A/38/PV.42 General Assembly

In connection with this item the Assembly has before it draft resolution A/38/L.7. I propose that the list of speakers be closed today at 12 noon. If! hear no objection, it will be so decided. It was so decided. 2. Mr. AL-ZAHAWI (Iraq): On behalf of the Iraqi delegation, I wish to express to the Secretary-General our thanks for the excellent "Study on the ~onsequencesof the Israeli armed attack against the Iraqi nuclear instal- lations devoted to peaceful purposes" [A/38/337) of 7 October 1983. Through him, we also wish to convey to the group ofexperts-Mr. Bo Lindell of Sweden; Mr. Milan Osredkar of Yugoslavia; Mr. Nikolai Titkov ofthe Soviet Union; Mr. Kalyan Vaidya of India; Mr. Charles Van Doren of the United States; and last but not least, the chairman of the group, Mr. Bolaji Akinyemi of Nigeria-our deep appreciation of the invaluable contri- bution each of them made to the comprehensive study before us. 3. It is to be noted that, as stated in the chairman's letter of transmittal, the study was unanimously approved by the group of experts. Three days after the approval of the study, however, the expert from the United States, Mr. Van Doren, informed the Secretary-General that, after carefully rereading the study, he felt compelled to change his position to an abstention. The spokesman for the Zionist entity will try to make the most of Mr. Van Doren's abstention. In our view, his belated change of position does not reflect on the validity of the study or alter the fact that it was unanimously adopted in the first place. 4. The study speaks for itself, and calls for no detailed comment on our part. We commend the group in partic- ular for attaching special importance to the general con- sequences of the Israeli attack, including the potentially serious damage to international norms and institutions. The study fully supports the position of the international community, which has affmned that the Israeli attack was directed not only against Iraq but also against the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [resolu- tion 2373 (XXII), annex], lAEA and the lAEA safe- guards regime. The study also pOints out in paragraph 56 that: '",>-' "Apart from the challenge posed to the raison d'Stre of international institutions (such as the United Nations NEW YORK and lAEA), the Israeli behaviour put in jeopardy the specific roles, objectives and programmes of interna- tional institutions discussed [in the study]." 5. Th~ representative of the Zionist ,~ntity will no doubt address the Assembly to denounce yet again the inclusion of this item in our agenda, as he has already done in his note to the Secretary-General reproduced in docu- ment A/38/342. He will again make the allegation that Iraq is misusing international organizations "for its own partisan purposes". He should realize by now that the repetition of such stupid allegations il, of no avail. The debate on this item is the outcome of the unprecedented and unprovoked Zionist act of aggression against Iraq and a whole range ofinternational norms and institutions. It is a matter of cause and effect, and consideration of the item will continue until the Zionists are made to retract, clearly and unequivocally, their officially declared threat to repeat their armed attack on Iraq or other countrie1. 6. In a vain attempt to cover up this infamous threat, the Zionist representative also stated in his note to the Secretary-General that "Israel haS no policy of attacking nuclear facilities". That statement is as ludicrous as it is irrelevant to the facts and the situation as it now stands. The Zionist entity has not declared that it has a policy of attacking nuclear facilities; not even Begin and Sharon were mad enough to spell out their policy in such pre- posterous terms. The formulation that they used in the official statement issued on 9 Jupe 1981 announcing the attack on the Iraqi facility reads as follows: "Under no circumstances would we allow the enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our nation; we will defend Israel's citizens, in time, with all the means at our disposal." 7. Shai Feldman-a Fellow at Stanford University's Arms Control and Disarmament Program and on leave from Tel Aviv University's Centre for Strategic Studies, in an article entitled "The Bombing of Osirak-Revis- ited", published in the fall 1982 issue of International Security, states that this Israeli theme "was soon crowned as a 'doctrine' not only because it was immediately viewed as such by numerous observers worldwide, but also because Israel's leaders have repeated it on numerous occasions.', 8. Lest we forget what those Zionist leaders have re- peated, let us recall their arrogance and what they actually said. The headline in The Times of London of 10 June 1981, read as follows: "Defiant Begin says Israel would attack Iraq again". The New York Times of the same date quoted Begin as saying that "should the Iraqis try again to build a reactor through which they can produce atomic weapons, Israel will use all possibilities at its disposal to destroy this reactor." He went on to say: "In this case it was an act of supreme, morally supreme act of national self-defence. Israel has nothing to apologize for. Ours is a just cause. We stand by it, and we will triumph." 9. The New York Times of 11 June 1~81 wrote that the ChiefofStaff, Lieutenant General Rafael Eytan declared: "We will know what to do next time as well, and it is "That information was, of course, kept highly classi- fied; equally classified, according the a CIA report in my possession, ~as the extent of American knowledge Gener~J Conference in October 1983. 38. Paragraph 3 states a self-evident fact. The official Israeli threat to repeat its armed attack constitutes a continued violation of the Charter of the Unit~J Nations and, indeed, of the statute of the Agency, which enjoins the members of the Agency to act in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Charter. 39. Paragraphs 4 and 5 repeat similar paragraphs in resolution 37/18. 40. As to paragraph 9, we believe that the item under discussion should continue to be included in the agenda of the General Assembly as long as the Israeli threat stands and as long as the Zionists refuse to comply with the relevant resolutions. 41. Finally, I should like to remind members that the IAEA resolution was adopted by a two-thirds majority. 42. The sponsors ofthe draft resolution before us urge all delegations which are truly concerned about the cred- ibility ofthe Organization and of lAEA, as well as about the future of international co-operation in the field of peaceful uses of atomic energy, to vote in favour. 43. Mr. BLUM (Israel): The nature of the Iraqi miCIear enterprise and the action taken by Israel on 7 June 1981 have been discussed ad nauseam by the United Nations. Indeed, a considerable amount of time and energy has been repeatedly devoted to the discussion of this item. peace-iovin~ nation w~ch was prevented from achieving ItS economIC and SOCial progress due to Israel's action in June 1981. This stands in total disproportion to the enormous economic burden of the Iraq-Iran war, which amounts to approximately $1 billion per month. It is pre- posterous that a group of experts should forget this major and largely self-induced dissipation of resources when discussing Iraq's concern for its peaceful development. 61. Israel was blamed for not entrusting its security concerns to the "collective security system of the United Nations". However, the best evidence for the vacuity of this argument is to be found in the more than 300 local wars and dangerous confrontations since 1945 which have been dealt with ineffectually and in a partisan manner by the United Naticns system. 62. In my note verbale dated 29 June 1983 addressed to the Secretary-General and subsequently reproduced in document A/38/342 of 1 September 1983, it was stated that "Israel has no policy of attacking nuclear facilities and its views on the substance of the issue were amply stated and hardly need reiterating". Nevertheless, the u~on all St~tes. to join us in opposing it, for the sake of thl3 Orga,mzatlon's futu.re and of peace in the Middle East. " I , 70. Mr. SAHNOUN (Algeria) (interpretation from French): A little over two years ago the international

I should like to address the General Assembly on behalfofthe 10 member States ofthe European Community on the item before us. 102. The Ten, in their previous statements on this item, made clear the deep concern with which they have ap- proached the issue of the Israeli military attack on the Iraqi nuclear installations and its serious consequences. The attitude of the Ten with regard to this attack was and remains clear. They believe that it was a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of international law. They have, therefore, strongly condemned this attack in the past and their views, stated at the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh sessions of the Assembly, remain unchanged. 103. The Ten repeat once mQre their call upon Israel to comply fully with Security'Council resolution 487 (1981) in all its aspects. They stress again the vital impor- tance for all countries of refraining from any act of violence which might result in escalating tensions in the Middle East. At the same time the Ten reaffirm their conviction of the right of all States to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, q.nder appropriate &afeguards and in strict accordance with the goals of the international non- proliferation regime.

Today the Gen- eral Assembly is once again considering the question of the armed Israeli aggression against Iraqi nuclear instal- lations for peaceful purposes and its grave consequences, and the report submittedonthis questionbytheSecretary- General. 105. In perpetrating, in the summer of 1981, the crimi- nal raid on the Iraqi nuclear research centre, Israel com- mitted a glaring violation of universally recognized norms ofinternational law and struck yet one more blow to the cause ofensuring peace in the Middle East region. 106. The Soviet Union, like many other countries, strongly condemned these criminal actions of Israel, whichwereunanimouslyconsidered bytheSecurity(2oun- cil to be an unprecedented act of aggression..,Israeli aggression against Iraq was also condemned by the Board ofGovernors and by the General Conference of the Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency. r~peating such an attack on nuclear facilities. 108. However, this resolution of the General Assembly, like many other decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, has not yet been implemented. Israel persists in conducting an aggressive policy towards neigh- bouring Arab countrie§, engages in the annexation of occupied Arab territories and insolently plays the master on the territory of Lebanon. It stubbornly refuses to recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to establish their own independ- ent State, which would open the way to a solution to the key problem of the Middle East settlement and lay down the bases for establishing a lasting and just peace in the region. 109. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the con- tinuing trampling underfoot by Israel of the sovereignty and independence of a number of Arab countries, and interalia the bombing ofthe Iraqi nuclear facilities, were made possible by the comprehensive support given to Israel by the United States, which shares responsibility for the crimes systematically committed by Israel. 110. We have before us the report of the Secretary- General containing the study on the consequences of the Israeli armed attack against the Iraqi nuclear installations devoted to peaceful purposes. An expert from the Soviet Union participated in the preparation of this study. The study compellingly demonstrates that the piratical action of Israel has grave adverse consequences for international peace and security, for the prospects of achieving a set- tlement in the Middle East, and for the development of international co-operation in the sphere of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It is hardly necessary to dwell on each of the major points in the study~ but I should like to note ill particular that it states in its conclusion that the Israeli attack attests to Israel's direct disrespect fOf, and challenge to, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the IAEA safeguards system, posing a threat to further peace- ful nuclear development. Ill. In this connection, the Soviet delegation would like to emphasize once again that the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nudear Weapons, which serves as a foundation for the international non-proliferation sys- tem, is an important factor in ensuring international peace and security. Based on the safeguards system of IAEA, this Treaty serves as a solid barrier to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, at the same time, ensures inter- national co-operation in the area of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. We shO'l.ild note that Iraq, whose nuclear installations for peaceful purposes were subjected to Israeli attack, has been a State party to the Non-Prolif- eration Treaty frC'ID the moment of its entry into force in 1970. It accepted the IAEA safeguards regarding all of its nuclear activities and has conscientiously been carrying out the obligations incurred under it. 112. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that Israel is stubbornly refusing to accede to the Non-Pro- liferation Treaty. The nuclear ambitions of Israel on several occasions have been condemned by the General Assembly, which demanded ~hat Israel place all of its nuclearinstallations underIAEAsafeguardsandreqdested the Security Council to take appropriate measures to strengt~eilinguniversal peace and security. 119. Mr. AL-SABBAGH (Bahr,aih) (interpretation/rom Arabic): The international community condemned the premeditated Israeli attack of 7 June 1981 against the Iraqi nuclear installations in the vicinity of Baghdad. This weapo~,thatwould force Israel to stop its acts ofaggres- sion ~gatnst Arab States and would also put an end to its expansion into and annexation of the occupied Arab territories, its expulsion of Palestinian citizens from their 132. The study before us confirms that there are no nuclear installations in Iraq not subject to IAEA safe- guards. Iraq has ,;:,,;,,ovided full data on the designs of all installations containing nuclear materials. In J~.nu­ ary 1981, IAEA inspected the Iraqi nuclear installations and confirmed that all nuclear materials in IraQ were registered and subject to safeguards. . 133. We are requesting the United Nations to back up the will of the international community. Therefore, we must denounce Israel's policy in the region, a policy based on the imposition of total hegemony through force of arms and on nuclear blackmail. 134. Mr. LOPEZ DEL AMO (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): At the 49th meeting of the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly, speaking on the issue now before us, we observed that in the vote on the rele- vant resolution adopted at the thirty-sixth session the only two negative votes had been cast by Israel and the United States of America. The same occurred at the thirty- seventh session. That is clear evidence of the complicity of the Government of the United States of America with the terrorist act perpetrated by Israel. 135. In an attempt to justify their action, th' Zionists invented the theory of the so-called pre-emptive attack. Their Yankee allies have affirmed that to be Israel's right, that the attack was an act of legitimate self-defence. One year later, under the same pretext, the Zionist troops invaded Lebanon, where they remain to this day, as they do in the rest of the occupied ,Arab territories. 136. Thus far, Israel has refused to heed the demands of the international community, and is able to do so thanks to the political, economic and military support given it by the United States of America. Both Israel and the United States believe that it is possible to commit crimes throughout the world with impunity. 137. Now the Reagan Administration has proclaimed a new doctrine-the doctrine of "vital interests"-to justify its own military interventions whenever it sees fit to perpetrate them, whether in the Middle East, in the Pacific, in southern Africa, or in the Caribbean and Cen- tral American regions. This typically Hitlerian doctrine was most recently applied in the brutal invasion of the small island of Grenada, where the United States air force, emulating its Zionist ally, bombed a civilian hos- pital, causing many deaths among the patients and the medical staff. 138. The invaders' treatment of the Cuban workers in Grenada was similar in cll aspects to that of the Zionist settlers in the occu~~ed Arab territories: the same spirit of hatred, crue!ty, and disdain for the most fundamental human rights and feelings. Intoxicated with their victory over the tiny island, they are now threatening to invade Nicaragua and attack Cuba on any pretext. 140. In considering the Israeli armed aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations, my delegation wishes to draw attention to the fact that that event is part of the global policy of aggression against the independent coun- tries of the third world carried out by international impe- rialism. In the face of these actions, our peoples must increase their solidarity, strengthen their relations even further and close their ranks. 141. My delegation repeats its condemnation of the armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear instal- lations and calls for the necessary measures to be taken to prevent a repetition of such acts. My delegation also reiterates the right of all countries to use the advances of science and technology for their own development, including£heir right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Let us say "No" to State terrorism.

Today we are dealing with an act of aggression perpetrated by the imperialist base in the Middle East against the nuclear installations of Iraq. Two years ago an act of aggression was perpetrated against the Iraqi nuclear installations. which were the property not ofthe person of President Saddam Hussein or his regime but of the Iraqi people. That act of aggression was in line with the rest of the Zionist projects anc' policies in the Middle East against the Muslim people and, indeed, against the oppressed countries of Africa and Latin America. It was just one in a series of episodes, all of which are very well known to us all. 143. The unnecessary comments that the representative of the enemy made about the Iran-Iraq war are nothing but part of a malicious plot to provoke our Arab brothers against us. That plot will not work. Fortunately. our Arab and Muslim brothers know very well our positior' ' :Jwards the Zimtist base. and th~re is no need to reiterate that position at length. We simply believe, as we have always said, that an Islamic front in the Middle East against the Zionist base will solve both our problem in the area and the present problem of the United Nations. 144. It may nc)t be necessary to refer to the irrelevant matters raised by the enemy representative. but my dele- gation cannot fail to comment on some of the hypocritical issues that he presented. He called the present agenda item an Iraqi initiative. The present issue is not simply an Iraqi initiative; it is the concern of all Muslims. It relates to one episode in a very long series of Zionist aggressions against the Muslim peoples in the area and against the oppressed nations in the rest of the world. He spoke of pollutic.n. We, too, believe that pollution is a very impor- tant matter, but the pollution caused by the Zionist pres- ence in the area is more dangerous to all of us than any other pollution, and we believe that the primary task is the cleansing of that pollution from the area. 145. The Zionist regime has a'lways tried to take advan- tage of the Iran-Iraq conflict il1J order to divert the atten- tion of the international booy from the fact that the fundamental problem in the Middle East is the very pres- ence of that base, the base of imperialism and zionism. 146. As J said in my statement during the recent Security Council meetings on Namibia, the problem of zionism-

Members here must no doubt have taken note of the fact that the statement by the representative of the Zionist entity was nothing but an attack against the United Nations. In fact, nothing has undermined the United Nations as much as the Zion- ists' flagrant violations of the Charter of the Organization and its various resolutions. The Zionist entity holds the record for the number of those violations. The statement was also an attack against the group of experts and their study and hence an attack on the Secretary-General him- self, who is responsible for that study. IS3. As I had anticipated, the representative of the Zionist entity raised the question of Mr. Van Doren's abstention. It appears from Mr. Van Doren's letter to the Secretary-General that there were other reasons, in fact, which motivated the change in his position. Surely he had read the study carefully, in the first place, before he had agreed to its unanimous approval. Be that as it may, I should like to quote from a report, again prepared by Mr. Van Doren, for the .Arms Control Association, entitled "Iraq-Israel and the Middle East-Proliferation Problem" and published in .June 1981, in Arms Control :I. • During the debate of the thirty-seventh session of the Assembly, the Zionist representative raised points of order similar to the one he raised today concerning the manner in which he was designated. My reply at that time was, and continues to be, that the so-called Israel for which he seeks recognition is not recognized by the United Nations. The United Nations does not recognize the annexation of Jerusalem or its being designated as the capital of that entity, nor does the United Nations recog- nize the entity's annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, or the Zionist claim to sovereignty over the whole of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which are being actively incorporated to establish a "greater Israel". Until and unless the Zionist representative declares from one ros- trum of this Assembly that his regime renounces those annexations, he has no right to expect the United Nations and the Members of the United Nations to acquiesce in the Zionist interpretation of what constitutes, in their view, this so-called Israel. His insistence on this matter is an indication that the Zionists are trying to force on the United Nations recognition of a de facto state of annexation which was not envisaged when this entity was recognized and admitted to the United Nations. This instance calls for a statement from the President that whenever the representative of so-called Israel is called upon to speak here or in the various committees, it is to .be understood that it is the Israel that was originally . recognized and admitted to the United Nations. 156. The representative of the Zionist entity circu- lated document A/38/61, in which he quoted what I had said last year. His quote reads: "Israel"-I had said the "Zionist entity"-"is an aberration and the rep- resentative of Israel"-I had said "he"-"should not expect his entity to be treated as a normal State in this Organization.', 157. Well, I should like to quote from a passage in a book that appeared just recently-in fact, it was pub- lished this year-which states: C'Begin is a tltoroughly Hitleritetype, readyto destroy all the Arab'" If Begin takes over the country, he will put his thugs into the army and police headquarters, and will rule just like Hitler ruled in Germany . . . I hav~ no doubt that Begin hates Hitler but his hatred does not prove that he is different from him . . . when for the first time I heard Begin on the radio, I heard the voice and the screeching of Hitler." That was quoted from The Guardian of 30 June 1981. The Economist of 30 July 1983 reminds us also that Ben Gurion said that the party of Begin was composed of "thugs and political assassins". 170. Furthermore, to revert to Mr. Lenni Brenner and his scholarly research of the background of this ruling regime, he has the following to say, in the 30 September 1983 issue of Middle East International: "Towards the end of 1940, an agent for a splinter Zionist movement in Palestine made his way to Beirut to meet with a German diplomat, Otto von Hentig. He handed over to the German a memorandum proposing that Hitler should enter into an agreement with this Zionist organization. The bones of the proposal were that Hitler would allow the Zionists to give military .'

I now call on the representative of Israel.

I assume that the spokesman for the Takritian entity mu.st 'be very delighted that the representative of Iran has come to his support. 179. With regard to the statement that we heard from the spokesman for the Takitrian entity, the real question is not whether Saddam Hussein wishes to be in the com- pany ofPresident Mitterrand or Lord Carrington; the real question is the other way around: does President Mitter- rand or Lord Carrington, or the others whom he has mentioned, wish to be in the company of Mr. Saddam Hussein? That is the real question. The meeting rose at 1.25 p.m. NOTES