Egypt, 1997

Mr.

President, to you and your friendly country, I am pleased

to extend my warmest congratulations on your election to

the presidency of this session of the General Assembly.

Your expertise on United Nations and world issues will

undoubtedly assist you in wisely discharging the work of

the General Assembly.

At the same time, I wish to express our appreciation

to your predecessor for the efforts he exerted in connection

with the discussions relating to United Nations reform.

The world is currently passing through highly

interwoven and complicated circumstances, where progress

and its horizons mingle with backwardness and its dangers

while humanity takes pride in such achievements as

economic progress and the development of technology and

informatics, it is still suffering from the practices of

terrorism, drug trafficking, organized crime, the spread of

corruption, the overflow of refugees, the challenges posed

by war criminals, crimes of genocide and mass murder, and

the negative effects of racism and religious discrimination.

All this gives rise to a situation which requires the

international community to cooperate and become

interdependent in its endeavours in a manner that helps it

live in security and to progress confidently. This cannot

take place unless the United Nations become the focal point

and the centre of its concerted actions.

This prompts us to accord priority in Egypt's statement

to this session to the issue of United Nations reform. The

outcome of this session, and probably subsequent sessions

will constitute a true litmus test of the credibility of

determination and the objectivity of resolve regarding the

present and the future of the United Nations.

Evolution of the United Nations relies on a number of

facts and requisites. The principles of democratization and

multilateralism are widespread, market economy

mechanisms are growing, and scientific progress and

information technology are accelerating. This necessitates

reaching agreement on and drafting new rules for

international conduct.

It has been shown that the end of the cold war in no

way sufficiently guarantees the non-eruption of conflicts,

tragedies and wars. By the same token, the risks

emanating from the outbreak of rampant international

confrontations have not disappeared. The root causes of

national and international disputes still persist. On the

other hand, weapons of mass destruction are readily

available and are even on the rise. In addition to the

absence of any substantial progress in the field of nuclear

disarmament, there exist clandestine military nuclear

programmes not subject to any international supervision

in strategically sensitive areas such as the Middle East

region.

While globalization is a rapidly growing

phenomenon, and given its impact on the security and

prosperity of various societies, national legislation and

regulations are finding it difficult to cope with this

phenomenon and to regulate international relations

accordingly. Most of the developing countries do not

possess the same capacity as the developed ones to

speedily effect the necessary psychological, cultural and

legislative adjustments. Therefore, the United Nations

represents the proper mechanism for the formulation of an

international consensus on the rules governing all these

developments, and the provision of necessary assistance

to the developing countries to meet and regulate their

requirements.

While we agree on the need to change the United

Nations and increase its effectiveness, we might not be as

agreed on the means to achieve that objective. In this

context, I wish to state Egypt's view of the main

principles and points on which the United Nations reform

process should be based, in addition to a preliminary

comment on some of the Secretary-General's recent

proposals in this respect.

It is important that the United Nations reform take

place in conformity with the purposes and principles

enshrined in the Charter and the mandates accorded to

each of the United Nations principal organs. The General

Assembly, representing the general membership of the

United Nations, has to adopt clear decisions which reflect

the general consensus with regard to the proposals

13

contained in the Secretary-General's report. Such consensus

should be built through serious intergovernmental dialogue

characterized by maximum transparency and sense of

responsibility.

We concur with the Secretary-General's position that

reforming the United Nations administrative machinery is

not a substitute for the political will of the Member States

to enhance the role of the Organization. Thus, the first step

towards reform is the formation of a clear collective will to

strengthen the United Nations system through a

comprehensive approach in the interest of all.

While we would generally welcome merging

departments with similar activities as well as slashing a

number of posts if the General Assembly so decides, we

wish to stress that rationalizing expenditures must not be

done at the expense of efficient performance.

Administrative reform should not diminish the

Organization's capacity to fully implement the programmes

adopted by the Member States. Nor should it adversely

affect the equitable geographic distribution in the

composition of the Secretariat.

We are also in agreement with the Secretary-General's

diagnosis of the real threat facing the United Nations,

namely the non-payment by some major Powers of their

assessed contributions, be they to the regular budget or to

the budget of peacekeeping operations. Since these arrears

are part of the Member States' obligations under the

Charter, their payment should be made in full, immediately

and without conditions. Any attempt to make payment

conditional will only complicate the entire reform process.

The sharp and steady decline in the resources allocated

to development, coupled with the absence of enthusiasm on

the part of some for the fulfilment of their obligations, have

negatively affected the implementation of many

programmes adopted by Member States. This impels us to

review the funding modalities of the United Nations

operational activities for development so as to ensure their

effective performance.

We concur with the Secretary-General on the

importance of achieving the system-wide integration of

United Nations programmes that deal with development.

We still look forward to hearing concrete ideas on how to

achieve more comprehensive coordination throughout the

United Nations system as well as on how to decentralize

the working methods of the regional economic

commissions. These commissions play a cardinal role in

implementing the Organization's priorities, such as

poverty eradication.

Lastly, some of the other measures proposed by the

Secretary-General, particularly those relating to how to

address the financial crisis, should be studied further with

a view to reaching arrangements which would enjoy

general consensus and help overcome this crisis.

Therefore, we invite the General Assembly to study

the important proposals made by the Secretary-General.

The Assembly should then come up with

recommendations that clarify the Member States'

aspirations and the modalities of implementing their

specified priorities in the medium-term plan, together with

means of promoting the vital role of the Organization in

the coming decades.

In the course of reforming the United Nations, the

Secretary-General touched upon the elaboration of a new

concept and structure of the Trusteeship Council. This is

a matter that requires extensive discussion and study to

clarify the impact and dimensions of the proposed

concept, as it is totally different from the current mandate

of the Council. Besides, it is imperative to discuss the

significance of, and the need to put under collective

trusteeship, topics set forth by the world community in

well-established international agreements that express the

will of the international community as a whole. Under

those agreements, mechanisms and organs have already

been set up to oversee their implementation.

Also, within the context of changing the role of the

Organization, we note that the Secretary-General's

proposals entrust the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights with many additional responsibilities

and competencies at the expense of the functions

entrusted to the Centre for Human Rights. In our view,

this is not in line with what is important in the

management of the human rights field. Here we recall

some recent sagacious appeals for updating the approach

and legislation of the international community in the field

of human rights in order to better reflect the diverse

contributions of various cultures and civilizations in our

contemporary world to the promotion and enrichment of

these rights and the protection of the freedom of

individuals and societies. Although some political

considerations stood in the way of including the valuable

contributions of some of those cultures and civilizations

in the main human rights instruments — foremost among

which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights —

these sagacious appeals reflect the desire to enhance the

14

contribution of various world cultures in the protection of

human rights. Such enhanced and diverse contributions, in

the framework of a world consensus, could spare the

international community any accusation of negligence,

double standards or bias towards a single cultural concept.

In the field of disarmament, I should point out that for

50 years, the United Nations has given due regard to

disarmament issues. It has given high priority to matters

relating to weapons of mass destruction in general and

nuclear weapons in particular. A consensus on this high

priority emerged in the first special session of the General

Assembly devoted to disarmament and has been reiterated

ever since. Egypt remains faithful to this high priority.

I now turn to the Security Council. Past Assembly

sessions, especially the fifty-first, witnessed protracted

debates on the reform and restructuring of the Security

Council. Undoubtedly, reaching agreement on this issue is

one of the main pillars on which reform of the United

Nations must be built.

In this regard, Egypt reiterates its emphasis on and

commitment to the key principles adopted at the ministerial

meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in New Delhi, as

well as the elements adopted by the Organization of African

Unity (OAU) Summit in Harare in connection with the

Council's enlargement and the need for full conformity with

the relevant provisions of the Charter.

Therefore, first, there should be no partial or selective

expansion or enlargement of the membership of the

Security Council. Secondly, efforts at restructuring the

Council should not be subject to any imposed time-frame.

While recognizing the importance of treating this issue as

a matter of urgent attention, no effort should be made to

decide this issue before general agreement is reached.

Thirdly, efforts should be made to rationalize the exercise

of the veto. Fourthly, the improvement of the working

methods of the Council should be given equal importance.

Fifthly, any resolution with possible Charter-amendment

implications as to the size, the composition or the allocation

of the Council seats must be adopted in strict conformity

with the provisions of Article 108 of the Charter. Sixthly,

it is important to study the principle of rotation and to agree

upon the eligibility criteria for it in connection with the

proposed expansion in the permanent-membership category.

Such an agreement could help avoid the divisions and feuds

that have begun to surface. Lastly, if there is no agreement

on the expansion of permanent membership, expansion

should be limited to the non-permanent category.

As to eligibility of States for permanent membership

in the Security Council, and with a view to our

commitment to what will be agreed upon within the OAU

in connection with a system of rotation, we propose that

the criteria for eligibility should include the degree of

present and future economic development, historical

weight, geographic location and size of population. They

should also give due regard to the role played by a

country in the maintenance of global and regional peace

and security, including its ability to contribute to

peacekeeping operations. Further, similar regard should be

given to such a country's endeavours to preserve the

interests of the region to which it belongs.

Egypt's regional and international contributions

within the framework of Africa, the Arab and Islamic

worlds and the Middle East region, as well as among the

developing countries and emerging economies,

undoubtedly qualify it to shoulder the responsibilities of

permanent membership in a new, expanded Security

Council providing balanced and equitable representation.

However, Egypt will remain committed to the African

consensus in this regard. I listened carefully to the

statement made by the Foreign Minister of Singapore, and

I suggest that the points he raised should be studied and

given due attention by the General Assembly and the

committees working in the field of the reform and

expansion of the Security Council.

The non-aligned countries called for a

reconsideration of the veto power, which contradicts the

principles of democracy that must characterize

contemporary world order and prevail both among and

within States. As a first step towards that goal, we

suggest that the use and scope of the veto power should

be restricted to specific actions such as those which relate

to threats to international peace and security and which

are taken under Chapter VII of the Charter. We can also

agree on excluding specific matters from the use of veto

power, such as provision to the Council of the

information necessary for exercising its competence;

humanitarian issues, including respect for instruments of

international humanitarian law and ceasefire resolutions;

and the selection of the United Nations Secretary-General.

Security Council reform and the improvement of its

working methods require a re-evaluation of the sanctions

regimes imposed by the Council, including their routine

periodic review, their lifting and whether the regime in its

current form achieves the goals for which it was

instituted. If sanctions are intended to influence the

behaviour of certain States so that they abide by

15

international legality, it would be only logical to amend the

way these sanctions are currently implemented in order to

take into account the related humanitarian aspects and the

sufferings inflicted upon the peoples. And after compliance,

these sanctions must be lifted.

In all cases, it is important to consider setting specific

time-frames for sanctions so that they do not end up being,

in effect, a people's punishment. Discussions in this respect

under “An Agenda for Peace” and the initial agreement

reached thereon can be a viable basis for starting serious

deliberations with a view to effecting positive changes in

the current sanctions regime.

I turn now to the situation in the Middle East, where

the peace process faces a serious crisis. The most apparent

manifestation of this crisis is that the concept, principles

and bases of the peace process are being completely

shattered and squandered. The vision spawned in the

peoples' minds of the sort of peace, as agreed upon at the

United Nations and in Madrid, has started to dissipate.

Trust has been replaced by doubt, and hope by frustration

and despair in a tomorrow where justice will materialize

and peace will prevail.

The peace process is based on governing principles,

namely the implementation of Security Council resolutions

242 (1967) and 338 (1973). At the heart of these principles

are the land-for-peace formula and safeguarding the rights

of the parties according to the balance struck by the

Security Council and affirmed at the Madrid Peace

Conference. This certainly applies to the three tracks of

negotiations between Israel on the one hand and Syria,

Lebanon and the Palestinians on the other. The Oslo accord

did not deviate from the same principles, nor did it

challenge their terms of reference or binding nature. On the

contrary, it led to the recognition that the Palestinian people

are a people with legitimate national and political rights.

It also recognized that the only way to establish peace

and security in the region is through peaceful coexistence

between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, based on

equality, justice, and, of course, Israel's withdrawal from

the occupied Arab territories and the establishment of

normal relations between the States in the Middle East.

These principles and concepts gave rise to a process

of building bases for peace and its possibilities. In spite of

the obstacles and the problems which confronted the

process of negotiations, the credibility of the search for a

peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict still existed.

This quest for peace had become a strategic choice

characterizing the policies and orientations of the region's

Governments, impelling the peoples of the region to

envision a future Middle East under a just and

comprehensive peace. Various methods and mechanisms

for cooperation which would enable the region to achieve

the requisite levels of development and progress were

discussed. Despite the frequent diversity of views and

their conflicting nature at certain times, that trend

represented a healthy phenomenon: it indicated that the

peoples of the region are already convinced of the peace

concept. The only thing that remained was how to

reinvigorate the method of achieving it.

Alas, confidence was lost, credibility was shaken and

the peace process lost much of its momentum. For this,

and for the present serious situation, the current Israeli

Government' policy is responsible. Settlement activities,

as well as Israel's reneging on agreements and

commitments reached; making a mockery of legal

accords; challenging the two sponsors of the peace

process; pushing for confrontation; and giving rise to an

overall feeling of despair could not but result in

frustration and destruction. This will lead to a catastrophe

whose responsibility, we hasten to underline here and

now, lies squarely with the current Israeli policies.

This serious crisis inflicted on the peace process by

the Israeli policies was recently considered by the Council

of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the States members of

the League of Arab States. The Council adopted the

following points, which constitute a unified Arab position

on the current situation.

The first point is a rejection of the Israeli

Government policies designed to undermine the peace

process, its denial of the principles and bases of this

process, its evasion of the implementation of the

commitments, undertakings and agreements reached

within the context of the peace process, and its unilateral

measures aimed at imposing a fait accompli in Jerusalem,

the West Bank and the Golan, along with its aggression

against southern Lebanon.

The second point is the upholding of a just and

comprehensive peace as a strategic choice and objective

on the basis of the principles of the peace process, and in

particular of the relevant Security Council resolutions, the

principle of land for peace and the attainment of the

legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people, and a

reaffirmation of complete Arab solidarity with this

position.

16

The third point reiterates that Israel's breach of the

principles and the bases of the peace process, its

backtracking on the commitments, undertakings and

agreements reached thereon and its procrastination in

implementing these commitments have resulted in the

current setback of the peace process. These Israeli policies

have also led to a reconsideration of the steps taken

towards Israel within the framework of the peace process.

Full responsibility for this lies with the Israeli Government

alone.

Fourth, negotiations on the three bilateral tracks should

be resumed. On the Syrian track, negotiations should be

resumed from wherever they ended. The two parties should

commit themselves to what has already been achieved. On

the Lebanese track, negotiations should centre upon the

implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978).

And on the Palestinian track, negotiations should be

resumed on the basis of implementing the contractual

agreements reached, including the commitments of the

interim period. Parallel to that, final status negotiations

should start in order to lead to the Palestinian people's

exercise of their right to self-determination and to the

establishment of their independent state.

Fifth, the Council welcomed the American position as

crystallized during the visit paid by the United States

Secretary of State to the region this month. There was

consensus regarding cooperation with United States policy

as expressed by Mrs. Albright in her statement of 6 August

1997 to the National Press Club in Washington. That

policy, which was reiterated during her recent visit to the

Middle East and contacts with the States of the region,

reaffirms the terms of reference of the Madrid Peace

Conference, in particular the principle of land for peace, the

implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions,

the realization of the legitimate political rights of the

Palestinian people, and the commitment to abstain from

taking unilateral measures that undermine the permanent

status negotiations. We stress the need to build on this

positive position on the part of the United States, and call

on Israel to respond positively to it. In this context, the

steps that the Israeli Government is required to take to

foster the peace process should be within the framework of

key issues, not that of issues of a secondary or formalistic

nature.

Sixth, the European role played in support of the

peace process is welcome and the importance of its

revitalization should be stressed.

Seventh, international legality in the context of the

United Nations Security Council resolutions should be

upheld and implemented.

A stable and just peace must be built on a strong

basis of comprehensive security arrangements that take

due account of the apprehensions, concerns and

viewpoints of all parties. This can materialize only when

Israel accedes to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as it is the only State in the

region that has not yet done so. We should proceed

forthwith with the implementation of President Hosni

Mubarak's initiative to free the Middle East from all

weapons of mass destruction and their delivering vehicles.

It is a source of regret for us that so far no practical steps

have been taken to rid our region of the threat of nuclear

weapons. This might lead to the proliferation of such

weapons. Consequently, I call upon the General Assembly

and the NPT depositories to take the necessary steps to

ensure Israel's accession to the NPT and for the prompt

undertaking of serious negotiations to establish a nuclear-

weapon-free zone in the Middle East, in implementation

of the resolution adopted by the Review and Extension

Conference of the Parties to the NPT held in New York

in April 1995. Such a nuclear-weapon-free zone could be

established as a first step towards ridding the Middle East

of all weapons of mass destruction.

Before concluding my remarks regarding the Middle

East, I would like to refer to the serious situation in Iraq.

I would like to highlight the importance of respecting

Iraq's sovereignty and of ending the suffering of its

people. Furthermore, the islands of the United Arab

Emirates should be returned, and the sovereignty of the

United Arab Emirates over these islands should be

respected. The Lockerbie issue should be brought to an

end in conformity with international legality. The

territorial integrity of the Sudan should be preserved and

respected. A settlement of the problems of Somalia

should be reached. A healthy climate for relations should

be created in the Middle East between States of the

region and neighbouring countries, based upon mutual and

balanced commitments along with a common interest in

maintaining positive relations for the benefit of everyone.

Turning to Africa, I wish to refer to the ministerial

meeting convened by the Security Council last week to

consider the sources and causes of African conflicts and

how to contain and resolve them. As I said in my

statement before the Council, Africa has come a long way

on the road of political and economic reform. What is

needed now is to revitalize existing international

17

initiatives in support of development and stability in Africa.

Such international support is also required to solve the

problems of refugees, enhance democratization and

strengthen regional and subregional integration. This

requires the fulfilment of promises by the international

community to establish a true partnership between Africa,

on the one hand, and the United Nations system and the

international donor institutions on the other. This also

requires strengthening existing cooperation between the

United Nations and the Organization of African Unity in

conformity with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the

Charter.

Since the dawn of history, the Mediterranean

dimension has been an important framework for Egypt,

influencing and being influenced by the centres of

civilization and enlightenment in the region. Inasmuch as

Europe — Eastern and Western — has been the main

partner with Egypt in trade transactions, tourist flows and

cultural interactions, so has Egypt been and will continue

to be a major active party in ensuring stability and

regulating a veritable interaction between the European

dimension of Mediterranean security and the Mediterranean

dimension of European security, in the full meaning of the

comprehensive concept of contemporary security.

In this context, President Hosni Mubarak in November

1991 presented to the European Parliament his well-known

initiative of establishing a framework for consultation and

cooperation among the Mediterranean countries. By mid-

1994, this idea was crystallized when the Ministers for

Foreign Affairs of 11 Mediterranean countries held in

Alexandria their constituent session for the Mediterranean

Forum, which convened its fourth session last July in

Algiers, where the ministers unanimously agreed that the

Forum was a unique gathering for frank dialogue and a

mechanism for the formulation and testing of ideas and

coordination of positions.

Through its chairmanship of the cultural working

group of the Mediterranean Forum, Egypt looks forward to

contributing to strengthening cultural cooperation among the

member countries and stressing the common cultural

features of the Mediterranean personality, based upon the

integration and interaction of civilizations, rather than

conflict and confrontation between them.

A similar exercise is currently under way with regard

to Euro-Mediterranean interaction, in the framework of the

Barcelona process. The second ministerial conference,

convened in Malta last April, provided a good opportunity

for frankness and an exchange of views to activate and

correct the path of this historic process that brings

together countries of the European Union and those of the

south and the east of the Mediterranean. In so doing, this

process will truly lead to the creation of a balanced

partnership among all parties, as well as the establishment

of a common zone of peace and prosperity in the

Mediterranean basin.

In this context, Egypt follows with keen interest

current developments in the Balkans, a region closely

linked to the Mediterranean region, especially with regard

to developments relating to the situation in Bosnia. Egypt

believes that the only way out of tension in that region is

that of international legality, the full and speedy

implementation of the Dayton Agreements and the trying

of war criminals, which represents an essential step

towards establishing justice and stability in this region.

Egypt reaffirms its partnership with the international

community, the United Nations system and the donor

institutions in the development and reconstruction of

Bosnia in order to help heal the wounds of years of war

and destruction.

I should not fail to address the concerns of Egypt

and other developing countries regarding a number of

challenges accompanying the process of trade and

investment liberalization. These challenges are manifested

in the continued pursuit by some of unilateral and

arbitrary policies instead of abidance by the rules and

regulations of the international trading system that we all

worked so hard to adopt within the framework of the

World Trade Organization.

This is in addition to the growing trend we witness

today on the part of some of our trading partners who

resort to covert protectionist practices, which hide behind

noble considerations such as environmental protection,

respect for labour norms and human rights, in order to

serve some narrow self-interests, to justify the restriction

of access to markets and to impose trade sanctions.

On another plane, we should be well aware that the

liberalization of investment is not a panacea for every

malaise besetting our economies. Despite our interest in

attracting investments, and despite our efforts to create a

climate conducive to the flow of investments, the fact still

remains that investment agreements should strike a fair

balance between protecting the rights of the investor, on

the one hand and ensuring the rights and interests of the

receiving States, on the other.

18

A year ago, from this rostrum, I called for concerted

efforts against attempts to marginalize the role of the

United Nations.

If we are still awaiting the development of rules of

international conduct under a new world order that is still

evolving, we then urgently need to ensure the survival of a

strong and effective United Nations that can lead the way

for us in this nascent world order.