Lebanon, 1999

It is my pleasure, Mr. President, to congratulate you on

your election as President of the General Assembly at its

fifty-fourth session. We are confident that your efforts and

expertise will ensure the success of this session.

I should also like to thank your predecessor,

Mr. Didier Opertti, for having successfully conducted the

work of the fifty-third session. Furthermore, I would be

remiss if I failed to express our thanks and appreciation to

the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for his dedication

to the pursuit of world peace and stability and for his

continuous efforts to enhance the credibility of the

Organization through the settlement of disputes, old and

new.

This session is unique not only because it is the last

General Assembly session of the century that witnessed the

birth of the United Nations, but also because it coincides

with the emergence of serious trends that call for by-

passing some of the basic principles on which the United

Nations was built. They advocate the establishment of a

new world order, one to whose requirements the United

Nations must conform rather than being part of the wider

and more comprehensive United Nations framework.

A case in point is the call to acknowledge the

principle of relative sovereignty or the obligation to

interfere where necessary in the internal affairs of States, or

to marginalize the role of the Security Council, which is the

main tool for the maintenance of international peace and

security.

Some States believe that the establishment of a new

world order is a result of decisive, historic developments in

vision and concept. Others, however, feel that it is no more

than a mere desire on the part of some to impose ideas

commensurate with the drastic change that has taken place

in the balance of power on the international scene. In our

opinion, this issue requires further deliberations and

discussions.

Through dialogue we, the peoples and countries of the

world, can arrive at a unanimous understanding of the

questions at hand, and in this way secure the necessary

assurance in our pursuit of the common good and security

of humanity. History has shown that no regime or system

can endure and prevail unless it is built on justice and

equality. It cannot be selective, nor can it pursue a policy

of double standards. It cannot assert its authority over

some and remain indifferent to injustices done to others.

It cannot give generously to some and persistently deprive

others. Any system that seeks to maintain international

peace and security must depend on preventive diplomacy

to preempt problems long before their onset and

exacerbation.

Furthermore, it should create an effective mechanism

for peacemaking, one that contributes seriously to

building and safeguarding peace. It is essential that we

tackle the root causes of problems, not merely their

violent manifestations.

We must also persevere in our pursuit of world

economic and social justice. We should not be content

with defending stability from a restrictively political

perspective.

In any event, no world order, whether old or new,

can condone, for example, the occupation of the lands of

others by force. It cannot allow acts of aggression to be

committed against people and property, nor should it

subject civilians to various forms of arbitrary practices.

In March 1978, Israel undertook a unilateral act of

aggression against Lebanon. It occupied one tenth of

Lebanese territory. In the face of this aggression, the

Security Council adopted resolution 425 (1978) and called

upon Israel to withdraw its forces from all Lebanese

territories immediately and unconditionally.

Even though more than 21 years have passed since

the adoption of that resolution by the Security Council, it

has not been enforced. Israel continues to occupy

cherished parts of southern Lebanon and the Western

Bekaa valley. Throughout those years, Israel has

continued its almost daily acts of aggression against

Lebanon and its people.

In 1982, Israel's hostility peaked when its forces

invaded Lebanese territory, reaching the capital, Beirut,

after a long siege. After a partial withdrawal from

Lebanon, Israel resorted to the current scorched-earth

policy. Throughout the month of July 1993, Israel

bombed dozens of Lebanese villages and towns from

land, air and sea positions. It inflicted heavy property

damage, killed and wounded more than 250 civilians and

9

forced more than 300,000 Lebanese out of their homes and

villages.

In April 1996, continuing its policy of comprehensive

destruction and bombardment, Israel intentionally massacred

102 civilians in the village of Qana, using incendiary

bombs. Most of our fallen martyrs were women, children

and elderly men who sadly thought they could find a safe

haven in the premises of the United Nations forces in

southern Lebanon, but alas, Israel did not hesitate to violate

the sanctity of those premises.

Soon after, an understanding was reached for a

ceasefire and for protecting civilians. This became known

later as the April Understanding of 1996. A group was

established to monitor the implementation of that

agreement, with the membership of Lebanon, Syria and

Israel and under the co-chairmanship of France and the

United States of America.

Allow me, on this occasion, to express our

appreciation to the group for the useful and restraining role

it has played pending the realization of the full and

unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the Lebanese

territories.

Unfortunately, this has not prevented Israel from

repeatedly and seriously violating the terms of the April

Understanding. Israel has lately launched yet another attack

against Lebanese civilians and infrastructure. On 24 and 25

June 1999, Israeli warplanes destroyed two power plants

and three bridges, causing a total blackout in Lebanon.

Communications were jeopardized, extensive property

damage was incurred and many people were killed. This

Israeli act of aggression has had direct and indirect negative

effects on the social and economic life of Lebanon until

this very moment.

Israel persists in its oppressive arbitrary practices

against civilians in the territories that are still under its

occupation. Civilians are kidnapped, detained, tortured or

killed, displaced or expelled.

We in Lebanon are tirelessly working with the United

Nations and other humanitarian forums to put an end to

these acts and to prevent their recurrence, the most recent

of which was the imposition of siege on the village of Aita

al-Sha b and other villages in the south. Agricultural crops

were destroyed and many of the residents were kidnapped,

expelled or detained.

On 14 July 1999, Lebanon celebrated Lebanese

prisoners' day. From this rostrum, we again call for the

redoubling of efforts and for bringing more pressure to

bear on Israel to release all the Lebanese detainees

languishing in Israeli prisons as hostages.

Israel's Supreme Court has acknowledged and

condoned holding these prisoners. Some of these people

are incarcerated in al-Khiyam detention camp inside

Lebanese occupied territories. There are many elderly and

sick among them who are often denied visits and the

humanitarian care usually provided by the International

Committee of the Red Cross. This is a breach of the

Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the protection of

civilians in time of war.

On this occasion, Lebanon emphasizes once again its

right to be compensated for the loss of life and for the

property damage that has been inflicted upon it for many

years as a result of Israel's acts of aggression and

arbitrary practices against its civilians.

Lebanon recalls the need for the unconditional

implementation of resolution 425 (1978). Pending the

enforcement of that resolution, it is only natural that the

Lebanese people stand united in resisting Israeli

occupation. It is also just and natural that they uphold the

legitimacy of the Lebanese resistance, which is after all

an embodiment of the faith in one's homeland and a

highly evolved form of struggle for freedom. Moreover,

the Lebanese resistance constitutes a consecration of the

legitimate right of self-defense included in the terms of

reference of the April Understanding of 1996.

Israel repeatedly circumvents the mandate of the

United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). For

our part, we highly value the positive and constructive

role that UNIFIL plays. On this occasion, we would like

to express once again our appreciation and gratitude to

the Force for the noble sacrifices it has made in fulfilling

its mandate under the most arduous circumstances.

Lebanon is certainly committed to the Middle East

peace process. Lebanon stands ready, given the

inseparability of the Syrian and Lebanese tracks, to

resume the negotiations from the point where they left off

in 1996 and in accordance with the terms of reference of

the 1991 Madrid Conference. Our ultimate objective is to

reach a just, comprehensive and permanent peace in the

Middle East on the basis of the resolutions of

international legitimacy. Lebanon reiterates here its

commitment to resolution 425 (1978), which does not call

10

on the parties concerned to negotiate but does

unequivocally call upon Israel to withdraw immediately and

unconditionally from all Lebanese territories.

At a time when serious prospects have appeared on the

horizon for the resumption of the peace negotiations, and

despite what might be said about the art of negotiation, the

recent declarations by senior Israeli officials do not auger

well for the peace process. Nor do they expressly indicate

the presence of presumably good intentions. They do not

leave room for us to conclude that there is a genuine desire

on the part of the Israeli side to establish peace based on

justice. All of this prompts us to view with caution the

conditions set out for the resumption of the peace process

at the present stage, to say the least.

Israel's intransigence becomes all the more apparent in

the light of the statements made by its Prime Minister

Barak. In those statements, Mr. Barak stressed several no's,

namely, no to a return to the 1967 borders, no to the

partition of Jerusalem, no to dismantling the settlements,

and no to the return of Palestinian refugees. Mr. Barak

repeated his position when he declared at his recent meeting

with President Clinton that the Palestinian refugees shall not

return to their homeland and that they should stay in the

countries where they presently reside. The natural

prerequisites of peace cannot be reconciled with

Mr. Barak's no's. Those prerequisites are based on justice

and have been endorsed by international legitimacy. They

require the following elements.

Israel should withdraw unconditionally from Lebanon,

in accordance with the provisions of Security Council

resolution 425 (1978).

All of the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria,

to the borders of 4 June 1967, as has already been

discussed and agreed upon.

The Palestinian people should be able to regain their

inalienable rights. Those rights include their right to self-

determination, to the establishment of their State on their

national soil, with Jerusalem as its capital, and their right to

return to the lands in Palestine from which they were

uprooted.

On this occasion Lebanon would like to draw the

attention of the international community to the fact that it

is impossible for a peaceful settlement to be achieved and

for the long-awaited peace to endure and prevail unless the

Palestinian refugees, particularly the hundreds of thousands

whom Lebanon has hosted on its soil, are allowed to return

to their homeland. From this international rostrum,

Lebanon resonates its people's unanimous and

unequivocal rejection of settling Palestinian refugees on

its territories. This unanimity was consecrated in the

Lebanese Constitution, which is the cornerstone of the

national covenant. We see it as necessary to draw

attention to the danger of approaching this question from

a merely economic and social perspective while ignoring

its political dimension. That political dimension is, in

essence, the core of the injustice that befell the

Palestinians who were displaced from their homeland.

This unanimous position is shared by both the Lebanese

and the Palestinians in Lebanon.

Lebanon therefore renews its call for the

international community to shoulder its responsibility in

full. It must come up with a just and equitable settlement

that addresses the issue of the final status of the

Palestinian refugees, in accordance with the

internationally agreed principles that govern similar

situations. Those principles, it should be recalled, were

recently applied in Kosovo. Settling Palestinian refugees

in Lebanon, which is equally rejected by the Palestinians

and the Lebanese, would create, if carried out, a potential

hotbed of tension that would jeopardize the security of the

Middle East region and its stability as well.

We view positively the opportunity for progress in

the peace process. The recent visit by United States

Secretary of State Madame Madeleine Albright to some

countries in the region was an acknowledgment of the

responsibilities of her country and the influence that that

visit can bring to bear on the parties to the conflict. For

our part, we are keen on the role that the United States

and the Russian Federation can play in the pursuit of a

just and comprehensive peace. We believe that they can

both provide the necessary guarantees for the successful

implementation of the prospective agreement.

We equally count on an active European role in both

the political process and the development of the region as

well. This applies to the negotiations for the settlement of

the conflict and to the subsequent stage. We particularly

applaud the supportive role of France, on which we can

always rely.

We would like on this occasion to thank the

Presidency of the European Union, currently held by

Finland. Our thanks go in particular to Ms. Tarja

Halonen, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, who

recently visited Lebanon as part of her visit to the region.

Ms. Halonen expressed the European Union's readiness to

contribute to the search for a just, peaceful and

comprehensive solution to the Middle East question.

Lebanon was among the first countries to condemn the

Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. It supported all

the Security Council resolutions adopted in this regard. We

express our solidarity with sisterly Kuwait on the question

of the release of Kuwaiti detainees and prisoners of war.

We also support Kuwait's claim of sovereignty over all of

its territories and resources. Releasing the Kuwaiti prisoners

can contribute to the improvement of inter-Arab relations.

At the same time, Lebanon hopes that the embargo imposed

on the brotherly people of Iraq be lifted. They, too, are

entitled to live in dignity and to enjoy prosperity and

security.

Lebanon attaches special importance to the question of

consolidating the security and stability of the Arab Gulf

region. We applaud the efforts made by Gulf Cooperation

Council to eliminate the causes of tension and to settle

existing disputes by peaceful means in the context of good

faith and good neighbourly relations. Those efforts were

undertaken to settle, among other things, the dispute

between the United Arab Emirates and the Islamic Republic

of Iran over three islands.

The United Nations is the sum total of the collective

will of its Member States. It has been unable to discharge

all of its obligations in the context of the settlement of

protracted and new disputes. It has also been unable to

restore peace to many of the tension-ridden regions of the

world. It is appropriate to proceed with the reform

programme envisaged for the international Organization, as

outlined by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1997. This

will enable the United Nations to respond to the accelerated

pace of international relations in the political, economic and

social fields.

But despite all the risks and pitfalls, our international

Organization is still a unique international authority. It is

the proper forum in which to engage in a balanced and

objective discussion that will lead to at least some

necessary solutions. It is heartening indeed to recall that the

Organization has had some outstanding and promising

achievements in several fields of human endeavour. These

include achievements in the fields of human rights, the

rights of the child and women's rights, as well as

environment and development. They also include the

progressive development of international law and the

enriching of the body of international law by the

establishment of new institutions such as the International

Criminal Court.

It is pertinent to mention in this respect that Lebanon

has a time-honoured culture that is deeply rooted in

history. Our country has been an integral part of the

international scene, acting and reacting to it positively,

since it joined the Organization as a founding Member.

Because of its openness and intellectual wealth, it has

always taken the lead in responding to the requirements

of progress at various levels.

Lebanon is seeking to join the World Trade

Organization (WTO). It has been working steadily to

develop its economy and rationalize its financial policies.

By so doing, it will be able to bring these policies in line

with the standards and regulations drawn up by WTO.

This will ultimately pave the way for a world economic

partnership in trade and development on the basis of

mutual benefit and equality among States.

Lebanon attaches great importance to environmental

issues and has created a ministry for this specific purpose.

Lebanon joins in the international efforts currently under

way to resolve these problems. It calls upon powerful

States to honour the commitments they entered into under

the international conventions concluded for this purpose.

Lebanon also believes that the phenomenon of

globalization has become a reality that is imbued with

both positive and negative elements, which in turn

influence the cultures and economies of Member States.

In our opinion, the United Nations is the proper forum to

address and check the repercussions of this phenomenon.

It is in fact the mature offspring of the 1940s version of

globalization.

Lebanon has always been firm in its commitment to

the principles of democracy and freedom and faithful to

its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. It

has always honoured the decisions and resolutions of the

international Organization and its various bodies and

conferences. We have built in our capital, Beirut, a

beautiful headquarters building for its subsidiary bodies.

We believe in its mission and are committed to its

purposes.

Lebanon is currently devoting every effort to

complete the process of reconstruction and to consolidate

and rationalize its institutions. We are steadily working on

establishing the rule of law. Our unique experience with

coexistence, built on moderation, tolerance and unity in a

sound national environment, is an example to be

followed. Lebanon is determined to regain the

distinguished position it once held in the region and the

12

world. It will remain true to its Arab identity, with all the

consequences and dimensions that this entails.

Lebanon is a small country on the east coast of the

Mediterranean. For 5,000 years, it has hosted successive

civilizations. Lebanon influenced these civilizations and was

influenced by them. We shall take the lead in giving, once

we have recovered our national soil thanks to the struggle

of our sons and with the effective support of the

international community.