A/39/PV.56 General Assembly

The issue before the General Assembly is not confined to the immediate conse- quences of the bombing of the nuclear installations outside Baghdad on 7 June 1981. The long-term consequences affect the ability of third world coun- tries to achieve their development objectives in the area of technology through the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The third world countries have an inalienable right to move into the nuclear era in order to enjoy the benefits of the atom as a source of energy and a subject of scientific research as well as for other peaceful purposes. 2. As indicated by the title of this agenda item, the context in which consideration of this matter is taking place affects all developing countries and establishes the responsibility of all States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I This Treaty is based on the principle of the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful pur- poses, and commits non-nuclear States not to acquire nuclear weapons. 3. Undoubtedly, the Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations has aroused real fear among most of the developing countries, because of the possibility of aggression against their nuclear installations. Those developing countries defined their positions in the light of Israel's actions, and in the light of the threats of the Governments of Tel Aviv and Pretoria against Arab and African States, were they to put into effect nuclear projects for peaceful purposes. 4. That situation has shaken the confidence placed in the system which prohibits the proliferation of nuclear weapons, all the more so since countries have been led to believe that the provisions established in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons offer no guarantees to the non-nuclear States in respect of a nuclear or non-nuclear military attack against them or against their installations devoted to peaceful purposes. NEW YORK 5. If the General Assembly wished to give effective attention to this question, it would have to take into account the following considerations. First, the Is- raeli threat to attack similar installations in all developing countries is a fact. Secondly, Israel has not adhered to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons because Israel arrogates unto itself the right to produce nuclear weapons in all freedom. Published information indicates that Israel has nucle- ar capacity in the military field;,et certain countries, headed by the United States 0 America, deal with Israel as ifit were a State that had no nuclear military capability. Thirdly, Israel accumulates nuclear mili- tary capability while enjoying American assistance in establishing nuclear projects to supplement military projects that have already been carried out, in particular, the Dimona reactor. Fourthly, what ap- plies to Israel to a large extent also applies to South Africa which, in collaboration with Israel, has carried out a nuclear explosion, as all the world knows. Nuclear co-operation between the racist entity in Tel Aviv and the equally racist entity in Pretoria is being extended and enlarged in all fields, especially the nuclear field. This gives South Africa and Israel the capacity to destroy peaceful nuclear installations in vast regions of the world situated between Western Asia and North Africa on the one hand, and the entire African continent on the other. Fifthly, the developing countries have the absolute inalienable right of acquiring nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Any military or political or economic act which represents a threat to that right is a first step towards the restriction of the nuclear weapons non- proliferation system which is based on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 6. Starting from this premise, the Get ral Assem- bly, like the Security Council, is in duty bound once again to establish fully and unequivocally the right of the developing countries to have access to nuclear technology and to peaceful scientific research within the framework of the IAEA system of safeguards. 7. We know that Israel and South Africa, despite the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, are intensifying their policy of force and aggression to destroy the economic, social and cultural infrastructures of the developing coun- tries which, for their part, defend their people, their homelands, their independence, their sovereignty and their territorial integrity. 8. What has enabled Israel to increase its threat to destroy peaceful nuclear installations is a fundamen- tal error, committed as far back as the time when the Security Council first began to consider the question of Israeli aggression against the nuclear installations of Iraq. On 19 June 1981 the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 487 (1981) which merely Hcondemned" Israel. The Council at that time )C operation. It is a rejection of all norms: an act of nuclear installations, all States and especially those aggression against a sovereign State in the heart of its providing assistance to Israel have the duty to . h' .. tt k d d compel Israel to resn_A~ct the General Assembly and own terrItory were Its sCIentIsts were a ac e an the means of progress and science of the Arab world Security Council resolutions. represented by 22 States in this Hall were destroyed. 40. Mr. SHIHABI (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation This Arab world, which in the past has transmitted from Arabic): I take this opportunity to congratulate knowledge and technology to the West, is now you, Sir, on your unanimous election to the presid~n- threatened by the Israeli machine which attempts to cy of the General Assembly. That was an expressIon hold back its technical and scientific progress. That is of the Assembly's appreciation for yell personally as the height of aggression. If the United Nations was well as for your friendly country, and for Africa, the not established to prevent such attacks, then what is great continent that has struggled and continues to its raison d'etre? struggle against all forms of injustice and all types of 45. The Iraqi nuclear reactor was the minor victim. aggression. In the weeks since your election, we have. I h k'll d' th t k witnessed you leading the proceedings of the General The mnocent peop e w 0 were I e In e a tac , Assembly with great ability, wisdom and efficiency, and the scientists whose lives w,ere abruptly ended in order to kill their knowledgl~, were the human and that deserves our gratitude and appreciation. victims. But Israel, which is trying to bar the Arabs 41. I have referred to forms of injustice and types of access to science, killing their scientists and prevent- aggression, and the Zionist aggression of 1981 upon ing them from achieving a scientific and technologi- the Iraqi nuclear reactor strikes us as being one of the callevel commensurate with the rest of the world, is most provocative, because it summarizes, in one at the root of the issue. The Israeli reasoning in criminal act, the intentions, methods and objectives justification of the attack is the most dangerous of the Israeli design in the area. It further reflects the factor of all. By that reasoning, Israel proves itself to danger of destruction that Israeli concepts pose to the be a danger to the Arab nations, a threat to the international community as a means of interaction, region, to the developing world, and indeed, to all and, moreover, constitutes a factor disruptive of the norms ofbehaviour within the international commu- foundations of the family of nations. nity, not only from the point of view of day-to-day 42. Israel attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the security and regional and international stability, but heartland of Iraq, which has subjected its nuclear also from the standpoint of the dissemination of programme to the provisions of the Treaty on the science, the accumulation of knowledge and the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since 1970. crossing of the threshold to development, which Meanwhile, Israel continues to refuse to subject its constitutes the most important stage in the destiny of secretive nuclear production to verification and any nation. inspection-for obvious reasons. Also, Zionist agents 46. In spite ofall this, Israeli authorities still receive assassinated an eminfSnt physicist who had partici- assistance and enjoy technical and material support pated in Iraq's peaceful nuclear research, and they to continue such aggression. Moreover, Israel and did this while he was out of his country. Israel has South Africa, two entities that rival each other in the declared that it will attack every Arab nuclear crime of racism, the violation of laws and the facility, irrespective of the purpose of that facility. perpetration of attacks upon the lives of peoples, What an ugly picture these designs ~f th~ Zi0!1ist offer mutual support in this field. But whereas South establishment present. At the same tIme, It claIms Africa remains outside this Hall, Israel, regrettably, is that it wants to live in peace and security in the midst still sitting amongst us, thinking that its seat here of the Arab world, whose security and peace and justifies its crimes. means of human and material progress and develop- 47. The responsibility for this dangerous and ment are simultaneously being attacked by Israel. threatening situation is shared with the Israeli au- 43. Security Council resolution 487 (1981) strongly thorities by all those who did not respond to General condemned this aggression and assigned the full Assembly resolution 36/27 of 13 November 1981, in responsibility for it to Israel. Concomitant General which the General Assembly called upon all Member Assembly resolutions of 1981, 1982 and 1983 con- States "to cease forthwith any provision to Israel of firmed this same position. General Assembly resolu- arms and related material of all types which enable it tion 37/189 B, in particular, stressed the importance to commit acts of aggression against other States". of compliance by all Sta~es with the purpos~s ~nd This prohibition was reiterated in similar resolutions principles of the DeclaratIOn on the Use of SCIentIfic adopted in 1983, but Israel still persists in following and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace the path of aggression and continues to receive and for the Benefit of Mankind, in order to promote assistance, while it still challenges the international human rights and fundamental freedoms. It noted community and all that the Organization stands for. that "5cientific and technological progress is one of Mr. Sal/am (Yemen), Vice-President. took the the important factors in t~e developm~nt of hu~~n Chair. society". In spIte of all thIS, the ZIOnIst authorItIes have never stated a position contrary to the one 48. This aggression is flagrantly directed towards proclaimed by Israeli officials-namely, that they the Arab world as its principal target and against the will attack Arab nuclear activities anywhere and developing world in its efforts to achieve growth, everywhere. progress and advancement. Indeed, it is directed th~ s~cunty of every .State I!1 the world. whose has decided to attack and destroy all nuclear installa- sCI.entIfic and technol~gIcal achIevements mIght not tions, even those for peaceful purposes, which might SUIt some ~ther State. III no matter what corner ofthe pose any danger to Israel. The declared policy of globe? ThIS concept IS ~ grave d~nger that threatens Israel is based on destructive, preventive attacks. all States, meek and mIghty. It IS a theme that was . .. . . used as a justification for fascism, that was nourished 57.. It IS our task m thIS mternatIOnal f~rum to. see by racism and sustained by terrorism. I do hope that to It that the law replaces the ~se o.f force m rela~IO~s while we recognize the aims and objectives of this be~ween.States and that the sovereIgnt~and ternton- dangerous course, we shall face up to the challenge al mteg~Ity of States are respec!ed. !hIS would keep that it represents our ~egIOn free from all outSIde mterference and . conflIct. 50. Mr. AL-SABBAGH (Bahrain) (interpretation 8'1 .... . from Arabic): For the fourth consecutive year, the 5. WhI e Isra~l prOclaImS .ItS desIr: t~ mamtam General Assembly is studying the question of the pea~e and secunty III the MIddle. ~a~t, It does not Israeli military aggression on Iraqi nuclear installa- heslt~te to persecut.e th~. PalestI!lIa~ people. and tions and its serious consequences. The annual depnve. them of theIr l~gItImate,.malIenable nghts. repetition of this discussion in no way diminishes the 59. GIven the aggressIve behavIO!1r of Isra.el, the seriousness of the subject, and until the question has Gene~al. Assembly must sho~lder. Its colle.ctIve re- been settled the item will be likely to appear again on sponsIbIlIty. Those States WhICh gIve techmcal, eco- the agenda ~f the General Assembly. The IAEA, the nomic and military assist~nce to Israel mu~t cease to organization which is competent and empowered to d.o so, becau~e I~rael contlr~es to reaffirm I!S aggres- discuss the matter and which indeed has done so SIve, expansIOmst tendencIes, to the detnment of has nevertheless not yet fou'nd a s~lution to th~ neighbouring countries. serious political and economic aspects of this prob- 60. In considering this agenda item we should lem. demonstrate greater interest in achieving positive, 51. I do not think that any Member of the United const~ctive me~sures, for there .is real danger of a Nations wants to see this question become a perma- repetItIon ~f thIS act of. aggreSSIOn. Is.r~e~ has not nent item on the agenda of the General Assembly. WIthdrawn ItS threat. It IS the responsIbIlIty of the This was confirmed by the representative of Iraq General Assem!Jly to de~and th~t Israel undertake during consideration of the question last year. not to repeat ItS aggreSSIOn. It IS not enough for . f . fl Israeli officials to state that they will not adopt a 5~. 1'hat IsraelI a~ts ~ aggressIOn are a agrant policy of attacking nuclear installations for peaceful vIo!atIon or. the pn~clples C?f the Charter of the purposes in neighbouring countries Umted NatIons, of IllternatIOnal law and of the ..... norms of international conduct is perfectly obvious 61. The Secunty CouncIl, m re~olutIOn 487 (1981), to everyone. This has had most serious consequences demanded that I.srael take certam !TIeasures but, .of for international relations and specifically for the courset Israel dId not c0!TIply w~th the Secunty special relations in connection with nuclear matters CouncIl's demand. The Umted NatIOns must ensure and the development of nuclear energy for peaceful compliance with that resolution and take all neces- purposes. sary measures. 53. Thus. legal measures should be taken to prevent 62.. Isra~l must accede to the Treaty on the No.n- a repetition of the military aggression against nuclear Pr~hf~ratIon of Nuc~ear Weapons and place ItS installations. especially since the Group of Experts on actIvltIe~ under the !AEA safeguar~s system. Israel the Consequences ofthe Israeli Armed Attack against must respect the numerous resolutIOns adopted by the Iraqi Nuclear Installations. in their report,3 the Assembly. stressed the need to ensure the safe development of 63. Mrs. DIAMATARIS (Cyprus): For the fourth nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Therefore. we year the General Assembly is devoting its attention to believe that it is necessary to set up an effective world the Israeli attack against the Iraqi Osirak nuclear system of safeguards concerning the use of nuclear installations, which remains one of the most unpro- technology. It is also necessary to take strict and voked military acts in recent years. Fortunately, time effective measures to prevent a repetition ofsuch acts does not bring oblivion in such cases. of aggression. 64. Last year, the General Assembly adopted reso- 54. Needless 'l0 save the Israeli raid. which took lution 38/9. in which it denounced the Israeli attack place on 19 June 0(1981 and completely destroyed in the strongest possible terms and condemned the Iraqi nuclear reactor. which was designed for Israel's threat to repeat such an attack as endangering peaceful purposes, was premeditated. It was planned international peace and security. The whole world b~,/ resolutions 38/9 and 38/64, as well as other terrorist attack by Israel against the peaceful nuclear relevant documents. Israel has refused to adhere to installations of Iraq. the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 90. Mr. AL-GHAFARY (Oman) (interpretation Weapons and has continued to build up, in co- from Arabic): This is the fourth year, from the thirty- operation with the racist regime of South Africa, its sixth session to the thirty-ninth session, that this item military nudear arsenal with the sole aim of gaining has been placed on our agenda. It was placed also total military superiority in the region and facilitat- before the General Conference of the International ing its expansionism in that part of the world. A Atomic Energy Agency at two regular sessions, the pinnacle of this aggressive policy is Tel Aviv's stated twenty-fifth and the twenty-sixth, and was put for threat to attack and destroy nuclear facilities in Iraq consideration before the Security Council in the and other countries. period from 12 to 19 June 1981. The feelings of 85. A typical example in this respect is the position outrage and alarm that swept the international taken by the Government of Israel in its letter of 12 community in the wake of the brazen Israeli attack July 1984, addressed to the Secretary-General on the peaceful Iraqi nuclear reactor reached such a secu~ty".7•The Conference.also called for the ~arly opportunity to discuss the situation in the Middle consIderatIOn and. c~ncll.!s~on of an InternatIOnal East and the question of Palestine, my delegation ~greeme!1t to prohIbIt mlhtary attacks on nuclear deems it fit not to expound, at this point, Israel's InstallatIOns. policy and actions, which are responsible for the lack 108. Deeply committed to the principles of non- of peace, justice and stability in that part of the alignment and of the Charter of the United Nations, world. Yugosl~via has l?-ever.accepted or ~pp~ovedthe us~ of 117. We should none the less like to remind Israel, forc~, Interv~ntl(?n, Interference ~n Internal affatrs, which all too often complains about actions directed foreIgn dommatI<:>n and. occupatIOn. Consequently against it, that it has created and still feeds animosi- my <;Jovernm~nt, Im~edlately after the attack on the ties which in truth are due to nothing else and IraqI ~ucl~ar mstallatIons, resolutely co~demned the nothing less than the untold suffering it has caused Israeh actIon ~s aD; act of Stat~ terr~n~m and.the and is still causing in the Middle East through its most fl~grant VIolatIOn of sovereIgnty In InternatIon- aggressive policies. al relatIons. 109. We support the legitimate demand by Iraq that 118. We are convinced t~at if a!ld when that Israel should adequately compensate it for the dam- country manages to ma~shalllts en~rgles and be b.old age resulting from the attack. We also consider it ~no1;ltgh to make a genu!ne eff~~ aImed a! vanqulsh- necessary that Israel give guarantees that it will not mg I"S r~al rather.than ItS. fic~ltlous e~emles, su~h as repeat the attack on nuclear installations and that it the IraqI nuclear InstallatIon In questIon, the MIddle will respect the sovereign rights of States to scientific East WIll be ~ ~uc~ bett~r place for all those and technical development. concerned to hve m, mcludmg Israel. 110. Confidence, which is the essential prerequisite 119. In thi.s con!ext and.with particul~r referenc~ to for negotiations on peace and stability in the Middle the agel?-da Item In q.uestIon, the Turkish delegatI~n East, cannot be built concurrently with the policy of would hke to renew It~ cal.l to Isra.el to corn.ply With force and expansion. a.ll the elements emb~dled m Secunty CouncIl resolu- 111. It is utterly beyond comprehension that after tIon 487 (1981) .w~lch, as a !Jnammously adopted almost 40 years of war psychosis in that extremely document, contams sound gUidance. explosive region, some still do not see that the 120. I must add that Israel's unwarranted attack sol~tion cadnndot be i~posefd bh y f~rl~~' that the contind- wd.as alldt~e more spockind g flhorlilt also invholvTed Israel's uatIon an eepenmg 0 ostI ItIes are not an trect Isrespect lor an c a enge to t e reaty on cannot be in the inter~ ofany p~ople, including that the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the of Israel. It seems that ·some have still not been IAEA system ofsafeguards, as has been underlined in convinced by < the truth of history that the freedom the study by the Group of Experts on the conse- and independence ofany nation cannot be secured by quences of the said armed attack by Israel.3 ~reaty ~nd acc~de to it, thus perm~tting the appl~c~- 130. Mr. S. M. KHAN (Pakistan): The Israeli air tlOn of InternatIonal safeguards to Its nuclear actIvI- attack on the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Centre in ties. Iraq on 7 June 1981 was a naked act of aggression 124. Mr. SALLAM (Yemen) (interpretation from which resulted in the destruction of the Tamuz-I Arabic): The General Assembly adopted resolution reactor and damage to other facilities at the Centre. 38/9 in which it condemned Israel for continuing to As a direct result of this unprovoked and totally reject the implementation ofSecurity Council resolu- indefensible act, Iraq sustained a financial loss of tion 487 (1981), which was adopted unanimously by several hundreds of millions of dollars. Further, the the Council. Although three years have elapsed since Israeli attack set back the peaceful nuclear pro- that heinous crime was perpetrated by Israel-the gramme of Iraq, a party to the Treaty on the Non- destruction of the Iraqi nuclear installations-and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, by at least five despite the adoption by the General Assembly of years. succe~sive resolutions demanding that Isra~l with- 131. The serious consequences of this attack were ~raw !ts threat to attack and .destroy nucJear l~stalla- not, however, limited to the direct losses sustained by tIons In Iraq or other countnes, Israel totally Ignores Iraq. By attacking the nuclear facilities under lAEA !he views <;>f the Organization and. continues to flout safeguards, of a party to the Treaty 'on the Non- Its resolutIons and recommendatIOns. Pr<?liferation of Nuclear Weapons, Israel posed a 125. The delegation of Yemen listened to the senC?us c~alle~g~ to th~ international nucleat: non- representative of Israel yesterday restating the main prohfer~tlOn regIme, wh~ch, on the one hand, alms at points of his Government's position on this issue. In preventIng nuclear prohferation and, on the other, my Government's view, however, his response on reco~izes the right of non-nuclear-weapon States to this item is totally unacceptable. He tried to disre- acqUIre and develop nuclear technology for peaceful gard the specific demand of the General Assembly purposes. Israel's action was tantamount to the that Israel withdraw forthwith its threat to attack and denial of this right. Further, it called into question destroy nuclear facilitie~ in Iraq in particular and in the belief that t~e ad~erence by a State to the Treaty other countries in general. The first of the main on the Non-ProhferatIon ofNuclear Weap~ns and its points of the Israeli Government's position was this: acc~p~ance of full-scop~ safeguard~ on ItS nucle~r "Israel has no policy of attacking nuclear facilities faclhtIes shou~d be conSIdered suffiCIent to prevent It and no intention of attacking nuclear facilities dedi- from developIng nuclear weapons. The Israeli attack cated to peaceful purposes anywheren [see 55th was .ther~fore a serious threat both to the Non- meeting, para. 25]. To us this paragraph means that Pr~hferatlOn Treaty and to the IAEA safeguards perhaps right now Israel has no policy or intention of regIme. attacking nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful 132. But, above all, the attack on Iraq's nuclear purposes anywhere, but Israel does have a policy and facilities was a wanton act of aggression which the intention of attacking nuclear installations d~di- violate~ Iraq's sovereignty and territoria~ integrity in cated.to. no~-peaceful purposes anywh~re, an~ wlth- total dlsreg~rd of the Chart~r of the UnIted Nations ,?ut distInctIOn. Does Israel agree that ItS pohcy and and recognIzed norms of Inter-State behaviour. It mtention should apply when its security is threat- therefore constituted a serious breach of internation- ened? For what we are talking about here is, as we al peace and security, and called for an appropriate know, a State that has nuclear reactors for non- response from the mternational community to re- peaceful purposes. dress the situation and to contain its serious conse- 126. Thus, Israel's threat is that it ha9 a policy and quences. the intention of attacking nuclear installations 133. Pakistan was amongst those countries which throughout the world. It is clear that su~h statements promptly condemned this unprovoked and premedi- can come only from an arrogant and msolent Gov- tated Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities. We ernment and an equally arrogailt and insolent people, assured Iraq, at the highest level of our total which claim that they are the "chosen people n • solidarity in the face of this blatant aggression. 127. Bya note dated 15 March 1984, the Secretary- 134. The Security Council's response to the serious General requested quite specifically that Israel in- situation created by the Israeli air attack was to adopt resoluti~ns since 1981 condemning Israel for. its 141. First, the atomic installations which were premed.ltateq an~ unprecedented act of a~resslOn destroyed by the Zionist air force did not belong to and r~Iter~tmg Its demand that Israel wIthdraw President Saddam Hussein himself or to the ruling fOI1~~Ith . Its threat t<? attack and d~stroy nuclear clique around him; they were the property of the facIlIties In Iraq and In other countnes. Iraqi people, and therefore, the Islamic Republic of 135. In September 1981 the General Conference of Iran feels duty-bound to defend them, just as it is to the International Atomic Energy Agency adopted defend its own territory. We are, therefore, defending resolution GC(XXV)/RES/381 which suspended im- the right of the Iraqi people, and it has nothing to do mediately the provision of any assistance to Israel with the present conflict, which has so sadly been under the Agency's technical assistance programme. imposed upon us. The resolution sta~ed that the Israeli ~ction consti- 142. Secondly, the representative of the Zionist t'!'t~d an attack agaInst the Agency and Its safeguards occupiers of Palestine tried yesterday [55th meeting] regIme and called upon the States members. of the to take advantage of the prevailing conflict in order Agency to end all transfers t.o Israel of fissIOnable to divert the attention ofthe international body from matenal and technology, WhICh could be used for the real issue. Thus, he referred to the Iraqi invasion nuclear arms. of my country, Iraqi chemical warfare, Iraqi attacks 136. Unfortunately, the world-wide condemnation on non-belligerent vessels in the Persian Gulf, and so and the resolutions of the Security Council, the on and so forth. Genera~ Assembly and the IAEA ha~e not produ~ed 143. According to Islam, the testimony of the the desIred .results. Israel has not gIven .categoncal criminal has no legal validity. Thus, the evidence and unamblguou~ !l~surances of not stagmg a~tacks presented by the representative of a criminal State, on the nuclear facIlIties of.Iraq and other countnes..It the Zionist base, does not have any validity whatso- has refused to pay repa~atIons to Iraq for the matenal ever from the legal and procedural point of view, dam~ge and. l.oss of lIfe as a r~sult of.the attac~ because this evidence is presented by a criminal despIte. provIsIons to that effect In Secunty CouncIl representing a criminal entity. This testimony is r~solutIon 487 (1981) and General Assembly resolu- given by a criminal entity which has written the tIon 36/27. shameful record ofSabra and Shatila. Such testimony 137. It is necessary, therefore, that the international has no legal validity from our point of view and community should keep the issue under its consider- therefore we do not comment in any way on the ation with the objective of preventing the recurrence substance of his testimony. ofsimi!ar blatant acts ofaggression in ~he.future with 144. Thirdly, some previous speakers have men- the seno.us conseq?ences <?f the IsraelI aIr attack on tioned that, as they put it, Israel has no regard for the IraqI nuclear Installations. international law and violated it in its attack against 138. Pakistan has consistently extended its support the Iraqi atomic installations. Most regrettably, this to proposal" aimed at achieving these objectives. In argument was even produced by some of the Moslem the Conference on Disarmament, Pakistan has delegations, which represent Muslim countries. To worked in close co-operation with other delegations these Moslem brothers I wish to say that the very with a view to negotiating an effective prohibition of existence of the so-called State of Israel is the most attacks on nuclear facilities. Fortunately, there is a blatant violation of international law. How can growing realization by the international community anyone expect an illegitimate entity which has come of the harmful effects of radiation from attacks into being for illegitimate purposes to have any against nuclear facilities. During the current year regard for international law? Do members not re- several new and interesting ideas in regard to the member that the very creation of the so-called State prohibition of attacks on nuclear facilities have been of Israel was, and still is, the greatest blow to all put forward in the Conference on Disarmament. We legality and morality? Do they not see that the entire therefore remain optimistic that, given the political nation of Palestine has become homeless, displaced, will, it should be possible to reach an agreement on their homeland totally occupied? Do they not see that the subject in the not-too-di'5tant future. Palestine has been annihilated and turned into a base 139. We also fully share the belief that the interna- for interna~ion~i ziop.i~m and glo~al imperialism? Is tional community must maintain pressure on Israel It not. qUIte sImplIstic and naIve to. expect. the so that it renounces categorically and unambiguously embodIment of lawlessness to resl?ec~ mternatIonal its threats to attack nuclear facilities in Iraq and in !aw? On. what grounds wo~.l1d. the ZlOm~t base accept other countries and complies fully with the other mternatlOnal law ~hen It. IS an entIty based on provisions ofSecurity Council resolution 487 (1981). lawlessness at the mternatlOnal level? We have, therefore, joined other delegations in 145. I ask members to remember-and I believe sponsoring draft resolution A/39/L.13. they do remember-that the most dangerous thing 140. Mr. RAJAIE-KHORASSANI (Islamic Repub- for all of us in the region ~nd indee~ ~or the.. 'Yhole lic ofIran): I should like to begin my statement with a world wIll tak~ place only ~hen cnmmal reglIl~es, strong condemnation of all military attacks against suc~ as the regI~e occupymg.AI-Quds, can hIde the atomic installations of third-world countries behInd the law, mIsrepresent !heIr nature and appear which, in spite of all their economic problems, are to show respect for mternatIonal law? trying, in the face of so many difficulties, to build a 146. At that moment-the moment when burglars NOTES IUnited Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 729, No. 10485. 2Alexander M. Haig Jr., Caveat: Realism. Reagan and Foreign Policy, New York, Macmillan, 1984. 3A/38/337, annex.