Iraq, 1994

I

should like to convey to Mr. Essy of Côte d’Ivoire our

sincere congratulations on his election to the presidency

of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session. I am

certain that his experience will be a positive factor in

ensuring the success of the session’s deliberations.

Iraq is one of the founding Members of the United

Nations. Over the past five decades it has taken an active

part in all the Organization’s activities, has cooperated

effectively with its various organs and has contributed

generously when it was able to do so. Iraq has also

adhered to the decisions of the Organization in

accordance with the letter and spirit of the Charter.

At the international level, Iraq has participated

actively and responsibly in the Movement of Non-aligned

Countries, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and

the League of Arab States. During the 1970s it provided

assistance and soft loans amounting to about $10 billion

to developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin and

15

General Assembly 22nd meeting

Central America. Iraq has called for justice in political and

economic relations and has affirmed the need to respect

international law. These positions of Iraq are known to all.

What now concerns my country is the nature of the

current stage of the relationship between Iraq and the

Security Council, which is based on the Council’s

resolution 687 (1991), adopted in April of that year. That

resolution, which imposed a number of obligations on Iraq,

has no precedent among United Nations resolutions

throughout the history of the Organization. This is how it

is seen today in international circles, both legal and

political. However, despite its cruel and extraordinary

nature, Iraq informed the Security Council that it was ready

to comply with it within the requirements laid down by the

Charter’s provisions regarding resolutions adopted under

Chapter VII.

Since that date, despite the harsh conditions obtaining

in our country as a result of the total war waged by the

most powerful States of the world — a war in which more

than 100,000 tons of explosives were dumped on civilian

utilities throughout the country — and despite the effects of

the comprehensive and harsh embargo, Iraq has striven to

implement the resolution.

In March 1992 — less than a year after the adoption

of the resolution — and in November of the same year we

came to the Security Council to explain the substantial and

serious steps that had been taken by Iraq in the process of

implementing its provisions. On both occasions, we

requested that positive and fair consideration be given to

what had been achieved and that steps be taken towards

easing the comprehensive blockade imposed upon Iraq in

accordance with the terms of the resolution and,

specifically, the unbearable suffering of the 20 million

people of Iraq. However, our requests were not heeded.

In the middle of 1993 Iraq’s relationship with the

Special Commission and with the International Atomic

Energy Agency (IAEA) saw a breakthrough in the field of

positive and constructive cooperation with a view to

completing the implementation of part C of Security

Council resolution 687 (1991) — the provisions relating to

proscribed weapons, which the resolution legally ties to the

lifting of the embargo on oil exports.

In the process of this cooperation — on

26 November 1993 — we presented our official letter

concerning compliance with Security Council resolution 715

(l991). The letter dealt with the monitoring of weapons.

This was done after we had been assured that Iraq’s official

acknowledgment of compliance represented the most

expeditious means of securing the application of

paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991). This clear and

categorical assurance is referred to in the report issued as

document S/26571 on 12 October 1993. However, what

we were told would be done has not been done.

During the past 11 months we have witnessed

transparent tactics to delay and obstruct. These have

taken various forms. Their purpose is to delay

indefinitely the lifting of the embargo. In spite of the

official acknowledgment by the Special Commission and

the IAEA of the relevant Iraqi authorities’ continuing

cooperation, as well as the notable achievements of

completion of the work required by those bodies over a

period of more than a year, we still confront deliberate

ambiguity with regard to the Security Council’s discharge

its obligations under paragraph 22, which permits the

export of Iraqi products and commodities, including oil.

The blockade imposed on Iraq represents the most

comprehensive regime ever imposed by the Security

Council in all its history. With the exception of food and

medicine, it includes everything and affects all aspects of

life. As a result of the freezing of Iraqi assets in foreign

banks, Iraq is denied all the financial resources that would

enable it to pay for the food and medicines its people

need. This has rendered practically redundant the

exceptions relating to food and medicines.

In addition, the Sanctions Committee, which the

Security Council entrusted with the task of authorizing the

importation of material to Iraq, agreed on the consensus

method of making decisions. However, the reality is

exactly the opposite: decisions are required to be

unanimous.

It is sufficient for the objection of one member to

frustrate any request for imports. It is worth noting that

only three of the members of the Committee have been

the source of constant objections on the vast majority of

the import requests relating to the provision of

humanitarian civilian needs. What has made the situation

in the Sanctions Committee even worse is that it proceeds

on the basis of procedures which do not recognize

precedents and deals with each case individually. This

has led to confusion, disorder and ambiguity in the work

of the Committee in regard to what is permitted, both in

relation to quantity and quality. It is not difficult to see,

therefore, the harmful negative consequences of this

method of work by the Committee on the flow of

16

General Assembly 22nd meeting

humanitarian goods, which are of a limited quantity

anyway.

Let me refer to some glaring examples. The Sanctions

Committee refused on numerous occasions to permit the

importation of shrouds, pencils, cloth of all kinds including

the type used for hospital bed sheets, threads of all kinds,

paper for printing school books, leather, car tires including

used tires, nails; the list is long and it is well documented

in the records of the Committee.

This situation makes it incumbent upon the

international community to reflect upon the philosophy of

the sanctions regime of within the Charter of the United

Nations. Is that regime a means to an end or is it an end

in itself? Further, what is the nature of that regime? Is it

punitive, or is it a series of procedures designed to achieve

the purposes of the Charter irrespective of the unilateral

goals and whims of foreign policies of Member States? It

is well known to all that the sanctions regime under the

Charter is nothing but a series of procedures adopted to

achieve certain results that lead in turn to the achievement

of the purposes and principles of the United Nations, and

that such procedures should end with the cessation of their

causes. What then is the state of correct application of

these procedures following all the cooperation and progress

achieved in complying with the resolutions of the Security

Council by Iraq? What is clear to us is that the application

of sanctions and the embargo in the manner described

against Iraq is a process of vengeance, a process aimed at

depriving the people of Iraq, a nation of with great history,

a nation which has contributed immensely to human

civilization, depriving it of the simplest requirements of

human life.

The reports of the relevant specialized agencies

indicate the continuing deterioration of living conditions of

the Iraqi citizens. The Iraqi Government makes available

to every citizen a limited rations of flour, rice, tea, cooking

oil, soap, baby formula and whatever other items might be

available. This share is however to meet the basic

nutritional needs of human beings. Of late, we have been

forced to reduce this ration due to the lack of financial

resources and as well as poor agricultural output resulting

from the embargo. Consequently, the largest number of

citizens cannot buy what they lack of these and other items

because of the high prices, especially for protein items, and

they are therefore suffering from malnutrition. This

situation has affected the physical wellbeing of the

individual citizen in Iraq.

Despite the efforts of the Government to support and

develop the agricultural sector, great difficulties continue

to be faced due to the embargo. For example, the lack of

pesticides, insecticides, agricultural machinery and

equipment, water pumps and fertilizers. We do not have

the financial means to offset these shortages; and when

we do have some financial resources, the Sanctions

Committee promptly obstructs their importation.

The Joint Mission of the Food and Agricultural

Organization and the World Food Programme, which

visited Iraq in June 1993, did indicate in its Special Alert

No. 237 (1993) the magnitude of the danger resulting

from the blockade on the agricultural capabilities of Iraq,

which caused the loss of food-security and generated

persistent deprivation, chronic hunger and endemic

malnutrition among the vast majority of the population.

The third FAO Special Report of May 1994 dealt with the

grave problems of providing food and crops in Iraq due

to the shortages of agricultural requirements. The same

Report noted that these problems cannot be solved by the

provision of food aid and that the permanent solution to

the present food crisis lies in reviving the Iraqi economy

which cannot be achieved without resuming the activity

of international trade. It is also indicated that the

rationing system used by the Iraqi Government, though

very successful, provides only about one-half of the

average caloric intake which used to be available to the

citizens of Iraq before the imposition of the sanctions.

In the public health sector, health services have

deteriorated, after they had been amongst the relatively

advanced in the world. Due to shortages of medicine and

the deterioration of medical equipment, cases of death

have reached 384,022 cases from August 1990 to March

1994. The cases of death among infants have also

increased and now reach 126 cases per l00,000 live births

whereas it had been only 32 per thousand in the period

1985 to 1990.

There are those who claim that the Government of

Iraq is the party responsible for not making available

food, medicine and essential civilian needs to the people

because it has refused to accept Security Council

resolutions 706 (1991) and 712 (1991). Such allegations

are mere falsifications.

Fair and objective consideration of the full picture of

the arrangements adopted in these two resolutions would

lead one to the conclusion that they do represent

17

General Assembly 22nd meeting

a political programme aimed at violating the sovereignty of

Iraq, interfering in its internal affairs and dividing its people

along ethnic and sectarian lines, rather than ensuring the

satisfying of humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq.

Through five rounds of talks with the Secretariat in Vienna

and New York in 1992 and 1993 we have sought to reach

acceptable modalities through sound arrangements in order

to ensure the satisfaction of the humanitarian civilian needs

of our people. However, despite the sustained efforts that

have been made, such efforts have failed to reach an

appropriate solution, a solution free of the objectives of the

biased political programme through the pressures brought

to bear by the United States. One of the major ironies

during those talks was that the oil and banking experts who

were part of the United Nations delegation did acknowledge

that the arrangements adopted in the two said resolutions

were not at all customary in the oil and banking fields.

Could it be deemed reasonable by anyone involved in

the oil industry that the signing of an oil-export contract

should require no less than 30 procedural steps? Do

Members realize that the banking arrangements stipulated

by the two resolutions totally ignore the existence of a

developed banking sector in Iraq? Do Members realize that

a simple contract for the importation of food or medicine

requires no fewer than 20 bureaucratic steps in order for

those goods to reach Iraq, and that even after their arrival

they are subject to monitoring by hundreds of United

Nations monitors from the time they leave the Iraqi border

until they reach the consumer? This is the true story of

resolutions 706 (1991) and 712 (1991). Those two

resolutions were never intended to meet the humanitarian

needs of the people of Iraq.

In the course of the Security Council’s periodic

reviews, which take place every 60 days and the latest of

which took place on 14 September last, the United States

falsely accused Iraq on various counts in order to justify its

position of delaying the lifting of sanctions indefinitely.

We find it useful to refer to some examples of these

accusations so that the General Assembly may see the

picture clearly.

The United States charges that Iraq’s cooperation with

the Security Council has been sporadic, selective and

opportunistic. This is a baseless accusation. It is well

known that Iraq agreed to comply with the relevant

resolutions of the Security Council and sought persistently

to implement their provisions correctly and legally. We

believe that the majority of the members of the Security

Council do not join the United States in its accusation.

The United States also charges that Iraq’s record

with respect to the implementation of its obligations in

the area of proscribed weapons was a partial and grudging

acquiescence to United Nations demands. The facts,

however, prove otherwise. This is made clear in the

reports of the Special Commission and the International

Atomic Energy Agency, especially those issued since July

1993. The latest of those reports, circulated in document

S/1994/860, states,

“The Special Commission and the IAEA noted

with appreciation the constructive cooperation

received from Iraq and the efforts made by the

competent Iraqi authorities in the conduct of their

tasks.” (S/1994/860, para. 6)

Another accusation is that the Government of Iraq cut off

electricity from certain areas in the northern Iraqi

Governorates. Those who make this accusation ignore the

fact that the comprehensive embargo imposed upon Iraq

does not make sufficient financial resources available to

the Government to import spare parts and equipment for

ensuring the maintenance of electrical service in the

country. Moreover, the accusers are the very ones who

constantly object in the sanctions Committee to Iraqi

requests for importing material with which to maintain the

electricity grid, in the event we have some resources

available to that end.

The United States also accuses the Government of

Iraq of draining the marshes in the southern part of the

country in pursuit of a political programme aimed against

the population of the area. According to the allegation,

this action destroys their cultural heritage and causes

harm to the environment. I say that this accusation, like

the others, is baseless. It is utterly at odds with the sense

of objectivity expected of a permanent member of the

Security Council.

The truth is that the Government of Iraq carried out

extensive irrigation projects in the southern part of the

country, including the area of the marshes, in order to

reduce salinity in the water and soil, which is a problem

in central and southern Iraq, thereby increasing the

amount of arable land. The planning for these projects

goes back to the days of the Rehabilitation Board in the

fifties. American, British, French, German, Dutch,

Russian and Canadian companies and consultants

participated in drawing up and revising the plans and, in

part, in their implementation.

18

General Assembly 22nd meeting

After the imposition of the comprehensive blockade

the competent Iraqi authorities completed the projects by

themselves. One of the ironies of the situation is that the

principal proponent of draining the marshes of southern

Iraq in the fifties was an American expert working for the

Iraqi Board. It is also ironic that one of the rivers in the

area is still called the Dutch River because a Dutch

company carried out a project there.

I have been prompted to mention some of the

accusations levelled at Iraq in order to shed light on the

real situation and the fabrications and falsifications used as

pretexts to prolong the iniquitous blockade against us. But

it is even more important to refer to some glaring examples

of the conduct of those who accuse us, to wit, the United

States of America.

The United States, the State that is so concerned with

respect for Security Council resolutions, imposes two no-fly

zones in the north and the south of Iraq without any

authorization from the Security Council or any legitimate

justification under international law. The United States

Administration, which pretends to be so concerned over the

rights of the Kurds in Iraq, was the very party that

prevented the leaders of the Kurds from honouring an

agreement that, after four months of dialogue, was freely

entered into with the Government of Iraq in 1991. The

United States Administration stated openly that that

agreement would have strengthened the authority of the

present national Government in Iraq, which was contrary to

the United States objective of changing that Government.

Is this attitude in harmony with the Security Council

resolutions that provide for respect of sovereignty and the

achievement of international peace and security and stability

in the region? Is it acceptable, under the resolutions of the

Security Council, for that Administration to obstruct the

operation of flights transporting pilgrims from a friendly

Muslim State to Iraq’s sacred religious shrines under the

pretext that a number of politicians from that State were

among the pilgrims? That very Administration also

obstructed, under flimsy pretexts, the aerial shipment of

meat from the Sudan to Iraq.

Lastly in this connection, I should like to affirm that

Iraq expressed, in the words of its leader, President Saddam

Hussein, its sincere desire to turn a new leaf with its

neighbouring Arab countries in order to establish relations

based on the Charter of the League of Arab States, the

Charter of the United Nations and on the basis of mutual

respect for one another’s sovereignty and regard for each

other’s interests. However, it is well known to all that the

United States Administration is the party that obstructs

those efforts and brings pressure to bear on the States of

the region to prevent dialogue with Iraq. The article by

United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher

published in The New York Times last April is, we

believe, the most telling evidence in that respect.

Despite the harshness of the Security Council’s

resolutions concerning Iraq, we have implemented many

of their provisions fully. We are legally and correctly

continuing with the implementation of whatever

provisions remain in the relevant resolutions. Within this

process, we are also prepared to satisfy and allay the

concerns of the members of the Security Council of

which we have become aware in our contacts, although

some of them have been introduced in legally irrelevant

contexts.

In the meantime, however, we wonder: is it the duty

of the State in question under the Charter to implement

the provisions of the Security Council resolutions adopted

under Chapter VII, without expecting any counter-

obligations from the Council to implement the same

provisions? The just, legal view is that resolutions of the

Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are

binding upon the State in question and all other States,

particularly the members of the Security Council, and

even more particularly the Permanent Members of the

Security Council. This, undoubtedly, is the rule of the

Charter. It is therefore a foregone conclusion that the

members of the Security Council, and especially its

Permanent Members, should be keener than any other to

abide by the resolutions they themselves adopt. However,

the facts of the situation now are that one Permanent

Member, namely the United States of America, is

persistently obstructing any steps towards the correct legal

application of the resolutions of the Council, particularly

those provisions relating to the lifting of sanctions from

Iraq, and is conducting itself on the basis of biased

political motives that bear no relation to either the

resolutions of the Council or the Charter.

The General Assembly is the general organ entrusted

with deliberating on the world Organization as a whole

under the Charter. Under the Charter, Member States

have conferred on the Security Council the primary

responsibility for the maintenance of international peace

and security, and have agreed that in carrying out its

duties under this responsibility, the Security Council acts

on their behalf, in accordance with the Purposes and

Principles of the United Nations Charter. Consequently,

under the Charter, the members of the Security Council,

19

General Assembly 22nd meeting

both individually and collectively, bear the joint

responsibility of the membership of the Organization. The

collectivity of membership, as represented by the General

Assembly, does not, on the basis of the delegation of

power, lose the right to seek, through all available means,

the correction of any failure that might arise in performing

that responsibility.

Proceeding from this, we request that the members of

the Security Council, the General Assembly and the

international community as a whole look into the iniquitous

and illegitimate situation in which one or two Permanent

Members obstruct the correct legal application of the

resolutions of the Security Council and consequently

continue to impose upon the Iraqi people, a nation of

ancient history, cruel suffering afflicting all aspects of

human life.

It is within Iraq’s right to demand strongly that this

iniquitous and illegitimate situation be changed as soon as

possible and to seek full clarification of the position of the

Security Council on its just demands.