This resolution was another example of the use of the General Assembly by the automatic anti-Israel majority for the adoption of mischievous statements, which, as all those who voted for them knew very well, had no chance of being implemented, let alone taken seriously. The following resolution was adopted by 97 in favour, 10 against, with 38 abstentions. Just before the voting, Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, presented Israel's view on the resolution which was moved by Iraq, the recipient of vast amount of uranium and nuclear facilities from Europe.
34/89. Israeli nuclear armament
The General Assembly,
Alarmed by the increasing information and evidence regarding Israel's activities aiming at the acquisition and development of nuclear weapons,
Recalling its resolution 33/71 A of 14 December 1978 concerning military and nuclear collaboration with Israel,
Recalling its repeated condemnation of the military and nuclear collaboration between Israel and South Africa,
Reaffirming its resolutions 3263 (XXIX) of 9 December 1974, 3474 (XXX) of 11 December 1975, 31/71 of 10 December 1976, 32/82 of 12 December 1977 and 33/64 of 14 December 1978 on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East,
Convinced that the development of nuclear capability by Israel would further aggravate the already dangerous situation in the region and further threaten international peace and security,
1. Appeals to all States to put an end to any co-operation with Israel which may assist it in acquiring and developing nuclear weapons and also to dissuade corporations, institutions and individuals within their jurisdiction from any co-operation that may result in providing Israel with nuclear weapons;
2. Calls upon all States to take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer to Israel of fissionable material and nuclear technology which could be used for nuclear arms;
3. Calls upon Israel to submit all its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency;
4. Strongly condemns any attempt by Israel to manufacture, acquire, store or test nuclear weapons or introduce them into the Middle East,
5. Requests the Security Council to adopt appropriate measures to ensure the implementation of the relevant resolutions concerning Israeli nuclear armament;
6. Requests the Secretary-General, with the assistance of qualified experts, to prepare a study on Israeli nuclear armament and to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-sixth session;
7. Further requests the Secretary-General to submit a progress report on the work of the group of experts to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session;
8. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty-fifth session the item entitled "Israeli nuclear armament".
STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR BLUM
The draft resolution contained in document A-34/757, though draped in sheep's clothing, is a continuation of the Iraqi initiative of a year ago. That initiative was criticized by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and was adopted with manifest reluctance at the thirty-third session of the General Assembly.
By abandoning mention of conventional weapons and by accusing Israel of either trying to acquire or of possessing a nuclear capability, Iraq has now shifted into a safer area of slander, where it can offer hearsay, rumour and speculation as "irrefutable evidence". The draft resolution does precisely this in its first pre-ambular paragraph.
No "increasing information and evidence" whatsoever has been produced to substantiate the sponsor's allegation that Israel is "aiming at the acquisition and development of nuclear weapons". Indeed, attention is being deliberately diverted from the very real efforts being made by Iraq, Libya and Pakistan to establish a nuclear axis.
The condemnation of Israel in operative paragraph 4 is thus based on an empty allegation which has not been proved, except perhaps to the satisfaction of Iraq and its allies.
Other operative paragraphs, particularly paragraph 3, single out Israel for special exhortations and treatment. Israel has enumerated in the First Committee a long list of 87 Member States of the United Nations which, in one way or another, are in the same position as Israel. Operative paragraph 3 of this draft resolution, therefore, discriminates clearly against Israel, instead of addressing its call to the majority of Member States of this Organization.
The hypocrisy contained in this draft resolution reaches its height in the list of the sponsors, the majority of whom do not comply and have no intention of complying with what Israel is called upon to comply with.
Operative paragraphs 6 and 7 underwrite the continuation of the injustice of singling Israel out. The Secretary-General is requested to establish a study group to prepare a study of Israel's "nuclear armament" and only Israel's, without regard to that of any other country, and then to report to the next session of the General Assembly and to the one after that, the thirty-sixth session. To make matters worse, an impartial study has been rendered impossible by the prejudicial language of the terms of reference under which the study in question is to be prepared. As if that were not enough, over a quarter of a million dollars from the United Nations' overstretched budget is to be wasted on this wholly unwarranted project, when real humanitarian and social needs have had to go unattended.
Israel wishes to take this opportunity of reaffirming our consciousness of the danger to the survival of mankind presented by the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Hence, Israel remains faithful to its commitment to prohibit and prevent the spread of such weapons.
Ever since the problem of the limitation of nuclear armament was raised at the United Nations, Israel has consistently supported resolutions with that aim. Thus, in 1968, Israel voted in favour of General Assembly resolution 2373 (XXII) in the matter of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We supported that resolution in the belief that practical and satisfactory solutions would be found for the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation.
As far as Israel is concerned, direct negotiations with the participation of all the States in the Middle East region could commence without preconditions at any time and in any place. Such negotiations could contribute significantly to the implementation of a process leading to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East in the manner by which the Tlatelolco Treaty for Latin America was achieved.
In this connection, it should be noted that in a recent vote in the First Committee on another nuclear-weapon-free zone, a significant group of States abstained on the ground that "insufficient consultations have taken place among the countries" of the region concerned. As one of the representatives explained in that Committee on 21 November 1979, his country's abstention was in fine with the "basic approach that initiatives and decisions on nuclear-weapon-free zones cannot be taken against the will of the States directly concerned but must be freely and voluntarily pursued by all of them".
In the Middle East today, two parallel processes are taking place - peace-making and warmongering. These processes have distinct ramifications with regard to disarmament in the region.
On the one hand, there is an ominous threat to peace in the region in the frenetic arms build-up by the "rejectionist" Arab States. The "Eastern Front" alone - Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf States - created by those rejectionist States, is at present equivalent to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in terms of manpower and tanks, and already possesses twice as much artillery as NATO. The staggering number of petrodollars accumulated by certain Middle Eastern countries has become a significant and an independent factor, with a momentum of its own, which both accelerates and escalates the arms race.
On the other hand, during the last 12 months, we have witnessed an historic breakthrough in the Arab-Israel conflict with the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty on 26 March 1979. As the current Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook points out, there is a self-evident link between that Treaty and the reduction of the military budgets of Israel and Egypt. For its part, Israel, in 1978, reduced its military budget by 23 per cent. In these circumstances, we regret that these significant measures contributing to confidence-building in the Middle East have not been reciprocated by other Arab States. We also regret that the First Committee, devoted as it is to the cause of disarmament, did not take the opportunity of commending the example set by Israel and Egypt to other States in the region.
The draft resolution before us now is intended to exploit, for partisan and belligerent ends, the genuine concern felt by various States about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. At its root, however, it is in reality nothing but a vehicle for the continuation of the anti-Israel political warfare conducted by the Arab States and their supporters at the United Nations. Consequently, the draft is in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and all it stands for, since it turns the Organization against its very raison d'etre - namely, the promotion of international peace. Israel will, therefore, vote against this draft resolution and treat it with the disdain it deserves.