A/40/PV.58 General Assembly

I should like to propose that the list of speakers in the debate on this item be closed today at 12.30 p.m. If I hear no objection, it will be so decided. It was so decided.

I call on the representative of Iraq, who wishes to introduce the draft resolution. Mr. HAMOUD (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): Four years have elapsed since the Israeli act of aggression against the Iraqi nuclear reactor. During that period, Iraq and the Middle East region have lived in the shadow of new Israeli threats to repeat that infamous act, which contravened the Charter of the United Nations and international law, and specifically contravenes resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly and of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Security Council resolution 487 (1981), concerning the Israeli act of aggression against the Iraqi nuclear reactor designed for peaceful purposes, which was adopted unanimously, contains two basic demands: first, that the Israeli aggressor refrain in future from attacking the Iraqi reactor and from threats to do SOi and, secondly, that israeli nuclear facilities be placed under the safeguards of the IAEA. Those two demands were reiterated, inter alia, in General Assembly resolutions, particularly resolution 38/9, and in document A/39/349. They were also reaffirmed in resolutions of the General Conference of the IAEA. Let us now review, after all these years have passed, what has been done in response to those two basic commitments. Israel has persisted in its defiance of the international community. It still insists that it must be the sole judge of the peaceful character of nuclear facilities and, in the light of its own jUdgement, take offensive, aggressive action against such installations. Far from complying with the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly and withdrawing its threat to repeat its armed aggression against Iraq's nuclear facilities, it has repeated that threat on more than one occasion, most recently in the statement by Mr. Ariel Sharon in an interview broadcast by Radio Israel on 26 March 1985, when he said, "We are prepared to strike against any nuclear reactor buil t by Iraq in the future." It is common knowledge that Sharon was the Minister of Defence who planned and implemented the act of aggression against the Tammuz reactor in 1981. with such a statement Sharon, in his capacity as a member of the Israeli Cabinet, is giving expression to his Government's lack of respect for international rules and its flouting of the will of the international community, as well as its intention to continue its acts of aggression. Iraq, which wishes to assist the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has helped the Agency's Director General in his efforts to induce Israel to agree to minimum compliance with the rules of international law. After making every effort, the Director General stated in his report to the Agency's last General Conference that he had failed to bring Israel to agree to that desired minimum. In an attempt to divert world attention from its insistence on continuing its acts of aggression, the Israeli representative, in statements at that Conference and in a note to the United Nations Secretary-General, attempted to portray his entity as committed and responsive to the appeals and resolutions of the international community. If we scrutinize that note, however, it becomes clear that it reflects a lack of seriousness and goodwill and a resort to prevarication, rather than a proper and explicit commitment on Israel's part to abide by the decisions of the international community. In his note to the Secretary-General, he stated: "It is within this context that Israel reconfirms that under its stated policy it will not attack or threaten to attack any nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes, either in the Middle East or anywhere else." (A/40j783, 2..:..2) In another paragraph, the note states that it regards the IAEA safeguards system as being one criterion to determine the peaceful character of the nuclear facility, but does not recognize it as the sole criterion. That ambiguity on the part of the Israeli officials is intentional. Their note fails to clarify Israel's concept of "peaceful nuclear facility". Such ambiguity is designed to give Israel the freedom in the future to decide whether a facility is peaceful or not and then to carry out a further act of aggression at a time of its choosing and in accordance with its own interpretation of what cor.stitutes a peaceful nuclear facility. It is to be deeply regretted that some stat~s have been taken in by the contents of that note and have, therefore, come to believe that Israel has complied with international resolutions calling upon it to refrain in the future from attacking or threatening to attack the Iraqi reactor. As for the second commitment incumbent upon it under Security Council resolution 4B7 (19Bl), Israel has not even attempted to indicate its readiness to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. The Israeli note to the Secretary-General contains no undertaking to submit Israeli nuclear facilities to the safeguards system or to inspection by the Agency. The Third Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has reaffirmed the strong condemnation of the Israel's Aggression .against the Iraqi nuclear reactor. It considered that act as aggression against the entire IAEA safeguards system, which is the very basis of the NPT. That aggression creates a situation that makes it imperative for the Security council to intervene forthwith and to take the ·necessary measures in accordance with the provisions of the united Nations Charter, and in particular Chapter VII. Armed aggression against peaceful nuclear facilities, and in particular those under IAEA safeguards, the first victim of which was the Tammuz reactor, will inevitably be repeated in the future, either by Israel or by some other similar regime, unless the international community shoulders its responsibilities and (Mr. Hamoud, Iraq) taKes the steps necessary to prevent the repetition of such an act, which violates the fundamental right of peoples to development. It also constitutes a grave threat to the future of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as well as a flagrant infringement of the established and inalienable right of all peoples to enjoy the benefits of science and technology, including peaceful nuclear technology, for their own economic and social development. Such armed aggression is also a direct threat to the NPT, which is based on the IAEA safeguards system. The flagrant Israeli attack against Tunisian sovereignty and territorial integrity is yet another expression of the policy of aggression that Israel has pursued since its very inception and of its disregard for the rules of international law. Despite the fact that Israel's act of aggression against Tunisia was different in intent from its attack against the Iraq reactor, the nature of the two acts is the same. Both effect the Israeli authorities' ability to take any steps they deem necessary, even if those steps are in clear contravention of all the rules of international law. As ao~n as they perceive a threat in some part of the world, they send their military jets to attacK this or that State without any legal or moral inhibition, as if the international community were still living in an age of barbarism when the rule of law was unknown. At a time when the international community feels growing concern at the inhuman and brutal practices against the indigenous population in SOuth Africa by the authorities of the racist regime in that country, we find that available data and reports confirm that the South African regime and Israel are collaborating in joint programmes to develop nuclear capabilities,. the former making illegal use of uranium mines in Namibia and the latter contributing its technological and scientific know-how to the manufacture of nuclear weapons and warhead delivery systems. Such co-operation in itself disregards the will of the international community and the decisions of the United Nations. On the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the united Nations, when all Members are demonstrating a keen interest in supporting the Organization and rendering its resolutions more effective, we feel it is high time that the world Organization and its ~arious bodies adopt the measures necessary to stop the aggressor from continuing its aggressive threats and ~o force it to assume all the political and material responsibilities for its acts of aggression. (Mr. Hamoud, Iraq) Proceeding from these considerations, my delegation, along with other delegations, has put forward draft resolution A/40/L.9 and Corr.l, which expresses the deep alarm of the international community at Israel's failure to commit itself not to attack or threaten to attack Iraq's nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes and to place its facilities under the safeguards system for inspection by the IAEA. It also reaffirms that Iraq is entitled to compensation for the damage it has suffered as a result of the Israeli act of aggression and calls upon the international community to provide the necessary technical assistance to I raq to restore its peaceful nuclear programme, upon all States to discontinue co-operation with Israel in that field, and upon the Conference on Disarmament to continue negotia tions wi th a view to the immediate conclus ion of an agreement on the probibition of military attacks on nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Kr. NETANYAHU (I srael): Why are we here this morn ing? Why shall we be here this afternoon? It is not, I assure members, to discuss apartheid; that can wait. It is not to discuss the safe haven of Nazi war criminals in Syria. That too can wait. Nor is it to discuss the mounting casualties, now exceeding a million, in Iraq's war with Iran. That apparently can wait for ever. The reason we are here is that Iraq, against the wishes of so many Members, has determined that we must be here. It resurrects its annual resolution against Israel, dusts it off and gives it a new shine. What are the features of this year's model? First, there are the standards. How does Iraq seek to justify its renewed attempt to vilify Israel? It cites, as usual, the "relevant resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)" dealing with this issue. What relevant resolutions? The 26 September 1985 statement of the lAEA and its resolution were an expression of a vote by the IAEA against the Iraqi draft resolution calling for condemnation and sanctions against Israel. The lAEA resolved instead to put an end (Mr. Hamoud, Iraq) to this issue. In other words, as far as the IAEA - that is, the agency charged with overseeing this matter - is concerned, the issue is closed. Not so for traq. And this brings us to the second feature of its draft resolution, which is also in utter disregard of the IAEA decision. Iraq says that it considers, and it wants the resolution now before the Assembly to consider, "that tsrael has not yet committed itself not to attack nuclear facilitip.s in Iraq or elsewhere, including facilities under IAEA safeguards". But what does the IAEA say about all this? In its resolution of 26 September the IAEA accepted Israel's statements of 23 September 1985 under the requirements of resolution 425 (1978), dealing with armed attacks on nuclear faciliti~5. Let me briefly quote from that Israeli statement. It was made by the representative of Israelis Atomic Energy Commission in the General Conference of the IAEA. He made three central points which summarized Israel's policy and which were incorporated into the IAEA resolution. These were: "1. Israel holds that all States must refrain from attacking or threatening to attack nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes, and that the safeguards system operated by IAEA brings evidence of the peaceful operation of a facility. "2. Israel reconfirms that under its stated policy it will not attack or threaten to attack any nuclear f~r.ilities devoted to peaceful purposes either in the Middle East or anywhere else and emphasizes specifically that Iraq is included. "3. Israel will support any subsequent action in competent fora convened to work out binding agreements protecting nuclear installations devoted to peaceful purposes from attack and threat to attack." (Mr. Netanyahu, Israel Let me repeat, Israel's statement - that is, the statement the Assembly has just heard and some other parts of it - was noted and incorporated by the IAE~ in its september resolution. But Iraq, as the Assembly has just heard, continues to harp on about the need to take action in accordance with the "relevant IAEA resolution". For once - although I do not think this is what Iraq intends - it ,. actually has it right: the IAEA resolutions which found Israel's statement acceptable are relevant, and we should act in accordance with the IAEA's decision - namely, we should drop the issue. What about some of the other features of the annual Iraqi exercise? Iraq notes "a threatening statement made by an ,Israeli cabinet member on 26 March 1985". That was just repeated here. But Iraq is perfectly aware that the only ones authorized to express the Government's policy on this issue are the prime Minister and the Foreign Minister or their specifically designated representatives. I made this point perfectly, unequivocally clear in my letter to the Secretary-General of 16 May 1985. This year's model would also be incomplete without the obligatory feature of all the obsessive anti-Israel campaigns here: sanctions. Iraq "calls upon all States and organizations that have not yet done so to discontinue co-operating with and giving assistance to Israel in the nuclear field" • Once again Iraq flagrantly contradicts the IAEA's decision to continue co-operation with Israel. But it does not stop here. Iraq, I think, has decided that it might as well go the whole distance in opposing IAEA across the board. This brings us to the last feature of Iraq's attempt this year. In the third paragraph of its draft resolution it wants the General Assembly to demand of the IAEA that it consider additional measures against Israel. The IAEA decides one thing, but Iraq wants another, so it asks the General Assembly to cause the IAEA to comply with Iraq's wishes. This is a classic example of an attempt to usurp the authority of an independent agency of the United Nations. The IAEA's decision that the case is closed is now to be reversed by Iraq. And this would bring us all back to square one. All those weeks and months of important work by the IAEA in Vienna is to be shelveQI simply shelved, wiped out. And all the efforts made by the Director-General of the IAEA in fUlfilling his mandate - efforts, by the way, that were specifically acknowledged by the IAEA at the General Conference in Vienna to be successful - are now to be declared a failure by Iraq~ null and void. Who is going to be the final arbiter in this matter? An international agency whose specific responsibility is to deal with this matter, or Iraq? In other words, what we see here today is the General Assembly being asked by Iraq to go against the General Conference of the IAEA. We have heard of the hijacking of the General Assembly. In fact, we have seen the Arab bloc do that many times before. But what we are seeing here,now is something new: not only an attempt to hijack the plenary Assembly - and we should be devoting time to those issues that I have mentioned and many others - but, through the plenary Assembly, to hijack an independent international agency. (Mr. Netanyahu, Israel) It is fitting that Iraq would explore these new vistas of political hijacking, given its wide experience and past record in the field. Iraq, as we all know, was the launching ground and safe haven of the notorious Abu Nidal, who this year, however, has been overshadowed by another Abu, Abu Abbas, the master killer of the Achille Lauro outrage. Abu Abbas carries an Iraqi passport - in fact an Iraqi diplomatic passport - and everyone here knows that onc cannot just walk into a government office and get a diplomatic passport. Everyone here knows what that implies, and what it implies is exactly what happened. Abu Abbas, on his getaway from the hijacking and the brutal murder of Lean Klinghoffer, passed through Baghdad, was wined and dined there by the Iraqi authorities and was then spirited away to another obliging safe haven. So what do we have so far? Iraq tries to force its will on the General ~ssembly, it seeks, through the Assembly, to coerce an independent agency to change its decision and it cites in support of its action the very decisions that it opposes. This should be enough hypocrisy for one resolution. Unbelievably, there is more. Iraq says that it is doing all this, that it is abusing so much of this body's time, patience, money and principles - in its attempt to ensure the safety of nuclear installations from armed attack. To use a colloquial expression, who is it kidding? Since the last time Iraq called for the convening of this forum to discuss the inviolability of nuclear facilities Iraqi aircraft have bombed the Busheir nuclear POwer plant in Iran not once but twice - on 12 February 1985 and 4 March 1985. The latter by the way, was the third such Iraqi attack, the first having been carried out on 24 March 1984. Iraq, then, has repeatedly bombed Iranian nuclear installations. But it has l (Mr. Netanyahu, Israel) It continues to bomb open cities, killing thousands of innocent people - men, women and children who are suffering and dying. It continues to bomb innocent civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf. Nor does Iraq conceal in any manner its· intention of destroying the State of Israel, the United Nations Charter notwithstanding. How can Iraq expect the General Assembly to put up with such stark hypocrisy? The answer is very simple: conditioning. The Iraqis, the Arab bloc as a whole, believe they have fully tamed this body so that it will accept an unlimited dosage of hypocrisy and slander. They expect the members of this body to yawn in boredom and press last year's buttons for this year's resolutions. Let us for once condition the Iraqis. Let us show them that not everyone will play along. Let us show them that they cannot abuse this forum in perpetuity. Let them know that each year that they exhume this resolution more and more members will demonstrate their indignation by changing their votes to votes against the Iraqi resolution. Mr. SAFRONCHUK (Union of Soviet socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): Today the General Assembly once again has to consider the question of armed Israeli aggression against Iraqi nuclear installations for peacefuL purposes and its grave consequences for world peace and security. The criminal Israeli raid on the Iraqi nuclear research centre, which was yet another manifestation of Israel's policy of State terrorism directed against neighbouring Arab countries, had extremely grave consequences for peace and security in the Middle East. The Soviet Union, like many other countries, resolutely condemned that criminal act against the nuclear reactor at Tammuz, which was unanimously viewed by the Security Council as an unprecedented act of aggression. For several years now, resolutions have been adopted by the united Nations General Assembly ana the Board of Governors and General Confe~ence of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA~ aimed at putting an end to the Israeli threat to carry out further attacks on nuclear installations in Iraq and other countries. However, those resol~tions, as well as the Security Council decisions, remain unimplemented. Israel persists in its aggressive policy against the Arab countries, trampling upon their sovereignty and independence. The recent criminal attack on Tunisia, which was an act carefully planned and coolly executed by Tel Aviv, reflected clearly, as if in a drop of water, the essence of that policy. In fact, blatantly arrogating to itself a right to commit acts of terror, Israel is demonstrating a cynical disregard for the fundamental provisons of the united Nations Charter, the rules of international law and the decisions of our Organization, as well as a total lack of respect for elementary human rights and, above all, for the inalienable right to life. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the continuing reliance on terror and br~te force, which is a deliberate challenge to the entire world community, as demonstrated in the criminal incursion against Tunisia and the piratical attack on the Iraqi nuclear installations for peaceful purposes, is possible only because of the comprehensive and unconditional support that Israel receives from the united States. Thus, the united states shares with Israel responsibility for the crimes systematically committed by that country. Time has shown that, despite the clearly expressed condemnation of Israel's piratical actions against the Iraqi nuclear installations for peaceful purposes and the relevant decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, Israel, aided and abetted by its patrons, persists in its aggressive policies. Moreover, it has not renounced the threat to commit another attack on nuclear installations whenever it finds that necessary. As has been emphasized in numerous decisions of the General Assembly and various bodies of the IAEA, Israel openly disregards the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the IAEA safeguards system, thus jeopardizing the prospects of further peaceful development of nuclear power production. In this 'context, the Soviet delegation wishes to emphasize once again that that Treaty constitutes an important factor for ensuring international peace and security. Supported by the IAEA safeguards system, the Treaty serves as a reliable barrier to the spreading of nuclear weapons and at the same time ensures international co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. It should be noted that Iraq, whose nuclear installations for peaceful purposes were the target of the Israeli attack, has been a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty from the moment it entered into force in 1970. Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards with regard to all its nuclear activities and is fUlfilling its obligations in good faith. (Mr. Safronchuk, USS~) On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that Israel stubbornly refuses to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel's nuclear ambitions have been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations General Assembly, which has demanded that Israel put all its nuclear installations under the safeguards of the IAEA and requested that the security Council adopt appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the resolutions concerning the question of Israeli nuclear armaments. Despite what the representative of Israel says here, Israel's refusal to comply with those United Nations decisions eloquently testifies to the fact that its real objective is the acquisition of its own nuclear weapons in order to establish its domination in the Middle East region. In this connection our attention is drawn to a report (A/40/520) published by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research which has been submitted for consideration at the current session of the General Assembly. The analysis of new data and information used in that report objectively support the conclusions of the report of united Nations experts submitted to the General Assembly in 1981 that "Israel, if it has not already crossed [the nuclear] threshold, has the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons within a very short time-. (A/36/43l, para. 82) It is difficult even to imagine what those adventurist plans could lead to if timely action is not taken to stop them. The Soviet Union believes that the General Assembly should take most decisive measures to curb Israel's nuclear ambitions and ensure the implementation of its previous decisions aimed at limiting Israel's ability to pursue a policy of aggression and blackmail against the Arab countries and at strengthening universal peace and security. In conclusion, the Soviet delegation would like to address another aspect of this problem. It has now been recognized by practically everyone that ensuring the safe development of nuclear-power production through the prohibition of the deliberate destruction of nuclear installations is a particularly important and urgent task that affects the interests of both nuclear and non-nuclear States. It is well known that the Soviet Union took the initiative in drawing attention to this question as long ago as the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly in its proposal entitled "Intensification of efforts to remove the threat of nuclear war and ensure the safe development of nuclear energy". Numerous proposals to that effect have been submitted by other countries as well. The question of protecting peaceful nuclear installations from armed attack is at present under discussion at the Conference on Disarmament. Despite the complex nature of the problem, we would like to hope that at the session of the Conference on Disarmament in 1986 headway will be made in solving the problem of protecting, peaceful nuclear installations from attacks and that the stage of discussion will give way to negotiations on specific issues so that work may be speedily concluded on an agreement concerning international measures to prevent actions resulting in the deliberate destruction of civilian nuclear installations. Mr. ABULHASAN (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic): I must start my statement this morning by commenting - very briefly - on what has just been said by the representative of Israel. As usual, he could find no arguments to support his view of the agenda item now under consideration. Instead, he dealt with matters totally irrelevant to the basic question. We wish that for once the Israeli representative would conf~ne himself to the item under discussion. The General Assembly and its Committees are really bored with this impudent attitude - which, in any case, cannot erase from the agenda the item under consideration but, instead, will merely strengthen the conviction of representatives here that Israel deserves all the charges that are made against it, as well as the international community's contempt. (Mr. Safronchuk, USSR) The story of Zionist aggression, whatever its form, is not a new story. For the Zionist entity entity, which was established on a basis of illegality, continues to use illegality as a tool for carrying out its aggressive expansionist policy and schemes. The argument it uses in its attempt to justify these schemes is a shaky argument, one that cannot be believed by anyone - that is, the argument of its so-called security. In the name of security, that entity sent its military jets in 1981 to bomb the peaceful Iraqi nuclear installations, it used the pretext that those installations posed a danger to it. In the name of security, that entity sent its troops, its aircraft and its military vehicles to invade Lebanon in 1982, using the pretext of the need to protect its northern settlements. In the name of security, that entity sent its military jets thousands of miles away to bomb the headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the sister Republic of Tunisia. By that act, it violated the provisions of international law which protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. This argument about so-called security interests is completely illogical, because it is used by an entity that is armed to the teeth and that enjoys the unlimited military and financial support of a major Power which, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has a special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. If this proves anything, it is that this entity should be the last one to talk about security, and that its alleged keen interest in security is but a screen behind which it lurks while carrying out its schemes and using its weapons to bombard any chances for peace that may arise. (Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait) The New York Times alluded to that phenomenon in its issue of 6 OCtober 1985, from which I quote the following: (spoke in English) "The challenge before Israel is not to prove it can bomb a target many miles away, but to practise restraint and bear the risk of negotiations that might bring it many years of peace". (Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait) (continued in Arabic) When the Zionist jets carried out their fateful, brutal raid against the peaceful atomic facilities in Iraq in 1981, there was a dual purpose for that illegal act of aggression, that is, to set a precedent and to consolidate a rule. The precedent is that the zionist entity would arrogate to itself unilaterally a right, or a self-authorization, to deal its military blows undeterred whenever or wherever it wants to. As for the rule, it is not to allow any international law or any international denunciation to prevent that entity from stretching out its long military arm to achieve the well-known Zionist objectives and schemes. The Minister of Industry and Trade of the Zionist entity, Ariel Sharon, is a member of the Israeli Cabinet. A Minister in the Cabinet is responsible for the actions of the Government and speaks for the Government, whether there is an official spokesman of the Government or not. He is not playing outside the arena, he bases what he says on the debates of the Government, and therefore a statement by that Minister is a statement by the Government, even though the representative of the Zionist entity wants to remove that charge from the Israeli Minister. Last March that Minister said in a statement that Israel has the right and is ready to strike against any nuclear reactor to be built by Iraq in the future, thus defying Security Council resolution 487 (1981). That resolution: "Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the united Nations and the norms of international conduct;" and: "Calls upon Israel to refra in in the future from any such acts or threats thereof" • After the brutal raid against Tunisia last month, the Defence Minister of the zionist entity declared that Israel has the right to stretch its arm to any part of CMr. Abulhasan, Kuwait) the world to protect its security. The question that instantly leaps to mind 1s, where does that zionist entity get the self-authorization which is based on the denial of all international laws, as well as the provisions of the Charter. To add insult to injury, that act of aggression against the ~eaceful nuclear installation in Iraq and the threat to repeat it in the future comes against a backdrop replete with unprecedented challenges to the international community in its attempt to base relations between states on international law and conventions. Foremost among those challenges are the following. First, the Zionist entity's non-compliance with Security Council resolution 487 (1981) which calls upon it to cease its aggression and threats to attack Iraq. The resolution considered that act of aggression as: "a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty". Secondly, the Zionist entity's refusal to accept the internationally recognized criteria for defining peaceful nuclear installations; Thirdly, its refusal to allow the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities, as mentioned in the same Security council resolution. Such a widespread demonstration of international irresponsibility constitutes the epitome of international illegitimacy and clear contempt for the international community, its organizations, its conventions and its basic rules. That Zionist aggression against the nuclear installation in Iraq, as well as its threat to repeat it, do not constitute an act of aggression against Iraq alonp., but also an unprecedented disregard for the provisions of the Charter which call on all States to refrain from the USe of force or the threat of force in their international relations. It also constit~tes an unprecedented disregard of the international criterion for the peaceful use of atomic energy. In particular that act of aggression was carried out by an entity which refuses to allow the IAEA to inspect its atomic reactors and against a State that is committed to the criteria of the Agency as well as to those of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In addition to the danger posed to international peace by that aggression and the threat to repeat it, there is the grave threat of atomic radiation which might spread as a result of those unprecedented acts of aggression. Therefore my delegation believes that both the IAEA and the Security Council are required to shoulder their relevant responsibilities to correct this error and to bring things back to the right path. Kuwait believes that adoption of the draft resolution submitted on this agenda item is the least the General Assembly can do, in accordance with the responsibility of Members to protect the legitimate interests of Member states. Mr. AL-KAWARI (Qatar) (interpretation from Arabic): The General Assembly has considered this item regularly since its thirty-sixth session. It has adopted resolutions which, regrettably, have never been implemented. However, the fact that the General Assembly is once again considering the Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations reflects the interest of the international community in putting an end to Israel's lawlessness and to deter it from a repetition of such aggression, to stop its defiance of the international community which is manifest in its threat to repeat that act of aggression against Iraq or any other country which dares to establish a nuclear reactor to serve its development purposes. This takes place at a time when Israel has established nuclear reactors, has not acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and refuses to place its nuclear installations under international inspection. There is irrefutable evidence that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Israel's objective is to use its nuclear monopoly in the region to threaten all countries in the Middle East, in order to carry out its policy of expansion and rejection of the legal rights of the Palestinian people. I should like to state briefly my country's position as follows: First, the General Assembly demandedt "that Israel und~rtake forthwith not to carry out any attack on nuclear facilities in Iraq, or on similar facilities in other countries, devoted to peaceful purposes" (resolution 39/14, para. 4) However, Israel tried to mislead the world by giving the impression, in its memorandum dated 4 October 1985 referred to in the report of the Secretary-General on the item under review, that it would respond to that request. The misleading nature of that latest memorandum is to be found in the contents of Israel's letter circulated at the latest conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and in the memorandum of its Permanent Representative to the United Nations dated 7 February 1985. Those memorandums stated that it should be left to the Israeli authorities to determine the peaceful character of their nuclear installations. Such a procedure would mislead no one but those who champion evil. Secondly, Israel has not acceded to the NPT and has not placed its nuclear installations under the inspection of the IAEA. Israel still refuses to do that and persists in taking that line in such a way that belies its statements in its most recent memorandum. The Third Review Conference of States Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, heald in Geneva from 27 August to 21 September 1985, referred in paragraph 20 of its Final Declaration to its concern over the non-compliance by Israel with the repeated requests to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to accept international control of its nuclear installations by the IAEA. Thirdly, regrettably the Security Council has not taken any action to force Israel to comply with its resolution 487 (1981), as the General Assembly again called for in paragraph 5 of resolution 39/14, to which the Secretary-General drew the attention of the Security Council in his memorandum dated 5 February 1985. The Review Conference affirmed in paragraph 11 of its Final Declaration that it was the responsibility of the States which are permanent members of the Security Council to enable the Council to take the necessary measures to deal with the situation reSUlting from the Israeli aggression. (Mr. AI-Kawari, Qatar) Fourthly, this failure to compel Israel to respect the resolutions of the United Nations has encouraged that country to commit aggression after aggression, the latest being the aggression against another Arab country thousands of kilometres away, namely, Tunisia. Tunisian territory was hit by Israeli bombers in September last, in an·attempt by Israel to liquidate the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole, authentic representative of the Palestinian people. That attack resulted in the martyrdom of dozens of innocent people and the destruction of many buildings. Had Israel been deterred after its aggression against Iraq, that latest aggression would not have occurred. Fifthly, the continued nuclear co-operation between the Zionist entity and the apartheid regime in South Africa gives us cause for deep concern because that co-operation could entail great risks for more than one region of the world. It even threatens the peace and security of the whole world. No wonder the apartheid regime still refuses to accede to the NPT and to accept inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That fact was referred to by the NPT review conference in paragraph 20 of its Final Declaration. We have heard much from this rostrum during this commemorative session much about the lack of credibility of the United Nations. That credibility crisis is a natural result of the fact that the .resolutions of this Organization remain dead letters and that it has been unable to secure implementation of its resolutions. Is it not high time, then, for people to regain their trust in this Organization through the implementation of its resolution? My country is fully confident that the General Assembly will do its duty by adopting the draft resolution on this matter. Will the countries, especially those that blindly support Israel, respond by forcing Israel to respect the united Nations and implement its resolutions? (Mr. AI-Rawari, Qatar) Mrs. DIAMATARIS (Cyprus): The General Assembly is considering for the fifth year now the Israeli military attack against the Iraqi installations of Osirak and its grave consequences. The Iraqi installations were devoted to peaceful purposes. Iraq intended to use its nuclear installations for the prosperity of the people of Iraq. Moreover, Iraq is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its nuclear facilities were under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards system at the time when that unwarranted attack occurred. No one can deny the inalienable right of any State to proceed with peaceful nuclear programmes aimed at the development of its economy as long as those programmes are in conformity with internationally adopted steps designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Israel was neither attacked nor was its security threatened. The whole world therefore denounced this unprovoked and unjustifiable act of aggression. The General Assembly has in four consecutive years adopted four resolutions which denounced the Israeli attack in the strongest possible terms and condemned Israel's threat to repeat such an attack as endangering international peace and security. The Cyprus Government and people expressed their indignation immediately after the Israeli attack. Cyprus, having itself been a victim of aggression, foreign invasion and occupation which brought untold misery to its people, considers it to be its responsibility to reiterate its condemnation of the Israeli aggression. Israel acted in total disregard of the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter and every principle of international law. Israel continues to refuse to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. This year we are commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations the international Organization which was created to prevent war and to maintain international peace and security. the resolutions of the United Nations. I wish to draw the attention of the Assembly to the dangerous precedent set by Israel's unprovoked attack against Iraq's nuclear installations and to deplore Israel's non-compliance with united Nations resolutions. On this point, my Government believes it is high time for steps to be taken to strengthen the united Nations. That is why Cyprus introduced item 45 of this year's agenda, entitled "Implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations". Mr. AL-ANSI (Oman) (interpretation from Arabic): Since this is the first time I have spoken in the General Assembly with you presiding, Sir, I should like to repeat what has already been said by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the sultanate of Oman in his statement of 25 september in expressing our admiration for. you and wishing you all possible success in guiding the proceedings of the fortieth session. As at its last four sessions, the General Assembly is considering a very serious problem - namely, the armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations for peaceful purposes. In our view, this is a topic of the greatest importan~e, because it concerns a flagrant act of aggression against a Member State of the United Nations Which is exercising the inalienable human rights and its sovereign right to scientific and technological development in accordance with the recognized norms of international law. It also concerns an incident that has serious implications for the recognized standards that regUlate all aspects of international life and relations. Iraq, which has been the victim of Israeli aggression, possesses nuclear installations and is a party to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It has placed all its activities firmly under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, while Israel is not a party to any specific international treaties or instruments and persists in its refusal to put its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, as requested in paragraph 5 of Security Council resolution 487 (1981). Moreover, Israel launched a premeditated act of armed aggression against a peaceful installation in an independent sovereign State. By that deplorable act Israel attacked not only Iraq but the freedom of man throughout the world and treaties and conventions recognized by the international community. Irrefutable proof of this is its persistent acts of aggression against the defenceless populations in the occupied Arab territories and neighbouring Arab states. The fact that Israel was able to carry out with impunity that act of aggression against Iraq clearly shows that our inability to give effect to united Nations resolutions adopted unanimously, such as Security Council resolution 487 (1981), cannot fail to have serious consequences.· Operative paragraph 2 of that Security Council resolution "Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof". General Assembly resolutions reaffirmed this and gave Israel a solemn warning to put an end to its threats and to its acts of armed aggression. The official Israeli answer was very clear and requires no explanation or interpretation. An Israeli Minister, Ariel Sharon, proudly declared on 26 March 1985 that Israel was ready to repeat its offence and attack any nuclear reactor that might be installed by Iraq. Even the official communique published by the Israeli Government, which is to be found in document A/40/783, does not eliminate the possibility of Israel's carrying out similar acts of aggression against any nuclear installation in the Middle East. Similar threats have been made by Israel to Pakistan, with no justification whatsoever. Thus, Israel arrogates to itself the right to determine, according to its own definition and as it sees fit, which nuclear installations are for peaceful purposes and which are not. In other words, Israel will resume its acts of aggression against any nuclear installation in the region which does not conform to its own ill-considered definition. It ignores the existence of the IAEA safeguards and the international norms that should be respected. The General Assembly has renewed its appeal to all States to cease immediately supplying Israel with arms or any related equipment that could enable it to carry out similar acts of aggression against any State. We believe that appeal to be fully justified. It looks to the future and highlightq the aggressive nature of Israel. As I have already said, Israel, which has decided in advance its own definitions, which run counter to those generally recognized throughout the world, attempts thus to justify the acts of aggression it commits, which are rejected by the world community. The attack against the Iraqi nuclear installations was but one in a series of such acts, past, present and future. Israel recently carried out a raid on a peaceful Arab State, Tunisia, without the slightest justification. Then it again attacked the Bekaa region in Lebanon~ Who knows what Israeli plans for the future may be? Israeli definitions are very broad and its military, mat~rial and propaganda capacity is great, while it has unlimited support from its traditional allies. Iraq's right to appropriate compensation for material and moral damage resulting from the Israeli attack is a recognized, inalienable right expressly reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 487 (1981), which clearly establishes Israel's responsibility for the act of aggression. Therefore the General Assembly and the Security Council must jointly and effectively implement the international resolutions, to safeguard the prestige and credihility of the United Nations, as we mark its fortieth anniversary, to ensure that it is serving international peace and security. (Mr. AI-Ansi, Oman) Mr. PHILIPPE (Luxembourg) (interpretation from French): I have the honour to speak on behalf of the ten States Members of the European Community. On 27 September 1985 the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted resolution 443, with the support of the States Members of the European Community. That resolution considered that Israel had undertaken not to attack peaceful nuclear installations in Iraq, the Middle East in general, nor anywhere else. As that resolution makes clear, the General Conference drew that conclusion from statements recently made by the representative of Israel within the framework of the !AEA upon instructions from his Minister of Foreign Affairs and on behalf of his Government, the gist of which is repeated in the letter of 24 OCtober 1985 addressed by the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations to the Secretary-General, which is contained in document A/40/783. The General Conference also concluded that if such attacks or threats of attacks were to recur the matter would be considered by the IAEA in conformity with its statutes and relevant resolutions. The 10 States Members of the European Community hope that after its consideration of this item this year the General Assembly will be able to support the conclusion reached by the !AEA and no longer put this question to yearly consideration. Indeed, each year the Assembly has an increasingly heavy agenda and one that provides numerous opportunities to consider the various aspects of the Middle East conflict. This approach in no way alters our fundamental position on the question, which we have often reaffirmed and which consists of a vigorous condemnation of the Israeli attack against Iraqi nuclear facilities as a violation of the principles of the Charter and the rules of international law. We repeat our appeal to Israel to comply fully with Security Council resolution 487 (1981) in all respects. We would also like to reaffirm our conviction that all States are entitled to make peaceful use of nuclear energy in conjunction with appropriate guarantees and in strict conformity with the objectives of the international. regime of non-proliferation. We wish also to emphasize once again the vital importance for all countries of absta in ing from any form 0 f violence, whi. ch can only contr ibu te to exacerba t: ing tensions in the Middle East. Mr. KHALIL (Egypt) (interpretation from Arab}c); Today, the General Assembly is considering a matter still fresh in our memories. The international community has not forgotten the armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations in 1981, nor has it forgotten the gravity of its effect on the international system or on the exercise by States of their right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In participating in the Assembly's consideration of this matter today, the delegation of Egypt speaks from a firm position that is based on its commitment to refrain from the threat or use of force and on the need to respect the independence and security of the territories of States and their right to scientific and economic development, particularly as the development of nuclear energy has become a major factor in achieving the national economic aims of developing countries. The Israeli act of aggression was and still is categorically condemned by the international community. The international community has rejected all Israel's baseless arguments and its attempts to justify its act of aggression. Clearest proof of that categorical stand is provided by the various international resolutions adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations General Assembly condemning Israel'~ threat to repeat its act of aggression aga inst peaceful nuclear installations in Iraq and in other States. Those resolutions have called upon the security Council to ensure Israel's implementation of its resolution 487 (1981), adopted unanimously, which strongly condemned that act of armed aggression. The delegation of Egypt, together with other delegations, participated in the consideration of that matter by the security Council, and at that time it stated . its views and refuted all Israelis arguments of self-defence and defensive strike or pre-emptive attack. The report of the Secretary-General in document A/38/337 on the consequences of the Israeli aggression against the Iraqi peaceful nuclear installations is a major document of continuing importance. In its conclusions, the report points out that the Iraqi nuclear installation was under the lAEA safeguards system and that Iraq had undertaken, on the basis of its accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to respect the Agency's safeguard standards, whereas Israel, which destroyed the Iraqi reactor, has not yet acceded to that Treaty, nor has it placed its nuclear activities under the IAEA safeguards system. Among the consequences to which the experts who drafted the report refer is its potentially serious damage to international norms and institutions. The report also calls upon all States to ensure the safe development of nuclear power and draws attention to the fact that not only does the danger of radiological effects exist in countries whose facilities are attacked but that it also extends to other countries, for nuclear radiation knows no international boundaries. Paragraph 128 of the report draws attention to the future and suggests certain steps to be taken. International law affirms the right of all States to develop and advance their economies through the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The brother country of Iraq has every right to continue to develop its economy, within its development plan, through the use of nuclear energy under the international safeguards system and in accordance with the NPT, to which it has acceded. It has exactly the same right to do so as any other people. Therefore, any act or threat that might prejudice or limit Iraq's exercise of that right is .il1 violation of a basic provision of the Charter, namely, the sovereign equality of states. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt in his statement on 30 August 1985 at the Third Review Conference of the NPT called for the protection of nuclear facilities through the prohibiting of attacks on them. An attack upon any peaceful nuclear facility contravenes the rules of international law prphibiting the use of force in international relations, in particular as set forth in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Uni ted Nations Charter. Such an act or threat of aggress ion would jeopardize international co-operation and undermine the foundations of the system created by the international conununity to regulate the peacefUl uses of nuclear energy. Consequently we still mainta in that on this issue our repeated rejection is required of any obstruction to the exericse of that right. Respect for that right is an obligation in accordance with a basic principle embodied in United Nations resolutions, and in earlier resolutions of the lAEA and in its safeguards system.* * Mr. Shah Nawaz (Pakistan), Vice-President, took the Chair. (Mr. Khal 11, Egypt) In conclusion, we hope that the continued awareness of the act of aggression against Iraqis sovereignty and the international condemnation of that act will constitute a strong deterrent to any repetition of it. Therefore my delegation supports the draft resolution now before the Assembly. Mr. NOORANI (Pakistan): Israelis attack on Iraq's research reactor in June 1981 was an act of wanton aggression. The attack violated the basic principles of the United Nations Charter, in particular Article 2 (4), which calls on all Members to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Although the Security Council strongly condemned the Israeli attack in its resolution 487 (1981), of 19 June 1981, Israel has so far not committed itself to refraining in the future from such acts or threats thereof. Nor has Iraq been provided with appropriate redress for the destruction of its research reactor. Since June 1981 Israeli leaders have on several occasions repeated the threat to destroy the nuclear facilities not only of Iraq but of other countries both near and far. Israel has arrogated to itself this right on the subjective and wholly unsubstantiated presumption that any nuclear facility in the Arab and Islamic countries poses a threat to its security. The Israeli attack on Osirak has had far-reaching implications, with which the international community must contend. First, the attack on Iraqis research reactor, which was subject to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), represents a serious blow to the credibility of the regime establiShed by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to the cause of peaceful nuclear cO-operation. It is clear that even facilities SUbject to IAEA safeguards have no assurance of exemption from attack and destruction. secondly, the Israeli attack has set a precedent and could be repeated by Israel itself or emulated by other States. The danger of attacks on nuclear facilities has been made more acute by the propaganda conducted against the peaceful nuclear programmes of several developing countries. Some other States have also reportedly prepared conting~ncy plans for such a pre-emptive strike. Such action would obviously constitute an act of war and call for an appropriate response against the source of such an attack. Thirdly, the Israeli attack has increased the danger of resort to radiological warfare. The fact that Israeli aircraft could breach the protective structures of Osirak has not been lost on anyone. The discussions in the Conference on Disarmament on a radiological weapons convention have established that the destruction of nuclear reactors is the only feasible way at present of conducting radiological warfare, apart from the use of nuclear weapons. According to some studies, the destruction of an average-sized commercial nuclear reactor would kill millions of people, especially in densely populated areas of the world. It would render hundreds of square miles of territory uninhabitable and unproductive for over a decade. Attacks on nuclear reactors could become the most lik~ly way for the escalation of a conventional conflict to the nuclear level. Fourthly, there is now greater uncertainty about the peaceful development of nuclear energy in the developing countries. The nuclear facilities in developing countries are obviously more vulnerable to attack than those in militarily us significant States. The fear of destruction could retard the installation of nuclear power facilities precisely at the time when the developing countries most need to expand their energy and electrical-generation capacity. Pakistan believes that it has now become imperative for the international community to take specific action to prevent a repetition of any aggression such as the Israeli attack on Osirak. For this purpose the General Assembly should adopt a clear and categorical position declaring that any attack by Israel or any other State on nuclear facilities would be an act of aggression calling for an appropriate response by the international community. Pakistan attaches importance to the call made in the General Assembly resolution adopted under this item last year for "legal measures to prohibit armed attacks against nuclear facilities, as a contribution to promoting and ensuring the safe development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes". (resolution 39/14, para. 6) We urge that the Conference on Disarmament adopt a comprehensive international convention to prohibit attacks on nuclear facilities. The adoption and strict observance of such a convention would effectively prevent the danger of radiological warfare; it would contdbute to the prolOOtion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and remove a critical danger to the preservation of international peace and security which now exists in certain regions of the world. Mr. OULD BOYE (Mauritania) (interpretation from Arabic): The representative of Israel has attempted to distract our attention from the question under consideration by raising other issues. Thus, in his statement this morning he overlooked the massacres of the Palestinian people carried out by Israel~ and also sought to ignore the acts of aggression conuni tted aga inst Lebanon and the' occupation of its territory. He sought to make us forget the repeated attacks on Syria, the Israeli act of aggression against Iraq, the repeated acts of aggression against Egypt and the brutal act of aggression against Uganda. All the questions he touched upon this morning were intended to distract our attention from the issue before us. He also sought to side-step the draft resolution with a message ab9ut Israel's future intentions. (Mr. Noorani, Pakistan) The truth is quite different. This is an extremely important question. It is not enough to condemn this act of aggression. We must constantly emphasize this point. The draft resolution also states that Iraq is entitled to compensation for the damage it suffered. The draft resolution is not one in favour of Iraq but in favour of all peace-loving and developing states and peoples. The important issue is that the Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear reactor on 7 June 1981 was a flagrant act of aggression, the memory of which remains alive because of the great human and material losses, as well as serious moral damage that it caused, and because it constituted a major setback for the peaceful development programme of the country. Israel, in referring to its acts of aggression against Iraq and Tunisia, ha~ presented specious arguments, thus revealing to the world its arrogance and its premeditated aggressive intentions towards many Arab States, while its hands Were still stained with the blood of Palestinians. The Middle East is the ideal target for this aggression, but Israel intends to extend its activities to other countries. Iraq is a sovereign and independent State which has the right to develop in all fields, including - and this is internationally recognized - the field of the acquisition and development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Iraq's activities in this field have been elaced under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, and therefore this aggression against Iraq is an aggression against the lAEA system itself. Thus Israel has shown that it is a military base for aggression in the very heart of the Middle East, whose purpose it is to deter any state from seeking to develop and enjoy modern technology. Israel believes that, through its aggression, it can cling indefinitely to its nuclear supremacy, and continue to commit aggression against the peoples and states of the region. Israel's aggression against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq is a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and generally-recognized international rules of conduct. The united Nations should reiterate its condemnation of Israelis aggression against Iraq and should ensure that Israel withdraws its threat to repeat its aggression against that country. The IAEA should not confine itself to requesting Israel to withdraw its threats against Iraq. It should discontinue its assistance to Israel as long as that country has not clearly and unambiguously withdrawn its threats against Iraq and agreed to place its facilities under IAEA safeguards and control. This Organization in this commemorative year should take note of the fact that Israel, 1 ike the South Afr ican racist regime, is defying the resolutions of the Security COLlncil and the General Assembly and should compel Israel to implement Security Council resolLltion 487 (1981) and General Assembly resolution 36j2~ adopted the same year, both of which deal with Israel's aggression against Iraq's sovereignty. Mauritania in particular wishes to state that Iraq is entitled to compensation for the losses it suffered as a result of Israeli aggression. Mauritania also wishes to reaffirm that it is necessary to assist Iraq, a developing country, to rebuild its nuclear facilities destroyed by Israel in that act of aggression. For all these reasons we support the draft resolution before the General Assembly. The meeting rose at 12.35 p.m.