YouSaid · the spoken record

Elaraby

lines on the record: 820
first: 1992-01-06
most recent: 2015-10-22
sittings or episodes: 83
sources: un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“We welcome the Council's wise reaction to situations in which civilians are targeted and humanitarian assistance is deliberately hindered. Many current conflicts are taking place within rather than between States. We must therefore determine the extent to which the United Nations can actually intervene to settle such conflicts. The international community should preserve the fundamental characteristic of States - their sovereignty - which is the very foundation of contemporary international law and a key principle of the Charter. This, of course, is also addressed in paragraph 7 of Article 2, which defines the relationship between matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State and the enforcement measures the Council may take when international peace and security are threatened.”
1999-02-22 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3980Resumption1 (1999) · source
“The issue, however, is not to revise such rules, which will evolve organically and must always be scrupulously implemented. Instead, we should ensure the implementation of obligations agreed by the international community, as represented by the 188 States parties to the 1949 Conventions, which are committed under common article 1 to ensuring respect for the norms of the Conventions in all circumstances. We must all ensure that there is no conflict between the application of international humanitarian law and the need to observe and implement the provisions of the Charter. It is essential, not to allow the implementation of international humanitarian law or the practical considerations of humanitarian protection to lead to contraventions of the Charter.”
1999-02-22 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3980Resumption1 (1999) · source
“The Security Council should therefore assume its responsibility to find radical solutions to the conflicts that jeopardize international peace and security, and resolve them in an integrated and global manner by analysing their causes. This will prevent the escalation of violence among the combatants and avert serious humanitarian consequences such as the displacement or expulsion of populations or their exodus to neighbouring countries, which would bring further suffering to the civilian populations and lead to an unending vicious circle. We reiterate this to emphasize the importance of proceeding with concrete action and not limiting ourselves to rehashing legal issues. There is clearly an unprecedented gap between the norms of international humanitarian law and their actual implementation.”
1999-02-22 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3980Resumption1 (1999) · source
“As this century draws to a close and we prepare to enter a new millennium, and in a year when the world is commemorating the hundredth anniversary of the First International Peace Conference at The Hague and the fiftieth anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions, it is regrettable that we should witness an increase in the number of civilians who are victims of armed conflict. Indeed, civilians represent 75 to 80 per cent of such victims, as seen in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Liberia, Kosovo, the Great Lakes region and in other areas. This is reprehensible and shameful regardless of whether civilians are deliberately targeted or become the incidental victims of collateral damage. However, this phenomenon has causes and roots, mainly the fact that the Council has not been able to fulfil its functions because of political considerations.”
1999-02-22 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3980Resumption1 (1999) · source
“The delegation of Egypt believes that in the light of the nature and scope of this issue, it would be desirable to inscribe this item on the agenda of the General Assembly as well as that of the Economic and Social Council, in order that more comprehensive discussions be held to supplement Canada's wise decision to convene this Council meeting. The Council's responsibility, as I understand it, is based on its competence under the Charter, including the complementarity between its work and that of humanitarian agencies - work that now exceeds the capacities of the United Nations, including the Security Council.”
1999-02-22 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3980Resumption1 (1999) · source
“Olara Otunnu, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. There is no doubt that the issues that have been raised concern us all. In this connection, I am pleased today to comment on the views that drew Egypt's attention at the two meetings at which we heard those statements. Let me at the outset point out that it is important that the Council, when seized with such an important and urgent question, not get bogged down in pure theory to the detriment of action. The Council should handle this question with full respect for the delicate balance of the roles assigned to various organs under the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the role of the General Assembly in considering the general principles of cooperation to eliminate human suffering, including protection of civilians in armed conflict.”
1999-02-22 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3980Resumption1 (1999) · source
“Thank you, Mr. President, for your very kind words, which I greatly appreciate. ( spoke in Arabic) It is my pleasure also to welcome the initiative taken by your country, Canada, to convene this extremely important meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict and to hold the open meeting of 12 February under the presidency of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada. I should like also to thank you, Sir, for giving States that are not members of the Security Council the opportunity to hear the statements made by Mr. Vieira de Mello, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator; Mr. Cornelio Sommaruga, Chairman of the International Committee of the Red Cross; Ms. Bellamy, Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund; and Mr.”
1999-02-22 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3980Resumption1 (1999) · source
“My delegation feels that the working paper of 17 January 1997, to which I referred a few moments ago, still provides a solid basis for this agreement, and we hope that it will be adopted by the General Assembly by consensus.”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“These activities include assistance in rebuilding the economic and social infrastructure, assistance in reintegration into the world economy, direct economic and financial assistance and provision of humanitarian relief assistance. In conclusion, I must emphasize the importance of the United Nations remaining the focal point for both facilitating and coordinating post-conflict peace-building activities, with the help and support of outside actors such as the World Bank and other financial institutions that could contribute to such activities. This will necessitate agreement among us, as Member States of the United Nations, on the basic rules of post-conflict peace-building operations.”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“Meanwhile, I would like to highlight the importance of some activities which we find essential for the success of post-conflict peace-building, particularly in Africa - namely, the return of refugees, the resettling of internally displaced persons, reorientation and reintegration of former combatants into the ranks of productive civil society and, of course, demining. These are in addition to the activities that were highlighted by the Secretary-General in his report to the General Assembly and the Security Council entitled "The causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa" (S/1998/318).”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“It should be resorted to on a case by case basis, bearing in mind the requirements and needs of each State together with its cultural characteristics, as well as the right of each State freely to choose and develop its economic, political and cultural systems in full freedom. Post-conflict peace- building activities should have the support of the United Nations system as a whole in the context of defining these activities and of their implementation. In this connection, we consider that the types of activities to be used after a conflict should be selected on a case by case basis, as I stated earlier.”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“Post-conflict peace-building should be carried out in full respect for the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, in particular the principles of sovereign equality, political independence, and non- intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. As a rule, it should be undertaken only at the request of and with the consent of the State concerned. It should be based upon the genuine will of the conflicting parties to cease and not to resume hostilities, and to commit themselves to national reconciliation, development and durable peace.”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“The relationship that we see between the maintenance of international peace and security on the one hand, and post- conflict peace-building on the other, stems from the fact that measures for post-conflict peace-building can follow the successful end of a peacekeeping mission. Therefore, it is beneficial to ensure smooth transition from peacekeeping operations, which are usually established by the Security Council - although the General Assembly also has that competence - to post-conflict peace-building activities under the supervision of the General Assembly. I find it important at this juncture to refer to some of the imperatives for the success of any post-conflict peace- building activities.”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“The opposition focused only on a paragraph stating that the General Assembly had the key role in post-conflict peace-building activities. All other delegations were then of the view that decisions on such activities must be entrusted primarily to the General Assembly, which could receive support from other principal organs of the United Nations, and from the specialized agencies. Egypt believes that there is an integral relationship between the maintenance of international peace and security on the one hand, and post-conflict peace-building on the other. We also consider that post-conflict peace-building is one of the main responsibilities of the General Assembly. The Security Council or any other major organ of the United Nations system could play a supportive role to the primary role of the General Assembly in this field.”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“The ideas presented in "An Agenda for Peace" were well received, and the General Assembly adopted its resolution 47/120 acknowledging the importance of the proposals on this concept and deciding to continue their substantive consideration. The Assembly's thorough consideration of this important issue revealed that the concept needed further elucidation through the drafting of a working paper to reflect agreed details on the definition, principles, framework and scope of post-conflict peace-building activities as well as the role of the United Nations system in undertaking these activities. After lengthy discussion, agreement was reached on all aspects of a working paper, dated 17 January 1997. Regrettably, the opposition of one delegation prevented the adoption of the paper by the General Assembly.”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“While peacekeeping operations are aimed at creating an atmosphere of stability in the short term, it is imperative to conceive a series of long-term measures that would put an end to the chaos caused by a conflict, the continuance of which could generate new conflicts. The importance of the concept of post-conflict peace-building to the work of the United Nations was underlined by the former Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, when he submitted to the General Assembly and to the Security Council the reports entitled "An Agenda for Peace" and subsequently "Supplement to An Agenda for Peace". That initiative which was meant to explain how to apply this concept with full respect for the existing balance between the principal organs of the United Nations.”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“But the course of events since the Charter was drafted, including differences in the nature of conflicts and the surrounding circumstances, has proved that it is almost impossible to implement the model designed by the Charter. Clear-cut cases where the Council easily identified the aggressor and the aggression and where it took the decision to use military force have been very few. It is in this context that peacekeeping operations were established, but experience has proved that peacekeeping operations do not completely satisfy the requirements of peace-building. The process of peace- building requires that the United Nations play an integrated, multi-faceted and more action-oriented role in order to create a climate conducive to political and economic stability in the State concerned.”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“Mr. Elaraby (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): Allow me at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month and to convey to you our confidence that your rich diplomatic experience and wisdom will enable the Council to shoulder its responsibilities in the best possible way. Under Article I of the Charter, the maintenance of international peace and security is one of the purposes of the United Nations, but it is also the essence of the role of the Organization and its main raison d 'etre. The Charter contains well-defined measures to deter the aggressor in cases of aggression or the threat of aggression.”
1998-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3954Resumption1 (1998) · source
“Finally, the international community, represented by the Security Council, must today more than ever reaffirm its position of principle, given the illegal nature of the Israeli measures concerning Jerusalem and the non- recognition of the effects of such decisions. The international community must also urge Israel to honour its commitments under the Geneva Convention and under the bilateral agreements it has signed with the Palestinian side. Israel cannot shirk the provisions of these conventions.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“States interested in peace in the Middle East, and in particular the two co-sponsors of the peace process, the United States and the Russian Federation, must shoulder their responsibilities to push the Israeli Government to reverse this serious decision and to stop all of its desperate attempts to place obstacles on the path to peace - attempts that will have adverse and destructive effects on the region and on international peace and security. What is needed today is the scrupulous and courageous implementation of all the international and bilateral commitments that have been entered into.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“Instead of deciding to implement the second stage of the withdrawal from the West Bank, this Government has surprised us by taking an illegal decision on Jerusalem. This is reminiscent of the situation that existed before the Madrid Conference - a state of affairs that could launch the region into a new cycle of violence and counter- violence. Egypt, which has faith in a just and lasting peace, has opened the way to the achievement of peace in the Middle East. Today we are deeply concerned because peace in the Middle East is in a constant state of jeopardy owing to the unilateral measures and steps taken by Israel, which flout the will of the international community and of all peace-loving States.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“In this context, I should like to repeat the comments of the Permanent Observer of Palestine: the violations are the acts that are being committed, not the responses to those acts. The entire world knows that Israel is continuing its actions and has long-term plans for the annexation and total assimilation of the city of Jerusalem. Israel is continuing to take successive measures designed to change the status and character of Jerusalem, and has been doing so since the occupation in 1967. Today these attempts are being repeated in its decision to place settlements on the West Bank under Jerusalem's municipal authority. That decision shows that the Israeli Government once again is rejecting all of its contractual commitments and all of the norms of international legality.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“I am referring to article 31 of that agreement which states: (spoke in English) "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations" (spoke in Arabic) Those provisions must be applied, despite the systematic refusal of the Israeli Government to accept the commitments of previous Governments, whether under the Oslo agreements or more recent agreements determining relations between them and the framework for agreement between Israel and the Palestinian party. The principle of respecting and implementing international contractual agreements must be upheld; otherwise no conventions or commitments have any value.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“It is therefore imperative that the Security Council act to guarantee respect by Israel of all its resolutions, as it does with regard to other States, in order to maintain the credibility of principles and criteria laid down by the Council in various cases and with respect to other States, without any discrimination. Furthermore, the Council must not be perceived to be adopting double standards. Fourthly, one of the major provisions of the Interim Agreement, signed in Washington in September 1995, should be respected.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“Unfortunately, I must state today that Israel has trampled them all underfoot. I should like to refer in particular to resolutions 252 (1968), 271 (1969) and 476 (1980), all of which demand that Israel respect its commitments as the occupying Power. The most relevant one to our deliberation today is resolution 478 (1980) which provides in paragraph 3 that, inter alia: "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem...are null and void and must be rescinded".”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“Numerous resolutions of the General Assembly, the most recent of which was adopted at the tenth emergency special session, emphasize that the Fourth Geneva Convention is fully applicable to the occupied Palestinian territories. In consequence of the seriousness of the Israeli violations, the Security Council must reaffirm the applicability of that Convention to those territories, including Jerusalem. Furthermore, under article 1 of the Geneva Convention, the States parties to the Convention have a collective responsibility to guarantee respect for all of its provisions and their application in all cases. There can be no doubt that the recent Israeli decision requires States parties to take concerted action to ensure the applicability of the Convention. Thirdly, the Security Council has already adopted numerous resolutions on Jerusalem.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“Secondly, the United Nations has reaffirmed in numerous binding resolutions that the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, are territories to which the provisions of the 1907 Hague Convention apply, and they are also legally subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. I should like in particular to emphasize article 47 of that Convention, which prohibits the occupying Power from annexing any territory that it occupies, and article 49, which prohibits the transfer of the civilian population of the occupying Power to the occupied territory. To demonstrate how Israel is flagrantly in contravention of those conventions it is sufficient to point out that there were no Israeli citizens in East Jerusalem before the 1967 occupation, yet now there is already an Israeli majority.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“In this context, I should like to emphasize several important realities that should not be forgotten when considering this question. First, the city of East Jerusalem is an integral part of the rest of the Palestinian territories, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This entire territory was occupied by Israel by force during the June 1967 war. The provisions of the United Nations Charter affirm the necessity of rejecting the principle of the acquisition of territory by force, as was emphasized in resolution 242 (1967). Consequently, all of the territories which were militarily occupied, including Jerusalem, must be liberated.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“This illegal decision demonstrates, at least, the unwillingness of the present Israeli Government to establish peace with its neighbours, and its persistence in ignoring that its pressure in the occupied territories constitutes nothing more than a physical presence as an occupying Power. This presence confers no rights on Israel. On the contrary, it imposes obligations under international and bilateral conventions now in effect, which must be complied with until the final agreement puts an end to the occupation. The international community, represented by the United Nations and all of its bodies, with the Security Council at the forefront, have firmly confronted the illegal measures undertaken in the past by successive Israeli Governments to annex East Jerusalem.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“Not only do such measures run counter to international legitimacy and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, but they strip real peace of any content and are designed to undermine efforts to achieve peace. It is sufficient to recall that the Israeli decision aims at annexing settlements on the Israeli borders. This in itself runs counter to contractual obligations undertaken by Israel with the Palestinian Authority designed to defer the outcome of the fate of these illegal settlements at least until the final settlement has been reached.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“This decision is part of the plan that the present Israeli Government is trying to implement in order to obstruct the peace to which the previous Israeli Government had committed itself. The question of Jerusalem is the most sensitive question in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Indeed, Jerusalem enjoys a unique status from a political point of View. Furthermore, Jerusalem represents a spiritual and historical heritage for adherents of the three divine religions. That city is, in fact, a source of deep religious sentiment in the Arab and Islamic world. Therefore, any unilateral measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that are designed to alter the status of Jerusalem before there is agreement on the final status of the city are all null and void, and we reject them in both form and substance.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“Mr. Elaraby (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): It is a pleasure for Egypt to see you, Sir, representative of the friendly State of Portugal, presiding over and guiding this Security Council meeting today. I should also like to thank your predecessor, Ambassador Mahugu of Kenya, for having so skilfully guided the work of the Council last month. The Council is meeting today to consider the illegal and provocative decision taken by the Israeli Government on 21 June to expand the limits of the municipality of Jerusalem to include a number of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The objective is to impose a new fait accompli on the ground that would prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations and alter the legal status of Jerusalem, while isolating it from the rest of the occupied territories in the West Bank.”
1998-06-30 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3900 (1998) · source
“We would have expected the nuclear-weapon States, especially the depositary countries, to take the initiative to implement in earnest the resolution on the Middle East adopted in 1995, which would be conducive to strengthening regional and international peace and security.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“Yet this should not distract our attention from the more dangerous nuclear military imbalance in the Middle East, which makes it incumbent on the Council, the General Assembly and all the States parties to the Treaty to show their responsibility with regard to that region by persuading Israel to adhere to the NPT and to place all its nuclear installations under the comprehensive IAEA safeguards regime and then to work towards establishing a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East as soon as possible. Under the current circumstances we would have expected the Council to single out Israel by name and urge it to adhere to the Treaty instead of merely introducing a general reference in paragraph 13 of the resolution adopted by the Council today.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“The Security Council's consideration of the consequences of the nuclear explosions in South Asia, where a kind of nuclear military balance exists, should prompt the international community to study the consequences of the general rules governing the nuclear disarmament provisions in a number of agreements aimed at the eventual renunciation of nuclear weapons under strict international control.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“Despite the fact that Israel originally called for negotiations to establish that region, the negotiations which took place in the Arms Control and Regional Security Working Group under the umbrella of multilateral negotiations have been at an impasse for three years as a result of Israel's persistence in aborting any attempt to begin serious negotiations to establish this zone or even to hold consultations on the elimination of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction within the regional framework.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“In this vein, we find that the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 resulted in multilateral negotiations on arms control and regional security in the Middle East. At Egypt's request, this issue is considered one of the essential elements to be agreed upon regionally in order to establish genuine peace and stability in the area, as we believe that security and peace cannot prevail in any region where there is a security imbalance or where one party has the advantage.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“The Arab States, as evidence of their genuine desire to achieve the goal of establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, have without exception joined the NPT and placed all their nuclear installations under the comprehensive safeguards regime of the IAEA. The Arab States of Africa have joined the Treaty of Pelindaba in order to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Africa. This was an initiative to demonstrate their complete confidence in this regime. However, this did not result in any response by Israel, which persists in not adhering to the NPT. This has led to a military imbalance in the Middle East which threatens international peace and security and which may undermine the non-proliferation regime.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“That credibility will be undermined if the international community does not act with solidarity and undertake the necessary measures to face this situation as soon as possible. Accordingly, since 1974 Egypt has pursued its goal to establish a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In this connection, the initiative launched by President Hosni Mubarak on 18 April 1990 to establish a zone in the Middle East free from all weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them is an extension of Egypt's original call to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone. This call was adopted by consensus by the General Assembly in 1980.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“Egypt would like to express its deep concern vis-a-vis the consequences of the failure to realize the universality of the NPT, and we reiterate our deep conviction that if Israel were to remain outside the framework of the Treaty - despite its ambiguous nuclear policies and its refusal to place its nuclear installations under the comprehensive safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - this would definitely lead to grave consequences not only for stability and security in the region but also for international peace and security and, even more so, for the credibility and continuity of the non- proliferation regime, at the forefront of which is the NPT.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“It was regrettable to witness in the meetings of the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2000 Conference, which was held in Geneva last month, that some States are trying to evade their commitments under this package deal and express scepticism on the possibility of implementing parts of the resolution on the Middle East.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“We who participated in that Conference recall and are quite mindful of the fact that that resolution was adopted within the framework of a package deal which included three decisions and a resolution. The first decision was on strengthening the process of the review of the Treaty; the second was on the principles and objectives of non- proliferation and nuclear disarmament; and the third was on the extension of the NPT. In addition, there was also an important resolution regarding the Middle East in which the international community clearly recognized the danger and importance of the situation in that region.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“"The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and the assurance that they will never be produced again." (spoke in Arabic) In this respect we should be guided by the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, which reaffirmed the illegality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. All this evidence proves just one point: that having nuclear weapons does not serve any special or public interest and that they should be renounced completely. When we talk about the implementation of what was agreed upon, Egypt feels extreme bitterness over the hesitation of some States to commit themselves to the package deal which was the basis for the adoption of the resolution on the indefinite extension of the Treaty.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“The foot-dragging by nuclear-weapon States in implementing their contractual commitments with regard to nuclear disarmament is in sharp contrast with the pressing desire of the international community to renounce completely these weapons and may prompt other countries to seek to enjoy the same advantages as the nuclear-weapon States. The report of the Canberra Commission is clear in saying that (spoke in English) "The proposition that large numbers of nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used, accidentally or by decision, defies credibility.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“Despite some limited achievements, which we recognize, the nuclear States still hesitate to implement their contractual commitments to nuclear disarmament under article VI of the Treaty. The failure of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to undertake any objective or significant discussion on nuclear disarmament in the years since the indefinite extension of the Treaty reveals that the nuclear States believed the indefinite extension to be a goal in itself and not a means to implement what was agreed upon.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“In this context the conclusion of an agreement in which nuclear Powers are committed not to use their nuclear weapons against the non-nuclear States which are parties to the Treaty will serve as a contractual undertaking and an important dimension for the protection of non- nuclear States. The General Assembly - which adopted the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968 - the Conference on Disarmament and the Conference of the Parties to the NPT have a role to play in maintaining their cooperation, solidarity and continuity of efforts to achieve this goal. The nuclear dangers which today threaten humanity impose a special responsibility on the nuclear-weapon States far greater than the responsibility they impose on non-nuclear States.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“In this respect, the Council's responsibility for providing urgent and comprehensive assistance to States subject to such a threat should be clear and indisputable. It goes without saying that this intervention by the Council should in no circumstance be subject to the veto, since the destructive power of nuclear weapons requires that the effectiveness and credibility of the Council's measures be preserved. In other words, the voting rules laid out in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Charter should not be in force in cases of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“Resolution 984 (1995) is inadequate in the face of the Security Council's Charter responsibility, as it provides neither the required deterrence to any State that might contemplate the use of nuclear weapons nor the minimum protection or guarantees of urgent and comprehensive assistance to non-nuclear-weapon States subject to nuclear threat or attack. It is now more urgent than ever that we establish an effective regime of active and passive safeguards by which the Security Council would unequivocally decide that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter. Such a threat would require the Security Council's intervention to deter it within the framework of the collective security regime laid out in Chapter VII of the Charter.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“The NPT's historic record clearly shows that the non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the NPT have always strongly called for the provision of security assurances, in accordance with their commitment under this Treaty not to seek to develop nuclear weapons, to protect them from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. It is incumbent upon us now to evaluate the effectiveness of the safeguards regime for the non- nuclear-weapon Parties to the NPT. Despite the Security Council's adoption of resolutions 255 (1968) and 984 (1995), the recent nuclear explosions and their aftermath require the Security Council to reconsider the entire range of security assurances and to undertake measures to maintain the security of the non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“These explosions should not be considered as falling outside the non-proliferation regime or its effective scope, whether the proliferation be vertical or horizontal. Time has vindicated Egypt's true far-sightedness when it warned, at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, that the Treaty's indefinite extension - without the achievement of universality through the accession of all States without exception - would provide to the non-Parties to the Treaty capable of producing nuclear weapons outside international control the conditions conducive to developing and producing these weapons, regardless of the grave threat they pose to the security of the non-nuclear-weapon States.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source