S/PV.2281 Security Council

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Bulgaria, Guyana, Somalia, Viet Nam and Zambia in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council’s agenda, In conformity with the usual practice 1 propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participatn in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant rovisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the prov sional rules of P ptoC0dure. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Tsvetkov (Bulgaria), Mr. Sinclair (Guyana), Mr. Adan (Somalia), Mrs. Nguyen Ngoc Dung Wiet Nam) and Mr. Mutukwa (Zambia) took the places resewed for them at the side of the Council chamber. 3. The PRESIDENT finterpretation from Spanfsh): I should like to draw the attention of members of the Council to tho following documents: S/14522, letter dated 12 June 1981 from the ro P resentativo of Zambia to the President of the Counci ; S/14527, letter dated 12 Juno from the representative of Hungary to the President of the Council; S/14528, letter dated 12 Juno from tho representative of Romania to the President of tho Council; and S/14529, letter dated 12 June from the representative of Yemen to the President of the Council. 4. Thotlrst s Minister for P or is the Deputy Prime Minister and omign Affairs of Kuwait, Sheik S&ah Al-Ahmad Al-J&r Al-Sabah, Chahman of the Council of the League of Arab War, on whose behalf he will rpeak. I warmly woicano bim and invite him to take a place at the CouncU table and to make his atuement.

* It &iv08 ma great pleasure, at the outset, to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of your duties as President of the Security Council for the month of June. 6. I was honoured by the Council of the League of Arab States during its emergency session held at Baghdad on 11 June 1981 with the chairmanship of the delegation entrusted with the task of participating in the emergency meetings of the Security Council called at the request of the Iraqi Government to consider the aggression committed by the Israeli Air Force against Iraq last Sunday. -- * Mr. Al-Sabah spoke in Arabic. The English version of his statemeat ws supplied by the delegation. 8, This case is therefore not confined solely to Iraq but a plies also to all the Arab countries, because they are a I equally and explicitly threatened, as is evident P in officitil ltiaeli pro&mcitions, The source of the problem lies in the perceptions of the Zionist entity and its attitude towards the States of the region, as well as in its definition of its security requirements in terms of time and place. 9. In terms of location, Israel considers all Arab countries to be a target for its strikes, irrespective of the distance that separates it from them. As for the timing of its aggression, Israel has no fixed pattern of considerations but follows an illusory logic of fictitious probabilities which are void of any rationale or proof. This is evident from the Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installation, despite the fact that the installation is an enterprise which serves peaceful purposes, as is certified by the French Government, which assists in its oaeration, and bv the International Atomic Energy Age&y (IAEA), which is responsible for the supervision of the installation by virtue of the fact that Iraq is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [Gene& Assembly resoluriun 2373 (XXII), annex]. Israel, it should be noted, has reflrsed to sign that Treaty. The Council should be very well aware of the seriousness of this practice, which enables the Israeli Air Force to attack any part of the region, and of what that entails in terms af the Israeli determination to spread its influence over the entire region, thus indicating tsrael’s ambition to expand its borders from the Nils to the Euphrates, as has been declared by various Zionist lead&. IO. It is clear that Israel’s definition of its security and borders constitutes a serious threat to the peace and security of the region, because such a definition neccssilates the inevitable resort to uninterrupted aggression and violence to solve any problem which may arise. The so-called Israeli security policy is not defensive but an aggressive and expansionist policy which continuously threatens international peace. 11, In the light of this, Israel does not at all desire peace, unless the States of the region become subservient 10 its own definition of peace, which is based upon violence and domination and which utterly disregards the norms of international law. 13. That is the real aim behind the Israeli attack against the Iraqi nuclear installation, an attack which denies every Arab country the right to practise what other countries practise in the field of social, scientific and technological development and the serious endeavour of Arab countries to narrow the developme& tal gap between them and the developed countries. 14. Representatives are fully aware that the Israeli theory of security violates the moral values that our age believes in and that the United Nations tries diligently to promote. The reason for this lies in the fact that Israel considers its security to be dependent upon the continuation of the state of war which enables it to fulfil its aims, including its desire to destroy every project which helps the people of the region in overcoming the technological gap from which they suffer. IS. That is the true nature of Israeli objectives and goals, its method of violence and terroiism and its violation of freedom. One wonders if Israel would be able to pursue its practices without the unconditional political, economic, technological and military support ihat it receives fiorn a num%er of States which-are represented in the Council, es r cially the Government of the United States. Until t is dav the Council has been unable to impose any sanctidns against Israel, despite its aggression Popinst the Arab States and despito the fact that it has uprooted the Palestinian people and left it homeless and despairing of international ]uiustiM. 16. There is no doubt that, had the Council imposed the necessary sanctions against Israel in the past, it would not have been able to persevere in its various forms of aggression against the sovereignty of Lebanon and its territorial integrity in an attempt to jeopardize the unity of its people; nor would Israel have been able to threaten Syria or resort to sabotdging the development efforts undertaken by Iraq within the context of international legitimacy over the past few years. 17. In the light of the foregoing, we can only conclude that Israel is an aggressive State-aggressive not accidentally, but through plannmg and continued preparation for aggression, because it considers its security to be based upon aggression. 20. Will the Council merely condemn Israel this time, knowing full well that Israel has always ridiculed all kinds of condemnation and has behaved towards the United Nations, which gave it its birth certificate, w&.wpgance and disdain? 21. If we really respect our great international Organizatlon and care for its credibility, we must provide it with the necessary means that will enable it to discharge its responsibilities. In the case under discussion, it is in the interest of morality and international peace that the Council adopt a resolution calling for the imposition of sanctions agalnst the aggressor. Without such a resolution, Israel will continue to violate international rules and principles and thus will rest assured that it will be neither deterred nor nenaiized. 22. The exercise of the right of veto against a draft resolution imposing sanctions on lsraei will have a negative impact upon world public opinion, which has coiidemnedin ai unprecedented ‘way the Israeli auaression against the lraai nuclear installation. The l&iers of vaAous countried of the world have strongly condemnod that aggression, and so has the press in different parts of the world. International public opinion will therefore be dismayed to see the aggressor free to pursue its aggressive policies agaInat other etions, in this case the Arab States. 23. Should any State cart it8 veto to tmvent the adoption of such a resolution, the Arab pdopler will undoubtedly be greatly shocked because they still believe thai the united Nations represents the conscience of the international community and is a refuge to which peace-loving nations turn.-Will, then, the hopes of the Arab people be frustrated, and will the aggressor be given the green light to proceed with its acts of terrorism and piracy? 24, Any objection to the imposition of sanctions will in this c&e be explained by ihe Arab people and the peoples of the third world as an act of bias in favour of ihe ‘aggressor for reasons which can neither be understood nor justified, especially since the Arab right is crystal clear in this case. Should any State exercise its veto power, which God forbid, the Council 25. We ask ourselves: how long will the United States continue to arm Israel with advanced weapons, expertise and technology? How long will the United States continue to o&look the serious excesses perpetrated by Israel? How long will the United States continue to overlook Israeli practices which aim at violating the principles of international law and the legitimate rights of the people of the area? We say ail this because the United States is a permanent member of the Council and because it is a super-Power whose responsibility is the preservation of international peace, not the encouragement of aggression and destruction. We also say ail this because the United States carries the banner of freedom and peace. We therefore ask ourselves: are the crimes committed by Israel in the region consistent with the values and principles espoused by the United States? 26. Our interest in maintaining positive co-operation with all the countries of the world and preserving nonalignment and independence leads us to hope that the Council’s resolutions will be credible, in order not to prompt the belief that a violator of rights will fmd a sympathetic ear in matters where it cannot appeal to reason or to ethical principles, matters which promote the law of the jungle among members of the international community, a jungle in which the strong will do as they wish without fear of deterrence or penalty. 27. We appeal to the Council on the basis of our firm belief that justice must govern relations among all States great and small, distant and near, justice which believes in the equelity of all States and holds that those States excel each other only to the degree that they respect international law and custom. 28. The PRESlDENT (interprerarion from Spanish): The next weaker ir the rcwewntative of India, whom I invite to t&e a place at tile Council table and to make his statement.

Allow me to express the gratitude of my delegation to you, Mr. President, and the other members of the Security Council for giving me an opportunity to address the Council during its current deliberations on the Israeli military attack on an Iraqi atomic reactor. The timely convening of the Council to consider the grave situation arising out of Israel’s aggression against Iraq cannot but enhance our faith in the United Nations and encourage confidence in its determination to meet any threat to international peace and security. We are particularly happy that the Council has your leadership and guidance, Mr. President, at this critical moment. Yom 30. The Council ha8 met on innumerable earlier occasion8 t0 Consider the OXplO8iVe situation in Western Asia created on account of the expansionist policies and aggressive action8 of ISraOl. Israel ha8 80 f&r totally dieregarded the calls and urging8 as well as the condemnation8 and iflunctions emanating from the Council and persisted in it8 intransigence towards it8 Arab neighbours, particularly the Palestinian people, who have been denied even their fundamental right to their own homeland. The latest Israeli act of aggression, this time in the nature of a premeditated attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in the outskirts of Baghdad, war~committed at a time when the Arab countries in the region were engaged in a serious attempt to ward off war, even in the face of grave continued occupation and annexat on of Arab terri- P revocations. The torles and the increasing threat to the very existence of Lebanon had already brought Western Asia to the brlnk of war. The naked and wanton aggression against Iraq now perpetrated by Israel ha8 made the @ation in Western Asia all the more precarious. .- 31, It was with grave concern and a sense of deep indignation that my Clovemment learned of the attack on the Osirak atomic reactor in Iraq by Israeli war lane8 on 7 June. The Israeli action, which is nothing I-. ut stark adventurism and blatant intervention and @gression, deserve8 universal condemnation. It i8 a flagmnt violation of all canons of international law and iinciples governing the conduct of relations between 13. tales. No justification, however ingenious, can alter this IrrOfltable fact. To call the very victim of Israeli @@grOssion an aggnssor is indeed a sirange perversion. To invoke the rieht to self-defence to justify a longpremeditated act-of aggression is a cynical attempt io oonfnse the issue. To cite Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations in support of this indefensible @ion is a travesty of the very provisions of the Gluuter. That Israel should have sought to present &ah arguments is an &ont to the United Nations and the international community as a whole. It demonstrates yet again Israel’s callous disregard of internltional taw and its arrogant defiance of world opinion. The present action of Israel is not an isolated act of self-defence to deal with a special situation, as Israel has alleged. Rather, it must be seen as part of what Israel has been doing for the past mal?y years in denying the rights of the people of Palestme and in continuing to occupy Arab lands, which has been the cause of continuing tensions and conflict in the region. Israel cannot ensure its own security by threatening the security of its Arab neighbours or by thwarting the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. Indeed, its own intransigence and aggressive actions are the cause of instability in the region and the consequent threat to peace and security. establishment of a Palestinian State and to guarantee the right of all States in the region to live in peace and harmony. Orr hopes for the estabiishment of durable peace in the region have once again been shattered by Israel. Though acts of aggression by Israel have become too frequent to cause shock or surprise, the very nature of the attack on Iraq’8 nuclear reactor ha8 shaken the entire world. The wanton destruction of a nuclear facility established with the objective of harnessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes ha8 made a mockery of accepted norms of international conduct and behaviour. 33. The argument that Israel has advanced to justify it8 action8 is an allegation that Iraq was on the verge of broducinn atomic weawns. That allegation is baseie88; because Iraq has repeatedly stated that it8 programme in the nuclear tleld is confined to the utilixation of nuclear energy and technology for peaceful purposee, On the other hand, the world is aware that it is Israel which ha8 been making systematic efforts in the pursuit of nuclear-weapons capability. There is growing evidence to show that Ierael may already have acquired such capability and a stockpileof nuilear weaj)ons. Against that background, surely the development of nuclear energy for peaceful pu the imaginat on, be deemed to be a threat to Israel. ‘p” sea by Iraq cannot, by any stretch of The sovereign right of a developing country to acquire and develop nuclear technology for peacefbl pu1pos.08 cannot be denied or thwartedihrough di8CritihiatOry policies and practice8 and much IO88 by such a dastardly act of naked aggression as the one committed by IS&. 34. The Council once again ha8 ample proof that Israel alone is responsible for threntening place and security in Western Asia. In fact, lsmel has already committed breaches of the peace on several occasions, without any fear of punitive action by tho Unhod Nations. Entrusted as it is with tho maintenance of peace and security in tho world, the Council has the obligation to signal clearly to Israel that the international community will not tolerate its transgressions any more. We therefore join in the demand that the Council should not only condemn this act of Israeli aggression as a violation of the Charter and inter- &onal law but also determine that it constitutes a grave threat to peace and security. The time is also now for the Council to consider, as urged by the Foreign Minister of Iraq, Mr. Hammadi, effective action under Chapter VII of the Charter to impose mandatory sanctions against Israel.

The next speaker is the representative of Urazil. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 37, Once again the Security Council is called upon to consider a breach of the principles on which the Organization is based. As a country which believes that those principles constitute the essential bulwark against chaos in relations among States, and as a Member of the United Nations which has consistently observed its obligations under the Charter, Brazil sees it as its duty to join other Member States in a clear ccmndemnation of the aggression suffered by Iraq. 38, Brazil has always expressed its support of a comprehensive, just and durable peace in the Middle East, based on the principles of the Charter. By its act ofaggression, Israel disregards its commitments under the Charter and gravely increases tension in the Mlddle East; in fact, its recent action renders the prospects for peace in the region much dimmer than t&y were before. 39. Brazil condemns an attack which is a flagrant breach of International law and which shows a dangerous preference for the use of force. The notion-for one cannot call it a doctrine-of “oreventive aggr&sio~” is unacceptable under thi legal system which binds all nations. Toleration of that n&ion would lead to the destruction of the Organization and to the foundering of any hope of coexistence n$tong states. 40. A violation of the principles and purposes of the Charter is damaaina to all the Members of the Organization, andioionly to the immediate victims of such a violation. It certainly is damaging to the author @the violation, no matter how he may try to)urtg it. II, The PRESIDENT (inlrrpretarlon from Spanish): The next spcrLer is th& reprewntativo of Cuba, the PWdent of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Move- &nt of Non-Alianed Countries. I invite him to take a place at the Cou&il table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, I should like, first of all, to thank you and the other members of the Council for this opportunity to speak during the debate on the Israeli aggression against the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. 43. It is also a great pleasure for mc to greet you, Sir, as the worthy representative of Mexico, the country in which Jose MartI feit himself to be a “foreigner in privileges, but a Mexican in duties”; the country which has resisted the pressures from its powerful neighbour and has always maintained rela- 44, The Council is meeting once again to consider an act of flagrant aggression which endangers international wace and sect&. The barbarous air attack by the Zlbnist r6gime against civilian Iraqi installations on 7 June last is nothing but a typical act of State terrorism, an action of international gangsterism, which has been firmly condemned by the m&lo&y of the vembers of the Organization. 45. To the unspeakable deed is added the unheard-of brazenness with which the aggressor itself set about divulgin the news and with which it attempted to justify tie unjustfiable in this august forum, In the name of “security”, the Zionist regime is trampling the Inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and is illegally occupying Arab territories. In the name of “security”, it is massacring the population of southern Lebanon, destroying property and homes. In the name of “security” it is attacking the Arab nation and bombarding Ira i nuclear research installations. Adolf Hitler launched % is criminal hordes against the peoples of Europe in the name of Iebensraum. Zionists and Nazis merge in their shabby arrogance, in their messianic aggressiveness, in their brutal contempt for the law of peoples and the international commuolty. 46. The United Nations cannot allow one of its Members to attempt to stand above international law #nd the obligations imposed by the Charter of the Qr@nkation on all !te Members. That is intolerable, even when the offender has among its few allies a permanent member of the Council. 47. Not content with tho defiant statements of his Prima Minister, the representative of tha Zionist i$gime yesterday [22LWth mrrffn ii‘ g cirm, attempting to portray 1 displayed unaziw fi imwlf as the cham- _. _oIdenuckuitaUon in the I&l& But, AMI, in the sk.lfyythe cauwr d the ton&n in that . It ie not tho exietenee of nueleu weapons-which, of course, are possessed in the area only by the Zionist r&&e-which has converted Asia Minor into a true powder-keg, but precisely the expansionist and aggressive policies of Israel and its persistent refusal to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palesthdan people. Or can hypocrisy have scaled greater heights, and did the representative of the Zionist reghne mean to suggest that a blitzkrieg, with sophisticated aircraft from the United States, is the correct formula for the creation of a nuclear-weaponfree zone in the Middle East? That would be denuclearization tnanu nuXrari, like the illegal occupation of Arab and Palestinian lands. 48. From the point of view of the norms governing the behaviour of States in the peaceful use of nuclear 49. -It is not by coincidence that the Board of Governors of IAEA in Vienna unequivocally condemned the Zionist act of aggression against Iraq and reiterated the right of all States to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes [see S/145321. The Director General, Sigvard Eklund, himself confirmed that the Iraqi nuclear installations were covered by the safeguards and guarantees of that international Agency, 50. As if that were not enough, we have the presence ofmore than a hundred scientists and technicians from the country which provided the reactor, a responsible permanent member of the Security Council, with all that their presence implies in terms of additional guarantees. 51. We believe, as has already been stated by a great many Governments in expressing their condemnation of the Zionist act of aggr&sion against Iraq, that this abominable act highlights the vital need to reach international agreements to prohibit attacks against nuclear power stations, whose destruction can result in massive loss of life and property. 52. My delegation, pending an emphatic reply from the Council, wonders whether the United Nations is willidg to allow the Zionist regime of Israel to violate with impunity the cardinal principle of respect for the sovereignty of States, to heighten dangers and tension in the region and to threaten international peace and security. 53. ln our view, only one reply can be expected from the organ whose primary responsibility is precisely to Match over peace and security around th; world: unequivocal condemnation and the Laposition of sanctions against this repeat offender. Any other artifice or sorcery, any other acts of legal juggling or attempts to justify the barbarous action would be unworthy and inadmissible, since they would be objectively endorsing the conduct of the aggressor. 54. In some circles we can already see clumsy stammerings. shameful disclaimers. courtroom conjuring and political attempts to absolve the offender. It would be hard for these so-called lawyers to prevent the imposition of sanctions against an aggressor which not only declares its guilt but threatens to commit new and worse offences. Following the zigzag path of Fascist logic, perhaps they will tell us, together with Israel: “After all, they are not so bad; if the reactor had been functioning, there would have been an 56. The barbarous attack on 7 June cannot be separated from the series of aggressive acts committed by Israel against its Arab neighbours; nor can it be dissociated from the overt support which it receives from the Government of the United States of America in pursuing its expansionist policy. Such hostile acts, already of long date, have escalated to new levels of intensity over recent weeks. 57. The Zionist regime of Israel, however much it may displease the false prophets of neo.McCarthyism, has formed a sinister binomial with the South African apartheid regime to raise State terrorism to the level of international policy. To restrict myself to only one of the factors in this binomial, the aerial attack against the Iraqi nuclear installations was, as we all k;low, preceded by threats against Syria and by constant terrorist activities conducted against Lebanon, as well as in the occupied Arab territories. 58. How and why is this chain of piratical Zionist activities possible? How and why is this sustained adventuristic policy by the Zionist State feasible? Who IS its guarantor? Who is encouraging and inciting it? Who is the ventriloquist working the dummy? 59. None of this could have occurred just by itself. Economic, political and demographic limitations, as well as limited natural resources, would have erected a barrier around the offender. 60. Israel’s gangster policy is a fact, and it continues to scoff at the conscience of the world, solely and exclusively as a result of the complicity. SU&VI. encouragement and inspiration which the Zionist tcglme receives from imperialist circles-in particular, from the United States Government. 61. Ultra-modern military supplies, sophisticated equipment-including the aircraft which sowed destruction upon the Iraqi Osirdk nuclear research centre -which threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other neighbours in the region and snuff out lives in Xrab cities and towns, bear the well-known label “Made in the USA”. 62. Barely a week ago, the non-aligned movement, meeting in extraordinary plenary session, wisely and perceptively stressed the singular coincidence of aggressive actions taking place in the Middle East and in southern Africa. In the communiquC issued at that time [S/14508, OWICX], the non-aligned countries 63. It is the bounden duty of the international community, and of course of the Security Council in the first instance, to put an immediate end to the prevailing situation. The nowaligned movement has consistently and clearly expressed its unlimited solidarity with the Palestinian resistance and with the Arab peoples and countries of the region that are facing Zionist aggression. At this time of challenge, of uncertain dangers threatening peace and security around the entire world, we reaffirm that solidarity today and we call on the members of the Council speedily to ado P t measures compelling the arrogant aggressor to yie d, to halt its vandalous acts and thus contribute to the attainment of a iust and lastina Peace in the Middle East, which would presuppose israel’s complete withdrawal from occupied Palestinian and Arab territories and full exercise of the inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including its return to its own homeland, self-determination and the establishment of an Independent Palestinian State in Palestine.

The next sneaker is the representative of Pakistan, whom 1 now invite to take a-place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Pakistan delegation, 1 wish to express our deep gratitude to you and to the other members of the Security Council for providing us the opportunity of lr lcipating in this important meeting. I should also c to express our warm felicitations to you, Sir, on your rssumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of June. We are happy to say that our two countries enjoy the most cordial relations of close friendship and co-operation. We are confident that under your wise guidance the Council will be able to take important decisions in carrying out its responsibility under the Charter with respect to international peace and security, which have been gravely jeopardized by the latest act of Israeli aggressin:r. 66. The Israeli attack on the Iraqi atomic reactor on 7 June has shocked the international community and has further aggravated the already explosive situation in the Middle East. Commenting on this latest act of aggression by Israel, the Government of Pakistan issued a statement on Y June describing the Israeli attack on the Iraqi atomic reactor as “an unprecedented act of international gangsterism’+ and a 67. The Government of Pakistan condemned In the strongest terms the unprovoked Israeli aggression against Iraq and called upon the international corn munity to take effective measures to prevent Israel from threatening the peace and stability of its neighbours with impunity. The Government and people of Pakistan declared their total solidarity with their Iraqi brethren in the face of the Israeli aggression. 68. The Council is once again faced with a grave violation of the Charter of the United Nations by Israel, which deserves the strongest condemnation and_ calls for an effective response from the Council. 69. The fallacy of the Israeli plea that the attack was undertaken in self-defence was fully exposed by the Iraqi Foreign Minister yesterday. The Israeli contention that the Iraqi nuclear reactor, which was part of Iraa’s peaceful nuclear programme, posed a threat to Israel is no more than aclumsy pretext to provide an ex post Macro justification of its act of aggression. The peaceful nature of the Iraqi nuclear programme is fully evident from the report of the Director General of IAEA and the resolution adopted by th& Board of Governors of the Agency in the aftermath of the lsraeli attack. Iraq fully subscribes to the Agency’s safeguards system and has been t\llfilling its obligations under that arrangement. It is clear that the Israeli attack on Iraqi nuclear facihties was part of the Israeli scheme to keep its Arab nelghbours perpetually weak and technologically backward. In attempting to do so, however, Israel is only pitting itself against the irresistible advance of history. 70. Israeli representatives are trying to justify Israel’s act of aggression against Iraq by invoking the principle of selfdefence, specially Article 51 of the Charter of the United N&one. This cynical rppruach of Israel in arrogating to itself the fight to act wbitrariiy on the pretext of eelfdefence constitutes a highly dangerous precedent that must be condemned in the strongest terms. Such an interpretation of Article 5 I of The Charter is no less than a negation of the United Nations itself, to which, ironically, Israel owes its very existence. No State should be allowed to take the law into its own hands. Even when Member States are facing a threat, it is imperative that they first resort to the United Nations. 71. The Israeli attack against the Iraqi nuclear installation has added a grave dimension to the conflict in the Middle East. It seems that Israel wisnes to block every avenue leading to a durable peace in the Middle East and is not inclined to terminate its continuing aggression against the Arab and Palestinian people. Already. Israeli aggression has assumed 72. The time has come for the Council to take effective decisions to force Israel to terminate its continuing aggression against the Arab and Palestinian people and to respect international law and to desist from taking the law into its own hands. Condemnation alone will no! serve the purpose. The Council must act firmly and should proceed to impose mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter. Only a decisive and resolute response to the latest act of premeditated Israeli aggression, can compel Israel to see reason, abandon its arrogance and submit itself to the dictates of peace. Firm action on the part of the Council is also called for in order to reassert its effectiveness as the primary international body responsible for the maintenance of in!emational pee@ and security.

The next spea”-r is the representative of Bulgaria. I invite him to take a place at the Council table at~I to make his statement. 14. -Mr. TSVETKOV (Bulgaria) ~Interprererlonfrom Russiun): I should first !ike to thank you, Mr. Pres. ident, and all the other members of the Security C(.r.ocil for giving my country the opportunity to take pitI i In iile discussion of the item on the agenda. It is a particular pleasure for me to see you, an eminent representative of a country with which my own enjoys close, friendly relations, occupying the responsible @St of President. We are convinced that ufider your skilful and wise leadership the work of the Council will be successful. 75. I should like to pay a sincere tribute also to yom predecessor, Mr. Masahiro Nisibori, who conducted the Council’s work last monlh. 76. World public opinion reacted with the t!tmost indignation Lo the news of Ihe criminal, terrorist act of the ruling circles of Israel. It is by no means an exaggeration to state that there has been practically unanimous condemnation by the world of that act. This is demonstrated also by the present discussion in the Council. 77. Indeed, thal act was in flagrant violation of international law. It has affec;ed the very foundations 78. As is said in a statement distributed by the Bulgarian Telegraphic Agency, this is “a natural consequence of the Camp David conspiracy, which freed the hands of the extremist circles in Tel Aviv to undertake further aggressive actions against those Arab States that have reiected the aolicv of separate deals and are striving to bring aboui a c6mprehensive and lasting settlement of the Middle East problem”. Tothe tactics whose essence is, by means of separate negotiations, -to split thr united front of the Arab States and peoples, in the interests of Israeli expansionism and in the service of the forces of reaction and imperialism, there has now been added the method of selective strlkes against individual Arab States. 79. There are no arguments or points that could possibly justify this m&t arrant vioiation of the rules of civilized intercourse among States. The so-called security considerations that have been adduced are rather dit&ult to square with the doctrine of so-called spheres of vital interests. The philosophy of those two doctrines has now been joined by the concept of the 8o+alledpre-emptive strike. 86, There are no guarantees that this piratical raid will not be repeated-and very soon at that. Indeed, the aggressor has declared with unconcealed cynicism that it is ready to repeat its criminal actions in the future. Thus, all the States that are in the geographical proximity of Israel and that lie within range of its aircraB are now subject to the threat of a similar attack @&tat their sovereignty and torritorial integrity. $1. Ismel, its political and State leaders, and also the Zionist lobbies in the States that are patrons of Israel, have already adopted a stance which can be characterized as the arrogance of power. Along with that. ridiculous attempts have been made to divert the attention of world public opinion from the facts of this most flagrant, lawless, illegal, criminal act by adducing arguments connected with considerations of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. 82. In their attempts to justify their criminal attack by the use of arguments about an alleged nuclem threat, the Israeli aggressors-for obvious reasonshave passed over in silence the fact that the country that was the victim of their attack is actually a State party to the Non-Proliferalion Treaty and has allowed 83. ~‘The hollowness and absurdity of the arguments adduced by the aggressor and its supporters are a fbrther example of how Israel and its protectors attempt to mislead world public opinion. This is one further piece of evidence of how deeply entrenched In the-minds of Israel’s ruling circles is the prOfoUndly fallacious idea that Israel’s security can be ensured ottly by harming the security of &hers. That is a m65oi1s thesis: it is harmful and it is doomed, even from the standpoint of the genuine interests bf the Isyll people Itself. 84. l’he world community categorically repudiates al-attempts on the part of Tel Aviv to justify its own aggressive actions by unfounded allegations against the victim of aggression and by attempts to represent it as guilty of committing an act of aggression. To agree with that kind of argumentation and approach would meat! replaci~ng contemporary international law by the lriw of the Jungle and would be tantamount to p_qtnlvance at aggression. The aggressor must bear full l%%&s!blllty under the Charter of the Uttited Ngtioss &&aactt? of -cdminal aggression. ;.m-~-.- 7- ---~ 83, -bn the other hand, however, it WOUld be wrong hprlno.le if, In the circumstances, attention wer8 not #hwn 10 to the respondbilit borne in the resent @~~@stanccr by Israel’s m a! #Ismel n protector. itipiitinues on its course of dlsregardlng the will of the @$d g-om&umlty, lf it continues its qgressive and oy and itr acts Qf tmor ogdnrt it8 MH only oBab~~tboal4hotl tho United States, too, mwt boar their ity. Everyone knows that Irmel would hardly have dared to undertake such an irresponsible provocative action if it had not been sure that its principal arms supplier would in practice continue to support it. And nothing is changed by the fact that in words they have condemned Israel and have even threatened it with a postponement of the delivery of new offensive equipment. Everyone knows that itI this case aircraft of United States manufacture were not used either for so-called self-def -ce or fol so-called maintenance of internal order-+. course, those two categories include actions carried out more than 1,000 kilometres from Israel’s borders. 86. It is quite obvious that the United States, too, 94. We have heard talk of self-defence; but when one bears responsibility for the crime committed against looks into that argument one realizes that it is an 87. An understanding is growing &Uwnd the world of the fact that the Middle East problem can be resolved only by means of a s cially convened International conference on the Mi 8” dle East, with the participation of all interested parties, in&-lhtg the Palestine Liberation Organization, 88. It is our view that, at this extremely crucial moment for the cause of peace and security, it is more @an ever necessary for the Security Council, upon which the Charter has conferred special powers in questions affecting the maintenance of international peace and securtty, to come out tlrmly In favour of adopting practical, effective measures which could prevent a repetition of such aggressive actions in the future.

The next swaker is Mr. Chedli Klibi. the Secretarv- Ocncml ifilie Iiague if Arab btates; 1 Invite him io take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Allow me first of all to join the heads of delegations who have already Mr. I%es dent, have and continue to show in con- P aid a tribute to the authority which you, duotlng tho work of the also to say how much the quali sor, the representative of Japan, havo preciated, since the echoes of the esteem in wM:hghq; was held have reached us. 91. 1 am keenly awore of the honour that you, Mr. President. have ahown mo by allowing the Secret&e@onoti.Qf the L”x” heteintheC!ounclIfor QfArabslatorto8poak clrsttimo.IshouMukoto expresr my deep appreciati for that. 92. The question before the Council is one of exceptional gravity. Peace is in danger in a region which today is the most sensitive in the world. An Iraqi scientific research facility-indeed, a nuclear reactor-has been destroyed and human lives have been lost. That, we are told, was done “cleanly and effectively” [228&k meeting, pura. 591. 93. In spite of all the pretexts which have been put forward, despite the initial and the latestjustifications, Israel is guilty bevond a shadow of doubt. 95, Therefore this is a fallacious argument and the argument of self-defence cannot be supported, Rabbi Balfour Bricknor know that when, according to The New York Times of 12 June 1981, he said: “NO nation can arbitrarily thumb it8 nose at the world, destroying what It parcoivos a8 a throat to its socurlty,” %, The flight of supersonic aircrrd, which violated the airspace of two countrios before bombing the territory of a third: the massacre of a large number of Worker8 and technicians; the destruction of a tochnologlcal!y sophisticated installation-this cold.bloodod crime, which was committed “deliberately”, a8 has been rocognizod, was not, lot there be no mistake, conceived solely in terms of electoral interests. The explanation is to be found in the French newspaper Le Monde of 10 June. An article by Charles Saint.Prot States: L1 * I * one may wonder why the State of Israel took such a risk, carrying out an action that ha8 earned it the condemnation of the entire international corn. pni!ya “Indood, Israel ha8 dovoloped a nuclear bomb in .tho Wo8ev and ha8 rofbsod to si8n the NoHrollfora. tlon Treaty. It wishod to halt the tachnololjical ~a;lcJpmOnt of it8 main adversary in the Middle Tho artlclo #oO8 on to 8totO: “Irrael could dominate the re&ion only with the udot~~~ of Wostom technoIo(v, in particdu that of the United Stata8, and it has a vert0d intemst in seeing the Arab8 remain undordovoloped.” The article continues: “The Iraqi research centre must comprise more than 500 Arab engineers and technicians. Therein lies what Israel wanted to prevent-as though it were possible to prevent the scientific take-off of an entire people!” - 97. The Council may be sure that Israel was in no way concerned with defence objectives or the preservation of security. The notion of security, Israel’s old war-horse, can be expanded in terms of space, and not merely in terms of airspace. Its geographical limits .98. For the Zionist State, defence is attack. So-called proventive attack8 aro only a eubtolfuge to impose domination and hegemony. In that area the Israeli arauments are Presented as being the only valid one8, thG.only ones ihat are credible,-whoreag those of its advereary-evon if justified, evident, tangible and indeed &ring you in the face-are alwaysnull and void. 99. Tho head of the Israeli Government, drunk with joy after the attack on Baghdad and the destruction of the Iraqi rO8eaICh centre, ha8 attempted to teach “moral leseons”, to ~80 hi8 own term, to the State8 of Western Europe, including France, the France of Prssident Mitterand, whose election he welcomed and acclaimed. Invective, sarcasm, in8uk-overybody comes in for hi8 share: the Germen Chancellor. Italian Doliticians. the United States Secretary of Dofenso, &td so on.. 100. Israel’s arrogance and irresponsibility are such today that no country in the area can feel secure or, in oiher words, safe iroom an Israeli attack, concerned as Israel is with preventing the Arab nation from advancing along the road of tOChnOlOgy and progrees. 101. Some, in Europe and elsewhere, in 1977 and recently, had in good faith thought that the Camp David -&cords, by markadly redIicing the weight df IstBCl’8 adversaries, would roa88urc Israel and lead it to a mon balanced view of the Arabs. They have had to think again. Contra 7 to their expectation, I8raOl has become embPldono . It think8 it can do anything. In Lebanon it ie sowing division, dostabilizing, machlneg,umin~ and bombing. And when attompts am made throua ap continuing to vi0 P ropriate dOtOtrent8 to provont it from ate LOban airspace, it throatens to declare wiv on Syria. 102. Israel claims-we heard this yesterday-that oiitc4 * dortructh of Oshnk tho mulon has becomo l@s dan@mur and the situation is lass thmrtenins. But less threateblng to whom? Certainly not to tho Arabs, who are threatened with the bombing of their towns and the destruction of their technological potential. And these are not empty threats. Not only does Israel possess warplanes that can commit aggrcssion against any Ar+ city, aggression that has ahXddy been clearly and publicly announced by the head of the Israeli Government; it also possesses nuclear weapons -everything points to this. 103. Israel’s nuclear reactors, which it has possessed since the 19SOs, are not open to international inspection, because Israel has nbt yet acceded to the tion- Proliferation Treaty. But what cannot fail to disturb us considerably is that, while a few American experts 104, Is Israel ready to authorise a visit of inspection from IAEA? If it refuses, it should justify its decision before the international community. Let it say what it is hiding in that centre and why it is hiding it, 105. And why should we not ask that country, which justifies its aggression and denies the right of others to manufacture nuclear bombs, whether it possesses nuclear weapons and how long it has possessed them? Would it bc ready to answer that double question7 106. In actual fact, there is quite a col;&rast between Israel’s conduct and that of Iraq. Israel has long entertained thoughts about the nuclear option. In 1976, before the Osirak plan, Moshe Dayan, who is no stranger to this, stated that Israel must have the nuclear option to counterbalance the numerical superiority of the Arabs. 107, That is the situation. It is Israel which 30 years ago began the nuclear competition in the area. In 1974, the then head of the Israeli Government claimed that Israel possessed a nuclear potential-that is. the capacity to manufacture the bomb. Those arc the facts. 108. We are told that Israel claims the riaht to survival. But what has Israel done to ens& the oossibilitv of survival for the Palestinian peoale. which ‘has beedcondcmned to exile, doomed-to iif; in the refugee camps, stripped of its country and its identity, deprived of its most elementary rights? 109. As is cvidcnt, the Israeli danger is not just a mcrc slogan. It is a reality that is rcasacrtcd more strongly with every pa88ing day. At the present time, no country in the rcgIon is free from the throat, and tomorrow no Arab country, from the Clulf to the Atlantic, no Muslim country maybe, and no AfHcan country will feel exempt from attack8 by Irracl, unlctr the international community da8 8Omcthing to mmcdy the riturtlon. 110. mat State, which is stlll back in the days of colonialism in its thinking, its racial segregation and religious intolerance, but which happens to possess the most sophisticated weapons, which it is using in the service of the mentality of an earlier age-that State is dangerous. and we must be on our guard against it. I I I. More than once United Nations bodies, including the Security Council, have condemned acts of aggression by Israel and have bidden it to comply with international law, which it is always obviously determined to flout. But all those decisions and resolutions have remained a dead letter. 113, In the face of this situation, the Council of the League of Arab States, meeting in extraordinary session at Baghdad on 11 June, vigorously condemned the Israeli aggression. It al80 aRirmcd the absolute right of the Arab States to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development. The Council none the loss decided to work through the United Nations and to trust In It, because of its devotion to the Charter [S/14529, annex], 114, The unanimous determination of 21 Arab States, expressed b political options f; the League of Arab States, is that s ould bc exhausted. It is those optlons which the Arab States would prefer, anxious as they are to ensure peace in the region. 115. If the Arab States have had recourse to the Security Council, it is out of necessity a8 well as of conviction, It is also bccausc they want to conduct thcmsclves rceponsibly v/s-d& the rcat of the world. That Bettao of responsibility is something they have proved and they expect that others will follow suit. 116. The act of aggrcseion by Israel is a flagrant one and it is indefensible. Self-defence cannot bc U8Cd as a lcgltimatc explanation, WhiIe olalmlng to bc pro. vonti Iurpdl T the Arabs from po88cssing nuclear woapona, aa not donicd it8clf posssaeion, thinking thus to counterbalance the numorlcal superiority of tho Arabs. 117. For th0 AI&~, the uw Of nuclcu weapons ‘ff’ nat @or difflcultier and preaonts E%u:: rla 8, bccauw wlthin a radiur of IO0 kl. hmotforthedBmageandloarofhumanluowouldba -. 118, Ths klcr of Itnel 18 thomforc to Werltsn the Arabs because it is convinced-and here I am quoting Golda Meir-that the security of Israel resides in the weakness of the Arabs. 119. Israel wants to delay the technological progress of the Arabs, which is the guarantee of their independcnce and of their invuhlerability. 120. Its aggression is therefore undeniable. It calls for the measures which have been proposed to the members of the Security Council. T/w rneetittg rose at 1 pm.