Syria, 1992

It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Syrian delegation, to

congratulate the new President on his election to the presidency of the

forty-seventh session of the General Assembly, particularly as our two

countries and peoples enjoy bonds of traditional friendship. I should also

like to express our appreciation to your predecessor, the permanent

representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for the success and skill with

which he presided over the proceedings of the previous session of the General

Assembly. May we wish his sisterly country progress and prosperity.

I should also like to take this opportunity to reiterate to the

Secretary-General of the United Nations our confidence and our appreciation of

his unremitting efforts in the service of the international community and the

principles and objectives of the United Nations Charter. In that respect, we

value the effort that has gone into the preparation of his report entitled "An

Agenda for Peace" and many of the valuable ideas contained therein.

As is customary in this forum, we welcome the new States Members which

have joined our international Organization and hope that their new membership

will contribute to the process of enhancing its effectiveness and

strengthening its role in formulating more democratic and equitable

international relations.

For the third time, the twentieth century witnesses an important change

in the political map of the world. The change is such that schools and

libraries all over the world have become in need of a new atlas, just as they

had in the wake"of the two World Wars. We fear that, because of the

continuing upheavals in the world the designers of that new atlas may have to

leave a wide margin for possible new changes that may occur in the map of this

planet as it crosses the threshold into the twenty-first century.

Fortunately, that great change in the political map of the world has not

taken place through war, as was the case in the two previous instances.

Otherwise, it would have meant the end of all life on earth. Regrettably,

however, the change has not been totally devoid of tension and violence. It

has carried the seeds of small-scale wars that have spread here and there for

national, ethnic, religious, tribal, economic and social reasons.

At this historic juncture, the real concern is not only the number of

victims claimed by such small wars or the scale of the destruction that may

ensue, but rather, the possibility of the spread of the seeds of those small

wars, in the North as well as in the South, in the absence of a world order

that is capable of containing and addressing their causes.

This is the major challenge which faces the United Nations today. It

would be paradoxical indeed if the twentieth century, whose grand bang of

scientific and cultural achievements have been hailed by all, were to end with

the whimper of small was that are waged by people with small primitive minds

the international community cannot curb.

Many have rightly spoken of the non-implementation of United Nations

resolutions and of the paralysis of its Security Council during the years of

the cold war that used to rage between East and West. But the cold war has in

effect been over for a few years now, and its demise has been officially

declared by both sides. And yet, we find that the ultimate ambition of the

Security Council today is no longer to stop the fighting and put an end to the

massacres in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Somalia, Afghanistan and other hotbeds of

tension and conflict, but merely to try and deliver humanitarian assistance to

some of the peoples of those unfortunate countries.

The end of confrontation between East and West ought not to lead to the

end of concern for the fate of the many peoples and countries which are being

torn apart by conflicts, as is happening today in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Somalia, Afghanistan and other places; nor should it lead to the withholding

from their peoples of the assistance that would help heal their wounds and

enable them to reconstruct what has been destroyed by conflict and war.

If only a very small percentage of the sums that used to be spent by the

two camps on the cold War were channelled to the assistance of peoples of the

third world, such a small percentage would make it possible to overcome most

of the difficulties and tragedies those peoples now face and to avoid further

such disputes.

At a time when the world witnesses the disintegration of whole States and

the outbreak of civil wars and conflicts, one must appreciate the exceptional

efforts that led to saving the Lebanese people from the inferno of civil war

and helping them on the road to national reconciliation through the efforts of

the Lebanese themselves and the brotherly assistance and sacrifices of Syria.

We hope that pledges made to reconstruct what the civil war destroyed in

Lebanon and to contribute to the special fund created for that purpose will be

honoured.

Since the end of the Second World War, the Middle East has enjoyed

neither security nor stability because of the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict

and its repercussions. But the convening of the Madrid conference last year

has opened for the first time, as all acknowledge, a rare and historic window

of opportunity to achieve a just and comprehensive peace based on

international legality and the resolutions of the United Nations, particularly

Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978), which,

according to the Charter of the United Nations, are binding and must be

implemented by all parties to the conflict.

Almost a year has passed now since the convening of the Madrid

conference. Ten months after the conference, the whole world came to realize

that the peace talks between the Arabs and the Israelis were futile, because

of the intransigence and the evasiveness of the previous head of the Israeli

Government, who admitted publicly after his defeat in the elections that his

intention was to go on quibbling and prevaricating with the purpose of

prolonging the negotiations for 10 more years.

It is also regrettable that the latest round of peace talks was concluded

in Washington without the Israeli side changing the substance of its approach

to the question of a full withdrawal from the Golan and the other occupied

Arab territories, including Al-Quds, despite the readiness of Syria and the

other Arab parties to commit themselves to all that is required of them in

conformity with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). It

appears that the change in policies and priorities claimed by Mr. Rabin's

Government in comparison with those of Mr. Shamir's Government to date lacks

both credibility and actual application.

The fact of the matter is that the great expectations and noticeable

momentum which accompanied the latest round of negotiations were a result of

the earnest contribution of the Arab side and the great impact of the Syrian

document at both the regional and international levels. That comprehensive

document contains the bases and principles of a peaceful settlement of the

Arab-Israeli conflict in conformity with the Charter and resolutions of the

United Nations, which were the basis for the convening of the Madrid

Conference.

The international community has affirmed that the achievement of peace in

the Middle East has always been and continues to be rooted in the

inevitability of Israel's withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories

that were occupied by force and war, and in securing the legitimate national

rights of the Palestinian people.

Those in Israel who believe that total peace can be achieved without a

complete Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories are gravely

mistaken. Those who also believe that the Israeli arsenal of mass destruction

and its qualitative military edge can make it immune to the repercussions of

the end of the cold war are equally mistaken. Saturating Israel with

destructive and sophisticated weaponry cannot guarantee the true security of

Israel as long as it continues to occupy the territories of others by force

and to violate the rights of the Palestinian people, and as long as it lacks

the human compass that may guide it to the shores of peace and security.

The road to a comprehensive, just and durable peace is clear and well

defined; it remains for Israel to choose to take it. Any manoeuvres of

partial withdrawals or interim steps will not bring peace either to the region

or to Israel itself. The higher level meetings Israel demands are merely a

ploy that is meant to undermine the framework and mechanism within which the

Arab and Israeli parties met at the Madrid Peace Conference.

As declared by its leader. President Hafez Al-Assad, Syria wants an

honourable peace which our people would accept, a peace in which not a grain

of sand of our land is lost, no concession of any of our rights is made, and

without dereliction of the duty of safeguarding the dignity of our nation. We

want the peace of the brave, the peace that survives and lasts and guarantees

the interests of all. But if there are to be games and ambushes no one could

make Syria forsake its patriotic and national stand. There is no place for

capitulation in our dictionary.

We have already voiced our readiness for a complete peace in return for a

complete withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories and we reaffirm

that now. That is our challenge to Israel from this rostrum, a challenge that

has found no response to this day.

If comprehensiveness and justice were observed in arms control it would

undoubtedly contribute to the consolidation of the security and stability we

all long for. The subject of arms control would come within reach and be more

effective in ensuring security and stability in the Middle East if it were

based on the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, with nuclear

weapons first and foremost, in accordance with criteria which have no bias in

favour of one State at the expense of another and which apply to all countries

of the region without exception within the framework of the United Nations and

under its auspices.

Syria has never spared any effort in supporting United Nations

resolutions and conventions relating to disarmament, particularly the

non-proliferation Treaty to which Syria has acceded. Syria also signed the

non-proliferation Treaty safeguards agreement on 25 February 1992. Syria has

signed the Treaty on the prohibition of biological weapons and has

consistently supported the initiative to make the Middle East region free of

all nuclear weapons. Syria was the first officially to suggest at the 1989

Paris Conference on chemical weapons that the Middle East should be free of

all chemical and biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

At a time when the whole world knows that Israel is the only State in the

region to possess nuclear weapons in addition to its possession of other

weapons of mass destruction, Israel has to date refused to accede to the

non-proliferation Treaty and has also refused for decades to allow inspection

of its nuclear installations and continues to do so today.

The logical option for all peoples of the world is to ensure security for

all through complete disarmament and the elimination of all weapons of mass

destruction. The measures adopted by the Conference on Disarmament in

relation to the conclusion of a draft convention on the prohibition,

development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and their

destruction will remain short of realizing the ambitions of the international

community so long as they are not coupled with a similar prohibition on

nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

The situation in South Africa continues to be a source of deep concern

for my country. While we express our satisfaction over the repeal and

amendment of some of the basic laws of apartheid, we would also like to

express our deep concern over the persistence of repression and violence that

the Government of South Africa continues to perpetrate against the population,

at a great cost in victims to that population. Syria strongly supports the

demands of the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa for the

establishment of a democratic and non-racial society.

Concerning Cyprus, we welcome the efforts of the Secretary-General to

find a just and lasting solution to the Cypriot problem based on United

Nations resolutions and taking into account the interests of the parties to

the conflict.

Concerning the Korean peninsula, we reaffirm our support for the efforts

of Democratic Korea to reunite the Korean peninsula peacefully and through

negotiations. This would lead to prosperity for the entire Korean people

while consolidating peace and stability in North-East Asia.

In view of all the issues and problems with which the international

community is occupied, some of which I have mentioned in my statement, the

peoples and countries of the world are looking to our international

Organization to contribute towards the establishment of a world of peace and

security. We believe that, in order to be able to realize the aspirations and

hopes of the peoples of the world for instituting a new world order in which

there is no aggression or occupation and which is based on international

legality and the rules of international law, the United Nations must apply the

provisions of its own Charter and implement its resolutions without bias,

selectivity or double standards. As we find ourselves on the threshold of the

twenty-first century, we hope to be able to reach a world of peace and justice

in which stability and prosperity would prevail.