Iraq

1. Mr. JAWAD (Iraq): The thirteenth session of the General Assembly opens against a background of grave international tension. The continuing disputes and conflicts among the Member States of this Organization are increasing the dangers to international peace and security. 2. The seriousness of the situation was emphasized by the convening of three emergency special sessions of the General Assembly in a period of less than two years. The inability of the Security Council to discharge its primary responsibility of maintaining peace and security has given the General Assembly a role and significance that was not entirely envisaged by the framers of the Charter. In view of this unforeseen development in its fortunes, the Assembly is confronted with a great challenge and greater opportunity to serve the cause of world peace and human welfare. 3. The new free Republic of Iraq, with a Government enjoying the support of its people, hopes to make its modest contribution in the service of the ideals of the United Nations. Having been freed from the shackles of oppression, Iraq can now be counted upon to play a more vigorous and constructive role in the work of this Organization. Besides our natural and, indeed, vital concern in the question of world peace as a whole, we are of necessity particularly aware of and sensitive to what goes on in our region and in the Arab world, of which Iraq forms an integral part. 4. The problems and difficulties in which the Arab peoples have found themselves in recent years stem primarily from one major source, that is, the inevitable clash between Arab nationalism — a movement aiming at the achievement of freedom and independence for the whole Arab nation — and the effort of some big Powers to maintain interests and conditions which contradict and often deny the legitimate rights of the Arab peoples, and frustrate their just aspirations. 5. This struggle between Arab nationalism and foreign domination has been going on since the latter part of the last century in North Africa and since the end of the First World War in the Arab Near East. There are two aspects of this struggle in which the United Nations has shown interest. The first and foremost problem, which is in reality the core of the instability and strife in the area, is the Palestine problem. The creation of Israel in the heart of the Arab world, at the expense of, and in violation of the rights of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of Palestine, constituted an act of unparalleled historical injustice. 6. Even now, after it has become abundantly clear that Israel is the main source of danger to the peace of the area, that country is being given military assistance. We have seen the use to which Israel has put the weapons supplied to it by its Western friends. Israel's repeated acts of aggression against its Arab neighbours have been condemned by the Security Council. However, we are now more than ever convinced that Israel was not created solely for the purpose of finding a home for the Jews, but primarily to make Israel an instrument that can be used whenever it becomes necessary to impose the will of some big Powers against the rising nations of the Arab East. This role of Israel as a willing tool of imperialism was amply demonstrated in the role it played as the spearhead of the tripartite aggression against Egypt and more recently by its ill-concealed threats to take over the western bank of the river Jordan. 7. The second issue between the Arab world and the old colonial Powers relates to the efforts of these Powers to perpetuate their privileged political, economic and military position in the area. These efforts have brought the world to the brink of war and have necessitated the convening of two emergency special sessions. 8. The first emergency special session was convened in an atmosphere of international crisis to deal with a tripartite aggression undertaken by two permanent members of the Security Council in conjunction with their willing and obedient tool against Egypt, sovereign State and Member of the United Nations. The action of the General Assembly in this respect centred around the termination of the aggression and the condemnation thereof, while it demonstrated the determination of the large majority of United Nations Members, as well as of world public opinion, to uphold the principles of the Charter and to endeavour to put an end to the use of force in relations and disputes between States. Action by the General Assembly further demonstrated the great importance attached by States, especially small States, to the observance of the rules of international law as- the only means for safeguarding the future of humanity and civilization from destruction by modern war weapons. 9. The other emergency special session of the General Assembly concerning the Middle East was convened to deal with another type of aggression against the independence and the territorial integrity of two Middle Eastern States. While in the first act of aggression destructive war methods were employed against the people and territory of Egypt, in the second the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom were landed in Lebanon and Jordan respectively as a preliminary measure for further action elsewhere in the region. Although it is of no interest at this stage to discuss the intentions behind the presence of foreign troops in the Middle East, it is nevertheless important to point out that the use of force, which was condemned by the first emergency special session of the General Assembly, remains an instrument for the implementation of policy by certain big Powers. It could therefore be said that the results of the tripartite aggression against Egypt and the stand taken by the General Assembly in this regard did not contribute to a change in the attitude of certain States regarding the use of force, nor did they lead to the formulation and the acceptance of new norms in international behaviour. Consequently, the reasons which led to the convening of the third emergency special session should receive most careful consideration from the point of view of international law and as a precedent in the relationship between large and small States. 10. By their action, the United States and the United Kingdom assumed for themselves the responsibility of preserving the territorial integrity and political independence of small States. Thus they take it upon themselves to act when they see fit and to use their armed forces for the execution of that self-imposed responsibility. On the one hand, they do not disclaim their membership in the United Nations, but on the other hand they do not abide by the rules of the Charter. In other words, they claim a responsibility, whatever its nature, without having the legal authority to do so. This responsibility and authority have in fact no bases either in international law or in the Charter of the United Nations. 11. How did these two conceptions originate? In the past, the colonial Powers had their armies and fleets in most parts of the world, and they controlled widely- spread colonial territories. It was then possible for them to use their armed forces either in territories under their own control or in others with a view to coercing the peoples of those countries and to maintaining certain political systems and situations. But that was a time when the rules of international law did not carry much weight and the United Nations and its Charter did not exist. In other words, that was at a time when the great Powers formulated and assumed responsibility in the way they considered appropriate for the maintenance of their own interests, and sought no authority from any quarter. Both the responsibility and the authority emanated from the self-interest of the colonial empires. 12. The present era of the United Nations is another matter. The United Nations is the international body which bears the responsibility for the protection of States and the preservation of peace and security. Thus, the United Nations is the sole authority from which any action for that purpose should stem. 13. The attempts of the colonial Powers to give their action the semblance of “legality” do not mislead those Who are acquainted with the history of colonial policy and practice. World public opinion is fully aware that such unlawful action undermines the principles of the Charter and the rules of international law, and constitutes a threat to the security of other States. It would be a novelty in international relations if such practices were condoned by the United Nations. In such case a new chapter in international law would have to be opened under the name of "aggression for peaceful purposes". 14. The history of modern times reveals only too clearly that what the colonial Powers are now trying in the international field is nothing but what they had previously practised in the colonial territories themselves. Imperialism always aligned itself with the privileged classes to suppress all progressive social forces in order to preserve a given social and economic status quo. The rise of new nations to Independent status constituted a challenge to the Interests of the imperialist system in two ways. 15. The political independence of the newly born States meant first a contraction of the possibilities of economic exploitation of these countries by the colonial vested interests, and secondly it constituted a barrier for employing the territories of these countries for military and strategic purposes. Under these circumstances, one cannot but come to the conclusion that all these acts of coercion and aggression against the newly born nations are carried out for the sole purpose of perpetuating the old economic, political and military domination by the colonial Powers. Thus, the tension which has dominated the international scene since the end of the Second World War appears to be the outcome of the struggle of the colonial system to prolong its existence, 16. When we look at the world today, we see some really frightening examples of this attitude. For three years, the most devastating war has been going on In Algeria — a war carried out by a great country, which has contributed so much to civilization and culture, against a people whose sole aim is to live freely and independently. Algerians are not Frenchmen, as Arabs cannot be transformed into Gauls, and it is sheer mockery to pretend that they are. So we appeal to the United Nations to act according to common sense and to save the millions of Algerians from the ravages of modern warfare. 17. The war in Algeria can only be called the butchery of a small and under-developed nation, carried out by the Government of a civilized nation. The United Nations has, for the past three years, been a witness to murder and destruction, but no action has been taken to prove that the conscience of the world is at least moved by such atrocities. 18. There are other atrocities committed in the region, of the Middle East. The quiet but murderous strife which has been going on in Cyprus requires no comment. The world is certainly aware that there is on that island a nation which is denied its right to freedom by the force of arms. However, for a long period of time the two communities in Cyprus live and worked together in peace and amity. There is nothing more tragic than to see the life of those peaceful people wrecked by a strife which has brought nothing but destruction and enmity. The day when the two communities come together and decide their fortune will certainly be a triumph for peace and justice. 19. In the southern parts of the Arabian peninsula the fight goes on between British forces and the Arab people who strive to achieve freedom and independence. In Oman and in the southern part of Yemen foreign troops are fighting the nationals of these two countries in order to perpetuate a state of subjugation contrary to the wishes of the people as well as to the principles of the Charter. The same kind of forces that are denying the Algerians their right to freedom and independence are acting in vain to arrest the advance of history in Arabia. 20. Another instance of imperialist rear-guard action at the expense of a peaceful change-over from the old to the new is the problem of West Irian which the General Assembly has not been able to resolve. We believe that West Irian is an integral part of Indonesia and that the sooner this fact is heeded by the Netherlands and other Western Powers, the better. 21. These examples illustrate how the area of conflict between certain big Powers and the rising nations is widening with the passage of time and in spite of the efforts of the United Nations. Whatever the nature of violence and aggression, the problem seems to remain without a solution, and thus the world continues to live in perpetual tension and under the threat of a general war. 22. Conceived broadly, the dynamics of the present world situation stem from a conflict between the new forces, which are struggling to assert themselves, and the old forces which are desperately trying to stop them. The new forces are represented by the rise of national movements seeking freedom and independence of a politico-economic character. The old forces, on the other hand, represent an old conception of the world order — an order based on the control and exploitation of the weak nations by the strong. The conflict which prevails on the international scene is therefore nothing but a struggle between the old order and the new. While the old order is represented by the systems of imperialist domination, the new order presents a nationalism striving for freedom from all forms of foreign control. The question is how to effect peacefully the change from the old to the new order without launching the world into a general war. 23. The Second World War gave birth to the United Nations, an idea and machinery to facilitate the transition from the old world order based on force and violence to the new order based on the rule of law and peaceful relations between nations. 24. One of the basic principles of the United Nations is that the approach of force and violence — on a large or small scale — cannot lead to the solution of conflicts and differences between nations. Fascism, for example, as an ideology and a practice of force and violence was able to solve neither the problem of the economy under which it grew nor the problems which brought it into conflict with the rest of the world. In fact, what was true twenty years ago is still obviously true in our present day. That is, force and violence cannot possibly lead to the solution of any major problem, especially when force and violence have become much too terrible and destructive. 25. Despite this, certain big Powers have been seeking to retain their economic and political privileges by practising various forms of violence. All these practices indicate that the transitional process from the old to the new world order, which is the objective of the United Nations, is being frustrated. And although the now world order, which is an irreversible historical development, cannot be diverted from its natural course, the fact remains that the stabilization of the transition from the old to the new is not only being obstructed but also is becoming fraught with danger to international peace and security. 26. If the world is to be saved from a general catastrophe, the United Nations has no choice but to look at the world situation in its entirety in order to understand the propelling forces of crisis at work and to prevent them from leading us to annihilation. 27. At present, the world is faced with many grave problems. Even a consideration of these problems inevitably leads to a wide range of thought. Unless we have some clarity of vision or are clear as to the nature of the questions posed to us, we shall never get out of the confusion that afflicts the world today. Particular emphasis should be laid on the word "confusion", as it truly reflects the state in which the world finds itself. 28. We pride ourselves on our great achievements in the scientific field, yet the range of conflict in our internal and external relationships, as individuals and as nations, seems to get wider and more varied. Progress in science alone does not, therefore, seem to provide the answer to the problems of the day. On the contrary, it appears to constitute a menace to civilization, and this fact by itself indicates that perhaps Western civilization, with all its achievements, is inadequate to perpetuate the existence of the human race. 29. This is rather a dim and pessimistic outlook which should not be allowed to prevail in an organization striving to lay down the foundations of a new world order. But it should at least be tolerated, as it is coming from the representative of a small country which is struggling faithfully to catch up rapidly with the caravan of the advanced world. Many other representatives, I am sure, find themselves in the same situation. 30. Nothing is more tragically paradoxical, for a small nation than to find itself subjected to continuous pressure and threats of violence from the big Powers, while its sole endeavour is and will remain to live freely and democratically in the same way as the advanced nations do. This situation is, of course, contrary to the principles, objectives and spirit of the United Nations. 31. This Organization was created to act as a medium for settling disputes and conflicts and for promoting a new and better world order out of conflicting and contradictory interests. Since its inception the United Nations has been meeting in an atmosphere of tension. Although it has been instrumental in settling certain problems and averting open conflicts in certain cases, the fact remains that the world continues to exist on the verge of war. Unless we all realize in time that the causes of the present international tensions are primarily found in imperialist ambitions and practices, the world might suddenly find itself in total war. 32. The United Nations has at the present juncture an extremely heavy duty to perform towards humanity and civilization. The world stands now more than ever at the cross-roads, and it is for this assembly of nations to decide whether to promote a new world order or to face atomic destruction. 1. Just recently the Secretary-General of the United Nations submitted to the General Assembly his report [A/3934/ Rev.1] relating to the resolution of 21 August 1953 on the situation in the Middle East and the withdrawal of the forces of the United States and the United Kingdom from the territories of Lebanon and Jordan [resolution 1237 (ES-III)]. Some of the speakers who have preceded me have made known their views on this document. The Iraqi delegation feels obliged at this stage in the debate to comment on a particular aspect dealt with by the Secretary-General in his report. This question is one to which the Government of Iraq attaches considerable importance, and one which continues to cause unrest in the Middle East and to threaten international peace. With that consideration in mind, we feel that we should give a brief account of our delegation's views on this problem. 2. The Secretary-General undertook extensive travels in our area, and we are convinced that his direct contact with the serious problems which concern us have enabled him to appreciate the danger of the presence of foreign troops in Lebanon and Jordan. It must have been borne in on him, in particular, that the stationing of. those troops there, which gave rise to an alarming state of tension, is the cause of the continuing political and economic difficulties and of friction between the different States in a part of the world which, as is now quite obvious, is a vital spot. 3. We do not intend at present to analyze the different aspects of the Secretary-General's report. However, we deem it essential to stress here and now our belief that the slightest delay in withdrawing foreign troops from Lebanon and Jordan is a dangerous infringement of the terms of the resolution adopted unanimously on 21 August 1958. It may be appropriate to recall that the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom stated at the third emergency special session of the General Assembly that the troops they had felt called upon to send to Lebanon and Jordan were there at the request of the Governments of those two countries, and justified their action on the ground that they wished to guarantee the independence of those two States and to ensure their security. I may also recall that we have already had occasion to question the reasons given to justify the sending of the troops. During the same period, other military concentrations were observed in other parts of the area, and we still believe that those moves were inspired by other hidden motives. At all events, and whatever the pretext may be, there appears to be no further justification for such activities today. A new Government has been established in Lebanon, and the agreement between the United Kingdom and Jordan on the need for the withdrawal of troops has been made public. While the provisions of that agreement are promising in themselves, it is obvious from the attitude of the United Kingdom Government that it has reservations about carrying them out. 4. In its letter to the Secretary-General of 1 October 1958 [A/3937] the United Kingdom Government specified the date on which the withdrawal of troops was to begin, but it was careful not to set any time limit to the operation, merely stating that the duration of the withdrawal would depend on the time required for the evacuation of men and equipment. Decision regarding the time required seems to be left entirely to the United Kingdom command in the area, and apparently it has not been thought necessary to set even an approximate time limit. We cannot help being surprised and indeed disturbed at this failure to be specific, particularly since any unnecessary delay in the withdrawal called for by the General Assembly resolution cannot but further complicate the political and economic situation in the area and thus increase the threat to international peace. 5. We believe that the maintenance of those troops in Lebanon and Jordan is the main, if not the only cause of the tension still existing in the area. With particular reference to Iraq, it should be noted that the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom landed in the immediate vicinity of our national territory on the very next day after the establishment of a new régime chosen by the people. Even if that were only a coincidence, it would none the less be reason enough for us to remain vigilant and to take the necessary protective measures to safeguard our security. That we have been forced to take such measures is bound to affect not only our good relations with the United States and the United Kingdom, but also the traditional bonds of common interest between Iraq and other countries, including the neighbouring States. The situation thus created prevents us under the present circumstances from according the usual facilities which so greatly contribute to our maintaining good understanding and fruitful co-operation both with our immediate neighbours and with the rest of the world. It is extremely important for Iraq to maintain and develop these neighbourly relations, which safeguard the peace and security of the area. 6. Worse still, the continuing presence of foreign troops in Lebanon and Jordan tends to isolate those two countries from the other Arab States, thus keeping alive in the Arab world an atmosphere of mistrust and misunderstanding wholly incompatible with the brotherly relations which should prevail among the members of the League of Arab States. 7. In the light of these comments, inspired by the fact that a starting date for the withdrawal of foreign troops has been fixed while no date has been set for the end of the withdrawal operations, it is clear that the United States and the United Kingdom have not acted in full accord with the spirit of the resolution unanimously adopted by the General Assembly. Hence, despite attempts to present the matter to international public opinion in an optimistic light, the threat to peace in the Middle East continues and will continue as long as foreign troops remain in Jordan and Lebanon or in either of the two countries. I can say without fear of exaggeration that the absence of any time limit to the withdrawal of foreign troops renders meaningless the unanimous resolution which appeared to have provided such a fortunate solution of the Middle East problem. This capital omission, which contravenes both the spirit and the letter of the General Assembly’s decision,' is the cause of the continuing threat to world peace in the area. Furthermore, leaving aside the wishes of the General Assembly and the parties concerned, this deliberate vagueness as regards the full implementation of the provisions of the resolution is contrary to the United Nations Charter itself. 8. I have made these few observations merely in order to put before this Assembly the views of my delegation on an essential aspect of the Secretary-General’s report. We earnestly hope that our understanding of the spirit of the resolution of 21 August 1958 will prevail, and that a speedy and final solution of this problem will be achieved, so that it will not again be necessary for the Iraqi delegation to speak from this rostrum on this particular problem.