Iraq, 2000

It is my

pleasure to congratulate Mr. Harri Holkeri on his

assumption of the presidency of the fifty-fifth session

of the General Assembly, and I should like to convey to

him our best wishes for a successful accomplishment of

his tasks. I should also like to express our high esteem

to his predecessor, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of

Namibia, who conducted the work of the previous

session with notable skill.

The Millennium Summit came to an end just a

few days ago. From a certain point of view, it was an

occasion for reviewing the state of international

relations following the collapse of the bipolar

international order. We have taken note of the

increasing number of States complaining of the

unipolar control over international affairs and the

extent of the current and future dangers that this

situation can give rise to.

More than 10 years ago, Iraq drew attention to the

first signs of many dangers and basic problems that

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 its headlong rush to impose its hegemony

on the world in general and on the Arab Gulf region

and other Arab countries in particular. He also warned

against the dangers posed by that State's recourse to

illegitimate and immoral ways and means of achieving

that goal, including the use of brute force; the exercise

of pressure; political and economic blackmail;

interference in the internal affairs of States; the

fomenting of 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.

The first was the exploitation by the

industrialized countries, the United States in particular,

of scientific and technological progress for political

purposes, with a view to engulfing all other countries

8

of the world in a wave of capitalistic globalization,

claiming that globalization is an inevitable fate to

which all must submit, regardless of the negative

consequences and dangers it entails for the lives of the

vast majority of humankind.

Secondly, it drew attention to the adoption of a

double standard as far as political positions are

concerned, and it noted an indifference to the legal and

political standards imposed by internationally binding

agreements, where a balance is struck between rights

and obligations in the process of the coexistence of

interests among various countries, without any

distinction or discrimination.

Thirdly, it noted the prevalence of the logic of

“power and opportunity” in the exploitation of United

Nations mechanisms to ensure the adoption of

resolutions supporting the selfish political aims of one

country or a few countries at the expense of common

principles in international relations, without first giving

consideration to obligations undertaken under the

Charter of the United Nations and the principles of

justice and equity — hence the recourse to mandatory

embargoes and comprehensive economic sanctions as a

goal in and of itself, as well as the continuation of the

policies of starvation and destruction of the economies

of various countries and societies.

Fourthly, it drew attention to the imposition on

the international community of unilateral policies

through mechanisms and arrangements outside the

international system, and to the fact that such

arrangements were treated as substitutes for the United

Nations in those cases where the hegemonic Powers,

headed by the United States, expected to meet with

strong opposition by the United Nations to those

unilaterally determined policies, as we saw in the case

of the aggression launched by the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO) against the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia.

Fifthly, it noted the phenomenon of the forcible

adjustment and adaptation of 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 of the contents of such rules, or even

total disregard for them when said Powers were unable

to impose their strange interpretations thereon. An

example of this dangerous phenomenon can be found

in the feverish attempts to minimize the importance of

the principles of State sovereignty, national

independence and non-interference in the internal

affairs of States.

Sixthly, it noted the phenomenon of evading

responsibility in cases where the assumption of

responsibility would not be profitable from an

economic point of view, as is the case in questions

related to environmental pollution, the expansion of the

sphere of poverty in the world and the obstruction of

the development of the States of the South, all of which

are cases where the responsibility of the advanced

industrialized countries is quite obvious.

The dangers, challenges and negative phenomena

to which I have referred, as have many other speakers

in the course of this general debate, have led to broad

reflection on the solutions needed to overcome those

difficulties and problematic issues. Iraq is of the view

that the starting point is for United Nations actions to

be a true expression of the will of all peoples and

nations. That is 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 based on cooperation among

partners and on the basis of specific obligations, not

unilateral action and domination, as is the case today.

The right of nations and peoples to live in peace and

stability is the essential requirement for the

maintenance of international peace and security. This

right can be guaranteed only if it is firmly linked to the

right to economic and social development and to

freedom from any kind of pressure or interference.

This noble collective goal can be achieved only

by upholding the United Nations system and by

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 obligations

towards the community of States and must comply with

the correct interpretation of the purposes and principles

of the Charter in the performance of its functions and

the use of its 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 if the Security Council fails to

assume its basic responsibilities under the Charter

because of the unilateral and abusive exercise of its

powers.

9

The wave of capitalistic globalization sweeping

over today's world continues to widen the gap between

the rich and the poor in the world. This dangerous

phenomenon requires a forceful call to lay the

foundations of a true international partnership in order

to re-establish economic and social justice at both the

international and national levels, upholding the

principle of equitable sharing by all of the fruits of

scientific and technological progress, and stopping rich

countries from using science and technology as tools

for imposing their policies of exploitation on the

countries and peoples of the world. A dynamic

partnership between the countries of the North and the

countries of 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 at the level of dealings with other

States and with international organizations.

Furthermore, the call for respect for international law

and its primacy at the national level will remain devoid

of credibility unless it is associated with the kind of

conduct that calls for respect for the letter and spirit of

the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of

international law, and with the possibility of recourse

to international judiciary bodies, with regard to the

interpretation and application of legal provisions to

ensure a delicate balance between powers and

responsibilities, rights and obligations. Any affirmation

of respect for human rights should not overlook the

fact that civil, political, economic, social and cultural

rights should, as a matter of equal importance and

urgency, enjoy the same respect. Nor should such an

affirmation overlook the fact that the world is

characterized by cultural and civilizational diversity,

and that the cultural and social assumptions tacitly

accepted by a given culture cannot be imposed on other

nations and peoples.

What I have just stated does not belong to the

realm of theory. We in Iraq 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 righteousness 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 all standards, these

sanctions amount to genocide and involve a brutal

application of collective punishment and revenge

against an entire people. There is no longer any doubt

that these sanctions constitute a continued, flagrant

violation of the United Nations Charter, of

international law and of international humanitarian law.

This matter 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 25 August 2000. The paper

affirmed that the comprehensive sanctions against Iraq

are unequivocally illegal under existing international

humanitarian law and human rights laws.

It is well known that both the United States and

Great Britain claim that the oil-for-food programme,

agreed to between the United Nations and Iraq,

alleviates the impact of the unjust sanctions imposed

against Iraq. Such a claim, however, is quickly proved

to have no basis 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 Iraq has exported $31.6

billion worth of oil. Of this total, $9.5 billion has been

allocated to the Compensation Fund in Geneva and $1

billion allocated for operational administrative

expenses of the United Nations while, in the course of

three and a half years, only $8.3 billion has been

disbursed for purchases to cover the needs of the Iraqi

people.

There are also floating and semi-frozen

allocations for certain needs of Iraq amounting to $10

billion that have not been disbursed owing to

obstructions placed by the Americans and the British.

Such egregious obstructions include the suspension of

1173 contracts, valued at more than $2 billion, relating

to construction materials and humanitarian needs.

Despite increasing pressure on the international

community to put an end to this ongoing genocide, two

permanent members of the Security Council — the

United States of America and Britain — insist on

perpetuating this crime to further their plans to

destabilize the Arabian Gulf region and preserve its

hotbeds of tension with a view to prolonging their

hegemony over and military occupation of the region

and to plundering its wealth.

10

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 television that the

continuation of sanctions is worth the death of 500,000

Iraqi children.

Just to clarify the matter, although the States

Members of the United Nations have authorized the

Security Council to act on their behalf provided that it

do so in accordance with the purposes and principles of

the United Nations, pursuant to Article 24 of the

Charter, the Security Council has, in the case of the

comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq, 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

behoves the States Members of the United Nations to

voice their opinion as to the extent of the Security

Council's faithful compliance with such authorization.

In this connection, it is worth mentioning that, under

Article 25 of the Charter, 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

under international humanitarian law and human rights

law, is no longer binding on States Members of the

United Nations.

I must also point out that my country is being

subjected to ongoing daily aggression by American and

British aircraft in the no-fly zone imposed on northern

and southern Iraq by 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 continuous

military action, which violates the integrity and

sovereignty of Iraq's airspace, has no basis in law or in

any binding resolution adopted by any 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 belligerent acts constitute both interference

in the internal affairs of Iraq and ongoing military

aggression against Iraq through the imposition of the

two no-fly zones. The illegal character of the

imposition of those two no-fly zones has been

confirmed by official statements issued by the Russian

Federation, France and China, which have from the

very outset declared their position that the imposition

of those zones has no basis in law. This position is also

supported by a former Secretary-General of the United

Nations who, in his book entitled Unvanquished: a

U.S.-U.N. Saga, makes it clear that the American claim

that Security Council resolution 688 (1991) authorizes

the launching of attacks against Iraq in order to enforce

the no-fly zone is baseless and that the enforcement of

the no-fly zones, far from having been endorsed by the

Security Council, is no more than a unilateral act by

the Governments of Washington and London.

The American and British acts of aggression have

inflicted enormous material and moral losses on Iraq

and gravely damaged its civilian infrastructure. The

loss of human life to date has amounted to more than

300 martyrs, while more than 900 civilians have been

wounded. The United States of America and Britain

bear responsibility for these acts of aggression and for

all their consequences, in accordance with the rules of

state responsibility under international law. By the

same rules, that responsibility is shared by Saudi

Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey by virtue of their

participation, support and assistance in carrying out

these acts of aggression. The Saudi Government

provides American and British aggressors with military

facilities and the bases of Rafha, Dhahran, Khamis

Mushait, Al-Jauf and Tabuk, from which scores of

American and British planes take off to attack Iraq. In

Kuwait, the rulers provide services, facilities and

financing to the American and British aggressors at the

air bases of Ali Al Salim and Ahmed Al Jaber.

Iraq has discharged its obligations under relevant

Security Council resolutions. Consequently, the logical

result would be for the embargo imposed on Iraq to be

lifted. Moreover, the Charter requires that the

American-British aggression against Iraq be

condemned and that its perpetrators and those who

participate in it — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey —

bear the international responsibility, with all its legal

implications.

We cannot, under any circumstances, deal with an

unjust position that ignores the record of our fulfilment

of our obligations and that denies us our legitimate

right to have the embargo lifted, as required by the

Charter and the correct interpretation of relevant

Security Council resolutions. A flagrant example of

how the record of the fulfilment of our obligations has

been flouted and how our right to have the embargo

lifted has been denied is to be found in the

underhanded way by which the United States of

America and Britain have made Security Council

resolution 1284 (1999) a vehicle for defrauding Iraq of

its rights and for misrepresenting its full discharge of

its obligations under 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 other than

a deliberate ploy to further American anti-Iraq policy,

as embodied in the indefinite perpetuation of the

embargo. We have therefore clearly declared that we

shall have nothing to do with that resolution.

The Middle East region is suffering from a grave

situation caused by the fact that the Zionist entity that

occupies the Arab Palestinian territories possesses a

huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction of all

kinds — nuclear, chemical and biological — and longrange ballistic missiles. The Zionist entity occupying

Arab Palestine refuses to accede to the Treaty on the

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and refuses to

place all its nuclear installations under the

comprehensive safeguards regime of the International

Atomic Energy Agency.

Besides being a threat to peace and security in the

Middle East region and the world, such a position

exposes the double standard applied by the United

States, which at once arms the Zionist entity and gives

it unlimited support and deliberately ignores the

provisions of paragraph 14 of Security Council

resolution 687 (1991). This paragraph specifies that the

measures imposed on Iraq should be applied to 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 such weapons, as well as to

pursue the goal of imposing international prohibitions

against chemical weapons. The Security Council has

taken no action in this regard, despite the fact that Iraq

has implemented all the required measures.

Consequently, the way in which the Security Council

has acted under American pressure in this context is a

flagrant example of a double-standard policy.