Statement by Iraq's Ambassador to UN
Source Ken Hanly
Date 03/04/04/23:25

March 27

MOHAMMED A. ALDOURI (Iraq) said that his country -- a founding Member of
the United Nations -- was being subjected to aggression, which was killing
women, children and the elderly.  Sanctions, which have lasted for almost 13
years, were also having a terrible effect on the country.  The goal of
changing the regime in his country, which had been proclaimed by the United
States, constituted a blatant violation of international law and the Charter
of the United Nations.  The humanitarian effect of the war was devastating.
The lack of water in Basra, for example, was likely to lead to outbreaks of
disease.  A mosque in Baghdad had been destroyed.  In an attempt to
terrorize Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom conducted some
2,000 bombing sorties a day.  The forces of the Iraqi army and the people of
the country were fighting a heroic battle against the aggression, however.

The Council must take action to make sure that the rules of international
law were observed, he continued.  While the aggressors said that their goal
was disarmament of Iraq, everybody knew that they were not the ones tasked
with that mandate.  The inspections during several months had found no
evidence of weapons of mass destruction or proscribed activities within
Iraq.  The real reason was occupation of the country, its recolonization and
controlling its oil wealth.

The international community was also well aware that the Security Council
had not authorized the use of force by the United States and the United
Kingdom, he said.  Despite the position of the majority of the members of
the Council and Iraq's cooperation, the two countries had launched their
aggressive war, which constituted a blatant material breach of international
law and the United Nations Charter.  It was also a material breach of
relevant Security Council resolutions, which, without exception, called for
respect for Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity.  This barbaric
colonial military aggression against Iraq constituted a threat to
international peace and security.  The Council was called upon to stop the
aggression and demand the withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom
forces from the territory of Iraq.  The Council must impose respect for its
resolutions, particularly those relating to unjustified embargo against his
country.  He was still hopeful that the international community would be
able to impose its will on those who had broken the international law.  A
failure to do so would mean the end of the United Nations system.

It was also peculiar that instead of considering the aggression itself, the
Council had been busy discussing the humanitarian aspects of the problem, he
added.  Shouldn't the Council pay attention to the cessation of the
aggression was first?  Wasn't that putting the cart in front of the horse?
The oil-for-food programme had been stopped, and the inspectors had been
withdrawn from Iraq, with the Council's blessing.  How had the Council
allowed itself to be manipulated into such a situation?  It was his hope
that the Council would be able to stand up to the aggressors.

[View the list]

InternetBoard v1.0
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho