Review of the operation of the treaty as provided for in its article VIII, paragraph 3, taking into account the decisions and the resolution adopted by the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference (continued)
(c) Implementation of the provisions of the treaty relating to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, safeguards and nuclear-weapon-free zones ( continued)
(iii) Article VII (continued)
Reports of the main committees ( continued)
Adoption of arrangements for meeting the costs of the Conference
Report of the Credentials Committee ( continued)
Draft report of the Drafting Committee
Consideration and adoption of the final document(s)
The meeting was called to order at 11.45 a.m.
(c) Implementation of the provisions of the treaty relating to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, safeguards and nuclear-weapon-free zones (continued )
(iii) Article VII (continued)
Report of Main Committee II
21. Mr. Awaad (Egypt) said that paragraph 56 would now read: “The Conference welcomes the consensus reached in the General Assembly since its thirty-fifth session that the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East would greatly enhance international peace and security. The Conference urges all parties directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of the proposal to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and, as a means of promoting this objective, invites the countries concerned to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and, pending the establishment of the zone, to agree to place all their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards.”
Consideration and adoption of the final document(s) (NPT/CONF.2000/DC/WP.1 and NPT/CONF.2000/ CRP.1/Rev.1)
41. Mr. Alborzy (Islamic Republic of Iran) said that his delegation had a reservation with respect to the paragraph relating to the peace process in the section dealing with the Middle East and to any other references which might be construed as recognition of Israel.
43. Mr. Wehbe (Syrian Arab Republic) expressed his delegation’s disappointment that, notwithstanding the establishment of Subsidiary Body 2 on regional issues, including the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, the Conference had been unable to come up with language clearly calling on Israel to accede to the NPT and to submit all its nuclear installations to the IAEA safeguards regime in order to implement Security Council resolution 487 (1981). That was all the more regrettable since it meant that the Conference had failed to meet the basic conditions for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
44. Moreover, the credibility of the Treaty could not be revived unless those States that persisted in applying a double standard mended their ways. Indeed, he did not see how States which were not parties to the Treaty, such as India and Pakistan, could be urged to accede to it, while there was a clear unwillingness to demand that Israel should also accede to the Treaty and submit its nuclear installations to the safeguards regime.
45. As long as Israel remained outside the Treaty and refused to comply with United Nations resolutions, despite repeated appeals by the General Assembly, the situation would remain a cause for concern for many Arab countries. If that situation persisted, it would threaten peace and security, not only in the region but also in the rest of the world. Instead of paragraph 9 under the section concerning the Middle East, particularly implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, the Conference should have set up a specific mechanism to address the subject of Israel. His delegation therefore wished to register its reservation with respect to that paragraph. Previous conferences as well as the current one had provided ample opportunities for Israel to accede to the Treaty and to submit its installations to IAEA safeguards. It had availed itself of none of them.
46. He wished to emphasize, once again, his country’s commitment to stability and peace throughout the region. The Syrian Arab Republic, which had complied with the provisions of the Treaty over the previous 30 years, believed that the mere reference in paragraph 3 of the document on the Middle East to the importance of Israel’s acceding to the Treaty and placing its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards was not commensurate with the Conference’s objectives. That was regrettable, because it sent the wrong message to Israel and encouraged it to continue its occupation of the Arab territories. Moreover, it felt no pressure to commit itself to the establishment of peace in the region. The foregoing notwithstanding, and in view of the efforts made by all delegations to achieve positive results, his delegation would go along with the consensus.
60. Mr. Albuquerque (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union ...
61. The European Union strongly supported the Conference’s renewed urgent call to those States that had not yet adhered to the Treaty, to do so without delay. It remained committed to the Resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference and to its implementation. It therefore welcomed the progress towards that end and the agreement by the Conference on a balanced outcome concerning various elements of that issue.
63. Mr. Aboulgheit (Egypt) expressed the hope that the success achieved by the Conference would help to promote the non-proliferation regime as a whole, speed up nuclear disarmament and achieve universality of the Treaty. By achieving consensus on all matters before them, the 187 States parties to the NPT had reaffirmed the importance of Israel’s adherence to the Treaty and the placement by that country of all its nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. That was an important and essential step towards achieving the universality of the Treaty in the Middle East. The States parties to the Treaty had reaffirmed the continued validity of the Resolution on the Middle East and had stressed the need to follow up progress made in its implementation and in achieving its objectives. Moreover, they had underscored the need to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
64. Mr. Haniff (Malaysia) ...
65. The Resolution on the Middle East was an integral part of the package of decisions and resolutions adopted at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, yet the region was far from being a zone free from nuclear weapons as called for in that Resolution. In that regard, his delegation was concerned that Israel was the only State in the Middle East that had not acceded to the Treaty or placed its nuclear facilities and material under full-scope IAEA safeguards. It was also concerned about the new concept of “strategic” stability, which was definitely incompatible with nuclear disarmament, since it appeared to imply the retention of nuclear weapons.
70. Mr. Hoang Chi Trung (Viet Nam) ...
76. The Conference had also focused on regional issues. In particular, the situations in the Middle East and South-East Asia had been the subject of an in-depth consideration and appropriate recommendations. Finally, the Conference had emphasized the need to keep the issue of improving the effectiveness of the strengthened review process for the Treaty under constant review and a decision aimed at further improving the effectiveness of the review process had been adopted.
The meeting rose at 6.30 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.