A/37/PV.50 General Assembly

I should like to remind rep- resentatives of the decision taken by the Assembly at the 49th meeting to close the list of speakers on this item at 5 p.m. today. 2. Mr. CONSTANTINOU (Cyprus): This item was included in the agenda of the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly at the request of 43 Member States.! Guided by the strong desire resolutely to oppose the act of aggression perpetrated by Israel on 7 June 1981 against the Iraqi n~clear installations near Baghdad, Cyprus was among those 43 countries. 3. The peace-loving nations could not remain indif- ferent to that totally unjustified, warlike act against a .country ~hose ambition was to develop tech- nological and nuclear programmes for peaceful pur- poses, in accordance with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing the proliferation of ntic!e~.. weapons.. 4. As is well known, the victim of that aggression has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Prolifera- tion of Nuclear Weapons [resolution 2373 (XXIJ), annex] since it came inta force in 1970. During last session's debate, ample evidence was produced, from the most authoritative organ, IAEA, that Iraq had accepted from the beginning the Agency's safeguards on all its nuclear activities and that those safeguards had been satisfactorily applied. It has been widely noted-and is still noted today-that whileIraq adheres to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and accepts IAEA safeguards for all its nuclear activities, Israel does neither. 5. Under the terms of General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, the Israeli Bom- bardment of the installations near Baghdad is an act of aggression, which gives rise to international respon- sibility. This premeditated attack deep in the territory of anoth~r country is therefore a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations. It was on that ground that the Security Council, in resolution 487 (1981) of 19 June 1981, unanimously condemned that blatant aggression and called upon Israel to refrain from such acts or threats. It was' on the same ground t 1! NEW YORK th~t the Assembly t in resolution 36/27, strongly con- demned Israel for its premeditated and unprecedented attack against the Iraqi installations. 6. The Security Council resolution called upon Israel to refrain from such acts or threats. The General Assembly reiterated its request to the Security CouncU to institute effective enforcement action to prevent Israel from further endangering international peace and security through its acts of aggression and con- tinued policies of expansion, occupation and annexa- tion. What was the outcome? The violation of the airspace of Lebanon and the attack on Beirut, fol- lowed by the dramatic events of the massive invasion and occupation of the soutbern part of that country, the continuous bombardment and destruction of its cities and villages, the loss of so many lives, the in- human blockade of Beirut and, most recently t the massacres at Shatila and Sabra. 7. The Security Council and the General Assembly called upon Israel to place its facilities urgently under IAEA safeguards. To this day, we have not noticed any change; Israel continues to refuse to comply with these repeated calls. 8. The Security Council and the General Assembly considered that, in view of Israel's international responsibility for its act, Iraq was entitled to appro- priate and adequate compensation for the destruction it had suffered.. Unfortunately, we have not noticed so .far any measures· taKen by Israel to bring about the appropriate redress. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, this item appears today for the second time on the agenda of the General Assembly. For the same reasons, the General Conference of IAEA, at its twenty-sixth regular ses- sion, decided .by a majority vote on 24 September 1982, not to accept the credentials of Israe1.2 Iraq has.every rigbt and reason to appeal to this Assembly for justice and for opposition to such aggression. The time has come for the international community to put an end to these acts. The United Nations, and in p~rticular the Security Coupcil, must take action to implement the Organization's resolutions and te institute effective enforcement action so as to prevent Israel from further endangering international peace and security. 10. "My Government has already condemned the attacks upon Iraq, the other Arab countries and the Palestinian people. There can be no justification for military intervention, which runs counter to the prin- ciples and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. Cyprus, itself a victim of invasion and occu- pation, is well aware of the.pretexts used and attempts made by the aggressors to justify their actions and mislead the international community. The aims and objectives behind such actions are usually policies of I international will in denouncing the aggression and despite the rejection of the Israeli justifications for it, Israel has repeatedly declared through its Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, that it will destroy any nuclear reactor that Iraq builds on its territory. It has even gone so far as to say that it will destroy any nuclear installations in any Arab country. 25. The whole world well knows that Israel has acquired the capacity to produce atomic bombs, and is aware of the international piracy to which Israel has resorted in order to do so. It also knows of the close nuclear collaboration between Israel and the racist regime in South Africa. But the world will reject Israel's false concept of international principles, sys- tems and laws. The world does not want to revert to the law of the jungle and to the Middle Ages. It will undoubtedly hold Israel alone responsible for the consequences of its actions in resorting to the law of the jungle. 26. Mrs. SlNGH (India): On 7 June 1981, the Osirak atomic reactor near Baghdad was destroyed by Israeli F-16 jet aircraft, adding yet another dark episode to Israel's long history of stark military adventurism and blatant intervention in and aggression against Arab countries. The entire world strongly condemned that act of naked, blatant and unprovoked Israeli aggres- sion against Iraq. The universal condemnation of Israel's action reverberated not only in this Hall, but also in the Security Council, in IAEA and in virtually every forum that has examined the international situation since June 1981. The world saw in the Israeli action a new threat to international peace and security and a new form of international terrorism at the State level, with an unimaginable potential for death and destruction. 27. The Government of India unequivocally con- demned the Israeli action imI1lediately after the attack, and we expressed our concern over the incident during 28. Israel has argued that it chose to destroy the nuclear installation of Iraq because the latter was on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. There has been no evidence whatsoever to support this argu- ment. Iraq has repeatedly declared that its nuclear programme had all along been devoted to the utiliza- tion of nuclear energy for peaceful purr oses. The sovereign right of the developing countries to acquire and develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes should not be denied or thwarted through discrimi- natory practices or policies, and certainly not through such a criminal act of aggression as the one committed by Israel. It was therefore manifestly absurd to allege that the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes by Iraq could constitute a threat to Israel. On the other hand, the whole world knows that it is Israel that has been making systematic efforts towards the acquisition of a nuclear weapons arsenal. 29. Our review of the events following the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear installation on 7 June 1981 should not be diverted by allegations and counter· allegations regarding the observance of obligations of countries under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and related agreements on safe- guards. The gravity of the Israeli crime would not have been any less had Iraq not been a signatory to the Treaty or had the attack Qeen directed against any other industrial plant or installation ofIraq. As the Security Council declared last year, the attack was a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and contrary to the norms of international conduct. .50. An armed attack on a nuclear reactor is different from an attack on any other installation only in terms of the magnitude of the death and destruction that the nuclear fall-out from a destroyed reactor would entail. The Israeli attack should therefore be condemned, first and foremost, as a violation of Iraq's territorial integrity and secondly, as an inhumane act. Our views on issues such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and full-scope safeguards are well known, and our attitude in regard to the references te these issues as they appear in the agenda item in question ~nd in the 37. Israel continues to arrogate to itself the right to be the one and only arbiter in the entire region. Its recent aggression against Lebanon, its genocidal attacks against the Palestinian people, its illegal annexation and occupation of Arab territories, causing the suffering of defenceless civilians-these are un- equivocal proof of the fact that its aggressive policy continues unabated in defiance of the whole inter- national community. 38. It was obvious that Israel had been neither attacked nor threatened by the Iraqi nuclear instal- lations. Israeli aircraft in the skies over Baghdad were an indication of yet another act arising from the policy of force, faits accomplis, occupation and domination practised by Israel against its Arab neighbours. 39. The interpretation given by the Israeli Govern- ment to the effect that the raid on the Iraqi nuclear installations was carried out as an act of self-defence is unacceptable and dangerous. The Charter of the United Nations is precise and unambiguous in explaining the right of self-defence, which may be used "if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations". The Charter cannot be in- terpreted outside this framework and subjected to the needs and interests of the moment. The logic Israel wishes to impose upon the international cOll1munity would lead us to lawlessness and anarchy. Arbitrary interpretations of the right of self-defence cannot be accepted, since that would constitute justification of the use offorce and of the "might is right" policy. 40. The Security Council and the General Assembly have condemned the Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations, but that a~tion has not changed the aggressive policy of Israel. On the con- trary, it has continued that policy, which prevents a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the crisis in the Middle East through the .withdrawal of Israel from all Arab territories occupied in the 1967 war, the solution of the Palestinian problem, the exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable right to self- determination, including the right to their own State, and the establishment of guarantees of equal security for all countries and peoples of the region. 41. The non-aligned Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has not accepted or approved of aggres- sion, interventions, interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States and peoples or the use of force in international relations for whatever reason and under whatever pretext; nor will it do so. The Govern- ment of Israel has shown, by the attack on the Iraqi nuclear installations and by its subsequent aggressive acts, that it believes only in the brutal use of force aimed at spreading the fires of conflict and deepening the crisis in the Middle East. Therefore, everything must be done to arrest Israers continuous encroach- ment upon the sovereignty t territorial integrity t inde- pe~dence and freedom of countries and people'S of the regIOn. th~ United Nations. 57. Mr. ABULHASSAN (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic): This is the second time that the General Assembly has .::'~scussed the armed Israeli aggression agf'...inst the Iraqi nuclear installations. At the last se~.sion, we had an extensive debate on that aggres- sion, its grave repercussions on the established inter- national system concerning the peaceful use of nuclear energy and its implications for international peace and security. The General Assembly adopted resolu- tion 36/27 on this question. The fact that we are now debating this question for a second time is the clearest evidence of Israel's disregard of the resolutions adopted by the United Nations and other internation~l organizations, in the aftermath of that aggression, to "1~~al with its consequences. This fact also reflects the serious consequences of that a:!gression, which continue today and affect not only Iraq but the entire region as well. 58. The Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear instanati\Jns '.vas one link in the chain of its continuous attempts to undermine anything central to the L:Jrogress of the Sta~es in the region. The Iraqi nuclear instal- 60. Ic;:rael is itselfthe real threat to peace and security in the area, whether through its well-known expan- sionist and aggressive policies or through its posses- sion and development of nuclear, bacteriological and chemic?l weapons prohibited by international laws and instruments. And israel not only owns those weapons, but also uses them to carry out its aggressive policies.. The last theatre in which these internationally pro- hibited weapons were used, as admitted by Israel's military authorities, was against the fraternal land and people of Lebanon and against the unarmed Palestinian people. World public opinion has denounced Israel's use of cluster bombs and e:~cessively injurious fis- sionable weapons in its recent attack against Lebanon. The report of the Group of Experts to Prepare a Study on Israeli Nuclear Armament4 indicates that Israel has acquired an independent nuclear capability and that it has its own sources of uranium, which we all know it might even steal from any place in the world, including the United States. Israel has a major nuclear reactor facility that is not subject to any safeguard; it also has the scientific capacity and the means to tum uranium into nuclear weapons. 61. Israeli co-operation with South Africa in the nuclear field does not need any further elaboration or confirmation. Accordingly, we think that it is the responsibility of the international community to exert pressure on Israel, through the means provided for in the Charter, to prevent that State from per- sisting in threatening the legitimate elementary right of all States to develop and use nuclear energy for peace- ful purposes, according to the internationally recog- nized safeguards established by IAEA. The inter- national community must compel Israel to submit all its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards, since that cen'~rate efforts on limiting the proliferation of nuciear weapons a.nd guaranteeing the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Kuwait also believes that scientific progress is the legit~mate legacy C!f all States, which they can all ~XplOlt to serve theIr people, develop their econ- omies and progress. Nuclear energy should not -be monopolized by anyone, in any way or under any pretext. 63. Although more than a ye&.r has passed since Israel's unjustified aggression, and despite the inter- national rejection and denunciation that followed it, Israel's deliberate intention to repeat that criminal act is as imminent today as it was before. Kuwait therefore believes not only that the draft resolution now before us should be endorsed, but that Israel shoulo be forced to implement it and comply with it so that the fundamental right of peoples and States to proliperity, peace and pro~ress may be. safeguarded. 64. Mr. TAJOL (Malaysia): The attack on Iraqi nuclear instailations near Baghdad by Israeli aircraft on 7 June 1981 demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt Israel's policy of aggression and its biatant disregard of the accepted international ::J.orms of behaviour. Israel's premeditated and unprecedented aggression against a sovereign country constituted a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and aggravated the already volatile situation in the Middle East. The Government of Malaysia strongly deplored this act of aggression and urged the international com- munity to ensure that Israel be appropriately punished for this premeditated action, which constituted a dangerous escalation of tension and a threat to inter- national peace and security. 65. Israel's attack on Iraqi nuclear installations should not' be viewed in isolation. This act of aggres- sion is yet another manifestation of Israel's mischie- vous inclination to terrorize the Arab world and to deflect world attention from the plight of the Palesti- nians, whose territory it has stolen and whose people it has displaced to make way for Jews brought in from the places where they had settled following the Diaspora. 66. In order to camouflage its wrongdoing, Israel came up with preposterous arguments to justify the attack. Israel alleged that Iraq was hostile to it and insisted that Iraq was on the verge of mamSacturing nuclear weapons which threatened Israeli security. In other words, Israel wants us to believe that its aggressive behaviour was indeed legitimate and was committed in self-defence. Such logic, coming from Israel, though contemptible, is understandable. Iraq was not the first victim of Israeli aggression. The pre- emptive strikes on Jordan, Syria and Egypt were all committed on the pretext of self-defence and national security. Such blatant and arrogant disregard of the right of others must be corrected. Israel must learn to respect others if it desires others to respect it. 67. Iraq has been a victim of Israeli aggression. It has therefore every right to appeal to the interna- tional community to ensure that justice is done. This is an appeal that deserves international support and backing. Iraq-and for that matter any other country- wor~ of the Organization [A1371J], particularly con- cermng the need to see to it that United Nations resolutions are taken seriously. That is necessary to enSlJ;re that Israel respects this body and ends its defiance of the United Nations, and to guarantee that peace and stability are restored in the Middle East, thus contributing towards the enhancement of international peace. 70. Peace and security in the Middle East cannot be achieved by way of aggression or by embarking on pre-emptive strikes on neighbouring countries, but only through the elimination of suspicion, hatred and fear, and through serious and responsible efforts to ensure a durable and comprehensive solution of the Middle East problem, the core of which is the Palesti- n,ian question and the Palestinian people's legitimate fight to a homeland, to self-determination and to establish their own free and independent State. Suffice it to say at this juncture that such a lasting solution will continue to be elusive unless and untii Israel demonstrates its commitment to peace by its actions and refrains from such unbridled acts of aggression as th~t unlea~hed on the nU~l~ar installations in Iraq. The mternatlonal commumty must continue to in- tensify international pressure on Israel to ensure its compliance with the relevant United Nations resoh.l- tions, which provide a firm basis for ajust and durable peace in the Middle East. Such a solution alone can provide the guarant~e necessary for all the States in the region to live at peace with one another. 71. Mr. ALEXANDROV (Bulgaria): The time that has elapsed since the terrorist Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981 has provided us witl:;, sufficient opportunity to analyse this event that caused such deep alar~ throughout the world. The invasion of Lebanon and Beirut, the massacre of the civilian population and the use of chemical, phosphorous and cluster weapons remind us that Israeli militarism will stop at nothing to crush l~fge amounts of radioactive substanct.s and would le~d to the contamination of wide areas. The de~(.·ruc­ tion of such installations even by using conventional weapons would, in practical terms, have consequences similar to those of the use of nuclear weapons. At the thirty-sixth ses~ion, the Director General of IAEA., Mr. Eklund, warned that: "We should also bear in mind the grim possibility ofan armed conflict involving civilian nuclear instal- lations. From recent experience it is evident that, unless effective precautioE..~ri measures are adopted at the international level, certain nuclear installations could become the target of hostilities and there'fore radiological warfare could be, in effect, initiated by the us~ of conventior,~llweapons. One shudders to think of the conseqc mces of military attacks on any of the 260 existing nuclear power reactors or the 300 research reactors. H [50th meeting, para. 35.} 74. Research has shown unequivocally that an attacked nuclear reactor, whose peaceful use capacity is measured in kilowatts and megawatts, could become the source of deadly radiation comparable only to that of a nuclear explosion, whose blast power is measured in kilotons and megatons. In fact, it was only by good fortune that the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear instal- lation did not result in the mass killing of the Iraqi capital's population. 75. My country-like all other Member States except two-explicitly stated, at the thirty-sixth session [)4th meeting], its position of condemnation of the Israeli attack of 7 June 1981 against the Iraqi nuclear reactor. It fuHy supported resolution 36/27, adopted by the General Assembly on 13 November 1981. I should like to reiterate the firm conviction of the Bulgarian delegation that the action of Israel consti- tutes a most serious breach of international law and the basic norms of civilized international conduct. , Furthermore', it constitutes an act of armed aggression . which, by virtue of its nature, s.-cope and possible consequences, is tantamount to the use of nuclear weapons, an act that has been denounced by the Unit~d Nations as the gra~'est crime against humanity. 76.. The IsraeH attack against the Iraqi peaceful nuclear reactor, which had been p,laced under IAEA safeguards, constituted an attack against the Agency and its safeguards regime. It threatened and impaired Nuclea~Weapons and the entire system ofinternational agreements in the field of the maintenance of peace and disarmament, as well as to undermine the authority of the United Nations and its organs. 77. I wish to reiterate that those t~1at are stin in- clim~d to view this piratical raid as an accidental, though condemnable, incident are deeply deluding themselves. The very train of events has incon- trovertibly proved that it was an integral part of a long-term strategy, the ultimate end of which is to defeat the national liberation movement in thM part of the world and to restore the domination of imperi- alism in the Middle East. 78. Israel has l;:spoused a policy of strengthening its security through expansion and the dispensing of death and rlestructio'il! among its neighbours. It has been bolstered in this respect by relying on its .'stra- tee{\; alliance" with the United St~te~, a eour.try lNhich has lung sought to turn the Midd~r::: hast and the Persian Gulf into its own sphere of infl.uence, The Vniied Stme~> ahrough the Camp David ac\;ords, has dea~eo' the way for the a.ggressor, enabling :he latter to blWr.h selective 5~iikes against ~ndividual Arab countrief3. The United States pro~'lded ,the financial reSOl~rces and the modern weapons which were mied in the aggression. It is, above all aIl1d exclusively, the help of the UnHed States which is strengthemng th~ hand Di' Israel~ whose brazen challenges f1y in t.he fa~e of the Organization. This very help has ~~cour~wi~dJsrael to commit crimes in the hope of 3Nting awa.y with it and er,j.~ying impunity. 79. The un~versal condemnatkli uf the I5raeli attack against Iraq's peacefl~l nuclear hstaHations, which is under consideration for the second time at a regular ~,ession of the General ASL'emblv, has shown ever more c.onvincingly the extremely destabilizing impact of Israel's agressive policy on the s~tuat!on in the Middle East and bey«:mJ. /.i gn..\'e cc- ' ~r"I'~nce of this policy is that it has ~onfronted tl.';" world with a direct threat of nuclear conflict. By resorting to military operations which erase the dividing line between the use of conventional and of nuclear weapons, the Israeli militarists have, in effect, taken the initiative of being the first to use nuclear weapons. 80. The solution of the Middle East crisis is in- compatible with separate deals, which only serve further to aggravate and exacerbate the conflict. The only viable way of securing lasting peace and security for all countries of this long-sufferin~ region is through a comprehensive solution of the CrIsis in the Middle East. This solution should be effected on a broad and representatiVf'~basis by convening an inte~­ national conference~ with the participation of all par- ties concerned, including the PLO. 81. M:. JAMAL (Qatar)(interpretationfrom Arabic): At a time when the Secretary-General has rightly and candidly warned ~ in his report, ag:tinst the con- sequences of the United Nations falling into the snare of inaction and deadlock, and when speakers in the general debate have commended the vision and in- sight of the Secretary-G(~neral, supporting his em- syst~m concerning the peaceful uses ofnuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and inter- national peace and security". Did it not conclude consideration of this question and act on it at 'ihe time? There is no doubt that the answer to this question is linked with the question highlighted by what I hav~~ just mentioned. 82. Perhaps we may answer this question with an- other. Can a particular international problem be solved by adopting a resolution concerning it? Or can we say that the adoption of a resolution per se wHl end the problem, especially if that resolution remains un- imp!ement~~, a dead letter? This simple question sums up the predicament which confronts the Organi- zation today. Conflicts and problems continue to accumu!ate and rf.:solutions concerning them are regarded merely as dead letters. 'Nhat is ~acking is the practkal sohtion. Hence, major prob'ems and issue8, such as the Palestinian question and the Namibian question, to cite but two, are carried over from one sc;;sslon io t!le next. This is not an exercis~~ in irra- tionality:, the ..lm is tr, confirm certain facts, of which I sha~I C;l~e <:Cl. rew, 33. The !!rsl. is the right of all peoples to self-deter- mination, which doe~ not become obsolete and is not lost becuuse the usurper of that right denies it. The second is confirmation of the will of the international community and its refusal to give ep that with which it has been entrusted. Thirdly, acquiescence with the usurper, the aggressor, the stronger, in most cases is tantamount to the death sentence for the Organiza- tion. Those are some reasons for keeping the im- portant issues open~ even if there are certain side- effects, such as highlighting the predicament to which I have referred, which can be candidly described as the inaction of the United Nations. There is no wisdom is burying our heads in the sand. 84. The file on Israel's heinous international crime in making a flagrant military strike against the Osirak nuclear reactor on the outskirts of Baghdad, in the course of which it committed another Lrime by vio- lating the airspace of more than one Arab country, has not b~en closed by the adoption of resolutions denouncing it. Among the bodies to condemn it were the Security Council and the General Assembly. The crime was also denounced by all the peoples and Governments ofthe world, including the United States, which provided Israel with the F-16 fighters that en- abled itto commit that crime. 85. I turn from the international reactions to the international consequences of the crime, which went far beyond the denounced act itself. If we put the reactions on one side and reflect deeply on this armed aggression, we can easily see that Israel aimed to deprive Iraq of its right to the benefits of science and technology, by destroying the symbol of its national aspirations, in the form of its nuclear instal- lations. Israel aimed to destroy the leg:timacy of inter- national treaties and to impose instead the law of the 86. Iraq was one of the first States to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which ;~ signed early in July 1968 and ratified on 290ctooer 1969. In 1972, it concluded an agreement with IAEA to subject all its nuclear activities to the Agency's safeguards, in accordance with the Non- Proliferation Tmaty. Furthermore, believing in the importance of international co-operation in the peace- ful uses of atomic energy, Iraq concluded bilateral co- operation t~caties with many countrie.s. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Authority joined other bodies in. organizing many conferences and seminars with a view to consolidating cO-!1.peration in scientific and. tech- nical research. From all this we conclude lhat all Iraq's nuclear activities wer.e carried out in the light of day and under the umbrella of international legiti- macy. including the subjection ofits activities to IAEA safeguards. Iraq had nothing to hide. 87. The picture' will not be complet\~ unless. it is made clear that Israel bases its nuclear activity, whkh dalf~s back to 1949, on clandestine operations and secr~cy. I do not need to repeat the details of the illegitimacy of its activities: the acts of pira.~y, theft, kidnapping and assassination at sea;. in the heart of Europe and in the United States-as -"',:festern officials, including officials of the United States C~ntral Intel- ligence Agency, have recognized. In addition, Israel received help from some Western countries, par- ticularly the United States. Intelligence reports, furnished by secret services, reports deliberately leaked, admitted that Israel had acquired nuclear weapons. 88. We still remember those mysterious explosions in September 1979 near the coast of South Africa, monitored by a United States satellite, which disclosed collaboration between Israel and the Government of Pretoria to carry out a joint programme to develop nuclear weapons. We can say without fear of being mistaken, that it was in the light of those facts that Israel refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What is worse, the outlawed Zionist entity is trying to impose its special law on the Middle East through the power of its weapons and nuclear blackmail. 89. The Qatar delegation warns that Israel's per- sistent refusal to comply with the resolutions of inter- national bodies concerning the armed attack on the Iraqi nuclear installations, estlecially Security Coun- cil resolution 4H7 (1981), is a precedent that could undermine the basis of established international relations and conduct. In addition, ::~e ~ecurity Coun- cil's failure so far to impose stringent deterrent sanc- tions on Israel could have serious significance, for what is the use of some nations adhering to interna- tional treaties and agreements arrived at after years of painstaking debate if a Member of the Organization, such as Israel, can contemptuously flout them? 90. Therefore, the delegation of Qatar stresses the importance of taking the necessary measures to preserve respect for international treaties, on the one hand, and, on the other, to impose sanctions, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter, on any Member that breaches them. 92. :Mr. LIANG Yufan (China) (interpretation from Chinese): On 7 June 1981, the Israeli Government un- scrupulously dispatched military aircraft to bomb an Iraqi nuclear installation. This was a serious crime of aggression, arousing universal indignation. The Security Council, in resolution 487 (1981), and the General Assembly, in resolution 36/27, sternly con- demned this outrage and demanded that Israel pay prompt and adequate compensation for the material damage and lpss of life suffered as a result of its aggression. 99. The premeditated act ofarmed aggression against the Iraqi peaceful nuclear centre constitutes not only a gross violation of the sovereignty of other coun- tries and a brazen encroachment on their inalienable right to develop science and technology, including the peaceful use of nuclear energy for the benefit of their peoples, but also an attempted blow against the non-proliferatiOil regime and the system of inter- national safeguards on the use of nuclear energy established by IAEA. The development of interna- tional co-operation in this field is impossible without respect for and strict compliance with the established international norms. 93. A year has passed. Israel has not only refused to pay any compensation to the victimized party, in defiance of the United Nations resolutions and world opinion, but has even stepped up its aggression. By a legislative act, it brazenly annexed the occupied Syrian territory of the Golan Heights. It launched a large- scale invasion of Lebanon and laid siege to Beirut with massive armed force. Then it proceeded to mas- sacre Lebanese and Palestinian civilians in cold blood, a crime that outraged the world. Up to now it has refused to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. 100. The Security Council, in resolution 487 (1981), unanimously condemned Israel's act of piracy as a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct, and unequiv- ocally demanded that Israel refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof. Israel's aggression against Iraq was also condemned by the Board of Governors of IAEA6 and the General Conference of IAEA7 at the session concluded recently which, as is well known, did not recognize the credentials of th~ delegation of Israel. 94. We pointed out earlier that Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear installation was by no means an isolated incident, but a calculated step in Israel's aggressive and expansionist policy towards the Arab countries. This has been borne out by the sequence of events in the past year. The recklessness of Israel is attribut- able to the support and connivance of a super-Power. The redoubled frenzy of Israeli aggressiveness in the past year has aggravated tension in the region and threatened world peace and security. 95. Israel has resorted to various pretexts in an attempt to whitewash its criminal raid on the Iraqi nuclear instaJlation. Its main pretext was that the installation was ailegedly being used to develop nuclear weapons which could be a threat to Israel's security and, therefore, it had to take the so-called pre-emptive action. Almostall ofIsrael's acts ofaggres- sion have been carried out under the pretext of en- suring its own ··security". This is a gangster's logic which we recognize all too well. ~raq had repeatedly declared that its nuclear instalJation was for peaceful purpose3. It was completely futile for Israel to justify its aggression by such a preposterous pretext. 101. The adoption by the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority, of resolution 36/27, con- cerning Israel's act ofaggression, was ofgreat political importance. The Byelorussian SSR supported the direct appeal made in the resolution to all States to cease forthwith any provision to Israel of arms and related material of all kinds which enable it to commit acts of aggression against other States. Everyone knows that Israel's aggressive attack against Iraq was committed with United States military technology. The Byelorussian SSR also supports the request to the Security Council contained in that resolution to insti- tute effective enforcement action against Israel to put an end to its policies of expansion, occupation and annexation. 96. In view of Israel's persistence in a policy of uggression and expansion, and its refusal to comply with the resolutiol'is of the Security Council and the ' General Assembly, and especially its threat to launch a new attack on Iraq's nuclear installation, it is neces- sary to consider this question again at this session. Israel should be condemned again for its criminal aggression and expansion. The sovereign rights of Iraq and all other Arab countries, including the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the right to pursue scientific and technological progress, must be safeguarded. 102. The relevance of resolution 36/27 becomes even more clear in the light of the latest barbaric act Qf aggression committed by Israel against the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples. Again, death and suffering have been caused to the Arab people by the United States weaponry placed in the hands of the Zionist vandals. The genocide in Lebanon ha§ been committed by Israel in the context of its notorious strategic co- operation with the United States, which fiminces and arms Israel and encourages it to pursue a criminal 98. Israel's aggressive act must not be viewed in isolation. As has been emphasized by every delega- tion, without exception, that has spoken today, that act of aggression was another link in the long chain of Tel Aviv's crimes agains~ Arab countries and peoples, and another step in the dangerously escalating threat to internat~onal peace and security. ~s, therefom, somewhat intriguing. Instead of weighing with due care and conem the serious implications of the attack and urging measures against its recurrence in the future, they are using the issue to divert atten-

There have been numerous occasions when the Assembly and .the Security Council have been seized ofquestions relating to Israeli violations of Charter principles and Israel's refusal to comply with the decisions of the interna- tional community. Its self-righteous and arrogant stance has led it into actions that even its closest friends could not defend. Thus, in our consideration of the question of the armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations, this must be viewed aot as an isolated incident, but rather as a component of a grand Israeli strategy of intimidation and expan- sion through the unilateral uSc of force against its neighbours. Indeed, in the year since the attack by 124. Eighteen months ago, the Israeli air force committed a blatant act of aggression against a State Member of the United Nations, namely, the Repub- lic of Iraq, a country for which I should like to reaf- firm here the support and the complete solidarity of my own CO!Jntry. 125. By attacking a nuclear installation which, according to all indications, was being used for peace- ful purposes, Israel simply demonstrated that no country of the region was safe from its policy of aggression. That act of aggressinn against a sovereign country, in violation of the most elementary rules of international law, the sacred principles of indepen- dence and national sovereignty and the principles of the Charter, showed, unfortunately, that the Zionist entity, born of war, lives only by war. That shame- ful attack againGt Iraq took place, it must be noted, after the violation of the airspace of two other Arab coun- tries. The Assembly, like the Security Council, has already had occasion to give its views on that act of aggression and to express its unanimous disapproval. 119. It is clear that Israel's attack was not in any way associated with a military threat from Iraq's peaceful nuclear installations. The Director General 126. What is before the Assembly today is the con- sideration of the serious consequences Find implica- tions of that act of aggression for the peacefuf uses 128. But what is even more serious, and this is the main reason for my statement today, is that the Israeli leaders, who have refused to implement the provi- sions of Security Council resolution 487 (1981), which was unanimously adopted by the Council, are today threatening to repeat their crime against Iraq and against any other country of the region which intends to develop nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. This sword of Damocles hanging over all countries using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes constitutes a serious threat to peace and introduces a new element of dangerous insecurity in internation2'1 relations. 129. The theory of pre-emptive aggression, on which the Israeli leaders are today basing their policy against Arab countries, establishes a precedent which must be controlled, because it could lead to the serious disruption of international relations. Thus, any State which tho.ught it detected a danger to its security in the activities carried out by any country in the eco- nomic, scientific or technical fields would feel en- titled, according to that absurd theory, to take so- called preventive action against that country. The world would thus find itself subjected to the law of the jungle, where preventive self-defence would con- stitute new legal grounds for all acts of aggression and would open the way to all kinds of madness. 130. The threat is sufficiently grave and dangerous to be taken seriously. The Assembly must react firmly by condemning Israel for its systematic policy of aggression against States of the region, by adopting all the necessary measures so that armed attacks against nuclear installations never happen again and by damanding the dismantling of the Israeli nuclear arsenal which itself constitutes a definite threat to neighbouring countries and, more generally, to inter- national peace and security. J I

I speak on behalf of the 10 member States of the European Community. Our views on the Israeli military attack on Iraq's nuclear installations and its serious consequences were clearly set out in the statement made by the representative of the United Kingdom on behalf of the Community at the thirty-sixth session [53th meeting]. 132. Those views remain unchanged. The 10 mem- bers of the European Community repeat their call upon Israel to comply fully with Security Council resolution 487 (1981) in all its aspects. They stress once more the vital importance for all countries of refraining from any act of violence which might escalate tension in the Middle East region, while reaf- firming the right of all States to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, under appropriate safeguards and in J 1 138. As has been stated frequently from this rostrum, the Arab peoples live in a land which has been theirs since the dawn of time. They will remain masters of that land, of the sky and the resources of their great nation. Neither the religious fanaticism nor the racial bigotry of Israel will change anything, any more than will the temporary strength which that country draws from the limitless aid it receives from its friends. 139. Nevertheless, despit~ die suicidal hysteria of the Israeli entity, the international community has a duty to consider also the security of the hundreds-of thousands of people brought from all five continents to usurp a land by expelling its inhabitants. That objec- tive can only be achieved by the restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian and other Arab people and the condemnation of barbarous acts such as those recently committed against the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatila and also those against the nuclear installation in Tamuz, which we are con- sidering.

The piratical attack by the Israeli air force on the Iraqi nuclear research centre in the sum- 143. Effective measures to prevent this type ofaction are contained in the proposal submitted by the Soviet Union at the present session [AIC.I1371L.7j on the intensification of efforts to remove the threat of nuclear war and ensure the safe development of nuclear energy. We fully support the proposal that the General Assembly should declare the premeditated destruction of nuclear facilities designed for peaceful purposes, even by means of conventional weapons, in essence equivalent to a nuclear attack-tha~ is to say, an action of the kind the United Nations has called the gravest crime against humanity. We believe that the adoption ofthat proposal would play a decisive part in preventing further aggressive actions of this kind by Israel. 144. Responsibility for the act of aggression against Iraq on 7 June last year must be borne also by the forces of imperialism, above all United Sta'Les imperi- alism, without whose political support and military assistance Israel would not be in a position to per- petrate such piratical attacks, or othf;r wide-scale acts of aggression, such as their unprecedented incursion into Lebanon but a few months ago, which the Gov- ernment ofIsrael, with typical cynicism and demagogy, ' continues to justify on the grOl!nds of "preventive: self-defence" . 145. As stated in the reply of my Government contained in the report of the Secretary-General on this matter [A1371365], the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic has consistently complied with the request, reiterated in resolution 36/27, to cease any provision to Israel of arms and related material. However, no 153. The absurdity of Israel's allegations about a pre-emptive attack or preventive war and sure and guaranteed boundaries is obvious to the entire world and in every sense,. The main purpose of the attack against the Iraqi nuclear installation had nothing to do with military considerations; it was to strike a blow at the Arab countries, to provoke them or humil- iate them, as the Zionists have been doing for so long. That attack was also for the precise purpose of preventing the Iraqi people making progress in the technical and technological spheres. The expan- sionist designs, the ambition for regional hegemony and the theory of racial supremacy which the Zionists foster are at the root of their attempts to deny the Arab people the right to put nuclear energy and tech- nological progress at the service of their develop- ment. Israel goes to the absurd lengths of arrogating to itself the right to decide who can use nuclear power, and how. The Israeli Zionists use aggression to deny others the right to use nuclear energy, while for themselves they find it normal to have nuclear weap- ons. It is for that purpose that they have established very close co-operation with their associates, the racists of South Africa, thus constituting a serious threat not only to the Arab countries but also to the whole of Africa and to other regions. 154. The armed attack by Israel against Iraq's nuclear installation, like every other act of Zionist aggression, is the result of the very close co-opera- tion and mutual assistance between the American imperialists and the Israeli Zionists. It is American aircraft and weapons which bomh and destroy in Iraq and Lebanon and which kill tens of thousands of people. It is the American imperialists who incite, encourage and support all the aggressive actions of Israel and offer the greatest political and diplomatic protection whenever the Zionists are condemned for their crimes. It is not only Israel, but also the United States which must be held responsible for the destruc- tion of Iraq's nuclear installation and for the arrogant threats reiterated by Israel to commit such acts again when it sees fit. 155. The Soviet social imperialists cannot escape their share of the responsibility for all the evils in- flicted on the Arab peoples and countries throughout the many years of imperialist-Zionist aggression and coHusion between the imperialist super-Powers. The attack against the nuclear installation near Baghdad took place at a time when the situation in the Middle East was extremely tense because of the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Israel took the opportunity to attack Iraq at a moment when the armed conflict in the Gulf area, provoked " 158. The Security Council realized the" gravity of this criminal aggres·sion and its grave implications, not only for international peace and se~urity in the area, but also for the established international system based on international law and international legal instruments, as well as on the United Nations Charter. It strongly condemned it and warned against the consequences of its repetition. It was the duty of the Security Council not only to condemn that act of piracy, but also to demand that Iraq receive the neces- sary compensation and that str:ngent sanctions against the Zionist entity be imposed, in accordance wtth Chapter VII of the Charter. However, the use of the veto by the United States, a permanent member of the Securit.~' Council, prevented the Council from fulfilling its r~sponsibility for maintaining interna- tional peace and security. 159. This item has been considered by the General Assembly both last year and this year because of the failure of the Security Council to take the neces- sary measures in accordance with the Charter to prevent a repetition of this criminal act. Because of the United States veto, there is continuing frus- tration of the collective will of the international com- munity, which calls for determined sanctions against the Zionist entity for its criminal acts and its aggres- sion against the Arab countries. That veto has not only guaranteed impunity for the aggressor, but has also encouraged it to commit further acts of aggres- sion in the Middle East. This will lead to a grave state of chaos and insecurity in international relations. The Secretary-General referred to this fact in his annual report. 160. The Zionist act of aggression against the Iraqi nuclear reactor must be considered, as mentioned by many delegations from this rostrum, as one in a long series of acts of aggression by the Zionist entity against the Arab nation in pursuance of its expan- sionist goals and to impose its domination and hege- wor~d underdeveloped, to deprive it of the benefits of scientific advance, so that it may remain at the mercy of the Zionist entity. NOTES 2 See International Atomic Energy Agency, Resolutions and Other Decisions of the General Conference, Twenty-sixth Regular Session, GC(XXVI)/RES/404. 3 L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, 7th ed., H. Lau- terpracht, ed., vol. 11, Disputes, War and Neutrality (London, Longman's, Green and Co., 1955), p. 159. 4 Study on Israeli Nuclear Armament (United Nations publica- tion, Sales No. E.82.IX.2). 6 See GC(XXV)/643. 7 See International Atomic Energy Agency, Resolutions and Other Decisions of the General Conference, Twenty-fifth Regular Session, GC(XXV)/RES/381.