4. My delegation wishes to associate itself with other delegations in congratulating Mr. Belaúnde on his election to the high position of President of the General Assembly, and to assure him of our confidence in his wise judgement. His election by a unanimous vote of the Assembly is no doubt a high tribute to his past services to the United Nations, and a recognition of his contribution to the cause of amity and understanding among nations.
5. Two months after our national revolution of 14 July 1958, when I had the privilege of addressing the thirteenth session of the General Assembly, I stated: "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.” [760th meeting, para.3.]
6. Now, a year later, I wish to avail myself of this occasion to explain briefly the position of my Government with regard to certain international problems, with a view to giving you some indications as to the nature of our foreign policy and the way we are endeavouring to contribute to the maintenance of peace and to uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter.
7. Our national revolution, which freed Iraq from the shackles of internal and external oppression, opened the way widely for the people to re-emerge into freedom after centuries of feudal and colonial rule. The revolution, therefore ushered in an epoch of a newly-gained freedom, and the Government found itself faced with two sets of interrelated problems: internal and external. Internally the problem has been one of converting an economically and politically feudalistic society into a modern one. The other problem has been one of effecting a change in the external relations of Iraq in a way which is, on the one hand, consonant with the national and political aspirations of the people, and on the other, in harmony with the efforts of other nations to promote peace and security in the world.
8. In dealing with these problems and in order to ensure a peaceful change-over, my Government has been guided by a number of considerations. These considerations emanate from its keen desire to free our people froth the material and political fetters which prevented them from assuming their rightful place in the march for progress and prosperity, and from playing a constructive role in promoting conditions favouring the maintenance of peace and security in the world."
9. Our efforts in tackling the internal problems have had a considerable impact on the formulation of our external policy; but I do not wish to burden the Assembly by elaborating this point. A brief reference to this matter, however, will be sufficient to indicate the nature of the internal change we endeavour to achieve, and its impact on our external relations. In this respect, our immediate national task was and remains twofold: the general elevation of material living standards and the expansion of political liberties, maintaining at the same time a balance between the two. Politics and standards of living are always closely interrelated, especially in the newly-emerging less-developed countries. In a new society which is taking shape by breaking with the past, the whole struggle for change assumes a political form. During a transitional period like this, however, there are bound to be differences and conflicts of a political, economic and ideological character.
10. The task of the Revolutionary Government has been and still is to effect this transition peacefully, and to lay down the foundations for a stable society, in which; stability is assured within a framework of freedom and democracy. This policy stems from the belief that only free people can genuinely act in support of the ideals of the United Nations and for the good of mankind.
11. Although the means of converting a feudal society into a free society are fairly clear and well known the world over, there has been, however, some misunderstanding as to the ultimate objectives we are seeking to attain. Our national revolution has, above all, been directed towards the abolition of the economic and social foundations of feudalism and the creation of a new relationship founded on justice and equal opportunities for all. Therefore, those who mourn the past and dream of its restoration are living in an illusion. The wheel of history normally moves forward in accordance with the laws of historical development of society.
12. In the external field, my Government declared a policy of positive neutrality. Again, this policy has been in conformity with the declared principle of our national revolution: that is, to liberate the people of Iraq from all systems and relationships which limited their freedom of action and jeopardized their progress and prosperity.
13. Since the end of the First World War, an international status was imposed upon Iraq which made it follow in its external relations a policy which was far from reflecting the true and genuine interests of its own people, as well as of other peoples with whom Iraq has close historical, geographical, and ethnic ties. Treaties, agreements and relationships with some Powers in the inter-war, as well as the post-war, period showed beyond any doubt that Iraq had pursued a policy of alignment which contradicted the interests of its people and diverted it from the true path of peace and security. The national revolution has come to emphasize the departure of Iraq from such policy and to lay down a new policy based on genuine belief in international peace and friendship in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter — a dynamic policy dictated by the requirements of the present stage of world historical development and in harmony with the changing world of today.
14. Thus the principles of positive neutrality in international affairs, as declared and implemented by certain States, have been accepted by our young Republic as basic in its approach to international problems and its relations with all States and nations. It is hardly necessary to dwell on the principles which constitute the fabric of positive neutrality. It is sufficient to state that such a policy aims at emphasizing in practice the desire for non-alignment and friendly relations among all nations.
15. In our opinion, the world is passing through a critical period in which the maintenance of a balance of power by the formation of military blocks does not constitute a safeguard for peace and security in the world. On the contrary, military blocs and alliances have greatly contributed to the weakening of peace and security and have increased world tension. Military alliances do not constitute bases for collective security as, in our opinion, security can only be achieved by solving world tensions and developing a pattern of universal peace within the framework of the United Nations. Furthermore, the policy of alliances does not promote mutual confidence among nations, as some people seem to believe. Experience has shown that security is not a question of trust and confidence in one or another group of Powers, but a question of following a policy which is not only right in itself but which also makes it more difficult for other countries to break trust and confidence. Developments in recent years serve to show that the increase in the number and scope of military pacts and alliances, instead of resulting in more security, has augmented preparations for war and heightened international tensions. This is in no way to impugn the good faith of States joining blocs and alliances, but only to point out the negative effects of the policy which has led to further preparation for war.
16. It is against this background that Iraq has chosen the policy of positive neutrality. In the struggle between two great power blocs, Iraqis only role as a small State has been determined by considerations drawn from its position in the Middle East region, as well as from its keen desire not to be involved in the international game of power politics. On the other hand, by seeking to free itself from military alliances, Iraq has taken active steps to strengthen its friendly relations with all nations on the basis of equality and mutual interests, irrespective of their political and social systems. Thus we have brought to an end our membership in the Baghdad Pact and have terminated military and other agreements which bound Iraq to certain big Powers. In this way, we have not only freed the country from the numerous consequences of military and other alliances, but we have also contributed to the promotion of a more genuine understanding with our neighbours and other peace-loving nations.
17. Because we believe that no nation is an island entire to itself, we have been striving to enlarge the area of our co-operation with other nations in the various economic, social and cultural fields. The response of other nations has been extremely encouraging, especially since Iraq terminated its membership in the military and political alliances and agreements. In the political field, our policy of neutrality is founded upon a philosophy of promoting friendly relations with all Powers, irrespective of their ideology and social systems. In this way, therefore, positive neutrality is and remains a dynamic policy, objective in its approach to world problems and aimed at the gradual removal of the artificially-created barriers between nations. In our opinion, a neutral State can be more effective than it might appear at first sight if it deals equally with nil other States and closely cooperates with other neutrals who are equally alive to the potent, though indirect, implications of their positive neutrality.
18. Countries following a policy of positive neutrality are often described as non-committed. This is an erroneous conception. As far as Iraq is concerned, we are committed to certain principles and policies provided in the Charter of the United Nations. We are committed to fight for freedom and justice in the world and to assist all subjugated peoples striving to achieve their national rights and liberties. We are committed to co-operate with all those who resist aggression, physically and morally.
19. The policy of positive neutrality which we have followed since July 1958 has been motivated by a general desire for the promotion of conditions favouring the establishment of peace and security in the Middle East region and the rapid achievement of the economic and political progress of its peoples. Such progress cannot be adequately accomplished unless the rising national forces are freed from the vestiges of the colonial rule and backward economic systems. Thus, it is to be noted that, at its present phase, the policy of positive neutrality is one form of the national struggle for the realization of the national aspirations of the Arab world. We are, therefore, committed to stand together with our Arab brother in our common endeavour for the liberty and progress of all the Arab people wherever they are.
20. It will have been evident, in the light of these remarks, that the interest in world peace and security in general and in the rights and liberties of the Arab people in particular is bound to reflect itself in our great concern for conditions prevailing in the Arab Middle East. For these and other reasons, we feel it our duty to refer to three questions which ought to receive particular attention from the United Nations, namely, the questions of Palestine, Algeria, and Oman and southern Arabia. In these three areas, the imperialist forces are fighting a rearguard battle, and thus causing great human suffering, disturbing the peace and security in the region and retarding the development and progress of its people.
21. The question of Palestine is not new to this Assembly. The creation of Israel, which has since been considered by many States and peoples as one of the most tragic injustices ever committed in modern history, has been the major factor in disturbing the peace and obstructing the development of the Middle East. The existence of Israel was rendered more dangerous to the stability of our region by the fact that it has constantly been used by the colonial forces as a pretext for maintaining their position, and as a bridge-head for intervention in and aggression against the Arab countries, as clearly demonstrated by the tripartite aggression against Egypt in 1956.
22. The question of passage through the Suez Canal cannot be considered in isolation from the Palestine problem. Moreover, the existence of a state of war since 1948: the provisions of the 1388 Constantinople Convention; the inherent right of self-preservation and the recurrent acts of aggression, of which the 1956 attack was the most flagrant example, fully justify the stand taken by the United Arab Republic in relation to this question.
23. Israel has been and remains the Trojan horse of imperialism. Experience has shown that for more than ten years the existence of Israel, an alien body within the territories of the Arab nation, has been the breeding ground for conflict and aggression, not in the region alone, but also far beyond its boundaries. The regional and international tension generated through the presence of Israel could be related to the facts of the cold war in general and to the endeavours of the imperialist Powers to perpetuate their political, economic and military privileges in the Middle East region in particular.
24. These two aspects of the existence of Israel have been repeatedly confirmed by the numerous economic and military relationships established between certain Powers and Israel, by the various acts of aggression perpetrated by Israel and by the indifference or acquiescence of certain Powers in the defiance fay Israel of the decisions of the United Nations. This clearly shows that the creation of Israel and its maintenance by certain Powers falls within the general framework of imperialism in its present phase.
25. One of the most tragic consequences of the creation of Israel was the uprooting of one million Arabs from their homeland in Palestine.
26. The conditions surrounding the refugee problem, which brought the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East [UNRWA] into being, are still with us and therefore the continuation of this Agency is an inescapable international responsibility. It will be remembered that the problem of the Arab refugees was the direct outcome of the partition of Palestine. The United Nations is responsible for the continuation of UNRWA because it has failed to enforce its decision concerning the right of the refugees to return to their homes. It is natural, therefore, that the United Nations should view the fate of these refugees with a full sense of responsibility, and that the Secretary-General should recommend the continuation of UNRWA.
27. We believe that the maintenance of the Agency's services is the minimum due to the Palestine refugees. This, however, should not be used as a means to deprive the Palestinian Arabs of their right of choice, already endorsed by this Assembly, to return to their homes. This right to choose is based on the most elementary principles of law and justice. We earnestly believe that references in the Secretary-General's annual report [A/4132] to the economic development in the Middle East should in no way be taken as an attempt to resettle these refugees against their will in lands other than their own. Any attempt in this direction would be an outrageous violation of the rights of the Arab people of Palestine and is therefore doomed to failure.
28. Under the impact of the heroic national revolution of Algeria and the influence of world public opinion which has endorsed Algeria's right to freedom and independence, the President of France, General de Gaulle, has recognized what is already a fact, namely, Algeria's distinct personality and its right to self-determination. Thus, the myth of Algeria being part of France is now shattered by its own exponents. President de Gaulle's recognition of Algeria's right to self-determination would have been truly laudable, indeed worthy of the highest traditions of the French Revolution, and more indicative of a fundamental change of heart, were it not hedged with reservations and conditions which detract from its substance.
29. Self-determination is not a novel concept in our time, it is indeed a fundamental and acknowledged principle in international relations with well-defined characteristics and clear implications. When self-determination is adopted as a basis for a solution of such an international problem, as indeed it is the only valid basis, it should be applied according to a generally accepted procedure, with all the safeguards which ensure the process through which subject peoples may determine their destiny. Without such safeguards the exercise of the right of self-determination loses its meaning and is completely nullified.
30. It is clear, therefore, that the international community recognizes and applauds the right of self-determination, which the heroic and long-suffering people of Algeria gained with great sacrifices. But the international community cannot accept the onerous conditions and reservations introduced by President de Gaulle regarding the time and the manner of exercising the right of self-determination. Let it be remembered that it is the Algerian people who have the right to determine their destiny, and not France.
31. President de Gaulle has likened the position of France in Algeria with that of the Ottoman Empire and other conquerors who had come before it. Just as the Ottomans and others left Algeria, France must also leave Algerian territory.
32. No one can deny that Algeria is a separate entity possessing all the prerequisites of an independent national State. The fact that France had conquered and occupied Algeria for a period of time does not detract from its unmistakable personality and does not obliterate its separate status from France.
33. Many Member States here represented were at one time or another deprived of their sovereignty and occupied by a foreign Power against their will, such as Algeria has been, but these countries have won their independence, as Algeria most assuredly will, and became members of this great Organization. Algeria in due time will undoubtedly join our ranks, for the whole world is aware of the justice of the cause of the heroic Algerian people.
34. A cease-fire in Algeria can only be brought about through direct agreement between the two parties. The provisional government of Algeria issued yesterday, in response to President de Gaulle's recent proposals, a declaration which has long been awaited by the international community. In this statement the representatives of the Algerian people have again given proof of their high sense of responsibility, good faith, wisdom and maturity. The Algerian Government stated its readiness to enter into "pourparlers" with the French Government to discuss the political and military conditions of a cease-fire and the conditions and guarantees of the application of self-determination. It is our fervent hope that this approach, which the Assembly had recommended in 1957 [resolution 1184 (XII)] and this conciliatory attitude will be reciprocated by France and find a favourable echo in the United Nations.
35. Now I come to the third question, that of Oman and southern Arabia, which has not received adequate attention. In this part of the world, tragic events take place every day; people are being killed by modern armies and weapons. The United Kingdom has been carrying out regular military operations in Oman and the southern Yemen territories in order to perpetuate its dominance and to prevent the Arab people in these territories from making their voice heard in the world. The international community has been kept in ignorance of the facts of this colonial oppression.
36. We do not wish to elaborate on this tragic aspect of the situation in Oman and southern Arabia. We feel, however, that it is high time that the United Nations paid some attention to events taking place in that part of the. world, and inquired as to the status and the activities of the United Kingdom the rein. The perpetuation of colonial domination can in no way be justified by past occupation. Great Britain occupied these territories in the period of imperialist expansion, and continues to do so under the name of "protection". Is it not the duty of the United Nations to inquire as to the reasons for this situation, especially at a time when the United Nations has made wide strides in the march towards the liberation of subject peoples? Members of the United Nations are entitled to know the realities of the situation, and the reasons for this exceptional status of "protection" which the United Kingdom is perpetuating in these territories.
37. We believe it imperative that the United Nations should initiate an inquiry into the existing conflict between the people of these territories and the United Kingdom, as well as into the legal bases for its presence there. Protectorates are mere relics of a colonial system which no longer exists, even in the vocabulary of present-day imperialism. In the era of the United Nations, the continuation of the protectorate system is nothing but an anomaly.
38. The situation in southern Arabia stands in glaring contrast with the recent developments in West Africa and the part played there by the United Nations.
39. Of all the activities of the United Nations, there is perhaps none more significant than the part played by this world Organization in guiding dependent peoples towards independence and full self-government. In this noble task of nation-building, the United Nations has achieved its most striking and lasting success.
40. Three Trust Territories in Africa will attain independence in 1960, while the people of a fourth Trust Territory, namely, the Cameroons under United Kingdom administration, will be given an opportunity, early next year, to decide their own future in accordance with Article 76 b of the Charter. Three years ago the General Assembly terminated the Trusteeship Agreement concerning Togoland under British administration [resolution 1044 (XI)], which attained the objectives of the International Trusteeship System through its union with the young nation of Ghana. In all these momentous developments, Iraq has tried to play an active and constructive role. We have done so solely because of our abiding interest in the welfare of dependent peoples and our firm belief in the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
41. These principles, which recognize the right of every people to self-determination, have been and still are a source of inspiration and hope sustaining the subject peoples of the world in their continuing struggle for freedom. It has often been said that the emergence into statehood of so many countries in Asia and Africa has been one of the most stirring developments of our time. It is our view that the United Nations can and should play an important and constructive role in this world-wide movement for national liberation and independence.
42. To the newly independent nations, however, political freedom is but the beginning; it can only constitute a. partial fulfilment of the national aspirations of formerly subject peoples. All these countries and a large number of other less-developed countries have come to realize that their economic and social reconstruction is a prerequisite for a proper exercise of genuine political independence. This trend reflects the general desire for a higher living standard and a realization of the fact that political independence is nothing but the superstructure of economic independence.
43. The economies of the newly independent and less-developed countries, on the other hand, are to a large extent, and in an unequal manner, related to those of the advanced countries.
44. It is hardly necessary to emphasize the fact that in the world today there is a historical gap between the advanced and the less-developed countries — a gap which leaves many possibilities of exploitation of the latter by the former. This historical gap, while causing anxiety to the new nations, has, however, been serving as an incentive for the adoption of certain modern economic methods and techniques and for paving the way to some collaboration with the advanced countries. In most cases the main problem facing the less-developed countries stems from a shortage of capital and a lack of sufficient technical knowledge and experience. The conversion of the economies of the less-developed countries, if not supported by national resources or potentialities and outside assistance, may lead to a certain amount of instability in the exercise of their newly-won freedom. Such instability is neither in the interest of the peoples themselves nor in the interest of the international community, especially at a time when international relations are dominated by power politics.
45. It can therefore be said that, unless the United Nations takes more substantial action in helping the less-developed countries in their economic and social reconstruction, competition among the advanced countries to assist the less-developed ones will become a new ground for friction and will thus increase the tension in the world. If the United Nations were to tie made the main vehicle for capital assistance to less- developed countries, the stigma of charily and the. anxiety over political interference would be removed from foreign assistance.
46. It is encouraging to observe that the advanced nations have in some measure come to use the channels of this Organization for assistance to less-developed countries. The reaction to the Special Fund is a case in point. But the Special Fund and the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance in their present form fall far short of meeting the requirements of the economic development of less-developed countries and the acute scarcity of necessary capital for their development.
47. The political implications of bilateral assistance not only breed suspicion and resistance in the recipient countries, but also create international anxieties bound up with the cold war. The vision of world development and the eradication of poverty, starvation, ignorance and disease can only be effectively achieved if ouch international assistance is channelled through the United Nations.
48. During the past few weeks the world has witnessed the first sign of a possible major break in the cold war, which has dominated the international scene ever since the end of the Second World War. The world-wide impact of the visit of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Mr. Khrushchev, to the United States and the forthcoming return visit of the President of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower, to the Soviet Union is a clear indication that the peoples of the world will not and cannot bear the heavy burdens of the cold war any longer.
49. This historic turn in international events is especially heartening to the advocates and followers of the policy of peace and positive neutrality. It is our fervent hope and desire that these visits and the subsequent projected steps will culminate in positive agreements covering the major outstanding problems among the great Powers, In the forefront of these problems we place the major question of our time — disarmament. Preceding speakers, including the representatives of the three "nuclear Powers”, have voiced the universal recognition that the present armaments race cannot continue much longer without dire consequences affecting the very foundations of our Civilization. The choice before us is quite clear — effective disarmament or eventual collective destruction. Faced with these two alternatives, we have no doubt that man’s ingenuity will meet the challenge to his civilization and survival.