Republic

Of Iraq

                                  Statement

                                             Of

                           His Excellency

                 Mr. Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf

                   Minister of Foreign Affairs

                      of the Republic of Iraq

at the 55th Session of the

General Assembly of the United Nations

 

Mr. President,

 

I am pleased to congratulate you on your election as President of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly, and I should like to express our best wishes for the successful accomplishment of your tasks. I should also like to express the high esteem in which I hold your predecessor, H. E. the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Namibia, who has conducted the work of the previous session with notable skill.

 

A few days ago, the Millennium Summit came to an end. From a certain point of view, it represented an occasion for reviewing the state of international relations in the aftermath of the collapse of the bipolar international order. We have taken notice of the increasing number of States that complain of the unipolar control over international affairs and the extent of the dangers to which this situation gives rise both at the present time and in the future.

 

More than ten years ago, Iraq drew attention to the first signs of the many dangers and basic problems which have since grown worse and become the focus of a significant part of the discussions of the Millennium Summit. In February 1990, President Saddam Hussein warned against the grave dangers resulting from the unilateral control assumed by the United States of America and from its headlong rush to impose its hegemony on the world in general and the Arab Gulf region and other Arab countries in particular. He also warned against the dangers entailed by its recourse to illegitimate and immoral ways and means in order to achieve that goal, including the use of brute force; the exercise of pressure; engaging in political and economic blackmail; interference in the internal affairs of States; fomenting racial, religious and sectarian conflicts; and the use of international institutions to serve the interests of American policy.

 

Iraq also drew attention to the following situations at an early stage:

 

I. Exploitation by the industrialized countries, including especially the United States, of scientific and technological progress for political purposes with a view to imposing the wave of capitalistic globalization on the other countries of the world, while claiming that that globalization is tantamount to an inevitable fate to which all must submit regardless of the negative consequences and dangers it involves for the lives of the vast majority of humankind.

 

2. The adoption of a double standard approach as far as political positions are concerned, and indifference to what the dictates of international organization impose by way of legal and political norms that strike a balance between the rights and the obligations involved in the process of co-existence of interests among the various countries without any distinction or discrimination.

 

3. The prevalence of the logic of "power and opportunity" in exploiting the mechanisms of the United Nations to ensure the adoption of the kind of resolutions that would support the achievement of selfish political aims of one country or a few countries at the expense of the common denominators in international relations without at first giving consideration to the obligations under the Charter of the United Nations or to the principles of justice and equity. Hence the recourse to mandatory embargoes and comprehensive economic sanctions as a goal to be pursued per se, as well as the continuation of the policies of starvation and destruction of the economies of countries and societies.

 

4. The imposition of unilateral policies on the international community through mechanisms and arrangements that lie outside the international system, and treating such arrangements as substitutes for the United Nations in those cases where the hegemonic powers headed by the United States expect to meet with strong opposition on the part of the United Nations to those unilaterally-determined policies as we have seen in the case of the aggression launched by NATO against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

 

5. The phenomenon of the forcible adjustment and adaptation of the established rules of international law to serve the unilateral policies of the hegemonic powers headed by the United States of America through the imposition of strange and bizarre interpretations on the contents of the aforementioned rules, or the total disregard for those rules when the said powers are unable to impose their odd interpretations thereon. An example of this dangerous phenomenon is to be found in the feverish attempts being made in order to minimize the importance of the principles of State sovereignty, national independence and non-interference in the internal affairs of States.

 

6. The phenomenon of evading responsibility in cases in which the assumption of responsibility would be unprofitable from the economic point of view, as is the case in questions relating to the pollution of the environment, the expansion of the sphere of poverty in the world, and the obstruction of the development of the States of the South where the responsibility of the advanced industrialized countries is quite obvious.

 

Mr. President,

 

The dangers, challenges and negative phenomena referred to by me and by other speakers in the course of this general debate have led to widespread thinking about the solutions needed to overcome those difficulties and problematic issues. Iraq is of the view that the starting point is for United Nations action to be a true expression of the will of all peoples and nations. This was how the Charter of the United Nations was drawn up in order to establish a system of collective security based on common collective interests.

 

The stability and effectiveness of the system of collective security is grounded in cooperation among partners on the basis of specific obligations and not on the basis of unilateral action and domination as is the case today. The right of nations and peoples to live in peace and stability represents the essential purpose of the maintenance of international peace and security. This right can only be guaranteed by linking it firmly to the right to economic and social development and freedom from any kind of pressure and interference. And this noble collective goal itself can only be achieved through upholding the United Nations system as well as reforming and developing that system in order to invest it with the ability and competence to achieve that goal. Reform is particularly called for in the case of the Security Council, which must respect its obligation towards the community of States and comply with the correct interpretation of the principles and provisions of the Charter in the performance of its functions and powers. It is also necessary to restore the role of the General Assembly in the maintenance of international peace and security so as to ensure the necessary balance when the Security Council fails to assume its basic responsibilities under the Charter because of the unilateral and abusive exercise of its powers.

 

Mr. President,

 

The wave of capitalistic globalization sweeping our world today has widened, and continues to widen, the gap between the rich and the poor in the world. This dangerous phenomenon requires a forceful call for laying the foundations of a true international partnership in order to re-establish economic and social justice on both the international and national levels, upholding the principle of equitable sharing by all of the fruits of scientific and technological progress, and cessation by the rich countries of the use of science and technology as tools for the imposition of their exploitative policies on the countries and peoples of the world. A dynamic partnership between the countries of the north and the south is fundamentally opposed to the logic of domination and unilateral power and to the transformation of science and technology into political tools for the subjugation of others. On the other hand, the call for democratization within countries will remain spurious unless its advocates adhere to a democratic course on the level of dealings between States and within international organizations. Furthermore, the call for respect for international law and for its primacy on the national levels will remain devoid of credibility unless it is associated with the kind of conduct that attests to respect on the part of the advocates of this call for the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of international law, and unless there is a possibility for recourse to international judicial organs with regard to the interpretation and application of legal provisions to ensure the maintenance of the delicate balance that should exist between powers and responsibilities, and rights and obligations. Any affirmation of respect for human rights should not overlook the fact that they are not limited to civil and political rights but also include, as a matter of equal importance and urgency, economic, social and cultural rights. Nor should such affirmation overlook the fact that the world is characterized by a diversity of backgrounds in the areas of civilization and culture, or that the cultural and social assumptions tacitly accepted by a given culture cannot be imposed on other nations and peoples.

 

Mr. President,

 

What I have just exposed in my statement does not consist of theoretical assertions. We in Iraq have suffered and continue to suffer from the domination and abusive actions of the hegemonic powers headed by the United States of America. Our deep faith in the rightness of our position explains the steadfastness shown by our country and our people in the face of the might of the unipolar power.

 

The comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq have entered their eleventh year. By any standard, these sanctions amounts to genocide and they involve a brutal application of collective punishment and taking revenge on an entire people. There is no longer any doubt that these sanctions constitute a continued, flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law and international humanitarian law, a matter which has been confirmed by the reports of United Nations Agencies and humanitarian and human rights organizations. The most recent testimony to that effect is to be found in the working paper adopted by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights at its fifty-second session held in Geneva from 31 July to 18 August 2000, which affirmed that the sanctions regime against Iraq is unequivocally illegal under existing international humanitarian law and human rights law.

 

It is well-known that the Americans and the British claim that the oil-for-food programme alleviates the impact of the unjust sanctions imposed against Iraq. That claim, however, quickly proves its baselessness when set against the figures published by the United Nations itself. More than three and a half years have now passed since the inception of the programme, during which period Iraq has exported $31.6 billion worth of oil. Of this total, $9.5 billion have been allocated to the Compensation Fund in Geneva and $1 billion allocated for the administrative expenses of the United Nations, while $8.3 billion have been disbursed for purchases to cover the needs of the people of Iraq, and there are floating and semi frozen allocations for certain needs of Iraq amounting to $10 billion that, however, have not been disbursed owing to the obstructions placed by the Americans and the British. Such egregious obstructions include putting contracts relating to construction materials on hold with the contracts thus put on hold totaling so far 1173 valued at more than $2 billion.

 

Actually, despite the increasing pressure on the international community to put an end to this ongoing genocide, two Permanent Members of the Security Council, namely, the United States of America and Britain, insist on continuing this crime to further their plans aiming at destabilizing the Arab Gulf region in order to perpetuate the hotbeds of tension therein with a view to prolonging their hegemony on the region and military occupation as well as to plundering the region's wealth.

 

The United States openly declares that it is prepared to use the veto against any attempt to lift the sanctions imposed on Iraq. It is indeed shameful for the United States that its Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, has declared on a television programme that the continuation of sanctions is worth the death of half a million Iraqi children.

 

If we take into consideration, just to clarify the matter, the fact that the States Members of the United Nations have authorized the Security Council to act on their behalf on condition that the Council shall do so in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations (Article 24 of the Charter); yet, in the case of the comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq, the Security Council has gone so far beyond the purposes and principles of the Charter as to turn itself into a cover for perpetrating a policy of genocide against an entire people. Therefore, it behooves the States Members of the United Nations to state their opinion as to the extent of the fidelity with which the Security Council has complied with that authorization. In this connection, it is worth mentioning that, under Article 25 of the Charter, the Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter. This means that implementation of the comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq, which have become illegal in terms of international humanitarian law and human rights law, is thus not binding on States Members of the United Nations.

 

Mr. President,

 

I must point out that my country is being subjected to a continued daily aggression by American and British aircraft in the no-flight zone imposed on northern and southern Iraq by a unilateral decision of the Washington and London Governments. The aircraft launching the aggression take off from their bases in Saudi, Kuwaiti and Turkish territory. This continued military action which violates the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq's airspace has no basis in law or in any binding resolution passed by the competent organ of the United Nations; it constitutes instead an illegitimate unilateral action undertaken by the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

 

These aggression acts have taken the form of interference in the internal affairs of Iraq on the one hand, and, on the other, a continuation of acts of military aggression against Iraq through the imposition of the two no-flight zones. What confirms the illegal character of the imposition of those two no-flight zones are the official statements issued by the Russian Federation, France and China, which expressed their positions to consider the imposition of those zones as having no basis in law from the very beginning. This position has also been supported by the former Secretary General of the United Nations who, in his book entitled "'Unvanquished", makes clear that the American claim that Security Council resolution 688(1991) authorizes the launching of attacks against Iraq in order to enforce the no-flight zone is baseless and that the enforcement of the no-flight zones, far from having been endorsed by the Security Council, is no more than a unilateral act being perpetrated by the Governments of Washington and London.

 

The American and British acts of aggression have inflicted huge material and moral losses on Iraq and have caused grave damage to its civilian infrastructure. The loss of human life as of date has amounted to more than 300 martyrs and 900 wounded civilians.

 

The United States of America and Britain bear the responsibility for these acts of aggression and for all their consequences according to the rules of State responsibility under international law. According to the same rules, that responsibility is shared by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey by virtue of their participation in the said acts of aggression on the basis of the support and assistance they have offered for carrying them out. The Saudi Government provides the American and British aggressors with military facilities and bases of Rafha, Dhahran, Khamis Meshait, Al-Jauf and Tabbuk, from which scores of American and British way planes take off to attack Iraq. In Kuwait, the rulers provide services and facilities in the bases of Ali Al-Salim and Ahmed Al-Jabir as well as financing for the daily American and British aggression against Iraq.

 

Mr. President,

 

Iraq has discharged its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions. Consequently, the logical result that is supposed to ensue is for the embargo imposed on it to be lifted. On the other hand, the Charter requires that the American-British aggression against Iraq should be condemned and that the perpetrators of that aggression and those who are participating in carrying it out (namely, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey) should be made to bear the international responsibility with all its legal implications.

 

Mr. President,

 

We cannot, under any circumstances, have anything to do with any unjust position that ignores the record of our fulfillment of our obligations and denies us our legitimate right to have the embargo lifted as required by the Charter and the correct interpretation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. A flagrant example of how the record of the fulfillment of our obligations is being ignored and how our right to have the embargo lifted is being denied is to be found in the underhanded way by which the United States of America and Britain have been able to make Security Council resolution 1284(1999) a vehicle for defrauding Iraq of its rights and distorting its complete fulfillment of its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions, including in particular resolution 687(1991). Resolution 1284(1999) does not represent a solution at all, nor is it, in essence, anything more than a deliberate ploy to get through the American anti-Iraq policy as embodied in the perpetuation of the embargo to an unforeseeable point of time. We have therefore clearly declared that we shall have not deal with this resolution.

 

Mr. President,

 

The Middle East region suffers from a grave situation caused by the possession by the Zionist entity which occupies Arab Palestine of a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, be they nuclear, chemical or biological long-range ballistic missiles. The Zionist entity which occupies Arab Palestine refuses to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to place all its nuclear installations under the comprehensive safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Besides its dangerous threat to peace and security in the Middle East region and the world, this situation exposes the double standard applied by the United States which, on the one hand, arms the Zionist entity and give it unlimited support and, on the other, deliberately ignores the provisions of paragraph 14 of Security Council resolution 687 (1991) which specifies the measures imposed on Iraq should be applied on other countries in the region in order to make the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and of all systems of delivery of those weapons as well as towards the goal of imposing an international prohibition against chemical weapons. The Security Council has taken no step in this regard despite the fact that Iraq has implemented all the required measures. As a result, the way the Security Council has acted under American pressure in this context is a flagrant example of the double standard policy.

 

Thank you, Mr. President