 As I stand before the General Assembly today to make a statement on behalf of my country, the Yemen Arab Republic, I find myself at a loss. Do I congratulate the President on his assumption of the presidency, or do I congratulate the Assembly. In any case, his election could not have been a more judicious choice in view of his conspicuous qualities and his long political experience.
His unanimous election to the presidency of this session can only be interpreted as an indication of the high regard in which the friendly and fraternal country of Bangladesh is held by the nations of the world. My delegation's pleasure in this appointment is all the greater in view of the fraternal bonds and ties of friendship, based on mutual respect and constructive co-operation, that exist between our two countries.
1 should also like to express our appreciation and gratitude to his predecessor. Ambassador de PiniSs, whose presidency of the fortieth session was a great honor for us. It is self-evident to say that he presided over that session with great competence and dedication, and in a manner which enabled him to merit all our approval and admiration.
I must also pay a tribute to the invaluable and constant efforts made by the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, and to his well-known sincerity and determination in the service of our Organization in particular, and the international community in general. I take this opportunity to renew our sincere wishes to him of continued good health, so that he can continue to perform his arduous tasks in the best possible manner.
During our last session, at which we celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, the city of Geneva witnessed the first summit, after a lapse of some years, between the two super-Powers on 20 November 1985. But despite the high hopes pinned on that meeting it did not achieve sufficient detente or improvement in the international situation in general, and in the arms race in -particular, to restore our confidence and peace of mind about the present and future of mankind. Hence we still harbor feelings of anxiety and apprehension, because the terrible arms race is as fierce as ever and shows no signs of slackening. In addition to the fact that the weapons of mass destruction have not been eliminated from the arsenals, such weapons are certain to destroy our world. In view of the persistence of this situation it is no wonder that life on this planet is subject to the danger of extinction at any moment, whether as the result either of a fit of anger on the part of one side or the other, or of an accidental error by one party. Just as our last session coincided with the first summit conference between
the leaders of the two super-Powers, fate has decreed that our present session coincides with the second summit - scheduled to take place in three days in the capital of Iceland - to overcome problems whose settlement could have obviated the need for that meeting.
Moscow and Washington's agreement to meet at the highest level raises our hopes, and we trust that the results of the coming meeting on 12 October will not be as disappointing as those of the previous meetings. To be realistic, we hope that it will lead to specific agreements that will put an end, albeit gradually, to the frenetic race to procure the most deadly and destructive weapons, and will also lead to the elimination of the weapons of mass destruction in the arsenals of the two super-Powers.
We also hope that the two sides will achieve an agreement to keep outer space free from the arms race, in the hope that it will be a refuge for man if he has
nowhere to turn on earth, though God fee bid that will ever happen. It is absurd to hear some recklessly advocating the militarization of outer space, as though this planet were too small for their destructive tendencies. Humanity faces enough danger to its presence on this planet. If the aim of this frenzied attempt to achieve supremacy over others is to attain sole hegemony over the nations of the world, it would be useful for those suffering under that illusion to realize that the gains earned by the friendship of peoples outweigh the gains earned by brute force. This persistent arms race prompts us to wonder whether humanity has indeed attained such a degree of affluence as to permit some to expend vast sums on this frenetic race. The answer is no.
What is undeniable and irrefutable is that many nations of the world are still suffering from poverty, starvation, underdevelopment and disease. Is it not then the duty of those who squander such vast sums on developing the means of destruction and annihilation to channel those funds, or at least some part of them, into the elimination of the hunger, poverty, underdevelopment and disease which afflict millions of people? We hope that the two major Powers will continue their meetings, because we hope that they will achieve important, specific results that would pit an end to their frenetic rivalry in acquiring more weapons of mass destruction, and thus permit them to channel their energies into the service of humanity, and to eliminate their stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
The United Nations, which was created to contribute to the establishment of peace and security all over the world, is called upon to play a greater role in overcoming all impediments and obstacles on the path towards these agreements, so that man everywhere nay enjoy peace of mind about his present and future.
My country, the Yemen Arab Republic, cherishes its membership in the Non-Aligned Movement because of its complete and profound belief that, as a developing country, non-alignment is the best approach it can adopt in the face of
all the pressures of international polarization to which, like numerous other States it is subjected. The growing membership of this Movement is confirmation of the magnitude of the growing re coalition on the part of numerous States of the importance of non-alignment as the ideal option for maintaining their independence and national sovereignty, and for averting the danger of polarization.
In view of any ambiguity that might obscure the concept of non-alignment, I wish to take this opportunity to assure you that the concept of non-alignment subscribed to by our enlightened leadership under our brother the President, the Secretary-General of the General People's Congress, Colonel Ali Abdallah Salih, is a crystal clear ethical concept of principle. Non-alignment, as a concept and in practice, certainly does not mean neutrality between right and wrong; rather it means standing by what is right and championing it and standing against wrong and resisting it. While on the subject of non-alignment I should like to express my country's satisfaction at the success of the recent summit Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Harare, the capital of the friendly country of Zimbabwe. That success was one more illustration of the growing role played by the Won-Aligned Movement in supporting our supreme international Organization and its efforts to promote peace and justice in the world and to settle the international and regional disputes which abound in the international community. The success of that Conference also prompts us to praise the exemplary manner in which His Excellency the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Mr. Robert Mugabe, presided over the meetings of that Conference, and his constructive contribution to the achievements of the Conference, as reflected in its decisions and recommendations.
We would have liked to see the United Nations entering the fifth decade of its long life - God willing - in a world devoid of injustice, tension, and causes of conflict, poverty and hunger; but a cursory look at the globe suffices to cause concern and frustration. However, this does not negate the achievements of the United Nations, reflected in its success in solving some problems that have developed during the past four decades and in championing the right of a number of peoples to determine their own future and win their free dm. But we must also acknowledge its failure to settle a number of crises and problems and to solve many political questions. But it is not fair to lay blame for that on the united Nations alone, because its ability to take effective action is conditional upon the degree of interaction between itself aid international forces, and it derives its strength from the responsiveness of the Member States in general and the major Powers in particular.
One of the foremost among the outstanding and perennial questions is that of Palestine and the resulting strife, which has come to be known in the modern political lexicon as the Middle East crisis. Thirty-eight years have elapsed, yet tiie people of Palestine are still deprived of the same right to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State on their national soil as that enjoyed by other peoples in the world who have attained their rights and gained their independence.
This question has become a perennial item on the agenda of successive sessions of the General Assembly, as well as on the agendas of its subsidiary organs and bodies. The fact that this question has remained without any just solution, despite the innumerable resolutions of this Organization, is categorical proof of the success of some States in robbing the United Nations of its role and of its raison d'etre. I cannot think of any question which is more just and more deserving of concern and settlement than this Question, especially since the rights of the matter are crystal clear. Since the United Nations is unable to redress the blatant injustice inflicted upon the victimized people of Palestine and accepts the aggressor, Israel, as one of its Members, to occupy a seat in this Hall, to run amok challenging its prestige, cynically disregarding its resolutions. It is no wonder that the peoples of the world have lost their confidence in the United Nations and have even come to ridicule its existence. If the Middle East crisis involves continuous strife and is a hotbed of international tension, it is because the Question of Palestine, which, as we have previously declared, is the crux and essence of the strife in the area, is still unresolved.
But how can we find the way to a just solution of this Question? How can we find the way to a settlement of the strife in the region based on justice, while Israel persists in its arrogance and aggression, occupying Palestine and the territories of neighboring Arab States, and challenging the United Nations and the whole international community, without shame or scruple? How can we expect Israel to give up its policy of aggression and immature recklessness, and its practice of terrorism, as long as it receives all means of support and encouragement from a major international Power, the United States of America?
Unquestionably the fact that the Question of Palestine has remained without a just solution for about four decades is an affront to mankind and proof of the failure of the United Nations to discharge its role and to fulfil its duties. It is no secret that Israel is responsible for the frustration of all the international efforts and endeavors, collectively and individually, designed to settle this just Question.
There is near unanimity on the need to convene an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations, with the participation of the permanent members of the Security Council and all parties to the Arab-Israeli strife, but those who are blocking the convening of such a conference, and even reject the idea, are Israel and its ally, the United States. Does anyone need further proof that Israel rejects peace? But if Israel is aspiring to impose the peace of capitulation, it is badly mistaken. And why does it insist on what kind of peace, and reject peace based on justice and right?
Be that as it may, the convening of an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations, with the the participation of all the parties concerned, foremost among which is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of our brothers the Palestinian people, and the five States that are permanent members of the Security Council, remains in our view the proper framework for seeking an appropriate formula to solve the Question of Palestine and the problem of the Middle East, and hence to establish a just and lasting peace in that sensitive part of the world.
Perhaps Israel entertains the dream that its occupation of Palestine and the Syrian Golan Heights, and the other parts it still occupies in Lebanon, will with the passage of time become an unchallengeable fait accompli, and thus acquire international legitimacy. If that is so, Israel must remember that Western colonialism, faced with the growing struggle of the peoples, had to depart from a large number of countries after an occupation which had in many cases lasted over a century. Thus, ^he fate of its occupation of the Arab territories, whether Palestine, Lebanon or Syria, will be no better than the fate of Western colonialism
It is high time for our Arab nation to put a prompt and decisive end to its prolonged suffering as a result of the implanting of Israel in the heart of the Arab homeland. The acts of aggression and the crimes committed by the Zionist entity over the past 30 years are more than enough to convince even its fervent partisans, foremost among them the United States of America, of the aggressive nature of this parasitical entity and of its arrogance and folly. But those biased in its favor see its vices as virtues, and its crimes as acts of heroism.
The United States, as a major Power, is now called upon to reconsider its position in support of Israel and to review its policy in order to play its role, with other major international Powers, in restoring justice and seeking a just solution to the question of Palestine and the crisis in the Middle East, in order to establish peace and justice. However, no international effort can succeed unless the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are restored and unless the occupied Arab territories are returned to their rightful owners.
The Arab States have affirmed the sincerity of their wish to restore a just peace in the region through their proposal reflected in the decisions of the twelfth summit Conference at Fez, and they reiterated their attachment to that proposal at their emergency summit Conference in August of last year.
Although that initiative won broad international support, Israel still rejects the establishment of a just and lasting peace, and continues to declare that rejection with arrogance and insolence. But the United Nations should not stand idly by in the face of this intransigent Israeli rejection. The United Nations must intensify its efforts to impose a just and lasting solution so that the area will not remain a hotbed of tension which could burst into flames at any moment.
Sufficient proof of the gravity of the continuing crisis in the Middle East is the widening cycle of violence, which has now encroached on other areas. But those who have been up in arms as a result of some individual incidents should study and investigate the causes of the phenomena of individual terrorist acts in order to eradicate this scourge. Because, had it not been for the condoning of Israel's terrorism, which claims the lives of thousands of innocents, the acts of terrorism by groups or individuals claiming the lives of other innocents would not have taken place. We are against terrorism, but resistance to terrorism must also be aimed against Israeli terrorism.
Hence, those who condemn individual terrorism only, should also condemn Israeli terrorism, which is practiced against the people of Palestine and Lebanon under the eyes of the whole world. There is no more heinous crime than collective terrorism. It is unacceptable that some parties on the international scene should view terrorism the way an Arab poet describes it: the murder of one person in a jungle is an unforgivable crime, while the murder of an entire people is open to debate. The logic of the double standard is completely unacceptable.
Individual terrorism, no matter how heinous, cannot be equated, in terms of either responsibility or results, with the terrorism practiced by a State which, I regret to say, belongs to this and to other international organizations. Putting an end to Israeli terrorism and its occupation of Palestine, Lebanese territories and the Syrian Golan Heights, and the restoration of these territories to their rightful owners, would eradicate the phenomena of individual terrorism, which is considered a natural result of the negation of justice and the prevalence of the law of force, usurpation and aggression.
It is truly regrettable that the beginning of our current session coincides with the seventh year of the long and bloody war between Iraq and Iran. This is a costly war. Thousands upon thousands have fallen in this war, to the point where its victims have exceeded one million. Numerous installations in both countries have been destroyed, and much of the infrastructure has also been destroyed. The Yemen Arab Republic, which has consistently called for an end to the bloodshed, sees this raging wac as a wanton absurdity and a depletion of the capabilities of two peoples to whom we have been bound by ties of religion and good-neighborliness since ancient times. We appreciate the endeavors of the Secretary-General, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Non-aligned Movement, and welcomed the initiative of Iraq last August and its readiness to accept a cease-fire. We therefore hope that Iran, for its part, will adopt a positive attitude by responding to that initiative and accepting the offers of mediation, because these continued hostilities threaten the entire area and are jeopardizing international peace and security.
The world should not stand idly by watching this bloody human tragedy. Hence we call upon the major Powers, and those in a position to do so, to play their role in putting an end to this destructive war before its sparks fly out in all directions to start a greater and more destructive fire.
Putting an end to this tragic war calls for the observance by the belligerents of an immediate cease-fire, the withdrawal of all forces to the internationally recognized boundaries and the holding of direct negotiations that would preserve the legitimate rights of each, in accordance with the rules of international law. Hence, Iran must express its readiness to agree to this and to follow the example of Iraq.
As regards the problem of Afghanistan, which remains unchanged, the Yemen Arab Republic, while welcoming the declaration by the Soviet Union of its intention to withdraw seven of its battalions from Afghanistan before the end of the year, supports all international efforts and endeavors directed to achieving a peaceful solution to this problem through negotiation among the parties concerned, with a view to enabling the Afghan people to exercise its right to sovereignty and to the choice of its own social and economic system free from all external pressures. We feel that any approach to solving this problem must provide for the need for the refugees return to their homes as soon as possible, and the cessation of all forms of foreign intervention. While the problem of Cyprus still remains unresolved because of the difficulties encountered during the negotiations between the representatives of the two communities, it demands a redoubling of the international effort by the United Nations and an intensification of its endeavors to guarantee a continued dialog between the two parties to the dispute, because dialog is the optimum means of achieving a satisfactory settlement which guarantees for all freedom of religion and coexistence on the basis of equality of rights and duties within a single independent Cyprus.
In Africa, the occupation of Namibia by the racist regime of Pretoria is another grave challenge to the international community. Despite the numerous decisive resolutions adopted by the United Nations, the Pretoria regime arrogantly rejects them all, and insists on continuing its usurpation of this Territory.
Paced with this intransigent rejection by the racist regime, we must increase our support for the people of Namibia, under the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), its sole legitimate representative. This calls for increased pressure by the international community to break the vicious circle of this perennial problem by putting an end to the occupation of the territory by the racist regime of South Africa.
The actions and crimes of the racist rigime against the Namibians and their militant leadership violate the most fundamental human rights and all the resolutions of the Organization in general, and Security Council
resolution 435 (1978) in particular. Unless these resolutions are implemented, the Namibian people will remain a victim of the most heinous form of aggression, oppression and injustice practiced against it by the racist regime of South Africa. Despite the continued condemnation by the international community of the practices of that odious regime, the mere presence of which is considered an affront to humanity, it still persists in defying world public opinion and all
resolutions of the United Nations and other organizations, and in continuing its flagrant violations of all international laws and norms.
In southern Africa itself, the same regime is still practicing the hideous policy of apartheid, using all forms of humiliation, torture and oppression to deny the indigenous majority all its rights and to maintain its domination by oppressing the heroic resistance.
It is no wonder that this regime has no other ally or champion but Israel, since birds of a feather flock together. Both regimes are not only alien, but also have a racist and fascist doctrine. This binds them in an unholy alliance of collaboration far removed from ethics, honor and all other fundamental values and norms. It does not surprise us that Israel sides with the racist regime of South Africa, but we are surprised to see it getting support from States which pay lip service to freedom and consider themselves the champions of human rights. But why should we feel surprised when those same States also support Israel, the first ally of the Pretoria regime, and its counterpart?
With respect to Korea, my delegation would like to express its satisfaction at the desire of the Korean people in North and South Korea for reunification, and hopes that this lofty aim will be achieved peacefully and democratically, free from all external pressure or influence.
While my country feels highly gratified at the restoration of democracy in some Latin American countries, it is following with great concern the news about the armed clashes currently taking place in Central America. But we are firmly convinced that the solution to these problems lies in resort by the parties concerned to dialog and peaceful means to arrive at a formula that will guarantee to each people in the area the right of self-determination and the right to choose its own regime without any foreign pressure.
The feet that the structure of current international economic relations remain unchanged, despite the obvious injustice it entails for the developing countries, will remain a major cause of tension in our world, because it has a continuing effect in widening the gap between developing and developed countries. This is because the latter regard the former as cheap sources of raw materials and as open markets for their manufacturers, instead of regarding them, as they should, as their partners in complementarity. The absence of the necessary equal footing between the two sides can lead only to more poverty for the poor and greater wealth for the rich.
In addition to the dangers inherent in the unjust international economic situation, the proliferation of adverse phenomena in the world economy, such as fluctuating currency exchange rates, the decline in commodity prices, the establishment of tariff and non-tariff barriers against exports from the developing countries, and the hampering of the transfer of technology from the industrial to the developing countries have all been exacerbating the economic crisis faced by many developing countries. While that has already been demonstrated by the depression and stagnation in international trade, the difficulties and pressures being endured by some countries burdened with debt, and in the faltering development plans in many third world countries, resulting in a decline ir, their social and economic growth rates, could, if the situation continues, lead to even more serious consequences. Unless the countries of the North are sufficiently responsive in their dialog with the countries of the South and make some of the concessions needed from then, the world may suffer an economic catastrophe whose effects will not be confined to the developing countries but will inevitably spread to the industrial countries, and be reflected in the stagnation of their industries, depressed markets for their products and the deterioration of their economies.
In order to improve the quality of life in our world, there must be an absence of all forms of exploitation from international economic relations, so that there is an international economic order based on justice, interdependence, and complementarity, because the injustice suffered by the developing countries in their dealings with the developed countries will adversely affect all peoples, which in turn would lead to the emergence of political problems that would reduce many parts of the world to chaos. Political coexistence among the various nations of the world calls for the establishment of healthy relations among them on the basis of economic interdependence and complementarity, if not on a unity of
Any hope for the recovery of the world economy will remain an illusion unless confidence is restored in the relations among the various parties. Moreover the wealth with which some States in the world are endowed, or which they gained in the past while other peoples were slumbering, and which has provided the basis of their growth and development, should not be the source of happiness for the few and misery for the many, if mankind is not to remain for ever divided between rich and poor. My country's choice of the democratic approach represents a final and irreversible decision. The general elections held a few weeks ago to broaden the base of the General People's Congress and the subsequent election of the members of the Standing Committee of that Congress by the representatives of the popular electoral base in full freedom and integrity, as acknowledged by both citizens and observers, was an affirmation of the determination of our national leadership, headed by our President, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the Secretary-General of the General People's Congress, Colonel Ali Abdullah Saleh, to
The unity of Yemen is the loftiest objective of our peoples, and our national leadership loses no opportunity of affirming its commitment to that objective. We are still working with our brothers in the southern part of Yemen in order to achieve that objective as soon as possible.
Finally, I renew my call to the United Nations to redouble its efforts to solve all problems and questions, foremost among which are the questions of Palestine, the Middle East, South Africa and Namibia, so that they do not remain perennial items on the agenda of successive sessions of the General Assembly, as has been the case for years - nay, for decades - thereby making it possible for the Organization to regain its prestige and capability in the eyes of all peoples and nations.
I pray that God may grant guidance and success to the Assembly in the performance of its task.


On behalf of the delegation of Malta, and on my own behalf, I congratulate the President on his well-deserved election to preside over the General Assembly at its forty-first session. I also extend our heartfelt appreciation to Mr. Jaime de Pinies for the excellent manner in which he guided the Assembly's work at its fortieth session.
The system of international relations slowly developed after the Second World
War is under increasing strain. The ideal is that of a community of nations
reconciling individual and collective interests through a peaceful process of consultation and co-operation. The reality, however, is the resurgence of arbitrary actions and the use or threat of the use of force as a prime determinant in inter-State relationships. After two dangerous cold wars since the end of the Second World War, a new period of detente is desperately needed.
In the United Nations Charter, regional associations are envisaged as basic components of a multilateral system structured around the united Nations. In practice the first two major post-war regional associations soon developed into two competing military concentrations largely outside the orbit of the United Nations system. Other regional associations and groupings have indeed also emerged which, more directly, translate the fundamental objectives of the Charter into concrete Programs of action at the regional level. Progressively, however, the capacity of the United Nations to mold those various initiatives into a coherent system for global peace and security is being eroded.
The ongoing financial crisis within the United Nations is but a symptom of a much more deep-rooted malaise.
The Mediterranean has long been an arena of events which dramatically illustrate the strains imposed upon the objective of a peaceful multilateral system. Direct confrontation between the two super-Powers is a daily reality in our region. That confrontation has led to a naval-military build-up unique in its scope and potential for trouble. In the Mediterranean the super-Power confrontation is even more direct than it is in Central Europe. There it is at least moderated by the presence and involvement of other members of the two military alliances.
The problems of the major trouble-spots in the Mediterranean region, in particular the Middle East, only compound and exacerbate that confrontation and events in the Central Mediterranean over the last 12 months are a clear
manifestation of the dangerous volatility which that confrontation brings to the region. It is in this very specific regional context that Malta has adopted its status of neutrality based on the principles of non-alignment. We have responded to a turbulent regional situation in the only manner which permits us to pursue and safeguard our national security and prosperity while at the same time contributing to the security and development of our region as a whole, as well as to a second detente between the two super-Powers. It is in that sense that Malta's neutrality follows the other successful experiments towards neutrality which have been tried in Europe in the post-war years. The various other neutral States of Europe, strikingly different as they are in their various national experiences, still share one fundamental aspect: • the adoption of the status of neutrality for them constitutes the means whereby they can play a distinct but constructive role in the destiny of their region. Par from being a withdrawal from the state of super-Power confrontation which surrounds them, their status of neutrality permits them to assert their freedom of action in the face of that confrontation.
For Malta and the other neutral States of Europe, neutrality does not only carry the traditional commitment towards non-involvement in an eventual conflict: it also carries the additional commitment to an active policy in peacetime directed towards eliminating those factors that could bring about such an eventual conflict. The role of the neutral States of Europe in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is a major example of how that commitment can be translated into collective action.
At the same time, Malta is also a developing country, sharing common aspirations with the other newly emergent nations of the world. Our strict adherence to the principles of non-alignment therefore makes it clear that our neutrality in the context of the super-Power confrontation in the Mediterranean is by no means a rejection of our solidarity with the rest of the developing world. Malta is indeed deeply committed to the struggles of the peoples of Palestine and southern Africa to achieve freedom and dignity and to the efforts of the peoples of Cyprus, Afghanistan and Kampuchea to rid their territories of foreign troops; to the endeavors by the people of Korea to reunite their divided country; and to the struggle of the people of Nicaragua to resist foreign interference.
We are equally committed to the struggle for the creation of new international economic and information orders which would open the way for a more just and equitable partnership between all the peoples of the world. We will invariably stand with all those who work for peace and justice in the face of aggression and oppression. Our voice will never fail to join in the call for more stability, fairness and equity in the relations among peoples and nations.
It is just over six years since Malta formally adopted its status of neutrality, based on the principles of non-alignment. The adoption of that status had been preceded by a decade of careful planning and preparation, intended to secure the essential foundation upon which our neutrality could be assured. The Maltese economy was thoroughly restructured, from one geared towards servicing a military base to one dedicated to friendship and co-operation with all States.
In the mid-1970s, while still half-way through its process of economic and political transformation, Malta joined the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. Its membership of that Movement served as a major encouragement and support to our continuing endeavors, and by March 1979 the last vestiges of a foreign military presence in Malta had been eliminated. The way was completely open for the formal adoption of a status of neutrality by the Government, and its proclamation was eventually incorporated in Malta's Neutrality Agreement with Italy, signed in September 1980 and duly registered with the United Nations in conformity with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Malta's status of neutrality reflects the deepest aspirations of the Maltese people for national and regional peace and progress. It is rooted in an increasingly broad-based national consensus. Although originally inspired by the Socialist Government of Malta, which since 1971 has been given three consecutive popular mandates for power by the people of Malta, a parliamentary select committee composed of members of both sides of the House is now considering the proper means of enshrining the status of neutrality in Malta's constitution.
Over the last six years, Malta's status of neutrality, based on the principles of non-alignment, has also received the recognition and support of a growing number of regional and other States as well as of international organizations. First Yugoslavia, then Italy, led the way in 1980. Italy was soon joined by its Mediterranean partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - notably Prance and Greece - in giving recognition and support to a policy which was manifestly aimed at making a significant contribution towards the objective of ensuring greater security and stability in what is the most exposed southern flank Of NATO.
The non-aligned States of the Mediterranean region, in particular the North African States of Libya, Tunisia and Algeria, also followed Yugoslavia in extending recognition and support for Malta's neutrality. In removing the possibility of a military base for outside Powers on its territory a neutral Malta not only joined the growing ranks of the non-aligned members but also eliminated one of the traditional focal points of the aggressive armaments build-up in the region, which had in the past also served as a direct threat to the security of non-aligned countries in the Mediterranean region.
Two regional organizations which between them incorporate moat of the Mediterranean States - the European Economic Community (EEC) and the Arab League - have played a significant role in giving application to the commitment of their Mediterranean members to extend tangible support for Malta's neutrality. The original association agreement between Malta and the EEC of 1970 has over the years been extended and enlarged to permit this support. Two Protocols on financial assistance, major improvements in market access for Maltese exports and provisions for industrial co-operation have already been agreed upon. The European communities are now examining proposals submitted by Malta's Prime Minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonniei in May of this year for closer political co-operation as a basis for a special relationship which could create conditions favorable for Malta to consider eventual membership.
With the Arab League Malta is also engaged in establishing a special relationship aimed at further consolidating the close ties of co-operation Malta already enjoys with all Arab States. Proposals submitted by the Government of Malta to the League's secretary-general earlier this year with this objective in mind should be the object of the League's council's deliberations in the near future.
Outside its immediate region, Malta's status of neutrality has enabled it to establish new friendships and to revitalize traditional partnerships on the basis of mutual benefit and respect. With the States of Eastern Europe, with non-aligned countries, with close countries like Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States, and with China, Malta has in fact opened up rewarding economic, political, commercial, cultural and other relationships which are inspired by, and which in turn serve to further consolidate, Malta's status of neutrality.
Prom traditional partners in Western Europe Malta has also now received due recognition of and support for its neutrality. The United Kingdom has signified respect for the status adopted by its former colony by making it known, in particular, that it would avoid taking action which could be seen as a challenge to that status. Last year Malta and Britain reached an agreement on the clearing of wartime bombs and wrecks which were obstructing full exploitation of the economic potential of Malta's deep-water Grand Harbor. British navy personnel co-operated with Maltese divers in the clearing operations, and Britain made an important financial contribution this year towards the costs of that operation.
That in turn opened the way for a revitalization of the long-standing partnership between Malta and Britain. During 1986 we have had a series of intensive and highly successful contacts which have laid the foundation for the establishment of a durable and mature relationship between our two peoples, free now from any residual irritations from the past. Perhaps the most symbolic of this year's events was the impressive welcome which the Maltese gave to a navy frigate when it called at the Grand Harbor to join in the 15 August celebrations, recalling the remarkable experiences shared by our two peoples during the darkest days of the Second world War.
Later in the year Malta was also encouraged to receive a formal announcement by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany of its determination to respect and support our status of neutrality and its recognition that that status was making a significant contribution towards security and co-operation in the Mediterranean.
It is evident that Malta's neutrality has now received recognition from a wide range of countries representing members of both major military alliances, as well as a wide cross-section of members of the Non-Aligned Movement. This recognition has also been given by important international organizations, including the Commonwealth, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Non-Aligned Movement itself.
It is important to emphasize in this context that the two super-Powers have also given Malta their own assurances regarding their respect and support for its neutrality. For us this is of particular significance in the light of the fact that we define our neutrality essentially in terms of the super-Power confrontation in Europe and in the Mediterranean, and we further consider it one of the major objectives of our neutral status to help limit and even reverse the manifestations of that confrontation in our region.
The Government of Malta has in fact repeatedly made it clear that it seeks the reduction and eventual elimination of all foreign armaments, especially the nuclear armaments of the super-Powers, from the Mediterranean. We aim to use both the moral force arising from our neutral status and the close co-operation for peace which it permits us to establish with the neutral States of Europe and the non-aligned Mediterranean States to create the conditions which would make possible a gradual and evenly scaled withdrawal of the navies of both super-Powers from our region. Central to our approach in this context is the objective of giving a greater role in regional matters to the States of the region themselves. We are determined to work with those States to ensure respect for the principle of non-resort to force in all the problems which arise in the region.
Developments in the Mediterranean over the last 12 months have put our endeavors in this direction to a severe test.
By the middle of April of this year a spiral of violence and counter-violence had resulted in the bombings of civilian and military targets in Tripoli and Benghazi by the United States. Even in an international environment in which many of the accepted norms of inter-state behavior remain disregarded, those developments were considered as most unusual and disconcerting. An armed attack by one State against another state in the absence of a declaration of war in itself constitutes an unwelcome action fraught with dangerous simplifications for international peace and security. In the case of the April attack on Libya the danger was immeasurably compounded by the fact that the attacking State was one of the two super-Powers. The risk of retaliation by the other super-Power was real and immediate. Furthermore no Mediterranean state could remain undisturbed that armaments brought into the region in the context of bloc
confrontation were suddenly being used in an attack against a non-aligned State of the region.
An examination of the events which preceded the April bombings reveals not so much a sequence of cause and effect as an erratic and ever widening spiral of violence. Terrorist activities, never absent from our region, had intensified since the previous summer. One recalls the TWA hijacking of June 1985, a grenade attack in Rome in September, the hijacking and landing in Malta of the Egypt Airlines Boeing in November, the attacks at the Rome and Vienna airports in December, and the TWA bombings and the attacks on a Berlin night-club in early April i986.
At the beginning of October 1985 Israeli planes attacked the headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Tunis. This action was followed about ten days later by the forced interception by United States fighters of an Egyptian airline carrying suspected Palestian hijackers. This incident led to friction between two NATO allies, the United states and Italy, and even to a crisis in the Italian Government coalition.
By January there were visible signs of increasing tension between the United states and Libya. United States warships were increasingly deployed in the vicinity of Libya, and the United States President announced severe economic sanctions against Libya and invited his allies to do likewise.
In February Israeli aircraft forced a Libyan Arab Airlines aircraft to land in Israel. In March, during naval maneuvers held by the United States Navy in the Gulf of Sidra, there were armed encounters between United States aircraft and Libyan patrol boats and missile sites.
The bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi on 15 April were themselves effected by fighter units operating from aircraft carriers cruising off the Libyan coast, in addition to other bombers taking off from bases in Britain. Following the bombing on 15 April two Libyan missiles were fired against the Italian island of Lampedusa, which is only about 100 miles to the south-west of Malta.
Behind these events is the untold tragedy of innocent individuals killed or wounded in this erratic violence. They are the immediate and most dramatic victims of a situation which has escaped the constraints of even minimum respect for the norms of international behavior. In a broader perspective, however, the whole international community has fallen victim to these events since they directly threaten the fragile fabric of a rule of law without which regional and global peace and security cannot be preserved.
What h as happened in the Mediterranean over the past few months reflects a sense of despair on the part of those directly concerned that peaceful means do not exist through which they can pursue what they consider their fundamental interests. They have therefore arrogated to themselves arbitrary actions and codes of behavior without any consideration of the wider implications of their activities. This is as true of the random acts of individual terrorists as it is of the ostensibly more carefully deliberated acts of States. A vicious circle has, therefore, been created whereby the ineffectiveness of a multilateral system in redressing fundamental grievances breeds actions and counter-actions which further erode the basis upon which that multilateral system can exist.
When confronted with this increasingly tense situation., one option which neutral Malta could not conceivably consider was to stand by passively without taking any action. On the contrary, and in spite of the fact that there were those that acted otherwise, we exerted strenuous efforts to try to persuade all the States directly concerned to adopt measures for the peaceful settlement of disputes as envisaged in the United Nations Charter and avoid all temptations to use or threaten to use force. In the circumstances we conducted our efforts on two levels.
At the first level, at which action was most urgent, Malta took an immediate and unequivocal stand in its attitude towards acts of terrorism as well as towards the means which should be adopted in resolving differences among the States involved. Our message to the terrorists was clear and firm. Not only did we condemn their actions, but we took all possible measures from our side to block these actions. We were equally clear and firm in our message to the contending States. dialog, not the use or threat of use of force, was the means for resolving difference. In order to bring about a dialog among those directly concerned, Malta's Prime Minister, Karmenu Misfud Bonnici, personally traveled to Libya and Italy, held extensive consultations in Malta 2nd kept all parties fully informed of all his initiatives throughout the months from January to April. It is a stark reminder of the extent of our efforts, as well as of the lack of response by some parties, that Libya's Prime Minister was in Malta consulting with Prime Minister Misfud Bonnici, former Prime Minister Mintoff and myself on ways and means of organizing the dialog only eight hours before Tripoli and Benghazi were attacked.
At the second level, from the earliest days of January Malta sought to bring into application whatever processes and procedures were available at both the international and the regional level to intercede in this dangerous spiral of tension. Foremost among these was the peace-keeping activities of the United Nations Secretary-General and of the Security Council. Twice in the space of two months, first in March and then in April, Malta requested the convening of the Security Council to consider the dangerous situation in the central Mediterranean. In the Council we earnestly urged that the power of reason and good-will be permitted to prevail, that recourse be made exclusively to the measures for the peaceful settlement of disputes envisaged under the Charter and that the United Nations Secretary-General be entrusted with using his good offices in the situation.
At the same time we also explored the possibility of bringing about collective action at the regional level. In this spirit Malta's Prime Minister twice invited his Mediterranean colleagues, first in January and then again in April, to meet in order to discuss and make the corresponding undertakings deriving from the related issues of non-use of force, non-use of bases and dis-allowance of terrorist training in or action from the territories of what were to be contracting parties to a Mediterranean compact for peace.
Unfortunately, none of these initiatives vote fruit, and the spiral of violence reached the stage of an armed attack by one State against another. Events in recent weeks have made it clear that the April bombings were not at all the
remedy they were purported to be but just another escalation in the spiral of violence and tension.
One compensating element in the events of April was the fact that no Mediterranean state, whether aligned or not, permitted the use of its territory for the planned act of aggression against another Mediterranean state. It is such a stirring, however isolated, of that appears to be a regional consciousness that confirms our commitment to continue working foe the eventual transformation of the Mediterranean into a zone of peace, friendship and co-operation. Neutral Malta is determined, if a similar situation should again arise, once again to take peace
initiatives analogous to the ones it pursued earlier this year. Malta also finds ample scope for wide-ranging initiatives, inspired by its status of neutrality and non-alignment, in the various international forums in which it actively participates.
The United Nations forum, harassed as it is by difficulties of an administrative as well as a political nature, remains the corner-stone of all initiatives aimed at the establishment of a more structured and regulated multilateral system. Mich is often made of the voting patterns which emerge in the course of decision-making at the United Nations. Malta's own votes are invariably governed by i ts chosen status of neutrality based on the principles of non-alignment. This was the case during our tenure of the Security Council seat in 1983-1984, as it is still during the annual sessions of the united Nations General Assembly.
Regarding concrete initiatives, we are conscious of the fate that befalls such far-reaching concepts as the one we helped to launch almost 20 years ago concerning the definition of the high seas as the common heritage of mankind. This was adopted unanimously in the late 1960s, debated extensively during the 1970s and translated into a comprehensive convention in the early 1980s. Today the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea languishes awaiting signature by a few of the moat important United Nations Members that labored so publicly for its elaboration. We shall persist in our endeavors to ensure universal adherence to the basic United Nations Convention.
In the light of such frustrating experiences, we have more recently sought to tailor our initiatives more closely to the prevailing realities. This has not prevented us from launching useful initiatives. During this very session of the General Assembly, for example, we shall be seeking to bring to fruition an idea we have long pursued, namely, the creation of an institute for aging, which we should be prepared to host in Malta in the framework of the Foundation for International Studies, which we have recently created. Another initiative which we have actively pursued during General Assembly sessions is the resolve to define the Mediterranean as a zone of peace and co-operation. We have piloted a number of consensus resolutions on this subject in recent years. It is our hope that this year our draft will mark a significant step forward towards our objective. We also find it most useful to pursue functional projects within the framework of the competent organs of the United Nations system. Such functional projects once properly refined can make a significant contribution to the overall objective of regional co-operation and security in the Mediterranean region.
It is in this context that we have proposed to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) the launching of a regional project intended to elaborate a development plan for the whole Mediterranean area. Within the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) we are pursuing the initiative of bringing together the representatives of the three major religions in the Mediterranean region, with the aim of creating the opportunity and tolerance in an area which has unfortunately been the traditional source of deep-rooted divisions and prejudices in our region.
Within the framework of the united Nations Environment Program (UNEP) we continue to participate actively in the action plan for the protection of the Mediterranean environment, a project which not only has been of marked benefit to our region but also served as a model for similar initiatives elsewhere.
The Commonwealth is another forum which as provided Malta with many opportunities for giving concrete application to its dedication to neutrality and non-alignment. Because of the Commonwealth's own previous connection with South Africa, it takes an especially active role in seeking to eliminate the evils of racial oppression and acts of aggression practiced by the white minority regime in South Africa.
Commonwealth actions in this context cover the whole range of possible options. The call for a severe limitation, and where possible total elimination, of all contacts with South Africa, in the commercial, industrial, financial, cultural, sport and other sectors is very clear at the Commonwealth level. At the same time the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation organizes various projects of assistance for student from Namibia and South Africa. These permit even countries with extremely limited national resources like Malta to play a part in these constructive efforts. Indeed many students from Rhodesia in the 1970's, Namibia in the early 1980's, and soon from South Africa itself will have benefited through this scheme from the various training facilities available in Malta. In this way we are also playing a role in the efforts towards bringing about the much needed radical changes in southern Africa, preferably with a minimum of violence and bloodshed.
Through the Non-Aligned Movement Malta has been able to join in many far-reaching initiatives aimed at instituting the process of regional consultations in the Mediterranean. Under a mandate from the Seventh Summit the 11 Foreign Ministers of the Non-Aligned Mediterranean members met in Valletta in September 1984 in a historic first meeting on co-operation for peace and security in the Mediterranean. This first meeting laid the foundations for regular co-operation not only among the Non-Aligned Mediterranean members themselves but also between them and the other States in the region. The Eighth Summit in Harare this September agreed on a mandate for further meetings of Non-Aligned Mediterranean Members. Preparations for the second meeting which is to be held in Yugoslavia in the very near future are actively under way.
Malta's initiatives on the Mediterranean, in the context of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) complement its initiatives within the Non-Aligned Movement. The CSCE forum creates a unique opportunity for collective action by the neutral and Non-Aligned States of the region in the pursuit of Euro-Mediterranean security and co-operation.
The Helsinki Final Act established the principle that there is no security in Europe without security in the Mediterranean. In the Belgrade follow-up meeting of the CSCE Malta launched the initiative for a meeting on Mediterranean co-operation which was held in Valletta in 1979, and to which other Mediterranean States were invited. This was followed in 1984 by a second meeting in Venice. In the Madrid follow-up meeting of the CSCE Malta sought to launch a parallel process of Euro-Mediterranean consultations on security questions. Though this proposal did not receive open support at the time, we are now encouraged to note that General Secretary Gorbachev has recently openly expounded a similar idea. It is our hope that this can now be taken up in the next CSCE follow-up meeting due to start in Vienna next month.
The Vienna meeting will also have before it the results of the first phase of the Conference on disarmament in Europe. The recently concluded Stockholm conference reached significant agreement on measures for confidence and security building in Europe as a prelude to more substantive discussions on disarmament proper due in a subsequent stage. It included amphibious and naval activities supportive of ongoing land activities in the new confidence and security building regime. Naval activities in the Mediterranean, as elsewhere in Europe, are therefore now included in a scheme aimed at reducing the risks of conflict throughout Europe. Malta will seek to ensure that this significant breakthrough will be consolidated in the mandate for the second phase of the Conference to be elaborated in Vienna. We remain convinced, and recent events have amply confirmed, that all naval activities in the Mediterranean have a direct bearing on all security considerations in the whole Euro-Mediterranean region. Another multilateral forum which provides Malta with an opportunity to pursue policies inspired by its neutral and Non-Aligned status is the Council of Europe. Here again the opportunity for co-ordination with the other neutral States of Europe is extremely valuable.
Malta wishes to utilize the Council of Europe forum to resist the concept of Europe as a perpetually divided continent. In this framework Malta co-operates with the other neutral members of the Council of Europe to create as many opportunities as possible for non-member European States to participate in the Council's activities.
At the same time Malta also believes in the need for Council of Europe members to extend an arm of co-operation towards their Arab neighbors in the Mediterranean. Recent events in the Mediterranean, with the focus they have thrown on international terrorism, have created a subject of particular interest and concern both to Europeans and Arabs. This could usefully become the subject of consultations between them. For this purpose Malta has proposed the creation of a small contact group for representatives of the Council of Europe membership to meet representatives of the Arab League membership and discuss the subject in all its aspects. The Secretary-General of the Arab League has signified to us the interest of his membership in this proposal. Malta has already raised the proposal in the appropriate organs of the Council of Europe, and intends to pursue it further, especially during the forthcoming ministerial conference on terrorism.
All peoples and nations of the world have a common understanding of what they mean and intend when they express their deep aspirations for peace and security. It is a fact of life, however, that the means preferred in the pursuit of these common aspirations very often differ radically from one another. Malta is convinced that peace can only be obtained through peaceful means, and that the tools of war invariably lead to bitterness and conflict. We believe that the multilateral system of international relations, based upon respect for the rule of law, and mutual respect among States, is an indispensable approach towards disarmament, security and co-operation, peace and progress, through neutrality and non-alignment, manifestation of these fundamental convictions.
aspect of any successful Malta's dedication to is for us the essential


 It gives me pleasure to convey to you. Sir, my most sincere congratulations on your election as President of this session of the General Assembly. We find your election even more gratifying since you represent a country with which my country has enjoyed a long history of friendly relations and common interests. I am convinced that your ability and your long experience will guarantee that this session will be successful and that positive results will be reached. I should also like to express our appreciation for the efforts made by your predecessor, Ambassador de Pinies.
This session is being held at a time marked by complex international relations caused by mounting international tension, an escalation in the arms race, particularly the nuclear arms race, increasing interference in the internal affairs of States, the use of aggression and force and the threat of such use, in various forms and ways. Finally, it is also due to the grave deterioration of the international economy, which afflicts us all.
One of the most important objectives of this Organization is the preservation of peace - the peace that ensures sovereignty, security and the dignity of all peoples. It is no mere chance, therefore, that the Charter of the United Nations has placed on us the collective responsibility of safeguarding this noble human objective.
The responsibility of preserving peace obliges us to make further efforts to alleviate tension between the super-Powers in order to provide the stability necessary for the development of international relations. It is our duty therefore to urge the two super-Powers to come together and work for the establishment of
international detente, without which no solid foundation for international peace and security can be established. There is no doubt that disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, continues to be an important factor in achieving the stability that must be achieved in international relations because of the great material and human potential that it will release to the development process. We should not forget, in this regard, to refer with appreciation to the positive initiatives of the Soviet Union in the field of disarmament. We hope the United States will meet those initiatives with a positive response.
Our collective responsibility in the achievement of peace dictates that we should also resolve the problems confronting some regions by peaceful means and through negotiations based on the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. That is why we call for a peaceful solution to the problems of Cyprus, Afghanistan, Kampuchea and Central America on the basis of respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs and the territorial integrity of all States concerned. This will enable the peoples of those States to strengthen their unity and face up to the challenges of reconstruction and development.
We must also live up to our responsibilities in confronting all forms of foreign domination and in liberating the peoples of southern Africa from the yoke of the oppressive policies of apartheid and racial discrimination imposed by the Pretoria regime, which persists in flagrantly violating the human principles of equality among all men by its continued occupation of Namibia and its perpetration of acts of aggression against the front-line States.
In accordance with the principles laid down in the United Nations Charter, Iraq strongly supports the Namibian people in their struggle for independence under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), their sole legitimate representative, and stands by the black people of South Africa in their legitimate struggle for equality, liberty and dignity. We also support the imposition of sanctions upon the apartheid regime, which would be consonant with the principles of the Charter.
Our region, and my country in particular, being continually subjected to aggression, are among the areas in the world most greatly in need of peace, stability and the implementation of the principles upon which this Organization was founded.
The Palestine people, homeless now for decades, is being subjected in exile to repeated military raids and acts of genocide which aim to erase its national identity. The Palestinians are being subjected to all kinds of pressures and maneuvers in an attempt to distort the facts and impose solutions of submission and surrender upon it and upon the Arab nation.
Zionism and Israel have been perpetrating these violations and inhuman practices in complete disregard of humanitarian principles and of the United Nations Charter and its resolutions. Practices such as these have reduced the Arab region to a state of continuing crisis, and the region is thus in urgent need of peace, security and stability. Zionist terrorism and Israeli violations have not been limited to the Palestinians of the diaspora, but have also affected those living under Israeli occupation and facing the Zionist policies of violation of human rights, racial discrimination, deportation, displacement, confiscation of property, the establishment of Zionist settlements on Arab lands and all kinds of measures which aim to distort and erase the identity and cultural heritage of the Palestinian people.
Peace and stability in the Middle East cannot be achieved without the Palestinian people exercising its inalienable national right to return to its homeland, determine its own destiny and establish its own State in accordance with its own independent will. Iraq supports most vigorously the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, in its just struggle for the achievement of the legitimate aspirations of the Arab people of Palestine.
Thus the Israeli and Zionist acts of aggression against the Arab nation have become an obvious reality, but Israel no longer stands alone in perpetrating such acts in the area, for over the past seven years it has had an ally that shares with it the same objectives and methods of terrorism, aggression and distortion of facts, which aim to dominate the Arab region, destroy its unity and tear it apart into sectarian and racist mini-States at war with one another, depriving it of its historic opportunity for reconstruction and progress.
This similarity is clearly demonstrated by what is happening today in Lebanon, where the Tel Aviv and Tehran regimes are spreading disorder, anarchy, killing and destruction. It is oily in such a political climate that these two anomalous regimes and their agents can spread their influence in this misery-stricken country. We therefore stand firmly by the Lebanese people in its struggle for peace, stability and national unity, its struggle to end the Zionist occupation of its territory and to outside interference in its internal affairs.
At the other end of the region, the Iranian regime is pursuing the same objectives as those of the Zionist regime, by similar methods. Iran is trying to impose its racist hegemony through distortion of facts, aggression, expansion, and war. It was with this aim that the Iranian rulers launched their wide-scale aggression against Iraq on 4 September 1980, and have continued it ever since.
The Iranian armed aggression against Iraq has entered its seventh year and although the facts of this aggression have been placed, on more than one occasion, before this Organization, I find it necessary to remind the Assembly of them not for the sake of repetition, but because what is happening today is in actual fact a repetition in itself of the events that took place around this time in 1980. Indeed, what is happening now explains what happened then.
During 1979, the year in which the present regime took over power in Iran, Iraq's interests were, as they have always been, very much linked to the preservation of security and stability in the area and to the maintenance of the most amicable relations possible with its neighbors and with the world at large. Iraq had no interest whatsoever in stirring up troubles with its neighbors or with any other country.
The Khomeini regime, on the other hand, adopted a policy which it has enshrined in its new constitution, by which it assigned itself sectarian religious jurisdiction over the affairs of all Muslims. The regime began exporting this policy by military force and found in Iraq its first target.
The policy of exporting revolution, which represents the cornerstone of the Iranian regime, is a fact that the Iranian Government does not deny. Indeed, the Iranian rulers see in their policy their prime objective to which they have geared all Iran's potential and resources, and in pursuit of which they have employed agents not only in the Islamic world but in the world at large. In pursuing this course, Iran has adopted the ill-famed opportunistic doctrine: "The end justifies the means".
Proceeding from this aggressive policy, which is alien to the spirit of an age that had long ago rid itself of Nazism and fascism, the Iranian regime began a persistent campaign of aggression against Iraq throughout 1979 and the first nine months of 1980, a campaign that led to the outbreak of war between two neighboring
coin tries that had succeeded for years in establishing good neighborly relations between them.
The Khomeini regime assigned to itself the overthrow of Iraq's socio-political system as a basic task which it considered to be a divine duty and an unquestionable right. The Iranian regime attempted to spread acts of terrorism and subversion inside Iraq by employing Iranian nationals to carry out such acts and by inciting civil disobedience in I rag with a view to paralyzing the Government and its apparatus. The rulers of Iran openly called for the assassination of high government officials in Iraq and actually sent out Iranian agents to carry out that task. The Iranian regime invited the puppet Barzani clique back into Iran and began providing it with the assistance and the means to carry out subversive operations against Iraq. Since that contravened the 1975 Agreement requiring Iran to refrain from supporting the said clique, it amounted to a brazen declaration that Iran was no longer prepared to abide by the said Agreement. These acts and measures were accompanied by innumerable, almost daily, Iranian public statements threatening aggression against Iraq, and against its sovereignty and security, and promising the overthrow of its legitimate Government.
Furthermore, Iranian officials vied, with each other in the pursuit of this course, as they still do today. It has always been the case that the noisier and more blatantly belligerent an Iranian official is in supporting the Iranian regime's policy of aggression the better chance he stands of securing the approval and support of Khomeini.
Along with this, there was during 1979 and 1980 a series of military violations of the Iraqi border. Over the period from February 1979 to September 1980, Iranian military aircraft committed 249 violations of Iraqi airspace. Acts such as cross-border firing and attacks against Iraqi border posts, artillery shelling, obstruction of navigation in the Shatt-el-Arab River, Iraq's vital artery, and bombardment of civilian centers, totaled 244 over the period from June 1979 to September 1980. Iraqi civilian aircraft were fired on three times during the period from August 1980 to September 1980. Iraqi economic plants and oil installations were shelled seven times over the period from January to September 1980.
Throughout the time when these deliberate acts were being committed, Iraq tried to communicate with the Iranian rulers through diplomatic channels and warn them against continuing the course of aggression that they had adopted in the hope that they might listen to reason and comply with the principles of international law, so much so that the official notes sent by the Iraqi Government about Iranian violations numbered 293, all of which were of no avail.
On 4 September 1980 the situation witnessed a grave development when the Iranian armed forces used heavy 175 millimeter artillery in shelling the Iraqi towns of Khanaqin, Mendili, Zurbatiya and Naft-Khaneh. The shelling was done from Iraqi territories which were to have been returned to Iraq in accordance with the 1975 Agreement. Having refused to hand back those territories, the Iranian regime began massing troops cm them instead, thus willfully threatening the sovereignty and
security of Iraq an two counts? first - by the willful military occupation of its territories; and secondly, by willfully shelling Iraqi towns with heavy artillery from those same occupied Iraqi territories.
Notwithstanding the fact that on 7 September 1980, Iraq drew I ran !s attention to this conduct which was contrary to Iran's international obligations and asked the Iranian Government to desist from its military encroachments upon Iraqi territory, Iranian shelling continued unabated. Iraq was then left with no other alternative but to exercise its right to legitimate self-defense under the Charter and international law and remove the Iranian occupiers. Thus Iraq was careful to communicate with the Iranian Government on 8 and 11 September 1980, trying on each of these occasions to draw the Iranian Governments attention to the necessity of adhering to its international obligation, including the Agreement of 1975.
In the light of such clear evidence about Iran's attitude, and having waited for six whole days following the delivery of its note of 11 September 1980, the Iraqi Government was left with no doubt about the Iranian Government's deliberate violation of the 1975 Agreement and of the elements of the comprehensive settlement embodied therein. Iran had unilaterally abrogated that Agreement in order to extricate itself from its obligations, relating to the demarcation of the border and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs, and so that it could continue its military operations against Iraqi towns and installations, with a view to achieving Khomeini's overriding objective of overthrowing the legitimate Government in Iraq and turning our country into an Iranian province. Hence, Iraq, having seen Iran abrogate the 1975 Agreement by word and deed, was left with no other choice but to consider that agreement as null and void in accordance with its fourth paragraph and with article 4 of the Treaty on International Frontiers and Good-neighborliness, which was based cm it.
Iraq's diplomatic and legal initiative of 11 September 1980 fell on deaf ears in Iran. In fact Iranian leaders called it a conspiracy organized by the Shah. Their response was further Iranian use of military force and even graver threats to the safety and security of Iraq.
The Iranian Government continued to escalate the military conflict and, with effect from 19 September 1980, began intensifying its heavy artillery shelling and air bombardment of residential areas and vital economic installations in Iraq, as well as Iraqi and foreign commercial vessels entering and leaving the Shatt-el-Arab River, its navigable channels and its inlets into the Arab Gulf. The Iranian authorities announced Iran's airspace closed to civil aviation and the Straits of Horrauz closed to Iraqi shipping, and at the same time it declared general mobilization, massed large military forces on the borders end began a large-scale military action in which its regular armed forces were used openly. Beginning on 18 September 1980, the Iranian armed forces issued four military communiques on their activities. In the third communique, issued on 19 September 1980, the Iranian authorities boasted about setting ablaze the Na ft-Khan eh oilfields, one of Iraq's important oil-producing areas. In the fourth communique in 1980 the Iranian authorities boasted about demolishing more than 14 tanks, apart from setting an oilfield ablaze.
Iran's acts and attitudes prior to 22 September 1980 constituted as a whole a flagrant violation of the principles and provisions of the international law governing friendly relations among nations as laid down in the General Assembly's Declaration on friendly relations adopted by consensus in resolution 2526 (XXV), on 24 October 1970. Among the salient principles embodied in that declaration are the principles and provisions of good-neighborliness, of non-interference in internal affairs, of sovereign equality of States, and the duty of implementing in good faith international obligations.
Further acre, the end result of the series of Iranian aggressive acts and measures, manifested in the first place in Iran's initiation of the use of military force against Iraq with effect from 4 September 1980, comes under the concept of armed aggression, direct or indirect, as defined in General Assembly resolution 3 J14 (XXIX), adopted by consensus on 14 December 1374.
The measures taken by the Government of Iraq since 4 September 1980 to face up to Iran's continued aggression have been in conformity with the right of self-defense in view of the fulfillment of the two conditions of necessity and reasonableness set by international law for the legitimate exercise of such rights.
The essential difference between the positions adopted by the two parties has been clear since 1979. It was as clear during the period prior to the outbreak of the war as it has been throughout these six years of fighting. One party, Iraq, believes in international law and good-neighborly relations, rejecting the policy of tutelage over others and seeking to safeguard its sovereignty, security and right to determine its own way in life. The other party, on the other hand, believes in an ideology alien to the laws of the age, a fanatic, aggressive, expansionist ideology the imposition of which on others, by any means available, is considered to be a divine duty.
Iran is the party that, in the pursuit of its objectives, has used all possible methods, including armed force, murder, lies and fabrication. Those methods, while condemned by mankind, seem quite legitimate to the Iranian regime as long as they help it attain its desired objectives. What happened during 1979 and 1980 has been repeated over the six years of the war. Indeed, it is being repeated today. The Iranian regime is now beating the drums of war and perpetrating armed aggression against Iraq, reiterating the same old slogans of 1979 and 1980. After six years of war, that regime has neither changed its course nor given up its ambitions. Its business is to wage war, and its aim is to expand.
Iranian representatives to this Organization and to other forums try, through deception and fabrication, to distort the facts. They claim that Iraq invaded their country to overthrow the regime in Tehran. That was what they said recently in Harare before the representatives of 101 non-aligned States. We challenge them,
as we did in Harare, to produce any evidence to this effect. There is an endless catalog of evidence beginning in February 1979 and continuing to this day which shows that the Iranian regime has always had the overthrow of Iraq's political system at the center of its objectives. -here is a mass of evidence, too, of Iranian attempts to destabilize other Governments in the region. But we challenge the Iranian regime to produce evidence substantiating its claims against Iraq.
Confident of our position and of the justice of our cause, confident too that we have always been faithful to the principles and values cherished by this Organization and the international community, we have over the years challenged the Iranian regime to accept United Nations arbitration, or that of any other international organization or forum, on the two questions relating to the initiation of the aggression and the continuance of the war, so that no doubt may linger in this respect. The General Assembly is well aware that the Iranian regime has always rejected, and does today, that proposal, which is in conformity with the principles of the Charter, international law and the practice of states, simply because it cannot prove its allegations or substantiate its lies. All it can afford to do is to live under the shadow of war, immersed in a blood-bath and amidst the corpses of its dead.
The representatives of the Iranian regime claim in this and other international forums that the war was imposed upon them. We ask this: which party is it that regards the war as a divine mission? Is it Iraq or Iran? How can a war be imposed upon a State when the State itself considers it a godsend and insists upon its continuance as a divine duty and a perpetual mission? What the rulers of Iran used to state six years ago and repeat hysterically today is in itself sufficient evidence as to the party that started the aggression and initiated the war.
This fundamental difference between the positions of the two parties has been clearly demonstrated throughout the six years of the armed conflict. From the outset, Iraq has expressed its readiness to settle the dispute by peaceful means, according to the rules of international law and on the basis of respect for the sovereignty of each people and its right to determine its own political and social system. Iraq has always accepted United Nations jurisdiction over the dispute. For its part, the Iranian regime has rejected all this and insisted on continuing the war while declaring its intention to overthrow the Government in Iracr and impose its tutelage over the people of Iraq and the other peoples of the region.
During the last session of this Assembly I explained in detail how the Iranian regime had rejected peace immediately after starting its war against Iraq and set absurd pre-conditions for ending its aggression, pre-conditions that are in sharp contravention of the rules of international law and the principles regulating relations among States; pre-conditions, indeed, that reflect accurately the nature of the Iranian regime, which is both anomalous and alien to our world, and the aggressive, expansionist, evil dilections of that regime.
I also referred to the international efforts made to resolve certain questions arising from the dispute so as to lessen its complexity, in the hope that step by step a comprehensive peace could be achieved. I explained how the Iranian regime had responded to those efforts in an opportunistic way as long as they served its plans to prolong the war and achieve its morbid dreams of dominating Iraq and the countries of the region. I pointed out to the General Assembly that the common denominator in Iran's methods of tackling the various aspects of the dispute was the adoption of a selective approach to the Charter and international law, taking only such elements of the law as suited its self-interest and served its plans for continuing the war, while rejecting the elements that called for peace, justice,
respect for sovereignty, good-neighborliness, non-interference in internal affairs, and renunciation of the concepts of hegemony and tutelage and the methods of violence, terror and aggression.
It was Iran's strange conduct that led us to respond with great caution to the efforts to find partial solutions to the problems arising from the dispute. I announced here in the General AssemblyP and repeat today, that it was on the basis of that stance on our part, a stance steaming from experience corroborated by fact, that we conducted our discussions with the Secretary-General in 1985 both in Mew York, following his eight-point proposal to the two parties, and during his visit to Baghdad.
What happened, however, as the Assembly is well aware, was that the courtesy and appeasement with which the Iranian regime was treated impeded the sound implementation of the principles of the United Nations Chatter and international law, for it lifted the political pressure already exercised on this aberrant regime and hence encouraged it, in effect, to continue its aggression. Allow me to stress once more that to be courteous co aggressive and expansionist regimes neither helps in the establishment of peace, nor contributes to the strengthening of security and stability; for such regimes usually see in any international appeasement or courtesy extended to them a willingness to overlook their crimes and violations of the rules governing relations among States. Appeasement and courtesy, therefore, encourage such regimes to persist in aggression and subversion, which is what has actually happened with Iran.
On the night of 9-10 February 1986, the Iranian regime launched a big military offensive which resulted in its forces occupying the Iraqi port of Faw. Iran began speaking of "the liberation of Iraq" and issuing threats against the Arab Gulf States advising them to deal with the invasion forces as their new neighbor. The Security Council, as the Assembly is aware, spent many days discussing this development. During the discussion Iraq declared that it was not prepared to accept any course that was not in line with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, international law and inter-State practice in the settlement of international disputes. Iraq also called for an end to be put, once and for all, to the selective and partial approaches to the question, to vague statements, and to the efforts that fail to emphasize the pivotal issue of ending the war in accordance with international rules, we also made it clear that erroneous diplomatic judgements have cost us rivers of blood and untold devastation, and encouraged the Iranian regime to persist in its war with an arrogance unprecedented in the history of the United Nations.
The result of the Security Council deliberations was the unanimous adoption on 24 February of resolution 582 {1986) which contained a comprehensive framework for the settlement of the dispute. Despite the fact that the Council adopted this resolutions without being influenced by the attitudes of the two parties, the Iranian regime refused to abide by it. Iranian officials declared time and again that they would carry on with their war against Iraq in execution of a "divine duty" by which they were entrusted with "the liberation of the Iraqi people." They also announced that they were soaking preparations for a new invasion of Iraq in further discharge of that duty; and new offensives were actually launched against the northern and southern parts of Iraq on the nights of 31 August-1 September and 10-11 September. Then the Iranian rulers pointed out that these offensives were only a prelude to what they described as "the decisive offensive." In spite of all this the United Nations and its competent organs are still reluctant to exercise their authority seriously and to discharge the responsibility entrusted to them in the Charter. Resolution 582 (1986) still awaits earnest attention and practical implementation.
An essential difference between the two parties is also seen in their respective positions on the issue of security and stability in the region. All States in the region have expressed concern over Iran's policy of destabilization and disturbance. The Organization may recall the complaint filed by the States of the Gulf Co-operation Council in 1984 against the Iranian regime following Iranian acts of aggression against commercial vessels trading with these countries. The Security Council then adopted resolution 522 (1982) which was subsequently rejected by Iran in the same way as it had rejected the Council's resolutions on the Iran-Iraq dispute. Iran continued its acts of aggression and piracy against
shipping in the Gulf. I should like to refer in this connection to the statements issued by the Gulf Co-operation Council during their meetings of 1-2 March 1986 and 26-27 August 1986.
The Iranian and Zionist regimes have become the two main sources of threat to the security and stability of the region. They are the only regimes in the region which flout the resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly. They are the only regimes which use force in pursuit of their territorial ambitions and in imposing their tutelage on the peoples of the region. They are unrivaled in the art of lying, misrepresentation and the distortion of facts. While adopting similar ideologies, they both use methods that are obsolete and contrary to the spirit of the age in justifying their policies and deluding their followers. No wonder, therefore, that not only have they found strong allies in each other, but they are also conducting a common fight against Iraq, in Lebanon and in other areas. The Zionist regime exploited the circumstances of the war waged by Iran against Iraq and in June 1981 attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor intended for peaceful uses. Arms co-operation between the two regimes is as extensive as the stories about it have become commonplace in the world press. Like all hypocrites and impostors, the representatives of these two regimes come to this forum to exchange abuse in order to deceive the international community. However, the light of truth cannot be hidden behind a web of lies and misrepresentation of the kind employed by the rulers of Tel Aviv and Tehran.
The political struggle of the peoples of the region should be geared towards putting an end to the Zionist and Iranian aggression, and towards confronting the common campaign of racism and expansion conducted by the forces of Zionism and Khomeinism, so that these peoples may live in security, peace and freedom.
Our people has demonstrated throughout six years of fighting its undoubted capability to crush the aggressors, protect its independence and sovereignty and to abort the expansionist dreams of the Iranian regime. Despite the sacrifices made by our valiant people in its pursuit of peace and in defense of its freedom and dignity against the Iranian aggression, our people has never hesitated to extend its hand to peace time and again. Our most recent call for peace came in the open letter addressed by President Saddam Hussein to the rulers of Iran on 2 August 1986, in which he invited them to an honorable peace based on the following principles: first, a total, comprehensive and unconditional withdrawal to the internationally recognized boundaries; secondly, a total and comprehensive exchange of prisoners of war; thirdly, the signing of a peace and non-aggression treaty between the two countries; fourthly, non-interference in each other's internal affairs and mutual respect for each country's choices; fifthly, both Iraq and Iran must be positive elements in all that might contribute to the establishment of stability and security in the region as a whole, and in the Arab Gulf in particular.
Although these principles should have been sufficient to safeguard the legitimate rights of both parties, the Iranian regime rejected them, and resorted to raising doubts about the possibility of a renewed escalation of the war in an attempt to justify its anomalous attitude. In order to remove all doubt, we announced our willingness to accept a guarantee from the five permanent members of the Security Council concerning mutual non-aggression between the two parties. We also expressed our readiness to have the agreement on such a guarantee properly documented at the United Nations, and further stated that if this proposal was not to meet with Iranian acceptance, then we would propose an alternative: that the guarantee for mutual non-aggression should come from 60 countries, 30 of which
would be selected by Iran and 30 by Iraq. We also proposed another alternative according to which the guarantee for mutual non-aggression could come from member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. This was in addition to Iraq's readiness to be party to a treaty of non-aggression and good-neighborliness involving all States on the Arab Gulf besides Iraq and Iran.
Such a treaty should state in clear and basic terms that, if any signatory State perpetrated aggression against a fellow State- then all States parties to the Treaty should use military force to put an end to the aggression.
Iran also rejected these proposals, a fact which exposed yet age in the Iranian regime's false claims about the guarantees. Iran's rejection confirmed once again that the sole objective of its regime was to wage war, nothing but war.
Those have been our attitudes and those of Iran. Our demands are clear and simple: we want an honorable peace that safeguards the rights and interests of both parties on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law and practice. That has always been our policy with regard to Iran from the very beginning, and it will continue to be our policy regardless of the sacrifices that our people has to make in defending its dignity and honor and in safeguarding the sovereignty, territorial integrity and cultural heritage of our country.
The United Nations cannot, and should not, remain neutral vis-^-vis two such sharply contrasting stands: one totally committed to the Organization, its Charter and its principles; the other scorning it, rejecting its resolutions, and using it merely as a forum for promoting its lies and as a means for continuing the war and threatening the security and stability of the region. It is incumbent upon the United Nations, on the basis of its Charter and in accordance with the responsibilities entrusted to it, to abandon its old negative stand in favor of a new one, a serious and responsible stand that would warn the oarty insisting on war against such insistence, and would show that the Organization was prepared to punish the perpetrator and exert all kinds of pressure upon it to make it desist from the aggression and accept peace.
The United Nations and its various bodies should also endeavor to establish peace on the basis of the resolutions of the Security Council, the organ entrusted
with the task of preserving peace. It would be a grave violation of the Charter if the Council's resolutions were in any way ignored in favor of partial diplomatic proposals and appeals, or useless statements of the kind that we have heard throughout the six years of the conflict.
We look forward to seeing the United Nations shoulder its responsibility for the maintenance of peace through the position it takes on what has now become the longest war of the century. It is only by living up to its responsibilities that this Organization can justify its existence and deserve the confidence of the peoples of the world.