Egypt, 1998

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.