Egypt, 1992

At the outset, I

wish to convey the Egyptian Government's congratulations to the Presidency of

Bulgaria on the election to the presidency of the General Assembly of

Mr. Ganev and his assumption of that high post.

I should like also to put on record our appreciation of the capable

manner in which Mr. Samir Shihabi, the permanent representative of the Kingdom

of Saudi Arabia, conducted the work of the Assembly at its last session.

In addition, I want to congratulate the States that have recently joined

the United Nations. I hope that they will participate effectively and

constructively in the activities of the Organization and in defence of the

purposes and principles of its Charter.

This session, like past sessions and those that will follow in the 1990s,

is of great importance. It is being held at a stage of evolution and change

characterized by unprecedented dynamism and speed. It is a transitional stage

in the course of which new patterns of international relations are being

moulded. Hence, what the current session of the General Assembly is

witnessing is not a stable international situation but, rather, a phase in a

continuing process of evolution and change. Consequently, it is difficult to

predict with any certainty what the years and decades to come may hold for the

future of the world and its order.

This uninterrupted process of change, however, requires the reaffirmation

of certain matters which, in our view, constitute the basics which should

determine the image of the future.

The process of change should have a human content. No progress or

civilization could have a point of departure other than respect for man, his

rights, freedoms and dignity without discrimination because of colour, creed

or religion. Only in a context of respect for peoples' rights, cultures and

achievements and for their right to have their just demands met can there be

any change or progress.

International cooperation and interdependence based on justice and

fairness constitute the basis for salubrious change and for positive movement

towards any breakthrough of the future.

In the context of the existing challenges, international peace and

security are the collective responsibility of North and South, which should

shoulder their burdens and obligations and, thereafter, share the dividends of

success. Undoubtedly, the ever-increasing role of the Security Council

necessitates a review of its membership and the scope of its responsibility,

so that it may be a genuine reflection of international and regional forces.

In their new concept, international relations should be integral in

substance, rational in content and democratic in context. Therefore, the

formulation of those relations requires collective participation if they are

to reflect the interests of the international community, with all its

components, and of the balance between rights and duties and between power and

responsibility.

International relations, in their current state of evolution, reflect a

greater awareness and wider recognition of the relationship between future and

destiny. Similarly, they reflect constant movement towards realism in dealing

with inherited and nascent dilemmas. Nevertheless, they have been unable to

remove elements of suspicion and feelings of frustration. Rather, they have

helped to exacerbate such feelings in many places and about many issues,

especially in the third world.

While the seeds of change indicate a relaxation of global military

confrontations, at the same time, they have crystallized the inherited

sediments of regional and ethnic tensions and have transformed the equation of

rivalry between East and West into an equation between North and South that

has not taken final shape yet as it has not dealt, and does not seem to be

going to deal, rationally, with the massive historic imbalances between

regions of affluence and regions of scarcity, between regions of progress and

those of backwardness. Indeed, there is genuine concern that unless it takes

place under agreed controls, the ongoing process of change, will lead to the

codification of these imbalances and, thereby, make them a feature of the new

world order, with all that that would entail in terms of turmoil and chaos.

These features of today's world, and portents of tomorrow's world, give

rise to very real fears regarding the dominance of injustice and inequality in

international relations on the political, security, economic and social levels.

After this foreword, which reflects the feelings of the third world,

Egypt's delegation would like to discuss four issues: the state of affairs in

the United Nations; the situation in the third world; disarmament; and peace

efforts in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe.

It is highly important that the purposes of the Charter be made the

foundation of the new era, so that justice may be ensured, social progress

promoted and better standards of living achieved in greater freedom as

expressed by the Secretary-General in his Agenda for Peace. In our view, this

is the real core of positive development and of any world order that strives

for stability and peace.

The purposes of the Charter, however, cannot be realized, and the strong

desire to ensure justice and to promote social and economic progress cannot be

fulfilled, in an age in which acute racialist trends rear their heads anew, in

which dangers threaten the lives of whole communities, and in which there are

signs of a return to foreign intervention in the affairs of States and of

peoples.

Hence, foremost among the main goals highlighted by the Secretary-General

in his plan is action to deal, in a wider context, with the deepest causes of

tension economic deprivation and social injustice. Dealing with these banes

should be the cornerstone of the new world era. In this connection, I should

like to voice our strong support for a statement made by the

Secretary-General a statement that seems to have commanded insufficient

consideration and appreciation. The Secretary-General said:

"It is noticeable that there is a common moral concept which is

increasingly emerging and spreading among the world's peoples and

nations. It is reflected in international laws, most of which have

emerged through efforts made by the United Nations."

This statement deals with an issue on which, in our view, we should

reflect, for we are in real need of a common moral concept. For many decades,

the world has been plagued by policies of racial discrimination. Now is the

time, the opportunity, to rid ourselves of those policies. Unfortunately,

however, other racial conflicts have erupted, and there have been calls for

ethnic purity. This shows that the world still lacks a common moral concept

and the means of developing it in a rational and sound way.

Such a concept should be based on consensus among our various societies,

and it should be developed within the framework of our political experience

since the Second World War. It should also be based on an analysis of all

that has been achieved and all that has not been achieved, with a view to

assessing the role played by.existing human-rights instruments and deciding

whether to develop such instruments further or to replace them with new ones.

We need a new world social contract between various world communities,

cultures and civilizations. This new social contract should be based not on

one model, no matter how successful such a model may have proved to be, but on

rules upon which there is common agreement and which take into consideration

the intrinsic characteristics of various societies, with a view to devising

the best framework for the achievement of unity through diversity. In this

way, we would define "respect for human rights" with reference to a concept

shared and approved by all a concept that all would contract to implement.

The new world social contract for which we call a contract linking

parties from different civilizations and cultures should be constructed

within the framework of the new era in which neither globalism and nationalism

nor commonality and individuality should be regarded as opposing trends, but

should be discussed from the point of view of peaceful evolution, equilibrium

and respect for the purposes of the Charter.

I strongly believe that calling for a new social contract is linked

organically with the preventive diplomacy, participation in peacemaking and

contribution to peace-keeping called for in the Agenda for Peace.

The vision that the Secretary-General has put forth last June in his

Agenda for Peace reflects hope as much as it reflects challenges.

This vision embodies a call for the development of the role of the United

Nations from one of mere crisis management and conflict resolution to a more

comprehensive one which would embrace social, economic and humanitarian

issues. It is a vision that presents newly developed dimensions imposed by

the nature of the profound changes now taking place in the patterns of

international relations.

There should be a comprehensive and in-depth debate on this report and on

the quintessence of this vision of the future. This debate should take place

in the General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as in the various

bodies of the United Nations, side by side with intensive examination in many

other forums. It should involve research institutes in various States and

continents, and should be aimed at reaching an acceptable formula to meet the

political, security, economic and social requirements of the next stage in the

history of the world.

This Agenda for Peace keeps hope alive and sets concrete goals. It is

characterized by the fact that it does not ignore or overlook the realities of

the situation. It strikes a balance between the possible and the desirable,

and it constitutes a prelude to the major aim of adapting the existing

instruments to the new realities.

The international community, which accepts even calls for - greater

responsibility in the resolution of global and regional conflicts, also calls

for an effective role for the United Nations in preventing wars and making

peace.

Respect for the United Nations involves, by definition, respect for its

resolutions and the mobilization of its collective will to implement those

resolutions with a view to imposing peace, if necessary, or negotiating peace

if intentions are genuine and the parties concerned cooperate.

In the midst of all this, we find the problems nay, problem of the third

world which is one of the most important issues we have to discuss in this

forum that brings together all the peoples and nations of the world.

In recent weeks the third world has convened a summit meeting in

Indonesia, in the framework of the Non-Aligned Movement. President Soeharto

addressed the Assembly in detail, yesterday, on the meeting, in his capacity

as head of the Non-Aligned Movement. Today, I wish to dwell on a few points:

first, the new world order should be based on solid foundations of law and on

the principles of the Charter, as well as on an equitable sharing of

responsibility and a joint commitment to cooperation and solidarity; secondly,

the structure of that order should be dedicated to peace and justice, security

and development and democracy at the domestic national levels, and in

international relations, as well as to the promotion of the fundamental rights

and freedoms of individual human beings and peoples;

thirdly, respect for sovereignty and adherence to the principle of

non-interference in the internal affairs of other States as a principle that

should not be impaired or diminished; fourthly, settlement of disputes by

peaceful means and through continued dialogue and negotiation; fifthly, peace

and stability are contingent on social and economic factors as much as they

are contingent on political and military factors. Therefore, the diminishing

prospects of economic development and social progress result in a serious

threat to stability, and hence, to peace; sixthly, support for holding a world

summit on social development that would put people and their social needs at

the forefront of international efforts, and provide an opportunity to deal

with the multi-faceted dimensions of social issues; seventhly, the United

Nations, as the world embodiment of multilateralism, has a unique opportunity

to be the international collective instrument for establishing a new world

order based on justice and equality.

Herein lies the link between the Agenda for Peace and the hopes and

aspirations of the third world for a positive role through which it would

contribute to building the new world order. We believe that the establishment

of this order cannot and should not be realized through imposition or

coercion, but rather through a democratic process in which all peoples and

States of the world would have a role and a say. This can be achieved only

through this Organization: the United Nations.

In today's world, there exists a great tide towards disarmament and

tangible progress towards agreement on its mechanisms and the achievement of

its aims which, for long, have been sought by developed and developing nations

alike. Third world States, represented by the Non-Aligned Movement and the

Group of 77, have made abundantly clear their determination to give priority

to disarmament issues, particularly nuclear disarmament, and the rechannelling

of released resources to the areas of development and to the achievement of

socio-economic progress.

Today, at this very same session, the new world is trying to take yet

another step in that direction by introducing the Convention on the

Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical

Weapons and on Their Destruction. Egypt, which was one of the first States

that participated in drafting this Convention and which called for the

establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones and for the elimination of weapons

of mass destruction, should like to present to the General Assembly our

regional view of this Convention.

First, we are in favour of moving towards chemical-weapons disarmament in

the framework of an international Convention that would constitute a part of

an evolving and comprehensive process of disarmament towards general and

complete disarmament, particularly of weapons of mass destruction;

Secondly, we agree with the framework and content of the Convention as

presented by the Conference on Disarmament;

Thirdly, however, from our regional perspective, we consider that this

Convention should not be dealt with in isolation from other efforts related to

other weapons of mass destruction, mainly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation

of Nuclear Weapons, the international system of safeguards and inspection, and

the provision of credible international guarantees;

Fourthly, we have a declared initiative regarding the establishment of a

zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, including

nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and other delivery systems.

Therefore, our view of the Convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons

comes within this overall framework and is an integral part of it;

Fifthly, Middle East Arab and non-Arab States, with the exception of one,

have joined the international system of inspection or the Treaty on the

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Thus their support for the disarmament

process is evident. However, the existing exception of one State gives rise

to many security concerns, particularly as we know that this exception enables

one State in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons without any

international restrictions. It also enables this State, which possesses a

massive arsenal of military industries, to be engaged in a process of missile

development in a manner that makes it an enshrined exception in the framework

of the disarmament process. This greatly negates the effectiveness of all

disarmament operational instruments and threatens the whole concept of

regional and even international disarmament. It also restricts the freedom of

the region's States in acceding to the Convention on the prohibition of

chemical weapons;

Sixthly, against this backdrop, the ministerial meeting of the League of

Arab States conducted an in-depth discussion of this issue in mid-September.

The meeting approved the following points as a basis for the Arab position

towards the Convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons: full

willingness to deal with all disarmament proposals that would provide security

through equal obligations applicable by one standard to all the States of the

region; reaffirmation of full support for the elimination of all weapons of

mass destruction from the Middle East, including nuclear, chemical and

biological weapons, as the best way to achieve security for all the States of

the region; and willingness to deal with the Convention on the prohibition of

chemical weapons and the framework of efforts aiming at the establishment of

the zone to the extent that the excepted State, namely Israel, would respond

to international calls to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons and to subject its nuclear facilities to the international

safeguards system.

That is our position towards the Convention on the prohibition of

chemical weapons. It is a position of support, but within the framework of an

integrated disarmament process at the regional level in order to maintain the

security of the Middle East States that are threatened by the existence of

nuclear weapons in their region without any international control or legal

obligation.

Still dealing with the Middle East region, I should like to say that the

stage through which the region is passing now is characterized by many

positive elements as well as negative ones.

In connection with the Middle East problem and the Palestine question,

negotiations are currently under way, bilaterally and multilaterally, within

the framework of a peace process based on the land-for-peace formula, and on

Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), adopted in the

framework of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. They

clearly provide for inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,

and thus safeguard the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of all,

through withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967; and for the right of

each State in the region to live in peace within its internationally

guaranteed borders, thus ensuring security for all, Israel and Arab States

alike.

In fact, the Government of Mr. Yitzhak Rabin has moved in the right

direction, dissipating clouds of uncertainty and clearing the way for hope and

optimism. A basis of credibility has thus been created for the negotiations.

That credibility was about to be lost indefinitely because of the actions of

the previous Israeli Government and the former Prime Minister's statement that

his intention was to procrastinate for 10 years.

However, it is not only the atmosphere of the negotiations that is

important but also the content of those negotiations, particularly in view of

the fact that the Arab parties, mainly Syria, have agreed to enter into

comprehensive peace agreements with Israel, provided that the latter adheres

to its obligations under the Charter, and international law as well as to the

unanimous international resolutions that stipulate withdrawal to the

international boundaries and the recognition of the legitimate rights of the

Palestinian people.

Egypt has set out in detail its integrated view of the components of a

comprehensive peace based on the elements of security and justice in

accordance with the following principles:

First, that the Arab-Israeli conflict in its entirety has four

components: land, Palestinian rights, security for all, and regional

cooperation in the framework of peace;

Secondly, the need to implement the Security Council resolutions which

represent the acceptable terms of reference for a negotiating process based on

the formula of land for peace;

Thirdly, the special status of Al-Quds city does not prejudice the fact

that East Jerusalem is a part of the territories occupied since mid-1967. The

principles of any settlement are as applicable to it as they are to any other

part of the occupied territories. Its future is not to be foreclosed nor

decided upon unilaterally. Consequently, it represents an area of the peace

negotiations, whether in the interim stage or in the final stage, of a

Palestinian-Israeli settlement;

Fourthly, a settlement should be comprehensive for all fronts, including

the Golan, Gaza and the West Bank, the Jordanian territories and South

Lebanon, under Security Council resolution 425 (1978), and the behests of

international legality.

Fifthly, interim arrangements in the context of the talks on full

autonomy should be made without prejudice to the right of the Palestinian

peoples to decide their own future and the exercise of their right to self

determination;

Sixthly, the problem of the post-1948 war Palestinian refugees and the

persons displaced after the 1967 war should be dealt with in conformity with

resolutions based on international law and consensus based on good faith.

The Egyptian view of a future Middle East within the context of new

international relations, as well as the context of cultural affinity and the

historical ties that bind all Arab States, together with Egypt's peaceful

relations with Israel, enable Egypt to play an active role in the peace

process and to provide some support for the negotiations to fulfill the

legitimate demands called for under Security Council resolutions 242 (1967)

and 338 (1973) and the land-for-peace formula. So much for the problem of the

Middle East and Palestine.

As for the Gulf region, which is part of the Middle East, we witness new

tensions caused by Iran's occupation of Arab islands, the latest of which was

Abu-Moussa. This is a development we can neither overlook nor ignore. We

therefore call upon Iran to reconsider its position on this issue, to adhere

to the principles of good- neighbourliness, to respect the norms of

international law and the sovereignty of States over their territories and to

restore the situation to the status quo ante. We hope that the course of

relations between Iran and the Arab peoples will be one of friendship,

brotherhood and cooperation. These peoples have much in common to make them

more united than otherwise.

Amidst these omens for the region, we in Egypt are concerned about the

fate of all segments of the the Iraqi people and all parts of its land.

Therefore, while we call upon the Iraqi Government to abide by the rules and

decisions of international legality, we call upon the international community

to safeguard Iraq's territorial integrity and the unity of its people. In the

same way, we support Kuwait's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its

international borders.

As we discuss the major issues facing the world of today, I cannot but

refer to the situation in Africa. The African continent, and particularly in

the Horn of Africa, faces a range of political, economic and social problems.

The situation cries out for increased attention to be paid to the continent on

the part of the international community. In the meantime, the democratic

changes in the continent and its States' awareness of the need for continental

and regional cooperation gives us confidence that Africa has the capability to

rise to the challenge. I therefore urge the international community to

shoulder its responsibilities towards implementing the Second Industrial

Development Decade for Africa in the 1990s in order to accelerate the

transition to democracy and the economic and social development in the

countries of the continent.

At the same time, progress in the process of eliminating apartheid is a

positive aspect amidst such drawbacks. It should not be hampered by the

attempts of racial extremists. The people of South Africa are on their way to

exercising their legitimate rights. Incidents of violence or apostasy must

not stop the positive evolution. Our responsibility is to support the process

of dialogue and negotiations in order to restore the momentum needed for

achieving a democratic non-racial society in South Africa.

Last but not least, the situation in Somalia requires more than the mere

humanitarian assistance to which we all contribute. What we need is to

intensify efforts to achieve national reconciliation. While we call on the

international community to continue its efforts in the humanitarian field, we

call upon the Somali parties to rise to the responsibility of forging sound

relations between them and discarding the tribal rivalries and power struggles

which show a lack of national awareness.

By the same token, we stand firmly against aggression and in defence of

respecting the sovereignty and independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and are

committed to stopping attempts at interference in its internal affairs, as

well as the practices of "ethnic cleansing" committed against its people,

which reflect an attitude of inherited racial bigotry, intellectual

backwardness and cultural regression. The demise of Yugoslavia, though

regrettable in view of its past contributions to international life, makes it

incumbent upon us to work for the respect of equal rights for all its peoples

and all the States that have emanated from it, as all of them, not only one,

are its successors in the world order. A view that has already been adopted

by the General Assembly.

These are the issues that are of concern to us in Europe, Africa and Asia.

We are at the threshold of a world which looks forward to stability, but

is in a transitional period in the course of which the map of tomorrow may be

redrawn. Chaos may erupt and States, ethnic groupings, and terrorists may

resort to force to an attempt to halt the march of history, civilization and

progress. But the collective will shall open the doors to the United Nations

and, thereby, will allow us to opt for a better tomorrow of unhampered

economic development and social interdependence wherein we shall protect the

environment, guided by the principles and obligations of the Rio de Janeiro

summit meeting; a better tomorrow of respect for human rights; a better

tomorrow that all of us will participate in bringing about for the sake of the

world we aspire after in the twenty-first century.