A/41/PV.51 General Assembly

I propose that the list of speakers in the debate on this item be closed today at 12 noon. If I hear no objection, it will be so decided. It was so decided.

I call on the representative of Iraa, who wishes to introduce draft resolution A/4l/L.14. Mr. SUMAIDA (Iraa) (interpretation from Arabic): Once again we come to the General Assembly to discuss the item relating to Israel's act of aggression against the Iraai nuclear reactor. We do so because it is our firm belief that the dangerous precedent set by Israel when it committed its act of aggression against our nuclear installations, which are under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will most certainly be repeated in the current circumstances, which are characterized by the absence of any undertaking not to repeat such aggression in the future. That naked act of aggression has had grave conseauences for the international community, the credibility of the resolutions and actions of international organizations and the established right of all States to use atomic energy for peaceful purposes. The international organizations and the States of the world are not unaware of those grave conseauences. The concern they feel was reflected in the stern tone of the resolutions adopted in condemnation of that act of aggression. However, we should stop and look at what has been done to bring about the implementation of those resolutions and the action taken to force the aggressor to comply with them. We have noticed an obdurate stand on the part of the aggressor (Mr. Sumaida, Iraq) in the face of the many resolutions adopted ,,~ith the aim of deterring further • aggression. Israel has continued, through the statements of certain members of its government, to make threats that it will attack the Iraqi' nuclear facilities whenever it deci6es unilaterally that those facil~ties constitute a threat to ity security. Since its act of aggression of June 1981, Israel has made more than 20 threats to repeat that attaek. Those threats have been made by the Prime Minister and other government officials. This has made it necessa~y for Iraa to reauest the United Nations and th~ Internatianal Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to sh?ulder their responsibilities to deter Israel and prevent a repetition of Israel's act of aggression. In its resolution GC/27/409, of 1983, the General Conference of the Agency called upon Israel, the aggressor, to give a clear, unambiguous undertaking that it would not repeat its act of aggression against Ira~ or any other State. However, Israel gave ample proof of its aggressive intentions by continuing to prevaricate and avoid giving such an undertaking. It insisted on being the sole jUdge as to whether the nl!lclear facility is used for peaceful purposes. Despite all this obduracy and intransigence, Israel considers that it has co-operated with the Agency and has not encrcached on the Agency's major responsibility, adopting the stance of the self-styled alternative to the Agency's safeguards r~ime. The Agency had no choice ~ut to repeat in its resolution r,c/28/425, of 1984, its reauest that Israel give the reauired undertaking. While the Director-General of the Agency was busy making contacts to obtain that undertaking from Israel not to repeat its act of aggression, Arie1 Sharon declared, on 21 March 1985, that Israel would attack any nuclear reactor that Iraq may build if Israel considered it to be a threat to its security. In the light of the report of the DireCtor-General of the Agency, it is now clear that Israel has not given the reauired assurances for which the Agency's General Conference has been asking for years and that it has refused to implement the resolutions of the Agency and the General Assembly. At the Twenty-Ninth General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the representative of Israel made an ambiguous statement, then claimed that his statement had satisfied all the Agency's re~uirements. However, that statement which lacked precision, did not refer to Iraq explicitly and did not include a clear-cut definition of Israel's concept of a peaceful nuclear facility. The statement fell short of the conditions embodied in ~he Agency's resolutions. The reason for that is clear. Israel, which has committed the act of aggressi,on and continues to threaten to do so again, cannot produce such a definition and satisfy the Agency's reauirements at one and the same time. Israel's prevarication and its refusal to withdraw its threat and undertake not to commit further acts of aggression are ample proof of its aggressive intentions. Israel's manoeuvring does not stop at that. It has now introduced a new dimension into its prevarication, by claiming that Ariel Sharon's statements do not represent the point of view of the Government and that only the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are authorized to make such statements. Yet SharoD, who was Minister of Defense when the act of aggression took place, or any other advocate of such aggression, could easily become the Prime Minister'or the leader of the Government of Israel. (Nr. SUll8ida, Iraq) SUch trickery should not deceive the internatiCllal ee:-amity in dealing with one of the gravest situations it has ever faced. It is indeed this type of trickery that makes us lIlCl'e determined than ever to expose it and lay it bare under the eyes of international organizations so that they ay take the necessary action in line wi th the ir respons ib Ulty. We regret Israel'S' refusal to make a clear and unanbiguous undertaking not to repeat its act of aggression or. to threa ten to it") so. The absence of such an undertaking makes it our duty to strive to obtain such a guarantee. Iraq presented a draft resolution to the Twenty-Ninth General Conference of the IAEA in which it requested the Agency to shoulder its resp)nsibUit.y with o regard to the obtention of such an undertaking. The draft resolution obtained 41 votes in favour, yet regrettably it was rejected because of a pr:ooedural tr ick played by the President of the Twenty-Ninth Cooference of the Agency. The result was the adoption of another resolution which cbtained only 31 votes. This enabled Israel to voice its reservations on the resolutioo. This was yet another link in the chain of trickery and prevarication to which Israel has resorted in order fCl' it not to commit itself to a definite undertaking vis-lt-vis the int~rnational orqanizations. Israel's refusal to give the required undertaking was not the only Israeli behaviour denounced by the international organizations. It has ignored the repeated calls to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has refused to place its nuclear facilities under the supervision of the Agency. It has refused to declare th3t it wUl not acquire nuclear weapons and has refused to end its nuclear collabCl'ation wi th the racis t Pre tor ia regime. It h&s also re fused to agree to the establishment of a nuclear-weap)n-free zone in the Middle East, in aefi~nce of the wishes of the internatiooal commlKlity. (Mr. Sumaida, Irag) The reason for this year's drGft resolution is our firm belief and conviction that Israel intends to repeat its aggression in the future. It has not hesitated to make that clear through its constant th~eats. I should like, on beh&lf of the following delegations, to introduce the draft resolution on this sUbject. These de1egationa are Afghanistan, Algeria, BQhrain, Bangladesh, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iraa, Jordan, Kuwait~ Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Ms1aysia, Mauritania, Morocco, oman, Oatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Yugoslavia. Operative paragraph 1 calls upon Israel urgently to place all its nuclear fGci1ities under IABA safeguards in ac~ordance with reso~ution 487 (1981) adopted unanimously by the security Council. Operative paltagraph 2 conveys a clear enough fact that iD known to all delegations, namely, that the General Assembly considers that Israel has not yet committed itself not to attack or threaten to attack nuclear facilities in Ira~ or elsewhere, inclUding facilities under ~ safeguar.ds. Operative paragraph 3 reaffirms that Iraa is entitled to compensation for the damage it has suffered as a result of the Israeli armed attack on 7 June 1981, as was stipulated in Security Council resolution 487 (1981). Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution reauests the Conference on Disarmament to continue negotiations with a view to r.eaching an immediate conclusion of the egreement on the prohi.bition of military attacks on nuclear facilities. Operative paragraph 5 decides to include the item in the provisional agenda for next year, with the Secretary-General reporting on implementation of the resolution. We hope that this draft resolution will be supported by the States Members of the united Nations. Hr. NE'P.i'~MU {Israel): Sir, as this is the first time I am speaking at this podium, I should like to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the forty-first session of the General Assembly and for the splendid job you are , , doing in, conducting it. One of the auipfJ about tho United Nations is that it ,is the house of eternal life. Nothing ever dies hore. Some, if not most resolutions stand a good chance of achieving immortality - especially anti-Israel resolutions. This is the caae of tne resolution before us. Iraq first introduced it in 1981, then in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and now, yet again, in 1986. Never mind that the kay clause in the rasolution, the cl~use that justifies its annual resurrection by Iraq, is patently false. For operative paragraph 2 asserts that Is~ael has not yet committed itself not to attac~ nuclear facilitie~, including those under IAEA safeguards. But what does the International Atomic Energy Ageficy Bay about that? What does it think, as the body that has e~tensively dealt with this auestion? In 1985 it accepted as satisfactory Israel's oral and wr~tten assurances that it would not attack, or threaten to attack, peaceful nuclear facilities. In its resolution 443 it said: -Israel has thereby committed itself not to att~ck peaceful nuclea~ facilities in Iraq, elsewher~ in t~e Middle East, or anywhere else.~ (GC (XXIX)!RES!443) The IAEA, in fact, decided to drop the matter completely from its agen:'l. But it was not the only one to drop it. So did Iraq. In the 1986 General Conference of the IAEA in Vienna, it did not even bother to raise this matter. The question is: tiby not? And the answ~ is: because Iraq knew perfectly well that in such a forum, &0 intimetely familiar with the details of this case, it could not muster support for a preposterous resurrection of ~&t is effectively a dead issue. Not content with that, and eager to carry its obsessive ca~ign against Israel to the tbited Nations, Iraq now attempts to bypass the IAEA'e decision by slipping a refurbished moc1el of the resolution into the General Assemly. Iraq is betting that many Mellber States will suspend their better judgement - that which they demonstrated in Vienna - and allow the adoption of a distorted and irrelevant resolution in New Ycxk. And I have to say that, ill~, when it comes to most mc~tters relating to Israel, the record of the General Assellbly !Mk(~s this a plausible assumption. But even here, in the plenary AsseJlt)ly, Iraq has encountered some p:oblems. '!'wo 1'~ears ago, the Iraqi draft resolution lost 17 votes of support~ last year, it lost another 18. SO, obviously, a growing nurrber of Governments were sending a clear message to Iraq: they had had enough~ they "ould like the issue dropped once and for all. To stave off a further deter ioration in support this year, Iraq changed a few words here and there and is presenting the draft resolution now before the General Asserrbly. It would be regrettable if as a result of this ruse the effcxt· to rescind tile resolution altogether wel:e to be set back. Because the body of the resolution, tha'c which makes it hlapplicable and unacc~ptable, remains unchanged. Israel (X)lIIDitted itself a lal\) time ago, on many occasions - including several OCCNJions frOlll this very rostrwn - to refrain flt'cXI\ My attack on any nuclear says that that has been the percinent development regarding this issue since it was L first raised, in 1981 - indeed, closing it atcel and for all. facilities devoted to peaceful purposes, whereVIE/I they may be. '.rhe IAEA correctly Now, Iraq ~annot have it both ways. Either we are dealing with a narrow interpretation of the issue at hand - namely, the question of protecting nuclear facilities, or we are dealing with a broader subject - namelYf the maintenance of international peace and security. If we are dealing with the narrow subject of attacks on nuclear facilities, then what we should be discussing is not Israeli assurances, which have been given and accepted, but IraQi assurances. After all, something has happened' in the interveni,ng years. On three separate occasions Iraq has attacked the nuclear facilities of Iran at Bushehr: first on 24 March 1984, then on 12 February 19a5, then on 4 March 1985. I do not know whether 0;;:: colleague the Ambassador of Iran would care to expand on this here. Of course, he has already done so in written communications to the secretary-General and in official complaints by I£an. But we would welcome a further discussion this morning. so if Iraq persists in brin9ing up this subject year after year, we must demand that it produce assurances of the kind that Israel has already given. Now, what about the broad view of this draft resolution - that is, the one that argues that it ought to address the general questions of international peace and aecurity? And, incidentally, those words "international peace and security~ appear at the tail end of the title of this draft resolution. Well, if that i~ toe context in which we should annually engage in this debate - and the Assembly has just had an example of this in the speech by the representative of Iraq here - then we are entitled to ask: what has been Iraq's contribution to international stabil~ty and the perservation of peace since a res~lution on this item was first adopted, in 1981? We all know the answer. Iraq has pursued an aggressive wa£ of monumental proportions against Itan - indeed, the bloodiest war since the Second World War. Iraq's professed aim was conquest, pure and simple. In the course of this war, Ira~ has ~aged and Is still waging chemical and gas warfare. That has been confirmed beyond doubt by a Committee of United Nations experts recently "stablished, as well as in official statements by the Secretary-General and the President ~f the Security Counoil. Now, the waging of such warfare is in direct violation of international conventions of which Iraq is a solemn signatory. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) states this in its 1985 Yearbook: WOn the accumulated evidence, and despite its protestations to the contrary, Iraq Htands exposed as a violator of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, an int~rnational criminalw• I tepeat: wan international criminalw• But, as the saying goes, that's not all. Iraa has tortured and murdered prisoners of warJ Iraa has attacked neutral shippingJ Iraq has bombed open citiesJ Iraq has harboured and launched international terrorists, including the notorious Abu Nidal, and, most recently, the master of the Achille Lauro affair, Abul Abbas, who travels with an Iraqi diplomatic passport. Iraq, of course, is not alone in its long-standing practice of using its diplomatic facilities and its embassies as fortresses of terror. It competes with its traditional enemy, Syria, and SyriaOs junior partner, Libya, for the most egregious violations of diplomatic privilege. But, (jiven the recent expose of the activity of its embassy in London, Syria eppears to have taken the lead. Needless to say, all these Iraqi activities flagrantly violate the principles of the United Nations Charter. But the list would not be complete without the example of blatant Iraai aggression directed against my country. Let me rephrase that - because I think the word "aggression" does not fully capture it. Aggression usually denotes the aim - in this context, we can say the partial aim - of conquest or pillage or subjugation. But what Ir~ seeks in its aggression against Israel is something else. I think it is best to let Iraa's dic~~tor explain it in his own words. Saddam Hussein has said: WThe Arabs must not give their signature and agreement to the recognition of the Zionist entity, even within the borders of 5 June 19~7w. And what this means has been further spelled out by Iraq's poreign Minister, who said: WIra~ cannot agree to the existence of Zionism - neither as a movement nor as a state. ... The struggle against Zionism is for us a struggle in which there can be no compromisew. In other words, by its own admission, Ira~ seeks the total liquidation of a Member state of the united Na~ions. And this is the regime that is making these sanctimonious noises about international probity, international responsibility, international law. So if in the name of international peace and security Iraq persists in dredging up this resolution again and again, w~ should demand that it first addrass its own intolerable practices in this regard. How long will Iraa continue to waste the time and the resources of this body in its time of crisis? Bow long will it force us to debate this item? Through 1987? 1988? 1989? 1990? Perhaps the year 2000? Because, make no mistake about it, next year and the following years Iraa can always reword the resolution, sometimes making it more extreme, somettmes making it less extreme - all in accordance with shifting expediency. How long should the General Assembly be subjected to this game? How long will it continue to succumb to Saddam Hussein's concept of what the united Nations is good for? The only proper thing to do with this superfluous resolution is to deny it the immortality sought by Iraq, and consign it to the dismal past where it Mr. AL SAADI (oman) (interpretation from Arabic): Today's debate on the armed Israeli aggression against the I·raqi,"uclear installations acquires. particulaz importance in the light of tha reports by international and Israeli experts whi~h leave no doubt ~hat,Israel has become the sixth ~anking nuclear Power in the world. According to Qne of' its own ex~rts, Mordecai Vanunu, who was recently kidnapped in London by the Mossad and forcibly returned to Tel Aviv, Israel has between 100 and 200 nucleaf warheads, produced at its Dimona ; installation in tha Negev, in occupied Palestine, on the basis of advanced technology Israel illegally obtained from certain European countries. Israel can today produce about 400 kilograms a year of plutonium, enough to build 10 very powerful atomic weapons. This then is the country which co~«.itted aggression against Iraa. Iraq built its nuclear installations for peaceful purposes and has been a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty since lS70. Ira~ has acceptnd the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and, according to the Agency, has always fulfilled its obligations - faithfully, unlike Israel, the aggressor. As everyone knows, 1srael still refuees to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In its resolution 39/14 of 16 November '1984 the General Assembly condemned Israel's nuclear ambitions and its attack on the Iraqi nuclear installations and urged it to place its own installations under IAEA safeguards. The General Assembly also asked the Security Council to take the necessary measures to ensure Israel's compliance with united Nations resolutions on this issue. The new information to which I have just referred and Israel's continued refusal to implement United Nations resolutions are proof positive that its real objective is to be the possessor of the nuclear capability to ensure its continued domination over the Arab territories it occupies. To this end, Israel flouts the wishes of the international community and compounds its defiance by co-operating with the racist regime in South Africa, which co~tinueu to occupy Namibia illegallYt just as Israel occupies Arab territories. That cc-operation was recently ednfirmed by the present Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir. It is known to ~ll that the two racist regimes 'in Palestine and South Africa are in close collaboration with each other, especially in the nuclear, military and economic fields. They h~ve managed between them to plunge the Middle East and southern Africa into the maelstrom of the nuclear-arms race and have thus compounded the dangers which threaten international peace and security, curtail the prospects of development in the countriea of both regions and obstruct their attempts to reach the desired levels of social and economic development. The Israeli aggression against Ira~'s peaceful nuclear installaiions was not the last in Israel's acts of aggression against the countries of the region. Its aircraft have bombed and continue to bomb peaceful, distant countries such 8S Tunisia and Lebanon. Israeli leaders continue to threaten to bomb the nuclear installations of any country of the region within reach of Israeli aircraft. The united Nations should adopt strict measures against Israel, which continues to commit ac~s of aggression. The international community must force that country to implement Security Council resolution 487 (1981), which was adopted unanimously, and to put an end to its aggre~sion against Iraa's peaceful nuclear installations and the vital interests of the Arab countries. The States of the world and international organizations should discontinue all forms of nuclear collaboration with Israel now that the grave consequences of such collaboration have become abundantly clear. We reaffirm Iraq's right to compensation for the material and moral damage it has suffered as a result of Israel's naked aggression. We hope that all countries that cherish peace and freedom will stand by Iraq and help it rebuild the installations destroyed by Israel. We also look forward to full support for draft resolution A/4l/L.l4, which is sponsored by a large number of countries, including my own. This is the ideal stand to be take~ in the present circumstanc~~. , . Mr. AL-EAMARI (Qatar) (interpretati~n from Arabic): In his statement the Israeli representative touched upon seve~al points, but not the point under .... , -.. discussion. This is the IsraeJ.i delegate's way of leading us away from the issue. , .' It is really strange that after three years of obfuscation he does not realize the .. ~ .... boredom be causes, thanks to his habit of endlessly rehashing the some old ., arguments in dealing with any and every item. We could answer him and take the ~ . '. trouble of refuting his lies, which have become threadbare, but we do not wish to accolllllOdate him by falling into that trap.' To be drawn into such polemics would mean that we should do his work for him and enable him to duck the issue. The best answer is to focus the item on the General Assembly's agenda. As we all know, the General Assembly reiterated at its last session its strong condemnation of all military attacks on all nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful purposes, inclUding the military attacks by Israel on the nuclear facilities of Iraq. It did so in resolution 40/6, wherein it requested the Security Council to take urgent and effective measures to ensure compliance by Israel with the Council's resolution 487 (1981), in which the Council upheld, inter alia, the inalienable sovereign right of every State, especially the developing countries, to implement nuclear programmes for the purposes of development and other peaceful pursuits. In that resolution the Security Council strongly condemned the Israeli military attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility and declared it to be a violation of the Charter and the norms of international behaviour. The Council considered that Iraa was entitled to appropriate compensation for the damage it has suffered as a result of the Israeli attack, called upon Israel to refrain from further threats or acts of this nature and urged it to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA. we may well ask ourselves, so JUr.y year s s fter t:be adoption of the resolution, •";Sit : ",-. , -, ~.. the follol1ng questions. Baa the resolution been implemented? Bas Israel accepted "~.. ',' IAEA safeguards? Has Israel consented to place itB own nuclear facUities lDlder international oontrol? GaB it stopped its blackmail and itS! threats of a " repeti tion? The anStler to all these questions is no~ nothing has happened. The seOUl: ity Council has been rendered impotent by the per of the veto, the micj\ty sword that protects Israel and enables it to trSDple the Council's resolutions under foot with impun i ty • Military attacks on peaceful nuclear installations are a very serious matter indeed. For CIle thing, they _y cause the escape of lethal radiation into the atmosphere and thus pollute the COIllllOll human environment in such a way as to threa tSl the 1ivee and health of present and fu ture generations of the Ear th •s inhabitants. It is indeed strange that the States of the world pay great attention to accidental nuclear disasters tiihUe they seem to lack the energy to do anything to pE'event a nuclear disaster such as that which oould result from a military attack such as the Israeli strike against the Iraqi facUity. Failure to make an undertaking never to repeat such acts of aggression puts a special and historic responsibility on all states, in partiCUlar the permanent mellbers of the security Council, to enable the Council to take effective measures and use all the means at the disposal of those states, wh~ch ~e by no means insi91ificant, to bring pressure to bear on Israel and force it to implement the seourity Council'S resolution so that we can safeguard ourselves against a man-JlBde nuclear disaster, which is much more likely to cwertake us than any accidental or inopportune happening beyClld hum!l'l cCIltrol. We can see clearly the intentions of Israel and its real objectives in its persistent refusal to abide by the aforementiClled security COlDlcil resolution and its refusal to acl1er e to the Treaty CIl the Non-Prol iieration of 1l1clear weapons. (Mr. Al-Kawar i ~ Qatar) It has been revealed recently by neutral sources that Israel has so far stockpiled about 200 atomic boms of var. 10us sizes. Each me of those boms, ir respective of size, is an extremely destructive device whicl1'l, in the hands of Israel, is an effective means of nuclear coercion and nuclear blackmail in a region where Israel is the ally coll'ltry wi th nuclear capabiliq'. Then it has the effraltery to attack a nuclear facility that is under international safeguards and, as everybody ki'lcws~ dedica ted to peaceful purposes. In view of the fact that Israel is the sixth ranking nuclear Pcwer in the wodd, the United Nations has a special responsibility to itensify its efforts and DWlbilize the efforts of the whole intea:national ooltlllunity to declare the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free Zale. This is the sooject that has been before the General Assenbly since its twenty-ninth sessial, that is, for 12 years. Our own Arab response has been clear. The Arab oountries' answers to what has been requested by the Generdl Assenbly have been unamiguous, while the Israeli response has been and continues to be an adamant refusal to accede to the requests of the General Assenbly. Israel is hiding behind a smoke-screll1'n of so-called reservations, prevarications and tr ickery. One has only to read its reply in cbcument A/40/383 to get a taste of such tactics. The continued nuclear oo-()peration between Israel and the racist South Afr iean regime Caltinues to cause my ooll'ltry and the other countries of the Middle East and Africa great concern, since it is fraught with terrible dangers and extremely serious consequences foe more than ale area of the wodd and constitutes a threat to wor ld peace and secur ity. The racist Premr ia regime has also refused to acl1ere to the Treaty and rejects IAEA safeguards, just as Israel does. The Israeli attack on the peaceful nuclear facilities in Iraq was a horrifying act without precedent in the history of the world. It was uni~e in its effrontery. It branded its perpetrators f.or all tilllC! and must be a reminde~ of the radiation disasters which could befall the whole world. It is only natural that the General Assembly should continue to consider this item year after year aM remain seized of it until th~ Security Council finds it possible to take practical measures to guarantee that such aggression will never be repeated. This will not happen as long as Israel has the unconditional support that it has been receiving and the umbrella of the veto, which covers its every excess, in the Security Council. The hand that wields the heavy bludgeon of the veto must share, in the eyes of all men and the eyes of h~story, the grav~ responsibility, such criminal disregard of the fate of mankind. My delegation hO~les that reconsideration of this unjustifiable stance will result in a change that will allow the Council to have a free hand in discharging its duties and safeguarding the security and safety of the world. The way to do this is clear: the norms of international legality have to be upheld. The aggression we are discussing is the most seri01:1.'15 example of deliberate and cynical flouting of those norms. Mr. DJOKIC (Yugoslavia): In the past few years the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as well as the overwhelming majority of the international pUblic, have on many occasions expressed their clear and uneauivocal position and their assessment of the Israeli attack against the Iraai nuclear installations, which were under IAEA control. In the troubled region of the Middle East that aggressive attack will remain recorded as a drastic example of a blatant and unprovoked policy of force and a violation of the basic rules of intetnational behaviour. The manner in which it was carried out and the objectives of the Israeli raid gave the Middle East crieis a new and dangerous dimension the potential consequences of which it is unnecessary to explain in great detail. At their summit COnference in Karare the Reads of State or GOvernment of non-aligned countries Wrequested I~ to seek additional measures to effectively ensure that Israel undertakes not to strike or threaten peaceful nuclear installations in Iraq or elsewhere in contravention of the Charter of the united Nations and in violation of the IAEA safeguards systemw & The overwhelming ms~ority of th~ international community and our Organization firmly rejected the Israeli explanation that it had been a preventive act of self-defence. They assessed it as a brutal violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent country and an attempt to deny its righ~ to independent technological development in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The dangerous consequences for peace and security in the region, as well as for overall international relations, make it incumbent upon all of us not to forget that act and thus set a precedent for similar future actions. $Icb actions constitute a flagrant violation of the tbited Nations Charter and the .. basic ncxms of international behaviour and are a constant source of tension and instabUity in the Middle East and in internaticmal relations in general. Yugoslavia condemned the Israeli attack, proceeding from the pr inciple of the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of other States and the use of force in international relations, irrespective of the or igin of such actions and under what pretext they are COIIIIIitted. &lcb aggress ive acts are cmtrary to the demand of the international colIIDunity for a lasting, just and comprehensive solution of the Middle East crisis, which for years has been cme of the most dangerous sources of interna~onal tensim, and to the right to peace and security of all countries of the regime &lcb a solu tion implies, above all, reco~ition of the inalienable ricjlt of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to establish a state of their own, withdrawal by Israel from all Arab territories occupied since June 1967 and renunciation by Israel of the policy of force, violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries of the region, and in ter fer ence in their inter nal affa ir s. Mr. AL-SABBAGB (Bahrain) (interpretaticm fran Arabic); Qlce again the General Assembly returns to the armed Israeli attack in June 1981, on the peaceful Iraqi nuclear facUity and its grave consequences for: internaticmal peace and security. The passage of six years and the repeated discussions have not diminished the shock of that brutal act of aggressicm. Tbe item will :emain on our agenda as lcmg as Israel persists in its refusal to comply with the relevant resolutions of the security Council and the General Asse11bly. The international colll'llunity bas condemned the Israeli attack on the peacefUl nuclear facility in Iraq. The security Council, in its resolution 487 (1981), unanimously branded the attack an unprecedented act of premeditated aggression and called upon Israel to refrain in the future from sucb aggression against the security and safety of Iraq. That act of aggression was a serious blow to the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy hjency (IAEA), whidl is the basis for the Non-Proliferaticn Treaty. It was perpetrated against a country which is tmolly conmitted to the safeguards system and the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has placed its nuclear facilities under the IAEA system. Israel was not content with its naked aggression. It has continued to threaten a repetition in the ~ture. This attitude lrldermines every collective effort6aim~d at preventing the use or threat of force in international relations. It is an obl7ious threat to internatiooal peace. The General Assembly has adopted one resolution after another and has repeatedly called for an end to Israel's threats to launch yet more attacks on unclear facilities in I raq and elsewhere. Israel's aggression is but ale aspect of the policy of State terror ism which it systematically practises against Iraq and other Arab countries. It is a policy based on the belief that Israel has the right to threaten at will the sOI7ereignty and territorial integrity of the Arab States, interfere in their internal affairs and dictate to them. This outlook was certainly behind the premeditated act of Israeli aggression against the Palestine Liberatioo Organization's head::luarters in Tunis in 1985, which violated 'l\misia's sOl7erei~ty and territorial integrity and tr ampled under foot all the norms of in terna tiooal law. Israel has always tr ied to mask those acts of aggression by claiJrting the need for safety and security. This sort of perverted logic is not in consooance with the fact that it is Israel that pursues a policy of aggression and expansion against its Arab neighbours. SUffice it to refer to Israel's repeated acts of aggression against Iebanoo, especially in the south. we do not need to speak in detail of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its repeated violations since that date of that country's sOll'ereignty and territorial integrity. This ~ending aggression is Israel's policy. It has decided that it has the dght to p:actise international terrorism at State levoel. In eo doing, it ic:J1Cl1.'es th.e basic prOlTisions of the U'lited NIltions Charter and the norms of inte:natimal law. It pur sues a EQlicy of intimiclation and bruta1 force in fur ther 1ng its aggressive, expansimist schemes not mly against its direct Arab neighbours but against any Arab State irrespective of geographical distance. Its aggression against Iraq created a dangerous p:ecedent .ich it now views as the basis of an acquired right to launch any act of aggression against other States whenever it feels like making a str iI':e, in total disregard of the norms of lntcnatimal law. Iraq is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is ClOlllllitted to its provisions. Iraq has accepted the !AEA safeguards and has willingly placed its nuclear facilities under those safeguards. Israel has adamantly refused to acllere to the prOlTisions of the Non-Proli feratim Treaty. It cQ'ltinues to develop its nuclear facilities without any international supervisiaJ. It does so in furtherance of its expansimist, aggressive goals, which are a constant source of danger to all the States of the region. This has had the effect of intensifying the arms race in the Middle East and has aggravated an already serious situation of tensim and instability. Iraq's aim was to acquire advanced nuclear technology for the purEQse of development, prosperity and the welfare of its people. For the sixth year running the AsseDbly is debating th is i tern. It is clear that the iuternatimal commlZlity is cmcerned and wishes to pit an end to this type of aggression and ensure that it will not be repeated. Such naked aggression violates the thited Nations Charter, the rules of international law and the principles governing relations between States, including the principle of the non-use of force or the threat of force in international relations • . - ., 'After years of debate, it b~ beCOllll! sufficiently clear tbat denunciation and • 1 ~ con~mnation are of no avail in the c&se ofE a State blinded by its arrogance and fascinated by its mlScle-fiexing. Iraq must be ~PfJnsated for the serious damage infl icted upon its m.lelear fao11 i ties. In addi tion, it is neces,sary to impose canprehensive mandatory sancti,ons agairlSt Israel in acccxdance with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The General Assembly and the securifcy Council should take concrete actim to force Israel to canply with their earlier rf!So1.utions and desist from this aggressive policy. The State of Bahrain finds that the draft resolution before us under this item meets the minimum reqnirements in respec't of the question imrolved and believes that the General Assembly should adopt it, in accordance with thE! responsibility of the thi ted NIl tions as a whole to sa fegual~d inte:natimal peace and secudty, the rule of law and international legi timacy .• • '...1>.,4, ',' ......"> .• --" Russian): For some years now the General Assembly has had to contlnue its • '. ·'"Jn~~p:,j·<f;;.~· ;;.:~};"'1·,.t'5·' ':t ;: ,',!;-, consideration of the question of Israel's armed Bggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations. This question has not ceased to be topical; the harmful consequences of that outrageoils act of State terror ism for the cause of peace and international security and for efforts to ensure a just and lasting settlement of the Middle East problem are more noticeable than ever before. Peace cannot be brought to the Middle East through power politics or by imposing separate deals. The solution to the problem must be political and comprehensive and take into consideration the interests of all the peoples of the region. It is precisely this kind of large-scale programme for a comprehensive Middle East settlement that is contained in the well-known soviet proposals. In our view the main instrument for the achievement of a just settlement must be an international conference on the Middle East. The readiness of the Soviet Union to co-operate constructively with all who sincerely seek a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has been reaffirmed at the present session of the General Assembly. Speaking in the general debate, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, Eduard A. Shevardnadze, proposed, as a practical step in that direction that a preparatory committee be set up within the framework of the Security council to do the necess&ry work for convening such a conference. Israel opposes this approach, which meets the interests of the overwhelming majority of the States of the region, by its destructive course of action in pursuing an aggressive policy against the Arab countries, by violating their national dignity and sovereignty and, recently, by its quest for nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. The Soviet Union, like many other countries, has strongly condemned Israel's piratical attack against the nuclear reactor in Tammuz and branded it an act of aggression. And each year Iarael's expansionist policy becomes mo~e dangerous, in view of its well-known nuclear aspirations. As noted in the report ~ the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Israel reached "the threshold of becoming a nuclear-weapon state" (A/40/S20,~) at least la yel!ilrs ago. Bearing in mind its nuclear facilities, the availability of nuclear materials required for their operation, the existence of the scientific and technical knowledge and of an adequate number of well-trained, experienced staff, the Group of Experts which prepared that report emphasized that it had no doubt that Israel was capable of manufactul1ng nuclear weapons within a very short time, if i~ had nQt already crossed that threshold. There have long been reports in the world press that Tel Aviv is developing nuclear weapons in strict secrecy. The most recent such report was the sensational disclosure in the English newspaper The Sunday Times of 5 OCtober 1986 of convincing material, inclUding photographs, confirming the existence in Israel of an underground facility for nuclear-weapon production at the Dimona centre in the Negev desert, where apparently 100 to 200 nuclear bombs have already been stockpiled. The existence of this programme has been carefully concealed by the Israeli Government for many years. From time to time, however, reports have filtered through the shroua of absolute secrecy surrOUnding the very existence of the nuclear centre, which was established in Dimona in the 1960s, indicating that the facility, built according to Western technology, is developing nuclear weapons. For example, over the years the Israeli Government has procured in Western countries, circumventing thel~ legislative provisions prohibiting the export of nuclear technology, equipment for manUfacturing nuclear devices, the detonators needed to set them off and nuclear materials. In this context, the fact that Israel stubbornly re~uges to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons appears particularly ominous. The Soviet dele;ation stresses once again that the nuclear No~-ProliferationTreaty is a major factor in ensuring international peace and security. Based on the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), this Treaty serves as a reliable barrier to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and at the same time effectively ensures international co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Israel's attack on the peaceful Ira~i nuclear installations appears to be an even more cynical act of State terrorism if we take into account the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty since it came into force in 1970. Iraq has accepted the IAEA safeguards with regard to all its nuclear activities and fulfils in good faith the relevant obligations. In the view of the Soviet delegation, consideration of the question of Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear installations is particularly relevant, because Israel has persisted, with the connivance of its protectors, in its aggressive policies and has not renounced its threat to carry out such an attack on the nuclear installations of other States of the region if and when it considers it necessary - and all this despite the resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly, which clearly condemn the piratical actions of Tel Aviv. The Soviet union believes that the General Assembly should take the most drastic measures to curb Isxael's nuclear ambitions and strive to ensure the implementation of its decisions aimed at limiting Israel's capacity to pursue a policy of aggression and blackmail against Arab countries and strengthening world peace and securi ty• EKperience tells us that the peaceful atoll too can cmceal great risks. This has been demonstrated by the consequences of the 150 accidents at various nuclear facili ties in the world tha t have been recorded. The international C)_unity is making sigr.ifiCllnt efforts to establish a system for the safe development of nuclear energy. O'le lIBjoc achievement was the signing of two Ccmventions, one on ea:ly notification of nuclear accidents and the other on assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency, at the first special sessiCll'l of the General Conference of the International Atomic &1ergy Agency (IAEA), devoted to consideration of measures to strengthen international a:»-operation in the area of nuclear end radiation safety. Those agreements are desi e;,led to mi te the efforts of many Sta tes in the decades to come in the cause of ensuring trouble-free operation of nuclear plants, and prOl7ide a good bas is for a canprehens ive programme for the stable and safe development of nuclear energy. One of the States which signed both of those Ccmventions is Israel. It remains a mystery, however, how the participation of a State tn those import.ant international legal instruments, intended first and foremost to prevent possible accidents at nuclear plants and to deal with the consequences should such accidents occur, can be compatible with its proclaimed right to attack the peaceful nuclear installa tions of another Sta te which are under IAEA safeguards. The question of protecting peaceful nuclear facilities from armed attack is now being discussed at the Ccmference Q'1 Disarmament. It is to be hoped that, despite the complicated nature of this problem, the Ccmference on Disarmament will next year take up the consideration of this questicm with a view to a speedy a:»mpletion of the drafting of an agreement cm international measures to prevent actions which would lead to the deliberate destruction of civilian nuclear facilities. The conclusion of such a treaty would be a useful addition to the .. .: '. Conventions recently cCl\cluded in Vienna, and would cCI\tribute to the establishment of :.in international regime for the safe develo~ent of nuclear energy. Mr. AL-ATASSI (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretatim fran Arabic) \ My delegation has been taking part in the discussiCl\ of this item, namely, Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installation in Tammuz, since Israel first colllllitted those acts of armed aggression against the Iraqi installation in 1981. The fact that the Olited Nations CClltir.ues to consider this IIIltter confirms the following facts. First of all, resolution 481 (1981) of the security Council, which was Wlanimouslyadopted in 1981, has not yet been implemented by Israel. That resolution included two essential conditions which Israel, the aggressor, was called upen to fulf11\ the first was an undertaking not to attack Iraqi nuclear reacf:n,rs in the future, or to threaten to do so, and the second was an undertaking tv submit its nuclear installations to the !AEA safeguards system. secondly, in the course of the past five years, the General Assellbly in its various resolutions has stressed the need for Israel to accept those two obligations, and the Assembly has, inter alia, condemned Israel for its aggression against tb':! Iraqi nuclear installatiCl\. That CondelllUltion was in addition to those conta ined in the resolutions of the General Ca'lference of the IAEA. Thirdly, in attacking the Iraqi nuclear installatiat, Israel was attacking not only Iraq and the Arab nation, which is in a state of war with Israel, but also the third world countries and their legitillllte right to use ways and means likely to further their economic developnent. We must emphasize here how important it is for the developing coWltries to be able to make use of nuclear energy for Peaceful p.1rposes in order to achieve economic developnent. Israel's aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installatia'l constitutes an attack en the IAEA safeguards. The former Directnr of the 1\gency, or. Eklund, said that the act of aggression perpetrated by Israel constituted an attack al the IAEA safeguards system, a system which is the cornerstone of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Fourthly, Israel's aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installation is an act of the State terrorism perpetrated by Israel whenever' it can against Arab States. It would be idle fcx me to relate the many acts of aggressim committed by Israel against the Arab countries in applying its plans for expansion and the establ is."'ment of settlements, wh ile canpell ing the Arabs to leave their homeland. Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear installation and its ncn-conpliance with the resolu tions of the security Council and General Assellbly cast doubts 00 the usefulness of repeated condemnations ,')f Israel. We feel that so loog as the General Assentlly takes no radical measures against Israel, in particular through the implementation of Chapter VII of the Charter, Israel will go even further in its insolence and will caltinue to flout the resolutions of the General Assenbly. I should recall the follOlling for the benefi t of delegations here. Did not Israel reject resolution 487 (1981) of the security Council? Did it not reject all its provisions? Has Israel ever accepted any paragraph in any of the General Assellbly resolutions adopted year after year al the subject under discussioo? Has Israel placed its nuclear installations under IAEA safeguards? Has Israel acceded to the Non-Proliferatioo TlCeaty as a sign of good will? Has not Israel repeated its threats, declaring that it will oontinue its military attacks on Iraqi nuclear installations ik,d on others that l'II5y be found in neighbouring countries, installations that are devoted to peaceful purposes? Did Sharon not declare that Israel had the right 1:0 attack any nuclear installation built by Iraq which represented a danger to the sec:ur ity of Israel? Have we forgotten the declarations of Begin when he was at the head of the Israeli Gcwernment, that his country would destroy any new nuclear installation which might be built by Iraq or any other Arab COlntry? These are the facts and the declarations which the General Assenbly must _. ..'" i Instead of those declarations, we should have heard Israel undertake not to attack peaceful nuclear installations again, to submit its own nuclear installations to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency and to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We are not surprised at Israel's behaviour, nor at the excuses put forward by it. Israel owes its existence to acts of aggression and banditry, with which its history is fraught, to say nothing of the international plots that led to the birth of that State, plots for which some of those responsible are still among us in this Hall. The argument of self-defence which Israel adduces in explanation of its attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor is no l...,nger valid. Israel has used the same pretext for all its terrorist attacks. It did so when it occupied Arab territories: expelling hundred~ of thousands of refugees. It did so when it bombarded and occupied Beirut. Israel annexed the Golan Heights and established settlements on the pretext that it was defending its right to existence, the same reason being given for its massacres and violations of the United Nations Charter and the norms of international law. That is why we ask, how far will the concept of self-defence go? Is Israel to be allowed to do anything in the name of such a concept? Could Israel have defied the international community unless it had had the sUpPOrt and encouragement of its strategic ally, the United States of America? It is regrettable that Washington should have encouraged Israel to pursue its policy of terrorism against the Arab States. 'The Government of the united States encouraged and supported Israel in its wars against the Arabs, the destruction of their infrastructures and installations and the displacement of their populations. Even Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear reactor was justified by the American Admi~istration. Did not president Reagan, after the aggression declare: . ... -Israelh.ad every reason to be concerned at the existence of that Iraqi - • • ''f.~.I' .. ~ , ~ ~.', .... nuclear installation which its aircraft destroyed. X$rael acted in legitimate self-defence.- The General Assembly is in~ited today to preserve the right of developing countries to use every available means likely to enable them to achieve economic and social development for their peoples.. The Assembly must condemn Israel for its act of aggression against the Iraqi nulear reactor and ask it to undertake never to commit such acts of aggression again. The fact that Israel does not carry out its obligations empowers the General ASsembly to take the necessary steps to prevent Israel from repeating such acts of aggression. The General Assembly must now know that Israel has built up a nuclear arsenal which threatens the security of the Middle East region. Information is available confirming Israel's vast nuclear capacity. I refer to the article in ~e Sunday !!!!!!! of London dated 5 OCtober quoting Mordecai Vanunu, an Israeli expert who escaped from Israel. Be said that Israel had some 100 to 200 nuclear bombs. The international community must put an end to the nuclear capacity of the racist zionist regime. ~e international community must also put an end to the nuclear cap&city of the racist regime in South Africa. It should impose strict controls on those two regimes, to prevent them from committing acts of genocide against Arabs and Africans. The nuclear collaboration between Israel and SOuth Africa is well known. Those two countries are helped by the united Statee of America and certain other western countries. It is therefore not surprising that those two regimes should refuse to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or to submit their nuclear installations to the safeguards of the IAEA. Mr. KOVACIC (Czechoslovakia) (interpretation from Russian): The General Assembly this year again, for the sixth tilDe in succession, is considering the question of Israel's attack in June 1981 against Iraq's nuclear facilities - ... ' . ' ; f, ~ facilities which, in accordance with article IV of the nuclear 'NOn-Proliferation Treaty, are intended for exclusively peaceful purposes. That unprecedentea act of aggression, which became a striking example of Israel's policy of State terrorism, is something which the international community unequivocally and most decisively condemned. At its thirty-sixth session the General Assembly adopted a resolution intended to thwart Israel's threat to repeat such an aggression. However, that resolution has not been implemented, therefore our Organization has once again been forced to consider the question of Israel's aggressive action against Iraqi nuclear facilities. We are talking about an act which is extremely dangerous for overall peace and security, an act which is in no way justified, an act which our Organization cannot allow to go unnoticed without taking effective measures to prevent the repetition of such acts in the future. That is necessary because Israel has not foresworn its aggressive piratical practices. Evidence of that is the attack it carried out last year against the headquarters of the palestine Liberation Organization in Tunisia and its conduct in Lebanon, which it does not acknowledge as being a sovereign and independent State. It occupies part of its territory and unceasingly carries out armed raids against that country. We also know about the statements lBade by Israeli politicians, statements in which the repetition of aggression against nuclear facilities is said to be allowable wif necessaryw. OUr Organization cannot ignore the fact that Isr~el, despite numerous appeals, has systematically refused to accede to the nuclear NOn-Proliferation Treaty. It has refused to conclude relevant agreements on guarantees and according to available information it is carrying out research in order to acquire its own nuclear weapons. By the same token, we are seriously worried by the news that part of the important technical facilities and materials used by Israel in ~~o research comes from other countries. ~~re is no doubt that giving that kind of technical assistan~e contradicts the nuclear Non-~roliferationTreaty. Moreover, measures must be taken to prevent t~e export of important information and equipment, even through illegal means. If we bear in mind the fact that Israel has from the very outset striven at any cost to maintain its military superiority over Arab countries, then there is no justification for not believing this information either. However, on the other hand, it is hard to imagine what it would mean if nuclear weapons were to fall into Israel's hands, bearing in mind its unrelenting expansionist aggressive ambitions and its flagrant disregard for fundamental standards of international law. The very fact that Israel struck against Iraqi nuclear facilities must be considered as an attack with the use of a nuclear weapon and consequently as a most serious crime against mankind. The important significance of our Organization's consideration of the question of Israel's aggression against Iraqi nuclear facilities is becoming quite clear, especially today when the international community is faced with the grave task of ensuring maximum protection and security for nuclear facilities. This refers also to the protection of peaceful nuclear ftlCilities against armed terrorist attacks which represent a serious threat for all States and all peoples of the world. Therefore, the Czechoslovak Socialist RepUblic vigorously demands that Israel guarantee that it will not repeat its act of aggression against any nuclear facilities and will respect the right of States to technical and scientific development. At the same time, we support the legitimate demands of Iraq for appropriate compensation for the damage it suffered as a result of Israel's acts of aggression against its peacefUl nuclear facilities. Mr. BIRCH (United Kingdom): I have the honour to speak on behalf of the 12 mem~r states of the European Community_ On 7 June 1981, in an attack which was in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct, Israeli aircraft destroyed the Osirak research reactor near Baghdad. The attack was strongly condemned by the Security Council in its ~esolution 487 of 19 June 1981, which was adopted unanimously. The matter was thereafter raised at the thirty-sixth sessio~ of the General Assembly and at subsequent sessions. The Twelve's attitude was and remains clear. We condemned the attack. We endorse the repeated appeals made to Israel to comply in full with the provisions of Security Council resolution 487 (1981). We reaffirm our belief that every state has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy under effective international safeguards in strict conformity with the aims embodied in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is moreover of the greatest importance that any State should refrain from acts of violence which inevitably aggravate existing tensions in the Middle East. Last year the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded its consideration of the agenda item on the subject in question by adopting its resolution 443. That resolution considered that the letter of 23 September 1985 from the resident representative of Israel, and the statement by the representative of Israel on 26 September 1985, contained undertakings on behalf of their Government in respOnse to the IAEA General Conference resolution 425, and noted that Israel had thereby committed itself not to attack or threaten to attack peaceful nuclear facilities in Iraa, elsewhere in the Middle East, or anywhere else. Without detracting in any way from our position taken on the subject of the attack, we would question whether this item need be included any longer on the agenda. The Secretary-General, in his report this year on the work of the (Mr. Birch, United Kingdom) Organization, expressed his belief that the important purposes of the General Assembly under the Charter are seldom served by excessive repetition. The Twelve share this view. Mr. MAHMUD KHAN (Pakistan): The Israeli attack on an Iraai nuclear reactor on 7 June 1981 constituted not only an act of blatant aggression against a sovereign and independent State in violation of the United Nations Charter but also a typical example of State terrorism at its worst. The reckless policies pursued by Israel against the ralestinian and Arab peoples demonstrate a complete disregard for the conseauences of its lawless conduct for international peace and security. It is for this reason that the international community during the past five years has repeatedly expressed its concern and indignation at the unprovok~ attack by Israel and condemned Israeli designs to pursue similar acts of aggression against the Arab and Islamic world. The Israeli attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor, which was under full International Atomic Energy Agency (!AEA) safeguards, was a deliberate attempt to subvert the tenuous foundations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the objective of promoting international co-operation for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It is clear that even those nuclear facilities which are unde~ IAEA safeguards are not exempt from illegal actions airoed at their destruction. The international community and, in particular, the permanent members of the Security Council, have a special responsibility to take affirmative action to prevent recurrence of similar acts by Israel or any other State. In this context, Israel's full compliance with Secu~ity Council resolution 481 (1981) of 19 June 1981 is of paramount importance. Pakistan was among the first countries to underscore in the United Nations and relevant disarmament forums the grave conseauences of this irresponsible act by Israel. Our concern about the Israeli act and its implicat~ons for international peace '" "'1!I:urity was appropriately reflected in the deliberations of the Confer ~isarmaaent in its ses_ion held shortly aftertbe attack. It is unacceptable that Israel should arrogate to itself the right to carry out military attacks on the basis of its own arbitrary and untenable assertions regarding the intentions of other States which are refuted by all objective evidence. The Israeli aggression constitute~ a violation of the sovereign and inalienable right of any State to acauire and develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. It also contradicts the basic principles outlined in the Final Document of the first special session of the General Assembly on disarmament, which provides the only agreed basis on which nuclear and non-nuc1ear-weapon States can develcp an international consensus'and ways and means to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In recent years a number of developing countries have acauired or have been in the process of acauiring nuclear technology for the purposes of accelerating their economic ana social development. That right of the developing countries is recognized by the international community and was endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 32/50 of 8 December 1977. The nuclear facilities in most of these countries are more vulnerable to military attacks than those in militaril~ significant States. The danger to which such facilities are exposed is aggravated by the propaganda spread by certain quarters that the peaceful nuclear progran~es of developing countries will inevitably result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Repetition of such an attack by Israel or any other State - besides its grave conseauences for international peace and security - would seriously jeopardize the efforts of the international community to promote nuclear disarmament and the non-proliferation.of nuclear weapons. We therefore believe that nuclear facilities should in no circumtances be the object of military attack or sabotage, for any reason whatsoever. It is for that reason that Pakistan has strongly advocated the urgent need for an international treaty to prohibit attacks on nuclear facilities. It has become increasingly evident that destruction of nucle~r r~~ctors could create effects similar to a limited nuclear exchange and could triggerth~ escalation from conventional to nuclear conflicts. The question of the prohibition of attacks against nuclear facilities is serious enough to merit agreement without being linked to non-proliferation concerns or used as a device to press developing countries to accept discriminatory safeguards or restrictions. The General Assembly should once again reaffirm the need for the expeditious conclusion of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament, with a view to achieving the immediate conclusion of an agreement on the prohibition of military attacks on nuclear facilities. We urge the Conference on Disarmament to adopt a comprehensive international convention in this regard, which, if observed strictly, would effectively prevent the danger of a radiological war and would contribute to promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In conclusion, my delegation extends its full support to the draft resolution introduced this morning under agenda item 24. That draft resolution addresses the international concerns arising from tbe dastardly Israeli attack against Iraqi nuclear facilities and would contribute to promoting international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as well as strengthening the non-proliferation objectives so vital to the preservation of the peace and development of mankin~. Mrs. DIAMATARIS (Cyprus); FOr the sixth consecutive year the General Assembly is considering the Israeli attack against the Iraqi nuclear installations at Osirak and its grave consequences. The world has denounced the Israeli attack and the destruction of the Iraqi installations as an unprovoked and unjustifiable act of aggression. Iraq, a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, had its nuclear facilities under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguard system at the time when the attack occurred. The Cyp'tiisGoverl1lllent ant! the people of Cyprus expressed their indignation immediatelY~fterthe Israeli attack,' which placed an extra burden on the already deteriorating political situation and opened wider the chasm between the two sides .of the Middle East problem. Cyprus, a victim itself of invasion and occupation, considers it its duty to reiterate its condemnation of the Israeli attack. Cyprus rejects any intervention or interference in the internal affairs of States as well as the use or threat of use of force in international relations. Israel acted in total disregard of the letter and the spiri~ of the Charter of the United Nations, and contrary to principles of international law. It is regrettable that Israel still continues to refuse to comply with the relevant resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Security COuncil. Cyprus strongly holds the view that one of the most serious problems the Organization is facing is the non-implementation of numerous resolutions and decisions of the United Nations. We believe that it is high time for steps to be taken to strengthen the united Nations so that such acts as the one perpetrated against Iraq will not be repeated. Mr. RATH (India): The issue before us cannot be looked at separately from the general pattern of Israeli behaviour in the Middle East. The views of my Government on the basic problems of the Middle East are well known. Israel continues to defy the will of the international community and has frustrated all major initiatives designed to bring about just and lasting peace in the area. Its military attack on the Iraqi atomic reactor near Baghdad in June 1981 was yet another link in the chain of acts of Israeli adventurism against Arab countries. The Government of India unequivocally condemned the Israeli action. Immediately after the attack we expressed our solidarity with the Government and people of Iraa, a nation with whioh' India hasolose ana cordiaLrelati~s. The int.rnational oommunity saw in the Israeli action a new threat to, internat~onal peaoeand seourity. The Israeli action was condemned by the Seourity Counoil, the General Assembly and the International Atomio Energy Agenoy. In a' world whioh is soaroe in energy resources the right of sovereign States to aoauire and develop nuolear technology for peaceful purposes for their development programmes has been widely reoognized. Iraq's nuolear installations were a part of that oountry's efforts to develop and utilize nuolear energy for its social and economio development. Iraq had all along deolared that its nuolear programme was devoted to the utilization of nuolear energy for peaoeful purposes. Israel's oontention that it ohose to destroy the nuolear installations of Iraq sinoe the latter was on the verge of produoing nuolear weapons was a story that few believed. In our view, Israel should pay adeauate oompensation to Iraa for the damage caused and should undertake a comwitment not to resort to such actions in the future. My delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution beoause it clearly expresses the views of the international community about the blatant act committed by Israel against Iraa on 7 June 1981. However, while supporting the draft resolution, 1 should like to reaffirm that the position of my delegation on issues suoh as the non-proliferation Treaty and full-soope safeguards, a position whioh has been repeatedly stated before, remains unchanged. Mr. RAJAIE":mORASSAN! (Islamic Republic of Iran): I have first to thank you sincereiy, Mr. President, for the very i..-ortant role your presidency is playing on this vital issue, a very sensitive issue, which is often unde~ined, underplayed and underrepresented. It is an honour for the whole Muslill world to have a Muslim brother as the President of the General Assembly, under whose presidency we are to discuss one of our common Islamic grievances. The basic grievance we are talking about today ls simply the attack by the military forces of the Zionist base occupying Palestine on the nuclear installations belonging to the Iraqi people. That attack on one part of the territory and property of the Muslim ummah cannot be, and is not, separate from or isolated from the other aggressions~ attacks, acts of destruction and crimes perpetrated by the Zionist forces against the same Muslim ummah, whose rights have so often been ignored by the General Assembly. It is the General Asselllb1y - not the same ladies and gentlemen, but the same institution - that transplanted that injury, that wound, that cancer from elsewhere to our beloved Palestine. When in those days the General Assembly put that dirty cancer in Palestine, it attacked all of us - all our property, all our values and all our territory. 1 ask representatives not to misrepr\'"".:;.t the issue. Anyone who wants to defend us should do so fully, honestly and comprehensively. One of our revolutionary writers, who is said to have been assassinated in the early active days of the revolution by agents of the Shah, said in one of his writings that the greatest injustice to an issue is to defend it badly and weakly. That is the point I wish to make. The attack on Iraa's nuclear installations was an attack on the property of the Muslim Ummah and should be viewed only in that perspective. My second point concerns the position of the Islamic RepUblic of Iran on that criminal attack. The people of Iraa, the dignified, great, honourable people of Iraa, are our Muslim brothers and sisters, and our duty to them with regard to the attack on their property remains absolutely independent of, and detached from, the war of aggression that a crazy cliaue has imposed on both nations, a clique that is still ruling our Iraqi brothers and sisters. We think that even that war of aggression was nothing but the implementation of the aggressive Zionist policies imposed on the entire Muslim Ummah. In thia respect, we should again and again reiter&te that we stand beside our Iraqi brothers and sisters against the Zionist aggressors. Here, we have to defend, as our religious duty, the rights of the Iraqis, and therefore we strongly cond~mn the.military aggression by the Zionist forces against the Iraqi nuclear installations, which were intended only for peaceful purposes and peaceful uses. The attack was a violation of, and aggression against, the rights of the Muslim ummah, the principl~s of international law and the norms of international morality. However, the draft resolution (A/4l/L.14), if it is to be the final version, is slightly less than we had expected. It is too condoning of, and too friendly to, the aggressor. In order to patch it up and compensate for that shortcoming~ my delegation wishes to introduce the following amendment, which will become the first operative paragraph of the draft resoluti~n. The present first paragraph will become the second, and will be renumbered accordingly, as will the others. So operative paragraph 1 would read: -Strongly condemns all military attacks on all nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful purposes, including the military attacks by Israel on the nuclear facilities of Iraq-. That would make the wbole draft resolution more balanced, more objective and more to the point, and therefore more acceptable to my delegation. The other point I should like to raise ls with regard to some crocodile tears that the General Assembly saw shed today by the representative of the 2ionist base occupying Palestine. Be has tried to exploit the issue of the Iran-Iraa conflict in order to divert the attention of the international public from the genuine, correct issue before the present session of the General Assembly. The General Assembly is considering the aggression by the Zionist forces ag~inst the Iraqi installations. We have not had any discussion of the Iran-Iraq war today. It is not on the agenda and it is not going to be on the agenda. Therefore, regardless of whether what he said was correct or incorrect, any exploitation of that issue merely in order to divert the attention of the international public from the real issue under consideration is a very dirt~ Zionist trick which must be condemned. I hope that no individual, whether for us or against us, will pay any attention to this dirty zionist manoeuvre. Whether chemical war was or was not resorted to by Iraq, whether civilians were or were not bombarded, these are issues related to the Iran-Iraq conflict. As far as substance is concerned, even if one believes that what he said had some substance, one has to remember that he was underplaying those issues. Be was very soft. The issues he raised were far below the reality of the crimes committed against us in the context of the Iran-Iraa war, therefore it was treacherous and dishonest of him. So both as regards Bubstance and from the procedural point of view, as regards the form, those issues were absolutely irrelevant. There is another point that should be taken into consideration. Even on the most genuine issue, on the most appropriate matter, the most apt comment by an illegal, unauthorized and improper person remains null and void. We, like many of our brothers in the General Assembly, have already expressed our reservations with regard to the credentials of the representative of the zionist base occupying Palestine, but many who either abstained or were absent, we believe, agree with us. They too believe that the presence of this element in the General Assembly is absolutely illegal and improper. It is a fact that Palestine is occupied. It is also a fact that under a forged flag, under a forged label, with a forged national anthem, with a forged political identity and with a forged population, a forged State has been constituted and, thanks to the support of the imperialist forces, that forged entity has gained some transient recognition in the General Assembly. We have all sorts of problems that gradually, we hope, by the grace of God, will just go away. We sometimes become sick, we have ailments and problems, and of course we recover. This is a political ailment, a political sickness, and from this too we shall soon recover. Therefore, we do not recognize cancer. Cancer exists, but we do not recognize it. That is why we are fighting it in every laboratory. Here too we are fighting our political cancer fully and, we hope, efficiently. If one wishes to give recognition, it is only as a cancer that one can recognize this entity. Otherwise it has no recognition and its comments, whether for us or against us, remain absolutely irrelevant. I will conclude my statement by adding one final point. The hasic problem of the entire people of the Middle East, as many speakers before me today and on many previous days have rightly reiterated, although they were not listened to, is the presence of the Zionist base occupy!ag Palestine. As soon as the dignitaries behind that dirty shop come to the conclusion that that shop must be closed, many problems will be automatically resolved. It is a base for creating division, for destruction, for occupation, for killing Lebanese Muslims, for killing Palestinian Muslims, for attacking atomic installations belonging to the Iragi people, for bringing all sorts of creative mischief to everybody in the region. We have to get rid of that base. When that base - soon, by the grace of God - comes to an end, we shall all be in a state of reliaf. For the General Assembly, particularly when the financial situation has attracted the attention of many, it is important to remember that if that base did not exist most of the problems related to the Middle East would simply be delQted from every agenda. Our work would be nice and heat, tidy, to the point and relevant and we should be able to resolve international problems peacefully and with co-operation. But when there is always a wrong element, a mistake, among us, it contaminates all of us.

The representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran has proposed an amendment to the "draft resolution. I hope that representatives have noted the amendment. For their convenience I shall read it out as we noted it, and I would request the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to correct me if we are wrong. The Iranian amendment would add a new operative paragraph 1, reading as follows: "Strongly condemns all military attacks on all nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful purposes, inclUding the military attacks by Israel on the nuclear facilities of Iraa". I call on the representative of Jordan, who wishes to introduce an amendment to the Iranian amendment. Mr. NASBASBIBI (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): The repres~ntative of the Islamic Republic of Iran has submitted an amendment to insert a new operative paragraph 1 before the present operative paragraph 1 of draft resolution A/41/L.1C. My delegation would like to put forward the following amendment to the Iranian amendment: (Spoke in English) WReiterates its strong condemnation of the military attack by Israel on the Iraai nuclear facilities, as well as any future attack ~ nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful purposesw• (continued in Arabic) My delegation hopes that all States Members will vote in favour of this amendment.

~he Observer of the League of Arab states, has asked to make a statement. I call on him in accordance with General Assembly resolution 477 (V), of 1 November 1950. Mr. MAKSOUD (League of Arab States): While the international communi~y expectantly awaits word of possible super-Power agreement on meaningful reductions in nuclear-weapon stockpiles, an agreement that would brighten mankind's hopes for survival, we in the Middle East continue to face the palpable threat of a nuclear-armed Israel, with no means or prospects of reducing that danger. Let me remind members that Israel is not a benign, peaceful State, but an aggressive militaristic country which has amply demonstrated its appetite for conquest and expansion and its clear readiness to use maximum force, regardless of the conseauences, to attain its ends. It has been expanding since its foundation (Mr. Maksoud, League of Arab States) nearly four decades ago and it continues to east covetous eyes on neighbouring Arab .: ': ;~"i. ..; '. lands. The international community has heard with varying degrees of scepticism Israel's demure protestations that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear arms in the Middle East. We have also witnessed the extreme secrecy with which Israel has blanketed all aspects of its nuclear programme. It has refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has rejected any attempt to have its nuclear facilities inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It has even barred visits to those facilities by scientists from other countries, such as the united states, and by Senators from the united States, which has made vital contributions to Israel's nuclear weapons capability. Only recently news reports had it that Israeli intelligence agents kidnapped an Israeli citizen, a former nuclear technician, who had left Israel and released information about the secret stockpiling of nuclear warheads. Secrecy and clandestine methods were the hallmark of Israel's nuclea~weapons programme from its inception almost immediately after the founding of Israel. Even then, Israeli scientists were trying to extract low-grade uranium from phosphate in the Negev desert and to ac~ire technology from the United States and Western Europe that would help them establish a viable nuclear programme. Throughout the 1950s and 19608 Israel acquired nuclear reactors from France and the United States, trained its scientists and developed its technology. The result was the highly secret nuclear facility at Dimona in the Negev, which for years was passed off by the Israelis as a textile factory. The Dimona bomb factory became operational in 1965, more than 20 years ago, and it ~nd other Israeli nuclear-weapon facilities have been producing the mean~ of atomic destruction at a rate that puts Israel's stockpile at more than 100 bombs of 20-kiloton yield or more. Israel, involving the disappearance of uranium fuel. In one case, in the mid-1960s, some 200 pounds of weapons-grade uranium disappeared from a plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania, run by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, known as NUMEC. The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) suspected as early as 1968 that Israel had acquired nuclear-weapons capability by using some of the uranium missing from NUMEC. It so informed President Lyndon Johnson, who reportedly ordered the findings kept secret. On 27 April 1981, Carl Duckett, a former senior CIA official responsible for technical and nuclear intelligence, said on ADC's ·Close Up· television programme: ·1 think the clear consensus in the CIA was, indeed, that NUMEC material had been diverted and had been used by the Israelis in fabricating weapons.· In the same programme, ABC News reported that NUMEC files were missing, that the firm's bookkeeping was inaccurate and that security at the Apollo plant was inadequate. Also, intima~e business relations existed between NUMEC and Israel. In the second case, about 200 tons of natural uranium, enough to run the Dimona reactor for 10 years, disappeared at sea in 1968 during a shipment from West Germany to Italy. The uranium was aboard the Sheersburg A, a merchant vessel bound for Genoa out of Antwerp. The ship never arrived in Genoa, but 15 days after it left Antwerp, it docked at Iskenderun, Turkey, with an empty hold. The vessel then proceeded to Italy, where the captain and the crew also disappeared. Investigators from six European countries and the United States later concluded that the uranium aboard the Sheersburg A had ended up in Israel. Israel has also increased its own production of uranium as a by-product of its large phosphate industry, thus acquiring virtual autonomy in its military nuclear requirements. Experts say that Israel has little or no n~ed to import uranium, even though~it is readily available from suppliers such as South Africa, with which Israel has long had close links in the field of nuclear-weapons research and ·development, and which also is not a member of the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty. Israel today may be the world's sixth nuclear Power. It has not only a stockpile of nuclear bombs but a constantly improving delivery system. The Israeli air force can provide a mix of jet warplanes to deliver nuclear bombs to their targets, while Israeli-built missiles, such as the Jericho, with a range of 280 miles, can reach other targets, all in the Arab world. It has been calculated that the Jericho, even if launched from within Israel's pre-1967 borders, can reach Cairo, Alexandria, Helwan and Port Said in EgyptJ Damascus, Aleppo, Boms and Latakiyah in SyriaJ a[ld Amman in Jordan. And we know from graphic experience that Israeli planes, refuelled in mid-air, can strike as far east as Baghdad in Iraq and as far west as Tunis in Tunisia. But Israel has not been idle, and it is certain that both the quality and auantity of its nuclear arsenal and delivery system are being upgraded. The scope of the danger facing the Middle East becomes even clearer when it is realiZed that Israel wants to be not only a nuclear Power; but the only such Power in the region. It thus has a~rogated to itself the task of snuffing out any attempt by any Arab country to reach a level of nuclear technology which could theoretically lead to the acquisition of a weapons capability. For the record let it be said that not a single Arab country has attempted to turn its nuclear research programme in the direction of weapons development. Several Arab States have nuclear research facilities, but they are all dedicated to peaceful uses and are regularly inspected by teams from the International'Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That was also the case with Iraa, which sought to build facilities for peaceful nuclear research, knowing that nuclear energy would play a major role in the next century, especi&lly as the world's petroleum reserves dwindle and become increasingly hard to exploit. Iraa is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its nuclear reactor, dubbed Osiraa, near Baghdad, was fully under the inspection of th~ International Atomic Energy Agency. There was never any doubt that the Iraai nuclear plant was built specifically for peaceful purposes. But on 7 June 1981, Israeli warplanes flew 1,000 kilometres, violating the air space of several Arab countries, to bomb the reactor building on the outskirts of Baghdad. The Israeli prime minister at the ttme, Menachem Begin, charged that the Iraqi reactor was meant to produoe nuclear weapons, but he was given the l,e by a mass of evidence to the contrary submitted by international experts, including those of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The attack on the Iraai nuclear reactor was a clear case of aggression, and it was condemned as such, unanimously, by the United Nations Security Council. It was also a violation of United States laws, because Israel used American-built planes supplied to Israel under the restrictions of the Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits the use of United States-supplied weapons except for so-called defensive pur-poses. And yet, regrettably, the United States, true to its commitment to protect Israel at any cost, did little beyond delivering a tap on the wrist. President Reagan, briefly, suspended the shipment of four F-l6 warplanes slated for delivery to Israel and said: "Israel appeared to have violated its weapons agreement with the united States." But then he added that the Israelis might have sincerely believed their action was defensive in nature• ., .... with such permissiveness on the part of the United states, in particular, even in the face of blatant acts of aggression that drew severe denunciations from most of the united states allies, Israel knew then, as it knows now, that it has a free hand in sowing death and destruction anywhere in the Middle East. And it has sought over the past few years to blackmail its neighbours, hinting not so subtly at the nuclear incineration that awaits Arab population centres in the case of total war. Despite this nuclear sword that Israel holds over their heads, the Arab States have given the international community, and this Organization in particular, proof of their desire for peace in the region. But we have also insisted that such a peace must be just, lasting and comprehensive. At the Arab Summit Conference in Fez in September 1982, the Arab countries unanimously adopted proposals for settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The most notable was the proposal for a United Nations-sponsored international conference, to be attended by all parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, which would address all the issues. Israel rejects any notion of peace that does not guarantee Arab surrender of the Arab occupied territories and of Palestinian national rights. We are not lulled by the alleged moderation of some Israeli leaders, such as Shimon Peres, who pretend that they would like to end the conflict. And we know only too well what Peres' successor, Yitzhak Shamir, stands for. The Israeli strategy, unchanged since the foundation of Israel, is to expand at the expense of the Arab countries and to hold on to those conauered acquisitions through nuclear blackmail. That is the reason Israel today is a nuclear Power, not its alleged concern for its survival, an excuse that is hardly credible, given Israel's conventional might. Apart from its nuclear arsenal, Israel today has the world's fourth most (Mr. Maksoud, League of Arab states) powerful armed forces, which should give an idea of Israel's real intentions. In truth, Israel today is a match for most countries apart from the super-Powers. Does anybody wonder Why this small, allegedly democratic and peaceful country needs so much military muscle? The answer, obviously, is that Israel wants to exercise hegemony over th~ "region, to intimidate its neighbours, to pose as the policeman of the area and to crush any resistance to its aim of eliminating the Palestinian people as contenders for the land of Palestine. Israel, as it believes, is holding the Middle East hostage with its nuclear blackmail. It has achieved this power because the international community failed to act 3ppropriately when action was called for to curb Israel's greed and acts of aggression. We hear much talk about nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear-free zones, but nothing has been done about forcing Israel to abide by international nuclear rules and conventions. This is not only tragic but extremely dangerous. No one country can have so much unrestrained power without becoming a threat to the stability and security of a whole region, and perhaps the world at large. Israel's nuclear intimidation in the Middle E~st is sure to have repercussions beyond our area. Thus, we are not the only ones who are at risk. And in this nuclear age, the ramifications of an escalating conflict are unpredictable. The PRESmENr; We have heard the last speak~ in the debate on this item. I call on the representative of the Islamic Repmlic of Iran who has asked to speak on a point of order. Hr. RAJAIE-KIDRASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran): Thank you, Mr. President, for your patience and tolerance and for the very objective and excellent manner in which you are conducting the affairs of this Assenbly. I have asked to speak because the representative of Jordan has already proposed an amendment to complement, or somehow to change, the amendment that we have traditimally added to this draft resolutim. It has been dme in the past - it was done two years ago. But in order to make the amendment just proposed by the representative of Jordan acceptable to my delegatim, I should like to introcl1ce a very small change to his amendment which, if accept.ed and accoJmlodated by the General Asenbly, would certainly meet the points of concer:n of the representative of Jordan as well as the concerns of my delegation. Surely those representatives who wish to vote for the whole draft resolution will be happy to respmd to the concerns of both the delegation of Jordan and the delegation of the Islamic Repmlic of Iran. These are the very slight changes we are asking fa:, and I will just read them out at dicta tion speed: "Reiterates its strong condemnation of the military attack by Israel on t;he Iraqi nuclear facUities." This part is exactly as it was in the Jordanian amendment. After the full stop I wish mly to introcl1ce me independent sentence which says: "It also condemns all military attacks, both of the past and of the future, on all nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful purposes. n The significance of this small change is that the amendment proposed by the representa tive of Jordan takes note mly of future attacks, but my delega tion believes that there is no reasm to exempt past attacks on nuclear installations, and therefore it becomes more canprehensive and more to the point. The PRJiSIDENT: I call on the representative of the Lib.yan.Ar~" Jamahiriya who has asked to speak ona 'point of order. Mr. AZZAROUK (Libyan Arab Jamahir iya) (interpretation from Arabic) ~ I have raised a point of order because my delegation wishes to emphasize that, for the purpose of strengthening the pcinciple of the ncm-use of force against peaceful nuclear installations, the amendment propcsed by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran can replace the Jordanian amendment. It completes it, and is in keeping with the desires of the international community, which is wcrking to achieve international peace and secur ity. The PRJiSIDENT: I call on the representative of Jordan, who has asked to speak on a point of order. Mr. HAMADNEH (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation has listened to the proposal put for:.;lard by the representative of the Islamic Repoolic of Iran. My delegation oonsiders that the amendment we ourselves submitted is sufficient and does not need to be supplemented or amended, because there is no nuclear reactor in the region which has been the object of a military air attack apart from the Iraqi reactor~ consequently my delegation hopes that our amendment will remain as it is, without any additions and without the inclusion of any other sentence or phrase. The PRJiSIDENT: I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote befoce the vote. Mr. OKUN (United States of America): The United States will vote against this draft resoluticm, to which we are firmly opposed for reasons of both substance and principle. As all delegations are aware, this matter has been exhaustively debated in the tbited Nations General Assenbly, in the tbited Nations security Co'uncil and in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). For our part, we see no constructive reason why it must, year after year, be Ixought before the General Assembly. In .ti.l~ ~x~ew,. o~,the O'lite<1. Sta~es, ~d .1 trUB~ limy other delega~ions, this, issue was-.addressed in a defillitive mannerbyi;he 1985 IABAGen~al Cenference, WItch accepted t;he as~uranc~ formall.y p:~ided by the Israeli representa~ive to tha~ CCXlference tha~ Israel':. Mwill no~ atuck or: threaten to atuck any nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes e1 ther in the Middle East ex anytllhere else M• In the light of the fact tba~ Israel has provided those assurances, any such draft resolution en this agenda item - if indeedtJIere should be a draft resolution at all - should do nothing more than reaffirm the very positive steps already uken by the !AEA menber Sta~es in accepting those assurances. (Mr. Okun~ United States) Instead, the draft resolution coJipl-etelynegl"ects the aCtion taken' bYtlie :'.1985 . . . ' , , .' .'. ., . .. .' .. - .. ., • '. ,-_' , '~., .. t':; International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference and denies tnefact that Israel, in the vie~ of a majority of its members has proVided the assurances called ~or in operative paragraph 2 of this draft regolution. In so doing, it unjustifiably calls into question the judgement of a substantial number of International Atomic Energy Agency member States. The resolution as drafted purpo~ts to go beyond this, but to no useful purpose. We are not dealing with an pngoing situation, at least with regard to tsraeli actions, and no rational end is therefore served by pretending otherwise. It seems clear that the sole intent of the draft resolution, which is re!.nforced by operative paragraph 5 calling upon the United Nations Genaral Assembly again to consider the matter next year, is to fan the flames of hostility and debate on this issue, which is completely contrary to the goals and purposes of the United Nations. We believe the~e are far more productive ways for the General Assembly t.o use its precious time and resources. Hr. NETANYAHU (Israel): The relevant auestion here is what are we voting on. Sev~ral speakers addressed themselves rather broadly to this issue, both in the nuclear and in tha extra-nuclear context. I quote one, for example, the representative of Czechoslovakia who said that an attack on a nuclear facility is equivalent to a nuclear attack. That is an interesting proposition. In the Second World War, the Nazis were preparing a nuclear bomb factory by their installation of heavy water in Norway. The allies took action and destroyed that heavy water facility. According to the new Czechoslovakian interpretation, this should be construed as a nuclear attack. I give that as one example of what, in a spirit of generosity, one would call sloppy thinking. But what we have heard from most of the speakers today is not sloppy thinking. It is deliberately distorted thinking. . ,. (Mr. Netanyahu, Israel) So I came back to the qUe.tion; what is the real issue engaging this Assembly today. I suggested that we can look at this in two ways, we can look at it in a narrow construction, in a narrow approach on the question of nuclear facilities, and to that effect, this draft resolution has no standing at all. Because when we look at that question, then the question boils down to assurances that Israel has given against any future attacks on nuclear facilities anywhere; and these assurances have been accepted as satisfactory by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAitl\). Obviously, we would expect all members here, or at least IlOst of them, to vote :geinst this draft resolution because there is no reason to go beyond those assurances once they have been given. If we understand some Governments expect to raise a separate vote on operative paragraph 2, which states that Israel has not given such assurances, then we certainly expect them to vote against it, because the IAEA says that we have, and the IAEA is the body that has dealt with this issue. So, either on a general vote ~nd certainly on a separate vote on operative paragraph 2, all fair-minded Governments should vote against that draft resolution. I still remain in the narrow approach, and I ask a question - I asked it before and I will ask it more directly now~ What about Iraqi assurances against future attacks on peaceful nuclear installations, what about them? In fact, I direct the question right to the Iraqi delegation. Are you prepared, right here in this bcdy, to gi'!a assurances that Iraq shall not attack nuclear installations for peaceful purposes? I should lik~ to hear. the answer ~~ause Iraq, so far, has not given such assurances. Since it has not, and since in fact it has bombed Iranian nuclear facilities on three separate occasions, the abs~~dity of this debate takes on new dimensions. (Mr. Netanyahu, Israel) As to the broad construction that was displayed i~the distorted re~rks of the speakers who dealt with the broader questions, supposedly of international peace and security, I am not going to address everyone of them because I am not engaging here in a right of reply. I am trying to focus on the rees! nature of what we are dealing with here, even in a broad construction. For that, I owe a special debt to the representative of Iran, because he, in his usual fashion, stripped away the fog and told us what we are dealing with here. He first came to the defence of his enemy, Iraq, because he said that the butchery of the Iran'~raa war does not concern the General Assembly. He stated that not merely in the context of this issue being raised by Israel, but the issue itself, he said, does not concern the General Assembly. I should clarify that. While I directed most of my remarks in this matter to Iraq, I by no means meant to exempt Iran's violation of international law, Iran's share of the carnage, its deliberate flouting of any international law, its use of little boys, children, I was going to say cannon fodder, but that should be amended to -minefodder or to any kind of fodder, to the God of war which they worship. NOW, if butchering one another, and if using chemical weapons and preparing it on both sides of this war, if this is not the domain of this General Assembly in discussing international peace and security, then what is? What the Iranian representative is in fact telling us is that there are no universal standards, it depends on the participants. And not only that, this follows on the heel of an attempt by Iran and others to deny universal membership. So what they are saying is that this body is neither of universal membership or universal standards. In other words, they are vitiating any meaning whatsoever to the debates in this body, and this is, of course, exactly what is going on today. Pinally,.'he spelt out "hat it is we ~re dealing with. Be said that the real i8sue ia nOt this particular draft resolution, but the fact that Israel is, according to the terms he used, a dirty cancer. Be said that you do not recognt,ze a cancer, wha't you do with a cancer is to root it out, this is what you have to do. In othQr words, there was a call here not only for ·polycide· but for genocide, pure and simple, this in the year in which the united Nations is trying to reconstruct and rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the world. This is what we are voting on. This is the hidden agenda beyond these repeated superfluous attempts. They are superfluous only if one really addresses the issue. They are not superfluous if the issue, as framed correctly by Iran, is to continue this war of extremism and intolerance against the state o~ Israel.

The Gener~l Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/41/L.14. In addition to the draft resolution, there are three proposals before the General Aseembly. The first is an amendment proposed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, to insert the following new operative paragraph 1: ·Strongly condemns all military attacks on all nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful purposes, including the military attacks by Israel on the nuclear facilities of Iraq·. The second is an amendment proposed by Jordan, which I believe would be in place of the amendment proposed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, because it contains almost the same elements. It reads: ·Reiterates its strong condemnation of the military attack by Israel on the Iraqi nuclear facilities, as well as any future attack on nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful purposes·. The third is a sub-amendment proposed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the Jordanian amendment, according to which operative paragraph 1 would read as follows: ·Reiterates its strong condemnation of the military attack by Israel on the Iraqi nuclear facilities. It also condemns ~11 military attacks, both of the past and of the future, on all nuclear instal1~tions devoted to peaceful purposes·. In accordance with rule 90 of the General Assembly's rules of procedure I shall first put to the vote the Iranian sub-amendment to the Jordanian amendment. I call on the representative of Jordan, who wishes to speak on a point of order. Mr. HAMADNEH (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation would like its proposed amendment to be retained without changes or additions, for the reasons I set out earlier • . .. :.

I call on the representative of Iraq, who wishes to speak on a point of order. Mr. SUMAIDA (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): ~ delegation requests that the Assembly should not consid~r the proposed amendments to the draft resolution. The PF~SIDENT: I am afraid that the rules of procedure of the General Assembly do not permit me to accede to the request of the representative of Iraq, unless he is making a no-action r~quest under rule 74 of the rules of procedure. Does the representative of Iraq wish to invoke rule 74? Mr. SUMAIDA (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): Yes, Sir. !!!!..!RESIDENT: Rule 74 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly reads as follows: -During the diycussion of any matter, a representative may move the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In aildition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. The President may limit the time to be allowed to speakers under this rule. lit the representative of Iraq? ., I call on the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran and, in exercise of the powers conferred on the President under rule 74, I hereby limit statements, both in favour of and against the motion, to five minutes. Hr. RAJAIE-KHORASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran): My delegation wishes to know exactly what we are going to vote on. Is it the proposal of the representative of Iraq, on the basis of rule 74, not to take any action? Are we going to adjourn the meeting, adjourn the voting process 1 or simply eliminate the amendments proposed? I should like to request clarification.

As I understand it, the request made by the representative of Iraq was that no action be taken on the vtlrious amendments proposed by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Ir~~ and the representative of Jordan. Would the representative of Iraq please confirm or correct my understanding? Mr. SUMAIDA (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): We have requested, in accordance with rule 74, that no amendments be introduced to draft resolution A/4l/L.14. We ask that the draft resolution remain without change and that the text be as proposed by its co-sponsors.

That is very clear. I call on the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who is raising a point of order. Mr. RAJAIE-KHORASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran): As the representative of Iraq has just said, on the basis of rule 74 he is asking the General Assembly to eliminate all the proposed amendments and changes to the original draft resolution A/41/L.14. i. - h';·'1 ..-:·" f ':f~-·:t 't.' May I ask, .-;" prevents the introduction of amendments to draft resolutions. Mr. President, whether you are of the same opinion, because, if that is the procedure, then any delegation can if it wishes just insist that it does not want any amendments. That is what the representative of Iraa says and the same thing ti,:ltS said by the representative of Jordan. They simply say that they do not want any amendments. We understand that, it is clear. But do the rules of procedure, specifically rule 74, provide for meeting such a request? If my memory does not betray me the rules of procedure, particularly rule 74, speak of motions. Our motion was not a procedural one, it was a very important, substantive amendment. If the rules of procedure, particularly rule 74, prevent our introducing amendments, the proposal of the representative of Iraq should be put to a vote, otherwise it should just be ignored. I ask you, Sir, to clarify exactly what we are doing. Are we going to act in accordance with the reauest of the representative of Iraq, who says that he does not want any amendments or changes in his draft resolution, or are we really implementing rule 74 of the rules of procedure?

I shall read rule 74 again. It states: -During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. The President may limit the time to be allowed to speakers under this rule.- The representative of Iraq has moved, under the provisions of this rule, that no amendment to the original draft resolution be accepted, and it is incumbent on the President of the General Assembly, under the provisions of rule 74, to put that That is precisely what I intend to do. If it is proposal to the vote first. ". h f ..+' accepted by the General Assembly matters will take one courseJ if it is not " accepted by_the General Assembly they will take another course. I am very clear in my mind as to how I should proceed in this matter. Would any representative like to speak in favour of the proposal made by the representative of Iraq under rule 741 I see there is none. Would any representative like to speak against the proposal made by the representative of Iraq under rule 741 I call on the representative of the Islamic Republic of IranJ he has five minutes. Mr. RAJAIE-KRORASSAHI (Islamic RepUblic of Iran): The reason I proposed my amendment is that attacks on nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful purposes have not been confined and limited to the Zionist attack on the Iraai facilitiesJ further attacks have taken place in the region. Therefore we have to make this draft resolution very comprehensive, to cover not only those attacks announced preViously on other nuclear installations dedicated to peaceful purposes but all military attacks against such facilities in the future as well. I think this is a very important point of concern to all Member States. It is also consistent with the record of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The PRESIDmT: Since no other representativ.e wishes to speak against the notion IIIlde by the representative of Iraq under rule 74 of the rules of procedure, that no amendment be accepted to draft resolution A/41/L.l4, we shall now put the notim to the vote. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Bahrain, BrWlei Darussalam, Chile, Colonbia, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Guyana, Indmesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanm, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger ia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, sa int IAlcia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, united Arab &nirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zanbia, Zinbabwe Against: Costa Rica, Iran (Islamic Republic of) Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Bur Wldi, Byeloruss ian SOITiet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Central Afr ican Republic, Coogo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, CzecboslOl7akia, DellDcratic Yemen, Denmark, DOminican Republic, Ecuador, El salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, France, Gaboo, German Denocra tic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Glatemala, Haiti, Hooduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, IAlxembourg, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, M!xi co, Moogolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, saint Christopher and Nevis, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leooe, Solomon Islands, Spa in, Sd Lanka, Sur iname , Swaz iland, SWeden, Syr ian Ar ab Republic, '~hailand, Trinidad and 'lbbago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SOITiet Socialist Republic, union of SOITiet 9:>cialist Republics, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, tbited Republic of Tanzania, tbited States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire The motioo was adopted by 37 votes to 2, with 90 abstentions.

The Assenbly will now begin the voting Process on draft resolution A/4l/L.l4 without any amendments. A separate vote has been requested on operative paragraph 2. If I hear no objectioo, we shall proceed accordingly. We shall vote first on operative paragraph 2. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Alger ia, Angola, Bah.ain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brmei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist ~public, China, Calgo, Cuba, Cyprus, CzechoslO'1akia, Deuocratic Yemen, Dj ibouti, Egypt, German Democratic Republic, Q1inea, Qlyana, BW'lgary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Rept:blic of), Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Iebancn, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mcmgolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Qnan, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, seychelles, Somalia, Sri Lanka, SUdan, Syrian Arab Republic, 'nlnisia, tJ;Janda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, tl1ion of Soviet SOcialist Republics, O1i ted Arab Emirates, O1i ted Republic of Tanzania, Viet Ham, Yemen, Yugoslavia, ZaDbia, Zinbabwe Against: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austr ia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, ColoDb ia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El salvacbr, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Guatemala, Bcmduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Il1xeDbourg, Netherlands, New zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, saint Christopher and Nevis, saint Iucia, 'Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, 'thited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irel.and, un i ted States of AIDer ica, ur uguay Abstaining: Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, BurW'ldi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabcm, Baiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Swaziland, Thailand, 'lbgo', Trinidad and 'lbbago, 'nlrkey, Venezuela, Zaire Operative paragraph 2 was aoopted by 63 votes to 41, with 33 abstentions. The PRESm~T: I shall now put to the vote draft resolution A/41/L.14, as a whole. A reoorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. Afghanistan, Albania, Alger ia, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Braz il, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgar ia, Burkina hso, Burundi, Byelorussian SOviet Socialist Republic, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoroe, Congo, Cuba, OJprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, GabCll, Ganbia, German De1lDcratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Q1yana, Hungary, India, Indones ia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwai.t, Lao People's De1lDeratic Republic, LebanCll, Iesotho, Libyan }\rab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mald ives, Mali, Mal ta , Mauritan ia, MCIlgol ia , Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, anan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, saudi Arabia, Senegal, seychelles, Somalia, Sr i Lanka, Sudan, Syr ian Arab Republic, Thailand, 'lOgo, Trinidad and Tcbago, TWlisia, Turkey, tJ;Janda, Ukrainian SOviet SOcialist Republic, Union of SOviet Socialist Republics, tbited Arab &nirates, tbited Republic of Tanzania, Viet Ham, Yemen, YugoslaVia, Zanbia, Zimbabwe In favour: El salvador, HCIlduras, Israel, saint Christopher and Nevis, Un i ted States of Amer ica Against: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgi\IU, BoliVia, Camerooo, Canada, Chile, Colonbia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Fcuador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Qlatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Liber ia, IAlxenbourg, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, New zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, saint IAlcia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra leone, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, uruguay, Venez uela, Zait e Draft resolution A/41/L.14, as a whole, was adopted by 86 votes to 5, with 55 abstentions (resolution 41/12).

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote. Mr. NORBEIM (Norway)~ My delegation would like to explain its vote on the draft resolutioo cClltained in cbcument A/4l/L.14 which has just been adopted by the General Assenbly. In the opinion of my delegation, this draft resolution contains a nunber of unacceptable elements. We find that opera tive paragraph 2 is inconsistent with the main thrust of resolution 443 which the General CCIlferenoe of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) acbpted last year.* *Mr. Kabanda (Rwanda), Vice-President, took the Chair. (Mr. Norheim, Norway) It is my delegation's firm view that after the adoption of the IAEA resolution no further action is necessary in the General Assembly on this question, and that the item under discussion should now be removed from the Assembly's agenda. For that reason, Norway voted against operative paragraph 2 and abstained on the draft resolution as a whole. Mr. MARIN DOSCD (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): Mexico's position on this item and its condemnation of the Israeli armed aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations perpetrated on 7 June 1981 were clearly expressed in the Security Council during t~at very month. The delegation of Mexico has, however, abstained in all the voting on draft resolution A/4l/L.14, for the same reasons as those set forth a year ago in this Hall when the Assembly was considering this item. The explanation of vote by the Mexican delegation at that time appears in document A/40/PV.59. Mr. OKELY (Australia): The Australian delegation has abstained o~' draft 'resolution A/4l/L.14, on which the General Assembly has just voted. OUr vote was registered in full consideration of the attack by Israel in 1981 on the nuclear reactor located in Iraq. Australia condemned that attack at the time in unequivocal terms. Nothing has changed since then that would alter our view that this attack was carried out in contravention of the norms of international behaviour. We strongly support the international non-proliferation regime and the vital role that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plays in supporting that regime, partiCUlarly through its saf.eguards system. Australia is thus sensitive to and concerned about any actions that we perceive might threaten that regime. We welcome and support the call in the resolution for Israel and, indeed, all countries in the Middle East to place their nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Australia voted against operative paragraph 2 of the resolution. Specific undertak ings have indeed been made by Israel not to attack nuclear facilities in Iraq, elsewhere in the Middle East, or anywhere else. We consider that this c01llDitment, made at the 1985 IAEA General Cmference, was made by Israel in good fai the But it was not ooly the inclusion of operative paragraph 2 in the draft resolutioo that influ~ced my delegatioo's decisioo to abstain at the draft resolution as a whole. Australia is concerned at the continued, repetitive, unpromctive consideration of this issue by the General AsseDbly. we are disappointed that the resolution on which we have just voted prOl7ides for an item to be inscr ibed on the prOl7isiooal agenda of the forty-secald session of the General Assel1t>ly. Australia believes that ;:his matter has now been dealt with satisfactorily within the Caltext of the thit.ed Nati~ns and that foe it to reappear at the forty-second session will not serve to achieve productive results. Mr. LUNA (Peru) (interpretatial fran Spanish) \ Since 1981 the delegation of Per~ has voted in favour of the draft resolutions on this item, in conformity wi th its policy of rejecting any act involving the use of force and foreign intervention. On this oocasioo, we reaffirm our condemnation of the attack against the Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, and of any present or futurG action involving the same violations of international law. However, in view of the time that has elapsed since the event in question took place, -and because of the General Assemly's repeated unequivocal condemnation of that 4Nent, we believed that the draft resolutial gave riI'M) to procedural problems, and was untimely, and we therefore abstained in the voting. Miss GERVAIS. (Cana.da). (in~rpretation from Frenchh Because a nuDber of the ,mor,e q~u..ep~~_~~le. e1.emep~~ in; r~olu",~:~?n< ~0(6, ado~~d last year, w~e not included in dr.aft resolution A/41/L.14, Canada changedi,ts negative vote of last . .-' t" - , . , '. '''; .~ ; year to an 'abstention this year. Nevertheless, my delegation mntinues to have serious difficulties with some of the points raised in the draft resolutiooo All delegations will remeDber, in fact, that the General Conference of the Internatiooal Atomic Phergy Agency (IAEA), held in septeDber 1985, adopted resolution 443, which in our view should have closed the discussion on this question as a whole. Canada deplores the insistence of certain delegations on rein~.::zocl1cing, year after year, a question which cannot in any way help to imprOlTe the situation and create the climate necessary for the solution of the problems in the Middle East and which, moreOlTer, further burdens the General Asserrbly's agenda at a time when rationalization of our work is more necessary than ever before. Mr. ELVDoIAR (SWeden): The resolution just adopted cootains elements which my delegation can readily support. Sweden's clear condemnation of the 1981 Israeli attack against the Iraqi nuclear installations is on record. There can be no doubt about the seriousness with which the SWedish Government regards such attacks, wherever they my occur. we also give our whole-hearted suppcxt to calls upon I er ael ali..d other oountr ies that have nl.)t done so to place all their nuclear facili ties under the IAEA safeguards. The resolution, however, also contains elements that are unacceptable to fIl'J delegatioo. It should be recalled that last year statements on behalf of the Israeli Government were made - some of them in wr iUng - to the effect that Israel would not attack or threaten to attack any nuclear facUities devoted to peaceful .~. (Mr. Blvemar, Sweden) purposes. The 1985IABA G-..H~ra1 Cm£erenoe,._ by re-.olution 443" wh~eh .~~~ .spons.~~d by the Nordic comtr les, took note of these ..sta.,-.ements and concl.uded,~~Je -Israel thereby CCIIImit~d itself:no~ 1:9 attack ~ceful nuclear£a.ciUties in Iraq, elsewhere ·in ttUi~'Hlddle East, o.r anywhere els'e-. Effectively i ~atresolu tiopj ,lxought to an end the consideraticn by the IAEAof .!=he Israeli attack against the ;t;~aqi reactor. The resolution just adopted fails to take that into accomt. Operative paragraph 2. is even in obvious contradiction to the IAEA resolution to which I have just referred. For that reason, my delegation voted against operative paragraph 2 and absta ined m the draft resolution as a whole. Mr. SDotAS MAGALBAES (Braz il): Delegations were given JIIlch less than 24 hours to read, analyse and vote on the draft resolution on this item. we firmly Condelll this procedure aimed at preventing deleg&tions from giving careful and sm'ious (Dnsideration to such an important ·matter. In voting in favour of draft resoluticn A/4l/L.14, the Braz iliCb'1 delegation noted that the twenty-ninth General Conference of the International Atom!"'.: Energy Agency, in 1985, accepted assurances by the GcNernment of Israel that it would no'G attack or threaten to attack peaceful nuclear facilities. (Mr. 8imas Nagalhaes, Brazil) 'that' develt»PmentVla~er confii:n.ea in 'the· secretary-Generales 'report (A/40/783)., Other'el~ments'of the'd'raft resolution; however,teflect'.purposes of a general nature which Brazil supports, such as the right to develop nuclear energy for' peaceful'purposes arid thelilportanceof'preventing mUitary attacks Oft nuclear facilities. Seen from that broader perspective, the main thrust of the draft resolution required an affirmative vote. The Brazilian delegation nevertheless puts Oft record its intention to teassess its position on future occasions if it becomes clear that the itea is being used as a tool for unduly increasing tensions rather than promoting a positive and objective development of the matter it addresses. Mr. AL-ATASSI (Syrian Arab RepYblic) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation voted for the draft resolution, since it contains the necessary basic elements concerning the Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations. But we did not become a sponsor of the draft resolution, because we wanted it to embody an unequivocal condemnation of the aggression committed against Iraq. Mr. RAJAIE-KHORASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran): We voted for the draft resolution, because it eontained elements that are acceptable to my delegation. The draft resolution was Oft the whole satisfactory, but it was the general spirit - an attack, though not a very strong and sufficient attack, on the Zionist base occupying Palestine - that provided a much stronger reason for our positive vote. However, we voted against the Iraqi proposal, because it was in favour of the delegation of the ZirAlist base. My amendment was nothing but a strong condemnation of the Inilitary attack by the Zionist base occupying Palestine on the Iraqi nuclear installations. We regret that that condemnation was not acceptable to the representative of Iraq. (Mr. Ra aie-Khorassani, Islamic Republic of Iran My amendment also contained a very general condemnation of all mliiit'ary attacks on all nllclearinstallations devoted to peacefulpurposes. That part of' the amendment, tCIO, was not acceptable to the representative of Iraa. It was a great surprise to us, because I had always thought that, whatever the situation, the delegation of Iraa would always support &ny resolution upholding the rights of the Iraai people. To my recollection, this is the first time that the representative of Iraa has decided to vote against something that condemns military aggression by Israel against the property of the Ir&ai people. That is an extraordinary and disgusting position. I deeply regret that the Israeli military attacks are not to be condemned by Iraa. I had thought that it was the prime concern and the basic position of principle of the delegation of Iraa to condemn so-called Israeli - in fact, Zionist - attacks on the property of the Iraai people. This insidious collaboration, which is to be condemned, is a serious matter, and sets a very important precedent. Now we understand why certain political co-ordination occurs both in the General Assembly and in the region. But my delegation, in spite of this sinistler move of the Iraais in favour of the Zionists, still follows its principles; it voted for the draft resolution, and in future it will vote for any draft resolution in favour of the Iraai people, 1n defence of their property and against Zionist interventions, actions and military operations against Ira~. Mr. CAPPAGLI (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): MY delegation's abstention from voting on the draft resolution should be construed as being without prejUdice to the position adopted by th~ Government of Argentina, which has repeatedly condemned the attack on the nuclear installations in the past in many forums. However, it is difficult for my delegation to reconcile the text of the third preambular paragraph of the draft resolution with that of operative paragraph 2. againllt paragraph: 2 of the d~aft re801ution,be~auseI81'ael has offered acceptable guarantees in respec:.t of the attack on ttJeIraq-i nucleo\!lr reactor, or any similar ac:tif)nB, in 1985 to the International Atomic Energy Agency. We abstained from voting. on the draft ~esolution as a whole, although we could have voted for some of the more general provisions in some paragraphs, because we consider that the matter has already been sUfficiently discussed and, as the representative of Canada said in his explanatn of vote, it is a subject whose further discussion will not help the rationalization of the General Assembly's work in its considera~ion of various items.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote_ I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in exercise of the right of reply. May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five min~tes for the second and should be made by representatives from their seats. Mr. SUMAIDA (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): As usual, the representative of the Zionist entity has repeated today the things he has been saying for years.. It seems that he hopes to persuade us, by repetition, to accept a fait accompli. The representative of the Zionist entity wants us to accept the aggression against the peaceful Iraqi nuclear reactor. Re does not want us to speak of that aggression. Re does want us to condemn it. Re does not want us to insist that the Zionist entity should give us a sufficiently strong undertaking and an open pledge not to repeat such criminal aggression. As usual, the representative of the Zionist entity tries to hide the body and shroud the crime committed by his r'gime so that we may not lay bare its horrible nature for all to see and parade his entity's record of infamy and crimina1ity against neighbouring countries. Re does not want us to speak of the usurpation of the land of Palestine, we have to accept that as a fait acco~:U. Re does not want us to speak of the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, we have to accept that as a fait accompli. He would like to obliterate all the traces of the crime of expelling a whole people from their land. Be would like to hide his entity's repeated bombings of the refugee camps anU the systematic murder of the Palestinians. Re would like to pretend that these crimes have not been committed. Be wants us to knuckle under to his entity's aggressive and expansionist policy, and accept its criminality as our fate. This has been the Israeli policy since that alien entity was established in our land in the 1ate.1940s. The Zionist representative spoke of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I~J!A) and said that his entity had given its pledge to the Agency. What pledge? Can we believe what Rose E1am has said and disbel~eve what was said by Arie1 Sharon ~nd other high-ranking officials in the Government of Israel who have repeatedly threatened to launch an attack on any reactor that may be built in Iraa in the future. The Israeli representative wants us to accept the thesis in Rose Elam's ambiguous letter to the effect that he does not recognize the role of IABA, taking upon hi_elf the Agency's role and giving Israel the right to decide what is and what is not peaceful in the ~rea of nuclear facilities. The Israeli representative has auestioned the pledges by Iraq not to attack peaceful nuclear reactors. It is an established fact that we in Iraq have pledged ourselves to such a course of action, as witness the fact that we h&ve placed our own installations under the lAEA safeguards system and have signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Neither the lAM. system not the Treaty has been accepted by Israel so fa~. Israel adamantly refuses to place its own installations under lAEA safeguards, refuses to declare that it does not possess atomic weapons, refuses to discontinue its co-operation with the South African r~ime and rejects the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. All this, plus the recent disclosures about its arsenal of atomic weapons, is proof positive of its aggressive intentions. _ The representative of the Zionist entity, in a bare faced reference to the war between Iraa and Iran, said that Irag is responsible for that war. It is known to all that Iraq is striving to end that war and is trying by all the peacefUl means available to reach a settlement, while the Zionist entity continues to pour oil on the fire and is in fact responsible for the escalation of the war by supplying weapons to Iran. These are facts which have been published in the united States press and reported on television and are common knowledge. The Zionist representative has alleged that we support terrorism. ~'al1 know that terrorism was introduced into the region by the Zionist entity through the terroristic orientation and practices of its gangs, such as Ir9un zwai Leumi, which was headed by Menachem Begin, and the Stern gang. Yitzhak Shamir, who is today the Prime Minister of Israel, was head of the gang that murdered Count Fo1ke Bernadotte, the United Nations M~diator for Palestine. The massacres of Deir Yassin, Sabra and Shatila are t:oo not:orious to ha marshalled as evidence. Everybody knows who were the perpetrators and planners of all those terrorist activities. Por all these reasons, the Zionist representative should have the decency not to speak of terrorism. It wall his entity that introduced this bane into the area and t~, Israelis are now reaping what they have sown. As for the Iranian representative's comments in regard to amendments to the draft resolution just adopted, we did not accept toose so-called amendments. The objectives of Iran are well known. Today we have witnessed a farce. The slanders and accusations exchanged by Iran and Israel are only a thinly disguised attempt to conceal the co-operation in the field of armaments between the two entities in their common drive to destabilize the region and halt its development. Mr. NE'l'ANYABU (Israel): I listened very carefully to the words just spoken by the representative of Iraq and all the things he said on so many subjects, but I did not hear a specific reply to our question. Our question was not whether Iraa signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons. Oaddafi too has signed that Treaty. Be has been trying t:o obtain a nuclear bomb through various means, and he decided that signing that Treaty was one of them, so as tu obtain the technology transfer and the access to facilities. Be has not disguised his objective. We asked a specific question: will Iraq give assurances not to attack nuclear facilities dedicated to peaceful purposes? We have not yet heard such assurances. What we have heard throughout this debate today was extraordinary. We wi~nessed a spectaole that was at times funny and at times, I think, sad. What were the representatives of Iran and Iraq, and an Arab intermediary in between, and everyone else in the Arab Group here that did not speak but had a clear opinion - what .-re the".kirting arouncJ? Why were they suggesting .....nte ana counter-...nij..nt.,.aking .ave. and counter-.aves? What is this aaena.ent that dare not sPeak its "..e1 We know vhat the i.sue is. The is.ue i. not Ierael, The issue is the Iraqi attack. again.t Iran's "uclear reactor. That is the i••ue. The Iraqi aove to delete the uendllent... vas not done for Israel, it was don.e for Iraq - Iraq, which i••urfacing this draft resolution against an Israeli attack that took place in 1981. Although Israel gave solid assurances about not asking any attacks on peaceful nuclear in.tallations, Iraq continues to engage in aoves to prevent any resolution to which it would affix ita nue and refuses to give assuranees that it vUl not engage in such attacks in the future. This is ~be absurd thing that we are discussing here today. I am happy to note, iQ listening to the thoughtful comment~ of many representatives here, and in looking at the results of the voting, that we are not the only ones who think this is absurd. The number of votes in support of this resolution has consistently gone down. This is the fourth year it has gone down, despite the various trickery of language, it bes still gone down. I would suggest that the i~ortant and relevant vote that we should consider is the vote to remove this resolution co~letely from the agenda. It does not belong on the agenda next year, and 1 am sure that ma~y representativellO will join us in this sentiraent. Mr. AZZAROUK (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (interpretation from Arabic): This morning the representative of the Zionist entity, as usual, uttered oft-repeated and completely unjustified lies against my country. T~at they are lies has been conlirmed by the revelation of the disinformation campaign launched against my country. The history of the Zionist entity is known and is recorded in United Nations documents. Real terrorism is the terrorism which attacks a nuclear reactor . built for peaceful purposes which is covered by the international safeguards system~ That act of aggression exposed the whole region to a nuclear danger that could have cost the lives of many innocent people and contamir,ated everyone in the region. All of us know about the Israeli Zionist practices in Lebanon and in oc~upied Palestine. The Israelis pursue the Palestinians even as far as Tunisia. The most outstanding fact is the State terrorism practised by Israel throughout our entire region. What is now called Israel was created on the basis of terrorism, aimed at depriving an entire people of its right to life and to self-determination. Israel has not been satisfied with that and has continued to pursue the P&lestinians even as far as the refugee camps. What happened in the camps of Sabra and shatila? We all know about those dreadful massacres in which women, children and the elderly were victims. All those facts confirm what we have been saying.

I should like to remind the next speaker, the representative of Iraa, that his second intervention in the exercise of the right of reply should be limited to five minutes. The representative of Iran has asked to speak first on a point of order. Mr. RAJAIE-iQtORASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran): Since IIY delegation has also asked to exercise the right of reply, I wonder whether the representative of lraa should speak for five minutes, and then I can speak continuously for 15 minutes, or whether perhaps the President would prefer to give me an opportunity to spe~k in the exercise of the right of reply now for the first 10 minutell, and then speak again for five minutes after other delegations have exercised their right of reply a second time.

Iran's name is on the list of speakers who have asked to speak in the exercise of the right of reply, but Ir5~'s name is on the list first. Mr. SUMAIDA (Ira~) (interpretation from Arabic): I should like to refer to what was said by the representative of the Zionist entity with regard to a co_itment by Iraq not to attack peaceful nuclear facilities. In our state_nt we assumed that commitment, eSPecially since we are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As usual the representative of the Zionist entity, for his own purposes, aentioned Bushehr in this regard. I should like to advise him to address himself to the International AtOlllic Energy Agency, and ask whether that Age3cy has anything to say in this regard. I am Sl'.re that the Agency will tell him that there is no nuclear installation in Bushehr. I should like to challenge the representative of the Zionist entity by recalling what m¥ delegation said at the last session when it asked tbat the representative of the Zionist entity should make a statement in a single sentence saying that Israel will not attack any nuclear installation subject to the safeguards syst811 of the International AtOllic Bnergy Agency. That clear ee-itaent should be given to us by the representative of the zionist entity here in this very Ball. The PRBSIDBHr (interpretation froa Prench): I should like to reaind the representative of Iran that he has a 10 .inute ti..-liait when speaking in the exercise of the right of reply, and that there is no way of coIIbining the 10 .inutes of the first intervention with the five .tnutes of the second intervention in the exercise of the right of reply. Mr. RAJAIB-DORASSANI (Isluic Republic of Iran): I still have in lIind this very illlpOrtant westion, probably unanswerable by Iraa. Why was the Iraqi delegation not prepared to condemn Israel? I believe that the delegation of Iraq is paid by Baghdad. Whatever the r~i_ may be in Baghdad, the salary of the delegation COllIes frOll Baghdad and therefore it is supposed to defend the rights of the Iraqi people against the Zionist base, and never to support the Zionist base against the Iraqi people. It was a great surprise to us that the representative of IraQ was under no circumstances prepared to condemn the Israeli acts of aggression, the Zionist acts of aggression, the military invasion of Iraai atomic installations. Whatever the wording of that amendment, its message is clear. It condelrifted the Zionist acts of aggression against the Iraai atomic installations. We expected a positive att'itude on the part of the Iraqi delegation. The other point that I should like to make is that it is also true that Iraq has violated all international norms with regard to nuclear installations designed for peaceful purposes. Everybody knows, and the records of the International Atomic Energy Agency show, that the Iraais have launched not one but several attacks on nuclear installations in Bushehr. But what we said in our amendment was not directed specifically to Bushehr. l:e siuply wanted to condemn in very general terms all military attacks, whether they come from Iraa, from Israel, or anywhere else, against nuclear installations designed for peaceful purposes. I think this point should have been accepted by the Iraqi representative. Regrettably, it was not. I should &lso like to add that in the inappropriate statement by the representative of the Zionist base occ~pying Palestine, he sa~d that R¥ delegation believed that the General Assembly had no universal position and should not or could not make any comment, statement, or turn ~ts attention to the Iran-Iraq conflict. This is false. ThiG is a fallacy. This is more than a fallacy, it is a deliberate distortion of the facts produced in the General Assembly. In my state~nt to the General Assembly I simply said that the issue under consideration is the military acts of aggression by the Zionist base against the Iraqi nuclear installations and other irrelevant issues are intended to divert the attention of this international body. That was really the decision of the representative of the Zionist base and it was his intention to divert attention, to change the issue from the original one under consideration, frOlll other iS8ues which .ight or )light not be the subject of consideration under other items. The procedure of the Ger.era1 Assembly has always correct1y been to separate various i8sues under various ite1ft8. The item under consideration today was not tete Iran-Iraa conflict. It was the Zionist attack against the nuclear installation in Iraa. Therefore the distortions produced by the Zionist representative were part of a long line which show, first of all, its inclination to distort and misrepresent and, secondly, to confuse the issue as well as to deceive and mislead public opinion represented in the General Assembly.

Before calling on the representative of Israel I have to remind him that he has five minutes since this is the second tille that he is exercising his right of reply. Mr. NETAHYARiJ (Israel): How I shall correct the representative of Iran. Be indeed said that the purview of this discussion should deal at once with international peace and security, and not with insubstantive matters, and he proceeded to list all of the imaginary ills in various spheres, not related to this debate: that Israel is SupPOsedly guilty of in many fictitious areas. But then he said that the real war being waged now between Iran and Iraa is not a substantive issue as pa~t of this discussion. Be said it was irrelevant. Be is suggesting, and I was surp~ised to hear it, that the use of chemical weapons Bgainst the Iranian people is an irrelevant issue in the broader discussion of international peace and security. It is not. Nor are the violations of international 1a\ll' 'jhat Iran is conducting against Iraq, against its prisoners, against others. Hor are they irrelevant. I was making the point that either we have a universal discussion - and let us pour over the truths and untruths in this discussion - or we narrow it down to the specific discussion here. And having narrowed it down, I listened again very carefully to the secon~ remark by the Iraqi representative, and I did not hear a specific commitment not to engage in att~cks on peaceful nuclear facilities. I heard the word ~assumed". He said such commitments are assumed. Why are they assumed? Why are they not explicit? Why are they not direct? Because Iraa does not want to undertake them. We have done so. They do not want .to. Again nothing underscores better the absurdity of this debate or its irrelevance.

The representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran has asked for the second time to exercise his right of reply. He has five minutes. Mr. Rl.JAIE-KHORASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran): In the General Assembly many represcrtatives say what they want to say. Whether their statements are relevant or not is a different matter. Insofar as the statements by the representative of the zionist base occupying Palestine are concerned, irrelevance is a auestion of continuous and permanent importance. He always spenks irrelevantly. As a matter of fact, his very presence here is irrelevant. But if matters of international peace and security present a delegation with an opportunity to divert our attention from the issue under consideration, then, that purpose was properly served by the representative of the Zionist base occupying Palestine. Otherwise, we were only discussing the resolution submitted by Iraq and other co-sponsors, related :0 the Zionist base's attack on the Iraqi installations. There is no need to open up all international conflicts here and to confuse the public. Of course when international peace and security is a matter of discussion it is most approp~iate and absolutely relevant to speak of the illegal existence of a terrorist base in Palestine now called Israel. This is quite relevant. I think whenever any issue related to international peace and necurity comes up, we should· reiterate this agony, this concern, this 'agent of instability, corruption, disttactio~, invasion, and expansion that has been imposed upon our region. This i~ definitely relevant in every context related to international peace and security. But I do not think that the statement made by the -representative of the Zionist base has any relevance. It was only intended to confuse the i~sue. That was his intention and it was Gerved.

This concludes our - consideration of agenda item 24. The meeting rose at 2.30 p.m.