Syria, 1999

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Mr.

Gurirab on his election to the presidency of the General

Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. I am confident that

the struggle for freedom of his friendly country, Namibia,

and his wide-ranging knowledge of international issues

will facilitate his lofty task and will lead the deliberations

of the Assembly at this important session to a successful

conclusion.

I should like to express my thanks to the Foreign

Minister of Uruguay for his efforts and wise leadership of

our deliberations in the General Assembly during the

previous session. I should also like to express our

gratitude to the Secretary-General of our Organization,

Mr. Kofi Annan, for his attempts to uphold the principles

and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations.

The Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Republic of

Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of

Tonga to the United Nations. We are confident that the

presence of these States in the international community

will buttress the role of the United Nations and uphold its

principles.

15

Leaving the last century of the second millennium and

entering the first century of the third millennium does not

in itself mean the end of an era and the beginning of a new

one in the life of humankind. States and peoples will take

with them into the next century their concerns, aspirations,

successes, failures, challenges and hopes. They will

continue as usual to follow their economic, educational,

political and social development plans and programmes,

knowing that the end of the twentieth century will not

automatically mean an end to current regional conflicts.

Neither will it automatically raise levels of development or

rid developing countries of the debt burdens under which

they are languishing.

If the advocates of market theories and globalization,

and their political leaders, were to recognize that at present

the poor are becoming poorer while the rich become richer

and that the gap between developing and developed

countries is becoming wider in every area — whether in the

economic, commercial, technical, health or environmental

spheres — an element of pessimism would, unfortunately,

mar the feeling of optimism with which we hope to

welcome the dawn of the twenty-first century.

Optimism about the future is desirable because it

prevents humanity, both at individual and society levels,

from falling into the trap of despair and frustration.

Optimism is also justified because progress in research,

science and knowledge shrinks distances, eliminates

obstacles and opens doors and minds in the South as well

as in the North. Given that fact, it is natural that people's

understanding of each other's problems and concerns should

increase and that ultimately a common awareness will

develop to enable everyone to face the threats and

challenges that await humankind everywhere on this planet.

Like poisonous waste from industrial development, the

epidemics resulting from underdevelopment and poverty

know no borders or obstacles. Drugs would not have spread

in some States in the South had it not been for the many

traffickers and users in the countries of the North. Neither

should we forget that the pollution of the environment in

the countries of the North is primarily the result of

industrial production of all kinds, both sophisticated and

basic, at a time when environmental pollution in the

countries of the South is primarily the result of the lack of

a minimum of small, basic industries capable of making

products to deal with environmental pollution or of

employing the means to do so.

In this context, we should like to reaffirm our belief

that weakening the economies of the developing countries

does not necessarily serve the interests of the economies

of developed countries, because it weakens the purchasing

power of the former, which, in turn, negatively affects the

rates of economic development of the latter. The financial

crisis that affected the economies of the countries of

South-East Asia two years ago reflected that mutual effect

when its repercussions reached Brazil and even some

other countries in South America. There must, therefore,

be a constructive dialogue between developing and

developed countries, a dialogue based on common

interests, genuine interrelations and mutual responsibilities

aimed at ensuring sustainable development and social

justice.

We hope that there will be an end to the contrariety

by which the industrial countries demand that developing

countries open their markets and borders to their products

while the developing countries are finding it difficult to

export their goods because of protectionist measures and

obstacles, including the prevention of the transfer of

technology and the refusal to allow developing countries

to integrate such technology into their industrial

processes.

If we were to look back at the ethnic and religious

wars and conflicts that spread with the end of the cold

war and that reached the heart of Africa, Asia and even

Europe, we would find it difficult to imagine their

repercussions being confined within closed borders.

Through succeeding waves of migration, various religions

and ethnic groups have become part of the social fabric

of most societies in the world, especially in Western

countries. The tragedy of such wars and conflicts is

therefore a source of concern for most countries of the

world, particularly the United States of America, which

has the largest number of ethnic and religious groups of

any country in recent history. That fact explains the

interest the United States takes in regional conflicts,

particularly those in the Middle East, which have

repercussions at the domestic level in the United States.

Such American interest is commensurate with the varied

impact of these conflicts, although one should not

disregard the other economic and strategic interests.

The impact of impressive scientific and technological

advances in communications and in the flow of

information on such events will not be limited to a

momentary pinprick of conscience when we see them on

our television screens. It could well go beyond this in the

future, resulting in concrete action by large groups and

16

could in turn threaten the stability and sovereignty of

States, especially those whose populations encompass many

ethnic groups and religions.

It is regrettable that these grave challenges and

phenomena will be carried over into the next century,

perhaps for years or even decades, without a remedy. We

are convinced that the best framework for facing up to

these challenges and phenomena in a serious and effective

manner is a United Nations truly respected by all its

Member States, one based on collective action by the States

of the North and of the South, all according to their own

potential and capacities.

Marginalizing the role of the United Nations, using it

only on selected occasions and as a cover for initiatives and

decisions adopted outside the Security Council, will serve

the interests of no one. The problems and challenges facing

mankind are truly grave and dangerous both quantitatively

and qualitatively. We believe that no one State, however

powerful and wise it is, can meet these universal problems

and challenges alone, much less find lasting, solid solutions

to them.

Clearly, many are dissatisfied with the use of

humanitarian pretexts to launch military intervention outside

the framework of the Security Council. It began with the

intervention in Somalia in 1992, whose repercussions

included the collapse of all State institutions and the

carving up of the capital, Mogadishu, among fighting

warlords. This trend continued with the intervention in

Kosovo, where the fate of the people remains in the

balance, although the intervention succeeded in supplying

the people with medicine and food.

But here it must be said that illegitimate intervention

outside the framework of the Security Council is not as bad

as completely ignoring dangerous and bloody crises such as

those beyond what might be called the line of death and

hunger: a line stretching from the Horn of Africa, in the

east, to Angola, in the west, and then to Rwanda, Burundi

and the Congo. Many suffering Africans who live along

this bleeding line and who lack the most basic necessities

may well envy the inhabitants of Kosovo, who at least had

food and medicine during their ordeal.

Since the end of the cold war hopes have been pinned

on the reform of the United Nations and on an increase in

the membership of the Security Council with a view to

achieving a more democratic and fairer representation in

this international organization. The Non-Aligned Movement

has been enthusiastic about this issue and has given it

serious consideration at all its conferences. Its member

States know full well that they lack influence in the

Security Council commensurate with their numbers and

reflecting their legitimate concerns. At the same time,

Germany and Japan, following major international

transformations, have become aware of how important it

is for them to become permanent members of the Security

Council. Here Italy has played an important role in

seeking a third way between the North and the South. No

solution has yet emerged that could attract consensus on

the subject among members of the United Nations.

The unavoidable question for us all is what has so

far been achieved in the process of reforming the Security

Council and promoting its role and status. The answer is

nothing, except for the marginalization of the role and

status of the Security Council and the extension of its

activities beyond the primary responsibility for

maintaining international peace and security, both when

events have required it and, at times, when they have not.

It seems that the premeditated marginalization of the role

of the Security Council and the fact that the reform

process has been almost dormant are being used by some

as a pretext for ignoring the Charter and violating the

sovereignty of States through the use of regional military

organizations as a substitute for the Security Council.

The world today cannot endure a nuclear arms race

that threatens the security and the very survival of

mankind, particularly in the absence of a just and stable

international order. There will be no successful non-

proliferation regime without achieving universality for the

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

(NPT). Syria, the other Arab States and most countries of

the world have appealed to the five nuclear States, in the

light of the 1995 extension of the NPT, not to exclude

any State from acceding to the Treaty, so that the world

may be spared another nuclear arms race. A new nuclear

arms race has actually taken place in South Asia since the

extension of the Treaty. In the Middle East, Israel remains

the only State in the region that refuses to accede to the

Treaty and to submit all its nuclear installations to the

safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy

Agency (IAEA). As the time for the next review of the

NPT approaches, Syria renews its call for transforming

the Middle East into a nuclear-weapon-free zone under

United Nations auspices, as a serious contribution to the

creation of a propitious climate for the regional peace,

security and stability to which we all aspire.

The international community looked to the peace

process that began at Madrid in 1991 as the most

17

important, most serious initiative for ending a conflict that

has been raging for decades, one that has bled the huge

economic and human energies of the peoples of the region.

The Madrid framework, the guarantees offered by the

United States, the results reached based on relevant Security

Council resolutions, the principle of land for peace, all

constituted obligations and commitments accepted by all

parties concerned. None of these can now be called into

question or circumvented. They all have been duly

deposited with the United States Administration, with the

agreement of the parties concerned. Hence Syria's call to

reaffirm that trust, including complete Israeli withdrawal to

the lines of 4 June 1967, and resumption of peace talks

with Israel from the point at which they were suspended in

order to address pending matters until both sides agree on

full peace.

What Syria is calling for cannot be considered a

“precondition”, as the Israeli government claims: if we were

to accept that it was, as the Netanyahu Government also

claimed, we would have to conclude that any agreement

between negotiators on any single component of any a

peace accord would always be considered a “precondition”

if any move were made to conclude any other component

of a peace accord. And that would invariably take

negotiations, back to square one after each step forward,

endlessly back and forth.

Also, we draw the Assembly's attention to the falsity

of the Israeli claim that Syria wants to get a particular

result in the negotiations before they have even started.

Needless to say, trust in the United States of America does

not, by itself, constitute a peace agreement; rather, it is a

fundamental part of an agreement whose remaining

elements — normal, peaceful relations and security

arrangements based on the purposes and principles laid

down under United States auspices and with its

participation — still need to be fleshed out.

So we were not surprised, yesterday, by the address of

the Foreign Minister of Israel before this Assembly, when

— under the flag of peace education — he requested

leaders and teachers to stress to their peoples and students

the importance of peace, totally ignoring the fact that the

Israeli occupation is a major reason for the absence of

peace in the region.

Peace education requires first and foremost an end to

Israel's occupation of Arab territories. Specifically, it must

withdraw from the Golan Heights to the 4 June 1967 line;

from south Lebanon; from the western Bekaa, and also

from Jerusalem, the city of peace. Settlement activities in

the occupied territories and the destruction of Arab houses

must stop. Last but not least, Israeli words about peace

must be translated into deeds, so that students in Israel do

not think that peace education means continued

occupation by force of other peoples' lands.

During the past few weeks, major efforts have been

made by the United States of America, and by the

European Union, the Russian Federation and other

countries. We hope that these efforts will continue until

Israel realizes how fair Syria's position is and how ready

Syria is to resume negotiations at the point where they

left off. Let us not waste long and arduous years of

negotiations: Syria is eager not to miss this opportunity to

achieve peace; if it is missed, then Israel alone should

take the blame.

Syria reaffirms once more its great concern for the

unity and territorial integrity of Iraq and calls for an end

to the suffering of the fraternal Iraqi people. It calls for

economic sanctions to be lifted, in accordance with the

relevant Security Council resolutions. It also calls for no

action or measure to be taken outside the United Nations

context. At the same time, we ask Iraq to implement the

remaining Security Council resolutions in a manner that

guarantees a just solution to the problem of Kuwaiti

prisoners of war and other detainees.

Syria also calls on the Security Council to put an

immediate and final end to the sanctions against Libya, as

Libya has honoured all its obligations under Security

Council resolutions. We would emphasize that we fully

support the Libyan requests for the sanctions to be ended.

In the light of the fraternal relations which Syria

maintains with the United Arab Emirates and the Islamic

Republic of Iran, we call on these two neighbouring

countries to hold talks to find a peaceful solution to the

dispute over three islands in the Gulf.

The continuing tragic situation in Afghanistan is a

source of great concern to us. We are convinced that the

Afghan problem can be solved only if the fighting ceases

and negotiations are begun on achieving national

reconciliation and finding an acceptable and lasting

political settlement that results in security and stability for

our friends the Afghan people.

Syria expresses its full support for all measures to

ensure peace, security and stability on the Korean

peninsula. It expresses its support also for the aspirations

of the Korean people for national unity achieved by

peaceful means and free of foreign intervention.

18

Syria once again highlights the need to take all

necessary steps, at the earliest possible moment, to end the

economic, trade and financial embargo on Cuba imposed by

the United States of America for almost four decades. We

support Cuba's call for differences between the two

countries to be resolved through dialogue and on a basis of

equality, mutual respect and good- neighbourly relations.

As we bid farewell to the twentieth century, the

human race is still yearning for a world free of war,

injustice, ignorance and poverty, a world governed by

international relations based on cooperation, mutual respect,

greater justice and true equity. Those are the yearnings

which the peoples of the world hope to see realized next

century, so that coming generations are guaranteed a better

life and a more prosperous and humane future.