Iraq, 1999

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.