GA/DIS/3179

MIDDLE EAST, ARMS CONTROL AND PROLIFERATION OF SMALL ARMS DISCUSSED, AS FIRST COMMITTEE CONCLUDES GENERAL DEBATE

The situation in the Middle East, double standards in arms control and the proliferation of small arms were subjects of discussion as the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to conclude its general debate.

Instead of a cold war, the Middle East region had developed the notion of a �cold peace�, the representative of Israel told the Committee. Normalization between peoples was vital for security and a dynamic vehicle for cooperation, but had, in itself, become contentious. Over the past two decades, Israelis had witnessed a growing trend of directing conflict away from the conventional battlefield and into its population centres. While peace had remained Israel�s overriding strategic objective, it could not ignore the security risks and threats inherent in its consolidation, as well as other dangers that were beginning to cast a growing shadow over the region. Israel was now facing major challenges to the peace process itself. A way must be found to overcome them.

Uncertain and unforeseen threats had been used as a rationale for maintaining nuclear weapons, the representative of Pakistan asserted. Military attacks, including the possible use of nuclear weapons, had been envisaged, even against non-nuclear-weapon States. Double standards in arms control were more entrenched and selectively and unequally enforced -- penalizing some States while overlooking, if not actually endorsing, proliferation by others. Total security for some and total insecurity for the rest was not a durable basis for a new post-cold war global security architecture, as injustice invited resistance and inevitably led to conflict and instability.

Several African nations today condemned the use of small arms and light weapons, which had caused a staggering number of deaths and injuries in developing countries. The degree of destruction and the loss of life and property had been overwhelming, the representative of Uganda said. More than 12 million people had been disabled, and more than 500,000 child soldiers had been armed, not with atom bombs, but with AK-47s. Education had been disrupted and a generation of victims was emerging. The least developed countries, which had accounted for 70 per cent of global small arms purchases, should divert those resources into urgently needed social and economic development projects.

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3179 13th Meeting (AM) 13 October 2000

Nonetheless, the natural resources of countries had been diverted to finance the purchase of weapons and to hire mercenaries, the representative of Eritrea said. Improbable as it might seem, aid received from the international community for the victims of famine had also been diverted to sustain conflicts. Urgent international action must be taken to eliminate the indiscriminate and barbaric use of small arms, including by mercenaries. Along with the importing States, exporting countries must be held accountable, both morally and legally. Instead of the hoped-for peace dividend after the end of the cold war, the security and stability of many African States had been undermined or gravely tested by an array of internal and external factors.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Togo, Sudan, Ghana, Cameroon, Uzbekistan, Haiti, and Morocco.

The representative of Japan spoke in exercise of the right of reply, in response to the statement made during the general debate by the representative of the Democratic People�s Republic of Korea.

Representatives of Iran and Syria replied to the statement made today by the representative of Israel. That country�s representative also spoke in a right of reply. Final rights of reply would be heard at the outset of the afternoon meeting.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to begin its thematic discussion on all disarmament and security items, as well as the introduction and consideration of all draft resolutions.

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3179 13th Meeting (AM) 13 October 2000

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to conclude its general debate. The representatives of the following countries were expected to participate in today�s discussion: Uganda, Togo, Sudan, Ghana, Pakistan, Cameroon, Eritrea, Israel, Haiti, Morocco and Uzbekistan. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was also expected to make a statement.

The debate was expected to continue to focus on, among other items, the outcome of the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in which the nuclear-weapon States agreed to an �unequivocal undertaking� to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. They also agreed that the achievement of that goal offered the �only absolute guarantee� against the use of such weapons.

The final document of the NPT Review Conference marked only the second time that the five-year Review produced a consensus. The outcome, according to the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, had expressed the world�s �unambiguous� lack of confidence in the ability of either deterrence or defence to prevent another Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The NPT provides the legal foundation for multilateral actions to prohibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to advance nuclear disarmament. Considered by many experts to be the bedrock of the non-proliferation regime, it is the most universal of all disarmament agreements, with 187 parties.

Treaties banning the production and stockpiling of other weapons of mass destruction will also be highlighted. Those include the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention); and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention).

The pending entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) will also be considered, as well as the creation and consolidation of nuclear-weapon-free zones. Existing zones include those created under the following treaties: the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco); the South Pacific Nuclear- Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga); the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon- Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Bangkok); and the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba). Committee drafts are anticipated for the establishment of new zones in the Middle East, Central Europe and South Asia.

Attention will also be directed at developments concerning the following bilateral arrangements: the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty), by which the United States and the Russian Federation agreed to limit the deployment and development of anti-ballistic missiles; and the Strategic Arms Limitation and Reduction Treaties (START), by which the two countries also agreed to significantly reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads.

The landmines issue would likely be examined in the context of the two instruments to ban or limit their use -- Protocol II of the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention).

(For detailed background, see Press Release GA/DIS/3168 issued on 29 September.)

Statements

FRED BEYENDEZA (Uganda) said that small arms and light weapons remained the major instruments of war in developing countries. In Africa, in general, and Uganda, in particular, their threat was more real and fundamental than that of nuclear weapons. The degree of destruction and the loss of life and property as a result of those weapons were overwhelming. Those small arms, light weapons and landmines, might not be the main cause of conflicts in Africa. Yet, the staggering number of deaths and injuries and, in most cases, the total destruction resulting from the use of those deadly weapons could not be overemphasized.

He said he wished to alert the Committee to the harmful situation arising out of the terrible misuse of small arms, light weapons and landmines. Educational systems had been disrupted and a generation of suffering and trauma was emerging. The resources invested in the acquisition of small arms, light weapons and landmines were wasted resources; wasted because they could be better invested in urgently needed social and economic development projects. Priorities needed to be readjusted and the levels of expenditures on arms needed to be reduced. Those monies should be used for programmes that promoted peace, security and development.

He appealed to those 70 countries that manufactured and traded small arms and light weapons to review their trading practices and ensure that those dangerous weapons were not sold to non-State actors. He said his country looked forward to the convening of the 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. During the last 20 years, more than 20 million people had lost their lives to small arms, light weapons and landmines, 90 per cent of them civilians and 80 per cent women and children. More than 12 million people had been disabled, and more than 500,000 child soldiers had been armed, not with atom bombs, but with AK-47s.

A look at the global markets, he said, had revealed that the least developed countries, at the expense of their development, had made 70 per cent of arms purchases. In Africa, more than $760 million were spent in just one year on those weapons. As a result, there were more than 55 million AK-47s in circulation on the continent.

He said his delegation welcomed the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Particularly satisfying had been the realization by the nuclear- weapon States that the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals was the only absolute guarantee against the use of nuclear weapons. All countries should be resolved towards the achievement of a nuclear-weapon-free planet in this century. Towards that goal, his delegation would support all resolutions calling for the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones. It would also support treaties banning the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction.

ELOM KOMI AKPALOU (Togo) said that the best way to achieve the goals of international peace and security was through general and complete disarmament. The end of the cold war created a propitious environment for nuclear disarmament. Despite efforts to reduce them, however, stocks of nuclear arms still existed, constituting a source of constant danger to the peace and security of the world. The total elimination of nuclear arms was the only absolute guarantee against their use or their threat of use. At the recent NPT Review Conference, the States parties to the Treaty called on all to move towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, end the spread of such weapons and strengthen norms for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It was important that those measures be applied effectively.

He said the ABM Treaty remained one of the fundamentals for stability in the world and had direct consequences on international peace and security. He believed that unilateral approaches aimed at obtaining absolute superiority in armament prejudiced the achievement of the goals of that Treaty. The creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones constituted a major contribution by the regions concerned to the maintenance of international peace and security. In that regard, his country had worked with other African countries for the constitution and consolidation of such a zone in Africa through the Pelindaba Treaty signed in Cairo on 11 April 1996. The parliamentary procedure for the ratification of that Treaty was far advanced.

He said that the proliferation and traffic in small arms constituted another major source of worry for the international community in general, and Africa in particular. To fight that scourge, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) had implemented a number of initiatives. His country attached particular importance to the moratorium on the import, export and manufacture of light weapons in the ECOWAS region, which took effect on 1 November 1998. He expected that the 2001 Conference on small arms would afford the international community an opportunity to combat the scourge.

ELFATIH MOHAMED AHMED ERWA (Sudan) said that all of the speakers in the general debate had expressed deep concern over the current international climate, in particular, the nuclear disarmament stalemate. Nuclear disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction should be the cornerstone of disarmament efforts. In that respect, steps should be taken, on an urgent basis, to convene a conference on the elimination of nuclear weapons. He reaffirmed his Government�s willingness to participate in efforts aimed at eliminating weapons of mass destruction. Sudan had been one of the first countries to sign the NPT, the Ottawa Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. In fact, it had set up a national committee to coordinate all activities related to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

He said he was also concerned about illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons and supported the call to convene a conference on the subject in 2001. The scope of that conference should be confined to illegal traffic. His country had participated in and hosted various regional efforts designed to prevent the proliferation of those arms. While underlining the importance of controlling the spread of traditional weapons, he emphasized the right of countries to use such arms to defend their borders and territorial integrity, as enshrined in international law. The spread of those weapons was not the reason for conflict. The solution lay in confronting the root causes and economic and social underpinnings of conflict, as well as addressing foreign interference in various explosive regions.

Transparency was an important way of consolidating international peace and security, he said. Meanwhile, however, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was far from transparent. It was high time to expand the Register to include data on weapons of mass destruction and advanced technology for military purposes. The Register, for example, had not taken into account the situation in the Middle East, where Israel had acquired more destructive weapons, which it was using now against defenceless civilians in Palestine, including women and children.

Indeed, he said, the international community was facing Israel�s defiance and its continued refusal to accede to the NPT. The final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference had emphasized Israel�s accession to that Treaty and the importance of placing its weaponry under the comprehensive safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Israel�s defiance and the encouragement it had received from a Super-Power �- as well as the silence of that Super-Power concerning Israel�s aggressive intentions and practices -- had reflected a policy of hypocrisy and double standards. At the same time, that Super-Power was placing all of its nuclear technology and experience at Israel�s disposal. It was also exerting pressure on vulnerable States to join conventions less important than the NPT.

YAW ODEI OSEI (Ghana) said that a symbiotic relationship existed between disarmament and development. That conviction compelled the need to persist in the resolve of civil society, at the dawn of the new century, to cut down on military spending and direct the peace dividends into economically sustainable development. Disarmament should remain at the heart of the United Nations agenda.

His country had joined the overwhelming consensus for the convening of an international conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. West Africa, which had been affected by the proliferation of such conventional weapons, given their accessibility to non-State actors, was building up mechanisms at the subregional level to curb, manage and control their flow. Building on the Mali moratorium, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) convened a meeting of African experts on small arms and light weapons in May. That meeting was a prelude to the OAU Ministerial Conference on Illicit Proliferation, Circulation and Trafficking in Small Arms and Light Weapons, scheduled for Bamako from 27 November to 1 December.

He said Ghana would continue to engage actively, not only in the subregional and regional initiatives on that issue, but also in the preparatory efforts for the international Conference. It was important to ensure that the choice of venue of that Conference was such that would enable the widest possible participation of all Member States.

He welcomed the statement by the United States, on behalf of the nuclear- weapon States, on the agreement reached concerning security assurances for Mongolia, with regard to its nuclear-weapon-free status. Such arrangements, freely negotiated, conveyed the right signal to the international community, particularly civil society, of readiness to address critical concerns.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that a stable structure of international peace and security must be based on the principle of sovereign equality and equal security of States. The militarily significant States had the primary responsibility for disarmament. The strong must lead the way in the disarmament process. It was the armed who were to be disarmed, not the weak and vulnerable who were to be kept disarmed. Unfortunately, those principles, adopted by consensus at the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, had been almost �turned on their head�.

He said that double standards of arms control were becoming more entrenched and selectively and unequally enforced, penalizing some, while overlooking, if not actually endorsing, proliferation by others. While nuclear non-proliferation had been assiduously imposed on the vast majority of States as an article of faith, for the privileged nuclear deterrence was regarded as �the supreme guarantee of security�. The use of force was contemplated without Security Council authorization. At the same time, the military budgets of the most powerful States had been rising and weapons transfers had been expanding, even as embargoes were arbitrarily imposed on others.

Total security for some, and total insecurity for the rest, could not be a durable basis for a new post-cold war architecture for global peace and security, he said. The graph of hope for disarmament had risen sharply at the end of the cold war. It had declined with equal angularity during the last two years, due to renewed acrimony between the major Powers and reversals suffered by the disarmament process. The graph had risen again this year, mostly due to the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review and the deferment of the deployment of a national missile defence.

He said that the NPT parties had seemed to set great store by the �unequivocal� commitment by nuclear-weapon States to eliminate nuclear weapons. That had been regarded as a new commitment. He hoped such assessments were correct and, hopefully, the world would witness the speedy implementation of steps towards nuclear disarmament. He was not holding his breath, however. A senior official from one major nuclear Power, when asked about the �unequivocal� commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons, had reportedly said that nothing had changed. A confidential communication between the two leading Powers, which had been �leaked� to the press, had appeared to confirm that.

The recent disarmament setbacks had not yet been reversed, he went on. National missile defence deployment had been wisely delayed, but development and testing would continue, and the ultimate aim of such a system had been affirmed. Moves were also under way for the deployment of theatre missile defence in several regions of the world. The CTBT�s rejection had not be reversed. Some reports indicated that some of the laboratory tests being conducted might be in violation of the CTBT�s basic obligation not to conduct nuclear explosion tests. It was hardly surprising that the Conference on Disarmament had been unable to adopt its programme of work.

He said that if a decision on national missile defence deployment was taken, or seemed inevitable, that could have an impact on international strategic stability and unravel important agreements, especially the ABM Treaty. That could also adversely affect stability and arms control in certain regions and accelerate the production and deployment of missiles, with serious security implications for Pakistan. He had remained unconvinced of the credibility of threats to the major Powers of ballistic missile attacks, with or without weapons of mass destruction, from developing countries. The missile programmes of those countries were decades behind those of the leading nuclear-weapon and other industrialized States.

Nonetheless, he said, the deployment of national missile defence could fulfil the fear, which ostensibly impelled such deployment. Equally, fears of missile attacks by so-called non-State actors were �fanciful and self-serving�. Any missile attack would invite definite retaliation against the source of the attack, whereas unconventional or clandestine attacks did not have �a return address". Non-State actors, therefore, were unlikely to rely on missiles if they wanted to use violence against major Powers. Sadly, what had happened yesterday in Yemen had demonstrated that point. He expressed deep condolences to the United States Government and to the American people and families of those who lost their lives in that tragic incident.

He said that the international community should urge the affirmation and further strengthening of the ABM Treaty, including perhaps through its multilateralization. He hoped the Committee�s resolution on the issue would also oppose the deployment of so-called theatre missile defence. Strategic stability should not be promoted at the cost of regional stability. Export of ABM systems to South Asia and other sensitive regions would, inevitably, intensify instability and accelerate the build-up of missile systems in those regions. The central security threat today was not so-called missile proliferation in the third world; it was the threat arising from the thousands of missiles that were held on high alert by the major nuclear Powers.

Acceptance of the concept of �missile proliferation�, which mirrored the NPT�s premise of inequality, would intensify the asymmetry in security between the industrialized and developing countries, he said. He could not accept the premise that some States had the right to develop, possess and use ballistic missiles, while others, including those targeted by such missiles, must be prevented by all possible means from acquiring missile capabilities. If missiles were essential for the security of major Powers, why should developing countries forego that capability? he asked.

There was no internationally accepted legal norm against the acquisition of ballistic missiles by any country, just as there was no norm against the acquisition of military aircraft, he said. Countries that did not have access to advanced and expensive aircraft might have no choice but to develop ballistic missiles as a means of self-defence in the conventional field. In practice, the arbitrary norms of the Missile Technology Control Regime, with its narrow focus, had eroded, rather than enhanced, regional security in certain regions, including South Asia. Thus, the missile issue must be addressed comprehensively and equitably. The goal should be a global treaty for the regulation and progressive reduction of ballistic and cruise missiles, as part of a comprehensive nuclear disarmament programme.

He said that regional approaches to international security, disarmament and non-proliferation had assumed special importance in the current environment. The success or failure of security and disarmament measures in North-East Asia, the Middle East, South-East Asia and South Asia, would have important regional and global impact. His country, once again, would submit a resolution on regional disarmament. His region had been described as the most dangerous place in the world. For Pakistan, the danger was �clear and present�. Almost all of its eastern neighbour�s military assets �- an army of 1.2 million men, more than 700 combat aircraft, a large naval flotilla, and Prithvi missiles -� had all been deployed against Pakistan along the border and the Line of Control in Kashmir.

Continuing, he said that those capabilities would be augmented with additional acquisitions, estimated at more than $10 billion, from three of the five permanent members of the Security Council and certain other States. His neighbour�s political and military leaders were threatening aggression and attacks, with increasing frequency. Notwithstanding Pakistan�s restraint, it daily faced artillery barrages, small arms fire and attacks on its posts along the Line of Control in Kashmir. The major Powers should restrain, not encourage, those who had offered themselves as their �natural allies� from the path of confrontation and military build-up.

Although his country�s conventional capabilities had been severely eroded by unjust embargoes and sanctions, it possessed the conventional means to defend itself against such aggression, he said. It had not intended, however, to �mortgage� the future of its people by huge investments in expensive weapons imports. Meanwhile, history would confirm that Pakistan was a �reluctant� nuclear Power. Even after its neighbour�s 1974 nuclear explosions, it had pursued the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free South Asia. Once it had acquired nuclear capability, it was content not to use it. When its neighbour conducted its nuclear-test explosions in May 1998, it received no credible indication, including by the Security Council, that its security could be assured by other means. It was, therefore, compelled to respond.

He said that the danger in South Asia could not be defused, nor could a durable structure of security be built, without open and sustained dialogue. His country was prepared for bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral talks to advance the cause of peace, stability and prosperity in the region. It had demonstrated its desire for nuclear restraint; it had voted in favour of the CTBT and had declared a nuclear-testing moratorium. Its desire to sign the CTBT could be fulfilled as soon as it succeeded in promoting a domestic consensus to do so. It had agreed to open talks on banning the production of fissile material and had taken steps to strengthen its controls over the export of sensitive materials and technology.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon) said that his delegation previously spoke about the lack of significant progress in the field of disarmament. Those feelings had not changed. The information about the level of military expenditures in 1999 was no reason for optimism. While the international community could rejoice at the hopefuls signs that had appeared, it should not loose sight of how much still remained to be done in order to safeguard the world from nuclear holocaust. The positive developments included the successful outcome of the NPT Review Conference, which concluded on an eminently positive note -- the nuclear-weapon States explicitly undertaking to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. The countries concerned must show political will in implementing those commitments.

Four years after opening for signature, he continued, the CTBT had still not entered into force, while, for the fourth consecutive year, the Commission on Disarmament could not reach agreement on its work programme. There was also no consensus on the convening of a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. Also, his country deplored the fact that the Pelindaba Treaty had still not entered into force. He supported the proposal by the Secretary-General for the convening of an international conference on the means of putting an end to the nuclear threat. The international community should also not lose sight of the need to control and limit conventional weapons. Those weapons created and fed conflicts all over the world, resulting in numerous victims, especially civilians. They also undermined development efforts. The scope of the problem called for international mobilization. The 2001 Conference on small arms would make it possible to move forward in tackling that problem.

He said that his country welcomed the progress that had been made in the elimination of anti-personnel landmines. There had been a considerable decrease in production and an intensification in the destruction of the stocks of such mines. Despite that progress, however, those weapons continued to maim and kill innocent victims everyday. The impetus gained since the Ottawa process should, therefore, not be allowed to weaken. Cameroon would soon ratify the Ottawa Convention.

ALISHER VOHIDOV (Uzbekistan) expressed his satisfaction that, despite the negative forecast, the recent NPT Review Conference ended on a positive note. It had been possible to overcome differences of opinion to arrive at that outcome. His country had always been a firm proponent of nuclear disarmament. It was, therefore, greatly concerned that the CTBT had yet to enter into force four years after it was completed. It was important to secure the universality of that important document. His country was also impatiently awaiting report of the group working on the protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. That protocol would enhance the practical significance of that Convention.

He implicated light weapons in the conflict in Afghanistan and said that the solution to that conflict lay in putting an end to outside support, including an end to the supply of light weapons.

The creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones was a major contribution towards strengthening the regime of non-proliferation and the disarmament process, he said. Such zones were supporting international peace and security. His country was continuing its efforts with the other Sates of the Central Asia region for the implementation of such a zone. He said that while much had been done to further the disarmament process, much more remained to be done. The international community should continue its efforts for the achievement of stable peace and progress, and his country would continue to participate in such efforts.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said that recent declarations had carried an unambiguous message regarding the urgent need to create the requisite conditions and legal norms to guarantee peace and progress in the new millennium. That collective commitment had also recognized the abiding need for, and a demonstration of, the benefits of a meaningful and durable partnership between governments, civilized society and multilateral organizations. On the other hand, the calamities that had befallen States since the end of the cold war had remained etched on the world�s collective conscience.

He said it was difficult to ignore the recent threat of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, the escalation of nuclear competition and the lack of progress in the Conference on Disarmament. Other compelling factors included the massive accumulation of conventional weapons, the illicit trade in small arms, the proliferation of interstate and intrastate, as well as regional conflicts, and the brutalities committed by governments against their own populations, as well as those of neighbouring States. Those had caused pain and sorrow to humanity and had greatly challenged the international community. In that connection, it should be noted that the destruction caused by small, medium and light weapons had posed an even more immediate threat to international peace and security than weapons of mass destruction.

While conflicts had caused much damage in other parts of the world, those had been �truly devastating� in Africa, he said. Instead of the hoped-for peace dividend after the end of the cold war, the security and stability of many African States had been undermined or gravely tested by an array of internal and external factors. That had led to the implosion or near-implosion of States, destruction of socio-economic infrastructures, economic stagnation or regression, famine and war. That, in turn, had caused the loss of millions of lives and the violation of human rights and humanitarian law. Among the most sordid violations was the use of civilians as human shields, or �mine sweepers�.

Continuing, he said that the natural resources of countries had been diverted to finance the purchase of weapons and to hire mercenaries for the destructive immoralities of governments against their own people, or against the people of neighbouring countries. Improbable as it might seem, assistance received from the international community for the victims of famine had been diverted to sustain conflicts. Having suffered from the devastating effects of the destruction caused by a 30-year liberation struggle, his country appreciated the value of peace. It was committed to safeguarding peace and security, regionally and across the continent, as it fully realized that its own security, stability and development were predicated on the peace, security and stability of the region and Africa.

Urgent international action must be taken to eliminate the indiscriminate use of small arms and the barbarity of the mercenaries, he said. A widely accepted agreement should be adopted that would prohibit and/or restrict the use of such weapons. Even that would not be enough, however. Not only did the importing State bear responsibility, but the country that was exporting or allowing the direct or indirect exportation of those weapons and the recruitment of mercenaries in its territory, must also be held accountable, both morally and legally. On the other hand, governments were duty bound to defend their territorial integrity and the well-being of their populations. His country supported the ongoing effort to establish the rule of law relative to conventional arms. Hopefully, the forthcoming Conference on the subject would allow for earnest consideration.

He said his country had been victimized by the irresponsible and indiscriminate use of landmines. Indeed, a major success of the last century had been the entry into force of the Ottawa Convention. On the other hand, however, his country had been constrained by its present security concerns. The Horn of Africa was a volatile region, which had not experienced real peace during the past half-century. Throughout those years, and long before Eritrean independence, landmines had been used, including by those who had signed the Ottawa Convention. Those evil weapons continued to endanger the lives of Eritreans.

He urged understanding by the international community of the �predicament� faced by Eritrea and other small, but strategically located States in dangerous neighbourhoods. There must also be a legal mechanism to ensure the compliance of rogue States, or enable the United Nations to impose sanctions in order to stop the contemptuous threats directed at their smaller neighbours, which endangered the lives and livelihoods of their own citizens and those of other States.

JEREMY ISSACHAROFF (Israel) said that,in no uncertain terms, peace had remained his country�s overriding strategic objective. While it could not ignore the security risks and threats inherent in the consolidation of peace, as well as the other dangers that were beginning to cast an ever-growing shadow over the region, his country viewed peace as the vital component of any regional stability. Successive Israeli Governments had sought to advance peace and contend with a wide array of security threats emanating from various adversaries on different levels, some of which might remain even after the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

He said that the relationship between the quest for peace and the need for security had assumed a complexity in the region that went well beyond the straightforward assumption that, in an era of greater peace, there should be fewer security concerns. Israel was now facing major challenges to the peace process itself. Those obstacles must be overcome. The Israeli-Palestinian track was now dealing with the essence of the conflict; sensitive questions had so far defied resolution. On the Syrian track, his Prime Minister had offered far-reaching proposals, which were unfortunately rejected in Geneva earlier this year. In addition, his Government in June had fulfilled its commitment to remove troops from South Lebanon in complete accordance with Security Council resolution 425. Israel had always been a partner in genuine peace efforts.

The relationship between peace and security, he went on, was also critical in view of the existing and evolving threats to the Middle East, particularly from Iraq, and in a different fashion, from Iran. Those countries had not engaged in, and in fact had actively opposed, any compromise or resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those two countries, through their own acts and declarations, constituted a significant threat to Israel and to other countries in the region. Israel had no dispute with Iranians and sought no conflict with their Government. It could not fail to be worried, however, about the overt hostility that country had projected towards Israel and its recent long-range missile tests.

The threat of weapons of mass destruction and longer range missiles was not theoretical, he said. Those capabilities had actually been used in his area. Iraqi missiles had targeted Israel in the Gulf War. That sobering experience had remained �fresh in our minds�. The international community would also be well advised to consider current Libyan activities in the missile arena. Other examples regarding the use of chemical weapons were a matter of historical record. His country was profoundly concerned about the present situation with regard to Iraq and the lack of any monitoring or inspection mechanism there for the last two years.

Saddam Hussein continued to constitute a real threat to his neighbours, and to the region as a whole, he said. The United Nations bore a critical responsibility to the countries of the Middle East to ensure that Iraq was disarmed of all of its weapons of mass destruction and missile capabilities, in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. During the next decade, certain countries in the region could significantly expand their existing weapons of mass destruction and longer range missile capabilities, as they had done in recent years. Those could also acquire capabilities that would threaten areas beyond the Middle East, such as Europe and South Asia. Indeed, those threats continued to expand in gravity, range and scope.

Instead of a cold war, the Middle East region had developed the notion of a �cold peace� he said. The normalization between peoples as a vital security component and a dynamic vehicle for cooperation had, itself, become a matter of contention. Unfortunately, the level of rhetoric against Israel in certain Middle East media had increased, reinforcing Israeli perceptions of insecurity. Indeed, the Israeli people did not feel safer or more secure. Over the last two decades, they had witnessed the growing trend of directing the conflict to its population centres away from the conventional battlefield.

In addition, he said, other countries in the area were also conscious of the threats emanating from Iraq and Iran. Thus, various countries in the region had also sought to improve their conventional capabilities to counter those threats. They had the means to acquire state-of-the-art equipment, and the levels of sophisticated armaments had increased significantly over the last decade. Armies in the region had not become smaller or less threatening. Those factors had had an impact on the nature of Israel�s security environment and had increased the risk factors for the future.

Over the next decade, he went on, current trends indicated that countries in the Middle East could possess greater quantities of sophisticated conventional arms, and chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities, as well as longer range missiles. It could well be �the worst of all worlds� and, most definitely, not the hoped-for Middle East. Israel would remain committed to the peace process, even while the longer range threats to it and other countries in the region could become more profound. At the same time, the reconstitution of Iraq�s weapons of mass destruction programmes and missile capabilities presented a threat to the entire region and remained a critical factor in the regional search to reduce levels of arms and possibly moderate Iranian military aspirations.

Continuing, he said his country had attached primary importance to regional security arrangements. At the same time, it had supported global efforts to curb the proliferation of conventional and non-conventional weapons and, where appropriate, had endorsed such arrangements as long as those did not impair its vital security margins. Over the years, it had consistently supported the principle of non-proliferation, yet the NPT could not be a substitute for a regional arrangement in the Middle East, where wars, armed conflicts, political hostility and non-recognition were prevalent. Those political realities had mandated a practical step-by-step approach, bearing in mind the ultimate goal of achieving a comprehensive peace between all States of the region.

Accordingly, he said his country had supported the eventual establishment of a Middle East zone free from nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, freely and directly negotiated by the regional parties, emanating from, and encompassing, all of the States of the region. Indeed, in the last 20 years Israel had joined Committee consensus regarding the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. At the same time, the agenda item on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was a transparent attempt to single out Israel in an amplified way. The related draft resolution had diverted attention away from �real and pressing� proliferation problems in the area and had ignored the continuing efforts of Iran in the nuclear and missile arenas. Such an agenda item had no place in an objective and professional body.

PIERRE LELONG (Haiti) said that the NTP, the CTBT, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention remained the best instruments available for assuring the stability of the world. It was clear that nuclear- weapon States must commit themselves without equivocation to the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, even though no specific dates had been fixed to achieve that goal.

While welcoming the progress that had been made in the area of disarmament, Haiti was concerned at the number of victims caused each hour by anti-personnel landmines, he said. The Ottawa Convention had been ratified by 101 countries and signed by 138. However, 56 countries, who were not yet signatories to the Convention, retained an important stock of such weapons. States which had not yet adhered to that Convention should do so now.

He said that the excessive proliferation of light weapons and small arms represented a great danger to the world. They caused serious ravages and had major impacts on sustainable development. The illicit traffic in those weapons was a destabilizing factor and a menace to the security of populations. This traffic did not recognize borders. Most internal conflicts were fed by such weapons, because they were easily transported and better adapted to conflicts. They could also be acquired at low prices. Haiti was convinced that the best way to tackle this problem would be through a global and coordinated approach at world, regional and national levels. In that regard, his country welcomed the convening of the 2001 international conference on the illicit traffic in such weapons.

MOHAMED AMAR (Morocco) said that the recent NPT Review Conference marked a positive point in the institution of practical measures to accomplish nuclear disarmament. The Conference agreed, for the first time, to cite Israel as the only country of the Middle East that was not party to the NPT and made an appeal to that country to submit its nuclear installations to the guarantees of the IAEA. Heeding that appeal could contribute to the concretization of peace and regional security in the Middle East. It could also lead to the creation of a nuclear- weapon-free zone in the region. Morocco expected the international community to apply the pressure required to ensure that that appeal was heeded.

His country regretted that, in spite of the positive results of the NPT Review Conference, the Conference on Disarmament was not able to reach agreement on its programme of work on nuclear disarmament. Morocco supported the proposal by the Secretary-General to convene an international conference to study ways of eliminating the risks posed by the nuclear danger. It was necessary that a fourth special session of the General Assembly be held on disarmament.

He said that the 2001 Conference on Illicit Traffic in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects was a necessity for combating the phenomenon of illicit trade in light weapons. The success of that Conference would be judged by the measures it helped put in place to fight against illicit traffic in such weapons. The Conference should focus on the elaboration of measures to strengthen the regulation of the transfer of small arms and to increase transparency in that area, while strengthening cooperation for regional and national plans and programmes for the collection and destruction of those weapons.

Rights of Reply

HISAO YAMAGUCHI (Japan), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that the delegate of the Democratic People�s Republic of Korea had made some references about Japan�s defence policy in his statement made on 9 October. He would like to set the record straight.

He recalled that the representative of the Democratic People�s Republic of Korea had said that Japan should clarify its position that it would give up its attempt to develop nuclear arms. His job was easy because it was evident to all that there was no truth to the allegation that Japan was trying to become a military power with nuclear armaments. True, his country had paid due attention to its ability to defend itself. Nonetheless, the important aspect of that defence was that it had consistently adhered to its fundamental policy orientation not to become a military power.

That policy orientation had been implemented and maintained by Japan by limiting its military capability to an exclusively defensive nature, underpinned by its intrinsically peace-oriented Constitution. Referring specifically to the allegation that Japan was attempting to employ nuclear arms, there was neither such an attempt nor reasons for one. Such an attempt would destabilize the international environment around Japan and be detrimental to its policy objective of the maintenance of peace and prosperity in Japan and beyond. It was wild to even hint at the possibility of a truly democratic country �going nuclear�, especially given the widely shared and fiercely uncompromising anti-nuclear-weapon sentiment of its populace.

If those reasons were not enough to convince the Democratic People�s Republic of Korea, then he said he would point out the plain facts: Japan had stated publicly that it would stick to the three non-nuclear weapons principles -- of not having, not manufacturing and not introducing into its territory nuclear weapons. It had maintained and would maintain those principles. Legally, his country�s domestic law strictly limited its nuclear-related activities to peaceful purposes. Japan was a State party to the NPT, and its obligations under that Treaty were complied with and verified by the IAEA. Moreover, it had been the first party to lodge its ratification of the additional protocol with the IAEA.

In addition, he said his country had been actively promoting a realistic, step-by-step process of nuclear disarmament, in its belief that the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not be repeated. Japan planned to submit a resolution outlining the path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and it would request the support of all delegations, including that of the Democratic People�s Republic of Korea.

HAMID BAEIDI NEJAD (Iran), exercising the right of reply, said that the accusations made by Israel were baseless and reflected the legitimacy problem which that country faced in the Middle East region. The Israeli representative had accused his country of striving to develop weapons of mass destruction. It was a fact that Israel was not a party to the NPT and had not placed its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards but operated them in secrecy. The last Review Conference of the NPT called on Israel to accede to that Treaty. Israel had also not joined or ratified the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Israel had developed fighters able to carry weapons of mass destruction. All of Iran�s facilities were under IAEA safeguards and, last year, Iran submitted a resolution dealing with missiles to the General Assembly. Iran had expected to hear apologies from Israel for its criminal act of killing innocent people. The only lasting solution to the problem in the Middle East was to grant Palestinians their inherent rights as decided by the United Nations and other bodies.

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria), in a right of reply, said he wished to affirm that the Israeli delegation had said everything but the truth. It was well known that peace was closely linked to truth, as truth was the basis on which peace and justice might be built. Indeed, the insistence on distorting and reversing the facts was most irritating in the Israeli statement. The Israeli delegation spoke of peace, whereas the entire world was witnessing how peace was being achieved in the Israeli fashion. The Israeli way was the killing of innocent people and sending out the army to kill everything that was alive and moving.

He said that the Israeli delegation spoke of peace and disarmament, whereas Israeli missiles and tanks were killing everything in their path, including women, children and elderly Palestinians and other Arabs. In the course of two weeks, approximately 115 martyrs had been killed. By all standards, this was a �massacre�, which was being perpetrated against an unarmed and defenceless people and against children suffering from Israeli oppression. They had nothing with which to defend themselves, except their stones and their bodies. Where was that peace with the Palestinians, when defenceless people were being killed?

The Israeli delegate had surprisingly spoken of the fact that its institutions were fully endorsing all international efforts concerning landmines and missiles, whereas those very weapons were being used now for destruction, and to kill innocents, he went on. The level of untruth in the Israeli statement had reached a point where he said that Syria had not accepted offers of peace at the Geneva meeting. The fact is that Israel had not made any offers at the meeting, except that Syria give up its territory, its regional borders, its land, its sovereignty, and its dignity -� that was the Israeli proposal. He asked whether there was any delegation in the room -- one single delegation -- willing to accept an offer of that kind.

As for the other lies, he recalled that the Israeli delegate had said that there were other countries in the region manufacturing other weapons of mass destruction and missiles. Meanwhile, everyone knew that Israel had �set light� to the armaments race in the region and that it was �armed to the teeth� with traditional and nuclear weapons, and landmines. Israeli scientists had declared that Israel had more than 300 nuclear bombs that could be carried by missiles and aircraft -- enough to burn the entire region. The Israeli logic, in itself, was aggressive. The pretext of false security had allowed them to do what was banned at the global level. It was Arabs who were being murdered. They were without the weapons to defend themselves.

The other allegation and untruth of the Israeli delegation was that they had fully agreed with the NPT, he said. Meanwhile, the entire world knew that Israel had refused to place its nuclear arsenals under IAEA safeguards. Peace in the Middle East would not be achieved by arsenals of weapons and threats to use them against others, or by an acceptance of the Israeli conditions imposed on Arabs. Syria had made a strategic choice for a just and permanent peace. The total withdrawal from all occupied territories since 4 June 1967, implementation of

legal resolutions, the principle of land for peace, and the provisions of the Madrid Conference could achieve that.

Mr. ISSACHAROFF (Israel), exercising the right of reply to the statement by Iran, said that his country�s concerns about Iran�s programmes in weapons of mass destruction were for good reasons. Iranian officials, including President Khatami, had called for the destruction of Israel.

He said that, regarding the peace process, Israel and the Palestinians should be allowed to come to terms with the problems they had. The Iranian record of trying to undermine that peace process had not brought much honour to that country.

In exercise of the right of reply to the statement by Syria, he said that the truth about the meeting in Geneva was that the Prime Minister of Israel submitted very far-reaching proposals for peace with Syria. Those proposals were rejected. Israel wondered whether the rejection of those proposals did not indicate that peace with Israel remained uncomfortable. It was also not appropriate for Syria to lecture Israel on recent events in Israel. His country did not start those events and had no interest in their continuation.

Mr. MEKDAD (Syria), speaking again in a right of reply, said it was well known that his country had exercised its strategic option for peace. It had endeavoured, ever since the beginning of the peace process, to achieve a comprehensive and just peace in the region. He had explained the basis on which such a peace could be achieved, and was surprised at what the Israeli delegate had said about the proposals made at the Geneva meeting. At the same time, he said, he did not know everything about those proposals. The proposals had not mentioned the total withdrawal of Israel from occupied Arab territories to the line established on 4 June 1967. It would seem that the Israeli delegate was unaware of the policies and practices of his Government in that respect.

Clearly, Israel was not willing or ready to achieve peace and what was taking place presently was witness to that fact, he said. What was taking place all over the world did not justify the perpetration of massacres by Israel. That Government had killed more than 115 Palestinians. Those were true massacres perpetrated against a defenceless and unarmed people, which had been condemned by the international community. Much was said by Israel about peace, but he had not seen any real measures taken to achieve such a peace in the territories, nor on the Palestinian or Syrian tracks. Syria was totally committed to resolutions which had international legitimacy, and which Israel was trying to disregard. Israel was also attempting to humiliate and oppress the Arabs, in what was taking place �before your very eyes� in the Palestinian territories. When Arabs rejected an Israeli peace, they were bombed, destroyed and killed.

* *** *

United Nations