Iraq

First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. I am fully confident that your experience and competence will contribute to the success of this session. With the end of the cold war, there was a feeling that the world would see balanced international relations, characterized by peace, stability and well-being. But the state of affairs has proved otherwise; the international imbalance continues and is being used to place the logic of hegemony above all else in order to perpetuate it in the world and its international organizations, particularly the United Nations. Because of this situation, the world has witnessed a series of deep and rapid-moving changes that have led to the emergence of many areas of political and military conflicts with dangerous consequences reflected in the human, economic and social conditions of many regions in the world. These conflicts have claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and have caused the huge squandering of material and human resources. The world will enter the new century in this fashion. The picture before us demonstrates the tyranny of force, the imposition of hegemony and the aggravating economic problems by which the States of the South are increasingly marginalized to the extent that their entities and elements of survival are about to be eliminated. This 27 will lead to economic subordination, inevitably followed by political subordination. In this context, there has emerged a new phenomenon of imposing various kinds of embargoes and economic sanctions, withholding development and depriving States of the exercise of their economic rights as enshrined in international law and covenants. The catastrophic effects of this imbalance are reflected in the social conditions of many regions in the world. These effects are demonstrated by an increase in the intensity of poverty, the spread of illiteracy, deterioration of the health situation and degradation of living standards. It can also be seen in the marginalization of many social segments of society, especially youth, because of lack of jobs; the same goes for the increase in crime and the prevalence of drugs, as well as other serious social problems which can hardly be controlled. It is no secret that one of the main reasons for the aggravation of this situation is the arbitrary imposition of comprehensive sanctions and embargoes on many States in the world for political purposes, without any sound foundation in international law. It is obvious that this policy has resulted in tragic effects on the economic and social structures of the targeted States and on third countries. It constitutes a flagrant violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the principles of justice. The most dangerous phenomenon witnessed during the present decade, which in the course of this session has become an endeavour orchestrated by a group of Western States, is the advocacy of so-called humanitarian intervention. This doctrine, which has no place in international law, stems from an organized infringement of the most fundamental rules of the present international order, such as sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs. These principles cannot provide a protective shield for grave violations of human rights or for intervention, sometimes with the use of force, in order to protect those rights. No one should be deceived by this doctrine as the new framework for a modern forum of neo-colonialism based on the logic of power. First of all, we should realize that no situation used as a justification for this doctrine is free from the external political interventions that led in the first place to the emergence of such a situation. Accordingly, it could not be claimed that international responsibility for the situation rests exclusively with the targeted Government. On the other hand, we should also realize that the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the mechanisms of the Organization are not devoid of modalities to deal with any situation of the type advanced to justify this doctrine. The problem does not lie with the principles, rules and procedures. Rather, it rests with the selfish and unilateral policies of the controlling Powers, whose interests cannot be served by using the United Nations mechanisms established for the correct application of the principles and rules of the Charter, which reflect the joint will and collective interests of the members of the international community. The logic of this Western doctrine is not unknown to Iraq. At an early date, President Saddam Hussein drew attention to the dangers of the policy of might and opportunism in international relations that is carried out at the expense of the balance between rights and obligations and joint responsibility, as reflected in the Charter and in international law. It is not justifiable to consider the role of the United Nations as marginalized after it has become captive to the views of the controlling Powers in international relations and their selfish interests. Regardless of what the Charter provides in terms of rights, duties and procedures, we are convinced that the doctrine of presumed humanitarian intervention represents a dangerous destructive tool that affects the gains that have accrued through joint efforts in favour of the general international interest, as evidenced by the records of this Organization. The universalization of the concepts of this doctrine would mean the complete denial of the will of the vast majority of States, with the result of destroying the present international order. Iraq joins all delegations which have declared a position contrary to this Western doctrine. We call for joint efforts to confront it. I wish here to refer to a live example of the logic of power experienced in Iraq in 1998, at around this time of year, when the Security Council was discussing the arrangements for conducting a comprehensive review of the implementation by Iraq of its obligations under Security Council resolutions, especially those relating to disarmament, with a view to considering the lifting of the comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq since August 1990. While the Security Council was convened to discuss the Secretary-General's report on Iraq's cooperation in the field of disarmament, the United States and British forces stationed in the Gulf region launched a large-scale military aggression against Iraq, from 16 December through 20 December 1998, using the lies and 28 fabrications of Richard Butler as a pretext for their aggression. That aggression claimed the lives of a large number of innocent civilians, in addition to destroying many infrastructure sites, as well as much industrial equipment which had already been subject to a strict monitoring system established by the former Special Commission, which did not detect any violation of Security Council resolutions at those sites. In spite of this gross violation of the Charter and mechanisms of the Organization, the Security Council, the main organ concerned with the situation, remained completely crippled and did not take any immediate collective action. The international condemnation of the American/British aggression against Iraq last December did not come from the Security Council. Rather, it came from Governments and peoples of Member States on a larger scale after a noticeable lull. As the Assembly will recall, the Security Council was preoccupied with a bare-faced process for gaining time through mandating panels to assess the special situation concerning Iraq's implementation of its obligations under the resolutions of the Security Council. Those panels began their work unilaterally, without any advanced consultation with the Government of Iraq and without listening to its point of view. This process resulted in reports reflecting the political balance within the Security Council, which distanced it from the real substance of the situation. At that point the process reached the stage of the presentation of draft resolutions ignoring the rights and obligations provided for in the resolutions of the Council itself. In fact, those draft resolutions added new obligations for Iraq, not contained in the relevant resolutions of the Security Council that Iraq had already implemented. While the Security Council resolutions imposed various obligations on Iraq, they in turn imposed a specific obligation on the Security Council, stipulating that the comprehensive embargo was to be lifted once Iraq fulfilled its obligations under the same resolutions. But what has happened in the course of the last nine years is that the Council, during 40 sessions held to review Iraq's implementation of its obligations, has failed to take a decision to lift the comprehensive embargo, much less to ease the situation even by 1 per cent, despite the fact that all countries, even Iraq's enemies — for example, the United States of America — have attested that after nine years of intensive implementation under the severest circumstances and threats of continued aggression against Iraq nothing important has been left unfulfilled. Why then has the Council failed to lift the embargo on Iraq? The reason behind all this is the American hegemony over the Council, which prevents the Council through various means from properly implementing its resolutions. We have seen for several months intensive endeavours in the Security Council, particularly by the five permanent members, to adopt a unified position on Iraq. The correct position that conforms with the resolutions of the Security Council is very clear and uncontroversial. Once the logic of law and justice is adhered to, Iraq demands its clear and legitimate rights — namely, the lifting of the iniquitous sanctions imposed on it in accordance with the Council's resolutions. These resolutions were agreed upon by the five permanent members and have been implemented by Iraq over the last nine years. Now it is the turn of those five States to honour their obligations. Iraq's position should be clear to all. To gain Iraq's approval, any proposal or resolution — or consequences, if there are any — should be based on international law and non-selectivity, otherwise the results will meet with a definite rejection and we will continue our struggle to lift the sanctions comprehensively and finally in order to achieve all our legitimate demands. It has become clear to all, through public, personal and official testimonies, that the former Special Commission — a panel unfortunately bearing the name of the United Nations and acting nominally under its flag — has been used by the United States and Great Britain to achieve their aggressive objectives against Iraq's people, sovereignty and security. In order to achieve the ultimate end of its main mission, the former Special Commission had adopted two methods for its work in Iraq: first, conducting espionage activities for American, British and Israeli intelligence so as to enable them to realize their objectives of destabilizing Iraq politically and removing its patriotic regime; and, secondly,keeping the embargo in place by reporting to the Security Council that the Special Commission had not yet fulfilled its mandate of disarming Iraq. During its work in Iraq, the former Special Commission resorted to dubious methods to falsify facts and present them in a manner that was in line with the American approach, which is hostile to Iraq. The last of these had to do with the issue of VX vials found in the Commission's headquarters at Baghdad. Those samples were used by the Commission to contaminate the missing warheads that were sent to American laboratories for analysis. That was in order to enable the United States 29 Administration to find evidence supporting its allegations regarding Iraq's weapons programmes. The Commission's dubious practices were not limited to this, but went as far as hastily destroying the VX samples in order to conceal the irrefutable evidence of the Commission's involvement in the American conspiracy against Iraq. The American attempts to distort and pervert the relationship between Iraq and the Security Council have not been limited to exploiting the former Special Commission. They reached their ugliest forms in the open obstruction of any efforts to ease the effects of the comprehensive embargo imposed on Iraq, which has resulted in bitter suffering for the people of Iraq, particularly its children. The obstacles experienced during the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Iraq and the United Nations regarding the oil-for-food formula — which all reports and realities indicate cannot meet the essential humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq — are striking evidence of the American Administration's insistence on harming the people of Iraq and depriving them of their fundamental humanitarian rights, as enshrined in all international covenants. It is worth mentioning that the total value of the supplies that arrived in Iraq for the five initial phases of the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding is almost equal to the funds deducted from the revenues of Iraqi oil sales to cover the expenses of the Special Commission, the expenses of the United Nations in Iraq and the costs of the United Nations Compensation Commission. The total value of the supplies that have arrived in Iraq from the beginning of 1997 to the present is $4,948,300,000, while the funds deducted for the Special Commission, the United Nations services and the Compensation Commission are $4,041,185,000. A cursory look at these two figures clearly shows the failure of the Memorandum of Understanding to meet the essential humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq. The methods the United States and Britain use in dealing with the contracts that are related to humanitarian needs, and the deliberate delay in processing these contracts, make the main goal of the Memorandum of Understanding the financing of the expenses of the United Nations instead of securing the essential humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and stopping the deterioration of their humanitarian and health situation. This also exposes the intentions of the American and British Governments to strip the Memorandum of its humanitarian substance by putting on hold the contracts directly related to the health situation of the people of Iraq. For example, while the value of the contracts signed for water, sanitation and electricity has amounted to $352 million, the value of the supplies that have arrived in Iraq so far is only $64 million — that is, only 18 per cent of the total value of those contracts. The rest has been put on hold by the British and the Americans. The most striking evidence of the suffering of the children of Iraq as a result of this unjust, comprehensive embargo is the 12 August 1999 report of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), which contains statistics on child mortality resulting from malnutrition, shortages of medicines and the deteriorating economic and nutritional situation of Iraqi mothers. The report has proved decisively that the embargo imposed on Iraq is the main reason for the huge increase in the child mortality rate. The United States Administration has spared no costs to distort the facts about the Memorandum of Understanding, or spared any tendentious lies and allegations about the distribution of food and medical supplies. The Secretary-General's reports on the Iraq programme, which are based on the reports of United Nations observers deployed throughout Iraq, have proved the accuracy, regularity and equity of the distribution process of all humanitarian supplies received under the Memorandum of Understanding. The United States of America deliberately works to maintain the embargo and to double the suffering of the people of Iraq, despite the disappearance of all the reasons linked to the imposition of the embargo. This American objective has become quite clear through the many statements made by American officials that make the embargo a tool to achieve the hostile American political policy against Iraq. One of the basic pillars of the hostile American/British policy against Iraq is the imposition of the two no-fly zones on Iraq. This constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter and international law. We have already mentioned the evidence about this in a letter to the President of the Security Council dated 15 January 1999. This has also been confirmed by the views expressed by some permanent members and by others inside and outside the deliberations of the Council. It is well-known that the continuation of these no-fly zones is a means to perpetuate the aggression with a view 30 to achieving the purposes of the Anglo-American political scheme against Iraq. American officials do not hesitate to indicate their real intentions of using these daily bombardment operations to achieve the United States Administration's goals against Iraq's independence and sovereignty and to destabilize its patriotic Government. The Washington Post published on 31 January 1999 an article quoting a senior official of the United States Administration describing a certain attack as a means of reaching the goal in a way that satisfied all objectives without any loss, and saying that if the United States were to carry out a massive campaign, people would inquire about what had provoked such attacks. Proceeding from this policy of partitioning the aggression, the American and British warplanes have been carrying out daily exercises in a show of power that violates Iraq's airspace. In this way they launch savage bombardment operations against civil and economic sites in Iraq, including communication stations, oil pumping stations and private houses. Even mosques and churches have not been spared these continued savage attacks; the churches include the Church of Mar Matti, which goes back to the fourth century AD and which the American and British aircraft bombed on 11 August 1999. From the aggression of December 1998 to the present, the total number of sorties carried out by American and British aircraft amounted to 12,143, of which 9,830, launched from Saudi and Kuwaiti territory, were carried out in southern Iraq. Two thousand three hundred and thirteen (2,313) sorties were carried out in northern Iraq from Turkish territory. The United States Administration is seeking to find inconsistent pretexts for these daily acts of aggression, to which hundreds of innocent civilians fall victim. It claims that the bombing of civilians is in legitimate self-defence against Iraqi air force attacks. Let us ask this: where does the United States derive the right to defend an act that lacks any kind of basic legal legitimacy? Who gives the American aggressors the right to act in self-defence, as they claim, in Iraqi airspace? The acts carried out by the United States Administration represent a declared war waged against the people of Iraq. This is a charade — no more, no less. A senior Pentagon official, in describing these operations in the The Washington Post on 2 September 1999, admitted that this was a low-level war. Proceeding from its legitimate right to self-defence, which is guaranteed in all international instruments and covenants, Iraq will not hesitate to counter all American and British acts of aggression that aim at violating the integrity of its airspace and territory and threaten its security as well as that of its people. Iraq will continue to confront American and British aggression by all available means and potential. It will not yield to American blackmail. The hostile policy of the United States towards Iraq, which runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations and international law, has been made clear in official statements by senior officials in the United States Administration that stress that the United States is determined to unseat the patriotic Government of Iraq and dismember its national unity. In addition, the highest American legislative body has enacted laws that allow the Administration to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs, to allocate huge sums of money to carry out acts of terrorism, sabotage and assassination inside Iraq and to appoint high-ranking officials in the Administration to oversee these immoral and illegitimate tasks. This American policy has contributed to encouraging Turkish forces to carry out large-scale military operations inside Iraqi territory on the pretext of chasing elements of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). These Turkish military operations have caused instability and disorder in northern Iraq and pose a threat to Iraq's national security and territorial integrity. Iraq has regularly reported these repeated Turkish acts of aggression to the United Nations Secretary-General and to the President of the Security Council. These acts constitute a violation of the principles of good-neighbourliness and a threat to international peace and security in the region. But the United Nations has taken no action to curb these operations, and the reason is very clear: it is a reflection of the United States policy aimed at maintaining the abnormal situation in Iraq. The continued United States hegemony and governance of the destinies of the peoples of the world, as well as of international economic and political organizations, confront the United Nations with its most serious challenge ever. The United Nations should stand up to this domination and prove its ability to restore equilibrium so as to realize the purposes set out in the Charter, primarily the achievement of peace, security and stability, the promotion of friendly relations and the encouragement of economic cooperation between States. 31 In a speech delivered by President Saddam Hussein on 17 January 1999, Iraq called for an assembly of various institutions to be established by interested States to agree upon statutes and charters with a view to achieving serious cooperation in the economic, political and military fields in order to preserve balance and bring about peace, starting with Asia and questions related to it. That assembly would not be directed against anyone, but would be aimed at protecting its members and at legitimately defending their security and interests as well as international security, in accordance with established humanitarian norms. From this rostrum we call upon the peoples and States of the world that have faith in the values, culture, freedom, independence, justice and equity of the nations and peoples of the world, to consider President Saddam Hussein's proposal with a view to initiating a dialogue aimed at turning the proposal into a reality that would help achieve balance, peace and security throughout the world. Moreover, many States, including permanent members of the Security Council, have explicitly called for a multipolar world in which political, economic and military balance prevails, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security. The United Nations adherence to the principles set out in its Charter and the full and fair implementation of its resolutions, without selectivity and discrimination, is the benchmark of its credibility in restoring the trust of States in its ability to achieve justice and peace and to encourage States to comply with and implement the provisions of its resolutions. The United Nations, in particular the Security Council, should implement its resolutions on the Middle East, primarily those relating to the question of Palestine, and should support the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people to regain their legitimate and inalienable rights to live on their national soil in Palestine. It should also support their struggle against the Zionist colonization of their territory and their fight to establish a sovereign independent State on their national territory, with Jerusalem as its capital. The United Nations must implement its resolutions on making the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction. In particular, it should implement paragraph 14 of Security Council resolution 687 (1991), which considers Iraq's disarmament a step towards establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction. So far the United Nations has taken no steps in that direction. In conclusion, the realization of the concepts of justice, democracy and development throughout the world is subject to the fair democratization of international organizations, in particular the United Nations. These concepts can be achieved only through carrying out an interrelated series of administrative, structural and political reforms of the United Nations, its agencies and organs so that it can shoulder its responsibilities under the Charter, primarily its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.