the recent summit of the Non-Aligned Movement — namely, the sanctions imposed by the Security Council. As the ultimate objective of such sanctions is to influence certain political regimes to bring them into compliance with the rules of international legality, it is therefore necessary that all means under Chapter VI of the Charter be exhausted before resorting to Chapter VII and its applications. The clarity of the objective of imposing sanctions and a thorough consideration of their consequences in the short and long terms, including human suffering, are of paramount importance. An excessive imposition of sanctions, or their perpetuation without acceptable reason or a clear time- frame, will erode their credibility and the commitments made to applying them. Therefore, there is a need for patience, prudence and a determination of the time-frame of sanctions. I now turn to the Middle East, which is suffering from numerous problems, some chronic and others fairly recent, which we hope will not also become chronic ones. I am referring here to the situation of Iraq, which must reach its natural conclusion: the lifting of the sanctions through implementation of the Security Council?s resolutions and in accordance with their provisions. This requires goodwill, proper conduct and the establishment of constructive and stable cooperation between Iraq and the mechanisms of the Security Council. This is a shared responsibility, not the responsibility of one party alone. Needless to say, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is an integral part of their elimination in the region as a whole, as was indeed reflected in Security Council resolution 687 (1991). I would also like to refer to the Lockerbie issue and express our satisfaction at the recent positive development of the situation by the consent of the parties to that yet- to-be settled dispute. This represents significant progress towards the trial of the two suspects and establishing the truth. We all hope that progress will be made, in good faith, as soon as possible within the framework of the contacts made by the Secretary-General and that an agreement will be reached on the required procedures and guarantees. Thus, the whole matter will be put behind us, the sanctions imposed on Libya will be lifted and a long overdue end to a period of tension will come to pass. At another level, we believe that the region must avoid anything that could add to its tensions: declarations of strategic alliances that create discord and lead to counter-alliances; sneaking into the nuclear club, which will lead to an arms race in the region, unless Israel, like all other States of the region, accedes to the Non- Proliferation Treaty; the lack of a solution to the problems and disputes of sovereignty, foremost among which is the question of the three islands of the United Arab Emirates in the Gulf; and attempts at partitioning and jeopardizing the unity and territorial integrity of States, as is the case with Iraq and Sudan. As for the peace process, which is about to collapse, the situation is indeed grave, not only because of the deadlock it has reached, but also because the roots of the 17 problem go much deeper than that. The deadlock is related to the negative change in the policy of Israel, which believes that the current international situation enables it to impose its exaggerated demands on the Arab parties and to impose an Israeli peace on the Middle East. This is probably due to the belief which it has evolved, namely that no person, no Government and no State would be able to stand in its way, pressure it or refuse its demands. We reject this policy, which uses security considerations to justify occupation, thus stripping security requirements, which could be legitimate, of any meaning. Such requirements could have been negotiated and reasonable ones accepted on a reciprocal basis. Yet the validity, true weight and credibility of those Israeli security requirements have become dubious. Egypt, the first Arab State to establish peace with Israel and the largest one with a role in the Middle East and the Arab and Islamic worlds, cannot accept such negative policies, which will drive the region once more towards the flames of tension, conflict and instability. We have made peace with Israel. The Arab States have moved towards the same objective on the basis of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which is based on the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and on Israel?s right to live in peace within its borders — which are, of course, the borders and the lines of June 1967 — as well as on the basis of the Madrid framework, namely, the principle of land for peace. With respect to the Palestinians, the Oslo accord provides for significant Israeli withdrawals before the final status negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian sides can begin. At their summit meeting in Cairo in 1996, Arab leaders at the highest level expressed the commitment of Arab States to the peace process, since Arab-Israeli peace is a strategic objective to be achieved under international legality. But it requires a corresponding commitment from Israel to follow the road to peace in a manner that restores the rights and the occupied territories of the Palestinians and ensures balanced and equal security to all the States of the region, in accordance with the principle of land for peace. The Arab summit decided that any disruption by Israel of these principles and bases of the peace process; that any reneging on the commitments it has made and agreements reached on the same path; and that any procrastination in their implementation will only set back the peace process. The attendant dangers and repercussions of such actions would relaunch the region into the spiral of tension and compel the Arab States to reconsider the steps they have taken towards Israel within the framework of the peace process. The Israeli Government alone would bear the full responsibility for such a development. Regrettably, it has become evident that the Israeli Government is reneging on the commitments it has undertaken in the context of the Security Council?s resolutions, the Madrid framework and the Oslo accord. This attitude logically compels us to take a forthright and determined opposition to Israel?s negative position, which runs counter to the objective requirements for peace. If we do not, the effective international action necessary to deal with this grave situation will not be forthcoming. We wonder what the Israeli Government really wants. The Arabs have given it acceptance, coexistence, peace and recognition. But it would seem that what the Israeli Government really wants is all of the above, plus most of the land and the privilege to disregard the rights of the Palestinians. This is simply unacceptable. Peoples have their dignity and the rights to their own land and to self-determination. No generation is entitled to cede such rights. They are the rights of all generations — past, present and future — throughout history. We reiterate that Israel must reconsider its position and its policy. The international situation is ever changing. What may be imposed today without justice or balance will disintegrate tomorrow. We want a stable, enduring agreement. This can be achieved only once we agree on a comprehensive package that includes Israel?s complete withdrawal from the territories of Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza in Palestine; the establishment of a Palestinian State; an agreement on the final status of Jerusalem and the fate of the Palestinian refugees; an agreement on security requirements, without undue exaggeration; the recognition of Israel as a State; and coexistence with it as a member of the family of the Middle East, within the framework of normal relations. I repeat that all this must constitute a package deal that cannot be divided to serve the interests of one party at the expense of the others. Does the Israeli Government recognize the importance of justice and legitimacy? Does it realize the grave and present danger of spurning this opportunity to achieve peace? Letting this historic opportunity slip away and entering the next century with the file of the Arab- Israeli conflict still open will lead to tension and instability not only in the Middle East, but in the 18 international community as a whole. Historical experience has proven that tension knows no boundaries, that instability cannot be confined to one specific region and that international peace and security are indivisible. The international community must therefore raise its voice against the setback of the peace process and play its role in salvaging it. We are not calling for an international trial. Rather, we ask the international community to play its role in safeguarding the bases of peace agreed upon unanimously in the Security Council and at the Madrid Conference, and in the consideration of the measures necessary to restore the process to its correct track and to avert the eruption of further crises in the future. It was in this spirit that Presidents Hosni Mubarak and Jacques Chirac announced their initiative to convene a conference of States determined to save the peace. We must emphasize that this Franco-Egyptian initiative does not aim at replacing or hampering any current positive efforts. It aims, rather, at reinforcing these efforts and ensuring their success, particularly those of the United States, which we support as long as they seek balanced agreements. Egypt accords equal attention to issues of the African continent. Today, we are faced with two urgent and serious matters. The first pertains to the Horn of Africa, namely, the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. We strongly support the mediation efforts, led by the Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, to arrive at a peaceful solution and the continued cessation of military hostilities. In this way will normalcy be restored and peace established. The second question is the situation in and around the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Here, the efforts made by the leaders of Africa and the United Nations Secretary- General continue to be important. Such efforts preserve the unity and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and establish positive relations between it and its neighbours in the larger context of a cessation of military operations and of interference in its internal affairs. They also require the maintenance of its national unity within rational democracy. The situation in Africa is being dangerously aggravated by these problems and by the continent?s grave socio-economic situation. This requires special attention, which we call on the international community and the United Nations to give. In conclusion, I must refer to the phenomenon of globalization. We must face its challenges and address its negative aspects, while maximizing its benefits. A number of developing countries have successfully dealt with globalization and achieved their necessary integration into the world economy. At the same time, many developed countries have adopted covert protectionist measures and new conditionalities, such as environmental and labour standards, and continue to maintain tariff barriers against the primary exports of the developing countries. These measures run counter to the equitable bases of the world trading system. This is an important issue which we must address in the context of evaluating past achievements and challenges, and of shaping a new international order. These are the questions which Egypt wished to put before this session as a modest contribution to shaping a common vision that would inspire the march of humanity in the coming decades, during which we hope that justice, equality, progress and prosperity will prevail.