Egypt, 1999

At the outset,

it gives me great pleasure to extend to you, Sir, and to your

friendly country my sincere congratulations upon your

election as President of the General Assembly. I am fully

confident that you will steer the work of this important

session ably and effectively. I would also like to express

my appreciation to your predecessor, Mr. Didier Opertti, the

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, President of the

General Assembly at its fifty-third session, for his wise

conduct of the business of that session.

It also gives me pleasure on this occasion to salute the

Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, and his efforts to

maintain the role of the international Organization, improve

its performance, increase its efficiency and restore its

credibility and effectiveness. My pleasure is all the greater

in welcoming the Republics of Kiribati and Nauru and the

Kingdom of Tonga to membership of the United Nations.

The fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly is

being held at a historic juncture that comes only once every

100 — indeed, every 1,000 — years. This is the last

session of the General Assembly before the end of the

twentieth century and of the second millennium since the

birth of Christ. That century and that millennium have

embodied a combination of mankind's greatest

achievements as well as catastrophic tragedies.

Yes, the second millennium has witnessed momentous

events. During the last century of this millennium, these

events have taken place at a pace faster than any recorded

history of humanity. The outgoing century has become a

catalogue of contradictions, some of which bear testimony

to mankind's genius and others to its ignominies and

immoralities. All our diverse civilizations, without

exception, have produced warmongers and destructive

tyrants. They have also produced great leaders, advocates

of peace, inventors, creative artists, scientists, explorers and

statesmen who provided good leadership and gave wise

counsel.

According to the Gregorian calendar, we are at the

close of a century and a millennium. By the Hijri calendar,

we are in the fifteenth century after the migration of the

Prophet Muhammad, who revealed to the world a noble

religion and gave it an enlightened civilization. We in

Egypt are approaching the end of the seventh millennium

in the life of an ancient country; a country that is as old as

history itself; a country that contributed to the making and

recording of history. Humanity's attainments at this time

and in this age are not the fruit of the achievements of the

twentieth century alone; rather, they are the result of the

accumulated achievements made since the beginning of

time. The Egyptians excelled at science and engineering

and were the first to profess monotheism. The

Babylonians gave the world the alphabet. The Phoenicians

mastered navigation. The Arab civilization flourished in

al-Andalus, preserved Greek philosophy and added to it.

The Islamic civilization in Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Turkey

made great contributions to all aspects of life. The

Renaissance in the Italian city-States followed. Then came

the French Revolution, advocating the ideals of liberty,

equality, and fraternity. The industrial revolution started

in Britain. America ushered in the computer, information

and communication revolutions and the age of space

exploration and atomic energy. I would also refer here to

the profound philosophies and great civilizations that

flourished in China, India, Japan and elsewhere.

This is a necessary statement of fact as we bid

farewell to this century and this millennium. Everyone

must be aware that we are all partners in the creation of

the contemporary genius. Yet the future is our real

concern. The future brings with it new challenges in the

fields of science and information; economic and monetary

matters; culture, politics and security; and the conduct of

relations between peoples and societies. These are some

of the challenges of the coming century. To this list must

be added the legacy of the unresolved problems of the

twentieth century.

The end of a century or a millennium does not mean

the end or solution of existing problems. Indeed, it is a

historical juncture and will undoubtedly mark new

challenges. Problems, like progress, are characterized by

continuity. This makes it necessary to agree on a new

forward-looking agenda that anticipates the future, its

expectations and risks — an agenda that will prepare us

to solve existing and persistent problems.

Here, I hasten to add that new breaths of fresh air

have begun to blow in various parts of the world. They,

too, will accompany us into the coming century. Africa

continues to suffer from armed and ethnic conflicts and

the disruption of development efforts. Yet a serious

African policy is being developed to put an end to these

conflicts and to achieve settlements on the basis of

dialogue, national reconciliation and conciliation between

neighbours. We also note that the African Summit held

last June in Algiers decided that the countries whose

19

Governments had taken power by unconstitutional means

must restore constitutional legitimacy before the convening

of the next African Summit in the year 2000. The Fourth

Extraordinary Summit of the Organization of African Unity,

held in Syrte earlier this month, reaffirmed the continent's

resolve to proceed on the path of unity through the speedy

implementation of a treaty establishing the African

Economic Community.

On the Asian continent, the situation in the Korean

peninsula and the question of Kashmir are still sources of

tension and confrontation. Afghanistan remains a source of

instability and tension and a haven for terrorism. Yet the

Asian economies are showing signs of recovery and are

preparing to compensate for the sacrifices that were made

and the development efforts that were lost as a result of the

financial crisis of 1997.

As for East Timor, the popular consultation held last

August reflected, in the words of the Secretary General, the

will of the people of East Timor for self-determination

without representing victory or defeat for any of the parties.

This process could not have been successful without the

bold initiative of President Habibie. While calling for a

peaceful and orderly transition of power, Egypt pays tribute

to the wise decision of the Indonesian Government to

accept the deployment of an international force in the

territory. This is a responsible and wise course of action

that will restore calm and order there.

Europe was the origin and theatre of the two World

Wars that were bitterly experienced by humanity in its long

history. There, the hateful practices of ethnic cleansing are

again looming on the horizon. Yet, we have seen the

international community take a clear and firm stand against

such practices and against attacks on the identity of peoples

and nations. We have also witnessed some progress in the

constitutional dialogue that aims at resolving the question

of Northern Ireland, the oldest contemporary crisis on the

European continent.

In the Middle East, the peace process is now heading

towards a new and positive stage. It is our hope that this

will lead to a comprehensive, just, and peaceful settlement

that will establish the Palestinian State, put an end to the

occupation of the Syrian and Lebanese territories and

ensure security for all. Thus, an end will be put to this

conflict and its files will hopefully be closed.

Despite its centrality, the Arab-Israeli conflict is not

the only problem in that vast region. Other problems

include that of Western Sahara in northern Africa, the

islands of the United Arab Emirates in the Gulf and the

question of Sudan. The latter is high on the list of

priorities of Egyptian diplomacy. For two years now, we

have been making intensive efforts and establishing

contacts with both the Sudanese Government and the

opposition in order to achieve comprehensive national

reconciliation and to preserve the unity, identity and

territorial integrity of that brotherly country. We have

been coordinating with Libya, the members of

Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and

the forum of the partners of IGAD to ensure that all the

efforts undertaken in this regard are made in a concerted

manner.

The situation of Iraq raises numerous questions. The

matter does not have a bearing on the Government of Iraq

alone. Rather, it pertains to the Iraqi people, their plight

and the suffering of their children. An objective and

positive review of the status of this important brotherly

country has become necessary. This review should

proceed from the premise that there are no eternal

sanctions and that people have the right to resume normal

life and to surpass the errors of the past and move to the

bright horizons of the future. In so doing, they must fully

abide by the accepted rules of international legality like

all other people.

Indeed, Iraqi policy was erroneous in its invasion of

Kuwait. A mistake, however, cannot be corrected by a

policy which will lead to the collapse of an entire society

or cause a whole country to implode. Therefore, Egypt is

closely following the current efforts aimed at the

suspension by the Security Council of the sanctions

within the context of an understanding with the Iraqi

Government and under the Council's supervision. This

should be the first step towards the lifting of the sanctions

in accordance with paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991),

all of whose paragraphs ought to be implemented in full.

I stated earlier that despite the high hopes and great

expectations pinned on the new century, this historical

juncture does not in and of itself bring the existing

problems to an end. I am duty-bound to put before you

Egypt's belief that certain major questions must be given

top priority on the world agenda. These are: international

peace and security, the question of the elimination of

weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear

weapons, eradication of poverty, integration of the

developing countries into the world economy on an

equitable basis, dialogue between and complementarity of

civilizations, and the question of terrorism. These

questions transcend time and space in our contemporary

20

world. Their agreed solutions must be the result of our

collective thinking and collective action.

If democracy has become a necessary pillar in the

formation of the political framework of the societies of the

future, it must equally constitute the framework of

international relations. Thus, it is necessary that the future

world order be based on consensus, on the convergence of

interests, on the acceptance of the right of others to make

initiatives, and on appreciation for the premises from which

they proceed. All this must be debated in a democratic

spirit here in the General Assembly, within its new and

evolving role.

What is indeed necessary is for us to arrive at a

consensus on the regulation of international life. This

desired consensus must respect the values, norms and

principles that are deeply rooted in humanity's conscience.

This consensus must achieve the necessary harmony

between individual freedoms, on the one hand, and the

collective rights to security, stability and development, on

the other hand. It must foster a creative dialogue and a

positive interaction between policies, cultures and

civilizations, as it must refute the theory of “The Clash of

Civilizations” and minimize the possibility of the clash of

interests.

We believe that the world, particularly at this

promising stage, can ill afford a new conflict or a new cold

war. Those who propagate the theory that Islam could

become the main threat to the West following the collapse

of Communism ignore the fact that Islam is a philosophy

and a way of life. It is not an artificial concoction that

carries within it the seeds of its demise, as Communism

did. They wilfully disregard history's greatest lesson:

interaction among diverse cultures enriches all cultures,

elevates all civilizations and adds to their vitality and

prosperity.

It is only logical for most societies in our world today

not to accept the imposition of a single view on world

problems. It is also logical for them to reject the view that

the interests of a sole society should be given precedence

over all others or that the considerations, capabilities and

interests of a certain civilization should be forced on all

other world civilizations. Therefore, Egypt supports the

resolution adopted by the General Assembly last year, at

Iran's initiative, proclaiming the year 2001 the United

Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. Egypt also

welcomes the Secretary-General's appointment of a special

representative for this important subject.

Addressing the question of dialogue among

civilizations is not separate from addressing the question

of terrorism. Some thinkers have attempted to brand a

certain civilization and culture with that affront.

The phenomenon of international terrorism is not

linked to any particular civilization, culture or religion. It

recognizes no boundaries and threatens all societies

equally. It has become a grave danger that we must

urgently combat and eradicate. We have seen acts of

terrorism in all parts of the world with diverse cultures

and civilizations, but the challenge is one and the same.

The United Nations and many States have gone quite

far in facing this phenomenon. However, the few

scattered and isolated international conventions and

resolutions that deal with it need an integrated framework

to turn them into a binding legal code. This code should

reflect the concerted efforts of the international

community to combat and contain terrorism and to

deprive it of any haven or financing.

In this regard, Egypt renews the call of President

Hosni Mubarak to convene an international summit under

United Nations auspices. The summit, whose objective

framework and timing must be agreed upon by consensus,

would be mandated to codify the collective and organized

will of the international community in dealing with

terrorism and in providing the necessary action to combat

and deter it.

I would like to move to other, equally important,

issues, among which are disarmament and the

maintenance of international peace and security. In doing

so, I must recall the need to observe the priorities

established by the international community in 1978.

Foremost among these priorities are nuclear disarmament

and the elimination of other weapons of mass destruction.

In this regard, there is a clear need to accelerate the

process of nuclear disarmament at the unilateral and

bilateral levels as well as within the Conference on

Disarmament. There is also a need to speedily achieve the

universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

These considerations impelled the States of the

Alliance of the New Agenda: South Africa, Brazil,

Mexico, Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand and my country,

Egypt, to adopt a joint declaration in June 1998. The

Alliance tabled a resolution, which was adopted by the

General Assembly last year by a large majority, calling

for the adoption of serious and concrete steps in this

21

regard. The members of the Alliance will continue their

efforts during this session.

On the regional level, I have repeatedly stated that the

elimination of weapons of mass destruction, which is the

optimum way to ensure the security of the Middle East

region as a whole, can be achieved only within a

comprehensive framework applicable to all without

exception. Peace cannot endure with an imbalance of power

or a discrepancy in rights and obligations in matters

pertaining to national security.

In this regard, all the States of the Middle East, with

the sole exception of Israel, have acceded to the NPT and

the international regime for the inspection of nuclear

facilities. This constitutes a source of constant tension. It

negates to a large extent the effectiveness of the

international instruments on non-proliferation and arms

control. It will lead to an arms race. It is illogical to give

a special privilege or a certain exception to only one State

in as vast and sensitive a region as the Middle East, and

under unacceptable pretexts.

Sound logic necessitates an end to this exception and

calls firmly for Israel's accession to the NPT. This subject

will force itself on the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The

States parties to the Treaty agreed in 1995 on an integrated

and comprehensive package to enhance the non-

proliferation regime and achieve its universality. The

extension of the Treaty was but one of the elements of that

package. I would like to stress here the importance of

giving top priority at the next Review Conference to

crystallizing the serious steps for achieving the universality

of the Treaty. The States parties to the Treaty must honour

all the obligations and commitments made in 1995 without

selectivity or discrimination. Egypt and many other States

insist on that. Otherwise, we will reach a state, which has

actually begun, of suspicion and lack of confidence.

This will have a grave effect on the credibility of the

NPT regime. It will weaken that regime considerably,

making it possible to deviate from its provisions or make

them subject to exceptions.

Talking of regional security in the Middle East leads

me to address the peace process. Egypt maintains, as it

always has, that a comprehensive peace based on justice is

the only durable and stable peace. This means Israel’s

withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied in 1967, the

establishment of a State of Palestine with Jerusalem as its

capital, restoring the legitimate human and national rights

of the Palestinian people and the achievement of security

for all. The peace process must deal with all the problems

in good faith and with courage. It must not postpone

dealing with or negotiating any item or problem. The

postponement or abandonment of problems is a

postponement and abandonment of peace. This is

dangerous and unacceptable and runs counter to the

framework and spirit of peace. It might even postpone the

establishment of normal relations between the Arab States

and Israel.

We had hoped that the Arab-Israeli conflict would

come to an end before the end of the twentieth century.

This hope is still alive, since the year 2000 is the last

year of this century.

This year we witnessed a human tragedy, the likes

of which we thought was impossible given the progress

that mankind has achieved before the advent of the

twenty-first century. Here I refer to the tragedy of

Kosovo. While welcoming the adoption by the Security

Council of a resolution on the establishment of a

Transitional Administration in Kosovo, we stress the need

for learning from this tragedy so that succeeding

generations will never witness its likes again.

Allow me to address one aspect of this

problem which pertains to our present discussion — the

degree to which the rules of international legality, as

represented by the United Nations, were observed in a

situation that pertains to the maintenance of international

peace and security. Here we find that the question of

Kosovo was a unique case of international consensus and

disagreement at one and the same time. There was a

consensus on the need for immediate action to stop the

grave crime of ethnic cleansing. At the same time there

was disagreement on who had the right to act. There were

different approaches, among which is the one we believe

in — namely, that any international action must stem

from the Security Council as the competent organ

primarily responsible for the maintenance of international

peace and security. If the Council were unable to do so,

then the General Assembly would be the organ that must

deal with any threats to international peace and security,

as it represents the common interest of all its members.

Our insistence, and that of many others on the

essential role of the United Nations, has been reflected in

the following significant message; that regardless of how

the international order is described, as old or new,

international participation in it must take place through

the United Nations, particularly when the matter concerns

the maintenance of international peace and security.

22

In this context, I would like to refer to the Secretary-

General’s report on the work of the Organization and to his

statement made last Monday, in which he reaffirmed the

importance of strengthening the collective security system

in a manner that would enable the international community

to deal with crises before they spin out of control, and the

primary role of the Security Council in this regard. The

Secretary-General has put forward a number of innovative

concepts to develop a “culture of prevention” of crises,

among which is the concept of preventive diplomacy. Thus

far, no agreement has been reached on the scope of the

application of this concept since it was first dealt with in

1992 in “An Agenda for Peace”. They also include the

concept of the preventive deployment of forces, which will

raise numerous questions in view of its connection to the

sovereignty of States. Also included is the call for

humanitarian intervention and its scope, a suggested role for

transnational corporations and the concept of the assessment

of the security impact of development policies, which could

open the door for new conditionalities if these ideas are not

developed democratically, objectively and non-selectively.

These ideas and suggestions deal with concepts that are not

yet established. This makes it necessary to debate them in

an international format characterized by the highest degree

of openness and transparency. Their formulation and terms

should be agreed upon by all. We propose officially – and

we call upon the President of the General Assembly and the

Secretary-General to take the necessary actions in this

regard – to have the General Assembly, or a committee of

the whole within it, debate these ideas and give them

substance. They must be adopted by a consensus of all

States, and the Secretary-General would be asked to present

a report on the results of this debate to the General

Assembly at its next session, in the light of which the

Assembly would take a decision on his suggestions.

The World Summit for Social Development held in

Copenhagen made the eradication of poverty a top priority

for international action, because it pertains to the stability

of the international order and its credibility. Yet the

increasing marginalization of the developing countries,

particularly that of the least developed countries, most of

which are in Africa, threatens to create new lines of

confrontation between the North and the South. This

confrontation would be fuelled by unjust economic, social

and development considerations and standards, and it could

negatively affect international stability.

Egypt, the current Chair of the Group of 15, presented

a paper to the eighty-seventh session of the International

Labour Organization reflecting the views of the Group

regarding the negative effects of globalization, the crisis of

international markets and the concomitant increase in

unemployment. All these matters must be taken into

account in the implementation of the Copenhagen

Programme of Action and the programmes of action of

other major conferences.

We also note that some developed countries have

adopted protectionist measures under the pretext of

protection of the environment, respect for human rights

and labour standards. These policies deepen the

imbalances in the international trading system. Here I

must reaffirm the need for the developed countries to

honour all their obligations under the Uruguay Round and

the full implementation of the agreements and resolutions

of that Round before engaging in any new negotiations to

further liberalize international trade.

I further reaffirm the importance of strengthening the

role of the United Nations Conference on Trade and

Development (UNCTAD) at its tenth session, to be held

in Bangkok, to achieve a balance between the interests of

the developed and the developing countries. Here I must

refer to the role of the international financial institutions.

This question needs a conscientious review in the light of

the current changes in the international economic arena.

The review should make these institutions more

responsive to the needs of comprehensive development.

It should ensure the full participation of the developing

countries in the making of decisions on the reform of the

international financial system.

In conclusion, we look forward to the new century

with hope; yet the questions surrounding it abound,

foremost of which is that two thirds of the people of the

world live in a state of underdevelopment and suffering.

How could we face the challenges of the wars that

continue to rage, the continued flows of refugees, war

crimes that continue to be perpetrated and the dire

poverty of those who cannot have their daily bread or

afford a school to educate their children or a hospital to

treat them? Any talk about globalization must take all that

into account.

These were the challenges of the past. They are also

the challenges of the present, and will be the challenges

of the future. We will be able to face them only with a

stronger will and a stronger commitment, with a more

objective way of thinking and more effective mechanisms

for action. In this way we will arrive at a new social

contract, usher in a new economic era and forge a new

security consensus for the world of tomorrow.

23