Syria, 1997

I take pleasure in congratulating the President

on his election to preside over the fifty-second session of

the General Assembly and to congratulate his friendly

country on his election to that high international office. We

are confident that his wide-ranging expertise will facilitate

his task and lead the deliberations of this session to a

successful end.

I should also like to thank his predecessor, His

Excellency Mr. Razali Ismail, for his wise leadership of the

previous session of the General Assembly.

On this occasion I cannot fail to renew my

congratulations to the Secretary-General of the United

Nations and to Africa, his great continent. I wish him full

success in discharging his tasks in accordance with the

principles and purposes of the Charter.

Although more than 50 years have elapsed since the

adoption of the Charter of the United Nations, and

although States have since committed themselves to peace

in their international relations, many regions of the world,

particularly in the Middle East, continue to suffer

occupation, aggression and the threat of aggression to a

point where the sounds of war have begun to drown out

that of peace.

It has now become clear to most of those concerned

with peace and security in various corners of the Earth

that the peace process initiated at the Madrid Conference

six years ago has reached a dead end. This is due to the

volte-face by the current Israeli Government vis-à-vis that

process, including the commitments, agreements and

pledges stemming from it. It is also due to its cynicism

towards all the strenuous international efforts seeking, for

the first time in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, to

achieve a comprehensive solution to this conflict.

Perhaps many of us, Governments as well as

peoples, cannot foresee the extent of the serious

repercussions that will result from that Israeli reversal on

the peace process, particularly since it is taking place in

the post-cold-war period, when wars and armed

confrontations have taken ugly and barbaric forms and

have often raged out of control. Syria, which has opted

for the achievement of peace in the Middle East on the

basis of justice and dignity as a strategic choice, finds

that it is duty bound to train a spotlight from this

important international rostrum on some facts concerning

the positions of the current Israeli Government. This

should enable the international community, with the

sponsors of the peace process foremost among them, to

beware of any serious developments in the future leading

to undermining the security and stability of the Middle

East region and beyond.

As a preliminary observation, I must point out that

in our reading of the policy of the Israeli Government we

do not proceed from the perception widely held around

the world which classifies it as an extremist Zionist

Government bent on negating the other party to the

conflict rather than making peace with it. We proceed

merely from an objective description of declared positions

of the Israeli Government and from its practices on the

ground, which — at a minimum — aim at gradually

backtracking from the commitments and agreements

reached by the parties during the peace talks and

ultimately at completely eradicating the peace process

launched at the Madrid Conference.

20

It seems to us that the method now employed by the

Israeli Government to reach that objective is not the usual

one of one step forward, two steps back. It is now a new

practice, a tactic of one step back, then two steps back,

followed by a threat of a further step backwards which

cannot be abandoned, even provisionally, until the other

side accepts new conditions it had already rejected. Thus,

the peace process regresses until it ultimately cancels itself

out.

In this context, some may find it unfairly prejudicial

to the Israeli Government to characterize its practices in

such terms. They would, however, be surprised to learn that

the Head of the Israeli Government himself boasts to his

inner circle of employing such a tactic, which he believes

is a very astute means of ending the peace process as

unobtrusively as possible.

This does not stop at the modus operandi alone, but

extends to the details of the very fundamental issues

underpinning the peace process. While acknowledging the

applicability of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and

338 (1973) to the occupied Syrian Golan, he also

simultaneously rejects the results reached on the Syrian

track, with the participation of the United States as sponsor,

on the basis of those resolutions and relating to withdrawal

to the line of 4 June 1967. He further rejects the resumption

of negotiations from the point at which they were halted.

It is also strange that the Israeli Government rejects

the formula of land for peace, though it is at the very core

of the United States initiative and has always enjoyed

international unanimity. Instead of accepting this formula,

the head of the Israeli Government advances others that

neither common sense nor logic could entertain and that

cannot stand the test of time, such as the formula of peace

for peace or peace for security. It is clear that accepting

these two Israeli formulas would be tantamount to surrender

and to becoming an instrument at the service of Israel’s

security.

It is indeed true that security issues are of the utmost

importance to all States, peoples and individuals. That is

not in doubt. However, security is the fruit of peace; the

achievement of peace brings security and not vice versa.

Proceeding from that, we believe that the Israeli

Government, in giving priority in its policy to security over

peace, runs counter to all the concepts defined by societies

and warring States throughout history. It is no exaggeration

to say that the insistence of the Israeli Government on its

erroneous concept of achieving security before ending

occupation will turn the peace process into a bloodletting

process, a cycle of killing that will obtain neither security

nor peace for Israel and may return the Arab-Israeli

conflict to its tragic beginnings.

The Charter of the United Nations states that the

efforts of the peoples of the world must be concerted in

order to save succeeding generations from the scourge of

war. Respect for the commitments proceeding from the

principles of international law and its sources lies at the

very heart of the Charter. It is regrettable that the Israeli

Government does not realize that its failure to respect the

commitments reached with the previous Government on

the Syrian track, based on the principles of international

law and relevant Security Council resolutions, does not

represent a mere legal violation. First and foremost, it

casts doubt on the credibility of any previous Israeli

Government, and such doubts thus apply to the

commitments made by the current Administration when

it is replaced.

Since coming to power, the Israeli Government has

not limited its positions to undermining the peace process.

It has chosen the exact opposite path to that of peace. It

has increasingly diversified its attacks against Lebanon; it

has bombed cities teeming with civilians and has planted

explosive devices in many parts of southern Lebanon in

order to incite enmity among the Lebanese and cast

aspersions on the role of the Lebanese resistance.

However, such attempts, contrary to Israel’s objectives,

have only solidified unity among the Lebanese. They have

strengthened the resolve of the Lebanese resistance to

confront Israeli occupation more than ever before. In the

occupied Palestinian territories, the pace of settlement

activities has escalated, including a sharing of roles

between the Israeli Government and extremist settlers, in

order to expropriate more land, destroy homes and

maintain the drive to judaize East Jerusalem.

In our occupied Syrian Golan, the policy of

entrenching Israeli occupation has also been escalated to

the point that the Israeli Knesset recently voted on a bill

entrenching the occupation and impeding withdrawal from

the Golan, in clear defiance of Security Council resolution

497 (1981). This has been accompanied by an

intensification of Jewish settlement activity with the aim

of swelling the numbers of settlers in the Golan and

undermining the chances for peace. That is a flagrant

violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the first

additional Protocol thereof. The Golan is Syrian land —

it always was and always will be. The Israelis will have

to leave it sooner or later.

21

We, the Arabs, have championed just and

comprehensive peace and consider it a strategic choice. For

such a choice to be realistic and supported by the people,

it requires full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Syrian

Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, as well as from southern

Lebanon and the western Bekaa, in implementation of

Security Council resolution 425 (1978). It must guarantee

the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people,

including those to self-determination and their own

independent State.

Syria has always stressed its keen wish to establish a

nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Syria once

again expresses its grave concern at the serious obstacle

that Israel has placed on the road to that goal in order to

prevent the establishment of the zone by refusing to adhere

to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

(NPT). This intransigent Israeli position does great harm to

the credibility and universality of the Treaty. We believe

that the measures and arrangements to establish a nuclear-

weapon-free zone in the Middle East, as called for by

United Nations resolutions, require Israel, the only State in

the region possessing nuclear facilities and stockpiles, to

adhere to the NPT and place all its nuclear establishments

under the full-scope safeguards regime of the International

Atomic Energy Agency. It must further destroy its entire

stockpile of nuclear weapons.

At a time when the urgent need to intensify

international efforts towards a just and comprehensive

peace in the Middle East is very clear, some States of the

region are engaging in military cooperation similar to an

alliance and have recently declared their intention to

conduct military manoeuvres in the eastern Mediterranean.

Such manoeuvres would be a threat to the peace and safety

of neighbouring States as well as to the stability of the

region.

Syria supports all the efforts being made to eliminate

tension in various regions of the world and to resolve

standing problems. In this context, Syria underlines its

concern for the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq. Syria

calls for easing the suffering of the brotherly people of Iraq,

while Iraq is required to implement the remaining Security

Council resolutions in a manner ensuring a just solution to

the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners.

We also hope that there will be a positive response to

the initiatives of the League of Arab States and the

Organization of African Unity, as well as towards the

flexibility shown by the Libyan Government to resolve the

Lockerbie crisis. We would also like to see the embargo

against Libya — a fellow Arab country — lifted, as well

as an end to the suffering caused to the brotherly Libyan

people by that embargo.

Syria supports measures to guarantee peace and

security in the Korean peninsula. We also wish to express

our support for the aspirations of the Korean people for

reunification. We further hope that serious efforts will be

made to provide assistance to the Korean people to

overcome its economic crisis.

Syria stresses the need to take the necessary steps as

soon as possible to lift the economic, trade and financial

embargo which has been imposed on Cuba for more than

30 years.

Syria is following with concern the severe conflicts

afflicting some African countries. We call on the

international community to make the necessary efforts and

to endeavour to find solutions to these disputes, in close

cooperation with the Organization of African Unity, in

order to promote peace and stability on the African

continent. The international community is further called

upon to provide assistance of all kinds to enable African

States to eradicate the scourge of poverty and achieve

development.

Among its primary purposes, the Charter of the

United Nations provides for the maintenance of

international peace and security; the fostering between

nations of international relations based on respect for the

principle of equal rights and self-determination of

peoples; international cooperation in the economic, social,

cultural and humanitarian fields; and the promotion of

human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. It also

calls for non-interference in the internal affairs of States.

The Charter encouraged the establishment of specialized

agencies in the field of international cooperation. It

entrusted the General Assembly with setting out

regulations governing the appointment by the Secretary-

General of the employees of the international

Organization. Syria underlines the importance of strict

adherence to the purposes and principles of the United

Nations during the process of reform of the Organization

in order to enable it to respond to the needs and

aspirations of its Members in the twenty-first century.

We believe that promoting development is among

the first priorities of the United Nations. There is

therefore a need to underscore the right to development.

22

Syria expresses its concern about any weakening of

the role and working methods of the General Assembly. We

call upon the General Assembly to perform its effective

role in accordance with the Charter.

In this context, we believe that the changes in the

international arena and the significant increase in the

number of Member States of the United Nations call for a

review of the composition and working methods of the

Security Council. Checks and criteria must be put in place

to prevent the arbitrary use of the veto power. Thus the

democracy and transparency which are required in its

decision-making would be enhanced, thereby leading to

more fairness and balance, as well as to non-selectivity in

the implementation of the Council’s resolutions. Although

this is an urgent matter, we believe that, in order to reach

general agreement on this question, the reforms of the

Security Council must not be subjected to a specific time-

frame.

The Secretary-General recently presented his proposals

to reform the United Nations. We appreciate the efforts he

made in preparing his proposals. However, proceeding from

our concern to strengthen the United Nations capacity to

shoulder the responsibilities entrusted to it, we would have

wished to have seen in the proposals more attention given

to the fundamental role of the Organization in promoting

international cooperation for development. We would have

liked the proposals to exclude any measures likely to affect

those programmes and activities related to development

issues and poverty eradication in developing and least

developed countries.

Human rights are a very important issue, which we

believe must continue to be pursued as an independent issue

in order to avoid any overlap with other United Nations

activities. Such an amalgamation of issues would only

further the opportunities to politicize human rights issues

and their use as a means to exert specific pressures, to

impose preconditions or to intervene in the internal affairs

of States.

Humanity has pinned great hopes on the United

Nations, an Organization born of a world war which was

destructive to great hopes. Humanity entertained the

expectation that the Organization would succeed in

outlawing war, ending all forms of aggression and

championing the right of peoples to self-determination. It

further expected it to succeed in achieving development and

in eradicating poverty and underdevelopment.

Today, as we stand at the threshold of a new

century, we all face great challenges which require us to

find the appropriate enabling environment for future

generations to live in peace, security and cooperation

within the context of international relations free of

violence and confrontation. This is the hope of our

peoples and this is what we must strive to reach as we

look forward to a better future that is more just and more

humane for the benefit of all mankind.