I have pleasure in extending to Mr, Peter Florin my sincerest congratulations on his election to the presidency of the forty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly. It is particularly gratifying in that he is a representative of the German Democratic Republic, to which my country, Kuwait, is tied by the strongest bonds and mutual interests. I am confident that his experience and wisdom will lead this session to success and positive results.
I also wish to express our appreciation of the efforts of his predecessor as President, our colleague Mr, Humayun Rasheed Choudhury, the Foreign Minister of friendly Bangladesh, during the forty-first session.
I must also praise the strenuous efforts exerted by the Secretary-General, Mr, Javier Perez de Cuellar, in dealing with the various international issues to which he sincerely and resolutely seeks appropriate solutions while highlighting the significance of the role of the United Nations in achieving and maintaining international peace and security. We the Member States of the United Nations must spare no effort in helping him not only to uphold the Organization and its important role in the world, but also to enhance that role with a view to ensuring the better future we desire for ourselves and coming generations.
The present and future of the United Nations depend on the uninterrupted and unconditional flow of material and moral support from the Member States. Of primary importance are political support, the honouring of pledges and total commitment to the obligations and responsibilities defined in the Charter and in resolutions. In the absence of a true commitment to the implementation of the Organization's resolutions, which spell out the will of the international community, our Organization would be no more than a rostrum for people who cry out and give utterance to wishes in words which ate promptly dispersed by the wind or submerged in adverse facts, leaving behind cries that undermine the prospects of peace and human well-being and progress.
The Prince of the State of Kuwait# His Highness Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah, spoke of this in a recent statement as follows: "The United Nations is the world's conscience and executive power. The conscience is in the General Assembly and the power is wielded by the Security Council. Of the latter body the world expects mandatory resolutions which reaffirm its unshakable desire for a solution to the crises that threaten international peace and security."
Kuwait, which urged and supported the consolidation of United Nations processes last year, believes that it is the duty of all Member States to honour their financial obligations as defined in the Charter to ensure the proper performance by the United Nations of its historic role in the service of world peace.
The leaders of the Muslim nation bestowed upon Kuwait the honour and responsibility of presiding over the fifth summit Conference of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Kuwait. His Highness Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah will.' head the Organization for the next three years.
At their Conference in Kuwait, the leaders of the Muslim nation discussed the political and economic challenges facing the world, and the Islamic world in particular. That summit Conference adopted a set of resolutions on regional and international issues. His Highness the Chairman of the Conference pledged to
oversee the implementation of those resolutions so that, God willing, they may bear fruit.
The leaders of the Muslim nation accorded the highest priority in their deliberations and resolutions to the question of holy Jerusalem - Al-Quds-al-Sharif - the cradle of religions and civilizations. That was hardly surprising; such priority flows from the basic objective of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It constitutes the fulfilment, recognition and discharge by the Conference of its religious obligation towards the Holy City. The leaders therefore reaffirmed the imperative necessity of preserving its Islamic and Arab character and reiterated that all Zionist legislation concerning Jerusalem are null and void.
The overriding concern of the leaders of the Muslim nations in their Kuwait meeting was the Iraq-Iran war, which this month entered its eighth year. This is a war between two principal members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It was regrettable that Iran saw fit to boycott that important meeting, under false pretexts, and that it mounted an unjust propaganda campaign against the meeting and the State of Kuwait, despite the considerable efforts made by Kuwait, the host, country, and by the leaders of the other Muslim countries, to persuade officials in Iran of the necessity and usefulness of participating in the meeting to present and defend their views and listen to the views of others. But Iran has been adamant in its boycott of the meeting and rejection of its outcome and unanimous resolutions, which were a sincere, conscious contribution to the quest for a quick and just end to that war .
The Conference's resolution on the war stemmed from and was inspired by the teachings of true Islam. It was an expression of the leaders' resolve to fulfil their duties towards two Muslim neighbours. It showed an awareness by the leaders of their historical and religious responsibility to preserve the unity and coherence of the Muslim nation and their desire to avoid further shedding of Muslim blood in vain. The resolution was aimed at upholding the right of the peoples of the two countries to enjoy their wealth and resources in peace, security and stability, and the right of the countries and peoples of the region to protect themselves from the dire consequences of the continuation and expansion of the war,
By contrast, Iran's policy has been to exacerbate matters and to push the war towards perilous extremes. The flames of that war have started to engulf other countries not parties to the conflict, thereby seriously setting back the international economy. International security and freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf have been obstructed and jeopardized by strikes at ships from countries not parties to the conflict. The Arabian Gulf has always been a bridge of love for nations of the region, an oasis of co-operation, security and peace, and a source of well-being for the world. We have to preserve its distinct character} that is our collective responsibility, we the countries of the region.
This war erupted, we in Kuwait have been aware of its dangers and have sensed in it and in its undercurrents and developments the potential for expansion. Our preoccupation with the necessity for peace, neighbourliness and the tenets and ties of Islam, prompted us to initiate contacts, both on our own and collectively contacts with other States in the Gulf Co-operation Council, and other regional and international organizations, through the League of Arab states, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Non-Aligned Movement and the United Nations, in an attempt to bring this war to a prompt and just end. Subsequently, we tried to persuade the leaders of Iran to opt for peace - just as our brothers in Iraq had done - to heed the international will as reflected in numerous resolutions and initiatives.
But the Government of Iran rejected all those sincere calls, initiatives and resolutions. It erroneously and arbitrarily interpreted Kuwait's actions and endeavours to achieve this noble aim and thereby set out to target us - though we have never been a party to the conflict. Since 1984, Iran has been striking at our tankers in the waters of the Arabian Gulf. We have exercised the utmost self-restraint in the face of those provocations and assaults. We have no wish to see them intensify and expand. We have sought an end to them and have had recourse to international legitimacy as embodied in the Security Council, with a view to halting the attacks and safeguarding the interests of countries not parties to the conflict,
Nevertheless, the leaders in Iran are determined to continue to deprive us of the secure flow of our oil exports, thereby undermining our ability to meet our domestic and international obligations and play our role as contributors to the economic development programmes of developing countries. Paced with such a posture, we had to make certain normal and habitual commercial arrangements - arrangements previously made by many other countries, including Iran itself to ensure safe passage to our tankers.
Iran raised an unjustified commotion about those commercial measures, this was a ruse by Iran to divert attention from its policies and practices directed against us. This Iranian posture is one of the most ominous aspects of the escalation currently witnessed by our region. In formulating its foreign policy, Kuwait has always held that, the security of the Gulf region is the exclusive responsibility of the countries of the region. That strategically important region supplies the world with a valuable, indeed indispensable, resource and makes a considerable contribution to the development and well being of the world. The region must therefore remain free of tensions and crises if major-Power rivalry and sinister foreign interventions are to be avoided, the use or threat of the use of force should have no place in the region.
Iran's determination to continue the war, its expansion of the hostilities, its threats to and bombing of ships of countries not parties to the conflict, its mining of waters throughout the Gulf, have brought matters to their present, state, turned the Arabian Gulf into a highly volatile tinder box and led to the presence of foreign fleets and warships, each seeking to protect interests and freedom of navigation in that international waterway. It has now become clear, particularly through developments over the past few weeks, that Iran is determined to infringe upon our sovereignty and territorial integrity by all means. Residential and industrial areas in some parts of Kuwait, as well as its islands, have come under attack by Iranian missiles in overt acts of aggression that have no purpose but expanding of this war, further fanning its flames and increasing the number of its victims.
Moreover, the inviolability of our embassy in Teheran was breached, its members were detained and mistreated, its contents were ransacked and burned and the embassy was, and still is, occupied in violation of the most basic rules of international law and norms of diplomatic behaviour. The tragic incident in Holy Mecca during one of God's holiest and more glorious days bears witness to Iranian irresponsibility. From this rostrum we call upon Iran to desist from such practices and to respect the rules and laws that govern relations between countries and ensure good-neighbourliness, in the interests of the region.
Good-neighbourliness can never be achieved through aggression and provocation.
Only through co-operation, cohesion and fraternity can people live as good neighbours.
There is not a single war in contemporary history that has lasted as long as this one or has wrought as much destruction. There has never been so much effort, on the regional, international, individual and collective levels - as that which has been directed at putting an end to this war. The latest in the series of international efforts has been Security Council resolution 598 (1987). This has been a historic resolution indeed in terms of the very fact that it has been adopted, the balance, fairness and unanimity which have characterized it and the popular support and official enthusiasm it has generated.
We now find that this resolution could well be the last chance to secure a just and lasting peace between the two Muslim neighbours and ensure peace in the region. The responsibility for pressing ahead towards the implementation of the resolution is shared by all. History will judge us mercilessly should we fail to make the effort and exert the pressure that will ensure implementation. Interests among countries have become so shared and interlocked that there are no longer any limited conflicts that affect only those who are party to is. Therefore, we are all partners in good and evil, as well as in war and in peace. So let us all work together for peace, and while hailing Iraq's acceptance of this resolution, let us call upon Iran to accept it fully and unambiguously and implement it without delay so that the curtain may fall on the last act of this tragedy which is at odds with heaven's values, let alone earth's laws. While we fully appreciate the unremitting efforts of the Secretary-General to implement the said resolution, especially his recent trip to both Tehran and Baghdad, we believe that we are all in duty-bound to support fully his endeavour without falling into the snares of deception or chasing a mirage.
The Palestinian question was at the forefront of the agenda and attracted the attention of leaders of the Muslim nation during their meeting at Kuwait. In-depth and detailed consideration was given to the current statement; the continued suffering of the Palestinian people under the sway and oppression of the Israeli occupation forces; the continued occupation of the Arab territories, most notably Holy al-Quds, and the preventing of the Palestinian people from establishing their independent State on their national soil, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation organization (PLO).
The leaders' resolutions expressed the unity of purpose and the awareness of a common destiny with regard to this sacred cause. The leaders found that moving the issue along the path of a solution will be achieved only through an international conference held under the auspices of the United Nations and attended by all parties on an equal footing, including the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
We in Kuwait have always considered and will continue to consider the Palestinian cause as our principal concern. It is a cause that involves our dignity and credibility as Arabs. Thus, while thanking the countries and regional organizations that have supported the convening of the international conference, we ask those countries that wield decisive influence over Israel to join the mainstream of the overwhelming international majority and pressure Israel in to ensuring the holding of that conference, whose purpose is to establish peace in the Middle East region and secure the Palestinian people's right of return to their homeland from the torment of homelessness and ruin.
Since the brutal Israeli invasion of its territory five years ago, Lebanon continues to see parts of its native soil in the South languishing under the heel of Israeli military occupation. Despite numerous resolutions by the Security Council demanding Israeli withdrawal, Israel continues to refuse to withdraw in pursuance of its policy of expansion at the expense of others, interference in Lebanon's domestic affairs, undermining its security and destabilizing its independence. The world community must force Israel to withdraw from all Lebanese territory. We are also required to stand firmly by Lebanon and support the steadfastness of its people in order to ensure Lebanon's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and the security of its people and institutions.
The situation in Afghanistan continues to be a source of great concern to Kuwait. That question was taken up by leaders of the Muslim nation in Kuwait.
They have demanded the withdrawal of foreign forces and supported ongoing efforts by the United Nations to reach a just solution to this issue, securing the return to their homes of all Afghan refugees, non-intervention in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and the preservation of its Islamic and non-aligned character.
We in Kuwait welcome the constructive efforts of the Secretary-General, through his Special Representative, and hope that the negotiating parties may show sufficient flexibility in their endeavours to reach a solution that ensures the region's safety and security. With the same attention and sense of historic responsibility accorded to the study of Zionism and Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories, the Muslim leaders in Kuwait discussed the question of racism, the persistent occupation of Namibia and South Africa's repeated attacks against its neighbours, the front-line States. They found that a comprehensive and sincere boycott of the racist regime in South Africa is the only means of forcing it to respond to the will of the international community and respect the rights of the black majority, primary among which is their right to be treated as equals.
Kuwait has always supported the legitimate and courageous struggle of the Namibian people, under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) , and believes that it is no longer permissible or fair to let Security Council resolution 435 (1978) be held hostage to elements extraneous to that resolution and detrimental to the achievement its legitimate objectives, namely peace and security in the region.
On the basis of its commitment to support international and regional efforts towards a peaceful solution of political problems, Kuwait views with satisfaction the signs of agreement among Central American countries in the development of well-thought-out and approved bases for solving the political problems of that region in a manner that precludes super-Power intervention and manipulation of situations to serve their own ends. We support the aspirations of the region's nations to an environment of tranquillity and stability wherein the national energies may be focused' on development, reconstruction and the achievement of human well-being.
Among the primary concerns of the Muslim nation's leaders during their meeting in Kuwait was the issue of terrorism - the phenomenon that has spread in our world today to the extent that it now threatens the very foundations of world stability. The leaders expressed their concern and dismay at the alarming proportions which that phenomenon had now reached and declared their utter rejection of the tendentious attempts by anti-Islam forces to link terrorism to Islam.
Both in essence and substance, Islam rejects violence in whatever shape or form because it is a faith based on affection and fraternity and depends, in precepts and practice, on dialogue and persuasion. The Muslim nation is willing to co-operate among its members and with the world community to eradicate international terrorism and highlight the differences between terrorism and the sacred right of peoples to wage a legitimate liberation struggle. To that end, the leaders supported the convening of an international conference under United Nations auspices to draft a definition of terrorism.
Whenever signs of concord in the relations between the two super-Powers appear on the horizon, their positive effects are reflected on the peace and security of the whole world. In that connection, Kuwait welcomes the tentative agreement reached between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on eliminating their medium-range missiles and nuclear warheads, and hopes that that will be the beginning of an ongoing process that leads to disarmament.
Announcement of that understanding gave peace-loving peoples hope for the dawning of a new era in which co-operation will prevail among the world's major Powers instead of the rivalry which has squandered huge resources and diverted them away from their real functions of serving mankind and upholding peace. In the interests of peace, we call upon the super-Powers to give regional wars and conflicts the same attention they have accorded to their unresolved bilateral issues. We in Kuwait believe that preserving the lives of people, wherever they may be, must be our goal, because man is the maker of peace and progress and the generator of their motive power.
In the turmoil of the political situation of today's world, the Islamic Summit Conference was held and concluded its work under the shadow of critical international economic conditions. The leaders discussed those problems thoroughly in the light of their commitment to the right of Muslim and other nations of the world to a secure and stable life, economic development and social well-being.
Throughout, the participants in the Conference were able to steer, with God's help, the ship of the Islamic Conference clear of storms and rocks towards a new horizon where Muslims' blood is spared and their ranks closed, while basking in brotherhood, co-operation and peace.
We confidently hope that the United Nations - the living model of international co-operation - will benefit from the success of the Islamic Summit Conference, to which my country, Kuwait, served as host.


It gives me pleasure to begin my statement by congratulating you, Sir, on the great trust accorded you by· the representatives of Member States in electing you President of the General Assembly, to wish you every success in your task.
I should also like on this occasion to express my appreciation for the efforts of your predecessor, Mr. Choudhury, President of the last session of the General Assembly, who was entrusted with important tasks.
More than seven years have now passed since the outbreak of the conflict between Iraq and Iran, during which time it has been discussed on many occasions in both the General Assembly and the Security Council. On all those occasions we expressed our views on the subject and my present statement will be limited to it alone.
The war imposed on Iraq, as representatives know, is in the forefront of the Issues that concern my country at present and is also in the forefront of the Issues which preoccupy this Organization and the international community.
Members will no doubt recall that 1986 was an important year in the course of the aggressive, expansionist war imposed by the Iranian regime on Iraq. In February of that year the Iranian regime invaded and occupied the Iraqi port city of Pao following its consideration of the grave situation in the area resulting from that act of aggression, the Security Council on the twenty-fourth of that month unanimously adopted its resolution 582 (1986), which the members of the Council formulated independently, uninfluenced by either party to the conflict, and in which they set out the procedures for a comprehensive settlement in accordance with, the provisions of the Charter and the rules of international law. In the face of the rejection of that resolution by the Iranian regime, the Security Council considered the conflict once again and adopted unanimously, on 8 October 1986, resolution 588 (1986), which affirmed the necessity of compliance with the previous resolution. Once again the Iranian regime rejected the resolution - a matter which led the Security Council to issue its statement of 22 December 1986 in which it reiterated its call for implementation of the comprehensive settlement procedures set forth in its resolution 582 (1986). The Iranian regime rejected that call, too Throughout that period the Iranian regime was making preparations for a large- scale operation to invade Iraq which its leaders named "the final and decisive offensive". At the same time, those very leaders were preparing for a meeting of their agents in Tehran for the purpose, as they claimed, of "determining the future of Iraq" in all its aspects. The said meeting began on 24 December 1986 and continued until the twenty-ninth of the same month, with direct and active participation of Iranian officials at the highest levels. On the night of 24/25 of that month, while the meeting was still in session, the Iranian regime launched a new invasion with the object of occupying the Basrah area, when its attempt was foiled, it undertook another operation on the night of 8/9 January 1987, also in the Basrah area. Yet another attempt was staged on the night of 13/14 of the same month in the central area of the front.
The aims the Iranian regime intended to achieve by those operations are quite clear. Having failed over six years to occupy the whole of Iraq by large-scale offensives launched every year, that regime, in December 1986 and January 1987, targeted the Basrah area with a view to establishing therein a puppet government controlled by Iran, and proceeding thereafter to realize its dream of occupying the whole of Iraq, threatening the Arab Gulf States, and achieving regional expansion at their expense. The Israel people and its armed forces, however, thwarted those pernicious designs by dint of an ability based on deep faith in what is right and on the just cause of self-defence in the face of aggression and evil.
Amidst these grave developments, on 13 January 1987 the Secretary-General of the United Nations issued a call for a meeting of the Security Council at the foreign ministers' level to discuss the situation between Iran and Iraq. The Secretary-General's initiative reflected a heightened state of concern for the grave implications of the continuation of the aggressive, expansionist war waged by Iran against Iraq. The intensified international efforts undertaken on the basis of this initiative were crowned by the unanimous adoption on 20 July last of a binding Security Council resolution, namely, resolution 598 (1987), which expressed the wish of the international community to achieve peace without delay and promote a comprehensive, durable settlement of the conflict.
Iraq expressed its position on the resolution in clear terms only two days after its adoption: it welcomed the resolution on the basis of a firm position of principle rooted in a commitment to peace and faith in resolving the conflict by peaceful means. Iraq stressed that it was prepared to implement the resolution as an indivisible whole and that it was keenly interested in having its provisions applied in full.
Now Iraq did not welcome the resolution because it was an Iraqi resolution; nor did it do so because the resolution entailed any gains for Iraq. As a matter of fact, all the considerations pressed by Iran and those who worked behind the scenes in the Security Council to further Iran's interests were included in that resolution. Iraq welcomed resolution 598 (1987) because, in its view, it was a balanced resolution which contained the elements for a comprehensive settlement and because from the very beginning Iraq adopted the position of accepting the settlement of the conflict by peaceful means through the international Organization, on the basis of the Charter and international law.
By contrast, from 20 July to date, the Iranian regime has manoeuvred for position vis-à-vis the resolution and engaged in procrastinatory and delaying tactics, while contriving such ruses in expressing its position on the resolution as have no parallel in the history of dealing with Security Council resolutions. This attitude of Iran can mean only rejection of the resolution and insistence on continuing the war and aggression. Then, after the Secretary-General's visit to Tehran the Iranian regime began to present its position on the resolution in evasive terms by focusing on the question of responsibility for starting the aggression as the principal issue - and that was what the President of Iran focused on in his statement here.
I shall therefore concentrate in my statement on this important question and its details so as to reveal the truth and make it clear to representatives as it is, not as those who call for the continuation of the war, the killing and destruction wish to project it - although we have explained this Question on previous occasions and in many documents circulated in this Organization, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and to the Member States.
In 1979 when the new regime came to power in Iran, Iraq made a point of establishing good-neighbourly relations with it. That position by Iraq was an extension of its foreign policy and consistent with Iraq's paramount interests on the national and international levels. Iraq had among its priority concerns to ensure continuation of the comprehensive development plan that it had launched following the July 1968 Revolution, the advancement of the standard of living of the Iraqi people, the achievement of general evolution in the economic, cultural and social fields, and construction of the political and social institutions that enable the people to exercise their democratic rights.
In the field of external relations the objectives of Iraqi foreign policy included the achievement of stability in the region, non-intervention in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries, and settlement of differences by peaceful means. Those were the principles proclaimed in President Saddam Hussein's declaration of February 1980. It was a policy which it pursued both officially and actually, internally and externally, and which qualified Iraq to be selected to host the Seventh Summit Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Second Summit Conference marking the twentieth anniversary of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
The basic interests of Iraq and its prominent international position were most closely linked to the preservation of security and stability and the maintenance of the best of relations with its neighbours and the other countries of the world. Iraq had no interest in creating problems either with those neighbours or with any other country of the world. In line with that approach in its foreign policy, Iraq gave the new regime in Iran a friendly reception and was among the first States to accord it recognition. At a meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran at the Havana Conference in 1979, President Saddam Hussein emphasized Iraq's concern to maintain neighbourly relations based on non-interference in internal affairs and co-operation aimed at serving the Interests of peace and stability in the region. Iraq emphasized this approach again at a meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries at the United Nations.
The Iranian regime, on the other hand, pursued an entirely different policy from the very beginning. The Iranian regime has, since its inception, maintained a hostile attitude towards Iraq. The regime  leadership expressed that attitude even before it came to power when, during his stay in France in 1978, Khomeini declared that changing the Government of Iraq constituted one of his priority objectives.
The Iranian regime, by reason of its ideology based on the theory of the divine jurisdiction of the claimed Imam over the whole Muslim community in the world as expounded in Khomeini's book The Jurisdiction of the Pagih, that is, the leading theologian - a book which assumes in the Iranian system the same role as that of Hitler's Mein Kampf in Nazi theory - proclaims the principle of the exportation of the revolution outside Iran as a binding obligation on the constitutional authorities of the Iranian State. That is why work on the so-called export of the Iranian revolution has been the main preoccupation of the Iranian Government, the most important element in defining its external relations and activities, and the major cause of all the aggression, disorder and insecurity from which the region has been suffering from the time that regime came to power in Iran until today· In line with this anomalous course which it has insistently pursued, the Iranian regime has not concealed the fact that the primary objective of its revolution-exporting programme is to destroy the political and social system of Iraq, occupy Iraq and annex it as an Iranian dependency.
While the occupation and subjugation of Iraq continue to be the primary objectives of Iranian expansionist plans, they are not by any means the only objectives. Ever since its inception the Iranian regime has resorted to terrorism and subversion and conducted propaganda campaigns against all the countries of the region and many countries of the world. It has committed open, armed aggression against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other countries of the region; and Iranian armed forces have occupied parts of Lebanon and raised the Iranian flag there.	-
It was supposed that relations between Iraq and Iran would be governed by a standing Agreement, namely, the 1975 Agreement. The 1975 Agreement, with its special characteristics, had been concluded to regulate border issues between the two countries and questions of security and stability along these borders as well as to ensure non-interference in internal affairs. Article 4 states that any violation of any part of the Agreement shall constitute a violation of the Agreement as a whole.
From the beginning the Iranian regime proceeded to attack this Agreement and to treat it as suspect. Officials of the regime at various levels began to issue declarations of non-compliance with its provisions. Those declarations are documented in the records we have submitted to this Organization and to other international bodies and institutions. Furthermore, the Iranian Government brought back to Iran the puppet Barzani gang of plotters, who pose a threat to the unity of Iraq, and assisted that gang in committing acts of sabotage against Iraq. Iran had supported that same gang in all sorts of ways before the conclusion of the 1975 Agreement, but then ceased to support it, in compliance with the provisions of that Agreement.
These attitudes and acts constitute a deliberate, flagrant violation of the 1975 Agreement, as does the violation of other clauses providing for the return of Iraqi territories which Iran has been occupying since the time of the Shah's regime, and constitute an assault on the Agreement as a whole. By committing these deliberate acts Iran brought back the state of insecurity and instability along the common borders of the two countries. This state of affairs was the actual beginning of Iran's aggression against Iraq.
Those hostile acts and attitudes, which threaten Iraq's sovereignty and its internal security and stability, continued throughout 1979 and for the first nine months of 1980. Iraq was careful to deal with these issues by diplomatic means and through dialogue. On scores of occasions Iraq drew the attention of the Iranian authorities to the fact that those acts constituted violation of the 1975 Agreement. On 27 June 1979 Iraq requested the Iranian Government to clarify its position on that Agreement. In spite of the gravity of this question as far as the relations between the two neighbouring countries were concerned, Iran did not take the trouble to respond to that substantive Inquiry from Iraq.
Those violations were accompanied by other acts of no less gravity, all of which moved in the main direction of threatening Iraq's sovereignty and security and attempting to place Iraq under Iranian hegemony. During 1979 and 1980 countless feverish statements, declarations and speeches issued almost daily from officials of the Iranian regime calling: for changes in the political and social system of Iraq; for the promotion of acts of disorder and terrorism in Iraq and the employment of inhabitants of Iranian origin actually to commit such acts; for citizens to boycott and oppose the national authority and to paralyse governmental machinery; for the armed forces to rebel against authority, desert their barracks and evade national service; and openly for the assassination of political leaders in Iraq. I refer in particular to the statements made by the former Foreign Minister of the Iranian regime, Sadeq Ghotbzadeh, in Damascus on 27 April 1980, in which he announced an alleged plot against the life of the President of the Republic of Iraq.
What was even more serious, Iranian officials began to speak openly and publicly of using their armed forces to achieve their designs against Iraq. I made special reference to the speech by the President of the Republic of Iran, Abol Hasan Bani-Sadr on 11 April 1980, in which he said:	·
"When the Iranian army moves west no power on earth can stop its march to Baghdad."
No less serious was the announcement by Ghotbzadeh, the Foreign Minister, on 9 April 1980 that his Government had decided to overthrow the Iraqi Government, or his announcement the day before that Baghdad and Aden were Persian.
Iranian officials at the time considered the making of ever more threatening statements against the security and sovereignty of Iraq to be a basic means of promoting their influence within the new regime and climbing to ever higher positions in the Iranian power structure, on the supposition that he who proved to be the roost extreme in that area would be closer to the Khomeini line of exporting the revolution and would thus be closer to his heart.
With the continuation of these political and propaganda campaigns and campaigns of subversion to undermine security and stability, the Iranian regime began to use the force of arms against Iraq to achieve its aggressive aims. In the period from February to September 1980 Iranian aircraft committed 249 violations of Iraqi air space. There were 244 instances of Iranian armed forces firing across the border and on Iraqi border posts or subjecting them to attacks and artillery fire and obstructing navigation in Shatt al Arab, the vital artery of Iraq. We were also three instances of firing upon Iraqi civilian aircraft and seven instances of shelling Iraqi economic installations.
In all these deliberate acts Iraq would give warning, call attention and engage in dialogue by diplomatic means in the hope that the Iranian regime would listen to the voice of reason and good sense, conform to the rules of international conduct and obey the dictates of international law. in 293 notifications by official memoranda dispatched to the Iranian authorities concerning these violations in the period from 5 March 1979 to 30 October 1980 the Iraqi Government drew attention to the risks involved in these acts and warned against their grave consequences for the relations between the two countries, but to no avail. The Iranian leaders continued to escalate their threats against Iraq and to compete with each other in discovering the best means to export their backward revolution to Iraq.
On 4 September 1980 the Iranian regime moved to a dangerous level in its plan of aggression against Iraq. Iranian armed forces used heavy 175-millimetre artillery to shell the towns of Khaneqin, Mendell, Zirbatya and Naftkhaneh. Iranian artillery fired on these Iraqi towns from the Iraqi territories which it had refused to deliver back to Iraq as dictated by the 1975 Agreement and on which it had amassed military forces. The Iranian Government thereby deliberately threatened Iraq's sovereignty and security in two ways: on the one hand by a deliberate military occupation of Iraqi territory and on the other by a deliberate shelling of Iraqi towns by heavy artillery from that Iraqi territory.
Although Iraq, by a memorandum dated 7 September 1980, called Iran's attention to this conduct, which was in contravention of its international obligations, and requested it to remove its military encroachments on Iraqi territory, Iranian artillery fire continued unabated. Iraq was therefore obliged again to notify Iran by an official memorandum dated 8 September that it was compelled to exercise its right to legitimate self-defence under the Charter and international law by removing the Iranian occupation forces should Iran fail to stop its military transgressions against Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity·
Rather than respond to the Iraqi representations the Iranian authorities continued their military attacks on Iraq. We were therefore obliged for the third time, on 11 September 1980, to deliver to Iran a detailed official memorandum in which we suggested that the Iranian leadership seek the view of its organs responsible for border affairs and agreements as to the validity of the Iraqi position based on the binding commitments undertaken by both countries under the 1975 Agreement. The memorandum further urged the Iranian Government to realize that to attack heavily populated cities with their civilian inhabitants, as it did when it shelled Khaneqin and Mendel, could not be taken lightly; it was a grave matter which Iran should be careful to avoid if it did not wish the relations between the two countries to suffer serious deterioration· It is to be noted that on all occasions Iraq was careful to remind the Iranian Government of its International obligations, including the 1975 Agreement. It is also necessary to make note of the fact that as late as 11 September 1980 Iraq stressed to Iran, albeit for the last time, the need to abide by the provisions of the 1975 Agreement. How did Iran respond? Iran did not reply to our diplomatic memoranda in kind but resorted instead to threats and denunciations and continued to use military force against Iraq’s borders, cities, economic installations and essential facilities.
Having long suffered all this with patience and made countless efforts to resolve matters, the Iraqi Government, faced with clear evidence and with the failure of the Iranian Government to respond to this historic memorandum, became convinced that the Iranian Government's violations of the elements of the comprehensive settlement contained in the 1975 Agreement were deliberate in character. Iraq therefore had no choice but to consider that Agreement and all subsequent agreements based thereon null and void, having regard to the fact that Iran had already nullified them by word and deed. Iraq's position was in accordance with the provisions of clause IV of that Agreement and article 4 of the Treaty on international Boundaries and Good-Neighbourliness, based on the Agreement.
By accusing Iraq of nullifying the 1975 Agreement, Iran wants this Assembly and ourselves to ignore its own violations of the Agreement, whether those relating to Iraq's territorial sovereignty or external and internal security or those relating to non-intervention in its internal affairs, while maintaining at the same time, without officially recognizing the Agreement, the privileges therein accorded Iran to delimit boundaries in Shatt al Arab on the basis of the Thalweg line. The Iraqi diplomatic and legal attempts to draw Iran's attention to the gravity of the acts of aggression and threats it was committing and warning it against the dire consequences of such acts on the relations between the two countries were responded to by Iran with more threats and the increased use of military force.
Iran continued to escalate the conflict. As from 19 September 1980 it intensified its heavy artillery fire and air attacks on heavily populated residential complexes and vital economic installations in Iraq as well as on Iraqi and foreign merchant shipping entering and leaving. Furthermore, the Iranian authorities announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to Iraqi navigation and declared a general mobilization, while amassing military forces in huge numbers along the borders and embarking upon a large-scale military operation openly using regular forces.
Effective from 18 September 1980 the Iranian armed forces issued four military communiqués on their activities. In the third communiqué, issued on 19 September 1980, Iran stated that it used its air force in its military operations, in the fourth communiqué, issued on 19 September 1980, the Iranian authorities boasted that the fields of Naftkhaneh, an important Iraqi oil area, had been set on fire·
The military operations undertaken by Iraq with effect from 7 September 1980 to expel the Iranian forces which were occupying its territory and shelling its border cities from that selfsame occupied Iraqi territory, as well as the military operations undertaken on 22 September 1980 to face the Iranian troops amassed on Iraqi borders with the object of effecting a deep incursion into Iraqi territory order to attain their aggressive and expansionist objectives against Iraq, were < purely defensive in character· In September 1980 Iraq had two options and no other: either to submit to the Iranian aggression aimed at the occupation of Ir. and its conversion into an Iranian province or to exercise legitimate self-defend. All of these attitudes adopted and actions taken by Iran had happened before 22 September 1980 and constitute a flagrant violation of a number of principles rules of international law governing friendly relations among States as codified the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, which the General Assembly approved by consensus its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, chief among which are the principle; of good-neighbourly relations, the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs of States, the principle of sovereign equality of States and the principle that States shall fulfil their international obligation in good faith.
Moreover, the net result of the actions of the Iranian Government - which was the first to use military force against Iraq, with effect from 4 September 1980, and even before that date - fall within the concept of direct armed aggression as laid down by the definition of aggression which the General Assembly approved by consensus in its resolution 3314 (XXIX), of 14 December 1974,
On the other hand, the measures taken by the Iraqi Government since 4 September 1980 to counter the Iranian aggression are consistent with the right of legitimate self-defence because they meet the conditions of necessity and reasonableness established by international law for the legitimate exercise of this right. Iran, whose President spoke before the Assembly a few days ago, wants the Assembly and the Security Council to forget all these acts of aggression and actions contrary to international law and the nature of relations between States In modern times, and to believe instead its allegation that Iraq committed aggression against it.
Iran claims that Iraq has not resorted to political means to resolve the conflict and that it has waged war against Iran with a view to overthrowing the Iranian regime· Let us ask ourselves this· Did not all the efforts made by Iraq from February 1979 to September 1980, the latest of which being our memorandum of 11 September 1980, constitute political and diplomatic processes for resolving problems? Is it not Iraq that welcomed the establishment of a Republic in Iran, invited its Prime Minister to visit Iraq, sent congratulatory messages to its leadership and dispatched 293 notifications in diplomatic memorandums cautioning Iran against threats to Iraq's sovereignty and security? Is it not Iran that has heaped abuse on Iraq, threatened its security and stability insistently sought to change its political and social system, considered Khomeini to be Iraq’s guardian, used military force to violate Iraq's borders and threatened to invade its capital and erase it from the map of the region?
Which of the two parties has rejected dialogue and the mediation of friends to resolve the problems between the two countries? In a speech he made in April 1980 Iran's then President, Bani-Sadr, boasted to his audience that President Saddam Hussein had on three occasions sought to send mediators to resolve the problems with Iran and that he, Bani-Sadr, had refused to talk to them. Any fair-minded person must ask himself this: was Iraq alone in being unable to resolve its problems with Iran by diplomatic means at that time, or was the entire world at a loss as to how to deal with that anomalous, aggressor regime, which has no respect for international law or established custom in State relations, and is thus unable to this day to resolve its problems with that regime?
Let us go back to 1979 and 1980 and go over the daily events one by one, and ask the States of the region and those other States that have had problems with Iran which of them has been able to establish a constructive dialogue with the Iranian regime on the basis of international law, the rules of international conduct and mutual respect for sovereignty and interests. Has Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain, or the Soviet Union, or the United States, or Prance or Britain? Which State, big or small, whether near Iran, far away from Iran or neighbouring Iran, was able at that time, or is able even today, to resolve its problems with Iran through dialogue, on the basis of international law and the rules of conduct in today's world? There are 1,001 proofs that the whole world has suffered and continues to suffer from deliberate Iranian violations of international law and agreements and breaches of contracts signed between Iran and the countries of the world, as well as from Iranian terrorist plots, Iranian audacities and Iranian rejection of dialogue. Perhaps former Secretary- General Waldheim' s notes on his visit to Tehran provide the best proof of what we have stated and of the way the Iranians have conducted their talks even with the representatives of our international Organization.
The world has witnessed many conflicts, which had their origin in various causes, and it continues to witness many such conflicts. What should a Member State of the United Nations do when an armed conflict arises between it and another State? In this world to which we all belong there is an international authority concerned with security and stability in the world. That authority is the Security Council, On 28 September 1980, having met and considered the situation between Iraq and Iran, the Security Council adopted resolution 479 (1980), which called for the cessation of hostilities and the initiation of negotiations. Iraq, a responsible Member of the United Nations, which believes In the United Nations Charter and in the laws and rules governing relations among States, accepted that resolution immediately, Iran, however, which has refused to resolve the problems with Iraq by political means, through negotiations, and which believes In using means that contravene international law and custom with a view to threatening the sovereignty and security of Iraq, refused to accept Security Council resolution 479 (1980) and. Instead, has Insisted on continuing the war to this day.
Just as it refused to abide by the will of the International community and end the war in September 1980. So Iran has refused to resolve the conflict through other international organizations and bodies, such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement, by seeking, as in the case of the United Nations, to impose conditions which are contrary to international law and to the concepts of the age, with a view to enabling Iran to attain all its expansionist aims based on the theory of exporting the revolution, which is the root cause of all the problems plaguing the region today.
Today we have a huge dossier of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and of the decisions and appeals of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, all of which call for the settlement of the conflict between Iran and Iraq by peaceful means on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations, international law, the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Islamic principles. Iran has rejected all these calls, while Iraq has accepted them all. If a country had truly been the victim of aggression, could it have rejected all those International efforts over a period of seven years and all those international appeals and calls. Insisting all the time on war, slaughter and destruction? Is not this attitude, rather, one characteristic of a covetous aggressor harbouring aggressive, expansionist designs? Which of the two parties to the conflict has considered the war a gift of God and a suitable occasion for liquidating internal opponents, allowing the revolution to strike root and getting rid of the older generation and a newer one?
The declarations of Khomeini and all Iranian officials made since September 1980 until today have sung the praises of war and recounted its virtues and implications for the survival of the regime and the regime's ability to crush its opponents. Those declarations have also extolled the war's implications for the growth of Iran's Influence in the region and at the International level. Could war be an imposed situation on a regime that glorifies war in that manner? Or, rather, is it not that that regime Itself wanted this war and imposed it on Iraq and on the countries of the region, thus involving the international community as a whole in its effects? Who other than the aggressor Iran - which insists on exporting its backward revolution with its heinous crimes, which insists on bringing the countries of the region under its control and which Insists on resorting to terrorist means In all countries of the world - bears the responsibility for this war and for the slaughter and destruction which have been going on for more than seven years?
The statements made by the leadership of the Iranian regime seven years ago and the statements they hysterically keep repeating today are enough to enable us to determine the side which has Initiated aggression and war and which is unable to survive without war, to say nothing of its responsibility for the continuation of the war, despite all the well-intentioned efforts that were made and continue to be made to end it. By concentrating on a three-week period of conflict between two neighbouring countries, after which the Security Council intervened, Iran tries, through lies, to present a topsy-turvy view of things. It wants us to forget all the acts of aggression and subversion and all the violations of international law which it committed against Iraq and all the countries of the region before, during and after that period. It wants the world to forget the death, slaughter and destruction which has continued for seven years because of its insistence on war, its refusal to abide by international law and its rejection of the jurisdiction of the international organization over the conflict, as well as its insistence on its own methods and concepts to resolve this conflict by force, terrorism and blackmail.
I have called to mind what happened in 1979 and 1980 before the outbreak of the conflict between Iraq and Iran and I have cited the aggressive acts of Iran against my country and its threats to the sovereignty and security of Iraq. You, Mr. President, together with all the Members of the international Organization, know what is going on in the region now and what Iran does and says against the other States. You no doubt have heard of the missiles which Iran has launched against a small, peaceful country like Kuwait, and you know of the continuous threats to Kuwaiti shipping. You know of the impudent threats Iran has directed against Saudi Arabia and of its aggression against Saudi vessels and airspace, as well as of Iran's calls to overthrow the Saudi Arabian regime. You know the facts of Iranian efforts to intervene in the internal affairs of all the countries of the region, without exception. You also know that there is in Iran an alternate Government for many of the legitimate regimes in our region. You know of Iran's role in terrorism in Arab States of North Africa, which have been obliged to close Iranian embassies to avoid subversive and seditious acts carried out and financed by those embassies. You certainly also know of the facts of the acts of terrorism committed by Iranian agents even in non-Islamic States, such as in European countries. You know of the hostage game used by the Iranian regime as a means of political blackmail and the acquisition of arms to enable it to continue war and aggression against my country and others in the region.
All these acts of aggression which are being committed by Iran against the countries of the region nine years after the establishment of its anomalous regime fall within the meaning of armed aggression under the definition of aggression approved by the General Assembly, to which I have already referred. If Iraq has borne more Iranian aggression than the other countries of the region it is only because there are 1,180 kilometres of common boundaries between Iraq and Iran and because our cities are only a few kilometres from those borders and the capital of our country is only 120 kilometres away from them.
This is the Iranian regime whose representatives come to this forum to shed crocodile tears before members so as to make members believe that they are the victims of aggression. No one, however, has asked the representatives of the Iranian regime about their definition of aggression. The Iranian regime conceives aggression in terms different from those accepted by the other States of the world. According to the Iranian regime, it is aggression for my country to defend Itself against Iran's attempts to invade my country. In the view of the rulers of Tehran, it Is aggression not to allow them to intervene in our internal affairs, and it Is also aggression not to allow them to violate the rules of International law and the rules of conduct among States whenever they desire to do so. Aggression, in the eyes of the rulers of Tehran, consists in not allowing them to Impose their hegemony on the countries of the region. That is the concept of aggression of the rulers in Tehran.
The anomalous and criminal Iranian regime, which wallows In the bloodbaths it has triggered in its country, which has driven children over minefields, which has sent hundreds of thousands of human beings to their deaths by its insistence on war for more than seven years, which treats international law and the rules of conduct among States with contempt, which has slaughtered prisoners of war and subjected them to unspeakable atrocities, which has failed to build good relations with any other State of the world apart from opportunistic and business relations with a few countries, which poses a threat to international security and stability, which lays down mines in international waters in the Gulf and threatens free navigation and which commits crimes in the region and in many areas of the world - such a regime has no right to set out conditions to the international Organization. Anyone who wishes to satisfy that regime and bargains with it at the expense of the principles of international law and the rules for the settlement of disputes between States is not rendering any service to peace, justice and the supremacy of law in the world. Such a person could be either miscalculating or seeking cheap gains at the expense of respect for the Charter and international law and respect for this Organization, as well as at our expense, we, the peoples of the region, which are being subjected to Iranian aggression, terrorism and blackmail.
I should like, therefore, to make it quite clear that Iraq, which has struggled and striven with courage and ability against the Iranian aggression, and which has protected its sovereignty, security and the life of its citizens against the barbaric waves of invasion waged by Iran year after year, has stood as an Invincible barrier to protect the region and the world from Iran's evil. Any sensible person can well imagine what great dangers would threaten the region and the world should that barrier, God forbid, give way. Iraq will never allow more concessions to that murderous monster with its insatiable appetite for aggression, expansion and blackmail.
The Iranian regime has rejected the resolutions of the Security Council one after the other, from resolution 479 (1980), adopted in September 1980, up to resolution 588 (1986), adopted in October 1986. Each time it has attacked the Security Council, blackmailed it and said: "I do not like this resolution. If you want me to accept a resolution from the Council, you should include in it such and such".
When we come to the Security Council to deal with the situation and discuss the question of adopting another resolution, we find certain parties behind the scenes in the Security Council saying: "Well, let us include something of what Iran wants; perhaps this other resolution will be acceptable to it". And the - second resolution includes what Iran wants. But Iran then rejects the second resolution, just as it rejected the first, stating that it has not been given enough. The attempt is repeated a third, fourth and fifth time. Iran rejects all these attempts and continues the war, the blackmail and the game of deception.
We have witnessed such scenes on all the occasions on which the conflict has been discussed, and we have heard the repeated Iranian claims and demands. On all those occasions the Security Council has made concessions with the object of achieving peace. Peace, however, has not been achieved; the war has continued. After the adoption of each resolution of the Security Council, the Iranian regime has undertaken a new campaign to invade Iraq, to reinforce its political blackmail with a military act it has tried to Impose on the ground. If, God forbid, the Iranian regime had been successful in only one of those invasions, which we have opposed and foiled, that would have been enough for Iran to establish its hegemony over the entire Gulf area and to extend its power even further, thereby overturning all balances and confronting the world with a dangerous situation.
Now there exists a binding resolution, adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter - resolution 598 (1987). It is the strongest resolution ever adopted concerning the conflict, and it is also among the strongest resolutions adopted by the Security Council in its history. It was adopted unanimously by the 15 members of the Security Council, and is unambiguously cleat j its meaning needs no interpretation. The first step in implementing it is the observance of a comprehensive cease-fire, with withdrawal to internationally-recognized borders; the second is the establishment of supervision over that process; the third is the release and repatriation of prisoners-of-war. Thus the various steps follow each other in sequence. This is what Security Council resolution 598 (1987) says, not the delegation of Iraq.
Now we see the representatives of Iran attacking the Security Council, as they did seven years ago, and placing conditions on it. They have rejected this balanced resolution, and they want the Security Council to interpret its own resolutions in the manner they, the representatives of Iran, desire. They want the Council to read the resolution in Persian. What we call for is respect by the Security Council for its own resolution and its strong rejection of the attempts at blackmail and deception. This is not just an Iraqi demand; it is a demand in harmony with the resolution and its true meaning. We regret that some of those who voted for the resolution are acquiescing in the attempted acts of blackmail and deception by Iran although they participated in its formulation and voted for it.
We hope that there will be an end to those attempts and that the text of the resolution, which was adopted unanimously by members of the Council, will be observed. We also call on the Council to move forward unhesitatingly, without succumbing to any kind of manoeuvre or blackmail, within the context of resolution 598 (198T), namely# use of the means provided by the Charter for the purpose of establishing comprehensive and durable peace.
I should like on this occasion to state again that we welcome resolution 598 (1987) and are prepared to co-operate with the Secretary-General and the Security Council to implement it faithfully and honestly and as it stands. We shall strongly reject any attempt to review the resolution or the arrangement of its provisions.
Finally, I should like to point out that if one is searching for more evidence on the contempt of the Iranian regime for international law and its non-adherence to its obligations under the Charter, then the statement of the President of that regime, made on Tuesday last made from this rostrum, provides the best possible such evidence. It was full of insults and abusive language against the Security Council and its permanent and non-permanent members over more than seven years# numbering more than 40 Member States from all continents.
The President of the Iranian regime, speaking from the rostrum of the United Nations, did not say that his country adheres to the Charter of the United Nations and international law. We delivered a lecture to the Assembly on the concepts of his regime and his concept of international relations. We did not commit himself to respect the rules of our age, developed over the 40 years that have passed since the establishment of the United Nations.
That statement, full of falsifications and lies and contradicted by the daily actions of the Iranian regime over the last nine years, clears any remaining doubts to the true position of that aggressive and expansionist regime. The statement puts an end to all the utterances, which have no basis in reality, that have been made in certain circles concerning a probable change in Iran's position on the resolutions of this Organization and the will of the international community.
The President of the Iranian regime in fact declared war on the international community and the system of international relations as we know it in this Hall, filled as it is, with the representatives of the peoples of the world. We has revealed all the cards which the Iranian regime, and those who keep it company, have tried to cover. It remains for the international community - and the Security Council in particular - to declare itself, to affirm its credibility and to maintain before the world respect for the Charter of the United Nations, the hope of all peoples, on which they rely to face aggression decisively and achieve a just peace.


On behalf of the delegation of Somalia, I extend our sincere congratulations to Mr. Peter Florin on his unanimous and well-deserved election to the presidency of the forty-second session of the General Assembly. I assure him of the full co-operation of my delegation in the successful discharge of his responsibilities. I take this opportunity to express our appreciation to his predecessor, Mr. Huraayun Rasheed Choudhury, under whose skilful guidance there were significant achievements at the forty-first session.
I wish also to pay a tribute to the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, for his active role in promoting just and peaceful solutions to international problems.
This session of the General Assembly, like others before it, has a long agenda covering a wide range of topics, I think it is true to say, however, that there are just three broad categories into which those items fall - namely, peace and security, self-determination, and human rights. It is to those three areas that the purposes and principles of the Charter ace directed. I believe it to be essential that we never lose sight of those purposes and principles as we address ourselves to the specific problems before us.
We must ask ourselves, for example, whether the world community is taking effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace. Is the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples being fully respected? Is there effective international co-operation to promote fundamental freedoms and human rights, including the right to economic and social stability? The extent to which we can answer these questions in the affirmative is the extent to which our obligations as Member States are being fulfilled. Obviously, there is a large gap between the statement of the goals we profess to seek and the attainment of those goals, and the effort to reduce that gap must be a constant one.
With regard to peace and security, it can be said that these benefits ultimately depend on the widest possible compliance with all the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. However, world peace can today be more specifically identified with a strong commitment to disarmament and collective security, and particularly with full adherence to fundamental human rights. As a former colonial territory which achieved independence under the aegis of the United Nations, Somalia is particularly conscious of the importance of the right to self-determination and independence in the strengthening of regional and international peace and security. In our view, the world community owes a debt of gratitude to the framers of the Charter for affirming those rights at a time when the process of decolonisation was in its infancy and the likelihood of its success far from certain. It was their wisdom and foresight which provided the basis for the General Assembly's historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
Today, the concern expressed in the Charter and the efforts by the United Nations to promote self-determination have been strongly validated. One of the clearest lessons of the history of our times is that attempts to suppress the will of peoples to self-determination and independence inevitably lead to violence and conflict and are in the end doomed to failure. Oppressed people will make any sacrifice, including the sacrifice of their lives, in order to establish conditions of freedom, justice and human dignity.
The task of creating a community of sovereign States with universality as the final goal is not yet completed, but the work of the United Nations in this area has strongly reinforced the hopes and dignity of millions of former colonized people in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, the Pacific and other areas who have recovered their national identity and now enjoy statehood. Somalia believes that the completion of this task must be a high priority of the United Nations. It has been said that peace, in the last resort, is a matter of human rights. I do not think there can be any question about the fact that gross violations of human rights, which undermine the dignity and worth of the human person, provoke both national and international tensions and conflicts. Somalia strongly supports the efforts of the United Nations on behalf of oppressed peoples. We believe that the world community must take an unequivocal stand when confronted by racist, aggressive and genocidal policies.
The United Nations responsibilities in the promotion of human rights do not stop, however, with attempts to put an end to intolerable oppression. Its responsibilities must also include the creation of a climate in which all States have the opportunity to provide adequately for the economic and social needs of their peoples. This, undoubtedly, is the meaning of the Charter's injunction that we promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
It is against the background of these thoughts on peace, self-determination and human rights that I shall address myself to specific international issues of particular concern to Somalia,
The question to which we give the highest priority in our foreign policy is that of peace and stability in the Horn of Africa. Our region has suffered from decades of conflict and tension, from the ravages of drought and desertification and from the human misery caused by mass refugee flows. The establishment of a climate of peace and stability would enable the people of the region to carry out with greater success the tasks of rehabilitation and development.
It was in recognition of this need that the Heads of State of Somalia and Ethiopia initiated a process of dialogue between the two countries at their meeting in Djibouti in January 1986. My Government is strongly committed to the success of the ongoing talks aimed at creating conditions for the normalization of relations, the resolving of fundamental problems and the establishment of a just and lasting peace. We believe it is a measure of progress that the last meeting of the Somali-Ethiopia Joint Committee held in April of this year agreed that the two sides would continue the dialogue and refrain from any action which might jeopardize the peace process.
In our view a climate of confidence and trust must be created in which negotiations on substantive issues can be successfully pursued. We believe that the search for a just and lasting settlement could then go forward, based on a realistic appraisal of existing conditions and, most importantly, with a firm recognition of the legitimate aspirations and fundamental rights of the peoples involved. It is our firm conviction that respect for the inalienable rights of peoples to justice and self-determination constitutes a solid foundation for peace and stability in the area.
In spite of some difficulties and setbacks, Somalia will continue to promote the peace process that has been set in motion - which would be in the interests, and contribute to the welfare of, all the peoples of the region. I should like now to state Somalia's position on another urgent and grave international problem: the tragic war between Iran and Iraq. It has continued for almost 8 years without any prospect of an end in sight. It has exacted a heavy toll in human lives, in the destruction of property and in the depletion of the resources of both countries.
Somalia welcomed the Security Council's mandatory resolution calling for a cease-fire, which we considered to be an appropriate response to the destruction and bloodshed and to the widening repercussions of the war. We appeal to both sides and especially to Iran to respond speedily and explicitly to international efforts to end the hostilities and to achieve an honourable settlement. The good offices of the Secretary-General in this regard must certainly be given appreciation and support. Bringing an end to this tragic war is in the best interests of the peoples of the area, of Arab and Islamic solidarity and of regional world peace and security·
In the Middle East, after decades of tension and conflict, the path to peace is still being obstructed by Israel's contempt for the rule of international law. Clearly, there will be no peace while Israel continues to deny the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, while it violates the human rights of the Arab people under its occupation and while it pursues expansionist policies of illegal annexation and occupation. The world community must demand an end to those policies and to the arrogant violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity ·
My Government will continue to support United Nations resolutions calling for a comprehensive Middle East settlement, which would include the right of the Palestinians to return home and to establish a state in Palestine and Israel's withdrawal from all annexed and occupied Arab territory, including Jerusalem. We also support the convening of a peace conference on the Middle East as an important step towards a just and lasting settlement.
The responsibility of Member States to promote human rights and remove threats to peace is nowhere heavier than in the case of southern Africa. My Government welcomes the increasing application of measures that demonstrate the world community's abhorrence of South Africa's apartheid policies. Regrettably, the apartheid system remains essentially in place, and institutionalised oppression against the majority population and against all who oppose apartheid has been intensified.
Undoubtedly the situation in South Africa today is one of dangerous crisis, as the confrontation between the forces of oppression and those of the liberation struggle becomes increasingly violent. My Government strongly supports the international consensus on the need to impose comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against the Pretoria regime. This is the only peaceful and effective measure available to the United Nations in its effort to promote the establishment of a just society in South Africa. The case for mandatory sanctions is, of course, further strengthened by South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia, and by its use of the Territory as a springboard for military aggression against sovereign States. In our view, it is the inescapable duty of the Security Council to take firm action to ensure that the plan for Namibia's independence contained in resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) is implemented speedily and without pre-conditions.
In a number of other areas of conflict it is essential that international pressures continue to provide the momentum towards just and peaceful solutions. In this context, Somalia joins the vast majority of States in calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan. The independence, sovereignty and non-aligned status of Afghanistan must be fully respected, and the Afghan refugees must be allowed to return home in safety and with honour.
On the question of Cyprus, we urge the parties concerned to take full advantage of the good offices of the Secretary-General in working for a peaceful settlement. In our view, the resolution of this problem lies in the recognition by all concerned that the fundamental human, civil and political rights of the ethnic groups which constitute the population of that island State, must be fully respected and safeguarded, if there is to be lasting peace and internal harmony.
The strengthening of peace and security throughout the world depends more heavily, of course, on progress towards disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament. Without doubt, the nuclear arms race overshadows all other issues in importance and urgency. That is why my Government warmly welcomes the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union for the elimination of medium-range nuclear missiles. This development certainly has historic significance as it represents the first agreement, in principle, on the elimination of a specific
class of nuclear weapons. Of equal significance, in our view, is the spirit of co-operation which has fostered agreement in the crucial area of arms control. The world community is now encouraged to hope that a first step has been taken in a process which will lead to the elimination of long-range strategic missiles, to the conclusion of a comprehensive test-ban treaty, and to a freeze on the production and deployment of all nuclear weapons.
I turn now to the economic issues that are of great concern to my Government. Unfortunately, the lack of progress towards the solution of international problems in the political sphere is also evident in the major economic problems before the General Assembly.
The stalemate in efforts to establish a North-South dialogue and to promote a more just world economic order is again cause for disappointment and concern. For African States, the question of greatest urgency is the economic situation on our continent - a situation that continues to generate unacceptable levels of deprivation and misery. The worst ravages of natural and man-made disasters have abated, but one year after the convening of the Special Session on the Critical Economic Situation in Africa, it cannot be said that the crisis on our continent is over. The pervasive constraints of underdevelopment and the effects of climatic and other disasters cannot be overcome easily.
For example, Somalia has been host for over seven years to successive mass influxes of refugees. Even though basic needs are met through international assistance, the presence of 700,000 refugees in official camps, and as many more in the country at large, continues to place a heavy burden on our weak infrastructure, economy and resources. We naturally hope that efforts to create a climate of peace in the region will help to promote the optimum solution to the refugee problems - that of voluntary repatriation, unfortunately, the majority of the refugees are still not assured that they can return home to safe and stable conditions.

My Government is grateful to the donor countries and United Nations agencies which have given the refugees a measure of hope for the future. Nevertheless, I must take this opportunity to make an urgent appeal for the fulfilment of food aid pledges. At the present time, there are serious food shortages and outbreaks of nutrition-related diseases in many camps, and unless speedy and effective measures are taken the situation could soon become catastrophic·, We hope that generous and prompt support for immediate and medium-term needs will continue to be made available to the refugees, in accordance with the commitments made at the Second International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa.
I believe there must be great recognition of the direct connection between the economic plight of developing countries and the constraints of the existing world economic order. It should be stressed that when the developing countries call for a North-South dialogue on interrelated questions of trade, money, debt servicing and development, they are not speaking of ideologies or economic abstractions. They are speaking of matters of life and death. They are speaking of the need to overcome conditions of widespread hunger, poverty, ignorance and disease.
Somalia strongly supports United Nations policies and programmes dealing with the related questions of the environment, population and human settlements. We believe that the promotion of the status of women, the rights of the child and the needs of youth, the aging and the disabled admirably carry out the humanitarian and social purposes o£ the world body. Campaigns against such evils as racial discrimination and the traffic in drugs illustrate the continuing vitality and relevance of the Organization.
We are all aware that many issues in critical areas of peace and security, self-determination and human rights remain unresolved. This calls for deep concern because all the goals of human endeavour and human aspirations are encompassed by these three fields of international action. My delegation is encouraged by the fact that practical solutions, based on the principles of the Chatter, have proved successful in many critical situations that have come before the United Nations. Those solutions reflect the collective wisdom of the world community, and thereby bring moral pressure to beat on events.
To conclude, the United Nations must continue to remain the centre for promoting the rule of international law and for fostering co-operation among States for the good of all. In this unique human endeavour, the United Nations can always depend on the full support and co-operation of the Government and people of Somalia.