Egypt, 1996

This session is being held amid a very sensitive and

delicate international situation which is generally

characterized by political and socio-economic concerns.

This is particularly evident all over the developing world,

which is overpopulated and simultaneously overburdened

with problems of backwardness and the challenges of

development. The hopes that were raised with the end of

the cold war, heralding the advent of a new era in which

cooperation and détente would prevail, soon were shattered

in the midst of these problems and these concerns. We are

currently facing conflicting phenomena, where elements of

complementarity and integration coincide with tendencies

towards division and disunity. The technology and

communications revolution runs parallel to the eruption of

national conflicts and ethnic animosities. Ambitions of

leadership overlap practices of hegemony. This has created

a serious conceptual confusion which the international

order, in its current form, cannot address in an effective or

deterring manner. Indeed, this order, due to its obvious

double standards, might have contributed to the

intensification of the era’s negative aspects at the expense

of its positive aspects and gains.

Certainly, the logic of evolution and the rules of

transformation indicate that the stages of change carry

within them a potential risk as well as elements of rivalry,

unless an objective and conducive environment exists,

accompanied by a forward-looking vision and a set of

highly advanced values that are crystallized through

coordinated and concerted efforts. This is precisely what

did not happen. The dichotomy between the North and the

South is widening. The lack of common understanding

among world cultures and civilizations is still present.

This has caused discord in world thinking and created

mutual suspicions that not only pose an overwhelming

threat, jeopardizing the march of political progress and

the activities of economic development as well as the

fabric of social development, but also have raised

questions as to whether the benefits of science and

technology lead to world security and stability, or quite

the opposite.

In connection with contemporary international

politics, it is really most alarming that attempts are being

made to marginalize the United Nations at a time when

the world is in need of further understanding, better

coordination and accelerated interdependence. It would

have been more logical to call for the strengthening of

this Organization, so that it could perform its role in

achieving these objectives in a truly democratic manner,

with the participation of all the countries of the world

with their diverse cultures, societies, sizes, orientations

and achievements. This is particularly true since the

United Nations Charter, in our view — a view shared by

many others — still represents a major instrument

governing international life, and since any international

order, be it old or new, must be based on a solid

foundation that respects rights, determines obligations and

opens the door to an era of interaction among societies on

the basis of acceptance and understanding, not imposition

or oppression.

We are definitely aware that the challenges of

tomorrow are different from those of yesterday. We are

also aware that the United Nations, in its current culture,

may not be able, one way or another, to deal with future

challenges. However, this must be a subject for discussion

to build consensus among us, not a matter to be

determined by a few or to be decided unilaterally.

For these reasons, it is imperative to strive

collectively to build a common political will to strengthen

the United Nations, to enhance its effectiveness and to

restore its credibility in order to maintain world stability

and security.

The annals of this Organization abound with

historical achievements and it continues to make progress

in dealing with the problems of our world. An in-depth

reading of the Secretary-General’s reports on political,

17

economic and social situations in the world reassures us of

this role and we urge that it be upheld, because it addresses

the present and explores the prospects for the future

through global understanding.

The Secretary-General’s role in developing a rational

basis for worldwide development activities has succeeded

in focusing attention on the issues of our times through a

series of conferences held over the past five years on the

environment, human rights, population, social development,

women and human settlements. These represent important

reference points for global action based on international

consensus in dealing with problems that were once marginal

but are today substantial. We call on the Secretary-General

to pursue this approach, which allows the United Nations

to stand out in a distinctive and positive way in a world of

growing negativity.

A strengthened role, reform and enhanced efficiency

are our common objectives for the United Nations. The

historic Declaration issued last year by the Heads of State

and Government on the fiftieth anniversary of the United

Nations constitutes a cornerstone for the future work of the

Organization. The Declaration contained a clear conceptual

framework for global action on the basis of the priorities

upon which we all agreed: peace based on the principles

and provisions of the Charter and supported by an effective

regime of collective security; development in all its aspects

in the social and economic fields; sovereign equality among

States and respect for peoples’ rights; and justice in

addressing the various issues on the international agenda.

Egypt deems it necessary to translate these noble principles

into clear programmes of action that take into consideration

the interests of all without discrimination.

When we met here last year to celebrate the United

Nations fiftieth anniversary, we were dismayed by the

events in the Great Lakes region in Africa, where

horrendous massacres had left a painful humanitarian

legacy. We were disturbed by the events in Bosnia, where

United Nations “safe areas” had been overrun and innocent

people had lost their lives in despicable ethnic strife.

However, we were optimistic at that time about

developments in the Middle East. The Interim Agreement

had been signed between President Yasser Arafat and the

late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, and described

as an important step on the path to finding a solution to the

question of Palestine. Has the situation changed or evolved

for the better?

Let us look into last year’s developments in that

region. In recent months, the Middle East has undergone a

crisis that has almost stifled the peace process, a crisis

resulting from the reluctance of the Israeli Government to

act in keeping with the agreed fundamentals of peace.

This position has threatened a return to the language,

concepts, policies and even practices that were on the eve

of extinction in the region. Thus, action on all peace

tracks was deadlocked and the peace process stagnated.

This prompted Egypt, which initiated that process and

believes in a just and balanced Arab-Israeli peace, to

intensify efforts to rectify the situation and consolidate the

fundamentals of this process, first among which is the

“land for peace” principle.

In this context, I would like to put forward the Arab

position as contained in the final communiqué of the

summit held in Cairo last June. The attending Arab

leaders unanimously expressed their keen interest in the

continuation of the process of making a just and

comprehensive peace an Arab strategic option under

international legality. This Arab position requires a

corresponding commitment, seriously and unequivocally

undertaken by Israel, to abide by the principles agreed

upon at the Madrid Conference, particularly the “land for

peace” principle and the assurances provided to the

parties. The Arab leaders stressed that any breach by

Israel of these principles or of the bases in which the

peace process is anchored; any reneging on the

commitments, undertakings or agreements made in the

framework of this process; or any procrastination in their

implementation would set back the peace process, with all

the risks and repercussions involved. This could replunge

the region into an atmosphere of tension and would force

all Arab countries to reconsider the steps taken vis-à-vis

Israel within the framework of the peace process. In such

a case, the Israeli Government alone would assume full

responsibility.

The Arab leaders emphasized that there would be no

recognition or acceptance of any situation resulting from

Israeli settlement activity in the occupied Arab territories,

since the settlements are considered an illegal measure

that entails no rights and establishes no obligations. The

establishment of settlements and the bringing in of settlers

violate international law and the Madrid framework and

impede the peace process, which requires Israel to halt all

settlement activities in the occupied territories. The Arab

leaders also emphasized that a just and comprehensive

peace in the Middle East can be achieved only through a

resolution of the questions of Al-Quds and the Palestinian

refugees on the basis of their rights of return and to

compensation, in accordance with international legality

and United Nations resolutions.

18

A short while ago, the new Israeli Prime Minister met

with the Palestinian President. Undoubtedly, their meeting

represents progress towards their mutual recognition as

partners on an equal footing in the Palestinian-Israeli peace

process. In theory, the peace process should proceed to

implement the commitments made under the Oslo Accords

in accordance with the agreed timetable, but that has not

yet happened.

We are interested not in handshakes or wide smiles for

photo opportunities, but rather in substantive developments.

Thus, what is required and what we should all strive for is

the implementation of commitments, serious negotiation and

time well spent. We call upon the entire world to follow up

the matter with us with full vigilance and to allow neither

retrogression nor the manipulation of very sensitive and

serious matters, namely, the establishment of a permanent

contractual peace between Palestine and Israel that fulfils

the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and

culminates in their exercise of their right to self-

determination under international supervision and the

establishment of a Palestinian State. This peace must also

achieve security for Israel and all parties on an equal

footing.

Israel is called upon to desist from its settlement

policy, including the expansion of settlements, and to end

its policies of closing territories and besieging the

Palestinian people. It is called upon to honour its

commitments, redeploy its troops outside Hebron and

resume without further delay the final status negotiations.

Israel is also called upon to put an end to its practices in

Al-Quds, a city where any rights that could be claimed by

Israel are outweighed by Arab rights, which are more

ancient, legitimate and authentic than any Israeli claim to

the city.

On the Syrian track, I can say in all honesty and with

full confidence that Syria is ready to resume the

negotiations suspended last February at Israel’s request. The

negotiations should resume at the point at which they

stopped, which is fair, and in accordance with the Madrid

framework and the principle of “land for peace“, which is

right.

From this rostrum, Egypt calls for the resumption of

these negotiations. Israel must refrain from pursuing

policies and formulations that may be interpreted as

squandering years of negotiations and that constitute a

regression from principles that have become an integral part

of the rules for peaceful work in the region and are backed

by international legality and supported by broad

international consensus.

On the Lebanese track, we call for the

implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978)

and Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanon, to which

Israeli officials have repeatedly stated they have no

territorial claim.

Peace in the Middle East will not be comprehensive

or lasting until a strict regime for regional security is

established, based on arrangements that provide equal

security for all parties with minimum levels of armament.

The region must be totally free from all weapons of

mass destruction — nuclear, chemical and biological —

and their delivery systems. Peace and security cannot

survive in the presence of any instability in the balance of

power or serious discrepancy in the rights and obligations

of the countries of the region.

Furthermore, we are closely watching the huge

Israeli arsenal, which includes weapons of mass

destruction, missiles and anti-missile weapons. We

wonder about the rationale behind it. We believe that it

has, indeed, led to a reaction by a number of countries in

the region to this serious escalation, at a time when we

are all talking of peace. Given this fact — or, rather, to

avoid its consequences — Egypt proposes the initiation of

effective negotiations to establish a zone free from all

weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

President Hosni Mubarak has been making such a

proposal since April 1990.

Egypt calls upon the permanent members of the

Security Council and the depositary States of the Treaty

on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),

which sponsored and adopted the resolution on the

Middle East during the Review and Extension Conference

of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons, to take specific steps to establish a

nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East in

accordance with the Egyptian initiative, which has

enjoyed the consensus of all the States concerned since

1980.

While Egypt stresses the fact that arms control and

regional security constitute one of the pillars of peace and

stability in the Middle East, it also believes that economic

and regional cooperation under a just peace constitutes

another such pillar. Regional cooperation is inseparable

from the establishment of peace: peace is its essence and

19

its framework. Two sessions of the Middle East-North

Africa Economic Summit have been held, in Casablanca

and in Amman, the capital of Jordan. Both were held in an

atmosphere of optimism that the peace process would

succeed. Indeed, there have been some successes, such as

the signing of the interim agreement between Israel and

Palestine, and the holding of direct negotiations between

Syria and Israel. They took place against the background of

a receding settlement policy and continuous discussion

about peace and its objectives. However, today we see the

exact opposite. This state of affairs threatens peace, its

framework and all that is associated with it, including

regional cooperation, which can prosper only in an

atmosphere of peace and hope for the future. We therefore

call upon Israel to return to the fundamental framework of

peace in accordance with the agreements concluded, the

terms of reference established and the principles approved.

While Egypt is in favour of holding the third

Economic Summit as scheduled — like others, we have a

great deal to contribute in the fields of economic reform,

investment and development — we call upon the sponsors

of the peace process, especially the United States, to strive

to create the conditions that could lead to the successful

convening of the Summit. That can be achieved only by

making serious endeavours on all peace tracks, in terms of

both negotiation and implementation. We are making this

declaration before the entire international community, so

that every party will discharge its responsibilities and

honour its commitments. If they do not, the balance will be

disturbed and the issue will become meaningless.

Peace in the Middle East is contingent upon justice,

balance and honesty in negotiating and addressing the needs

of peoples. From this stems the open Egyptian diplomacy

that regards the current situation as a matter of utmost

seriousness. We once again reiterate that Egypt rejects any

measure that results in an unbalanced peace that satisfies

the interests of one party at the expense of another. The

peace that we aspire to is a balanced Arab-Israeli peace that

reciprocates right for right, security for security, and

commitment for commitment.

A just and comprehensive peace is the cornerstone of

stability in the Middle East. Despite the unpropitious

attitude of the new Israeli Government to the peace process,

right alone will eventually prevail. Peace will impose itself,

propelled by the desire of the peoples of the region,

including the people of Israel, to live in genuine peace,

cooperation and stability.

Egypt, whose people contributed to laying the

foundations of human civilization, has for centuries

accepted and continues to accept the imperatives of

geography and history, which give Egypt special

responsibilities for the affairs of our region and beyond.

Egypt takes the initiative for peace, seeks prosperity,

prompts enlightenment and is steadfastly involved in

advancing the march of progress.

Egypt therefore empathizes with the agony of the

region and the repercussions of developments there.

While peace in the Middle East is at a crucial stage, the

Gulf region, which is part of the Middle East, is also

undergoing a number of unfavourable developments. The

stability of the Gulf region is, for more than one reason,

linked to the ultimate interests of Egypt and its security.

In particular, it is an area endowed with a potential and

with characteristics that make its stability and security a

matter of significance to all Powers concerned with

international peace and security.

The result of our review of the succession of events

in this area leads us to several conclusions. First, strict

compliance with Security Council resolutions on Iraq,

without fail or divergences, is the only way to guarantee

the end of the crisis that erupted in August 1990.

Secondly, the use of force cannot restore rights or rectify

wrongs. Thus, the rights of the Iraqi people, the

maintenance of its unity and respect for the rights and

well-being of Iraqis, whether Arabs or Kurds, will remain

the major concern of all of us. We are equally concerned

with safeguarding the rights of the people of Kuwait and

the return of detainees and property.

Thirdly, the memorandum of understanding on the

oil-for-food resolution, which was reached after arduous

negotiations, must be put into effect without any further

delay to alleviate the suffering of our brothers, the Iraqi

people.

Fourthly, compromising territorial integrity and the

unity of Iraq is not only a breach of international law but

will open the door to major repercussions undermining

regional stability and threatening the interests of

neighbouring countries.

Fifthly, the withdrawal of Iran from the three islands

of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Musa, Tunb as

Sughra and Tunb al Kubra — is a sine qua non condition

for defusing another hotbed of tension. The Arab call to

Iran to settle amicably any territorial claims to those

islands is still valid.

20

Sixthly, the policy of intervention and the attempts to

manipulate ethnic and religious minorities to destabilize

other neighbouring countries cannot help to establish

stability in the Gulf region or the wider region of the

Middle East, or help ensure the interests of any of the

parties concerned, in addition to its being a flagrant

violation of the rules of international conduct.

Before leaving the issue of the Middle East, I would

like to refer to the dispute between Libya and some

Western countries, a dispute to which we attach particular

importance because of its repercussions for the region as

well as the damage and suffering it inflicts on our brothers,

the people of Libya, on the economies of the neighbouring

countries and on the stability of the region in general. In

view of our keen interest in averting an escalation of the

problem and in expediting the attainment of an early

settlement, we support the efforts and initiatives made by

the League of Arab States, the Organization of African

Unity (OAU) and the Non-Aligned Movement, and call for

a positive response to those efforts and initiatives.

Moving from the Middle East to Africa, we find

stories of success and of failure — pictures both bleak and

bright. While our sister country Rwanda has restored its

stability and launched its reconstruction and development,

its neighbour, our sister Burundi, is an example of the real

turmoil which is affecting the entire Great Lakes region.

Last year we expressed our extreme dismay at the situation

in this important region; today we reiterate this, and stress

the need for the Security Council to discharge its

responsibilities to avert the recurrence of Rwanda’s tragedy

in Burundi.

There is, however, a positive element that we hope

will not be lost in the disappointment over the deteriorating

situation in Africa: the efforts of the OAU, which have

started to take shape within an institutional framework that

we hope will be successful. This was embodied in the

establishment of the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention,

Management and Resolution, which will play a role in

resolving the problems of the continent. The countries and

the leaders of the Great Lakes region, particularly former

President Nyerere, have played a laudable collective role in

reconciliation, dealing with the question of refugees and the

rampant ethnic rivalries in the region. Serious efforts were

also made by the Economic Community of West African

States (ECOWAS) to settle the Liberian problem,

particularly by Nigeria, which has made continuing efforts

during its current chairmanship of that subregional group.

We commend the efforts made by Ghana during its

chairmanship of ECOWAS over the past two years. We call

on the international community, and the United Nations

in particular, to support all of these efforts and to provide

the necessary means for their success.

This applies also to the numerous efforts made to

achieve national reconciliation in Somalia, the

implementation of the Lusaka Protocol in Angola and the

settlement plan in Western Sahara. We hope that the

parties concerned will benefit from these historic

opportunities, so that stability will prevail in Africa and

so that international support for these efforts will

continue, particularly in terms of post-conflict

rehabilitation and socio-economic reconstruction.

In this context, I should like to draw attention to the

gravity of the continued deterioration of the socio-

economic situation in the African continent, which

includes two-thirds of the world’s least-developed

countries; one-third of its population is facing starvation.

Despite this fact, the countries of the continent are

tenaciously striving towards economic reform, structural

adjustment, strengthening regional cooperation among

themselves and dealing with the social situation in the

continent in accordance with the Declaration issued in

Cairo in March 1995.

These efforts are still faltering as a result of

diminishing international support and a lack of necessary

financial resources. Thus we support the United Nations

System-Wide Special Initiative for Africa presented last

March by the Secretary-General based upon

comprehensive mobilization of resources and full

participation of international institutions. Hence, we call

upon donor countries and upon the international

community to take the necessary measures to deal with

the critical economic situation in Africa, particularly the

external debt problem, by providing the necessary

resources and creating an environment that will enable the

continent to join the march of development and to be able

to address its socio-economic problems, which represent

one of the root causes of political tension and instability

there.

The critical economic situation in Africa leads us to

voice some of the concerns of Egypt and the developing

countries vis-à-vis the world’s economy. Suffice it here to

make a reference to the importance of the faithful

implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements and the

necessity to address the negative impact on the net food

importing countries. We look forward to the success of

the first ministerial conference of the World Trade

Organization (WTO), to be held in Singapore. We would

21

like to highlight the importance of focusing on the

implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements without

attempting to raise new issues such as those pertaining to

investment and the linkage between international trade, on

the one hand, and labour and environment, on the other.

Any proposed additional issues should be subject to in-

depth study. We reiterate the leading and important role of

the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

(UNCTAD) in this regard prior to bringing such issues to

the WTO for consideration.

Turning to Bosnia, there is hope of implementing the

Dayton agreement to put an end to the appalling tragedy

caused by “ethnic cleansing” and racist narrow-mindedness.

The agreement will be implemented under international

protection, represented by the Implementation Force

(IFOR), to which Egypt and numerous other countries

contribute. Despite all the circumstances associated with the

election process, its results are still a source of optimism in

the possible victory of the forces of moderation so that

Bosnia can become a multi-ethnic State where Serbs,

Muslims and Croats live together in peace.

Egypt welcomes the election of President Izetbejovic

as President of the tripartite Presidential Council. In this

respect we would like to stress a number of points which

we think can guarantee the stability of the situation and

ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Dayton

agreement. First, it is important to consolidate the territorial

integrity of Bosnia, to reject vehemently and strictly any

attempts at partition and to respect the democratic process

and the results of elections. Secondly, it is necessary to

assist the State of Bosnia in completing the necessary

components of building its national army and to provide it

with the equipment it needs to deter any external threat or

face a new collapse of the internal situation after IFOR

withdraws. Thirdly, it is necessary to provide the economic

support Bosnia needs to rebuild and rehabilitate the country,

since this will represent support for the foundations of

coexistence and peace among its three ethnic groups.

Fourthly, it is essential to punish the war criminals.

Otherwise, talking about human rights in the world will be

futile and will be considered as an entrenchment of double

standards.

The phenomenon of terrorism has become exacerbated

and now knows no boundaries. We must all implement the

Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International

Terrorism, which was adopted at the forty-ninth session.

Terrorists must find no refuge in any civilized country. We

must all cooperate in uprooting all sources of terrorism. We

must construct a well-defined legal system that ensures the

pursuit of those who are responsible for terrorism, and

their prosecution and extradition to stand trial for the

crimes they have perpetrated, crimes that terrorize

peaceful people and threaten international stability. We

must define clear criteria and rules that guarantee that the

right of political asylum will not be extended to the

undeserving, so that that right will not become a licence

encouraging terrorists and protecting them from

prosecution and punishment.

Terrorism is an international phenomenon that is not

linked to a particular geographic region or to a particular

civilization, culture or religion. We have witnessed the

evidence, ranging from the Far East to the Middle East,

to Europe, and to America. Terrorism has even come

close to this very building. The entire international

community must harness the necessary resources to

confront this vicious aggressive phenomenon, to eradicate

its sources and to isolate whoever provides it with

assistance and encouragement. In this respect, I call on

the United Nations and the civilized peoples of the world

to respond swiftly to the call of President Hosni Mubarak

to hold an international conference to deal with the

criminal phenomenon of terrorism and, as a contribution

to peace and stability in the world at large — to mobilize

joint international efforts to combat it.

I began my statement with our perception of the role

of this Organization. I conclude it by paying tribute and

expressing my appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose expertise and insight have

contributed, during his current tenure, to the identification

of problems and challenges facing the international

community and this Organization. He has drawn up the

agenda on items under consideration as well as

approaches for dealing with them. The implementation of

this agenda is contingent upon the will and the interest of

the Member States.

As it reiterates its confidence in the Secretary-

General, a confidence shared by members of two of the

most prominent regional organizations — the Arab

League and the Organization of African Unity — Egypt

attaches high priority to seeing him preside over the

United Nations Secretariat for a second term, during

which he will have the chance to lead the Secretariat and

to take part in implementing the programmes he devised,

the reform process he designed and the solutions he

initiated to the problems facing the Organization,

problems that surface in an international arena witnessing

the birth of a new order whose features are not yet

defined, problems that occur as the United Nations passes

22

through a historic juncture, on the threshold of a new

century and a new millennium.