Iraq

I should like to convey to Mr. Essy of Côte d’Ivoire our sincere congratulations on his election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session. I am certain that his experience will be a positive factor in ensuring the success of the session’s deliberations. Iraq is one of the founding Members of the United Nations. Over the past five decades it has taken an active part in all the Organization’s activities, has cooperated effectively with its various organs and has contributed generously when it was able to do so. Iraq has also adhered to the decisions of the Organization in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Charter. At the international level, Iraq has participated actively and responsibly in the Movement of Non-aligned Countries, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States. During the 1970s it provided assistance and soft loans amounting to about $10 billion to developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin and 15 General Assembly 22nd meeting Central America. Iraq has called for justice in political and economic relations and has affirmed the need to respect international law. These positions of Iraq are known to all. What now concerns my country is the nature of the current stage of the relationship between Iraq and the Security Council, which is based on the Council’s resolution 687 (1991), adopted in April of that year. That resolution, which imposed a number of obligations on Iraq, has no precedent among United Nations resolutions throughout the history of the Organization. This is how it is seen today in international circles, both legal and political. However, despite its cruel and extraordinary nature, Iraq informed the Security Council that it was ready to comply with it within the requirements laid down by the Charter’s provisions regarding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII. Since that date, despite the harsh conditions obtaining in our country as a result of the total war waged by the most powerful States of the world — a war in which more than 100,000 tons of explosives were dumped on civilian utilities throughout the country — and despite the effects of the comprehensive and harsh embargo, Iraq has striven to implement the resolution. In March 1992 — less than a year after the adoption of the resolution — and in November of the same year we came to the Security Council to explain the substantial and serious steps that had been taken by Iraq in the process of implementing its provisions. On both occasions, we requested that positive and fair consideration be given to what had been achieved and that steps be taken towards easing the comprehensive blockade imposed upon Iraq in accordance with the terms of the resolution and, specifically, the unbearable suffering of the 20 million people of Iraq. However, our requests were not heeded. In the middle of 1993 Iraq’s relationship with the Special Commission and with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) saw a breakthrough in the field of positive and constructive cooperation with a view to completing the implementation of part C of Security Council resolution 687 (1991) — the provisions relating to proscribed weapons, which the resolution legally ties to the lifting of the embargo on oil exports. In the process of this cooperation — on 26 November 1993 — we presented our official letter concerning compliance with Security Council resolution 715 (l991). The letter dealt with the monitoring of weapons. This was done after we had been assured that Iraq’s official acknowledgment of compliance represented the most expeditious means of securing the application of paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991). This clear and categorical assurance is referred to in the report issued as document S/26571 on 12 October 1993. However, what we were told would be done has not been done. During the past 11 months we have witnessed transparent tactics to delay and obstruct. These have taken various forms. Their purpose is to delay indefinitely the lifting of the embargo. In spite of the official acknowledgment by the Special Commission and the IAEA of the relevant Iraqi authorities’ continuing cooperation, as well as the notable achievements of completion of the work required by those bodies over a period of more than a year, we still confront deliberate ambiguity with regard to the Security Council’s discharge its obligations under paragraph 22, which permits the export of Iraqi products and commodities, including oil. The blockade imposed on Iraq represents the most comprehensive regime ever imposed by the Security Council in all its history. With the exception of food and medicine, it includes everything and affects all aspects of life. As a result of the freezing of Iraqi assets in foreign banks, Iraq is denied all the financial resources that would enable it to pay for the food and medicines its people need. This has rendered practically redundant the exceptions relating to food and medicines. In addition, the Sanctions Committee, which the Security Council entrusted with the task of authorizing the importation of material to Iraq, agreed on the consensus method of making decisions. However, the reality is exactly the opposite: decisions are required to be unanimous. It is sufficient for the objection of one member to frustrate any request for imports. It is worth noting that only three of the members of the Committee have been the source of constant objections on the vast majority of the import requests relating to the provision of humanitarian civilian needs. What has made the situation in the Sanctions Committee even worse is that it proceeds on the basis of procedures which do not recognize precedents and deals with each case individually. This has led to confusion, disorder and ambiguity in the work of the Committee in regard to what is permitted, both in relation to quantity and quality. It is not difficult to see, therefore, the harmful negative consequences of this method of work by the Committee on the flow of 16 General Assembly 22nd meeting humanitarian goods, which are of a limited quantity anyway. Let me refer to some glaring examples. The Sanctions Committee refused on numerous occasions to permit the importation of shrouds, pencils, cloth of all kinds including the type used for hospital bed sheets, threads of all kinds, paper for printing school books, leather, car tires including used tires, nails; the list is long and it is well documented in the records of the Committee. This situation makes it incumbent upon the international community to reflect upon the philosophy of the sanctions regime of within the Charter of the United Nations. Is that regime a means to an end or is it an end in itself? Further, what is the nature of that regime? Is it punitive, or is it a series of procedures designed to achieve the purposes of the Charter irrespective of the unilateral goals and whims of foreign policies of Member States? It is well known to all that the sanctions regime under the Charter is nothing but a series of procedures adopted to achieve certain results that lead in turn to the achievement of the purposes and principles of the United Nations, and that such procedures should end with the cessation of their causes. What then is the state of correct application of these procedures following all the cooperation and progress achieved in complying with the resolutions of the Security Council by Iraq? What is clear to us is that the application of sanctions and the embargo in the manner described against Iraq is a process of vengeance, a process aimed at depriving the people of Iraq, a nation of with great history, a nation which has contributed immensely to human civilization, depriving it of the simplest requirements of human life. The reports of the relevant specialized agencies indicate the continuing deterioration of living conditions of the Iraqi citizens. The Iraqi Government makes available to every citizen a limited rations of flour, rice, tea, cooking oil, soap, baby formula and whatever other items might be available. This share is however to meet the basic nutritional needs of human beings. Of late, we have been forced to reduce this ration due to the lack of financial resources and as well as poor agricultural output resulting from the embargo. Consequently, the largest number of citizens cannot buy what they lack of these and other items because of the high prices, especially for protein items, and they are therefore suffering from malnutrition. This situation has affected the physical wellbeing of the individual citizen in Iraq. Despite the efforts of the Government to support and develop the agricultural sector, great difficulties continue to be faced due to the embargo. For example, the lack of pesticides, insecticides, agricultural machinery and equipment, water pumps and fertilizers. We do not have the financial means to offset these shortages; and when we do have some financial resources, the Sanctions Committee promptly obstructs their importation. The Joint Mission of the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Food Programme, which visited Iraq in June 1993, did indicate in its Special Alert No. 237 (1993) the magnitude of the danger resulting from the blockade on the agricultural capabilities of Iraq, which caused the loss of food-security and generated persistent deprivation, chronic hunger and endemic malnutrition among the vast majority of the population. The third FAO Special Report of May 1994 dealt with the grave problems of providing food and crops in Iraq due to the shortages of agricultural requirements. The same Report noted that these problems cannot be solved by the provision of food aid and that the permanent solution to the present food crisis lies in reviving the Iraqi economy which cannot be achieved without resuming the activity of international trade. It is also indicated that the rationing system used by the Iraqi Government, though very successful, provides only about one-half of the average caloric intake which used to be available to the citizens of Iraq before the imposition of the sanctions. In the public health sector, health services have deteriorated, after they had been amongst the relatively advanced in the world. Due to shortages of medicine and the deterioration of medical equipment, cases of death have reached 384,022 cases from August 1990 to March 1994. The cases of death among infants have also increased and now reach 126 cases per l00,000 live births whereas it had been only 32 per thousand in the period 1985 to 1990. There are those who claim that the Government of Iraq is the party responsible for not making available food, medicine and essential civilian needs to the people because it has refused to accept Security Council resolutions 706 (1991) and 712 (1991). Such allegations are mere falsifications. Fair and objective consideration of the full picture of the arrangements adopted in these two resolutions would lead one to the conclusion that they do represent 17 General Assembly 22nd meeting a political programme aimed at violating the sovereignty of Iraq, interfering in its internal affairs and dividing its people along ethnic and sectarian lines, rather than ensuring the satisfying of humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq. Through five rounds of talks with the Secretariat in Vienna and New York in 1992 and 1993 we have sought to reach acceptable modalities through sound arrangements in order to ensure the satisfaction of the humanitarian civilian needs of our people. However, despite the sustained efforts that have been made, such efforts have failed to reach an appropriate solution, a solution free of the objectives of the biased political programme through the pressures brought to bear by the United States. One of the major ironies during those talks was that the oil and banking experts who were part of the United Nations delegation did acknowledge that the arrangements adopted in the two said resolutions were not at all customary in the oil and banking fields. Could it be deemed reasonable by anyone involved in the oil industry that the signing of an oil-export contract should require no less than 30 procedural steps? Do Members realize that the banking arrangements stipulated by the two resolutions totally ignore the existence of a developed banking sector in Iraq? Do Members realize that a simple contract for the importation of food or medicine requires no fewer than 20 bureaucratic steps in order for those goods to reach Iraq, and that even after their arrival they are subject to monitoring by hundreds of United Nations monitors from the time they leave the Iraqi border until they reach the consumer? This is the true story of resolutions 706 (1991) and 712 (1991). Those two resolutions were never intended to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq. In the course of the Security Council’s periodic reviews, which take place every 60 days and the latest of which took place on 14 September last, the United States falsely accused Iraq on various counts in order to justify its position of delaying the lifting of sanctions indefinitely. We find it useful to refer to some examples of these accusations so that the General Assembly may see the picture clearly. The United States charges that Iraq’s cooperation with the Security Council has been sporadic, selective and opportunistic. This is a baseless accusation. It is well known that Iraq agreed to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and sought persistently to implement their provisions correctly and legally. We believe that the majority of the members of the Security Council do not join the United States in its accusation. The United States also charges that Iraq’s record with respect to the implementation of its obligations in the area of proscribed weapons was a partial and grudging acquiescence to United Nations demands. The facts, however, prove otherwise. This is made clear in the reports of the Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, especially those issued since July 1993. The latest of those reports, circulated in document S/1994/860, states, “The Special Commission and the IAEA noted with appreciation the constructive cooperation received from Iraq and the efforts made by the competent Iraqi authorities in the conduct of their tasks.” (S/1994/860, para. 6) Another accusation is that the Government of Iraq cut off electricity from certain areas in the northern Iraqi Governorates. Those who make this accusation ignore the fact that the comprehensive embargo imposed upon Iraq does not make sufficient financial resources available to the Government to import spare parts and equipment for ensuring the maintenance of electrical service in the country. Moreover, the accusers are the very ones who constantly object in the sanctions Committee to Iraqi requests for importing material with which to maintain the electricity grid, in the event we have some resources available to that end. The United States also accuses the Government of Iraq of draining the marshes in the southern part of the country in pursuit of a political programme aimed against the population of the area. According to the allegation, this action destroys their cultural heritage and causes harm to the environment. I say that this accusation, like the others, is baseless. It is utterly at odds with the sense of objectivity expected of a permanent member of the Security Council. The truth is that the Government of Iraq carried out extensive irrigation projects in the southern part of the country, including the area of the marshes, in order to reduce salinity in the water and soil, which is a problem in central and southern Iraq, thereby increasing the amount of arable land. The planning for these projects goes back to the days of the Rehabilitation Board in the fifties. American, British, French, German, Dutch, Russian and Canadian companies and consultants participated in drawing up and revising the plans and, in part, in their implementation. 18 General Assembly 22nd meeting After the imposition of the comprehensive blockade the competent Iraqi authorities completed the projects by themselves. One of the ironies of the situation is that the principal proponent of draining the marshes of southern Iraq in the fifties was an American expert working for the Iraqi Board. It is also ironic that one of the rivers in the area is still called the Dutch River because a Dutch company carried out a project there. I have been prompted to mention some of the accusations levelled at Iraq in order to shed light on the real situation and the fabrications and falsifications used as pretexts to prolong the iniquitous blockade against us. But it is even more important to refer to some glaring examples of the conduct of those who accuse us, to wit, the United States of America. The United States, the State that is so concerned with respect for Security Council resolutions, imposes two no-fly zones in the north and the south of Iraq without any authorization from the Security Council or any legitimate justification under international law. The United States Administration, which pretends to be so concerned over the rights of the Kurds in Iraq, was the very party that prevented the leaders of the Kurds from honouring an agreement that, after four months of dialogue, was freely entered into with the Government of Iraq in 1991. The United States Administration stated openly that that agreement would have strengthened the authority of the present national Government in Iraq, which was contrary to the United States objective of changing that Government. Is this attitude in harmony with the Security Council resolutions that provide for respect of sovereignty and the achievement of international peace and security and stability in the region? Is it acceptable, under the resolutions of the Security Council, for that Administration to obstruct the operation of flights transporting pilgrims from a friendly Muslim State to Iraq’s sacred religious shrines under the pretext that a number of politicians from that State were among the pilgrims? That very Administration also obstructed, under flimsy pretexts, the aerial shipment of meat from the Sudan to Iraq. Lastly in this connection, I should like to affirm that Iraq expressed, in the words of its leader, President Saddam Hussein, its sincere desire to turn a new leaf with its neighbouring Arab countries in order to establish relations based on the Charter of the League of Arab States, the Charter of the United Nations and on the basis of mutual respect for one another’s sovereignty and regard for each other’s interests. However, it is well known to all that the United States Administration is the party that obstructs those efforts and brings pressure to bear on the States of the region to prevent dialogue with Iraq. The article by United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher published in The New York Times last April is, we believe, the most telling evidence in that respect. Despite the harshness of the Security Council’s resolutions concerning Iraq, we have implemented many of their provisions fully. We are legally and correctly continuing with the implementation of whatever provisions remain in the relevant resolutions. Within this process, we are also prepared to satisfy and allay the concerns of the members of the Security Council of which we have become aware in our contacts, although some of them have been introduced in legally irrelevant contexts. In the meantime, however, we wonder: is it the duty of the State in question under the Charter to implement the provisions of the Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII, without expecting any counter- obligations from the Council to implement the same provisions? The just, legal view is that resolutions of the Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are binding upon the State in question and all other States, particularly the members of the Security Council, and even more particularly the Permanent Members of the Security Council. This, undoubtedly, is the rule of the Charter. It is therefore a foregone conclusion that the members of the Security Council, and especially its Permanent Members, should be keener than any other to abide by the resolutions they themselves adopt. However, the facts of the situation now are that one Permanent Member, namely the United States of America, is persistently obstructing any steps towards the correct legal application of the resolutions of the Council, particularly those provisions relating to the lifting of sanctions from Iraq, and is conducting itself on the basis of biased political motives that bear no relation to either the resolutions of the Council or the Charter. The General Assembly is the general organ entrusted with deliberating on the world Organization as a whole under the Charter. Under the Charter, Member States have conferred on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and have agreed that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility, the Security Council acts on their behalf, in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations Charter. Consequently, under the Charter, the members of the Security Council, 19 General Assembly 22nd meeting both individually and collectively, bear the joint responsibility of the membership of the Organization. The collectivity of membership, as represented by the General Assembly, does not, on the basis of the delegation of power, lose the right to seek, through all available means, the correction of any failure that might arise in performing that responsibility. Proceeding from this, we request that the members of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the international community as a whole look into the iniquitous and illegitimate situation in which one or two Permanent Members obstruct the correct legal application of the resolutions of the Security Council and consequently continue to impose upon the Iraqi people, a nation of ancient history, cruel suffering afflicting all aspects of human life. It is within Iraq’s right to demand strongly that this iniquitous and illegitimate situation be changed as soon as possible and to seek full clarification of the position of the Security Council on its just demands.