Exchange of views (continued)
The meeting was called to order at 3.20 p.m.
Exchange of views ( continued)
11. Mr. Al-Hariri (Syrian Arab Republic) noted that the universality of the Treaty required the accession of the remaining States not parties to it, particularly those possessing nuclear facilities, and their conclusion of safeguards agreements with IAEA. It also required that the nuclear-weapon States should provide effective security assurances so that the interests of some States were not served at the expense of others. That called for a balance between the rights and obligations of both nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon States. Furthermore, there must be no nuclear cooperation with any State not a party to the Treaty, particularly a State which ignored international legitimacy and used such cooperation to develop its nuclear-weapon capability. Double standards must also be avoided in the promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The fact that Israel possessed nuclear technology and nuclear weapons but was not a party to the Treaty cast doubt on the credibility of the Treaty and the future of non-proliferation. Consequently, it was the respon sibility of the Conference to review the international control and transfer of nuclear technology and to ensure that it was non-discriminatory.
16. Ms. Aboulnaga (Egypt) ...
18. Egypt, after having signed the Treaty in 1968, had done its utmost to spare Africa from the nuclear threat, and in 1974 had proposed the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Since then, it had put forward numerous proposals for ridding the region and the world of weapons of mass destruction, and had continued to play an active role in many international forums to that end.
19. In that context, Egypt called on the Conference to evaluate the fulfilment by States parties — especially the five nuclear-weapon States — of their commitments under the Treaty and also those undertaken at the 1995 Conference. Furthermore, Egypt called for multilateral negotiations among States — including the nuclear-weapon States — to be held in parallel with other bilateral and multilateral efforts to reduce nuclear weapons.
20. The statement made on behalf of the five nuclear-weapon States at the current Conference did not fully meet the expectations of the other States parties. While it reaffirmed their commitment to the 1995 resolution on the Middle East, it was silent about the only State in the region which possessed nuclear weapons —
Israel — but mentioned Pakistan and India. The statement also ignored the possibility of negotiations on a multilateral treaty with binding legal force that would provide security assurances that there would be no threat or use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States. The assurances provided for in Security Council resolution 984 (1995) did not respond to concerns about the possibility of a nuclear threat, since they were not legally binding, were predicated upon certain conditions and could be modified in the future.
32. Mr. Mya Than (Myanmar) ...
37. In addition to principles and objectives, his delegation felt that the Conference should adopt decisions on such important subjects as nuclear disarmament and security assurances and a resolution on the Middle East.
The meeting rose at 5 p.m.
This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be submitted in one of the working languages. They should be set forth in a memorandum and also incorporated in a copy of the record. They should be sent within one week of the date of this document to the Chief, Official Records Editing Section, room DC2-750, 2 United Nations Plaza.
Any corrections to the record of this meeting and of other meetings will be issued in a corrigendum.