Lebanon, 1994

We are gathered here today, in a new session of the

General Assembly, in a new year in the life of the United

Nations, one that will take us to the end of the first half

century of its existence, which we shall celebrate next year.

Half a century will have passed since the birth of a

great dream, a dream that humanity envisaged as an

endeavor for peace, reconciliation, solidarity,

rapprochement, and dialogue amongst peoples of different

ethnic origins and cultures across continents, a dialogue

amongst nations, States, ideologies, religions, and creeds

of this world, with all its differences and singularities.

Through this great dream, humanity wanted to create

an arbiter, a referee on right, justice, and peace, and a

forum in which it could discuss its problems and seek

arbitration; in which it could find a way to defend rights

when rights are denied, to defend itself when injustice

prevails, and a champion that would stand by its side

when it is threatened.

Through this dream, mankind sought to put an end

to wars and armed conflicts, to protect the sovereignty of

nations, and to guarantee respect for their independence

and free choice.

Thus, the United Nations came into existence.

The United Nations was born; and along with it, a

great project emerged - one that was expected to

contribute to the solution of the world’s crises. Alongside

the Organization, its political, security, social, economic,

and cultural organs were set up. The peoples of the

world expected a lot from those organs, and treated them

accordingly, with a deference commensurate with their

standing.

The will of this prestigious world body, which

represents the position, the decision, and the will of the

world’s peoples, is more comprehensive than the will of

any individual State, no matter how great and powerful it

may be. The peoples of the world looked up to it and

accorded it the respect normally granted to the defenders

of right and justice. Right and justice supersede political

interests, no matter how strong they may be.

How far away are we today from this dream, from

this great endeavour, from all those intentions, slogans,

ambitions, aspirations, ideals and prospects?

Where is peace in the world, when battlefronts are

widespread? What have we done about the resolution of

conflicts while conflicts escalate? What about the

elimination of violence which is still on the ascendance?

How far away are we today from protecting what is right;

from upholding the sovereignty of nations which is still

undermined; from respecting human rights and the rights

of peoples and States which are still being trampled?

What have we done about the resolutions adopted by

this very Organization, in this very General Assembly

33

Hall? What about the resolutions that await

implementation, and the many others that await adoption,

and are knocking about in the labyrinths of impotence and

deals? How far away are we today from the credibility and

authority of our resolutions, from the one single standard by

which we should judge things?

I beg your indulgence for daring to voice these

questionings. I beg your indulgence, because they are

voiced by a State which is not privileged to be a member

of the club of powerful nations which dare to question the

United Nations.

I beg your indulgence, because those who need the

United Nations are not the powerful and the influential.

The United Nations was not created for them. It was

created for the oppressed, for the unjustly treated, for those

who are not powerful by any means.

The small size of States and the humble size of their

populations have never been the true yardstick by which

their role and contribution should be measured. Many

nations have had a history larger than their geography, a

role larger than their size, and a contribution far greater

than the potential of others. Lebanon is one of those

States.

We have existed for thousands of years, ever since

humanity first organized itself into entities. We have had

our political, cultural, economic, legal, and humanistic

structures ever since.

Side by side with its Phoenician civilization, Lebanon

embraced Pharaonic, Mesopotamian, Persian, Greek,

Roman, Arab, and Western civilizations. Our foremost

contribution was to give mankind its first alphabet. We

have also enriched it with our legal, intellectual, cultural,

economic, scientific, educational and humanistic

contributions.

We were present when the United Nations was born.

We were also present when the International Court of

Justice issued its first opinion, and we contributed to its

making. We volunteered to work in all the United Nations

organs and programmes at all levels. We shouldered our

share of responsibility by hosting some of them, and by

offering them the best of our men and intellectuals.

Social and cultural pluralism was our national

hallmark. In our composition, we were able to develop

an abridged formula for multicultural nation States. The

principle of state-building in the post-First World War era

was based on nationalities and ethnic origins. But today

in the era of communications super-highways, in the era

of ever-increasing demographic mobility, we have come

to recognize that this principle, when put to the test, has

failed.

While attempts have been made through the years to

obliterate the distinctive identities of peoples living under

certain regimes - as in the case of the Soviet Union

during the Stalin era - those identities have resurfaced, as

have the problems which resulted from the attempt at

their suppression.

If Lebanon were an almost unique case in the past,

given the pluralistic features of its society, it is no longer

so today. The Lebanese experience has become

commonplace, as we have come to witness through the

now commonplace demographic movement of populations

and the lowering of geopolitical barriers. While our

formula has been tested, many countries are still in the

experimental stage.

With the demise of the theory of nationalism, there

is need for a new system, one that allows for the

coexistence of different cultures and identities under the

roof of one homeland, as dictated by modern economic,

technological, and practical challenges and needs.

Lebanon, its land and its people have had to suffer

the ravages of regional and international conflicts, the

vagaries of hurricanes of international ideological

differences and their complications. But, as ever in our

history, we have been able to prove that we have the

ability to rise to the challenges that face us and that our

formula for coexistence is much stronger than some

people may have believed, merely because it is the only

feasible and practicable one.

When Lebanon was able to overcome the wars

waged by others on its soil, armed with the will of its

people and the support of its brethren and friends; when

Lebanon enhanced its internal security and stability,

reactivated its national dialogue and tore down the

barriers between its various factions and forces; and when

Lebanon started to rebuild its institutions, rehabilitate its

infrastructures and embark upon its political and

economic endeavours, it proved once again that its

34

time-honoured existence could not be wiped out and that it

was too strong to be eliminated.

But Lebanon’s full sovereignty over all its territories

and its total independence will remain compromised so long

as major parts of its soil are not under its control and so

long as the State remains unable to extend its full

sovereignty over all its national soil through its own

legitimate national forces.

So long as Israel occupies Lebanon’s territories,

despite repeated United Nations resolutions and the will of

the international community; so long as Lebanese citizens

are still languishing in Israeli detention camps, ignored by

the international community and out of the reach of the

humanitarian organizations that are not allowed to visit

them; so long as this continues, the wounds will not heal

and the blood shall not be stanched.

So long as that occupation continues over more than

one eighth of our national territory; so long as Israeli raids

continue to sow the land daily with bombs, mines and

booby traps - killing mainly our innocent children; so long

as these criminal acts continue against a heroic people that

refuses to surrender, the cries of our women and children

will continue to haunt the world along with our cries of

anger, revolt and resistance.

Until now, the occupation has failed to contain this

anger, regardless of the means employed. Day after day,

the death toll rises, ours and theirs. Blood flows in

Southern Lebanon and in the Beka’a Valley. No

technological invention, no matter how ingenious, and no

technique of war have been able to undermine our people’s

determination to regain its independence, freedom,

sovereignty and peace.

There are over 300 Lebanese men and women still

languishing in Israeli prisons. Some have died; others have

been disabled. In their prison cells, they hear about a

theory called "human rights", one that tops the agendas of

our meetings and forums. Theorists are preoccupied over

the rights of flora, fauna and the environment while our

prisoners wonder to which class they belong and under

which category they are classified.

So long as the international community addresses the

world’s problems by using more than one standard; so long

as Security Council resolutions remain unimplemented; and

so long as Chapter VII of the Charter is applied selectively

to troublemakers who lack any kind of protection, we

cannot be deemed faithful to the true mission of the

United Nations.

We have waited so long for the international

community to show some real interest. We have also

waited impatiently for the implementation of Security

Council resolution 425 (1978), only to see the Council

refrain from condemning the aggression rather than

enforce its resolutions. When it does condemn, the

condemnation applies equally to the aggressor and the

aggressed under the pretext of supporting the peace

process.

We were invited to the Madrid Peace Conference.

We were optimistic about the invitation, the content and

the sponsorship. The co-sponsors were super-Powers and

the Conference was to be convened on the basis of a just,

comprehensive and lasting peace, anchored in the

principle of "land for peace" and on the basis of Security

Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425

(1978) respectively. We accepted advice to join in that

mechanism. By accepting the invitation, we accepted the

content. We were expected to discuss mechanisms and

schedules.

Three years have passed since the convening of the

Madrid Conference. Months followed upon each other’s

heels in waiting, time and again, for parliamentary

elections, for presidential elections, for the appropriate

moment on the local level and for circumstances aimed at

improving the position of one side while isolating or

cornering the other side.

Three years have passed, and our tour of world

capitals is almost complete. From Madrid to Washington,

to Paris, to Oslo and to Moscow. We are still discussing

the basic principles which should have been settled the

very first moment the Conference was convened. The

principle of "land for peace" still awaits the definition of

the land concept. The principle of withdrawal is still

unclear, since in the way that it is proposed, it still means

occupation under different forms.

The principle of negotiating land for peace, which

presupposes equality in the negotiating positions, is

preempted by pressuring the Arab negotiator so that he is

left with nothing to offer. Resistance must stop - so we

are told - without any guarantee of withdrawal or

liberation. The boycott must end, but no guarantees are

given for the recovery of the usurped rights. We must

enter the multilateral negotiations without knowing

whether or not there will be peace and what the form and

35

content of that peace will be. We are asked to celebrate

and to shake hands without knowing what it is we are

celebrating. We are required to take into account the local

public opinion of others; we have to reassure that public

opinion of others as if we ourselves do not have a public

opinion to convince and as if we do not have our own

sceptics who question our opting for peace.

Yes, we the victims of aggression are required to give

security guarantees to the aggressor. Those without

weapons are required to reassure those who possess nuclear,

chemical and bacteriological weapons. Yes, we entered the

negotiations for peace - an honourable peace, not a guilty

one; a balanced peace, not a lopsided one; a just peace, not

an unjust one; a comprehensive peace, not a partial one; a

genuine peace, not a festive one; an equitable peace, not a

biased one; a natural peace, not an artificial one; a

permanent peace, not a temporary one; a peace of the

people, not of regimes; a peace that makes us proud, not

ashamed; a peace of loyalty to, not betrayal of our martyrs.

We want a peace that allows for the return of

refugees, rather than consecrates their dispersion; a peace

that satisfies the revolutionary, instead of provoking him; a

peace from which we draw strength; a peace we can

protect; a peace that will, once and for all, relieve the world

of this burden, the burden of our region; a peace that will

put an end to exporting anger; a peace of prosperity,

development, and stability; a peace that will allow our

widows to cease their mourning.

The days when the problems of peoples were confined

to their own countries are over. The days when geographic

and political boundaries were a barrier between peoples are

over. Our era is one of interdependence and of

communication. It is an era of the lowering of all barriers.

No country is too remote. No matter how far removed

from the area of conflict, it will still be affected by that

conflict and by the demographic problems that do not

recognize boundaries or borders, unless such problems are

stemmed at the source.

We can always be subject to nuclear, chemical and

bacteriological pollution, since there are no boundaries in

the atmosphere. The environment can very well become

contaminated, because the mountains cannot stop the wind

from blowing, and nature cannot stop rivers from flowing.

We will all be affected, whenever and wherever a

disaster strikes. We are all concerned about the world’s

security, its stability, prosperity, resources, needs,

requirements, markets and citizens, wherever they may be.

The Middle East must not forever remain a fiery

volcano that threatens the peace of the world around it,

challenges international security, and destabilizes the

world economy. It must not remain the source of the

world’s anger and resentment.

Let there be no more occupied territories, no more

acts of aggression, no more prisoners languishing in the

prisons. Let there be no more blood flowing through the

land of the prophets. Let no more darkness prevail in the

cradle of God’s religions.

This region will not enjoy more favorable

opportunities than those that exist today. Time will not

be forever on the side of those who seek peace. Our

region must produce visionaries, as it has always done,

and not manipulators of peace.

Our congratulations to you, Sir, on the assumption

of the presidency of this session of the General Assembly

cannot come from the heart in isolation of what we

expect from the United Nations during your presidency.

The efforts of the Secretary-General cannot be viewed or

appreciated outside the scope of our view of the United

Nations. May God guide you and illuminate your path in

the service of world peace to which Lebanon is dedicated

and for which it fights.