Lebanon, 1996

 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.