Syria, 1994

I should like to congratulate Mr. Essy on his

election to the presidency of the forty-ninth session of the

General Assembly and to express our appreciation of the

great responsibilities he will be shouldering, together with

the Secretary-General, in preparing for the commemoration

of the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United

Nations.

I also take this opportunity to salute, on behalf of my

country, Syria, the long and arduous struggle of Africa

against the system of apartheid in South Africa. This

struggle, recently crowned with the establishment of a

united, democratic and non-racial Republic of South Africa,

is a triumph not only for Africa but also for humanity and

the international community as a whole. It is especially a

triumph for the United Nations as it is one of its most

important achievements. This great accomplishment will

remain forever a source of inspiration and optimism for us

all that all forms of racism are inevitably doomed to

extinction.

The commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the

United Nations will raise fundamental questions about the

role and achievements of the Organization and the

obstacles it has faced and continues to face. In our

opinion, the most important question will focus on the

reform and restructuring of the United Nations to make it

more democratic and thus more capable of responding to

the major changes that have taken place on the

international scene, particularly since the end of the cold

war.

It seems that none of the Member States objects in

principle to the idea of introducing reforms to the United

Nations, including the enlargement of the Security

Council’s membership. However, the question that could

take years before any agreement is reached on it is that

which relates to the nature of the required reforms, the

criteria for choosing the new members of the Security

Council and, first and foremost, the right of veto:

whether to expand it or abolish it altogether from the

Charter.

More than two-thirds of the current Members of the

United Nations did not participate in drafting the Charter

of the United Nations, either because they were

languishing under colonialism or because, after

independence, they were thrust into the cold war, for

which the United Nations was an important arena. In this

context, developing countries pose the following question:

If colonialism is truly a thing of the past and if the cold

war is indeed over, what other reasons are there to

prevent the developing countries from actively

participating in the restructuring of the United Nations

and from taking the share they are democratically entitled

to in the Security Council’s membership?

We hope that the answer will not be a negative one

and that the cold war will no longer be waged in new

innovative forms and under different pretexts. That

would be in no one’s interest and would serve no useful

purpose, either in the short or in the long term. Today’s

world, North and South, East and West, faces

unparalleled challenges that require the cooperation of all

Member States in facing up to them. Those challenges

may initially appear to be of a minor nature, but they may

well grow and spread like a plague.

In many continents, dozens of civil wars have been

spawned from the womb of the cold war. The causes of

these wars are many: national, ethnic, religious and

tribal. Their victims are hundreds of thousands, while the

refugees and displaced persons they uproot are in the tens

17

of millions. The number of those who live below the

poverty line in the world today has reached almost one fifth

of the inhabitants of the globe. About 90 per cent of those

live in developing countries.

A phenomenon that seems truly odd and surprising is

the spread of organized crime to countries where such a

phenomenon was never known before. Organized crime

now has its own international networks, its secret

transnational organizations are estimated to be in the

thousands. Such organizations have the ability to break the

most rigorous of laws by all the illegitimate means

available to them, including the smuggling of nuclear

components and their scientific designs.

The indispensable international cooperation needed to

meet such varied challenges cannot achieve the desired

results if certain of its principal parties take to evoking the

spirit of the cold war by calling up the past instead of

looking forward to the future or if they act under the

influence of some racist background that inspires their

propaganda or election campaigns. It is no exaggeration to

say that such elements and subjective motives have already

played a role in obstructing international efforts to address

a number of serious crises, particularly those in which

human suffering has reached levels that defy description

and stymie the imagination, as in the cases of Bosnia,

Somalia and Rwanda, not to mention Afghanistan, where

the shortsightedness of the conflicting parties has

overwhelmed all wisdom and prudence.

On the other hand, however, we must commend the

United States of America for resorting to political dialogue

with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and with

Cuba instead of continuing to pursue its policy of

confrontation against them. These are positive measures

which we hope will continue and expand to encompass

other issues, in the forefront of which is that of Lockerbie

disaster and Libya, so that political dialogue will become

the most appropriate option inresolving disputes between

States. In the same vein, we hope that the United Arab

Emirates and Iran will be able, through amicable dialogue,

to reach a satisfactory solution to the question of the

disputed islands that would preserve the rights of both

parties and consolidate friendly relations between the two

neighbours.

Syria was one of the first States in the Middle East to

sign, as early as 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation

of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In doing so, Syria was

prompted by its conviction that the possession of such an

overkill weapon by any State in our highly sensitive region

would be a major cause for concern, not only to the

peoples of the region, but also to the world at large. At

the time, Syria expected that its early signing of the NPT

would be an incentive to Israel, sooner or later, to sign in

turn and would dissuade it from possessing nuclear

weapons. Regrettably, we were to discover that our

expectations were not justified. Israel, as yet, has neither

adhered to the NPT, nor agreed to open its nuclear

installations to international inspection.

Once again, and on the occasion of the Paris

Conference on Banning of Chemical Weapons in January

1989, Syria took the initiative to call for making the

Middle East a region free of all nuclear, chemical and

biological weapons of mass destruction within the

framework of the United Nations. However, Israel did

not respond to this call nor did it respond to any of the

calls of the United Nations, the International Atomic

Energy Agency or those of the Conferences of the Non-

Aligned Movement or the Islamic Conference.

This is an issue that has become of the utmost

importance and gravity, particularly in the light of the

ongoing peace process in the Middle East. It is not

acceptable for any one party to have a privileged or

exceptional position at the expense of others in regard to

sensitive and decisive matters that relate to regional

security which ought to be based on co-equality and

mutuality.

The forthcoming conference of the States Parties to

the NPT scheduled to review the extension of its tenure

which is about to expire, affords a rare opportunity for all

States in the region to demonstrate their peaceful

intentions.

The accession by all States in the Middle East to the

NPT is a vital step towards transforming the Middle East

to a region free of all weapons of mass destruction. From

this rostrum, and in this context, the Syrian Arab

Republic calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and to

place its nuclear installations under the inspection of the

Atomic Energy Agency so that the States of the region

may be able to agree to extending the Treaty. This, if it

is done, will be an important step towards the creation of

a climate of confidence which in turn will contribute to

building peace and security in the Middle East.

Three years have passed since the convening of the

Madrid Conference and no just and comprehensive peace

18

in the Middle East has materialized. This is a fact that

cannot be cancelled out by the achievement of some

progress on some tracks.

Our region is the cradle of human civilization and

monotheistic religions. Succeeding generations of its

peoples have become accustomed to repel invaders. It is

time for the region to enjoy peace and stability. This

cannot be achieved through half-measure solutions or

through the trickle down of droplets of peace, nor can it be

achieved through agreements which encroach on the

national dignity or compromise the interests of a nation.

Syria accepted the initiative of the United States in

which the United States undertook to work towards the

achievement of a just and comprehensive peace in the

region, on the basis of international legality, Security

Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978)

and the land-for-peace formula including a political solution

to the question of the national rights of the Palestinian

people. The United States also confirmed that in pursuance

of its previous positions rejecting the extension of Israeli

law to the Syrian Golan Heights, it did not agree to the

annexation of any part of the territories occupied in 1967.

In the light of the complexities of the Arab-Israeli

conflict and the suspicions of the Arab parties regarding

Israel’s intentions, Syria took two important decisions

which complemented one another.

The first decision was our commitment to coordinate

with the Arab parties participating in the peace process.

This was prompted by our conviction that the other Arab

parties would benefit from such solidarity as well as from

the position of Syria and its various potentialities. We are

also convinced that the comprehensiveness of the solution

would be a guarantee to all parties should they respond to

the requirements of peace.

The second decision was that the peace option was a

strategic one. By so doing we misled no one: neither our

own people nor any of the others, as to the truth of our

intentions, so that they may act accordingly.

In this context, we were absolutely convinced that

these two important decisions were going to be in the

interest of all parties participating in the peace process.

These two decisions, we believed, would also facilitate the

task of the two sponsors, the United States and the Russian

Federation, in achieving full peace in the region in return

for full withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied in

1967.

Regrettably, the peace process did not continue on

the right track towards achieving its desired objective.

There are many reasons for that. However, we see no

point in elaborating on them now. Nor do we want to

digress and elaborate on the current position of those

parties which have strayed from Arab coordination.

Suffice it to refer to an essential point that was revealed

in their public statements. The point is that they have

now begun to question the usefulness of what they have

done. The fact is they have become unable to contribute

to the achievement of a just and comprehensive peace in

the region.

In fact, the optimistic trumpetings by Israel about

great progress achieved in the peace process is not true,

except from Israel’s point of view. The agreements

reached so far have achieved nothing but what Israel

wanted from the land-for-peace formula while the Arab

party that signed those agreements with Israel still awaits

Israel’s response to its demands.

The most important characteristic of Syria’s policy

under the leadership of President Hafez al-Assad, is the

reconciling of principle and reality. Principles that cannot

survive on the ground are bound to decline. On the other

hand, living the reality without adhering to one’s

principles leads to decline.

Syria wants peace, and realizes that all parties have

a stake in this peace. It realizes also that peace has

objective requirements, and it is prepared to fulfil those

requirements that are agreed upon. Syria means what it

says and adheres to what it means. The land-for-peace

equation must be implemented in both its parts. The

return of the entire Golan is not open to compromise,

unjustified delay or a misplaced testing of intentions. On

this basis, Syria supports a genuine peace - a peace that

lives and flourishes without artificial obstacles or arbitrary

conditions. Putting on the peace process a greater burden

than it can bear does not help to achieve peace; rather, it

poses a threat to the process. The peace process should

not be weighed down with issues that fall outside its

framework.

19

It is regrettable that, as a result of its strong influence

on the media, Israel has managed to distort information and

turn facts on their head, to the extent that those in some

circles of Western public opinion now claim that Syria used

the Golan Heights to launch offensives against the Israelis,

whereas, in fact, the opposite was the case. Israel uses the

pretext of security in an attempt to justify its occupation of

the Golan Heights and its refusal to withdraw therefrom.

It was Israel, not Syria, that started the armed clashes in the

period between 1949 and 1967.

United Nations records and resolutions on this matter

adopted by the Security Council during that period will

demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that Israel was

responsible for opening fire for the purpose of expelling

Syrian farmers from their land and preventing them from

reaping their harvest. It was natural that the Syrian side

should have defended its own citizens and land by

responding every time they were fired upon.

The records to which I have referred are supported by

memoirs published by senior United Nations officers who

were entrusted with the task of supervising the truce

between Syria and Israel during that period. Among those

officers are General Odd Bull and General Karl van Horn.

Hills and mountains are no obstacle to today’s sophisticated

weapons. In any case, the Golan Heights are directly

opposite the Galilee Mountains, which are within Israel and

are higher than the Golan Heights.

Anyway, whether or not the Israeli public are aware

of the truth of what I have just said, the United Nations

Charter states the basic principle of the non-acquisition of

territory by force. This principle has been confirmed in

many Security Council resolutions. The current peace

process cannot be completed without Israel’s withdrawing

from the entire Syrian Golan and southern Lebanon.

We believe that our position is just. We have a right

that we shall never relinquish. As President Assad has

said,

"Relinquishing any part of a nation’s territory

amounts to relinquishing the entire country and its

people’s free will."

We want a just peace that restores everyone’s legitimate

right - the comprehensive peace after which the peoples of

the region aspire and under which they will be able to

enjoy security, stability and prosperity.