A/36/PV.54 General Assembly

The General Assembly has already on numerous occasions in the past considered the explosive situation in West Asia caused by the aggressive actions and expansionist policies of Israel. In total dis- regard of the repeated calls of the international commu- nity, Israel has continued stubbornly to hold on to the illegally occupied Arab lands and to deny the people of Palestine their fundamental right to their own homeland. 2. Nowhere have Israel's aggressive policies been more evident than in the flagrant and premeditated attack launched by Israeli F-I6 jet aircraft against the Iraqi nu- clear reactor near Baghdad early in June of this year. The fact that this attack came at a time when the Arab coun- tries were making a serious effort to avoid a widening of the conflict in Lebanon made the. action all the more provocative. Israel's aggressive action is a flagrant vio- lation of all the canons of international law and of the principles governing the conduct of relations between States. Whatever the arguments used by Israel to cover its actions with a cloak of justification that fact cannot be repudiated and deserves universal condemnation. To call its action self-defence and to ascribe aggressive motives to the victim of its aggression is a gross perversion af facts and a blatant effort to confuse the issue; indeed, it is an attempt to turn the Charter of the United Nations up- side-down. If the argument of pre-emptive attack were ac- cepted, then the f,overeignty of any State could be vio- lated on any pret(~xt and this would make a mockery of all the rules governing the conduct of relations between States. 3. The action of Israel in attacking Iraq must be seen not as an isolated act of adventurism but as part of its overall policy aimed at denying the rights of the people of Palestine, continuing its illegal occupation of Arab lands and creating a situation of instability, tension and conflict in the region in order to further its own political interests. NEW YORK 4. The argument that Israel has advanced to justify its action has been that Iraq was on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. This allegation is baseless, because Iraq has repeatedly declared that its programme in the nuclear field has all along been devoted to the utilization of nu- clear energy for peaceful purposes. It is therefore man- ifestly absurd to imagine that the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes by Iraq can constitute a threat to Israel. On the other hand, the whole world knows that it has been Isr~ ~l that has been making sys- tematic efforts towards acquiring a nuclear weapons arse- nal. The sovereign right of a developing country to ac- quire and develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes cannot be denied or thwarted through discrimi- natory practices or policies, and certainly not by such a blatant act of aggression as the one committed by Israel. 5. The Government of India has already condemned in the strongest terms the unprovoked and unjustified act of aggression committed by Israel against Iraq. We have in various international forums expressed our solidarity with the Government and people of Iraq and have supported the strongest possible punitive action against the ag- gressor, including effective measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. Such action is merited purely on the grounds of its unprovoked aggressive action and its repeated dis- regard and grave violation of the principles of the Charter. 6. While stating this, however, my delegation would like to emphasize that the linking of issues such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [resolution 2373 (XXII), annex] or full-scope or other safeguards to the present question is not relevant and detracts from the central issue to be addressed, which is that of aggression. I should like to reaffirm that the position of my delega- tion on issues such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and full-scope safeguards remains unchanged, and we view the references to these issues as they appear in draft reso- lution A/36/L. 14 on this item in the context of our well- known position. 7. Once again Israel alone must bear the responsibility for threatening peace and security in West Asia. As long as Israel feels it can continue its behaviour with impunity the situation in the region will remain tense and uncer- tain. The Government of India has consistently main- tained solidarity with the Ar.ab nations in facing the threat of Israeli aggression and expansionist policies. We have repeatedly called for the withdrawal of Israel from the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to facilitate the es- tablishment of a Palestinian State and to guarantee the right of all States in the region to live. in peace and har- mony. 8. Our hopes for a durable peace in the region have been shattered by this action by Israel. We earnestly hope that Israel and its friends will give heed" to the demands of the overwhelming majority of States. Israel must re- frain from further aggressive action, take the necessary steps to compensate for·the material damage and loss of life suffered, and make genuine efforts to resolve the 9. Mr. OfT (German Democratic Republic) (interpreta- tion from Russian): The delegation of the German Demo- cratic Republic welcomes the inclusion in the agenda of the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly of the item on the armed Israeli aggrefCiion against the Iraqi nu- clear installations. Consideration of thi~item is not only necessary in order to condemn the serious consequences of Israel's act of armed aggression against Iraq and to condemn the aggressor, but is of particular significance and relevance today in view of the proclamation of further new and aggressive military doctrines by the imperialists and hegemonists, for example, the doctrine of the pro- priety of "preventive strikes", "punitive action", "teach- ing lessons" to other States and even of a first nuclear strike. 10. What i~ at stake here. is the struggle to preserve peace and ensure the security of all peoples. Israel's crim- inal act of aggression against the Iraqi nuclear research centre is but another link in the long chain of Israeli at- tacks against its Arab neighbours. Since then, the bomb- ings launched against the capital of the Iraqi Republic have been followed by other acts of aggression by Israel, in particular against cities, villages and refugee camps in Lebanon. The Israeli leaders '')ntinue to threaten to use military force against sovereigd States. 11. The German Democratic Republic, like the majority of other States; very firmly condemned this new act of piracy by Israel. That aggression is a very gross violation of the sovereignty and territorial inviolability of the Iraqi Republic. It shows cynical disregard of the norms and principles of international law and of the Charter of the United Nations. It is common knowledge that Israel can only pursue its policy of aggression and··occupation in the Middle East thanks to the broad political and military support being provided to it, in particular by the United States of America. The German Democratic Republic, like many other States, wishes therefore to draw attention to the responsibility of these imperialists for the act of aggression committed by Israel. 12. There are full grounds for emphasizing the direct link between the escalation of Israel's aggressive policy and the military actions of the United States in the region, for example the large-scale manoeuvres by the so-called rapid deployment force of the United States. There is therefore a firm basis for the fear that the principal effect of the recently announced so-called new strategic alliance between Israel and Washington will be to encourage those in the ruling circles of Israel to continue to expand their policy of aggression, creating a new threat to the indepen- dence and sovereignty of Arab States and, indeed, to the stability of the region. 13. Moreover, in the light of recent statements from Washington concerning first nuclear strikes and nuclear demonstrations, the question must arise as to whether Is- rael did not act, in respect to the Republic of Iraq, in the spirit of the imperialist doctrine that the Pentagon and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] would propose to apply in Europe and other regions of the world using nuclear weapons. History has already shown us the cata- strophic consequences of the theory and practice of so- called preventive strikes and preventive wars. Today, with the possible use of nuclear weapons, the application of 14. One of the most noble objectives of the United Nations is to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and to free mankind from the ever-present threat of ther- monuclear catastrophe. The regime of the non-prolifera- tion of nuclear weapons serves that end, and its basis is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Israel's attack on peaceful nuclear installations is a direct attack on that regime. Whereas more than lOO State~, in- cluding Iraq and Israel's direct Arab neighbours, have ac- ceded to that Treaty, Israel has to date refused to become a party to it. Although all nuclear installations in the ter- ritories of the Arab States in the Middle East are monitored by IAEA, most of the corresponding installa- tions in Israel are not subject to that monitoring. Accord- ingly, States and peoples are watching Israel's activities in the nuclear field with justified suspicion. It is well known that from the 1950s to the present, Israel has been mak- ing considerable efforts in various sensitive areas of nu- clear technology. The Group of Experts to Prepare a Study on Israeli Nuclear Armament also arrived at the conclusion that "Israel, if it has not already crossed that threshold, has the capability to manufacture nuclear weap- ons within a very short time". [See A/36/431, annex, para. 82.] 15. It is characteristic of Israel's position that on the one hand it refuses to provide any data about its nuclear pro- gramme while at the same time its Government deliber- ately gives ambiguous answers to any questions relating to Israel's nuclear activities in the military sphere, and on the other hand that Government, using military means, tries to arrogate to itself the decision as to which State can use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and in what circumstances. The German Democratic Republic con- demns that policy and would recall that States have a right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. My delegation therefore strongly advocates strict compliance with the non-proliferation regime. Because Israel's aggres- sive policy is a serious threat to the vital interests of all peace-loving States it is es¥sential that the United Nations give a strong response to Israel. The delegation of the German Democratic Republic reaffirms its position as set forth in the Security Council in June of this yearl to the effect that Israel's military attack on Iraq's nuclear in- stallations must be strongly condemned as an act of ag- gression in clear violation of the norms of international conduct. It is essential to recognize clearly Iraq's right to compensation for the damage done. 16. Israel's aggressive policy and the deterioration in the overall situation in the Middle East, and the resumption of debates on this matter in the United Nations, once again emphasize the need to reach a comprehensive politi- I cal settlement of the Middle East conflict. Recent events . confirm once again that such a settlement is possible only on the basis of Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab ter- ritories which it occupied in 1967, and on the basis of the implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to ,return home, to exercise self-determination and to establish their own independent State. Accordingly, the proposal to convene to that end an internatip . ~1 peace conference on the Middle East \Vith the partL.pation of all the parties concerned, including

As the General Assembly is aware, this subject was de- bated at length last June in the Security Council, where matters alleged to be a threat to peace and security are properly brought. The Security Council at that time was able to arrive at the satisfactory conclusion of a unan- imous vote which took into account all the relevant as- pects of the attack on Tamuz. 19. My Government believes that no useful purpose is served by continuing the debate here today. The matter has already been dealt with in a constructive fashion in t~e Security Council. All members of the Security Coun- cIl supported that procedure for dealing with this subject. In our -view, action by the General Assembly on this topic-coming as it does on the heels of Israel's condem- nation yesterday-does not contribute to the cause of peace in the Middle East. On the contrary, the conten- tious, unbalanced draft resolution before this body can only complicate the search for peace in the Middle East. 20. The present draft resolution departs in important ways from resolution 487 (1981) adopted unanimously by the Security Council. The draft resolution before the As- sembly speaks unwarrantedly of Israel's "aggression", a legal term scrupulously avoided by the Security Council. Such a characterization raises troublesome legal questions and prejudges thoughtful deliberation and a judicious out- come. The United States Government objects strenuously to the use of that term and insists that such actions must be viewed in their total context, which includes Iraq's re- fusal to accept the international consensus formulated in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and its refusal to make peace with Israel. 21. - This debate, which has been engendered by the in- troduction of this provocatively worded item, diverts our attention from what should be the focus of United Nations efforts-namely, the pursuit of peace and security in the Middle East. Two States in the region, with encourage- ment and appropriate participation of my country, have worked for the last several years in a practical way to- wards a comprehensive settlement of disputes which have plagued the area for decades.. Critics feel that the Camp David process is painfully slow and doomed ultimately to failure. They seek instead an instant solution in one huge leap, wilfully disregarding the obstacles and pitfalls which have undermined previous peace efforts. To them I would point out that the enormous progress that has been made to date between Israel and Egypt-progress that has met the legitimate security needs of each country-has opened the way towards normal commercial and diplo- matic relations and constitutes the only realistic prospect of achieving a lasting peace and a just resolution of the Palestinian problem. 22. We are now being asked to consider questions that are both irrelevant to this debate and a hindrance to the stated goal of regional peace. The United States, for in- stance, is asked to cease its arms and other relationships with Israel. The United States friendship with Israel is a constant and an enduring fact of our foreign policy. It springs from traditions and values shared by the citizens of both countries. It will not be altered by occasional dif- ferences over actions taken by one nation or another. 24. A similar attempt at distraction from the goal of re- gional peace is the call for the Security Council to inves- tigate Israel's nuclear activities. We oppose any such effort to engage the Security Council in an unbalanced, politically motivated activity. In this connection, however, I should like to point out that my delegation has sup- ported resolutions adopted by the General Assembly pro- posing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. We support this goal as a way of addressing the.issue of nuclear arms in that region. 25. Finally, I must also object strenuously, and as a matter of principle, to the call for enforcement action in paragraph 5 of the draft resolution. This would only ag- gravate tensions at a time when the United Nations should be doing its utmost to reduce tensions and defuse poten- tial causes of conflict. 26. It is for the foregoing reasons, therefore, that my delegation will vote against the draft resolution before the Assembly.

Before making my com- ments on the agenda item under consideration, I should like to extend a warm welcome to the delegation of Anti- gua and Barbuda. Its membership in the Organization is yet further proof of the validity and success of the United Nations concept of peaceful decolonization. Austria looks forward to close and satisfactory co-operation with the new Member State. 28. The military attack which Israel carried out against the nuclear installations in Tamuz in June this year, which resulted in the complete destruction of the nuclear reactor, has been discussed extensively in the Security Council as well as in IAEA. Security Council resolution 487 (1981), which was adopted unanimously, in our opinion presents a correct and firm position on that unprecedented act, tak- ing into account all its facets, and Austria fully subscribes to cthat decision. In view of the consequences and far- reaching implications of that armed attack, Austria regards it as justified that at this session the General Assembly also should pronounce itself on that incident and reiterate the strong condemnation of it by the Security Coun.cil. 29. The event itself has to be regarded from different angles. First, it added another serious dimension to the already complex situation in the Middle East. The long preoccupation of the United Nations with the Middle East cOllflict has resulted in the definition of the approximate terms of a viable comprehensive settl~ment. Foremost among those terms, we are convinced, is that it will have to be a peaceful solution and that the renunciation of vio- lence and the use of force is the essential prerequisite for any progress in the search for a solution. The attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor has once again reinforced this conviction .and put additional emphasis on the urgent need for such a solution to be achieved. 30. Secondly, in defending in the Security Council as well as in other forums its decision to de~troy the Iraqi nuclear installations in Tamuz by military means, Israel 31 . As the third aspect I wish to address the grave im- plications of this event for the international system of nu- clear safeguards, and thus for the very basis of IAEA. The Director General of the Agency clearly identified that point when he addressed the Board of Governors of IAEA. He said:· "The Agency has inspeefed the Iraqi reactor and has not found evidence of any activity not in accordance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. A Non-Proliferation Treaty country has evidently not felt assured by our findings and about our ability to conttnue to discharge our safeguarding responsibilities effectively. . . . One can only conclude that it is the Agency's safeguards regime which has also been attacked. Where will this lead ip the future? This is a matter of grave concern 'which should be pondered well." 32. This is indeed a "cry valid point and we share the view of the Director Genetal that the Agency's safeguards system is a basic element of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and that the Israeli attack amounts to an attack on the IAEA's safeguards regime. We also maintain that, if a State has well-founded arguments against the efficacy of the safeguards system, this can be pursued through exist- ing legitimate ways and means within IAEA. We cannot accept that a Member State that is not party to the Non- Proliferation Treaty and has not opened its own nuclear installations to inspection can assume the role of a judge over a system on which the international community re- lies in as sensitive an area as nuclear energy, and as a consequence resort to the use of force against nuclear in- stallations of another State. 33. We are considering an issue on which the interna- tional community has pronounced itself unequivocally and indeed with one voice. In vie'Y of the gr~ity and the serious implications of the problem I deem it essential that the General Assembly retain this spirit of unanimity. Security Council resolution 487 (1981) deals with all the various aspects of the Israeli attack and contains decisions to which we can all subscribe. I trust that the General Assembly will bear this in mind when it takes its own decision on this matter. 35. Following a lengthy debate in which many Foreign Ministers participated, including the Foreign Minister of my country speaking on behalf of the Arab countries2 snd calling on the Security Council to speak for justice and right, the Council adopted unanimously, on 19 June, reso- lution 487 (1981), which clearly condemned the action against the independent sovereign State of Iraq. 36. During the debate in the Security Council Tunisia's position was dictated by its international responsibilities and conformed to the provisions of the Charter and the principles of law, and today, even though it means repeat- ing myself, I reiterate very strong condemnation of such irresponsible actions, which are clearly part of an overall plan, with extremely dangerous implications, which shows that there are serious designs on the entire Middle East region, either in the near future or over the longer term. 37. The very serious consequences, and far-reaching di- mensions of this matter, Israel's consistent refusal to obey the injunctions of the Security Council and its arrogant defiance of world public opinion mean that the General Assembly is justified in dealing with this matter and tak- ing the necessary decisions. \\-'hat is at stake is the crf.:d- ibility of the Organization, its capacity to defend its Member States when they are subjected to armed aggres- sion and its ability to act effectively against the aggressor and to ensure that international legality is respected. 38. I shall not dwell on the fallacious arguments and false pretexts invoked by Israel to try to justify the un- justifiable. Just how futile they are has been demonstrated most clearly by lAEA. But"'we must consider the implica- tions of this most evil deed carried out by the leaders in Tel Aviv and its negative consequences for the validity and value of the international juridical instruments that should govern inter-State relations. 39. Would it not mean opening up the path to complete anarch}', would it not tend to legalize aggression if we were even partially to accept the unacceptable assertion based on the principle of preventive attack, an idea so dear to Israel and so often applied by it in Lebanon and elsewhere? What country could feel safe if force and hegemonism were to become the law, a law that any powerful country could invoke for its own purposes on •the basis of a unilateral evaluation that there existed some .supposed danger to its own security? What kind of se- curity is it if a country constantly practises a policy of domination, terrorizes the region on a daily basis, ele- vates international terrorism to a State practice and tram- ples underfoot the most fundamental norms of justice and law? 40. Can we in any way accept as justification the idea of legitimate self-defence in the context of Article 51 of 41. That "preventive action" was directed against whom and against what? The target was the completely peaceful Iraqi nuclear installations. Their peaceful nature has been attested to by the Director General of IAEA, and it was also recognized in the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of that Agency on 12 June last. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has been signed and ratified by more than 100 States. It has been universally recognized as an extremely effective instru- ment for encouragement of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy for the purposes of scientific progress and eco- nomic development. The effectiveness of the safeguards system in ensuring that States parties comply with the Treaty and its objectives has never been challenged. Iraq has ratified that Treaty; it has fully subscribed to the safe- guards system of the Agency and has always opened its installations for international inspection. Those inspec- tions and what the Director General of the Agency has said refute Israel's arguments in an extremely effective and cutting manner, for it is clear that Iraq has fully dis- charged its obligations under the terms of the Treaty and the safeguards system. But what about Israel? Why does it refuse to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty? Why does it refuse any inspection of international supervision? 42. Is there any need for me to repeat here what every- body already knows-that for some time now Israel has possessed nuclear weapons? Have not many statements by Israeli generals confirmed that? Is there any need now to remind the Assembly of the clandestine and illegal means used to obtain the raw materials necessary for the devel- opment of such weapons? Is there any need to recall the frequent attempts made-some of them even within the territories of other States-to prevent Irq from develop- ing nuclear technology? 43. Israel's bellicose initiative was nO! an isolated ac- tion. It was designed purely and simply to slow down the struggle against underdevelopment, to undermine the pa- tient work being done by Iraq, and indeed by the Arab and Moslem world, to master the new scientific and tech- nical methods and to move towards progress, which re- mains the most profoundly felt and legitimate aspiration of the developing countries. Apparently the economic and scientific development of the Arab world does not accord with the Israeli Governmenfs strategy, which is based ex- clusively on the criteria of superiority, domination and ex- pansion. Otherwise, why has it adopted the role of po- liceman of the region? 44. It had two possible courses of action: ,to accept the Arab world as it is, independent and responsible and con- cerned with its well-being and development, or to try to keep the Arab world in a state of cultural and scientific underdevelopment despite its geo-strategic importance. Apparently Israel had to choose the second course of ac- tion. Moreover, the question that is now before us is but the culmination of the escalation of breaches of interna- tional law, which have frequently been described in the General Assembly and the Security Council. They include the annexation of territory by force, continuing iHegal oc- cupation of that territory, the denial of the inalienable na- 46. We did not request the inclusion of this item in the agenda of HIe General Assembly for the purpose of sterile diatribes, although the representative of Israel has accused us of this. It is clear that th;:; despicable action- by Israel goes beyond Iraq itself or the countries of the region. It is something that has to be contained and reduced by the collective efforts of the international community. This is the true significance of having recourse to the United Nations and why the General Assembly must play a de- cisive role. It must draw from the Charter the lessons and the actions that are necessary in order that law and justice may prevail and to ensure the security of an. 47. The draft resolution now before us, of which Tunisia is a sponsor, is in keeping with the requ~rements of the situation created by the Israeli attack on 'Che peaceful nu- clear installations of Iraq. 48. To vote for it is to vote for law and international legality; it is to vote for the credibility of the Organiza- tion and for the international system set up to safeguard the uses of nuclear energy.

Before beginning my statement I should like to congratulate the delegation of Antigua and Bar- buda on its admission to the United Nations. r:/) The decision to include the item now before us in the agenda of the Assembly was made at the request of a number of countries of the third world. It is of fundamen- tal importance that this item should be on the agenda of the General Assembly, not just because of the seriousness of the act of armed aggression committed by Israel on 7 June 1981, but also because resolution 487 (1981), adopted unanimously by the Security Council, asked Is- rael, which had committed the act of aggression against the peaceful Iraqi nuclear installations, to submit its own nuclear installations to the safeguards system of IAEA, as Iraq had done with its installations which had fallen vic- tim to the Israeli act of aggression. 51. The Security Council also declared that Iraq was en- titled to compensation for the damage caused by the Is- raeli act of aggression against the peaceful Iraqi installa- tions. It seems that the fate of that resolution, which was adopted unanimously, has been the sarr:e as that of numer- ous other resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly regarding the problem of. Palestine, the siwation in the Middle East, and so on, in the course of the past 33 years. No Israeli mitiative indicates that Israel has ~omplied with the resolution. 52. We all know here in this international community, and this includes the major Powers and the countries that support or submit to Israel, that the Zionist entity recog- nizes neither legitimacy nor law and that it acts only to 53. The Israeli act of aggression against the Iraqi nu- clear installation was an act of piracy, not unlike other acts by Israel against the Palestinian people-acts com- mitted since 19~8, in what remains of Palestine since 1948, and in Arab and Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967. The fallacious arguments of Israel have revealed the nature of the Zionist entity and the danger posed by that entity in the Middle East in the near and distant future. Perhaps some countries felt that the Israeli strike force could improve their intere",ts in the region. Were they perhaps forgetting that the only danger to their interests, if there were any danger, would be that caused by Israeli acts of aggression, the injustice suffered by the Palestinian people, the unlimited support given to Israel by certain Powers and the grave consequences of all this on Arab peoples throughout the Arab world? 54. Israel knows full well, as the entire world knows, that the Iraqi nuclear reactor did not constitute any dan- ger, but was simply a laboratory, a nuclear research centre for peaceful purposes. It is the right of any country to possess such facilities. That nuclear reactor was installed in a very open way and all the information on it was dear. Iraq was one of the first countries to sign the Non- Proliferation Treaty, which entered into force in 1970. hug atso signed an agreement with IAEA in 1972 to ap- ply the safeguards system under that Treaty. 55. In other words, there was no evidence whatsoever of Iraq's h2ving violated any safeguards mentioned in the Treaty. On the contrary, there was conclusive and irrefuta- ble evidence that the Iraqi nuclear reactor had been in- stalled for peaceful purposes, for development purposes exclusively. Mr. Eklund, the Director General of IAEA, affirmed that the Agency had inspected the reactor and had found no sign of any activity in violation of the Non- Proliferation Treaty. 56. Who committed that flagrant act of aggression against the Iraqi installations, thus violating the provisions of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, en- dangering the peace and security of a Member of the United Nations and thus threatening peace and security throughout the world? Who committed such an act of ag- gression? It is a State which is unique in its criminal acts and its violations of international law, the Charter and res- olutions of the Security Council and the General Assem- bly. It is the State that many years ago established a great number of nuclear reactors, that did not ratify the Non- Proliferation Treaty, that has concluded no agreement with IAEA and that has always refused. to permit inspection of its nuclear installations-'even refuse,d its United States friends and allies. It is the very entity that set up the Jewish State in Palestine and conspired with the Western world; especially the United States, to steal hundreds ('f 57. The time has come for the international community to put an end to these actions of the Zionist entity. The United Nations and in particular the Security Council have the authority to implement their resolutions. The Se- curity Council unanimously adopted resolution 487 (1981), concerning the act of aggression against the Iraqi reactor. Therefore the Council is in duty bound to adopt another resolution to ensure the implementation of para- graphs 5 and 6 of resolution 487 (1981). 58. Israel has made the claim of self-defence. However, Iraq and the other Arab peoples are the peoples that need to have their self-defence guaranteed. Israel has proved that it is the only country that does not take account of the Charter, that does no, comply with international law, that acts irresponsibly, not only towards its enemies but also towards its friends that have been giving it support for some 33 years and continue to do so. 59. The fact that Israel continues to act in this arrogant way can only intensify the already explosive situation in the Middle East. Does this worry Israel? No, it welcomes the situation, because this gives it an opportunity for new conquests. However,' we still have faith in the United Nations. We have faith in the will of the international community to protect the Organization and to avoid any deterioration of the situation. We appeal to the General Assembly to adopt a resolution requesting the Security Council to take every necessary measure to ensure strict implementation of resolution 487 (1981) and to see to it that United Nations resolutions are taken seriously. The implementation of these resolutions is necessary if an end is to be put to the constant defiance and actions of Israel and if peace and security are to be established in the Mid- dle East and throughout the world in keeping with the Charter and international law. 60. The fact that Israel is concealing its own nuclear research, its acquisition of uranium and its production of nuclear weapons sows fear throughout the Middle East and other parts of the world. Israel's confidence that other countries too cannot carry out nuclear research certainly I does not allay the fears of those countries. We are certain . that the international community is aware that the force of arms cannot suffice to destroy the legitimate rights of peoples and that the will of peoples to recover their rights, regardless of how long it may take, will enable those peoples to triumph. 61. Israel's act of aggression against the Iraqi nuclear reactor constitutes a military act under international law. If that act had been committed against a major Power, it

The General Assembly is now considering the situation resulting from the attack carried out on 7 June by Israeli aircraft on the Iraqi nuclear installations near Baghdad. This caused material damage and took the lives of civilians. As will be recalled, the leaders of !srael offi- cially claimed responsibility for that attack. 63. The people of Bulgaria and the world public at large immediately reacted to that criminal act of terrorism with deep indignation. My Government's position on the Israeli attack was expressed clearly during the consideration of the situation in the Security Council. In our view, it con- stitutes a flagrant violation of the Charter and interna- tional law and it further exacerbates the already tense sit- uation in the Middle East. It con~titutes open and premeditated aggression capable of shaking the very foun- dations of the system of international relations and it makes the aggressor internationally liable under the Char- ter. It is an example of state terrorism which once again confmns Israel's aggressive intentions. It is an act that seriously jeopardizes peaceful nuclear co-operation among States within the context of an international system for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. 64. The Israeli attack can be understood only within the context of the policy pursued by Israel and its protectors in the Middle East. It is a logical result of the strategy which, through separate negotiations, seeks to divide the united front of the Arab States and peoples. That is pre- cisely the purpose of the Camp David agreements, which give those in the most extremist circles of Tel Aviv a free hand selectively to attack Arab States. Israel's actions against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, against Lebanon and now against Iraq are irrefutable proof of that strategy. 65. Israel, seeking to justify its aggression here in this Hall and in the Security Council, has advanced ridiculous arguments drawn from an imaginary nuclear threat. The overwhelming majority of States and the world public have categorically rejected those arguments, primarily be- cause they have been contradicted by the facts. Moreover, to accept Israel's arguments would be tantamount to giv- ing a green light to preventive war and would mean that international law would be replaced by the law of the jun- gle. 66. The consideration of item 14 on the annual report of IAEA, at the 50th to 52nd meetings clearly demonstrated the importance that Member States attach to peaceful nu- clear co-operation. In the promotion of that co-operatioQ the most important role belongs to the non-proliferation regime and the safeguards system of the Agency. As Mr. Eklund, Director General of the Agency, has confirmed, the Agency inspected the Iraqi reactors and found no evi- 67. In these conditions it is difficult to pass over in si- lence the role and responsibility of those who support Is- rael. The fact that Israel has been condemned in words and that its main protector, the United States, delayed for some time the delivery of new offensive weapons changes nothing. It was because of United States protection that the Security Council did not adopt effective measures to prevent the repetition of such acts of aggression in future. 68. Many conclusions could be drawn from this debate. In the view of my delegation there is one conclusion that is particularly convincing: the policy designed to divide the Arab world by separate agreemer.ts cannot lead to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East but is simply playing into the hands of Israel and its expansionist de- signs. The only path to peace is by way of an overall settlement of the problems, with the participation of all the interested parties, including the PLO. This settlement could be arrived at within the context of an international conference specially convened for the purpose. We sin- cerely hope that all interested parties will take that path. 69, Mr. CHOUEIRI (Lebanon) (interpretation from French): On 7 June last, by a premeditated and unjustifia- ble act, Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear research installa- tions. The peace and security of the world were thus en- dangered and the principles of the Charter and the norms of international conduct were violated. The seriousness of that act of aggression has escaped no one. The entire in- ternational community has strongly criticized it. The Se- curity Council and the Board of Governors of IAEA have expressed the firmest condemnations and set forth meas- ures to be taken. 70. There can be no doubt that this was a dangerous act fraught with grave consequences, in a region where the situation is already explosive, and that it was a flagrant violation of international law. 71. Exactly what was at issue? Allow me to recall the obj~tive of IAEA, which is to enhance the contribution of atomic energy to peace and prosperity throughout the world. To that end the A!;~ncy has, inter alia, established a safeguards system, which is a fundamental element of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.· That safeguards system is the result of close intematior.al co-operation and it is con- stantly re-examined and improved by competent experts. It involves inspections the modalities of which are adapted to each research installation supject to the sys- tem. Methods of diversion tonon~peaceful pUIpOses are known and detection methods have been developed and are applied at each inspection. 72. Iraq's nuclear research installations were no secret. Their activities had been regularly inspected by IAEA un- der the safeguards agreement signed between the Agency and Iraq when that country became a party to the Non- Proliferation Treaty, on the date it entered into force in 1970. The most recent inspections at Tamuz took place in January of this year and were completely satisfactory. 74. It seems to' t;lOse of us who want to place the ques- tion of the Middle East in its historical context that Israel has at present two options: either to accept the Arab world as it b and as it will become-more prosperous and fully developed-or to try to keep that Arab worid in a state of colonial dependence and cultural underdevelop- ment, despite its wealth and geo-strategic importance. 75. The odious attack against Baghdad on Sunday, 7 June, revealed Israel's choice. In order to preserve the myth of its security, Israel must ensure its unquestionable superiority and its unassailable right to poHce 20 coun- tries at the crossroads of history and the world. The prob- lem is inseparable from that of the security of the region at a time when efforts are under way to eliminate the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The attack, in our view, represents an obstacle to those efforts and may frustrate hopes for peace. 76. We are all gathered here to demonstrate our confi- dence in the United Nations. We of the Arab world be- lieve that peace can be achieved only through dialogue within this international framework and by the use of force to defend the Charter and the rights of nations. In this connection, there can be no security without respon- sibility and without applying the coercive measures of in- ternationallaw. Therefore, above and beyond the measures provided by the Charter, we should "seek, in a practical fashion, ways and means of submitting Israel's nuclear superiority to the requirements of international bodies.

The Soviet delega- tion supported the initiative of a large group of Arab and other non-aligned countries on the inclusion in the agenda of this session of the General Assembly of an item on armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installa- tions and its grave consequences in a number of areas. There was, indeed, every reason to include this item. 78. First, the matter of Israel's aggressive acts against the Arab peoples in general has constantly been brought ~.;:fore the Security Council, where one fifth of the total number of meetings have been devoted to that problem, and on the agendas of other organs of the United Nations as well. Israel's continuing occupation of Arab lands and its other hostile acts against Arabs have frequently been condemned. Israel's criminal act against Iraq was another flagrant violation of international norms and a serious dis- turbance of the peace in the Middle East. These action~ by Israel, as is well known, have been unanimously con- demned by the Security Council and by IAEA. 79. The particular danger of this Israeli raid-and, in- deed, of the one undertaken by Israel following it, the barbaric bombing of Beirut-consists in the following. It represents a new and insolent phase in Israel's policy of international terrorism against Arab States; it is an att~mpt to strengthen the criminal practice of so-r.alled preventive 80. Secondly, the consequences of Israel's act of piracy go beyond the scope of relations between States of the Middle East. This bombing was an attempt to damage the whole system of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, IAEA and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the safeguards system relating to it. It is important to note that during the IAEA's consideration of the item on Israel's armed attack against the Iraqi nu- clear installations not a single delegation questioned the Agency's safeguards system. 81 . The Soviet delegation wishes once again to ~xpress its support for the IAEA safeguards system as an impor- tant instrument in the international regime for the non- proliferation of nuclear weapons. This system makes pos- sible the peaceful use of nuclear energy in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. The Soviet Union is a consis- tent advocate and supporter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and considers it an effective instrument for ensur- ing the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons on this planet. The Soviet Union advocates adherence to the Treaty by all countries in the Middle East region and by other countries that have not yet signed it. 82. Thirdly, it is wen known that Israel, despite frequent appeals from the international community, has refused to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The question of Israel's nucle~r ambit;,~Ji1s ailJ of its co-operation with the Pretoria racist regime in the production of nuclear weapons has, for some years now, been discussed in the United Nations. The General As- sembly has strongly condemned Israel's attempts to create, acquire and stockpile nuclear weapons and has called on Israel to submit all its nuclear installations to IAEA inspection anJ safeguards. has -' J called on the Security Council to take the neceiS~ary steps to ensure im- plementation of the relevant resolution'} on the question of Israel's nuclear weapons. Israel's refusal to comply with United Nations decisions is eloquent proof of the fact that its real objective is to establish its own nuclear domina- tion in the Middle East. One can well im3gine the conse- quences if such adventurist plans are not stopped. 83. Fourthly, in talking about Israeli aggression we can- not pass over in silence the role of those who stand be- hind Israel. Begin's Government would not be bold enough to challenge the entire international community were it not convinced of Washington's actual encourage- ment of its adventuristic and expansionist policies. Facts are facts. The bombing of the nuclear research centre near Baghdad was carried out using the newest American mili- tary technology. The United States Government states that the weapons it provided to Israel could be used solely for defensive purposes, but the bombing nevertheless took place. The basic:. of comprehensive and close American- Israeli co-operaton is clearlyothe aspiration of t3e United States to use ISlael as an instrument for its imperialistic policy in the Middle East. This was confirmed by the proclamation of strategic co-operation between, Wash- ington and Tel Aviv. 85. Mr. M'RANI ZENTAR (Morocco) (interpretation from French): I should like first of all to perform the very agreeable duty of greeting here among us for the first time the delegation of Antigua and Barbuda, now a full- fledged Member of the United Nations. I take this oppor- tunity to wish it every success in its efforts, which will certainly be very positive and will strengthen the ac- tivities of the United Nations. 86. During the debates in the Security Council in June, the inadmissible circumstances of the Israeli attack against Iraq's peaceful nuclear installation at Tamuz were made known to a shocked international community, and we also received clear-cut evidence of the excessive and unjustifia- ble nature of that act of aggression and its violation of international institutions that threatens to upset the entire system painstakingly established for the control and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 87. Israel had unilaterally claimed the right to pass final judgement on the technical characteristics of the Osirak installations, &Ithough they had been constructed with the collaboration of foreign Powers whose devotion to interna- tional peace and security was totally reliable, and al- though they were being periodically checked by interna- tional agencies with competence in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. 88. Iraq is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Pro- liferation of Nuclear Weapons, a country committed to the principles and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, a country that regularly and strictly submits to the inspections provided for under the international agree- ment. 89. We heard and were pleased to note the factual evi- dence submitted by the French authorities with regard to the characteristics, capabilities and objectives of the Os- irak reactor installations, as we were to learn that it would be a near impossibility technically to transform that reac- tor, which was in the process of construction, into a pro- ducer of atomic bombs-an act which would, moreover, have been a costly absurdity for a developing country confronted, as are many of us, with urgent needs in the economic and social spheres. W. We also noted with real concern that that aggression against a signatory country of the Treaty on the Non-Pro- liferation of Nuclear Weapons constituted a threat to the entire international system established for the control of nuclear weapons based on voluntary adherence to controls and rules that have proved their usefulness and effective- ness. 91. In attempting to justify its act of aggression against the economic installation of a sovereign State, Israel pro- duced nothing but accusations that were immediately dis- proved by responsible international agencies along with its familiar litany of shady plots being fomented in the darkness to bring about Israel's total destruction. 93. It is impossible to separate such constant aggressive Israeli conduct against its Arab neighbours from its con- tinuous refusal to acknowledge the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to create a State on its national ter- ritory. These are major obstacles to the final restoration of peace in the Middle East, obstacles for which Israel bears the responsibility. 94. Israel's attack on the Iraqi atomic installations is an unjustifiable act concerning which His Majesty Hassan Il, in his message to President Saddam Hussein, stated "This act evidences open defianc~ of all international rules, of all the values of civilization and of the moral principles of mankind and constitutes an attempt to scuttle the sincere efforts being made to establish peace and security in the Middle East". 95. The first consequence of that criminal act, that act of constant defiance should be the immediate and unre- served suspension of all assistance, particularly military assistance, to Israel in order to remove the means under- lying its arrogance, the means through which it perpetu- ates its aggressive system. The Israeli nuclear pro- gramme, which is developing outside international control and which benefits from such support as that of South Africa, constitutes the true mortal danger to the entire region and should therefore be the subject of a very thor- ough international investigation. Not only should that Is- raeli aggression be condemned on principle and for its consequences, but there should be equitable compensation to Iraq, whose legitimate interests, protected by interna- tional law, were unjustly attacked. 96. On this occasion the General Assembly must also reaffirm the right of all countries freely to develop all the nuclear technology they need with a view to peaceful pro- grammes and economic development and with respect for international law concerning the protection of our entire community from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. 97. As an unexpected consequence of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear installations at Tamuz, the majority of peace-loving Members of the United Nations were made aware of their fundamental rights to free access to modem technology, with respect for international law and free of diktats and other external threats based on exclusi- vist interests and on a desire for domination. Together with the condemnation of Israeli aggression, all smaII countries that cherish freedom would like to obtain here clear confi::mation of their inalienable rights of access to technology, the only guarantee of their development and their progress.

Since yesterday morning the Assembly has been discussing a new item on the agenda of its tftirty-sixth session entitled "Arnled Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear instaIIations and its grave consequences for the establish~d international system concerning the peace- ful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security". 99. At first glance it seems that a new element has now been added to the old, chronic elements that have contrib- 100. While Security Council resolution 487 (1981), adopted unanimously in June 1981, strongly condemned this armed action, describing it as a "clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of inter- national conduct", the discussions in the Security Council in June, in which many countries, including Egypt, par- ticipated, reflected ~o a large extent the widespread reac- tion among the international community, which con- demned that violation. I shall not speak of this widespread reaction here,whether among the world pub- lic or in the international community as a whole. I shall simply quote one paragraph from an editorial that ap- peared in The New York Times of 9 June-that is, two days after the aggression was committed. It points out the consequences of the Israeli action not only for peace and security in the region and in the world but also for Israel itself. "Israel's ever-widening definition of self-defence is illusory. It is bound to unify a challenged Arab world. It keeps eroding the support of Israel's fastest friends. Such conduct argues that Israeli behaviour is irrelevant to Middle East events. It argues for unrelenting attack in pursuit of an unsustainable superiority. It argues for a policy that will make it impossible to augment Is- rael's formidable defences with diplomacy. Israel risks becoming its own worst enemy."* 101. The Egyptian delegation, in the discussions in the Security Council on 15 June 1981,3 made the same as- sessn:tent as many other delegations; our delegation gave the position of the Egyptian Government and people in the statement by the Egyptian Government.4 It condemned this irresponsible act of aggression, which is contrary to the requirements of peace and the responsibilities incum- bent upon every State in contributing ~a the establishment of the proper atmosphere for the crea:iol1 of confidence and goodwill. 102. This aggression caused reactions throughout the civilized world and by all peace-loving peoples. There were some that interpreted the aggression as self-defence and this premeditated attack as prevent:ve or pre-emptive action, and others that questioned the effectiveness of the safeguards system of IAEA. There is no doubt that it was an attack not only on peaceful nuclear installations but also on the right of all countries to independent develop- ment and progress, by attempting to establish a nuclear monopoly and preventing other States in the region mak- ing progress in the field of science and technology in the! service of peace and the well-being of peoples. ID3. I shall confine my remarks here to another ques- tion from an American source, one that can hardly be suspected of being against Israel or prejudiced against it. Mr. Philip Klutznik, the former Secretary of Labor and former Chairman of the World Jew:~h Congress, said the 104. The use of pre-emptive strikes, claiming self-de- fence, has resulted only in retrogression. Moreover, Is- rael's security will not be achieved by one pre-emptive strike or even dozens of them; and Iraq and other Arab countries will not be destroyed even if their reactors and nuclear facilities are destroyed. Chaos, instability and the desire for revenge will remain the order of the day in the Middle East area. 105. After the lengthy discussions last June, there is no need for me to repeat our rejection and condemnation of this aggressive action; indeed, they are shared by the in- ternational community without exception. Neither is there any.need for me to repeat what I had the honour to state on behalf of the Egyptian delegation in the Security Council on 15 June 1981; it affirmed our standing posi- tion of principle in regard to a matter of principle tran- scending any dispute or passing crisis between Egypt and its Arab brothers. Such disputes and crises will certainly pass. I should like to quote one paragraph from the state- ment made by the Egyptian delegation last Jllne: ". . . Egypt has been affected by this act of ag- gression as much as all Arab countries and peoples have been. Egypt has been and will continue to be an organic part and parcel of the Arab nation. Our history is one, our present aspirations and ordeals are one, and our common destiny is and always will be one. Not one person, Government or country should be under the illusion that Egypt's national interests differ from those of the Arab peoples-and I say that loud and clear. They are one and the same. Egypt, as it has done in war, will fulfil in peace all its historical tasks in safeguarding and enhancing the legitimate interests and aspirations of the Arab people."3 106. I would not be exaggerating if I were to say that the armed Israeli attack against the Iraqi nuclear installa- tion has consequences not only for the existing interna- tional system for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy or the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security; they go far beyond that. Perhaps the most important casualty of the Israeli attack was not Iraq's nuclear reactor-which Iraq will restore in reaffirmation of its right to development-but trust, the foundations of which Israel should have striven to strengthen instead of undermining them. What Israel did was not, by whatever standards, an act of sdf-defence, but rather an act of self- destruction-even if only in the long run. It was just one more step back on the path towards a building up of peace and mutual trust. Israel destroyed the peaceful nuclear re- actor in Iraq but it did no~ destroy the will of the Iraqi people nor that of the Arab peoples. It did not shake their .determination to catch up with the advancement of civi- lization and science in order to ensure progress, pros- perity and peace for their peoples. 107. Peace and security in the Middle East can be achieved not by aggression or premeditated or pre-emptive attacks but, rather, by the elimination of the barrier of

At the outset I should like to extend to the delegation of Antigua and Barbuda the warm congratulations of my country on its admission to membership in the United Nations. We hope that its participation in the work of the Organization will contrib- ute to the attainment of the objectives to which we all aspire. 109. Once more the international community is consid- ering a lawless act of far-reaching consequences for inter- national peace and security. Once more the General As- sembly finds itself obliged to consider an act in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of orderly international conduct. As if the repeated attacks from the air and on land on the peaceful hamlets and innocent women and children of Lebanon and Pal- estine were not enough, Israel stunned the whole world on 7 June 1981 by its reckless, unprecedented and pre- meditated air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations for peaceful purposes. By so doing, Israel, which has flouted every resolution relating to it adopted by the competent organs of the Organization, including the Security Coun- cil, chose that day to undermine the Charter, the principle of the non-use of force and thus the very raison d'etre of the Organization. 110. We were told yesterday by Mr. Blum of Israel, with his usual twisted logic, that such an unwarranted act of aggression was justified by the following: ·'In view of the ineffectiveness of existing safeguards with respect to Osirak-type reactors, Israel was clearly faced with a mortal danger. It was and is inconceivable that a country so threatened would entrust its funda- mental security to an inspection procedure which is contractually limited, which is not unconditional or binding ...". [52nd meeting, para. 55.] Ill. Is it not a bizarre kind of irony that a State like Israel, with an assured nuclear arms capability, not sub- ject to bilateral, regional or .int~a~ional superv~sion and inspection, could attempt to Justify Its att~Tk a~amst Iraq, a signatory of and party to the Non-Prohferatlon Treaty, on the grounds that possession of a nuclear research in- stallation by Iraq constituted a threat to Israel's "funda- mental security"? 112. How right was Mr. Otunnu of Uganda when he said on 15 June before the Security Council: "The Israeli argument is a tortuous attempt to force a square peg into a round hole. It amounts to a cynical perversion of the norms of international law . . . United Nations'. Among the stated purposes of the United Nations in Article I of the Charter is the princi- ple of maintaining 'international peace and security' by 'peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law'." 114. The international community as a whole should be concerned about the serious developments of 7 June and the grave consequences for international peace and se- curity, particularly in the Middle East region. It is beyond any doubt that the bizarre Israeli concept of "national se- curity" on which Mr. Blum based his defence of the 7 June attack is so limitless, vague and undefined that any legitimate activity in the region could be conceived and construed by Israel as a potential threat to its "security". Such an ominous development is a clear indication that Israel is dragging the world towards the institutionaliza- tion of State terrorism. ~t is imperative that the interna- tional community see to it that the response to such crim- inal acts by Israel is not confined to mere words of condemnation. It is high time for the General Assembly to address itself to the dangerous reality of the situation in the Middle East. 115. The General Assembly should call upon the Se- curity Council to investigate Israel's nuclear activities and its collaboration with the racist regime of Pretoria for the perpetuation of the unholy alliance of apartheid and zio- nism. The Security Council should also be called upon to institute effective enforcement action to prevent Israel from further endangering international peace and security through its acts of aggression and continued policies of expansion, occupation and annexation. In view of its in- ternational responsibilities for this act of aggression and in order to comply with Security Council resolution 487 (198i), Israel should pay prompt and adequate compensa- tion for the material damage and loss of life suffered as a result" of this act of aggression. 116. The Charter provides for all the necessary effective measures designed to deter and punish such wanton acts of aggression as those perpetrated by Israel. The adoption and application of those measures depends mainly on the will and sense of responsibility of all the Members of the Organization. Only by opting for such a firm course of action will the Member States honour their commitment to the Charter and will the Security Council discharge its primary responsibility of maintaining justice and interna- tional peace and security.