Syria, 1996

It is my pleasure to

congratulate Mr. Razali Ismail on his election to the

presidency of the General Assembly at its fifty-first

session, and to congratulate his friendly country,

Malaysia, on his election to that high international post.

We are confident that his political experience and

diplomatic skill will lead to the success of this session’s

deliberations. May I also extend our thanks to his

predecessor for conducting the work of the fiftieth session

of the General Assembly.

On this occasion, we should like to express our

appreciation to the Secretary-General for his efforts to

enhance the role of the United Nations, and our concern

that his international standing, and his mandate under the

Charter be respected. We also believe that the common

interest of Member States requires the support of his

candidature for a second term.

We live in a region which, because of the injustice,

occupation and aggression it has witnessed for decades,

has had more than its share of victims of wars and

violence. It was impossible to envisage a solution to end

such tragedies and to respond to the aspirations of the

peoples of the region as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict

continued to prevail in the absence of a just and

comprehensive peace.

Many people do not know how many international

endeavours were made, how many meetings were

convened, how many parties contributed, how many

letters were sent and assurances given before agreement

was reached between the parties on the foundations and

rules that made up the terms of reference of the Madrid

8

Peace Conference. It is now five years since the Madrid

Conference was convened and, in turn, bilateral negotiations

set up. Those negotiations survived various periods of

tension, interruption, set-back — and progress. They

generated thousands of pages of records. Both Syria and

Israel agreed on Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan back to

the boundary of 4 June 1967. Negotiations then proceeded

to the other elements of peace — all under the supervision

of the United States of America, and with its participation.

Now, after all those international efforts, which were

unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a

new Government has taken office in Israel. It has set itself

the opposite course to that of its predecessor, and has

declared “no” three times: no to withdrawal from the

Golan; no to withdrawal from occupied Palestinian lands;

and no to a Palestinian State.

To anyone who has followed the declarations and

practices of the Israeli Government since it assumed power,

it is clear that it has not wasted a single opportunity to

underline its insistence on changing the foundations and

rules of the peace process, to attempt to demolish all the

achievements of the past five years and to call for a return

to negotiations from square one, without preconditions —

in other words, without the Madrid terms of reference, in

accordance with the “peace for peace” formula, with the

objective of imposing its fait accompli on the Arabs.

President Hafez Al-Assad has said:

“If this is what the Israeli Prime Minister has in

mind, why should Syria want peace? If peace does not

return the land to its rightful owners, why should we

call for it? Can any thinking person in this world

expect Syria to establish peace with the Israeli

Government while Syrian land remains in Israeli

hands? That is why I say that if Netanyahu stays that

course, I do not believe there is any window for a just

and comprehensive peace in the region.”

One of the dilemmas facing the Middle East peace

process is that certain Israeli leaders are encouraging, rather

than discouraging, extremism in Israeli society. They are

the ones who add fuel to the fire whenever a better climate

for the achievement of peace begins to develop. There are

many examples of such an attitude, which we do not have

time to provide today. It is sufficient to recall that in the

aftermath of the Hebron massacre voices were raised

everywhere, even in Israel itself, calling for the Jewish

settlers, who number less than 400, to move from the heart

of Hebron, which is home to more than 120,000

Palestinians. However, the Israeli Government refused to

withdraw from Hebron, portraying such a move as the

ultimate painful concession.

The bloody confrontations that broke out following

the opening of the tunnel that Israel dug under the wall of

the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as previous deliberate Israeli

provocations and the unjustified escalation of tensions

against Syria and Lebanon over the past few weeks, all

confirm that the Israeli Government did not take office in

order to resume peace negotiations on the basis of

international legitimacy, the Madrid terms of reference

and the “land-for-peace” formula, but rather in order to

launch new negotiations with no terms of reference,

entrenching a fait accompli.

During his European tour, Prime Minister Netanyahu

announced that his decision to open the tunnel was

designed merely to ease the movement of tourists and

spare them a walk of a few dozen extra metres. Imagine

how guilty those tourists would feel if they believed that,

in order to secure their comfort, the Israeli authorities

killed about 80 Palestinians, caused the deaths of 15

Israelis, and wounded more than a thousand people. They

would not, of course, believe it; we do not believe it —

and neither does the head of the Israeli Government, who

revealed his true expansionist intentions when he later

claimed that the tunnel had been there for two thousand

years, and arrogantly declared that it would remain open

for ever.

Perhaps the huge number of innocent victims who

fell in Jerusalem and in the towns of the West Bank and

Gaza have hastened the unmasking of such deceit. In this

way the Israeli Government appears to public opinion as

it truly is: neither desirous of a just peace nor keen to

pursue it. This was reflected in the statements made by

many Foreign Ministers in the Security Council, where

Israel appeared totally isolated, besieged on all sides by

statements deploring and denouncing its action, with the

voices that usually volunteer to defend it dying away.

The Israeli Government’s fuelling of extremism did

not stop there. General Sharon, the Israeli Minister for

Infrastructure, issued a decision last week allocating three

new sites on the occupied Syrian Golan for building 600

housing units. Perhaps a large segment of international

public opinion and some politicians are not aware that

without the financial aid and huge governmental subsidies

given to Jewish settlers, they would not settle in the

Golan, especially as they are well aware that the Golan is

9

Syrian territory, which they will have to leave sooner or

later.

Given my comments, it might be concluded that the

Israeli Government has no strategy for peace but has, it

seems, chosen the path of confrontation. The path of

confrontation, however, is very costly for several reasons.

First, Israel can start a war whenever it chooses, but cannot

end it when it chooses. Israel might wreak considerable

destruction here and there, but it can never destroy the will

of a nation that has deep roots of civilization which spread

all over the world. Many Israelis may be unaware that all

the wars they have fought between October 1973 and April

1996 have gained them nothing except human and political

losses and further international condemnation.

Secondly, the path of confrontation is very costly

because the international community rejects war and

aggression and calls for the achievement of a just and

comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Israel knows that

the Arabs have opted for peace as their strategic option,

including at the summit level. In taking this stand they have

been supported by the summit of the States of the Non-

Aligned Movement, the summit of the European Union and

the summit of the Group of Seven industrial countries, all

of which have stressed the need to adhere to the

foundations of the peace process, relevant Security Council

resolutions and the “land-for-peace” formula, as well as

respect by the parties for the agreements and commitments

reached so far.

Given these facts, it would be unacceptable if peace

were not also a strategic option for Israel — indeed, it

would be a real catastrophe. The achievement of a just and

comprehensive peace, to which the peoples of the region

and the world aspire, requires Israel’s withdrawal from all

occupied Arab land, pursuant to Security Council

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

Syria reaffirms its attachment to the unity of both the

territory and the people of Iraq. Syria rejects any attempt to

violate the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq’s territory

or to interfere in its internal affairs, including the attempt

to establish a so-called security zone in northern Iraq. Syria

also calls for an end to the suffering of the brotherly Iraqi

people, and for a continuation of the implementation of

Security Council resolutions, including a solution to the

issue of Kuwaiti detainees.

With regard to the Lockerbie crisis, Syria expresses its

concern for the human and material harm that has been

done to the brotherly people of Libya as a result of the

continuing coercive measures imposed on them by the

Security Council. Syria reaffirms the statement made in

the final declaration on the issue of the recent Arab

summit, and calls for a response to the initiative

submitted by the Arab League for solving this crisis.

Syria hopes that the United Arab Emirates and the

Islamic Republic of Iran can find a peaceful solution to

the crisis over the three islands in a way that will

preserve good-neighbourly relations and contribute to the

strengthening of security and stability in the region.

Syria expresses its support for the principles agreed

upon by the Governments of Yemen and Eritrea for a

solution to their conflict through international arbitration.

Our position flows from our desire for good-neighbourly

relations between them and our belief in the importance

of re-establishing security and stability in the Red Sea

region.

Syria also expresses its concern at the continuing

deterioration of the situation in Somalia and reiterates the

call of the Arab summit to the leaders of the Somali

factions to achieve national reconciliation and to work

towards the establishment of a national authority

representing our brothers, the Somali people, as a whole.

With regard to Korea, Syria expresses its support for

measures that would guarantee peace and stability in the

Korean peninsula and for the aspirations of the Korean

people to reunification.

The celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the

founding of the United Nations provided an important

opportunity for us to forge a common vision of the future

of international relations. On that occasion, we said that

the crisis facing the United Nations does not arise from

the purposes and principles of the Charter, but rather from

the United Nations decision-making mechanism and the

selective way in which decisions are implemented. We

also observed that the Organization’s serious financial

crisis is, in fact, merely the reflection of a political crisis

that essentially revolves around the identity of the United

Nations and its role in the post-cold-war era.

In the light of those comments, the obvious question

is: Will it be possible to introduce meaningful reforms

into the structure of the United Nations that are

acceptable and satisfactory to Member States? That is the

true challenge, requiring that we all strive to strengthen

dialogue and international cooperation. This will ensure

10

that reforms take place which fulfil, in substance and in

form, the aspirations of Member States.

Today, as we stand on the threshold of the next

century, we are all faced with serious challenges that

require us to create an environment that will allow future

generations to live in peace, security and cooperation within

a system of international relations free from violence and

confrontation. That is the hope of our peoples. This is what

we must endeavour to achieve as we look forward to a

better future, one both more just and more humane that will

benefit all mankind.