General Assembly Session 53 meeting 76

The President

I call on the representative of Qatar to introduce draft resolution A/53/L.52.

Mr. Al-Nasser (Qatar)

On behalf of the State of Qatar, which is presiding over the twenty-fifth meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, I am pleased to introduce, under agenda item 40 on the situation in the Middle East, draft resolution A/53/L.52, entitled "Jerusalem", on behalf of its sponsors, which have been joined by Bahrain and Indonesia.

The formula of this year's draft resolution is the same as last year's. The preamble contains three paragraphs and the operative part four. The first preambular paragraph recalls the General Assembly resolutions relevant to Jerusalem, particularly those that were adopted between 1981 and last year, all of which determine that all actions taken by Israel in Jerusalem are illegal and null and void.

The second preambular paragraph recalls Security Council resolution 478 (1980) in which the Council, inter alia, decided not to recognize the "Basic Law" and called upon those States which had established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City.

Operative paragraph 1 determines that the decision of Israel to impose its legal jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem is illegal and therefore null and void and has no validity whatsoever. Operative paragraph 2 deplores the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980), to which I referred earlier.

Operative paragraph 3 calls once more on those States to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. The last operative paragraph requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session on the implementation of the resolution.

The sponsors of the draft resolution hope that it will gain the support of all States.

The President

I call on the representative of Egypt to introduce draft resolution A/53/L.53.

Mr. Elaraby (Egypt)

Allow me to introduce to the General Assembly the draft resolution entitled "The situation in the Middle East: the Syrian Golan", as contained in document A/53/L.53. In addition to Egypt, Bangladesh, the Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine, Bahrain and Indonesia have become sponsors of the draft resolution.

The third preambular paragraph contains a reference to Security Council resolution 497 (1981) regarding the illegal annexation of the Syrian Golan by Israel. The fourth preambular paragraph reaffirms the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Preambular paragraph 5 reaffirms the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War to the occupied Syrian Golan.

The sixth preambular paragraph refers to the General Assembly's deep concern that Israel has not withdrawn from the Syrian Golan, which has been under occupation since 1967, to the line of 4 June 1967. The illegality of the settlement construction and activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967 is referred to in the seventh preambular paragraph.

The draft resolution notes the convening of the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978) and the formula of land for peace, which is the core of the peace process. The last preambular paragraph refers to the General Assembly's grave concern over the halt in the peace process on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks, and expresses the hope that peace talks will soon resume from the point they had reached.

Operative paragraph 1 declares that Israel has failed so far to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981). Operative paragraph 2 declares that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and has no validity whatsoever, and calls on Israel to rescind it.

Operative paragraph 3 reaffirms that all relevant provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War apply to the Syrian Golan occupied by Israel since 1967. Operative paragraph 4 determines once more that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan and its de facto annexation constitute a stumbling block in the way of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. Operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution calls upon Israel to resume the talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and to respect the commitments and undertakings reached during the previous talks.

Operative paragraph 7 calls upon all the parties concerned, the co-sponsors of the peace process and the entire international community to exert all the necessary efforts to ensure the resumption of the peace process and its success. The last operative paragraph requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fifth-fourth session on the implementation of the resolution.

In conclusion, I introduce this draft resolution to the General Assembly on behalf of the sponsors and appeal to delegations to vote in favour of it, as it embodies the main principles of the Charter of the United Nations and calls for the achievement of justice and to end the Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan.

Mr. Yel'chenko (Ukraine)

As we can all see, the situation in the Middle East continues to be among the most acute subjects on the agenda of the General Assembly.

It has become a long-lasting reality that for many consecutive years, the General Assembly, at its annual sessions, again and again addresses the issues related to the Middle East peace process under numerous agenda items with a view to encouraging all the parties concerned to return to the negotiating table, to refrain from any unilateral actions fraught with negative consequences for the peace process, to fulfil their obligations under international law and to respect their bilateral agreements.

We do not think that this should last for ever. We believe that, as the world is nearing a new millennium, the time has come to enter the final phase of establishing lasting peace and stability in the Middle East region. Therefore, we feel that after all these years, all the parties to the process, both Arab and Israeli, should overcome their hostility towards and mistrust of each other, stop their mutual accusations and, finally, complete the implementation of the Madrid peace process formula, based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as well as on the principle of land for peace.

At the same time, the international community should neither relax its attention nor weaken its attempts to move all negotiating tracks of the Middle East peace process forward. Undoubtedly, a special responsibility in these efforts continues to be placed on the United Nations.

Over the past year, this world Organization remained at the forefront of securing peace in the Middle East through maintaining its peacekeeping operations and reviewing the situation in the region in the General Assembly, the Security Council and other relevant bodies.

In this context, Ukraine commends the active role played by the Secretary-General. In particular, we applauded his successful diplomatic mission to Iraq last February and welcomed his visits to a number of countries of the region last spring to encourage the peace process. I would also like to recall the visit by the President of the General Assembly at its fifty-second session to Lebanon last August, which was an important undertaking.

Ukraine highly regards and remains supportive of the efforts made by the sponsors of the Middle East peace process, the European Union, international organizations, individual States and prominent political figures on the road to the comprehensive settlement of this problem.

Currently, the various tracks of Arab-Israeli negotiations are facing difficult periods of stalemate, though sometimes a glimmer of hope for better prospects emerges. First of all, this relates to the question of Palestine, which continues to constitute the pivotal part of the entire peace process in the Middle East. Since my delegation spoke on agenda item 39 at length yesterday, I will limit myself to a few remarks.

The signing of the Wye River Memorandum on 23 October 1998 by the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority was warmly welcomed in Ukraine as a vivid demonstration by the two parties of their political will to find mutually acceptable solutions. While praising the enormous efforts of both sides, as well as the decisive contribution made by the United States to the conclusion of this very important agreement, we hope that no unreasonable steps will prevent the two parties from implementing its provisions promptly and in full.

We believe that in the near future historical justice should be attained with regard to the aspirations of the Palestinian people, which will then be in a position to realize its inalienable right to self-determination, including its long-awaited dream of statehood. In this context, we also believe that the legitimate right of the Israeli people to live in a safe environment and within secure borders will be ensured.

The comprehensive settlement of the Middle East situation will hardly be possible without the positive outcome of the Israeli-Syrian negotiating process, which has to be reinjected with new momentum. It is in the interests of the parties and, indeed, of the whole region that the parties resume their talks on the problem of the occupied Syrian Golan without further delay.

As regards the Israeli-Lebanese track, my delegation maintains the position that Security Council resolution 425 (1978) constitutes the only basis for resolving the problem of southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa. We welcome the Israeli acceptance of this resolution and expect its implementation.

In Ukraine's view, the current state of Israeli-Jordanian relations gives reasons for optimism. The signing by the two countries of The Treaty of Peace in 1994 can serve as a good example of what peace can bring to the region and to each individual nation. We also acknowledge the tireless efforts of King Hussein of Jordan in the peace process, in particular his recent personal input for the success of the Wye River negotiations.

Although, geographically, Ukraine is not an immediate neighbour of the Middle East, the development of mutually beneficial and partnership relations, on both a bilateral and a multilateral basis, with all the countries of the region, as well as facilitating the peace process, is one of the pillars of my country's multi-vectoral foreign policy.

In this respect, I would like to reiterate Ukraine's readiness to extend its contribution to the various economic projects now under way in the framework of the multilateral working groups on the problems of Middle East economic cooperation. On the basis of its six years of experience in United Nations peacekeeping activities, Ukraine also feels capable of providing military and civilian personnel for the ongoing United Nations peacekeeping operations in the Middle East.

Let me conclude by voicing Ukraine's sincere hope that the multifaceted Middle East problem will find its eventual solution in the near future, and that durable peace and accord will be restored there to reign among the peoples of the region for ever. Ukraine remains committed to achieving this noble goal.

Mr. Wehbe (Syria)

The situation in the Middle East, which the Assembly considers each year, is basically characterized by the region's strategic location, its enormous spiritual, material and cultural heritage and its age-old civilization.

By dint of its crucial importance it may be considered to be a true barometer of the state of peace and security in the world. That is why the Arab-Israeli conflict has always been at the top of the international community's list of priorities.

Syria has always wanted peace in the Middle East to be established on the basis of comprehensiveness, justice and dignity. This is why Syria feels it necessary to bring to the attention of the Assembly the reality of the positions of the current Israeli Government so that the international community and, first and foremost, the sponsors of the peace process can be aware of the dangerous developments that may plunge the Middle East into violence and instability.

That position is characterized by, first, Israel's gradual departure from all the conventions and agreements concluded between the parties during the peace talks, to the point of invalidating the peace process which was begun in Madrid. The policies pursued by the Israeli Government have led to freezing the peace process on the ground. Secondly, Israel's carefully orchestrated policy is fragmenting the peace process -- a situation which is not in keeping with the concept of an overall peace agreed on in Madrid. Thirdly, it is odd that the Israeli Government does not recognize the formula of land for peace, which was the essence of the American initiative announced by President Bush before Congress in March 1991, when he said that a just peace must be based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and on the principle of land for peace. It is that same principle which was one of the pillars of the peace process in Madrid, in addition to Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978). The Arab Summit in Cairo in 1996 reaffirmed those principles, as have the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Islamic Summit Conference and all the statements of the European Union, including the statement by Austria, currently holding the Presidency of the European Union, before the Assembly. However, the representative of the Israeli Government endeavours to present alternative formulas, such as peace for peace, or peace for security. This erroneous stance, which seeks to establish security before putting an end to the occupation, will convert the peace process into a process of fighting and bloodshed. It will achieve neither security nor peace for Israel, and thus may restart the Arab-Israeli conflict from its tragic beginnings, which we have all worked to avert. Fourthly, Israel is engaged in an unbridled policy of settlement construction in the Syrian Golan and in the occupied territories of Palestine, especially in Arab Jerusalem, in an effort to alter the geography and demography of those territories, in disregard of the 1949 Geneva Convention, the relevant decisions of the Security Council and the repeated condemnations of the international community, which considers this settlement policy a major obstacle to peace.

The Israeli Government has bolstered this policy by inciting Israeli settlers to occupy and seize occupied Arab lands, and is systematically working to change the geographic and demographic character of Jerusalem by expelling Palestinians and establishing settlements in and around the city in violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 -- the Fourth Geneva Convention -- and the United Nations Charter. Israel's aim is to annex Jerusalem. This proves that Israel is once again ignoring Security Council resolutions 465 (1980) and 478 (1980).

Fifthly, Israel continues to detain thousands of Palestinians in Israeli jails; Lebanese detainees too languish in detention camps and are subjected to torture and persecution.

Finally, Israel continues persistently to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, and to challenge the principles of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions. This is reflected in the decision a few months ago by the legal and constitutional committee of the Knesset to authorize the first reading of a bill to build up the military presence in the Golan and in East Jerusalem. It is now reported that the bill will be adopted within the next two weeks. This is further proof that the Israeli Government and the Knesset are determined to ignore Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and the will of the international community, and to undermine the peace process.

Let us compare our position on the peace process with that of the Israelis. First of all, we agree to the Madrid principles, first and foremost the principle of land for peace, while Israel rejects the principles that constitute the foundation of the Madrid peace process, rejects the principle of land for peace, and seeks instead to trade peace for peace, or peace for security. We favour the resumption of the peace talks from the point at which they were suspended, while Israel refuses to resume them from that point: it insists on returning to the zero point after lengthy and arduous negotiations have taken place.

We call for the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978) and of the principle of land for peace, and insist that Israel withdraw from the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, and that it withdraw from southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa. Israel, on the other hand, refuses to withdraw from the Golan on the lame pretext that this is a security matter, or for other equally mythical reasons. It also refuses to withdraw unconditionally from southern Lebanon in accordance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978).

We are committed to the implementation of the various agreements concluded as part of the peace process, while Israel is turning its back on them and is attempting to evade the principles agreed upon at Madrid. We call for the return of all occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions, and demand the restoration of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, while Israel rejects this and continues stubbornly to allege that Jerusalem is the "eternal capital" of Israel. We are in favour of a comprehensive, honourable and just peace that would restore dignity to all, while Israel seeks no such peace and is trying to avoid a peace that would allow all to live in dignity.

There is international unanimity on the need to continue the peace process on the basis of the resolutions of international legitimacy and on the basis of the principle of land for peace, a principle that has been reaffirmed by Arab Summits, including that held at Cairo in 1996, and by summits of the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, as well as by statements issued by the European Union. All these bodies have called for the resumption of peace talks with Syria and Lebanon from the point at which they were suspended, for complete Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem, and from the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, and for complete, unconditional withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa, as well as for guarantees of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, including its right to self-determination and to the establishment of a State of its own on its own national territory.

In the light of all those facts, my delegation endorses the draft resolution on the Syrian Golan, contained in A/53/L.53 and submitted under the agenda item "The situation in the Middle East". Similar texts are submitted each year; this year's draft resolution does not differ in substance from that adopted by the General Assembly last year. It conforms to the decisions taken at the Arab summit held in Cairo in 1996, the Durban summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, and the Islamic summit held in Teheran, and to international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is also in line with the principles for peace agreed upon at Madrid and enjoys the support of the international community. In this context, I issue an appeal: let the rule of law triumph, to help peoples suffering under occupation and to assist the Arab peoples of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine in recovering their occupied lands.

I warmly thank my brother, the representative of Egypt, for introducing draft resolution A/53/L.53 and I call upon the international community to support it.

This Organization has a key role to play in combatting injustice, repression and persecution, because it is the conscience of humanity with respect to settlerism, occupation, and the consequences of extremism. In this regard, I call upon the co-sponsors of the peace process, the European Union and all friendly countries to exert all forms of political and economic pressure on Israel to rescue the peace process from its paralysis and to attain tangible progress along the vital Syrian and the Lebanese tracks, which are intertwined. We reaffirm that Israel's contempt for United Nations resolutions and international conventions poses a challenge to the entire international community, and especially, to the relevant Security Council resolutions. The establishment of a comprehensive, genuine and honourable peace in the Middle East does not, in any way, accord with the policy of occupation and settlement construction in the occupied Arab territories. A just and comprehensive peace cannot coexist with inciting Israeli settlers to seize occupied Arab lands. It cannot coexist with the seizure by the Israeli Government of Arab lands, the construction of settlements, the destruction of houses, the expansion of existing settlements, and the armed aggression against Palestinians in the occupied territories in violation of Security Council resolutions 465 (1980) and 478 (1980) and of the principles of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

To conclude, it has become apparent that Israel is not complying with international resolutions and that it is basing itself on all kinds of legends and religious myths, which we heard yesterday. These provocative legends and myths are baseless and have one objective: to perpetuate occupation and expansionism, which are internationally condemned. This makes it essential for the international community to adopt all necessary measures to bring Israel back onto the path towards a just and comprehensive peace.

Mr. Zackheos (Cyprus)

My delegation associated itself with the statement of the European Union. In view of the special significance we attach to the Middle East situation, I would like to make a few additional comments and observations.

The long and rich history of Cyprus has been greatly influenced by developments in the Middle East. Situated at the crossroads of Europe, Africa and Asia, my country has throughout the centuries been a bridge between the peoples of the Middle East and Europe. While seeking to maintain and strengthen our ties with the European Union, with which we have begun substantive accession negotiations, the promotion of our relations with all our neighbours in the Middle East also remains a significant pillar of our foreign policy.

My Government supports all the initiatives and efforts aimed at finding a comprehensive solution to the Middle East problem. We reaffirm our support for the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978), which provide the framework for a viable peace in the Middle East. At the same time, we recognize the right of all States to exist in peace with their neighbours, within safe and internationally recognized borders. We denounce terrorism and violence against innocent civilians in the strongest terms.

Closely following developments in the Middle East and conscious of the precarious nature of the peace process, we have been highlighting the need to redouble the efforts for the successful outcome of the process, upon which millions of people -- both in the region and internationally -- have pinned great hopes.

The Cyprus Government has welcomed the recent agreement at Wye River Plantation. We commended the parties for their agreement, and the United States Administration and President Clinton in particular, as well as King Hussein of Jordan, for their efforts in achieving this breakthrough. We have been encouraged by the steps taken for the implementation of the agreement, including the recent opening of Gaza International Airport. At the same time, the breakthrough shows that when there is political will on the part of the sides and sustained international efforts and influence, regional conflicts can be resolved. We hold this to be true also in the case of the Cyprus problem.

The Government of Cyprus remains committed to playing its part in a practical way to enhance the peace process. In this regard, we express our belief that in order to have stability, the agreements between the parties should be fully implemented. There is no other way to achieve stability in that sensitive region than through a peaceful solution reached through negotiations, reconciliation, trust and cooperation. For this to happen, it is essential to avoid measures that place obstacles in the way of the implementation of the peace process, including the closure of Palestinian territories and the building of settlements, which make it more difficult to move the peace process forward. At the same time, the economic advancement of the Palestinian people remains a determining factor for stability and ultimate rapprochement in the Middle East. For this reason, the Government of Cyprus prepared a special programme of economic assistance to the Palestinian people, at a cost of about $2.2 million, which is currently being implemented.

While we consider the Palestinian problem the core issue of the Middle East conflict, we support the resumption of the negotiations between Israel and Syria and the opening of talks between Israel and Lebanon. A fundamental element of our policy in the Middle East and with regard to other regional issues is the withdrawal of foreign forces from occupied territories. Cyprus offered to host any meeting that may be convened within the context of the bilateral negotiations. This offer remains open.

It is recalled that Cyprus has been chosen as the seat of the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group. It is also an honour for us that the European Union's Special Envoy to the Middle East peace process, Ambassador Moratinos, has chosen Cyprus as his headquarters in the area.

The prospect of a peaceful and prosperous Middle East is a vision cherished by all. It cannot be secured by unilateral actions, violence or military build-up, but by a common vision of a better future through economic progress, stability and social justice. It is the hope of my country that this dream will not be lost.

Mr. Suh Dae-won (Republic of Korea)

The Republic of Korea notes with satisfaction the recent agreement signed between Israel and Palestine at the Wye River Plantation talks. Indeed, this is a breakthrough in the peace process, which was moribund for over two years. We are convinced that the Wye River Memorandum will contribute to putting the peace process in the Middle East back on track. In this regard, my delegation commends the efforts, wisdom and courage of the leaders involved in the negotiation process of the Memorandum.

The Wye River Memorandum stipulates mutual benefits for both Palestine and Israel. The area under the Palestinian Authority would represent some 40 per cent of the West Bank. It also provides for an airport, a seaport and safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank for Palestinians. The Israelis will also benefit from this agreement. The security conditions in Israel will be much improved, ensuring greater safety for all of Israel's citizens.

The Republic of Korea welcomes the redeployment of Israeli troops from Jenin and the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. In addition, we congratulate the inauguration of the first international airport in Gaza, on 24 November 1998, which enables Palestinians to establish direct air links with the outside world.

However, we are disappointed that the Israeli Government has decided to continue a project for further settlement construction in East Jerusalem, at Har Homa/Jebel Abu Ghneim. The project has been considered a serious stumbling block that has impeded progress over the last two years in the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. We are concerned that this project might threaten the full implementation of the Wye agreement. Therefore, we urge the Israeli Government to refrain from further settlement construction.

My delegation wishes to underscore the importance of economic development in the Middle East. It might be obvious from past experience that economic growth and prosperity are prerequisites for genuine peace. In this light, the Government of the Republic of Korea has been committed to economic cooperation with the Palestinians to contribute to bringing peace and stability to the region.

In October 1993, the Government of the Republic of Korea pledged a total of $5 million in grant aid and $10 million in soft loans to the Palestinians at the international conference on assistance to the Palestinians, held in Washington, D.C. Accordingly, we have been providing construction equipment for the presidential seat building in Nablus and medical supplies in grant aid. We will disburse the pledged $10 million in soft loans as soon as the appropriate projects are identified following consultations between the Palestinian Authority and my Government.

Furthermore, it is my pleasure to note that the Government of the Republic of Korea pledged $2 million for 2000-2004 at the Ministerial Conference to Support Middle East Peace and Development held in Washington, D.C., on 30 November 1998. I would like to reaffirm the Republic of Korea's commitment to continue expanding its economic cooperation.

The next six months will be a crucial period for establishing lasting peace in the Middle East. It is our belief that only dialogue and negotiations can secure a lasting peace in the region for all parties concerned. These should be pursued on the basis of the principle of land for peace agreed at the Madrid Peace Conference and enshrined in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978).

In this context, the full implementation of the Wye accord is essential to rebuild the much-needed confidence between the parties involved. At the same time, there should be substantial progress on the Israel-Lebanon and Israel-Syria tracks. Without that progress, we cannot expect the full establishment of peace in the Middle East region.

Bearing in mind that the success of the Middle East peace process will greatly contribute to peace and stability in the rest of the world, the Government of the Republic of Korea remains committed to helping to promote peace, stability and security as well as economic prosperity for all in the region.

Mr. Kolby (Norway)

The peace process in the Middle East was brought a significant step forward by the agreement reached in Wye River. The Wye River Memorandum reconfirms the principles of the Oslo accord, and it is now up to the parties to fulfil the conditions of the agreement. There are still serious obstacles to overcome, and difficult and courageous decisions need to be made on both sides.

It is crucial to maintain the renewed momentum and keep the peace process on track through the implementation of all parts of the agreement. The United Nations should encourage the constructive approach that has been taken by the parties in the past weeks. Norway has therefore, in close cooperation with the Russian Federation and the United States, again this year worked on the draft resolution on the Middle East peace process. However, it has not been possible to gather the needed support for the draft resolution at this time. It is our sincere hope that it will be possible to resubmit the draft at a time when both the sponsors and the parties themselves believe it would be appropriate and useful to again seek this expression of support for the peace process from the international community.

The Wye agreement also paved the way for substantial progress on the interim economic issues. Since the signing of the Memorandum, the international airport has been opened in Gaza, and progress has been made on several other key issues. These events will contribute substantially to the development of Palestinian economy. There will be no lasting peace without economic progress in the Palestinian areas. At the donor conference in Washington on 30 November, the international community demonstrated its support for the parties as they implement the Wye Memorandum and engage in permanent status negotiations. Norway will stand by its commitments.

The determination of the parties to reach an agreement by 4 May 1999 is encouraging. We believe that the United Nations should not only applaud the resumption of the permanent status negotiations, but also actively encourage the parties in their efforts to move forward.

Mr. Crighton (Australia)

My delegation takes this opportunity to make a substantive statement on the range of issues affecting peace and security in the Middle East. Of course, I will direct my remarks primarily to the peace process, but I should like also to refer briefly to some other matters such as terrorism, the operations of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Iraq, non-proliferation and disarmament, and landmines.

Australia has, with the rest of the international community, watched with growing concern over most of the past year as the Middle East peace process, which started out with so much promise and hope seven years ago, seemed to be sliding towards a state of almost permanent immobility. All the more reason then that we acclaimed so wholeheartedly the Wye River Memorandum, signed on 23 October between Israel and the Palestinians. The achievement of forward momentum in the Oslo process is a triumph of peace over violence, of negotiation over confrontation, and of common sense over extremism.

Australia commends Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat for their commitment to a lasting and genuine peace. They have stepped forward together despite the difficult circumstances facing each of them. We strongly encourage them to maintain this momentum in implementing the Wye accord and urge the international community to support the cause of peace unstintingly.

The agreement reached at Wye River is a testament also to the unflagging efforts of the United States to get the peace process back on track. Despite being faced with what must have seemed almost insuperable difficulties in finding the common ground necessary for both sides to accept compromise, President Clinton stuck tirelessly to the task. We also wish to pay tribute here to the courageous and inspiring contribution of King Hussein, who once again demonstrated his unswerving commitment to the cause of peace; we thank him for that.

Mr. Crighton (Australia)

Australia is under no illusions about the difficulties still to be overcome in achieving a lasting peace in the Middle East. It could be said that where we are today was always going to be the easy part, before final status negotiations and before the commencement of any real negotiations to address unresolved issues between Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

But it is our hope -- and we believe also that of the overwhelming majority of people of goodwill on all sides of the Middle East conflict -- that this latest agreement will give a much-needed boost to a process which has as its end goal a permanent, just and comprehensive settlement which will be seen by all sides as equitable and fair.

Australia's policy on the Middle East dispute is based on long-standing and firmly established principles: a fundamental commitment to Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries, and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, acknowledging that the ultimate shape of the Palestinian entity, including the possibility of an independent State, is subject to the final status negotiations between the parties directly involved. We strongly support those negotiations and the foundations on which they are based -- quite clearly, Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and the principle of land for peace, the Madrid process and the Oslo Declaration of Principles concluded in 1993.

We also believe that there must be a renewed effort to engage Syria and Lebanon in the negotiating process on the basis of the implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978). Only recently we have seen yet another upsurge of violence in southern Lebanon. Australia calls on all parties to re-examine what they can do to reinvigorate negotiations and end that long, dreadful cycle of violence that costs lives and produces little more than deepening the wounds of resentment and mistrust.

Now, while we have some forward progress in the form of the Wye agreement, the international community has again been reminded over the past year of the continuing, and potentially growing, threat of international terrorism. The twin bombings in Kenya and Tanzania reminded us all that terror knows no borders. Australia joined the rest of the world in condemning those acts vehemently and unequivocally. We call on all countries to work together to eradicate the entire infrastructure of terrorism so that such acts can never be repeated. Most importantly, the merchants of terror rely on assistance from, or at least the connivance of, a number of States and their agencies. We call on all members of the international community to take whatever action is necessary to prevent the growth and operation of terrorist organizations.

While we have consistently condemned terrorism in all its forms in the context of the Middle East peace process, we have also called upon all parties to avoid other actions which might undermine efforts to build on the progress already made. As we did last year, and especially because we are entering a particularly fragile period in the current peace process, we repeat that both parties simply must refrain from actions which threaten, or are seen to threaten, that process. And we regard settlement activity in the occupied territories as harmful to that process.

We would also regard any political action by either side which pre-empts the outcome of the current process as destabilizing and a serious threat to the achievement of a lasting peace.

Australia has also consistently expressed its concern over the past year over the emergency special session process. In our explanations of vote, we have stated that we do not believe the process is either appropriate or helpful to the peace process, essentially because we have never found that blaming one party or the other for particular actions encourages an atmosphere conducive to productive discussion.

We note that, yet again, there may be moves to resume the emergency special session. We would find such a development disappointing, and we urge parties to exercise restraint in using United Nations mechanisms when they may erode support for the peace process itself.

We will continue to demonstrate Australia's strong support for the peace process in practical terms. At the Wye donors conference in Washington earlier this week, Australia announced a commitment of 16 million Australian dollars over the next three years. Our contribution will be in areas such as core funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, activities of non-governmental organizations in the fields of employment generation and health services and assistance for Palestinians in the legal and agricultural areas.

Australia is also demonstrating its commitment to peace in the Middle East by its important and continuing contribution to the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai and to the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, whose Force Commander is currently an Australian.

The ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people -- a subject of continuing concern to us -- is directly attributable to the unwillingness of Iraq to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). It is the Iraqi leadership which holds the key to alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people. In the meantime, we continue to support the oil-for-food programme, which goes some way towards relieving the plight of the Iraqi people. We also welcome the Security Council decision to review and expand the oil-for-food programme to improve its effectiveness.

Australia condemned Iraq's announcement on 31 October that it was suspending all cooperation with UNSCOM. We welcome Iraq's eventual rescission of that decision and will be looking to Iraq to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As the Security Council has said, Iraq needs to provide unconditional and sustained cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA before the United Nations can move to a comprehensive review of UNSCOM. It is in this light that we find Iraq's refusal to hand over requested documentation to UNSCOM especially disappointing.

Australia is convinced that universal accession of States to multilateral instruments of non-proliferation and disarmament -- particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention -- is essential to the strengthening of peace and international and regional security.

As the situation in Iraq demonstrates, the Middle East is a region where the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles is a vexed issue. We acknowledge that our common goal of promoting non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has to be seen within a broader vision of peace in the Middle East. Nonetheless, we strongly urge all States in the Middle East that have not already done so to become parties to all these instruments.

With regard to the NPT, we have warmly welcomed the accession to the Treaty by the United Arab Emirates, Djibouti and Oman since the landmark 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. We reiterate our appeal to Israel, as the only regional State yet to accede to the Treaty, to give serious consideration to the security benefits, for itself and for the region, of acceding to the Treaty and placing its nuclear facilities under international safeguards. We also call upon other States of the Middle East which have not yet negotiated full-scope safeguards agreements with the IAEA to do so without delay and, furthermore, to conclude protocols to their bilateral safeguards agreements based on the IAEA's new Model Additional Protocol for strengthened nuclear safeguards.

Australia will continue to work with others to maintain the strength and momentum of the CTBT following the challenge posed by South Asian nuclear testing. To this end, it is vital to build up the institutional fabric of the CTBT Organization and to bring about the widest possible signing and ratification with a view to early entry into force of the Treaty. We urge all countries in the Middle East region which have not yet done so to sign and ratify the CTBT at an early date.

With the conclusion of the CTBT, the fissile material cut-off treaty is the next logical step in multilateral nuclear arms control and disarmament. We thus welcome the fact that States of the region have joined the international consensus to begin negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on such a treaty. Once concluded, a universal and effectively verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty will serve as a valuable security and confidence-building mechanism in the Middle East and in other areas of tension, such as South Asia, and more broadly. We urge all States of the region to engage constructively in the negotiations on this very important nuclear arms control treaty.

Australia urges Middle East States to contribute to the search for a lasting and comprehensive solution to the humanitarian and economic crisis brought about by anti-personnel landmines. Australia encourages universal adherence to the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction. For those countries not yet in a position to sign the Ottawa Convention, we urge support for complementary measures as interim steps towards a global ban.

In conclusion, let me return briefly to the prospects for peace in the Middle East. Last year, we expressed the hope that, by the fifty-third session of the General Assembly, we would indeed be able to welcome progress in the peace process. And that we have done, in the full knowledge that the road ahead is still a long and complicated one. It is early days yet to determine whether the Wye agreement will be judged by history as a critical turning point in the peace process. We would caution against expecting too much too fast. However, Israelis and Palestinians alike have made it clear that overwhelming majorities of their populations want the security and safety of a permanent peace.

It is evident from the last seven years that much can be achieved through patient negotiation so long as all parties keep the ultimate goal in mind. Of course, there are injustices and misconceptions aplenty in the day-to-day relationship and we recognize that feelings often run high in a pressure-cooker environment. But what the Wye agreement has shown is that, even in the most adverse circumstances, if cool heads prevail there is a way through the woods. We look forward next year to welcoming further progress towards a lasting settlement and urge the international community to support fully efforts towards that goal, which, in the long run, is in the interests of each and every one of us.