A/41/PV.78 General Assembly

142.  DECLARATION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF HEADS OF STATE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN UNITY ON THE AERIAL AND NAVAL MILITARY ATTACK AGAINST THE SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA BY THE PRESENT UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATION IN APRIL 1986: DRAFT RESOLUTION (A/41/L.35/Rev.1) Mr. RASIRYE (uganda): In spite of numerous appeals from the international community for restraint, the United States of America, in complete disregard of the principles and objectives of the United Nations Charter and the norms of international law, launched a two-pronged attack against the Socialist people's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in the early hours of 15 April this year. This attack, which represented a flagrant violation of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Libya, was the culmination of a whole series of hostile actions and measures taken by the united States Administration in a bid to bring Libya to its knees. These measures included, inter alia, the severing of diplomatic relations, the imposition of a trade and economic embargo, the carrying out of provocative naval manoeuvres in the southern Mediterranean, including the Gulf of Sidra, and the carrying out of a well planned campaign of disinformation about Libya. The bombing, which was carried out by 18 F-l11A fighter aircraft based in Britain, and 15 A-6 planes from the carriers Coral Sea and America, killed and maimed scores of women and children in their sleep and caused considerable destruction to civilian buildings and property. On learning of this unprovoked attack on a fellow member of the Organization of African unity (OAU) and the Non-Aligned Movement, the Uganda Government issued the following statem~nt: "The uganda Government expresses its concern at the report of bombing of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and the City of Banghazi by American aircraft. "While Uganda does not condone terrorism, the Government and the people of Uganda Eegret the use of force, especially by a super-Power, in the settlement of disputes between sovereign States." Uganda, as a member of the CO-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned COuntri~s, was party to the lS April COmmunique in which the Ministerial Meeting at New Delhi "noted with deep shock and profound indignation the armed attacks by the United states of Am~rica undertaken with support and collaboration by its NATO military ally, the United Kingdom, against the territory of the socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. They strongly condemned this dastardly, blatant and unprovoked act of aggression against a fellow non-aligned country, which constituted a violation of international law and of the principles of the United Nations Charter, and endangered international peace and security. This act of aggression by the united States was all the more condemnable since, by virtue of its position as a permanent member of the Security Council, it has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and to abide by the principles of the Charter of the united Nations." (A/4l/28S, para. 1) The same sentiments were voiced by the Assembly of Heads of State and . Government of the Organization of African unity (OAU) at its twenty-second .ordinary session in Addis Ababa in July. In addition,~that Assembly, in its Declaration, affirmed: (Mr. 18s1rye, Ugand!) liThe deliberate attempt to kill Libyan nationals in a plan of destruction that included the killing of the Leader of the Socialist peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Brother Muamar Al-Qaddafi, is not only a dangerous precedent, but constitutes a contemptuous and condemnable act in violation of the principles of international law,· (A/41/654, p. 56, para. 2) In conclusion the Declaration statedl liThe principle of dialogue is a moral as well as political imperative which must be taken to defuse the situation as it exists between the present united States Administration and the Socialist People's Libyan AEab Jamahiriya. ~ this effect the Organization of African unity stands ready to offer its good offices towards that objective." (Ibid., para. 7) (Mr. Kasirye, Uganda) Uganda is an active member of the Non-Aligned Movement, and in this capacity was party to the decisions taken in Harare during the Eighth Conference of Heads of State or GOvernment in September. The Heads of State or Government examined: "the measures taken by the United States Administration against the Socialist people's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, namely, the imposition of an economic boycott and the freezing of its assets in the united States. They condemned these measures as a form of economic coercion for political ands, and called on the United States Administration to rescind them forthwith. They expressed their solidarity with the Socialist people's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in countering these measures which are aimed at undermining its economic and social development plans, and infringing on the sovereignty and independence of its people. They called on all countries to make appropriate and concrete arrangements to assist the Socialist people's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in overcoming these arbitrary measures." (A/41/697, para. 82) The Reagan Administration haB sought to justify its actions against Libya as acts of self-defence provided for in Article 51 of the Charter. It has blamed numerous terrorist attacks, including the bombing of a discotheque in West Berlin, on Libya. Although the Administration claims to be in possession of irrefutable evidence of the Libyan Government's involvement, such evidence has not been produced to independent observers, or to anybody else so far as one can tell. My delegation is concerned that the action taken by the united States provides further encouragement to South Africa to continue with its acts of aggression against front-line States on the pretext of fighting terrorismJ indeed, hardly two months had passed before South Africa launched further unprovoked attacks on Zimbabwe, zambia and Botswana. (Mr. Kasirye, Uganda) The Libyan Government has consistently denied any part in terlorist activities. When the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya addressed this Assembly yesterday he stated "The Jamahiriya has repeatedly ••• challenged the United States Administration to accept arbitration by the International Court of Justice regarding its claims. The Jamahiriya has also affirmed its prior acceptance of any decision taken by the COurt. Moreover, the Jamahiriya has stated in official letters to the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General that it stands ready to accept an international investigation by the Security Council ~ on condition that the other party accepts that procedure." (A/4l/PV.76, p. 20) It is the view of my delegation that this offer by Libya presents the United States Administration with a golden opportunity to prove its case against Libya beyond any reasonable doubt. In that way the world at large would be able to sift fact from fiction. My delegation has followed with utter dismay revelations about campaigns of disinformation and deception sponsored by the Administration against Libya. The world has a right to know the true facts. My delegation believes that being a super-Power in political, economic and military terms has its obligations as well as its privileges. There is an obligation to exercise that power prudently and justly. There is an obligation to set a good example in the maintenance of international peace and security. There is an obligation to assist the weaker and less fortunate members of the international community. There is an obligation to share equitably in the exploitation of the earth's natural resources with those who are less endowed, either in resources or in technological know-how. (Mr. Kasirye, Uganda) It is therefore a source of great disappointment to my delegation when super-Powers abandon those obligations to the community of nations and instead seek to advance their own interests, in complete disregard of the interests of the smaller and weaker states. Where can a small and weak state seek redress in the event of falling victim to aggression by a super-PoWer? Recourse to the Security Council is automatically rendered impotent by the offending super-Power, through its use of the veto. We cannot accept the concept that might is right, which appears to be the guiding principle of some countries. Even the International COurt of Justice has not been spared such treatment. The mighty and the powerful ca~ now decide for themselves whether or not it is convenient for them to accept the jurisdiction of the Court. Its decisions are contemptuously flouted. When we do not like the views expressed in certain international organizations, all we need do is to pull out, taking all our financial resources~ My delegation appeals for a change of heart before international anarchy becomes the order of the day. I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate the position of our National Resistance Movement Government on terrorism. uganda condemns all forms of terrorism, whether committed by individuals, groups or states. For that reason Uganda joined the consensus support for General Assembly resolution 40/61 of 9 December 1985 on measures to prevent international terrorism. In conclusion, my delegation wishes to make clear that the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is fully entitled to take appropriate measures to safeguard a~d defend its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. That is a principle which we recognize and fully support and one which ought to be respected by all nations. (Mr. bsirye, Uganda) Mr. TSVETKOV (Bulgaria) (interpretation from French): The General Assembly is now considering a question which is very important for the maintenance of international peace and security, that of the air and naval attacks against the Socialist Libyan people's Arab Jamahiriya. This item 'is of exceptional importance not only because its inclusion in the agenda of the present session of the General Assembly was requested by'a prestigious organization - the Organization of African Unity - but also because it touches upon essential principles and standards of inter-state relations in the contemporary world. As is stated in the Declaration of Reads of state and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) adopted at its twenty-second ordinary session, last June: "The deliberate bombing of civilian targets and the killing of children by united States fighter aircraft from aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, and those based in the United Kingdom, is ample evidence that the present united States Administration was determined to carry out an operation it had long planned, and found the pretext for it. The action is also inexcusable and condemnable." (A/41/654, p. 56) It is quite understandable that the overWhelming majority of States Members of the United Nations are quite rightly alarmed and appalled at the dangerous turn of events in the southern Mediterranean region following the acts of armed aggression committed by the United States against Libya. The Decla~ation I have quoted, like the position taken on this auestion by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries at the Barare Conference, is incontrovertible evidence of this. As we know, the Security Council, as the sole organ of our Organization entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security, was convened in April of this year to consider the situation thus created. The Bulgarian delegation expressed on that occasion its strong condemnation of the massive armed aggression perpetrated by the United States against a sovereign State as proof of the irresponsibility of the present Administration, together with its dangerous ambition to play the role of the world's gendarme, which punishes sovereign States when their policies are not to its liking. There can be no doubt that the powerful campaign and the acts of aggression against Libya are but a new manifestion of neo-globalist ambitions that have a single aim, whether in Central America, the Caribbean, the Near East or southern (Mr. Tsvetkov, Bulgaria) Africa: the aim of erecting up barriers to the legitimate aspiration of peoples to develop in peace and independence and decide their own future. The international community cannot remain indifferent to the ambition of a great Power to arrogate to itself the role of arbiter judging by its own lights the policies of other sovereign States, whether sit~atod close to it or thousands of kilometres from its territory. Even less valid is the explanation that that Power is thus combating terrorism and exercising its right to self-defence. There is no doubt either that the open aggression of the United States against Libya is a further attempt by imperialist forces to destabilize the Arab world by striking a blow at those who ~ppose principled resistance to neo-colonialist designs aiming at the military and political domination of that region. NO hypocritical pretext can justify the acts of aggression against Lybia, which could have uncontrollable consequences for international peace and security in that region and beyond it. The General Assembly is examining this question also, and not least, because this is not the first act of provocation by the United States against Libya. The policy of the united States towards that country has for years already been characterized, contrar~' to the principles and rules of the Charter, by a whole range of military preparations, economic blockades and the continuous presence along the coasts of that country of combat units of the United States Sixth Fleet. It is against that background that we should consider the latest campaign of disinformation prepared and implemented by the United States Administration and designed to increase the tensions in that region, which has led to the protests and deep indignation on the part of the entire international community and, indeed, of the American public itself. (Mr. Tsvetkov, Bulgaria) At the same time, the united States continues to seek pretexts for carrying out direct acts of aggres~lon against Libya. It has set in motion its pot~rful propaganda machine, mobilizing all the national mass media for the purpose of exerting massive psydhological pressure and creating the necessary climate of justification and approval of the aggressive policy against Libya. In response to the deep concern of the international community, my country resolutely condemns the acts of provocation and aggression against Libya and their continuance in the future, since threats in this regard are already being heard. Such acts are contrary to such fundamental principles of international law as respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of States, the non-use of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes. As requested in the Declaration of the Beads of State and Government of the OAU, "The present United States Administration must cease its provocative acts in the southern Mediterranean, and desist from any future attacks against the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, a member State of the Organization of African unity.~ (A/41/654, p. 56) The People's RepUblic of Bulgaria appaals urgently for the cessation once and for all of infringements of the sovereignty and independence of Libya, the adoption of effective measures capable of guaranteeing that there will be in that region of the world no new acts of aggression, which could have unforeseeable, indeed fatal, consequences for international ~ace and security. This is all the more necessary at a time when we are witnessing a new campaign of the same kind against another independent State of the region, Syria. All possible means have been set in motion to discredit also that non-aligned country, whose foreign policy is not to the liking of some. In the vie~ of the Bulgarian delegation, the General Assembly should adopt draft resolution A/4l/L.35/Rev.l, which calls upon the Government of the united States to refrain from the use or threat of the use of force in the settlement of disputes and differences with the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and to resort to peaceful means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The adoption of this draft resolution would clearly mean that our Organization is reaffirming what constitutp.s its firm foundation, n8l1l€ly, condemnation of acts of aggression and respect for the essantial rules of civilized relations between states, whether large or small. Mr. BARTKEVICB (Union of Soviet socialist Republics)(inte~pretationfrom Russian): Consideration by the General Assembly of the question entitled -Declaration of the Asse~ly of Beads of State and Government of th~ Organization of African unity on the aerial and naval military attack against the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Ja..~~u:'\l:uiy& by the present United States Administration in April 1986- reflects the e~rious concern of the international community ~egarding the aggressive action of the United States against a sovereign State Member of the U"ited Nations, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. (Mr. Tsvetkov, Bulgaria) It is difficult to disagree with the view expressed by the leaders of the African continent: "the ••• premeditated attack agt>ist the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is not only a threat to peace, but constitutes an attack on the Organization of African Unity." In that connaction, the Assembly of Heads of state and Government: "strongly condemns this fact of aggression that has further exacerbated tension in the Mediterranean and the Middle East". (A/4l/654, p. 56) Such an assessment of the piratical actions of the United States against Libya is fUlly justified and logical in so far as it reveals with utter clarity the essentially imperial approach of the United States of America to independent developing countries which, day by day, is taking on an ever more bellicose nature and one which is dangerous to the cause of peace. Such a policy and such a current in American foreign policy is the core of the policy of neo-globalism and State terrorism now adopted by Washington, aimed at trampling underfoot the legitimate rights and interests of peoples and in building up an atmosphere of war psychosis and Whipping up the arms race. It is for this very reason that the Soviet Government in its statement made in connection with the American air raid on civilian Libyan cities on 16 April 1986 emphasized that this criminal action of the United States military cliaue irrefutably testifies to the fact that the present American Administration is making violence, aggression and militant chauvinism the norm of its policy. Firmly condemning the United States aggressive action against Libya, the Soviet Government once again came out in support of unswerving compliance with the principlos found in the Charter and in United Nations decisions, principles which do not allow for the use of force in international relations, the need for resolving any difficult questions through political means and respect of the right of each people to choose the ways and forms of its own development. As is well known, the question of United States aggression against Libya was twice considered in the Security Council which, however, was not able to take the decision needed because a member of the Council whose actions we~e condemned in the draft resolutions blocked their adoption. Nevertheless, a very broad and extensive discussion which took place in the Council clearly showed that the anti-Libyan adventure of the American Administration is perceived throughout the world as a glaring violation of the United Nations Charter and of norms of international law, and also as a real threat to international peace and security. The point was made that if effective measures were not taken to curb aggression against Libya then any other soverei~n State could become the object of armed violence, with all the serious consequences which flow from this for the situation on the international front taken as a whole. The major argument which representatives of the United States Administration resorted to in an attempt to justify this anti-Libyan action was the attempt to accuse Libya of supporting international terrorism. In this connection, it should be noted that recently this has become a rather odd kind of stereotype when the United States, or its strategic partner, Israel, carry out aggressive and piratical raids and acts and then, to justify their actions, they refer to the struggle against terrorism. Moreover, in so doing, they totally ignore the fact that the roots of the dissemination of terrorism, for example, in the Middle East, are found first and foremost in the fact that the Arab-Israeli conflict remains unsettled and the reasen for that is precisely the reluctance of the united States and Israel to (Mr. Bartkevich, USSR) renounce their attempts to impose their dikt&t and hegemony in the region and in the expansionist and annexationist policy of Te1 Aviv, which is based on support and assistance rendered by Washington. In the last analysis, things are developing in such a way that the claims of the united States and of Israel to the role of arbitrary chastisers lead to the replacement of principles of international contacts and behaviour by the law of the jungle. There is hardly any need, we would think, to explain in detail the position of the Soviet Union regarding international terrorism. I should merely like to recall the following statement made in a recent interview by the Minister for Fo~eign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Edvard Shevardnadze: "Individual criminals and individual terrorists cannot be identified with States and peoples. Individual incidents cannot be used in order to punish peoples and States, as was the case with Libya and as is now threatening Syria. The problems of terrorism must be resolved jointly, pooling efforts to achieve the eradication of terrorism as an evil." I should like to add that actions such as the aggression against Libya and several others can only create fertile soil for the growth of extremism and violence. The attempts of the United States to justify the attack on Libya through references to Article 51 of the united Nations Charter are unfounded and totally unconVincing as was demonstrated yesterday in the statement of the representative of Qatar and that of other representatives. The real reason for these unbridled actions of the United States Administration clearly lies in the fact that the independent anti-imperialist policy of certain developing countries in international (Mr. Bartkevich, USSR) affairs is not to its liking. And neither is the firm resistance to attempts made by the united States to impose its will. It is not to the liking of the United States that those countries firmly op~se the claims of the American Administration to deal with the developing countries as though tt,ey were itg own property. It cynically wishes to show all the developing countries that if harsh bellowing from Washington is not sufficient ~~ bring about changes in their independent policy, then the united States has in readiness naval forces and aircraft in order to tmpose order, using neo-colonial formulas prepared in Washington. Condemnation of the united States attack on Libya was reflected in appropriate statements of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and in the decisions of the Eighth Conference of Beads of State and Government of the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, held in Barare, and in a number of other international forums. In expressing its support for the provisions of those documents the Soviet delegation at the same time also believes that in order to prevent similar dangerous acts from being committed in the future, the General Assembly must also make its authorative opinion felt and give a principled assessment of the aggressive actions of the United States. It must firmly come out in favour of the principles of sO'1ereignty, territorial integrity and non-use of force in international relations and must firmly demand a cessation of the policy of aggression, armed provocations and threats. The Soviet delegation therefore fully supports draft resolution A/41/L.3S/Rev.l and has become a sponsor. The SOviet delegation would like to emphasize that the dangerous situation in the Mediterranean region resulting from the American adventurist action against Libya persistently raises the question of the need to step up joint efforts by States to adopt practical measures to strengthen security in the Mediterranean basin. A programme of action in that area was mut forward by the SOviet Union and met with positive reaction. It includes a broad range of initiatives designed to weaken tension in that region, ranging from confidence-building measures in the military field to the reduction of armed forces and the withdrawal from the Mediterranean of nuclear-weapon-bearing ships. What is also very important is the readiness expressed by the Soviet union to engage immediately in negotiations with the United States on the question of the simultaneous and mutual withdrawal of the naval forces of the USSR and the United States from the Mediterranean. The objective of the Soviet proposals is &bsolutely clear. It is designed to normalize the situation in the Mediterranean, to lessen the level of military confrontation and to turn that region into a zone of stable peace and good-neighbourly relations. Implementation of that programme would exclude the possibility of a repetition of situations sum as that under consideration today by the General AssenOly. In conclusiCXl the Soviet delegation reaffirms the full support in solidarity of its country with the people and Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in the defence of its independence, sovereignty and territor ial integlity • Mr. \lONGSAY (Lao People's Dell'Ocratic Republic) (interpretation from French): The Lao People's Democratic Replblic, like other countries and peoples all over the world who cherish peace, freedom and justice, welcomes the fact that agenda item 142 has been diligently and jUdiciously inscribed on the agenda of the General Assemly. It shows how deeply concerned the international community is over a series of events that occurred in the first months of this year in the &i!diterranean region as a result of the repeated acts of aggression and provocation c01llllitted by the air and naval forces of the United States against the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The whole world learned with indignation of the criminal bombing of the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi on the night of 14-15 April last by the air and NATO forces of the United States with the co-operation of a close ally. The international community vigorously condemned that unprovoked military act of aggressicn. It will be recalled that in New Delhi the emergency meeting of the Ministers and Heads of delegation of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned on 15 April published a co1llllunique condemning that criminal act, while Prime Minister Raj iv Gandhi of India, President of the Movement of t!!:a Non-Aligned Countries, made a statement along the same lines. The Heads of State and GoITernment of the Organization of African unity (OAU) at the twenty-second regular session of their organization held in Addis Ababa in July, as well as the Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries at their Eighth Summit Conference held in Karare, in Septembe~, also condemned that act of aggression in their respective statements. The Eighth Summit Conference in its economic statement condemned the arbitrary measures taken by the American Government against Libya, such as economic boycotting and freezing of its assets in the United States. The military acts of aggression that we are talking about, in addition to clearly Violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Libya, a fUll-fledged member of the United Nations, of the Movement of the Non-Aligned Countries, and of the Organization of African Unity, constitutes a grave threat to regional as well as international peace and security, and thus flagrantly violates the United Nations Charter and the elementary principles of international law as regards in particular respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, non-interference in their internal affairs, non-use of force in international relations and peaceful settlement of all international disputes. In debates in the Security Council in March and April on this issue the overwhelming majority of speakers condemned and rejected the specious, not to say fallacious, pretexts and arguments adduced by the representative of the United States in defence of the criminal actions undertaken by his Government against Libya. His arguments were shared by two of the closest allies of the United States, permanent members of the Council. They included references to the right of self-defence, the concern for fighting international terrorism and so forth. Thus the United States arrogates to itself the right to commit acts of aggression against a small independent country, thousands of kilometres from the coast of the attacking Power. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that the military aggression of which Libya has been a victim has in fact been an act of aggression against a developing country, a member of the Organization of African Unity and of the Non-Aligned Movement. It is tru'ly regrettable that on the eve of the year 2000 the United States Administration should still be practising gunboat diplomacy - or rather aircraft carrier diplomacy - against sovereign independent peoples and countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and other parts of the world whose domestic or foreign policies may not be to its liking. In Central America the heroic people of Nicaragua is as we know a vicUm of the policy of State terrorism. In South-East Asia, in my own country, as well as in other countries in Indo-China, we too not very long ago suffered from that policy. The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic in a communique issued on 15 April by the spokesman of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which was read out to the Security Council by our representative two days later, joined in the international condemnation of the military and naval attacks against Libya by the United States. That is the Laotian position on the question before us. Not only is that criminal action condemnable and unjustifiable, but as draft resolution A/41/L.35/Rev.l underscores, its perpetrator should be required to pay to the victim, Libya, appropriate compensation for the human and material losses it has sustained as a result of that act of aggression. My delegation wishes to reaffirm here the unwavering support that the Laotian people and Government have given and will continue to give to the just and heroic struggle ·that the people and the Government of Libya are now waging to preserve their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Mr. ADOtlll (Chad) (interpretation from French); The deleet]atim of Chad, deeply concerned about the tensions throughout the world, wishes to express its position on item 142. We should recall here one of the fundamental principles of the United Nations - the non-use of fOl:ce or the threat of force in international relations. In adopting that principle the aim of the founders of the United Natims was to eliminate war forever, thus ensuring world peace. However, today hotbeds of tensim are proliferating throughout the world, whipped up by certain regimes wich, pursuing false dreams, organize destabilization and cause indescribable SUffering to innocent, peaceful peoples. At a time men the international community is mobiliZing to face the problems of underdevelo};illent, such as hunger, drought, debt and the. fall in raw mater ial prices, certain States are engaging in subversion and trying to wipe out the commendable efforts that others are making at great sacrifice to themselves. That is precisely the case with Libya, where an anachrmistic, oppressive, terrorist and expansionist regime has been in power for more than a decade against the will of the Libyan people. That regime, intoxicated by sudden riches, muzzles its own people, sWllllar ily executes all those who dare to comment on its dictator ial and bloody nature and organizes, trains and finances all the tiny groups that sow terror throughout the world. In neighbour ing countr ies the Libyan regime has not ceased since the 1970s to stir up trouble and intervene militarily or by terrorist acts to carry out its sordid designs - among them the establishment of the so-called United states of the Sahel, which Qaddafi cb:eams of setting up a great empire and becoming its leader. Therefore c when we speak of terrorism is it not right and relevant to remind the Asserrbly that terror would not exist in the world wi thout the material and financial support of the undisputed head of international terror ism, Qaddafi? Indeed, it has been ~O\fed more than aloe that all acts of terrorism throughout the world are ordered by Qaddafi, who acknowledged this recently in Harare, during the Eighth Summit Conference of Non-Aligned Countries, when he publicly declared that he was ready to lead an international organizatiCX1 for destabllization. The list of Qaddafi's crimes is lalg and his criminal methods well known. Since he believes that he has a divine mission to purify our world, no continent and very few States have not suffered from his activism, terrorism and crimes - especially in Afric&, where he has directed innumerable destabllization, subversive and terrorist operations aga'!nst certain African regimes, that refuse his tutelage. MoreOl1er, to serve his ends many training camps for terror ists and mercenaries have been set up on Libyan territory and elsewhere. My delegation does not wish to go into the details here of events that are well known to all. However, we would stress that Cbad, more than any other country, is the victim not only of Libya's hegemonist and expansionist plans, but of its acts of terrorism. It will be recalled that in the space of four years the Government of Chad has had recourse to the security Council on a number of occasions. In April and August -