A/47/PV.78 General Assembly

Before the General Assembly begins its consideration of agenda item 35 this afternoon, I should like to propose that the list of speakers in the debate on this item be closed today at 5.30 p.m. If I hear no objection, it will be so decided. It was so decided.

I therefore request those representatives wishing to participate in the debate to inscribe their names on the list of speakers as soon as possible. Mr. RICHARDSON (United Kingdom): I am honoured to speak on behalf of the European Community and its member States. Since the last session of the General Assembly, the Middle East has remained a focus of attention and concern. We have witnessed what we hope are important steps on the path towards a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question, but, until a political solution is found, the situation of the Palestinians will continue to be a matter of concern. We have seen some improvement in the situation in Lebanon, but there has been a worrying outbreak of attacks in the south Lebanon border region in recent months. The after-math of the Gulf war also cast its shadow over the region, and border disputes between States in the region have added to the tensions. Prospects for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question were improved significantly with the launching of the Middle East peace process last year in Madrid, in which all parties directly involved are participating. The European Community and its member States are fully committed to playing a constructive and active part in the peace process. We continue to be guided by the principles that have long governed our position: these are Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the principle of land for peace, the right of all States in the region, including Israel, to live within secure and recognized boundaries and the Palestinians' right to self-determination. Our position on issues relating to the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is equally well known. We reaffirm the significance of Jerusalem, Holy City of three religions, and of the importance of freedom of access for all to the places of worship there. A comprehensive settlement should, in our view, encompass all these principles, but it is for the parties involved in the current negotiating process to decide how they should be put into practice on the ground. The European Community and its member States welcome the improvement in the situation in Lebanon and the formation of a new Government under Mr. Rafiq Hariri. We stress the importance of the full and strict implementation of the Taif agreements by all parties concerned, thus bringing about the complete restoration of the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of a Lebanon free of all foreign interference and all foreign troops. We stress once again the need for implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978), which, inter alia, calls upon Israel to respect Lebanese territorial integrity and to withdraw its forces to the (internationally recognized border. ) We reaffirm our support for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, ,:o which the States members of the European Community contribute three contingents. We deplore any actions which endanger the lives and safety of personnel serving with that force. We remain committed to prompt and full implementation of all Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq. We welcome the sustained efforts of the Security Council to this effect, but, as was made clear during last week's Security Council meeting with the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, much remains to be done, particularly on weapons of mass destruction, and there are disturbing signs that Iraq continues to claim Kuwait as its nineteenth province. The Iraqi regime carries full responsibility for the deterioration in the humanitarian situation in the country. It has not yet agreed to implement Security Council resolutions 706 (1991) and 712 (1991), which would contribute to improving the living conditions of the civilian propulation in the whole country. It has maintained a blockade against the Kurdish governorates in the north and the marshes in the south. For four months this last summer, Iraq prevaricated over renewing the Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations. We fully support the United Nations Inter-Agency Programme for the region, and have made significant cash and in-kind contributions, both at Community and national levels. We consider that the most effective way to help the civilian population is by acting in close cooperation with the United Nations effort. We acknowledge the right of countries to acquire the means to defend themselves, and we are aware of the sophisticated weaponry which is all too readily available for sale. Nevertheless, we strongly hope that Iran and other countries in the region will keep in mind the importance of avoiding excessive arms procurement, which might pose a threat to regional peace and stability. We also hope that Iran will take a more constructive approach to the peace process. The European Community and its member States believe that, given Iran's importance in the region, they should continue to pursue a dialogue with Iran; but this should be a critical dialogue, and one which encourages Iran to improve its behaviour in a number of fields, including human rights, the continued death sentence against the author Salman Rushdie, and terrorism. We should not forget the effects of the Iran-Iraq conflict, which are still felt in the region. We wish to stress the importance of the full implementation of Security Council resolution 598 (1987). Allow me to conclude by expressing the hope that all border disputes in the region will be resolved peacefully by the parties concerned, and by underlining once more the commitment of the European Community and its member States to contributing their share to bringing about lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. (Mr. Richardson, United Kingdom) Mr. AL-SUWAIDI (United Arab Emirates) (interpretation from Arabic): I have the honour to begin my statement on behalf of the United Arab Emirates by thanking the Secretary-General of the United Nations for his two reports to the General Assembly on the situation in the Middle East. Discussion of the Middle East problem after the debate on the question of Palestine is a natural course of events in view of the close link between the two issues. The question of Palestine is the very substance and basis of the problem of the Middle East. One cannot separate the one from the other or settle either question in isolation from the other. Experience shows that this cannot be done. Failure to settle the question of Palestine in conformity with General Assembly resolutions and international law has enabled Israel to repeat its aggression against the Arab States and to occupy parts of their territories and even annex some of those territories, such as the Holy City of Al-Quds and the Syrian Golan Heights. In the absence of international deterrence and because the Security Council, which is the executive body that has the authority to enforce the will of the international community, has not imposed sanctions on Israel, the Israeli authorities felt that they had a free hand to perpetuate their aggression against the Arab States time and time again, to expel Arab citizens from the occupied territories, to build settlements in those occupied territories, to impose upon Palestinian and other Arab citizens all manner of oppression, arbitrary acts and indignities, and to promulgate laws and regulations with a view to annexing some of those Arab territories. The Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates in his statement during the general debate spoke of the fundamental changes that have taken place in international affairs, and which have been reflected in the manner whereby the international community deals with international issues and regional problems with a greater degree of understanding of their nature and implications and of the means of containing and resolving them. We would have thought that it was natural that the effects of such changes should be felt in our Arab region and that it was only natural that they should lead to c new sense of responsibility and a new approach in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict that would have reflected awareness of the need to solve the problem and, thereby, to establish a comprehensive, just and lasting peace. We would have thought that it was self-evident that it was no longer possible to neglect this region, given its importance and its sensitivity, and the consequences of the Arab-Israeli conflict with regard to international peace and security and that it was imperative to work seriously for putting an end to the problem by peaceful settlement on line with the accelerating tendency to resolve other regional problems. Indeed, it was on that basis that the peace conference was convened in Madrid and led to the ongoing bilateral and multilateral negotiations. Bringing peace to the Middle East is a matter of vital importance, not only to our region but to the world at large. We should not forget in this respect the five wars that were unleashed in our region and that came very close to involving other Powers in the conflict. For these and many other reasons, the United Arab Emirates has participated in the multilateral negotiations and welcomed the recent invitation to the United Nations to participate in the negotiations as a full and principal party. We welcome the fact that the Secretary-General has appointed a Special Representative in all aspects of these negotiations. We attach special importance to participation by the United Nations and consider such participation to be an important and positive element in the context of the ongoing negotiations, for the following reasons: First, Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) constitute the foundation of the said negotiations. Secondly, the present unanimous view that the United Nations plays the principal role in containing conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Cambodia, El Salvador and others, and that it is the United Nations that shoulders this responsibility should apply in the case of the Middle East, where the United Nations should be charged with the same task in settling the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thirdly, the fact that the United Nations has gained vast experience in our region, especially with regard to peace-keeping forces and the role of international observers. As a matter of fact, the first peace-keeping forces were created for the Middle East. A review of Israel's conduct in the ongoing bilateral negotiations is not cause for much optimism regarding the prospects of reaching a speedy settlement to the various aspects of the situation in the Middle East. Although a year has passed since the beginning of the negotiations, no observer who has followed the talks would have any grounds for feeling that a settlement to the problem is at hand. The reason is Israel's refusal to accept the principle of land for peace because Israel is wedded to the concepts of hegemony, of dictat and of expansion. My country believes that the settlement that is needed must be based on international legality that emanates from the principles of the Charter, the rules of international law and the resolutions adopted by the principal organs of the United Nations. In order for such a settlement to be achieved, two reguirements should be met: complete withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories and recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. In conclusion, our purpose in speaking of these immutable principles is not to prejudge the failure of the current negotiations but to underscore these prerequisites with a view to ensuring the negotiations' success which can be achieved only if a greater role is played by the co-sponsors of the negotiations side by side with greater and more effective participation by the international community in monitoring the peace process and moving it forward with a view to achieving the results we hope for and for which our future generations will hold us accountable. Mr. AL-NI'MAH (Qatar) (interpretation from Arabic): During the debate on this item at the last session, some delegations voiced a measure of cautious optimism with respect to the possibility of moving forward towards a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian question, which, is the core issue of the Middle East conflict, as recognized in numerous resolutions on the item "The situation in the Middle East", the most recent of which was resolution 46/82. While there has been no concrete successes over the past year, we have not lost our belief in the peace process. We continue to hope it will eventually yield a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian guestion and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The ongoing negotiations should bear fruit and attain the goals to which we aspire after all the conflict and turmoil that overshadowed the Middle East and shrouded it in the gloom of rigidity and intransigence, and that for years have embroiled the region in unending strife, without a glimmer of hope. (Mr. Al-Suwaidi. United Arab Emirates) When that glimmer did pierce the gloom, through the beginning of the current negotiations, the need for support and assistance by the international community became guite apparent if the negotiations were to achieve the desired outcome, namely the establishment of peace with justice. In all this, account should be taken of the concessions made by the Arab side. Those concessions are well known to all who have followed the negotiations. The Arab and Palestinian parties have contributed with understanding and vision to the prevailing international thinking, and have made valuable concessions that would not have been possible in the past. The overriding consideration in making such concessions has been the desire to achieve a just and comprehensive peace. There is no doubt that the Arab side's motive in making all those concessions was and continues to be its resolve to reach the desired goal: peace, recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination on its own territory, and Israel's complete withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories. This desire which motivated the Arab concessions, has not been met with the proper response from Israel. The notion of compromise is completely alien to Israel's thinking. Consequently, it persists in its policy of annexation and settlements in contravention of all international norms and laws. Where are the Israeli concessions that are required for successful negotiation? When we use the world "concessions" we must not forget that refraining from illegal practices and the abandoning of illegal policies, something that Israel has not done so far, cannot be termed "concession" in the true sense of the word. As for withdrawal from the occupied territories and recognition of the Palestinian people's right of self-determination, no one in his right mind can claim that these would be "concessions" on the part of Israel. International law prohibits the occupation of the territory of others by force, and withdrawal from such territories is thus an obligation on the part of the occupier. Moreover, the right of self-determination is a fundamental principle of international law that is applicable in all cases. Therefore, Israel's agreement to meet these Arab demands cannot be viewed as a "concession" in any sense. We hope that this confusion about definitions will be eliminated from the peace process, so that the peace process can move towards its desired goal. Israel's occupation by force of the Arab territories has not merely created daily suffering for the inhabitants; it has also created an environment full of all sorts of repression. (Mr. Al-Ni'Mah. Qatar) Israel's occupation by force of the occupied Arab territories not only makes the daily lives of the inhabitants of those territories a sort of daily hell but also creates an environment that teems with every type of complicated situation that overtaxes the ability of people to cope with the very business of living. As a matter of fact, Israel's excesses not only breach international law and flout the international will but also ridicule the very concept of international legality. Thus, a tragic situation exists that is a sad commentary on the present status of international norms. The inhabitants of the territories have begun to lose faith in the existence of any international norms or laws, as a result of Israel's contempt for such things. In its arrogance and intoxication with power Israel pursues the policy of fait accompli, occupies the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Syrian Golan and southern Lebanon, goes on building settlements in all the occupied territories, enacts laws to annex Arab Al-Quds and to alter its Islamic and Arab character and uses military force to suppress the holy Palestinian intifadah and to occupy the Golan Heights and inflict suffering upon the Syrian and Arab inhabitants. Israel has invaded Arab Lebanon and trampled the dignity of the inhabitants of the southern villages. It flexes its muscles and follows the law of force in southern Lebanon, meting out punishment to its inhabitants. Israel rides rough shod over the land and persists in pursuing a policy of persecution, humiliation and the infliction of indignity and deprivation. It is indifferent to the results of its oppressive policy, which is destroying the fabric of life of the Arab Palestinians and depriving them of their right to lead a decent sort of life on the economic, social and political levels. By indulging in all these practices, Israel violates international norms and (Mr. Al-Ni'Mah. Qatar) laws; contravenes United Nations resolutions, first and foremost of which are the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Israel's persistence in its settlement policy in the West Bank and the Syrian Arab Golan is irrefutable evidence of its excesses. That policy reveals Israel's expansionist goal of swallowing up and annexing the occupied Arab territories. Israel's prevarication and procrastination in discussions about ending its occupation and drawing up a proper arrangement for its withdrawal from those territories and the obstacles it continues to erect on the path of the negotiations, holding them hostage to its impossible conditions, is preventing the achievement of the desired goal. Notwithstanding all these misgivings and the difficulties encountered in the negotiating process, we continue to believe in its importance and its feasibility. On the basis of that optimism and in our belief in progress towards peace, we salute the efforts of the American Administration and its meritorious contribution to that progress. We appeal to the new American Administration to continue the good offices and to exert greater efforts in order that the forward progress may lead to the desired goal, to which we all aspire, namely, a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. We view United Nations participation in the negotiations on the Middle East as vital to maintaining progress and continuity. We salute here the efforts by the General Assembly and those of the Secretary-General to bring peace and justice in the region. We also commend the Secretary-General's initiative in appointing a Special Representative. We hope that the new Israeli Government will be helpful and flexible in achieving the hoped-for goal. (Mr. Al-Ni'Mah. Qatar) We fully appreciate the suffering of the inhabitants of southern Lebanon, who have borne the brunt of Israeli occupation for a long time and have been forced to leave hearth and home and turned into displaced persons, along with the half million Syrian Arabs who have been driven from their villages and towns in the Golan Heights. We are optimistic that the new Government in Lebanon will work to make progress in Lebanese reconciliation and achieve all constructive national goals. In the near future, we hope to see Lebanon one unified country, with peace and security for all the communities of that fraternal country. Those who follow the unfolding situation in the Middle East cannot help but note with extreme concern the many regional conflicts and disputes among the States of the area. Therefore the continuation and the repetition of such suffering are what jeopardize international peace and security once more. Proceeding from this premise, we maintain that the peaceful means, enshrined in the Charter, of resolving conflicts amongst all States large and small, strong and weak through negotiations or international law are the only means of reaching solutions to all these conflicts and disputes in the region. We do hope that the States of the region will in the near future reach such desired solutions so that the Middle East may become an area of understanding, cooperation and solidarity between States, in the interest of the peoples of that region and of their future generations. TENTATIVE PROGRAMME OF WORK

I should like to inform members that, on Tuesday, 8 December, in the morning, in addition to considering agenda items 36, "The situation in Central America", and 48, "Commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations in 1995", the Assembly will also consider the draft resolution submitted under agenda item 40, "Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council", and contained in document A/47/L.26, as the last item.

We are witnessing profound changes in the international arena. The ending of the cold war and the transition from super-Power rivalry to new degrees of cooperation have fundamentally altered the world in which we live. In the Middle East, the new environment of international rapprochement has encouraged Israel and its Arab neighbours to take a fresh look at the issues that divide them. Unfortunately, as the tragic situation in the Balkans demonstrates, longstanding enmities and differences are difficult to overcome. The situation in the Middle East, with its complex historical and political roots, has been one of the most enduring conflicts on the international agenda. It is therefore particularly encouraging that the parties have been willing to sit down together and discuss their differences. Australia pays tribute to the co-sponsors of the peace process begun in Madrid more than a year ago and to their foresight in initiating a process of dialogue between the parties and establishing a framework for their negotiations. There can be no alternative to direct negotiations between the parties in the search for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. (Mr. Hainoczi. Austria) Australia is not a major player in Middle Eastern affairs, but, like other responsible countries, we are concerned at the implications of conflict in the region for global security. Australia's policy towards the Middle East is based on two main premises: first, a total commitment to Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries; and, secondly, a recognition of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, including their right, if they so choose, to independence and the possibility of their own independent State. For many years now Australia has supported a comprehensive solution to the Middle East dispute based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which call for Israel's withdrawal from territories occupied during the 1967 war and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty of every State in the region and the right of each State to live in peace within secure boundaries. It is our hope that the Madrid peace process will lead to such a comprehensive settlement. In the period since the inaugural conference in Madrid we have seen progress in all bilateral tracks, and we have seen the potential contribution of the multilateral phase towards the development of regional cooperation in a range of fields. We are pleased that the eighth round of bilateral talks between the parties is scheduled to resume in Washington this week. We believe that it is now time for all the parties to think of, and implement, further confidence-building measures that could help give momentum to the peace process. On the Arab side, suspension of the economic boycott against Israel would represent a practical step towards reducing mutual suspicions and animosities. Israel could also further demonstrate its commitment to the peace process by adopting practices that would immediately improve the human rights situation and living conditions in the occupied territories. Australia calls on all sides to urge and exercise restraint to prevent a repetition of the violence that occurred in southern Lebanon and northern Israel during November. The violence we have seen in recent months in southern Lebanon, Israel and the occupied territories has the potential to disrupt the negotiations, thereby playing into the hands of those groups that oppose the talks. We are pleased that the last round of talks between Israel and Lebanon continued without interruption, despite the violence that erupted on their border. We urge all parties to the dispute to show restraint and refrain from violence that detracts from the issues under discussion at the negotiating table. We hope that all parties will see the benefit of participating in the multilateral phase of the talks and ensure that progress in this phase complements and reinforces progress in the bilateral track. The peace process offers the parties a chance to develop ground rules that could not only ensure peace in the region in the future, but lead to greater prosperity through regional cooperation. The multilateral talks have the potential to lead to regional cooperation on such vital issues as water resources, economic development, arms control and regional security, the environment and refugees. (Mr. Butler. Australia) In line with Australia's support for the multilateral phase of the negotiations, we recently participated in the working group on arms control and regional security. Drawing on our experience in promoting regional arms control and disarmament strategies, we encouraged Arab and Israeli delegates to move towards the establishment of a regional dialogue on arms control and security issues, and to focus their attention on achievable confidence-building measures, leading to possible arms control arrangements in the future. Australia looks forward to its further association with the working group. We are committed to pursuing a supportive and constructive role with the objective of promoting genuine arms control arrangements in the region in the context of the peace negotiations. Australia fully supports the Taif Agreement, and welcomes the continuing progress towards Lebanon's national reconciliation, consistent with its provisions. We call on all parties to respect and to implement the Agreement. Australia opposes any activity in Lebanon by outside forces which compromises Lebanese sovereignty. We hope that in the future the situation will permit the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. Australia continues to support fully the action taken by the Security Council on Irag, including the continuing task of dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and investigating the Iragi weapons' programmes. Australia is concerned about Iraq's failure to implement fully and unconditionally its Security Council obligations and calls on Iraq to do so without delay. We are particularly concerned about the situation of civilian groups in Iraq and call upon the Iraqi Government to ensure that all of its citizens enjoy equal human and political rights in line with Security Council resolution 688 (1991). We were pleased to see the recent renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding governing the United Nations humanitarian programme in Irag. We hope that the delays experienced in signing it can be avoided in the future. Responsibility for the welfare of the Iraqi people rests ultimately with the Iraqi Government. Australia again urges the Government of Irag to cooperate with the Security Council in implementing those resolutions which would allow it to resume oil exports so that the hardships that are evident among the civilian population can be addressed. Australia also supports the Security Council's action on Libya and we hope that Libya will guickly find a way to comply fully with Security Council resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992). In conclusion, I would like to encourage all parties to the current Middle East peace process to continue their negotiations and to seek agreements which will enable all States in the region to live in mutual peace within secure and internationally recognized boundaries. If we do not have further progress, there is a serious risk that various constituencies represented by the delegations may withdraw their support for the peace process. The Middle East negotiations should not be seen as a zero sum game, where one party's gain is the other's loss. Rather, a comprehensive settlement should make possible an outcome where ail parties are better off at the end of the process than they were at the outset. Australia also calls on all States to lend their full support to the current efforts towards achieving a just and lasting peace in the region. The benefits of such a settlement would be far-reaching not only for peace. (Mr. Butler. Australia) stability and, ultimately, prosperity for the region but also as a significant contribution to international peace and security. Mr. MOTHIBAMELE (Botswana): Last year when we debated this item, the Madrid Conference, which had brought the peoples of the Middle East together for the first time in 40 years, had just ended. The Conference had heightened our hopes that the resolution of the Middle East problem was at last in sight and that peace was within reach. We had pinned our hopes on the Conference because the erstwhile adversaries had met in order to negotiate "a just, lasting and comprehensive peace through direct negotiations". We were convinced and remain convinced that the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict can best be settled by the peoples of the Middle East themselves in a spirit of give and take. The peoples of the Middle East are tired of hearing the discordant sounds of fire-power in a bloody conflict which often results in the killings of innocent civilians, women and children included. Mankind welcomes the advent of the new world order, a world where our children can go to bed without fear of nuclear threat, a world very safe to live in, a world where there are neither ideological conflicts nor competitions for spheres of influence indeed a world in which all, irrespective of colour, sex, creed or religion can live together as brothers and sisters. These apparent assurances of safety, peace and security in the world do not mean anything to those who are at tha core of the conflict in the Middle East. To them the fruits of this new world order are still to come. To them the old world order still prevails undiminished, uncompromising and still determined to persist as though the times had not changed. My delegation listened with great interest to the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel delivered during the general debate. He spoke of "an Israel that has chosen to step out of the shadows of the past to prepare for the invitation of a new future." (A/47/PV.20. p. 44) He said: "the forces of change have pushed aside the pillars of conventional wisdom, which proclaimed that military power is the source of natural strength and prestige." (ibid., p. 45) He maintained that "This is no longer true." (ibid.) I have decided to remind the Assembly of what Minister Shimon Perez said because the world is now waiting to see whether his words match his actions "A new broom sweeps clean" is an old adage. (Mr. Mothibamele, Botswana) My delegation would like to see the new Government of Israel move from words to actions. We have listened to words for a long time. My delegation would be delighted should the Israeli Government move from stalemate to action, and would further be heartened if the other actors in the Middle East could join hands and move towards the resolution of the problem. Posterity will judge the actors in this exercise by this move. Again, when the Assembly debated agenda item 10, the representative of Israel alluded to the principles enshrined in the Charter, which speak eloquently of the determination "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war ... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations ... to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security ... and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples ...". He also posed a Greek orator's guestion: "What greater crime can an orator be charged with than that his opinions and his language are not the same?" I decided to remind the Assembly of what the Israelis themselves have said, because even as we debate here today the words do not seem to match the actions. The reports before the Assembly detail a number of disturbing incidents and appalling conditions to which the Palestinians are subjected by the Israeli occupation forces. These are natters of grave concern, and only serve to undermine or poison the atmosphere of tolerance in the negotiations. There is an urgent need for restraint on the part of the Israeli forces. The Israeli Government would do well to take measures to stem and reverse the ugly situation and thus create conditions conducive to negotiations. Botswana, as a freedom-loving, peace-loving and justice-loving nation, is disheartened by the reports and calls on Israel to be committed to change in the shortest possible time. Time is of the essence. It must be remembered that what is at issue in this conflict is the struggle for a birthright between two peoples whose claims to an independent homeland in Palestine enjoy equal legitimacy. The people of Israel are entitled to be where they are in the pre-1967 State of Israel a right that Botswar.a has long recognized, a right that is not negotiable. We have said more than once that the reality of the State of Israel is not transitory but permanent. In equal measure, the people of Palestine are entitled to a homeland of their own in the West Bank and Gaza an entitlement which is not negotiable either, any more than is Israel's right to exist within its pre-1967 frontiers. It is in this context that our unyielding support for the struggle of the Palestinian people for freedom and independence in a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza must be understood. As we make this earnest plea for the parties to the Middle East conflict to walk towards each other, we also call for mutual restraint. Both parties must know that the status quo in the region is untenable. Invasion of one another's territory will only serve to delay the peace talks. The Secretary-General has said: "It is incumbent on every participant in this process to muster the goodwill, flexibility and determination necessary to sustain the negotiations until they achieve their goal. The peoples of the Middle East a region which has been subjected to five major wars, and where tension and bloodshed continue to cast a shadow over the fragile process that has been established - deserve no less." (A/47/672, para. 29) I entirely associate my delegation with this notion. Many Arab, Palestinian and Israeli lives have already been lost. No one is interested in seeing more lives lost in these senseless killings. In this respect, my delegation is delighted that the momentum has never been lost since the Madrid Conference. My delegation, therefore, whilst commending the United States for maintaining the momentum in this peacemaking process, would encourage all in the region to participate in the negotiations in a spirit of give and take. The existence of a culture of tolerance is essential. Preconceived positions do not help the situation. I have said that in a situation such as this a spirit of give and take must be displayed. All the peoples of the Middle East must be involved in this process. My delegation therefore hopes that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) will be allowed to participate in the negotiations so that it may give a helping hand to the peacemaking process in the region. In the view of my delegation, this is a sure recipe for everlasting peace in the turbulence of the Middle East. My delegation hopes and prays that freedom, peace and security will reign in this region, as elsewhere in the world.

At this time last year we reflected with optimism on developments in the Middle East. The United Nations had demonstrated its capacity to bring about the liberation of one of its smaller Member States from aggression and occupation by a larger neighbour. And the parties to the central problem of the region were at last beginning the process of dialogue on the peaceful settlement of their dispute. More progress has been made, but with difficulty and continuing uncertainty. The Organization's efforts to bring humanitarian assistance to the Kurdish and Shi'ite populations of Iraq, and, supported directly by New Zealand, to dispose of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, have met with appreciable success. But they have also met a seeming reluctance on the part of the Iraqi leadership to take seriously the commitment of the Security Council and the meaning of its resolutions. We urge, and we hope for, Iraq's full compliance with these resolutions. We must also express our concern for the well-being of Kuwaiti citizens who remain outside their country's borders and out of contact with their families. The restoration of such contact is a basic humanitarian necessity. New Zealand remains concerned at the continuing flow of arms to the Middle East. That substantial progress has been made over the last year with the removal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is cause for satisfaction. But we should not become complacent because of the progress made in this particular regard. Lasting peace and stability in the region will require broader arms control and reduction efforts. This will call for further progress at both regional and global levels. (Mr. McKinnon. New Zealand) Unfortunately, it would seem that there is still a long way to go before a sufficiently improved climate can be created to translate such goals as a Middle East zone free of all weapons of mass destruction into a reality. However, efforts to build confidence among the States of the region will play an essential role in creating the conditions for substantive arms control and disarmament measures and in ensuring a lasting peace. For this reason, we strongly support the ongoing dialogue within the Working Group on Arms Control established under the auspices of the recent negotiations. New Zealand shares with other members of the Organization a deep concern for the maintenance of international peace and security and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. Nowhere have those primary objectives of the Organization been so enduringly tested as in the Middle East. New Zealand has always had a profound sympathy and concern for human welfare in the Middle East. We have therefore been acutely aware of the suffering that conflicts have brought to the region's peoples, and we have supported such measures as the United Nations Charter permits to protect and ameliorate their situation. We have long held that a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute requires the commitment of all parties to negotiation. The round of negotiations that began in Madrid last year, brokered by the United States with the support of the Russian Federation, gave new hope for the resolution of this complex and seemingly intractable issue. It has been the best opportunity ever for progress to be made. New Zea.and welcomed it and continues to give it full support. The Madrid round of talks has yet to achieve specific results, but it has proceeded in a greatly improved atmosphere. That atmosphere has been damaged (Mr. McKinnon. New Zealand) by recent developments in southern Lebanon. These developments should not be allowed to interfere with the parties' commitment to a resolution. New Zealand looks to these talks to provide ihe victims of failure, that is, the Palestinian people, relief at last from harsh military occupation and the abrogation of their legitimate rights. Their participation in the talks can only work to their benefit. Successive New Zealand Governments have supported a comprehensive settlement on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). These resolutions place clear responsibilities on all the parties. They recognize that all States in the region have the right to exist in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force. Israel clearly has that right. But these resolutions also point to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and call for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in 1967. We regret that Israel has only partly complied with this call. We support the land-for-peace formula. We believe it can work. New Zealand continues to hold that any solution must recognize the rights of both sides. If Israel's right to exist in certainty of its security and territorial integrity is clear, so too and equally do the Palestinians have the right to self-determination, including the right to establish their own State if that is thoir wish. The Madrid round of talks has provided a framework for the realization of their aspirations. That they have accepted that this will be an incremental process reflects an admirable willingness to compromise. Without such willingness on both sides, the process will stall, and suffering rather than peace will pievail. We have been encouraged by indications that Israel is at least prepared (Mr. McKinnon. New Zealand) to modify its policy on new settlements in the occupied territories. A more useful gesture of compromise, however, would be the outright cessation of new settlements in those areas. We continue to believe the practice is a fundamental obstacle to the peace process. By the same token, we would support the call for the Arab States to reciprocate by lifting the trade boycott of Israel. We would also urge Israel to comply with Security Council resolution 425 (1978), which calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory. The present situation in southern Lebanon and its effect on the peace negotiations highlight the urgent need for a conciliatory spirit. The Organization has a duty to promote peace in all regions. The situation in the Middle East calls for tact and encouragement, as the long-sought goal of peace is almost within grasp. It would be a tragedy to allow past bitterness and recrimination to derail the peace process and condemn so many innocent people on both sides of the dispute to continuing uncertainty and warfare. The parties to the dispute have the capacity to resolve their differences. They must demonstrate their will. We must support them in their just efforts. There is hope, and the ultimate difficult step is the reality of a secure and lasting peace. Mr. ACHARYA (Nepal): The Middle East was at the very heart of the first post-cold-war international consensus to uphold the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. Ironically, the Middle East continues to be the region where failure to achieve peace has the potential to undermine the shaping of a post-cold-war international order. During the debate on this item last year. Member States welcomed the launching in Madrid of the historic Peace Conference on the Middle East. The key to this important initiative lay in the painstaking consultations undertaken by its sponsors. Like other Members of the United Nations, Nepal too had expected a quicker pace. However, we are happy that one year after Madrid negotiations, the momentum generated has been maintained. Both bilateral and multilateral talks are continuing, and the parties are engaged in substantive dialogue. The regional aspects of the peace process include crucial matters related to security, water, the environment, economic development and refugees. We support the call to make the Middle East a region free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Accession by all States of the region to the existing international instruments will be a major step in this direction. (Mr. Acharva. Nepal) The United Nations, because of its historical association with the situation, has an important role to play in the Middle East. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) form the basis of the ongoing negotiating process. It is important that the longstanding and manifold United Nations presence in the region be recognized and maintained. The three peace-keeping operations in the area, by maintaining local stability within their mandate, help give peace a chance. Several United Nations agencies including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, are engaged in valuable work of a humanitarian nature. My Government is therefore satisfied that United Nations has been invited to attend the multilateral working-groups on regional issues as a full participant. I take this opportunity to express our happiness at the appointment of Ambassador Chinmaya Gharekhan of India, a diplomat of consummate skill, accomplishments and experience, as the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the multilateral talks. Nepal has long held that any solution to the problem of the Middle East must be based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Likewise, we continue to hold that a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict must include three elements: withdrawal of Israel from territory occupied since 1967; recognition of the right of all States in the region, including Israel, to live in peace; and, solution of the problem of Palestine on the basis of recognition of the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. (Mr. Acharya. Nepal) Nepal welcomes the intention of the present Government of Israel to do all it can for the sake of peace. We look for the tangible translation of this Israeli objective in scrupulous observance of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. We appeal to the Israeli Government to take urgent measures to ensure respect for human rights and improved social and economic conditions for the people in the occupied territories. We deplore all violence in the occupied territories. We appeal to all parties concerned to desist from words and actions that might jeopardize the peace process. We appeal to them to show flexibility and far-sightedness. They all have a common stake in the success of the peace process. Given the past history and the present uncertainties, so does the international community. Nepal supports the efforts of the Lebanese Government to re-establish its legitimate authority in the whole country. Our continued participation in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon reflects our commitment in that regard. No outsider can make peace in the Middle East. Winning peace in the Middle East is up to the parties concerned. After more than four decades, peace in the Middle East now has a chance. The parties concerned owe it to themselves and to the world to keep this promise.

The disappearance from global affairs of the East-West division has removed the threat jf a global nuclear confrontation over the Middle East. That is a very good development. At the same time, regrettably, there is no real peace in the region. The Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts continue to smoulder. Violence and repression are all too evident. (Mr. Acharva. Nepal) It has become clear that peace in the Middle East in the post-cold-war era is fundamentally up to the parties themselves No outsider, however powerful and determined, can make it for them, or make it stick against the wishes of the parties concerned. There are signs of hope. The peace process that began in Madrid more than a year ago may not have achieved as much as the optimists hoped. But nor has it proven a failure, as the pessimists feared. As far as we can see, the peace process is firmly on track. That, in the volatile Middle East, is in itself an achievement. It is clear that, after 40 years of bitter conflict, peace will not be achieved at the stroke of a pen. My Government fully supports the Middle East peace process as the best available means to reach a comprehensive, just and durable peace in the region. Finland appeals to all the parties concerned to show flexibility and far-sightedness. They havs a common interest in a just and lasting peace. We are encouraged by the willingness of the new Government in Israel to contemplate options that not long ago were branded unthinkable. The generally accepted principles for the peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict remain valid. A comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region should be based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Acquisition of territory by force, even if in self-defence, is inadmissible. Israel must therefore withdraw from territories it occupied in 1967. But Israel, like any other State in the region, has the right to exist, not on sufferance but within secure borders that are recognized by its neighbours and the world at large. For that to happen, the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, including their right to national self-determination, need to be respected. Finland deplores all violence in the occupied territories. All sides should now show restraint. In that context, full respect by Israel for the Fourth Geneva Convention is of utmost importance. There is clearly a need for confidence-building measures, within and outside the peace process. We welcome any type of freeze of settlement activities. In our view, Israel should go further and cease all settlement activities in the occupied territories. They are, after all, illegal under interational law. On the Arab side, scrapping the trade boycott directed towards Israel and foreign firms dealing with Israel would be a necessary and timely confidence-building measure. In the overarmed Middle East, confidence would also be enhanced by adherence by the States of the region to international instruments on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We welcome the intention of Israel to become a party to the chemical weapons Convention, and call on its Arab neighbours to do the same. At the same, we fully realize that the cause of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East would be served by Israel heeding the repeated calls of the international community to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as most of the Arab States have already done. While supporting the ongoing Middle East peace process, my Government also believes that the United Nations should become more involved, in accordance with the guidelines adopted in the peace process. The process. (Mr. Breitenstein. Finland) which seeks in effect to implement Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), should benefit from greater involvement by the United Nations, particularly since it is likely that any successful outcome of the peace process would involve a role for the United Nations in its implementation. We therefore welcome the fact that the United Nations will now be involved as a full extra-regional participant in the multilateral talks. We also particularly welcome the decision of the Secretary-General to designate a senior official. Ambassador Gharekhan, to co-ordinate the United Nations role in the process. In a broader sense, the extent of United Nations participation in the peace process also depends on the Organization itself. The more impartial the United Nations is perceived to be, the better its chances to play a role. It is therefore regrettable that many of the resolutions of the General Assembly on the Middle East seem stick in a rut. routinely repeating the nostrums of past years. Fewer resolutions more in tune with the spirit of the peace process would be called for today. At long last, peace in the Middle East has a chance. The peace process is under way. The parties to that process owe it to themselves to make the most of it, for their own good and for that of the world. (Mr. Breitenstein, Finland)

The question of the situation in the Middle East has appeared on the General Assembly's agenda for 45 years. The decades-long Arab-Israeli armed confrontation in that region, which has more than once taken the form of large-scale wars, convincingly demonstrated that it is impossible to solve tl problems of the Middle East by force. Rejection of the futile and extremely dangerous stereotypes of the era of confrontation makes it possible to take c new view of the substance of the region's problems, from the standpoint of safeguarding the true interests of its countries and peoples and of the prospect of their peaceful and secure coexistence. Such an approach affords favourable opportunities for shifting from regional confrontation to political dialogue and negotiations on the acute and chronic problems of a Middle East settlement. With the launching last year at Madrid of the peace process, which received the widest possible support from the world community, the effort to achieve a just and therefore lasting settlement of the conflict finally moved off dead centre. Today we can note with satisfaction that since then the parties, overcoming the psychological barriers that had separated them, showed a serious willingness to look for compromise solutions which would take account of everyone's concerns that is, would be the result of finding a balance of interests which was based on the realities of today and aimed at the future. We hope that the participants and all interested parties will continue to pursue a realistic and constructive policy which could lead to peace, security and stability in the Middle East. Seven rounds of direct bilateral negotiations between Israelis and Arabs, including Palestinians, the work of multilateral working groups and the participation of the Secretary-General's Special Representative indicate that the peace process has taken on a dynamic of its own. Furthermore, they have shown that this is the only path that can bring realistic solutions of the Middle East tangle and lead to the secure coexistence of all the States of the region, to the realization of the national rights of the Palestinian people and, more generally, to the establishment of relations of good-neighbourliness and cooperation in the Middle East. Is there any alternative to the peace process? We are firmly convinced that the answer is no unless, of course, we consider a return to the policy of confrontation, which has already proved futile, to be an alternative. The concrete conditions and the successive stages of the settlement must be determined by the parties on the basis of the principles laid down in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). We in Russia welcome the steps taken during the past year to normalize the situation in Lebanon and move towards the implementation of the provisions of the Taif Agreement. We value highly the efforts being made by President Elias Hrawi in order to lead the country out of the state of crisis born of a civil war that has lasted many years. We in Russia are convinced that in addition to the pursuit of a sensible foreign policy within Lebanon itself, constructive participation in the Middle East peace process is an indispensable condition for restoring the well-being of Lebanon and extending the sovereignty of its lawful authorities to all of Lebanese territory. As shown by all past experience of Lebanese-Israeli relations the implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978) cannot be achieved through force, and we hope that the current negotiation process between Israel and Lebanon will make a real contribution to the complex of the Middle East settlement. (Mr. Sidorov. Russian Federation) The arms race in the Middle East has long been a factor that is increasingly destabilizing the already complicated situation in that region. Therefore it is very important to set out on the road of creating a stable security structure in the region. The priority directions of the efforts to be made in this matter are obvious to guarantee that the Middle East becomes a zone free of all types of weapons of mass destruction and to reach collective agreements, with the participation of the purchasers and the main suppliers of weapons, particularly of offensive weapons, concerning a monitored reduction of the flow of arms to the region. It would unquestionably be useful to take initiatives aimed at strengthening mutual confidence and creating demilitarized zones and to adopt other preventive measures. The world community must, by its actions, contribute to the creation of an atmosphere which would facilitate the successful conclusion of the negotiations. We are firmly convinced that this is the main task of this session of the General Assembly as well. The Russian delegation welcomes the more constructive mood observed at this year's session of the General Assembly during the consideration of the whole complex of questions relating to the Middle East. Withdrawal of any draft resolutions which are not consonant with the realities of today or which deal with matters being discussed in the talks about a Middle East settlement could, in our view, help to strengthen that atmosphere. (Mr. Sidorov. Russian Federation) Russia, as one of the sponsors of the peace process, will continue its active efforts to achieve a comprehensive and lasting settlement in the Middle East. We do not wish to minimize the complexity of the problems in the Middle East, but we are convinced that there are no problems in that region which are not susceptible of a civilized solution consonant with the aspirations and hopes of mankind as it enters the twenty-first century. The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m.