United Nations S/PV.4336

Security CouncilFifty-sixth year

4336th meetingTuesday, 26 June 2001, 3.15 p.m.New York

Provisional

This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of speechesdelivered in the other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the SecurityCouncil. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should beincorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegationconcerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room C-178.

01-42649 (E)

*0142649*

President: Mr. Chowdhury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Bangladesh)

Members: China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Wang YingfanColombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. ValdiviesoFrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. LevitteIreland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. RyanJamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miss DurrantMali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. KasséMauritius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. NeeworNorway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. KolbyRussian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. LavrovSingapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ms. LeeTunisia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. MejdoubUkraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. KuchinskyUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . . . . . Sir Jeremy GreenstockUnited States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Cunningham

Agenda

The situation between Iraq and Kuwait

Letter dated 15 June 2001 from the Permanent Representative of the RussianFederation to the United Nations addressed to the President of the SecurityCouncil (S/2001/597).

2

S/PV.4336

The meeting was called to order at 3.55 p.m.

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

The situation between Iraq and Kuwait

Letter dated 15 June 2001 from the PermanentRepresentative of the Russian Federation to theUnited Nations addressed to the President ofthe Security Council (S/2000/597)

The President: I should like to inform theCouncil that I have received letters from therepresentatives of Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Canada,Germany, India, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, theLibyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, the Netherlands,New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain,Sweden, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and Yemen,in which they request to be invited to participate in thediscussion of the item on the Council’s agenda. Inaccordance with the usual practice, I propose, with theconsent of the Council, to invite those representativesto participate in the discussion without the right tovote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of theCharter and rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rulesof procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Al-Douri(Iraq) took a seat at the Council table; Mr. Stuart(Australia), Mr. Pfanzelter (Austria), Mr. Buallay(Bahrain), Mr. Heinbecker (Canada), Mr. Kastrup(Germany), Mr. Sharma (India), Mr. Francese(Italy), Mr. Akasaka (Japan), Prince Zeid Ra’adZeid Al-Hussein (Jordan), Mr. Abulhasan(Kuwait), Mr. Dorda (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya),Mr. Hasmy (Malaysia), Mr. van den Berg(Netherlands), Mr. MacKay (New Zealand),Mr. Shobokshi (Saudi Arabia), Ms. Ndhlovu(South Africa), Mr. Arias (Spain), Mr. Schori(Sweden), Mr. Mekdad (Syrian Arab Republic),Mr. Pamir (Turkey) and Mr. Al-Ashtal (Yemen)took the seats reserved for them at the side of theCouncil Chamber.

The President: I should like to inform theCouncil that I have received a letter dated 25 June 2001from the Permanent Representative of Tunisia, whichreads as follows:

“I have the honour to request thatAmbassador Dr. Hussein Hassouna, PermanentObserver of the League of Arab States to theUnited Nations, be allowed to participate withoutthe right to vote in accordance with the relevantprovisions of the United Nations Charter and rule39 of the provisional rules of procedure of theSecurity Council in the Council’s discussion ofthe item presently on its agenda, ‘The situationbetween Iraq and Kuwait’.”

This letter will be issued as a document of theSecurity Council under the symbol S/2001/631. If Ihear no objection, I shall take it that the Council agreesto extend an invitation under rule 39 to Mr. Hassouna.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

I invite Mr. Hassouna to take the seat reserved forhim at the side of the Council Chamber.

The Security Council will now begin itsconsideration of the item on its agenda. The Council ismeeting in response to the request contained in a letterdated 15 June 2001 from the Permanent Representativeof the Russian Federation to the United Nationsaddressed to the President of the Security Council,document S/2001/597.

I should like to draw the attention of the membersof the Council to document S/2001/603, which containsthe text of a letter dated 18 June 2001 from thePermanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nationsaddressed to the Secretary-General.

Mr. Lavrov (Russian Federation) (spoke inRussian): The Russian Federation proposed theconvening of today’s meeting in this open format, withthe participation of all interested States, in order toconsider ways of improving the humanitarian situationin Iraq under the devastating sanctions that have beenin place for so many years, as well as the question of acomprehensive post-conflict settlement in the Gulfregion on the basis of relevant Security Councilresolutions.

Resolution 1352 (2001) of 1 June clearly definedthe main goal of possible changes in the Iraqihumanitarian programme: facilitating trade andeconomic ties between Iraq and the rest of the world.Accordingly, we participated in work on variouspossible ways of improving the humanitarian operationand very seriously considered all the various proposals

3

S/PV.4336

made, including the draft resolution submitted by theUnited Kingdom.

I must say frankly that the deeper we get into thedetails of proposed changes in the sanctions regime, themore our doubts grow as to the feasibility of theconcept enshrined in that draft and its political viabilityvis-à-vis the prospects for a lasting settlement in Iraq.

One basic element is that the system proposed inthe draft resolution leads us away from the task of fullimplementation of Security Council resolutions on Iraqand basically requires the freezing of the currentsituation, in which sanctions are preserved withunacceptable consequences for the people and economyof Iraq and no progress is made on disarmament.Specifically, the key elements of the United Kingdomdraft appear to lead not to easing the very harsheconomic situation of Iraq, but rather to tightening thesanctions.

Many questions are raised by the authors’proposal of a “goods review list” for deliveries to Iraq.Until recently, the Security Council proceeded on thepremise that, in order to ensure that Iraq did notresume its programme of weapons of mass destruction,it was quite sufficient to have the so-called “1051 list”,including in the post-sanctions period. That list isalready in effect and a procedure in place for its regularreview. Such a review has just been carried out by theUnited Nations Monitoring, Verification and InspectionCommission (UNMOVIC) and the revised list requiresfurther study. In any event, we believe that the list willcontinue to be applied on the basis of resolution 1051(1996).

It is now being said that the authors of the newconcept regard the “1051 list” as inadequate. Theywant to include in their “goods review list” goods fromthe so-called Wassenaar Arrangements. ThoseArrangements, however, which bring together a limitedgroup of countries on a voluntary basis, are alreadybeing applied in practice, inter alia, in respect of Iraq.Giving those Arrangements a “sanctions status” underChapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations wouldhave very serious legal and political consequences.

Above and beyond the Wassenaar Arrangements,a third part is being proposed for this “goods reviewlist”, in which there would be a list of additionalproducts also subject to monitoring for delivery intoIraq. Included in this third category are goods definedin such a way that it would be possible, via very vague

procedures for considering contracts, to block projectsthat are essential to the recovery of the energy, oil,industrial and other areas of Iraq’s economy. Ananalysis demonstrates that this list of goods would notbe broader, but would be rather more prohibitive. Itsapproval could undermine prospects for the industrialdevelopment of Iraq.

The draft resolution contains nothing investmentor economic projects — and not only infrastructureprojects — which runs contrary to resolution 1352(2001) in respect of facilitating economic ties with Iraq.There is also total silence concerning the fate of theMemorandum of Understanding between Iraq and theUnited Nations, on which the humanitarian programmehas been based to date. It would therefore appear thatthis new scheme is to be introduced without Baghdad’sconsent, and that is utterly unrealistic. Moreover, it iscontrary to the decisions of the Council concerning theneed to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrityof Iraq.

Overall, the concept that has been put togetherchanges the very essence of the humanitarianprogramme of the United Nations, politicizes it andmakes it and UNMOVIC into an instrument forapplying sanctions pressure. Attempts to use thehumanitarian operation to resolve tasks unrelated to itwould bury all hope for a resumption of ongoingdisarmament monitoring in Iraq and the legal lifting ofthe anti-Iraq sanctions, pursuant to Security Councildecisions.

The perpetuation of sanctions can make thesituation in the Gulf much worse. Given the conditionsof the crisis in the Middle East, this would raiseregional tension to a qualitatively new level of danger.Neighbouring States of Iraq and other States of theregion already see this new concept as a threat to theirnew socio-economic and political stability. We are alsoconcerned that, as a result of introducing these so-called “smart” sanctions, serious damage could be doneto the legitimate trade and economic interests of manycountries, including Russia.

We feel that the adoption of the proposed draftresolution on smart sanctions would be detrimental toaverting the humanitarian catastrophe, devastate theIraqi economy and work against a post-conflictsettlement in the Gulf region.

Taking account of all these factors, we cannotagree to this draft resolution, which seems unadoptable.

4

S/PV.4336

This certainly does not mean that Russia is notprepared to discuss further questions of how thehumanitarian operation functions. However, such adiscussion must not be politicized and must be gearedtowards reaching agreement on measures that wouldgenuinely improve the humanitarian programme inorder to undertake tasks that are truly humanitarian.

At the same time, Russia feels that we must delayno longer the resumption of Security Council work on acomprehensive settlement of the Iraqi problem.Everyone knows that this work was interrupted becauseof the hasty adoption of resolution 1284 (1999), whichcontained too many gaps and too much ambiguity thatmade the resolution not implementable in its currentform. Since then, we have consistently advocatedcreating the necessary conditions and mechanisms forimplementing the resolution, but some States membersof the Security Council did not want that. The deadlockthat has arisen as a result made us unable to implementthe Secretary-General’s initiative concerning acomprehensive dialogue between the United Nationsand Iraq on all pending problems.

We regard the status quo as unacceptable, sotoday we have introduced a specific proposal thatcontains clear criteria for suspending and then liftingsanctions that are tied to the deployment in Iraq of theongoing monitoring and verification system on thebasis of implementation of existing resolutions of theSecurity Council. We are convinced that there is simplyno alternative to this comprehensive approach if we allwant to achieve a lasting settlement around Iraq and inthe entire Gulf region that is strictly in accordance withresolutions of the United Nations.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom): TheUnited Kingdom welcomes this meeting. The SecurityCouncil is at an important point in its consideration ofthis issue. It is right for us to hear the views of otherMembers of the United Nations before we takedecisions.

There are two principles which have guided usand must continue to guide us in the Council inhandling Iraq. They are clearly enshrined in resolution1352 (2001). First, it is our responsibility in theCouncil to prevent Iraq from posing a threat to itsregion and, as part of this, to ensure that Iraq is fullyand verifiably disarmed of its weapons of massdestruction. Until this is the case, it is the responsibilityof the Council to ensure that Iraq cannot rearm and

cannot once again pose a threat to its neighbours. Thesecond principle is as important and even moreimmediate: to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi peopleand take whatever steps we can from outside to ensurethat their needs are met. To this extent, we agree withthe Russian Federation that the status quo is notacceptable.

These two principles are embodied in resolution1284 (1999), which remains the comprehensiveframework for the Council’s approach to Iraq. Thisresolution instituted various steps to relieve the humansuffering in Iraq. It also sets out a route forward forIraq to the suspension and lifting of sanctions if Iraqchooses to cooperate with the United Nations inmeeting its disarmament obligations. That route mapremains the Council’s policy and the only credible wayforward; and the implementation of resolution 1284(1999) is supported by all Council members because itwill mean the end of sanctions. There is no good reasonto back away from or to alter that framework, nor doesthe United Kingdom have any wish to do so.

If Iraq decided to cooperate with resolution 1284(1999), we are all willing to work with them withoutany further delay. Let us be clear, resolution 1284(1999) has not been implemented because Iraq hasrefused to implement it. That cannot be the basis forany kind of renegotiation of its terms. But if Iraqindicates a willingness to move forward, the Councilwill undoubtedly wish to reciprocate by fleshing out indetail the precise steps that need to be taken. To movewhile Iraq continues to reject the Council’s positionwill only serve Iraq’s wish to divide the Council and toavoid its international obligations. I repeat: the onlyroute to the ending of sanctions lies through theconfidence of the Security Council, living up to itsresponsibilities, that Iraq has disarmed in accordancewith the resolutions.

We now have before us a series of proposals, setout by the United Kingdom in our draft resolution, toallow Iraq to import the full range of civilian goodswithout restriction. Three weeks ago, in resolution1352 (2001), the Council agreed to spend a monthexamining and refining those proposals and, at the endof that month, to agree on a new set of arrangements. Iemphasize that the aim was not to replace the Council’scomprehensive approach in resolution 1284 (1999), butto do two things: to set in place measures to liberalizethe flow of goods to Iraq and, at the same time, to

5

S/PV.4336

examine ways to make sure that military-related itemsare not exported to Iraq.

These are two goals supported by the wholeCouncil and, I am sure, by the entire United Nationsmembership. Resolution 1352 (2001) represented anunusual agreement in the Council on these two aimsand gave hope to the wider world that we had gatheredsome momentum and a sense of responsibility. Inagreeing on that resolution, all Council membersaccepted that the measures should be instituted quickly,and that a month was a reasonable target within whichto agree on the new proposals in detail.

That month is nearly up. There have beenintensive discussions at the expert level covering everyaspect of our proposals. Differences remain. It would benaïve to expect agreement on every point, butcompromises have been worked out on many issues andthere is now no good reason why a decision should notbe taken to institute a set of arrangements to fulfil thedual purpose set out in resolution 1352 (2001). Mydelegation will continue to work as hard as it takes tomeet that deadline.

Clearly, others are less optimistic, or lessdetermined. We should examine their reasoningcarefully. The Council now has the chance to agreeupon and implement changes that will make animmediate and positive difference to the flow of civiliangoods to ordinary Iraqis. Iraq is opposing these changesbecause it wishes to freeze the work of the Council andescape from its obligations. It has calculated that timeand international inertia will be on its side. In thatrespect, the Council is being challenged.

Let me say in all frankness that none of us, onthis issue in particular, can allow national economicself-interest to hold up positive measures for the Iraqipeople. Having successfully negotiated the unanimousadoption of resolution 1352 (2001), we mustcollectively ensure that the two principles of thatresolution are the principles which guide us now.

The new proposals contained in the British draftresolution will make an important and significantdifference to the flow of goods to Iraq. From a situationwhere no export is allowed unless approved by theSecurity Council Committee established by resolution661 (1990), we will move to a situation where everyexport is allowed except for a very limited range ofitems which must be reviewed by the 661 Committee onthe basis of criteria related to their potential military

use. Even for those items, there is no presumption ofdenial. We believe this change will bring a dramaticimprovement in the flow of goods and a dramaticreduction in the level of holds. Even within that limitedcategory of items reviewed by the Committee, we intendto allow the export of a good number if there is propermonitoring.

The current discussion of the Goods Review List,contrary to the Russian Federation’s contention, is asearch for clarity and therefore for ease of procedure,and not a search for broadening or tightening. We areeven now constructively negotiating on the GoodsReview List.

We are fully aware that in many cases sensitiveitems can form a key component of larger civilianprojects which must be allowed to go forward if theeconomic infrastructure of Iraq is to be rebuilt. Wewant to see the ordinary civilian infrastructurereconstructed in Iraq, and our attitude to individualitems reviewed by the Committee will be guided by thatphilosophy.

At the same time, we all have to continue toexercise our responsibility to ensure that items are notexported to Iraq that, unless closely supervised, willallow Iraq to rebuild its military capability.Accompanying these changes, there should be aslimming down in the bureaucracy facing those whowish to export goods to Iraq or operate projects there.Procedures will be simplified. There will be no reasonwhy Iraq cannot import the civilian goods it needs. Thefunds are there, and with these proposals Iraq will havethe freedom to purchase all necessary civilian items.There is no intention in this draft resolution to harmthe economic interests of neighbouring States or othersdoing legitimate business with Iraq. We expect to seean expansion of civilian trade, which will benefit all.There will be no reason why Iraq cannot import a fullrange of civilian goods, and Iraq will have no pretext toblame the United Nations for the suffering of the Iraqipeople. The new proposals will nail that false chargeonce and for all.

The capacity to rebuild military potential, againstthe rulings of the Security Council, is related to theflow of money, as well as to the flow of goods. Do notmake the mistake, as some do, of confusing the Iraqicivilian economy with the economic activities of theIraqi Government. We are all aware that Iraq continuesto export oil outside the United Nations system to build

6

S/PV.4336

up illegal revenue with which it can purchase weaponsand other proscribed items. There is worrying evidencethat such items continue to find their way into Iraq.This traffic has to be controlled if the resolutions of theCouncil are to have their intended effect.

Our draft resolution would ask the Secretary-General to consult and cooperate with the neighbouringStates to address these problems. There are alsoobligations on supplier countries. We are not layingblame, but each one of us must be vigilant to ensurethat illegal flows are prevented.

The logic of those who argue that our proposedmeasures will damage or set aside the policies set out inresolution 1284 (1999) is precisely wrong. The aim ofall of us is the ending of sanctions. The periodDecember 1999 to June 2001 has seen no progresstowards that objective because Iraq has preferred thecontinuation of sanctions, whatever the effect on theIraqi people, to acceptance of the disarmament processset out in resolution 687 (1991) and resolution 1284(1999). Doing nothing now will not change that. Norwill any proposal to alter the conditions of resolution1284 (1999) change that. Adoption of our draftresolution will change the situation. There will be animmediate improvement in the lives of ordinary Iraqis,the longest-suffering victims of the situation betweenIraq and Kuwait. And the course mapped out byresolution 1284 (1999) is more likely to be seen as theright one if we take steps to refocus the sanctions policyof the Council, as resolution 687 (1991) originallyintended it. That is our primary consideration inadvocating these proposals: calculate the quickestroute, in the light of the realities, to the ending ofsanctions.

There are other steps in our draft resolution whichwill move the present situation forward. Iraq will beallowed to pay its United Nations dues from the escrowaccount. Aircraft frozen and held in other States will beallowed to return to Iraq. Steps will be taken to begin,on an independent and objective basis, to address theproblem of the illegal oil surcharge levied by Iraq onpurchasers of Iraqi oil. In other areas, practical workcan proceed to implement decisions of the Council. Forexample, we have agreed, in resolution 1330 (2000),that Iraq should utilize funds from the escrow accountfor a so-called cash component in the oil sector. We areready to agree to this proposal, but note with regret thatIraq continues to block the implementation of the cashcomponent elsewhere in the Iraqi economy. This is an

insupportable obstruction of a step that has beenrecommended by every United Nations agency andhumanitarian non-governmental organization in thefield, a step which these bodies believe would make aconsiderable difference to improving the situation ofordinary Iraqis. Yet again we question the truepriorities of the Iraqi Government in blocking thisimprovement. Nevertheless, the oil cash componentshould go forward, on a basis whereby funds cannot bediverted for illegal use.

The United Kingdom has put forward theseproposals in good faith within the overall framework ofresolution 1284 (1999), in response to calls made bymany in the international community to alleviate theplight of the Iraqi people. The principles of theapproach were unanimously endorsed by the SecurityCouncil through resolution 1352 (2001). We would findit unaccountable for the Council, or any member of theCouncil, not to move forward on the basis of thoseprinciples. The risk is that if we do not act now, theSecurity Council may never be in a position to act.There is therefore every reason for the Council to putinto practice now the approach we set out in resolution1352 (2001).

Mr. Levitte (France) (spoke in French): ispleased that a public debate in the Security Councilopen to all Members of the United Nations is beingdevoted to the question of Iraq. This is a useful first onan issue that has occupied the attention of the Councilfor 11 years now.

Maintaining the current status quo is notsatisfactory. It is not satisfactory in terms of theauthority and credibility of the Council. Its decisionshave remained a dead letter. The Council has beenunable to impose a solution.

It is not satisfactory for the Iraqi populationeither. Iraq is experiencing a humanitarian crisis ofunparalleled scope. Just to take one figure, the infantmortality rate has more than doubled since 1990. Theefforts made by the Council through the oil-for-foodprogramme have of course had their merit. However,the extremely bureaucratic nature of the system and theblocking of the functioning of the sanctions Committeehave barely made it possible to do anything other thanensure the survival of the Iraqi people and keep themindefinitely dependent on assistance. Iraq’s interruptionof its oil sales a month ago can only further aggravatethe situation.

7

S/PV.4336

Finally, it is not satisfactory for regional security.For two and a half years the Security Council has nolonger had any inspectors in the field to verify that Iraqhas not resumed its programmes of weapons of massdestruction. The magnitude of smuggling, a practicerepresenting several billion dollars, makes the validityof the escrow account illusory.

It is essential that we find a way out of thisimpasse. Despite its divisions, the Security Council isaware of this. It endeavoured to do this by adoptingresolution 1284 (1999), which we think was animprovement upon resolution 687 (1991). In exchangefor the return of inspectors to Iraq and theestablishment of a long-term monitoring system,Baghdad could have speedily obtained the suspension,and then the lifting, of sanctions. The advantage of thisproposal was to reconcile humanitarian needs withsecurity concerns and to provide a long-term solution.Iraq could expect to rejoin the community of nations.This course has not yet been taken because of Iraq’srejection of resolution 1284 (1999). Yet this courseremains available. resolution 687 (1991) and itscomplement, resolution 1284 (1999), remain thefoundation for the Council’s work. We intend tocontinue advocating the return of United NationsMonitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission(UNMOVIC) and International Atomic Energy Agencymonitors to Iraq. We welcome the preparatory workdone to this end by Mr. Blix, and we call upon Iraq tocooperate with the United Nations and UNMOVIC.

We appreciate the efforts of the Secretary-Generalin the context of the dialogue he began with Iraq afterthe Islamic Summit Conference in Doha last November.We encourage the Secretary-General to continue hisdialogue with Iraq in order to better ensure that Iraqwill understand Council action, to remind it thatresolutions 687 (1991) and 1284 (1999) are theCouncil’s reference points and to promote theresumption of Iraqi oil sales and the implementation ofthe oil-for-food programme.

We would like Iraq to respond to that willingnessto engage in dialogue with constructive gestures, so asto restore trust: the return of Kuwaiti missing personsand Kuwaiti property; adherence by Iraq to theConvention on the Prohibition of the Development,Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weaponsand on Their Destruction; and permitting travel by theChairman of the sanctions Committee. An opening byIraq would enable the Security Council to begin

working to clarify certain elements of resolution 1284(1999).

Difficulties in the implementation of resolutions687 (1991) and 1284 (1999) should not prevent theSecurity Council from acting. If Council action isunified and takes into account humanitarian andregional security needs, it will be useful. With that inmind, we welcomed the United States proposals forimproving the functioning of the oil-for-foodprogramme.

For more than three years we have been proposingsignificant reform of the oil-for-food machinery. Wecannot fail to support a transfer of jurisdiction from thesanctions Committee to the Secretariat. That ought toresult in a very substantial reduction in the number ofcontracts that are on hold. That is indispensable. Evenafter a decrease in holds amounting to $600 million,$3.2 billion in contracts remain on hold in theCommittee established by resolution 661 (1990). Tothat we must add $1.1 billion in contracts still beingstudied by the Secretariat. The length of the list ofgoods subject to sanctions Committee control and theway in which this provision is being applied by theCommittee and by the Secretariat are key elements inensuring the success of this enterprise.

Easing restrictions on trade with Iraq cannot byitself enable the economy to recover sufficiently torespond to the humanitarian crisis. That recoveryrequires the return of normal economic conditions.That is why France has proposed that foreigninvestment be authorized, as proposed by the panelchaired two years ago by Ambassador Celso Amorim.That is why we propose that services be approvedwithout delay. That is why we request that localexpenditures for the petroleum industry — the cashcomponent — be accepted, as the Secretary-Generalproposes in his 6 June report, and as had already beenagreed in resolution 1284 (1999).

To be successful, Security Council action must beunderstood and supported by the internationalcommunity, especially the main interested parties:Iraq’s neighbours. Is it not in the name of regionalsecurity — the situation of Iraq’s neighbours — thatthe Council is exercising its authority? It thereforeseems important that the Council, through theSecretary-General, should work in close cooperationand coordination with those States. Everyoneacknowledges that what should be done is to set up

8

S/PV.4336

machinery for cooperation with the countriesconcerned, rather than imposing Chapter VIIobligations on them. Decisions on possible tradearrangements between Iraq and its neighbours and onpossible improvements in border controls should betaken with the agreement of those neighbours. Sucharrangements must not jeopardize the existingarrangement between Iraq and Jordan, which has beenaccepted by the sanctions Committee. Indeed, to ourmind, that arrangement could serve as a model.

Finally, a resolution must provide solutions tothorny problems. There must be a liberalization of airtraffic without pointless constraints and withoutcreating problems for Iraq’s neighbours. Iraqi arrears toall organizations must be subject to payment. Rates ofassessment on Iraqi oil sales for the benefit of theCompensation Commission should be the focus of amachinery agreed upon by the Council.

We are ready to work on all these matters with aview to agreeing on an ambitious text that will trulyaddress the defined objective of easing civiliansanctions. We are looking for a way for the SecurityCouncil to regain unity on the issue of Iraq. Withoutconsensus, any resolution, even if it is adopted, couldbe incompletely or poorly implemented. We must builda system that will enjoy the support of the internationalcommunity, first and foremost Iraq’s neighbours. Thatis the thrust of France’s written contribution to thepresent discussion. We want speedy agreement on thatbasis within the timeframe set out in resolution 1352(2001).

Mr. Cunningham (United States of America):Ten years after the Iraqi regime invaded, occupied andbrutalized Kuwait, it is useful for the Council to reminditself of how we got to where we are now and of whatwe can do together to change an unsatisfactorysituation. On 2 August 1990 and for the six months ittook for the United Nations to remove invading Iraqitroops, the Iraq regime attempted the unthinkable: toextinguish the existence of another United NationsMember State.

Once the international community defeated thatattempt, the Security Council focused on ensuring thatthe regime which carried out the invasion and whichremains unrepentant to this day would not have theability to wage war on its neighbours or to threatenthem with weapons of mass destruction ever again. Tothis point we have been successful. The Security

Council has assumed a special role in maintainingsecurity in the Gulf region; Iraq continues to pose aclear threat to that security; and it must be theCouncil’s purpose to ensure that that threat remainscontained.

But it is clear that the Iraqi people have borne theburden of the regime’s policies. The oil-for-foodprogramme has grown into the largest humanitarianprogramme ever run by the international community. Itis a reflection of the regime’s lack of cooperation and ofits disregard for its own population that, despite thebillions of dollars that have gone into Iraq under theprogramme, Iraq’s development levels have not met thepotential of the oil-for-food process. It is equally ameasure of the programme’s success that Iraq’sdevelopment, by some standards, actually exceeds thatof some of its regional neighbours.

During these past six years, the nature of the oil-for-food programme has changed, even though thename has not. But a better name today would be “oil fordevelopment”, because such a term would moreaccurately reflect the fact that even today the Iraqiregime could redevelop the country using the oil-for-food programme, if it chose to do so. Instead, Iraq isusing money and oil as a weapon against theinternational community. Iraq has not sold oil since theadoption of resolution 1352 (2001); that has cost thehumanitarian programme more than half a billiondollars, on top of the several billion dollars that Iraqlost by shutting off oil some months ago.

Iraq has made much of the fact that its financialliquidity will allow it to defy the internationalcommunity for several months. It has been clear forsome time that we, the international community, caremore for the Iraqi people than the regime does. As aresult, Baghdad is making clear that despite all itsprotests it actually prefers the status quo to ourproposal to change the oil-for-food programme so as toallow the Iraqi people the broadest possible contactwith the rest of the world, especially through civiliancommercial trade, and to significantly improve thehumanitarian situation in Iraq.

My Government is accustomed by now to Iraq’scynicism towards its own people and to its bluster andthreatening policies. We find it harder to understand,however, why others would join in playing that gamewhen the status quo is clearly not satisfactory.

9

S/PV.4336

Let us be clear about what we are trying toaccomplish with the United Kingdom draft resolution.Far from “freezing the present situation”, if we agree tosomething like it in its current form, we will have donenothing less than lift the sanctions on regular civiliancommercial trade with the Iraqi people. It is the heightof irony that, at the very moment my Government andothers are prepared to undertake this radical shift ofdirection, we find ourselves under attack by others whohave long pressed for change to the system. TheseStates, like the Government of Iraq, seek to perpetuatethe status quo instead of looking ahead.

We, on the other hand, want to change the systemnow so as to allow purchases of the civilian goodsneeded to develop Iraq’s economy. Under the currentsystem, to which we will revert if the new systemcannot be brought into being, all exports to Iraq areforbidden unless specifically permitted by SecurityCouncil resolution or a specific decision of thesanctions Committee. Under the proposed system,everything is permitted unless it is contained on a listof military or dual-use goods, in which case it will bereviewed, not denied.

Iraq will be able to acquire everything it needs toimprove the lives of its people and to provide for thecountry’s development. The Iraqi regime will beprevented only from acquiring the few items critical toincreasing its ability to threaten international peace andsecurity. Almost every item that Iraq could need orwant for its civilian development will not be subject toreview by the sanctions Committee. Goods could flowrapidly to where they are needed most under asimplified procedure. Even items subject to controlwould go to Iraq once there is confidence that theywould not be used to rebuild Iraq’s weapons of massdestruction or improve its military capabilities.

Some continue to confuse the proposed review listwith a denial list, so let me address this once again,because it is at the heart of the proposal. The items onthe goods review list now under negotiation will besubject to review by the sanctions Committee. If it isclear that the goods will only be used for civilianpurposes, those goods will be approved for export. Thisis a historically significant change in the way theUnited Nations does business with Iraq, and it isdirectly responsive to concerns raised in this Chamberrepeatedly in the past, and contrary to assertions about“vague procedures”, we are in fact negotiating agreed

procedures that will provide the desired clarity, at leastto almost all of the members of the Security Council.

We share concern that Iraq’s neighbours might bedamaged economically if Iraq responds to the changedsystem by ending trade arrangements with them. Butthere is no way to be certain about anything theBaghdad regime might do, and Iraq has its owninterests in these trade arrangements. But it has,however, resorted to threats. Importantly, the currentdraft resolution asks nothing of the States neighbouringIraq, except to continue consultations with theSecretary-General. Neither we, nor, I am sure, anyother member of the Council, would seek to impose anyparticular set of rules on these countries against theirwill and without their cooperation. Instead, we suggestthat we would use the next six months at least toexplore what arrangements might be beneficial inassuring the promotion of legitimate trade by which theIraq regime does not acquire unauthorized items orillicit cash.

There are a number of other issues beingconsidered as well in this draft resolution. Theseinclude international civil aviation and different formsof economic interaction that would open prospects forthe Iraqi people. A number of these have been underdiscussion for some time in this Council, and if wewere able to agree on this package, it would be animportant step forward in that regard as well.

Some have suggested this new approach to be anabandonment of resolution 1284 (1999) and a moveaway from implementing the other applicable SecurityCouncil resolutions regarding Iraq. That assertion isfundamentally misleading. The introduction of this newapproach to Iraq is in fact a bridge between the currentsituation and the existing framework of SecurityCouncil resolutions. The Council will still need to becertain that the region no longer faces a threat fromIraqi weapons of mass destruction. Instead of tearing upthe Council’s longstanding approach, this proposalensures its survival, expands vastly the range of goodsavailable to the civilian population and promotes futureimplementation by showing the Government of Iraqthat it has no alternative to cooperation with the UnitedNations. Perhaps that is why, indeed, the Governmentof Iraq prefers the status quo.

The United States of America urges all membersof the Council who want something better for the Iraqipeople to join us in taking the next step toward the

10

S/PV.4336

creation of a better – not perfect – but better systemthan the one that now exists. The draft resolution nowbeing considered by the members of the Council, whichmoves far beyond the status quo, is that next step.

Mr. Wang Yingfan (China) (spoke in Chinese):The Chinese delegation wishes to thank the Russiandelegation for its initiative in calling for a publicmeeting of the Security Council to consider all aspectsof the Iraq question. We also appreciate your timelyscheduling of this meeting.

The Iraq question is one of the importantinternational questions that has been underconsideration in the Council in recent years. Before theCouncil makes its decision on the Iraq question,holding a public meeting of the Council to hear theviews of the general membership of the United Nationswill help to ensure that the Council’s decision will fullyreflect the legitimate concerns of the Member States.This is also a positive step in the reform of theCouncil’s working methods.

The Chinese Government has always advocated acomprehensive resolution of the Iraq question on thebasis of relevant Council resolutions. The currentstalemate in the Iraq situation is not in the interest ofpeace and security in the Gulf region. It does adisservice to the authority of the Security Council andwill not be conducive to achieving the overall easing ofthe humanitarian situation in Iraq. In order to breakthis stalemate as soon as possible, we favour acomprehensive approach that takes into account allaspects of the Iraq question and the search for a wayout of the impasse on the basis of resolution 1284(1999).

This afternoon we received a draft resolutionsubmitted by the Russian delegation, whichundoubtedly is a useful proposal aimed at breaking outof the present deadlock in the Iraq situation andbringing about an early, comprehensive resolution ofthe Iraq question. We will carefully study the Russianproposal.

On 1 June, the Security Council unanimouslyadopted resolution 1352 (2001) on the Iraq question. Inaccordance with this resolution, the Security Councilwill consider new arrangements on the sale and supplyof goods and commodities to Iraq. It is to take adecision by 3 July.

Some Council members have already put forwarddraft resolutions on the new arrangements. We believethat the Security Council should seriously considerthese drafts in the context of a comprehensiveresolution of the Iraq issue. The Chinese delegation hasactively participated in the consultations on draftresolutions regarding the new arrangements and theGoods Review List in a constructive and pragmaticmanner. We have tabled the Chinese Government’sposition paper and amendments.

We hope that the discussions in the Council willbe able to create conditions for breaking the stalemateon the issue of Iraq, so that this issue — which hasbeen before the Council for 11 years — will not be aperennial item on its agenda. Judging from the weeksof discussion — whether they have been inside oroutside the Council — there are still quite a number ofserious differences regarding the new arrangements. Iwish to make a few comments on the comprehensivesettlement of the issue of Iraq in the context of thesediscussions.

First, resolution 1352 (2001) points out that thenew arrangements are aimed at improving thehumanitarian situation in Iraq and at greatly increasingthe flow of civilian goods into Iraq. The 11-year-oldsanctions have brought dire suffering to the Iraqipeople. In particular they have penalized large numbersof innocent women and children. The internationalcommunity is vigorously called upon to effectivelyimprove the humanitarian situation in Iraq. If theSecurity Council turns a blind eye to or does not doenough to improve the humanitarian situation in Iraq,it will not be justly addressing the great expectations ofthe general membership of the United Nations.

The Security Council’s relevant resolutionsimplementing sanctions against Iraq are aimed atresolving the issues regarding Iraq’s disarmament, sothat Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will bedestroyed and Iraq will no longer have the ability toproduce such weapons in the future. Iraq’s normal,civilian interactions with other countries — forexample, trade and investment — should not have beensubjected to sanctions. The oil-for-food programme,which started in 1996, has played a positive role ineasing the humanitarian situation in Iraq. However,years of experience have shown that large numbers ofcontracts for the export of civilian goods to Iraq havebeen put on hold. It has also been impossible for theIraqi people to conduct normal economic activities.

11

S/PV.4336

Therefore the Chinese Government is of the view thatthe new arrangements must take a new approach tothese matters.

During the discussions the Chinese side hasemphasized that the Council should draw up the GoodsReview List on the basis of a reduced list based onresolution 1051 (1996), so that — with the exception ofitems on the final approved list — Iraq will be able tofreely import any civilian goods that it needs. Thefinancial controls and restrictions against Iraq shouldbe relaxed, and Iraq should be allowed to use the fundsin the escrow accounts to pay its contribution to theUnited Nations, as well as to contribute to otherinternational organizations. Foreign companies shouldbe allowed to invest in Iraq, and countries should beallowed to freely sign service contracts with Iraq. Civil-aviation flights to and from Iraq should be allowed toresume.

We believe that a fundamental amelioration of thehumanitarian situation in Iraq is an important andindispensable step towards breaking the presentdeadlock and towards a comprehensive resolution of theIraq issue.

Secondly, resolution 1352 (2001) also points outthat the new arrangements will improve the control ofthe sale and supply of proscribed or unauthorized items.This will mean that the necessary sanctions againstIraq will continue. The Chinese Government hasalways believed that Iraq should strictly implement therelevant Council resolutions and resolve theoutstanding disarmament issues.

The new arrangements must not serve toperpetuate the sanctions, but should be aimed at findinga way out of the present deadlock on the Iraq issue, sothat this issue will be resolved in a comprehensivefashion as soon as possible. We hope that Iraq willresume its cooperation with the United Nations, consentsoon to the return of the United Nations Monitoring,Verification and Inspection Commission to Iraq andresolve the remaining disarmament issues.

The Chinese Government has always stressed thatin order to make progress on the disarmament issuesthe ambiguities in resolution 1284 (1999) have to beclarified. In particular, in order to motivate Iraq toresume its cooperation with the United Nations, there isa need to clearly define the criteria for terminating thesanctions against Iraq. This is another important and

indispensable step towards breaking the deadlock andachieving a comprehensive solution to the Iraq issue.

At the same time we also believe that Iraq’ssovereignty, territorial integrity and independenceshould be respected. The countries concerned shoulddemonstrate the required good will and sincerity byputting an early end to bombings of Iraq and by doingaway with the no-fly zone, thus creating conditions foran early resolution of the Iraq issue.

Thirdly, the tabling of the draft resolution on newarrangements has caused serious concern among Iraq’sneighbours. China is deeply aware of the losses sufferedby Iraq’s neighbours as a result of the sanctions againstIraq. No new arrangement should have further negativeimpact on the political, economic and social life ofIraq’s neighbours. It is our belief that the Council’sapproach in this area should be based on an objectiveassessment of the facts, pay close attention to the viewsof Iraq’s neighbours and seek their understanding andcooperation. We cannot continence any harm to thelegitimate interests and rights of Iraq’s neighbours as aresult of the new arrangements.

In addition, the issue of missing Kuwaitis and theloss of property should be properly resolved at an earlydate. This issue has long been a source of greatsuffering for the Kuwaiti people and has remained apriority concern of the countries of the Gulf. Inaccordance with the relevant provisions of internationallaw, Iraq is obliged to cooperate by identifying andreturning to Kuwait the missing Kuwaitis and Kuwaitiproperty. We believe that the timely and properresolution of this humanitarian issue will contribute toan early normalization of inter-State relations in theGulf, as well as to an early comprehensive resolution ofthe Iraq issue.

The President: I should like to inform theCouncil that I have received a letter from therepresentative of Thailand in which he requests to beinvited to participate in the discussion of the item onthe Council’s agenda. In conformity with the usualpractice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, toinvite that representative to participate in thediscussion, without the right to vote, in accordancewith the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

12

S/PV.4336

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Jayanama(Thailand) took the seat reserved for him at theside of the Council Chamber.

Mr. Mejdoub (Tunisia) (spoke in French):Mr. President, we would like to thank you andAmbassador Sergey Lavrov of the Russian Federationfor having suggested this public debate, which hasprovided the Security Council with an opportunity toassess the progress made towards achieving its goals inthe Gulf region and the Middle East, and to visualizeclearly the next step. My delegation would like to makeits contribution to the debate with the followingthoughts.

I turn first to the general guidelines for theSecurity Council. The Council must take acomprehensive approach to the question of Iraq. As weknow, there are many varied aspects to this question,but they are not unrelated. Indeed, they have a potentialimpact on one another, whether it be disarmament, thehumanitarian situation in Iraq, or other humanitarianissues such as Kuwaiti nationals and nationals of othercountries, or Kuwaiti property. The status of thoseissues, and the continuing quest to attain the objectivesthat have been set in those areas, must be viewed inrelation to the achievement of the Council’s goals inthe region — that is, security and stability for all.

Secondly, I turn to the humanitarian situation inIraq. Because of the many different sanctions imposedon the country — indeed, the most extensive and theharshest ever imposed by the United Nations on acountry — Iraq’s economy is devastated, its society iscrumbling, and the humanitarian situation of the Iraqipeople is on the brink of utter collapse and a source ofserious concern, according to internationalhumanitarian organizations.

Last week, the London Economist wrote that thiscountry of 22 million people, with its great civilization,has been reduced to the level of a Stone Age society.Despite its positive contribution, the oil-for-foodprogramme — a temporary and limited measure —cannot stand in for a genuine recovery of the Iraqieconomy, which is the only way of providing anappropriate response to the urgent and immense needsof an entire population.

But how can one possibly even think of economicrecovery in the country without direct foreigninvestment, particularly in the key oil sector, without acash component for that same sector, without service

activities, without any real lifting of the restrictions onair transport, without financial resources — enough forIraq to pay its arrears to the various internationalorganizations — and the list goes on.

The Security Council should accept and approvesuch steps, because otherwise, the humanitarian tragedyof the Iraqi people, which has been playing out for somany years now, will simply continue to be a blot onour conscience. Tunisia will continue to work daily inthe Security Council, as it has consistently done, with aview to improving, before it is too late, the situation ofthe Iraqi people, who are in such distress.

Thirdly, I turn to the question of implementationof Security Council resolutions. The Council’sresolutions on Iraq provide a legal framework anddefine Iraq’s obligations, in particular in the area ofdisarmament. They also reflect the Council’scommitment to modifying the sanctions regime onIraq — in other words, to easing the sanctions andlifting them completely, once and for all, depending onIraq’s cooperation in discharging its obligations.

Those resolutions must be implemented in goodfaith by all parties. The principle of the sovereignty andterritorial integrity of all States — one of the cardinalprinciples of the Charter, which can be foundthroughout the Council’s resolutions on Iraq — must berespected by all, including members of the Council, asthe Council’s resolutions are the collective expressionof its will. Indeed, legality is indivisible, as is the law.What is at stake is the credibility and effectiveness ofthe work of this organ, which has the greatresponsibility for the maintenance of internationalpeace and security. In this connection, I would mentionthat the question of no-fly zones should be reviewed.

Moreover, and in order to facilitateimplementation of those resolutions, every effort shouldbe made to avoid ambiguity, which, far from beingconstructive, only complicates their implementation onthe ground. The Council must therefore consider thepossibility of making the necessary clarifications tocertain resolutions — such as resolution 1284 (1999)— because, failing that, there is a danger of theresolutions’ simply remaining a dead letter. Indeed, ifthis were the case, a comprehensive solution would notbe facilitated, the sufferings of the Iraqi people wouldnot be eased, and the achievement of the Council’sobjectives would not come any faster. This also appliesto any resolution to be adopted in future, and it is even

13

S/PV.4336

more true in respect of resolutions that would innovateand introduce substantial changes in the existingregime.

As for Iraq itself, it has been cooperating forseveral years with the United Nations and theDisarmament Commission. This cooperation, whichmust be duly noted and recognized, must continue witha view to resolving the remaining pending problems,because its contribution is indispensable. It must beencouraged, through incentives and through the realand tangible prospect of finally seeing light at the endof the tunnel — in other words, seeing the sanctionslifted, so that it can resume its seat in the community ofnations.

Fourthly, I turn to the question of post-conflictsettlement for the region. For 11 years now, Iraq hasbeen under a very broad embargo. The situation ispainful, both morally and in humanitarian terms.Geopolitically, it is a factor of instability in the region.Obviously, this does not serve the objectives of theCouncil. That is why we believe that the question ofIraq should not continue to be viewed and dealt withonly from the standpoint of sanctions and coercion.Political and diplomatic paths do have their virtues,and they should inspire a fresh approach to thisquestion by the Council, with a view to hastening theadvent of a comprehensive solution that would facilitatea final settlement of pending issues, such as Kuwaitimissing persons and Kuwaiti property, and wouldensure for all countries of the region — I stress, allcountries of the region — conditions of security,stability and peaceful coexistence — in a word, peace.On the basis of that peace, the Governments andpeoples concerned would build good neighbourlyrelations and mutually beneficial cooperation inrediscovered trust.

In order to get the Iraqi issue out of the currentdeadlock, and finally to sketch out a comprehensivesolution, which is what we all would advocate,negotiation is the only right road. Since joining theSecurity Council, Tunisia has always called fornegotiation. We welcomed the beginning of a dialoguelast February in New York between an Iraqigovernment delegation and Secretary-General KofiAnnan. However, that exercise was not continued ashad been envisaged between the two parties. OurCouncil should encourage resumption as soon aspossible. It is high time that some movement ordynamic be started so that we can move ahead;

otherwise, this situation runs the risk of continuing tostagnate — but at what price for Iraq, for its people andfor the region? It is a region in upheaval because of thesituation in the occupied Arab territories. It is a regionwhere public opinion is bitter and frustrated,impatiently waiting for the winds of peace andreconciliation to blow through.

It is our hope that the Security Council will beinspired by this overall approach in its future actions.This is the approach that we would advocate at a timewhen the Council is actively seized of a draft to reviewthe sanctions regime.

Mr. Kolby (Norway): Norway attaches the utmostimportance to a prompt and lasting settlement of thisissue. At the same time, we recall the background andpurpose of sanctions against Iraq, which are clearlylinked to preventing Iraq from yet again constituting athreat to peace and security in the region. We arecommitted to the premises for ending these measures. Alasting settlement can happen, and will happen, only onthe basis of full Iraqi cooperation with the internationalcommunity in conformity with the relevant resolutionsof the Security Council, including its resolution 1284(1999).

The basic requirements of cooperation with theinternational community are simple. They are shared byall members of the Council. They are reasonable, seenagainst the background of earlier records of complianceby the Iraqi authorities.

The essential message from the internationalcommunity is, therefore, that the key to unlocking thedoor of sanctions is through full cooperation. Iraq holdsthe key. On our part, we have been eager to see that keybeing properly turned in order to lift the sanctions.

Weapons inspectors must be given entry to Iraq,and Iraq must demonstrate its willingness to cooperatefully with the United Nations Monitoring, Verificationand Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). We have fullconfidence in the Commission’s Chairman, Mr. HansBlix, and his team. In the field of weapons of massdestruction, particularly after Iraq has demonstrated useof such weapons, the international community couldnot issue a clean bill of health without reasonableguarantees. The international community has beendemanding nothing more, and nothing less.

Moreover, we regretfully have to revert to theissue of missing persons and stolen property. We are

14

S/PV.4336

deeply concerned by the plight of the missing Kuwaitiand third-country nationals, as well as their families. Itis disturbing that there is no progress on this matter.We urge Iraq to ensure the expeditious repatriation orthe return of all Kuwaiti and third-county nationals ortheir remains. Iraqi statements attacking the integrityof the high-level Coordinator, Ambassador Vorontsov,must be clearly rejected. We fail to understand why therequired transparency with regard to missing personsand stolen property cannot be achieved throughcooperation with the United Nations.

Paramount among Norwegian concerns is thehumanitarian situation of the Iraqi people. We remaindismayed by the dire living conditions of varioussegments of the civilian population. It would be toosimple to attempt to identify one single reason for thesedifficult living conditions and health problems. Thereare various reasons for this situation. Nevertheless, weall have solid evidence not only on the usefulness butalso of the necessity of the humanitarian programme inIraq pursuant to resolution 986 (1995). Therefore, it isa matter of particular concern that $2.2 billion of thefunds destined to meet these humanitarian objectivesremain unused in the United Nations escrow account.

It would be naïve to claim that full utilization ofthe oil-for-food programme would by itself solve all theoutstanding issues related to the development of thesocial and economic infrastructure in Iraq, and we arenot doing so. However, the Iraqi authorities bear themain responsibility for utilizing all means put at theirdisposal by the United Nations to meet urgent needs.Moreover, they must ensure budgetary priorities andtake other appropriate measures to accommodate theseneeds.

Norway attaches great importance to ahumanitarian cash component under the humanitarianprogramme in order to allow for the purchase of locallyproduced goods and thus stimulate development of localresources. Needless to say, our primary wish remains,however, full Iraqi cooperation with the UnitedNations, leading to an end to sanctions, and therebyallowing for a normalization of the economy. SecurityCouncil resolution 1284 (1999) remains the overallframework and stipulates the conditions for the liftingof sanctions against Iraq.

Pending the cooperation we all hope for, andwhich so far has not been forthcoming, we find on ourpart that it would be irresponsible not to engage in a

result-oriented and concrete attempt to revisit howcurrent sanctions work. It is our collectiveresponsibility to make a thorough assessment of currentpractices and consider how they could be improved.

Drawing on my own experience from chairing theSecurity Council Committee established by resolution661 (1990), I think I have all members with me insaying that certain immediate improvements andchanges are called for in the handling of imports ofgoods into Iraq. This has also been highlighted by theSecretary-General in his latest report dated 18 May2001 (S/2001/505) on the implementation of the oil-for-food programme. We should heed his call toCouncil members to ensure a more effectiveimplementation of the programme. This can beachieved by doing away, as far as possible, with certaincumbersome and time-consuming procedures involvedin today’s practice.

We believe that the focus of the Committee shouldbe solely on items which represent a military-relatedthreat or clear dual-use risks. We would welcomesignificant simplification and streamlining ofprocedures towards this objective.

Such a step requires the adoption of a list ofgoods to scrutinize, a so-called goods review list. Ibelieve it is important to note here that such a notion,although new, reflects the fact that, in reality, we havealready had a comprehensive control list for 11 years.With the exception of a few items that have been fast-tracked, the overwhelming majority of items destined toIraq have been undergoing the scrutiny of the sanctionsCommittee. We all know how cumbersome and, in myview, unnecessary such an approach can be. Moreimportantly, it can lead to unwanted obstacles to theflow of important items. Limiting the scope of controlby the sanctions Committee to potentially sensitiveitems by leaving all other items aside is, in our view,plain common sense.

Moreover, Norway is in favour of the increasedinvolvement of Iraq’s neighbouring States in upholdingeffective United Nations measures and thus of sendinga signal of renewed unity from the internationalcommunity to Iraqi authorities. At the same time, theirlegitimate concerns need to be taken into full account.In exploring ways to enhance United Nations controls,we should be guided by a thorough analysis, in closeconsultation with the States concerned.

15

S/PV.4336

By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1352(2001), the Council is faced with both the challengeand the responsibility of reforming the implementationof the humanitarian programme. This is the main taskthat we have undertaken to do by 3 July.

In summing up, the basic issue before us today isthe following choice between two alternatives: eitherwe seize this opportunity to radically simplify andpromote the flow of everyday civilian goods into Iraq,thereby establishing beyond any doubt that theinternational community is giving paramountimportance to humanitarian concerns, while keepingsensitive goods under control; or we preserve the statusquo. This appears in reality to be the only other option.A continuation of the current state of affairs wouldmean carrying on with a cumbersome and time-consuming scrutiny of almost all goods destined forIraq. Such a course of action would be contrary to theinterests of the Iraqi civilian population.

The choice is clear. We must seize the opportunitybefore us and mark a clear departure from the statusquo.

Mr. Valdivieso (Colombia) (spoke in Spanish):This debate is taking place as the Security Council isconducting negotiations to make some changes in theoil-for-food programme. As members of the SecurityCouncil, we are aware of the responsibility delegated tous by the other Members of the United Nations in orderto represent them in this important organ, entrustedwith the maintenance of international peace andsecurity. Thus, we feel it appropriate that, on certainoccasions such as this, the Security Council take intoaccount the views of other Members of the UnitedNations before adopting decisions on highly importantissues.

The first point we wish to make is that this matterappears on the agenda of the Security Council preciselybecause of its impact on international peace andsecurity. That is why the Government of Iraq is subjectto the sanctions regime.

The oil-for-food programme was adopted by theSecurity Council as a provisional measure to alleviatethe humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people affected bythe sanctions regime. The most recent report of theSecretary-General on this topic, in documentS/2001/505, concludes that, despite the limitations anddifficulties that have restricted the effectiveimplementation of the oil-for-food programme, it has

contributed not only to arresting the decline in but alsoto improving the living conditions of the average Iraqiin many cases.

The report also highlights aspects of thehumanitarian programme where improvements could bemade to enhance its functioning. These includeextending the so-called “green lists” to other sectors inorder to include all kinds of articles, except for thosereferred to in resolution 1051 (1996); simplifying theplan of distribution and making it more flexible;reducing the large number of applications, that remainon hold; and defining with greater precision theelements considered to be of dual use. From these andmany other aspects, it is clearly possible to makeimprovements in the oil-for-food programme, whichshould have a positive impact on the humanitariansituation of the Iraqi people. However, in order toensure the proper functioning of the programme, theGovernment of Iraq must cooperate. As the Secretary-General indicates,

“It is essential for the Government of Iraq toprioritize its contracting, giving particularattention to the food, health and nutritionsectors”. (S/2001/505, para. 132)

He also mentions the need to avoid delays in thesubmission of applications and to expedite the issuanceof unopened letters of credit for already approvedapplications.

During its informal revision of the sectors ofcontracts on hold, the Office of the Iraq Programmereiterated the need for members of the sanctionsCommittee that are placing contracts on hold to bemore clear as to the criteria for such an assessment andmore clearly to identify the elements they considerproblematic for export to Iraq. In this vein, the so-called “goods review list” proposed by the UnitedKingdom will shed further light on the elements towhich the international community believes Iraq shouldnot have access if it is to be prevented from rearming.

The least that can be expected from members ofthe Security Council is that we comply with our ownresolutions. Accordingly, and taking into account theagreement in resolution 1352 (2001), the members ofthe Security Council are currently considering variousproposals to enhance the functioning of the oil-for-foodprogramme. Under the coordination of the UnitedKingdom, meetings of experts have been heldconcerning the text of a draft resolution and an annex

16

S/PV.4336

of proceedings. These consultations of experts havebeen useful and considerable progress has been made.We hope that all delegations will participateconstructively with a view to drafting a consensus textin the coming days. Only in that way will we becomplying with our own resolutions.

Sanctions are not an end in themselves. They aresimply a tool of the Security Council in themaintenance of international peace and security. Weshould not forget that, as such, they are an alternativeto the use of force. In this case, it is important for theGovernment of Iraq to have a clear understanding ofwhat the international community expects from it,including guarantees for regional security, beforesanctions are lifted. That is why a decision allowing thenecessary changes to be made in the oil-for-foodprogramme, acceptable to all members of the Counciland in conformity with the spirit of resolution 1352(2001), would help to create consensus between theSecurity Council and Iraq, thus leading to the lifting ofsanctions.

Mr. Kuchinsky (Ukraine): First of all, mydelegation would like to express its profound gratitudeand appreciation to you and to the delegation of theRussian Federation for convening this important openmeeting of the Security Council in a timely manner.

The humanitarian situation in Iraq remains one ofthe most critical problems before the Council andcontinues to be a focus of its attention. Consistent andpurposeful efforts undertaken by the Council and theOffice of the Iraq Programme to enhance theeffectiveness of the humanitarian programme havemade it possible to improve the humanitarian situationin Iraq and to alleviate the critical situation in somesectors.

As was correctly noted by the Secretary-Generalin his report to the Council of 18 May 2001(S/2001/505):

“Over the past four years, the humanitarianprogramme has contributed not only to arrestingthe decline in but also to improving the livingconditions of the average Iraqi.”

At the same time, the Secretary-General notesfurther that “the achievements ... should not lead usinto a sense of complacency.” In this room we haverepeatedly heard the view that the oil-for-foodprogramme will not lead us to a comprehensive

solution of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq; decisivemeasures by the Council are needed based on acompletely new approach to the implementation of thehumanitarian programme.

Just over a month ago, before the end of anotherregular phase within the humanitarian programme, theCouncil began very important work that, in our view,has far-reaching consequences and is aimed atdeveloping new arrangements for its implementation.

In its resolution 1352 (2001) of 1 June, theCouncil expressed its intention to consider newarrangements that would significantly improve the flowof commodities and products to Iraq and wouldfacilitate civilian trade and economic cooperation withIraq. Today nobody has any doubts that this workshould bring about serious changes in the functioningof the programme, which in turn should lead to drasticchanges in the humanitarian situation in the country. Itis in the context of these considerations that my countryviews the tasks facing the Council with regard toformulating a draft resolution that would lay thefoundation for the future phases of the humanitarianprogramme.

It is exactly from this standpoint, from theviewpoint of the humanitarian challenges and securitytasks facing the Security Council in Iraq, that we havebeen considering the draft resolutions submitted by theUnited Kingdom and France and that we will considerthe draft resolution introduced by the RussianFederation.

We sincerely hope that today’s discussion willhelp us address the current situation in the mostcomprehensive manner and hopefully find ways to solvethe existing problems.

To change the status quo and improve thehumanitarian situation the Council should reconsiderthe mechanism currently in place, which regulates thesale or supply of commodities to Iraq. We believe that arule of the type everything is permitted that is notprohibited is the right approach to the problem, but thisrequires that the Council ensure that everything bannedfor supply to Iraq is thoroughly itemized and specified.Only such an approach will allow the Office of the IraqProgramme and the United Nations Monitoring,Verification and Inspection Commission to processIraqi contracts more efficiently.

17

S/PV.4336

Although we are legitimately concerned over thepossible uncontrolled use of dual-purpose goods,especially when an effective international monitoringmechanism in Iraq is not in place, we must,nevertheless, thoroughly weigh all the possibleconsequences of approving a control list of goods todeal with the contracts put on hold. In his reports theSecretary-General has repeatedly given examples ofhow seriously the practice of putting contracts on holdaffects fulfilment of the tasks within the IraqProgramme.

If we ignore these concerns, the problem willrelentlessly plague us by reducing to nothing all ourefforts to improve the humanitarian situation in Iraq.We are convinced that this problem should be takeninto account in the process of adopting the GoodsReview List. The Council should provide for approvalof contracts that include goods from this list as keyelements without which the contract becomes useless.To this end, it is necessary to put in place UnitedNations mechanisms to monitor the end use of thesegoods within the limits determined by the contracts.

We also think it necessary to create appropriateconditions for the economic restoration of the countrythat can provide a basis for self-reliant developmentand generate additional resources needed primarily tomeet civilian needs of the Iraqi people. In this regard,we support the provisions that would make it possibleto attract foreign investments, primarily in the oilsector of the country’s economy, and to render variousservices in the process of implementing programmesand projects. Besides, utilization of the so-called “cashcomponent” in all sectors in Iraq in accordance withthe resolution 1330 (2000) will also contribute todrastically changing the humanitarian situation andrevitalizing the national economy.

The issue of ensuring Iraq’s cooperation inimplementing the decisions taken by the SecurityCouncil is a separate matter. Our delegation hasconsistently called upon Iraq to cooperate with theCouncil as a precondition that could lead to lifting ofthe sanctions. We still maintain that Iraq’s compliancewith the provisions of Security Council resolutions, andin particular resolution 1284 (1999) related to theestablishment of the international inspectionmechanism, could be a concrete step leading to thelifting of sanctions. At the same time we cannot ignoreconcerns expressed by a number of delegations over theambiguous character of some provisions of that

resolution. It is obvious that Iraq’s cooperation could beensured by making its voice and its concerns heard andtaken into account in an impartial manner by theCouncil.

We think that a continuation of the dialoguebetween the United Nations Secretary-General and Iraqthat began in February 2001 has a special role to playin this regard.

The fact that we discuss the Iraqi issue in thisformat today, together with non-members of theCouncil, proves once again that finding a solution tothis problem is not an exclusive prerogative of Councilmembers. It generates legitimate concerns amongneighbouring States and States that are far from theregion. It is of great importance to take intoconsideration the views and concerns of those countriesand to provide for their participation in developing theCouncil’s new approaches. When doing this, we shouldbe guided by the principle that cooperation betweenthose States and Iraq should, by all means, bepreserved.

The Council should have a clear understanding ofthe extent to which the measures it is going tointroduce can be implemented. It should also make surethat those measures represent a step forward and notlead to another impasse in dealing with the Iraqi issue.To achieve this, it is important that they be supportedby the countries of the region and should help ensureIraq’s cooperation in their implementation.

Mr. Neewoor (Mauritius): We thank you,Mr. President, for holding this important meeting at therequest of Ambassador Lavrov of the RussianFederation, whom we also thank.

The Gulf War of 1990 was short-lived and endedswiftly with Iraq withdrawing its invading forces fromKuwait under overwhelming military and politicalpressure from the international community. Today, tenyears later, that war continues to cast its long shadowover peace in the Gulf and in the Middle East region.The outcome of the war was clear from the verybeginning. It was a reminder to all of us that the daysof achieving territorial ambitions through militaryventures are long over, and that the internationalcommunity will never condone any such pursuit by anynation. The invasion of Kuwait was an act thatseriously violated the fundamental principles of theUnited Nations Charter. The robust reaction by the

18

S/PV.4336

international community to end the invasion was fullyjustified.

Unfortunately, the consequences of the war havebeen terrible for the Iraqi people. Imports into theircountry take place under the sanctions regime imposedby the United Nations with the aim of controlling Iraq’sacquisition of materials that may be used to produceweapons of mass destruction. Its oil exports today arerestricted with a view to monitoring its revenues andexpenditures for the same purpose. The sanctions alsorequire the inspection of the military productionfacilities in Iraq to ensure that its capacity to producenuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is fullyterminated.

The implementation of the sanctions require thefull cooperation of the Government of Iraq in order toensure that the purposes of the sanctions are metwithout unduly hurting the Iraqi people. I must addhere that the sanctions regime in itself may not beperfect, but through a process of constructive dialoguewith the Security Council, Iraq can have theimperfections addressed.

However, regrettably, implementation of thesanctions has always been a rough ride, mainly becauseof inadequate dialogue. This is clearly evident from thefact the oil-for-food programme, designed to facilitateavailability of essential goods and services, has neverbeen a smooth operation, resulting in continuedscarcities of food, medicines and other commoditieswith devastating effects on the people of Iraq. A terriblehumanitarian situation has unfolded in Iraq over theyears due to the enforcement of the sanctions regime.At the same time, due to a lack of cooperation on thepart of Iraq, the United Nations Monitoring,Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)is prevented from carrying out its inspection workinside Iraq in fulfilment of its mandate under SecurityCouncil resolutions.

The present stalemate cannot be allowed to go on.The humanitarian situation has been bad enough for along time and has assumed such serious proportionsthat the international community cannot remainindifferent to it any longer. In recent months there hasbeen a growing demand from international publicopinion for a relaxation of the sanctions against Iraq.In the Security Council, too, many members, includingMauritius, sensitive to the sufferings of the Iraqipeople, have been calling for new initiatives that can

engage Iraq in a positive dialogue, so that the presentstalemate may be broken.

On his part, the Secretary-General has made everypossible effort in this regard. We have welcomed thereview process undertaken in Washington, D.C. andLondon with a view to bringing about a relaxation ofthe sanctions against Iraq. My delegation has also beencontributing to the discussions at the level of experts ofthe Security Council, aiming to evolve the package thatwould ease the sanctions against Iraq but, at the sametime, not absolve Iraq totally from honouring itsresponsibility under the relevant Council resolutions.This important work must continue.

We take this opportunity to urge Iraq to respondto the efforts of the international community to ease thesanctions to which it is subjected and to take someconcrete steps of its own as a reciprocal action. Webelieve that as a first step in this direction, Iraq shouldresume cooperation with UNMOVIC and allow thedesignated inspectors to do their work inside thecountry. It is our considered view that Iraq has no needfor nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Iraqshould not find it difficult to reassure the internationalcommunity that it has no designs in this regard. Lastbut not least, Iraq must, once and for all, close itspainful chapter in relation to Kuwait, by showing fullrespect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity ofthe State of Kuwait and returning its historical andcultural heritage, including Kuwaiti archives, as well asrepatriating missing Kuwaiti persons.

This meeting is taking place at a crucial junctureof the important question of Iraq at the United Nations.My delegation hopes that our discussion will bedispassionate and focused so that, in the end, theSecurity Council is helped in the search for a pragmaticway forward on the difficult issue of Iraq.

Mr. Kassé (Mali) (spoke in French): The SecurityCouncil is meeting today to consider the humanitariansituation in Iraq, following a request by the RussianFederation. My delegation is grateful to you, Mr.President, for finding the ideal format for thisimportant meeting. I would also like to extend mydelegation’s thanks to the Office of the IraqProgramme, which, with dedication, is doing the bulkof the work on implementing this humanitarianprogramme. Mali is deeply concerned with thehumanitarian situation in Iraq, which deserves carefulconsideration, as it is receiving today.

19

S/PV.4336

Information provided by the Secretary-Generalthrough his regular reports to the Council show thatover the last four years the oil-for-food programme hashelped to halt further deterioration in the livingconditions of average Iraqis and has improved livingconditions in some cases, and that the programme’shumanitarian nature should be preserved. We concurwith the Secretary-General on these conclusions. Thatis why we believe everything possible should be done toattain all the humanitarian goals of the programme.

Here, we would join the Secretary-General incalling on the Iraqi Government to give priority tomeeting the essential needs of its people by increasingimports of food and of health and medical supplies. Mydelegation regrets that no request for the purchase ofsuch products has been submitted to the sanctionsCommittee during phase IX of the programme, despitethe accumulation of a substantial amount in the escrowaccount.

The food and health situation in Iraq isparticularly unacceptable. The caloric intake amongchildren is very low, and the nutritional goal set in thedistribution plans is far from being met.

Given that situation, the Council must take stepsto ease the devastating impact of the sanctions on thecivilian population. In that connection, my delegationreiterates its great concern at the excessively highnumber of contracts kept on hold by the Committeeestablished by resolution 661 (1990). We agree with theSecretary-General that this is one of the main obstaclesto proper implementation of the humanitarianprogramme. That is why my delegation welcomes theSecretary-General’s recommendation to broaden thegreen lists in various sectors to include all items exceptthose covered in resolution 1051 (1996). For its part,the sanctions Committee should step up its effortsdiligently and speedily to consider applications forcontracts so as to reduce significantly the number ofholds.

Mali welcomes the new sanctions regime that theCouncil is discussing because it aims to ease theharmful effects of 11 years of sanctions on the civilianpopulation. It would remove constraints on the importof goods for civilian consumption and basic necessities,on the principle that everything that is not explicitlyforbidden would be authorized. The reverse principlenow in use is the reason for the excessively high

number of contracts kept on hold by the Committeeestablished by resolution 661 (1990).

But in our view there are several shortcomings inthe new regime. The first relates to United Nationscontrol of Iraq’s resources through the maintenance ofthe escrow account and to the need for therehabilitation of the country. Thus, we support injectingcash from oil sales into the local economy — the “cashcomponent”.

Here, we support the arrangement proposed by theteam of experts established pursuant to paragraph 15 ofresolution 1330 (2000). The Iraqi oil industry still facesconsiderable constraints of all kinds which, if nothingis done, could result in a drop or even a collapse incrude oil production.

Beyond the oil sector, the cash component oughtto be extended to other sectors in Iraq, because, as theSecretary-General notes in his report (S/2001/186), insome sectors of the population, because of thesanctions, poverty is widespread; some Iraqis are oftenforced to barter what they receive through the foodbasket in order to procure other basic necessities.

To ensure the economic reconstruction of thecountry, the draft resolution should cover services andinvestments, which are essential to economic recoveryand to rebuilding the country’s entire infrastructure.My delegation fully supports the provisions relating tothe humanitarian situation, and considers that the text’snew provisions, if fully implemented, will help ease thesuffering of the Iraqi people. In that connection, wehope that the Iraqi Government will react positively,will cooperate with the United Nations, and will seizethe opportunity being provided.

Let me assure the delegation of the RussianFederation that my delegation is willing to studycarefully the text of the draft resolution it submittedthis afternoon just before this meeting.

I cannot fail to mention another aspect of thehumanitarian situation. It is not directly related totoday’s debate, but it is of importance: it concerns partB of resolution 1284 (1999), which obliges Iraq tofacilitate the repatriation of all Kuwaiti and thirdcountry nationals or the return of their remains if theyare deceased. For the past 11 years, more than 600families have been living in torment, and they continueto suffer. Moreover, Iraq has failed to account forproperty seized in Kuwait, including the national

20

S/PV.4336

archives, which represent the memory of the country.Kuwait thus remains traumatized by the 1990 invasion.

Mali calls on Iraq to cooperate with Mr. YuliVorontsov, the High-level Coordinator for Iraq, whosework we support, so that he can carry out his task andso that this sad situation can come to an end. This is amajor humanitarian issue on which true consensusexists in the Council. We therefore call on Iraq to meetits international obligations, to continue to participatein the work of the Tripartite Commission and theTechnical Subcommittee, and to cooperate fully inorder to resolve these problems once and for all.

The President: I should like to inform theCouncil that I have received a letter from therepresentative of Qatar, in which he requests to beinvited to participate in the discussion of the item onthe Council’s agenda. In conformity with the usualpractice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, toinvite that representative to participate in thediscussion, without the right to vote, in accordancewith the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Al-Khal(Qatar) took the seat reserved for him at the sideof the Council Chamber.

Mr. Ryan (Ireland): My delegation is verypleased to have this opportunity to hear, in open formatin the Council, the views and concerns of so manydelegations on this issue of such importance to us all.The Irish Government has consistently made clear itsgrave concern at the humanitarian situation in Iraq.When comprehensive economic sanctions were imposedon Iraq by resolution 661 (1990), almost 11 years ago,it was not anticipated that they could possibly last solong.

When they were reaffirmed by resolution 687(1991), the conditions for their suspension were clearlyestablished. That they have still not been fulfilled 10years on, even as modified by resolution 1284 (1999), isa matter of utmost regret to the Irish Government. It isregrettable because without their fulfilment, theobjective of restoring international peace and securityin the region cannot be considered to have beenachieved. It is regrettable also because of the effect thatthe long-term comprehensive economic sanctions havehad on the people of Iraq, most of whom had nothing

whatever to do with the decisions taken by the Iraqiauthorities that led to the imposition of sanctions.

The international community and the SecurityCouncil, acting on its behalf in the area of internationalpeace and security, have a responsibility to ensure thatthe measures they adopt do not prevent the people ofthe country under sanctions from obtaining thenecessities of life. That was acknowledged in resolution661 (1990) itself, which permitted the supply ofmedicines, and of foodstuffs in humanitariancircumstances. Because it was realized pragmaticallythat the disarmament process would require some time,the Council, in resolution 687 (1991), calibrated thesanctions regime established by resolution 661 (1990),lifting the prohibitions on foodstuffs, and establishing ano-objection procedure for essential civilian needs.

That process was continued in resolution 986(1995), with the establishment of the oil-for-foodprogramme. It was developed further in successiveresolutions, including in resolution 1284 (1999), whichlifted the cap on the amount of oil that Iraq can sell.

The arrangements envisaged in resolution 1352(2001), therefore, do not represent anything radicallynew. The Council has for a considerable timerecognized that the longer the sanctions continue, themore the sanctions regime must be adjusted in theinterests of the people of Iraq and concentrated moreand more on their primary objective.

It is now time to take a further step, and toacknowledge the need, after 11 years of sanctions, toallow the people of Iraq to recover their nationaleconomy and life, while maintaining the controlsnecessary to ensure that the Government of Iraq doesnot further develop weapons of mass destruction anddoes not acquire the means of again threatening Iraq’sneighbours, pending the fulfilment of its disarmamentobligations in line with the Council’s resolutions.

My delegation considers the approach nowenvisaged on the basis of resolution 1352 (2001) to be apromising one that would improve significantly theflow of commodities and products to Iraq, whilemaintaining the necessary controls.

However, the development and prosperity of apeople do not depend solely on the supply ofcommodities. They also depend on moderninfrastructure — roads, railways, telecommunications,medical facilities, water and sanitation systems. We

21

S/PV.4336

must ensure that nothing in the measures that we adopt,or in the way we apply these measures, prevents thedevelopment of Iraq’s normal economic infrastructure.In this context, it is important that the list of goods thatwould be reserved for review by the Iraq sanctionscommittee under the envisaged system is as short andas precise as possible. Furthermore, any contractcontaining an item on the list must be carefullyreviewed from the point of view of its overall economicand infrastructural importance.

The new arrangements that the Council envisagesare intended, in the words of resolution 1352 (2001),for the facilitation of civilian trade and economiccooperation with Iraq in civilian sectors. Before theGulf War, Iraq had vigorous international economicrelationships, and international service contracts wereimportant in many sectors of Iraq’s economic life. Suchcontracts should again be permitted and appropriatearrangements made for authenticating them and forpaying for them from the escrow account.

However, the people of Iraq will never achieve thelevel of development and prosperity to which thenatural wealth of their country entitles them withoutaccess to foreign investment. The longer they must dowithout the resources and expertise that foreigninvestment can make available, the longer developmentin real terms will be put off.

None of this is to deny the responsibility of theIraqi authorities to take the steps clearly open to themto secure their people’s future. In particular, they mustdevote the necessary priority to the education andhealth sectors. The neglect of these sectors can not belaid fully, or even mainly, at the door of the sanctionsregime. Every administration has the primary domesticresponsibility for these sectors, and citing the sanctionsregime as an excuse is not a posture that impresses theinternational community.

My delegation has no interest whatever in theperpetuation of sanctions. We are committed at anytime to act on the suspension and lifting of sanctions onIraq to the extent that the necessary conditions arefulfilled. We can perhaps consider these conditions, butthe Iraqi authorities also have a big step to take in thedirection of the Security Council. When they areprepared to take that step, we will be ready. In theinterim, however, we have a duty to the people of Iraq.The strong sense of that duty underpins our approach tothe draft resolution under consideration and our

approach to the detailed work in the area of reservedgoods lists.

Ms. Lee (Singapore): Today’s debate is timely. Ithas been 15 months since the Council last reviewed thedevelopments in the situation between Iraq and Kuwaitin this Chamber. The Security Council is also presentlyengaged in discussions on new arrangements tofacilitate the flow of goods and commodities into Iraqand other types of economic cooperation with Iraq inthe civilian sectors.

Security Council resolution 661 (1990) wasadopted 11 years ago. The impact of its measures hasbeen too broad in Iraq. The innocent people of Iraqhave borne the heaviest burdens of Iraq’s continuedeconomic isolation, while the Government continues todefy Security Council resolutions and has succeeded inrecasting its international image from a belligerent to avictim. Furthermore, after more than a decade, Kuwaitcontinues to be deprived of the sense of closure on thisissue that the return of key Kuwaiti property andKuwaiti nationals and their families seized by Iraqcould bring.

The oil-for-food programme, which the Councilenacted in 1996 to bring need relief to the Iraqipopulation without compromising the objectives ofresolution 687 (1991), has evolved over the years. Ithas contributed to improvements in key economic andinfrastructure sectors in Iraq, such as the oil industry,electricity, agriculture, water and sanitation, education,housing, transportation and telecommunications. But,rightly or wrongly, the growing perception is that theprogramme has not done enough to help ordinary Iraqisand has not been effectively implemented. Many haveargued that the programme has not made much of adent in arresting the deterioration of the Iraqi economyand alleviating the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

In the meantime, the unchecked smuggling ofIraqi oil through Iraq’s borders and the levying ofillegal oil surcharges by the Government of Iraq havegenerated substantial revenues for the Governmentoutside of the escrow account. This has furtherconspired to undermine the credibility of the UnitedNations policy in Iraq. The erosion of support for theprogramme and United Nations sanctions is also fuelledin part by the existence of sharp differences within theSecurity Council on this issue. As a result, we havewitnessed challenges to the United Nations Iraq policyin the last several years. We agree with Ambassador

22

S/PV.4336

Lavrov, who pointed out at the beginning of today’sdebate — as did subsequent speakers — that the statusquo is unacceptable.

Against this backdrop, the unanimous adoption ofSecurity Council resolution 1352 (2001) on 1 June 2001assumes great significance. It signals the intention ofthe Security Council to adopt and implement newarrangements that would modify the Iraq programme ina significant way. The proposed new arrangements willfree the flow of legitimate civilian goods andcommodities to Iraq, which will significantly improvethe welfare of the Iraqi people. Only exports of itemson a limited list of goods that would compromise itemsexpressly prohibited under previous resolutions andother items that could be deployed in ways that areinconsistent with resolution 687 (1991) would besubject to review by the 661 sanctions committee.

The new arrangements will also address in apragmatic way the problems of cross-border smugglingand oil surcharges, as well as clarify a few long-standing issues arising from the implementation of thesanctions policy, including arrangements that wouldauthorize the return of Iraqi civilian aircraft andremove common restrictions on civilian flights to Iraq.Iraq’s neighbouring States have expressed their concernover the implications of the proposed new approach ontheir economic well-being.

We support efforts to consult them and obtaintheir cooperation. We are confident that arrangementscan be worked out that would adequately take intoaccount their special needs and circumstances withinthe framework of existing Security Council resolutions.We would like to emphasize the point made byAmbassador Cunningham that the Council does notseek to impose any arrangements on the neighbouringcountries of Iraq against their will.

We have a unique opportunity to make substantialimprovements in the Iraq humanitarian programme andmore generally in the United Nations sanctions policyin Iraq. For this to take place, it is important that theinternational community, and the Security Council inparticular, unite behind such efforts. There remainmany outstanding issues in current efforts to developthe new arrangements, including the contents of thegoods review list and provisions relating to thearrangement with the neighbouring countries and thescope of economic activities that should be permitted

under the new arrangements. Ambassador Levitte hasearlier eloquently listed these issues.

We should bear in mind that the Council isembarked on a project to refocus its sanctions policywith respect to Iraq that requires striking a delicatebalance between two objectives. They are increasing theeffectiveness of sanctions to compel Iraq to comply withall relevant resolutions, on one hand, and ensuring thatthe measures will not impose unduly onerous burdenson the Iraqi population and the neighbouring countries,on the other.

Complications are therefore quite natural. But ifthe discussions in the Council are conducted in goodfaith, and in a genuine spirit of cooperation, we shouldbe able to resolve outstanding differences within thetime-frame envisaged in resolution 1352 (2001). Thatis what is expected of the Council. We may neverresolve the different views we have on the cause andeffect of the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Neitherwill we agree completely on how far the Council shouldgo to dismantle aspects of the sanctions policy toachieve the humanitarian objectives without weakeningour leverage to get Iraq to comply with all SecurityCouncil resolutions, including resolution 667 (1990)and 1284 (1999). But we should see such efforts as partof a process.

This is not the first time that the Council hasreviewed the implementation of the Iraq programme.We should recall that since the adoption of resolution986 (1995), the Council has adopted a series of follow-up resolutions. They are resolutions 1153 (1998), 1284(1999) and 1302 (2000). These were to expand andimprove upon the Iraq programme. The ongoingdiscussions in the Council on the new arrangements aretherefore parts of that evolutionary process to focus theimpact of the sanctions, a process that began a fewyears ago. But for this process to be effective andpositive the Council needs to do this incrementally and,more importantly, together, taking into account at thesame time the views of the larger internationalcommunity.

Miss Durrant (Jamaica): Let me join others inthanking you, Mr. President, for convening this openmeeting to discuss issues related to the agenda item“The situation between Iraq and Kuwait”. We considerthis a very important meeting, as this will allow theSecurity Council to take into account the views of non-members before taking decisions that all the Member

23

S/PV.4336

States of the United Nations will have an obligation toimplement.

When the Council last March held an open debateon the humanitarian situation in Iraq, Council membersexpressed concern about the plight of the Iraqi peopleand welcomed the recommendations put forward at thattime by the Secretary-General. The Council has sincetaken a series of actions to improve the oil-for-foodprogramme, in addition to removing all quotarestrictions on the quantity of oil authorized under theprogramme, which resulted from the adoption ofresolution 1284 (1999). Having removed the ceiling foroil exports, we also recognized the constraints posed bythe lack of capacity inherent in the deteriorating stateof the oil industry of Iraq. Jamaica, like other membersof the Council, advocated an increase in the amount ofmoney to be made available for oil spare parts andequipment. The Security Council responded favourablyby increasing substantially the amount of money madeavailable for this purpose.

There remained, however, a problem with theholds placed on certain items, which made the approvalof the increase in expenditure somewhat meaningless.Jamaica joined others in the Council to urge thosecountries placing those holds to ease them. While manyof these holds have been removed, much more needs tobe done to increase and improve the flow of goods andservices to the oil industry.

Jamaica also supported increased expenditure onareas critical to the socio-economic well-being of theIraqi people, particularly in the health and educationsectors, as well as the removal of all impediments to theimport of goods and services earmarked for thesesectors. We supported the call for expenditures targetedon Iraq’s infrastructure, particularly on water andelectricity. We shared the belief that the long-termdamage to Iraq’s development should be ameliorated.

We must, however, express our regret that theGovernment of Iraq has not taken full advantage of thefunds available in the oil-for-food programme, and thatthe people of Iraq are not deriving the full benefits fromit. At the same time, Jamaica has consistently stated inthe Council that sanctions regimes must be focused,effectively targeted and of limited duration. We havealso emphasized that sanctions must be designed insuch a way that the civilian population is not made tosuffer for the intransigence of its leaders. For thisreason, Jamaica supports the current efforts being

undertaken in the Security Council to modify thesanctions regime so as to alleviate the suffering of theIraqi people.

Jamaica is cognizant of the concerns expressed byStates neighbouring Iraq that the changes beingcontemplated could cause disruptions to theireconomies. Their legitimate concerns must be takeninto account in our deliberations.

In this review many difficult issues remain to beresolved. For that reason, Jamaica would have beenprepared to support a period longer than the month’sextension of the oil-for-food programme adopted underresolution 1352 (2001). Nevertheless, we believe that,given the requisite political will, appropriate solutionscan be found to reduce significantly the effect ofsanctions on the people of Iraq, while preventing Iraqfrom acquiring the ability to threaten its neighboursand the international community.

In this regard, we call on the Government of Iraqto cooperate fully with the United Nations, to complywith Security Council resolutions and, throughverification, to prove to the international communitythat it no longer possesses the ability to produceweapons of mass destruction. Iraq, we believe, mustallow the United Nations Monitoring and VerificationCommission (UNMOVIC) to carry out the tasksassigned to it. UNMOVIC stands ready to engage Iraqin the inspection and verification process. It is up to theGovernment of Iraq to act.

Finally, we call on the Government of Iraq toabide by all relevant Security Council resolutions withrespect to Kuwait. We urge Iraq to cooperate withspecial envoy Vorontsov on the issues of missingKuwaiti and third-country nationals and to returnKuwaiti cultural property.

As we consider the proposals presented by variousmembers of the Council, my delegation will be guidedby the determination to improve the socio-economicconditions of the Iraqi people, while seeking to ensurethat Iraq’s neighbours and the region can enjoy peace,security and prosperity.

The President: I shall now make a statement inmy capacity as the representative of Bangladesh.

The 11-year-long comprehensive sanctionsimposed on Iraq have been at the centre of an intensedebate in the United Nations and also in theinternational community. The strict control on Iraq’s

24

S/PV.4336

imports and exports has resulted in a steady decline inthe living conditions of the Iraqi people. It is doubtfulwhether the objective of alleviating the distress of thepeople of Iraq through the oil-for-food programme hasbeen fully achieved. It is therefore incumbent on theUnited Nations, as well as on the world community, toseriously examine the situation in Iraq, taking acomprehensive approach and focusing particularly onthe humanitarian condition of the people of Iraq.

In March 2000, during its first presidency of theCouncil, Bangladesh took the initiative of holding anopen debate on Iraq. This finally, after many years,afforded the wider membership of the United Nationsan opportunity to focus on the plight of the Iraqipeople, as well as on other relevant issues, particularlythat of Kuwaiti missing persons. For the second timeduring a Bangladesh presidency, we believe, a welcomeopportunity is being provided to address the situation inIraq, in particular the devastating effect of thesanctions on the life of the people of Iraq.

The oil-for-food programme was designed toalleviate the humanitarian situation in Iraq. AlthoughIraq accepted the programme, it has seriousreservations on provisions that it thinks impinge on itssovereignty and national independence. Multipleproblems relating to the implementation of theprogramme are perhaps rooted in this perception. It isfor this reason that many, including some Councilmembers, have been underscoring the need for acomprehensive approach in addressing this issue.

The most comprehensive framework so far for theUnited Nations policy on Iraq is provided in SecurityCouncil resolution 1284 (1999). Yet it is deficient innot indicating clearly a pathway towards the suspensionand final lifting of the sanctions.

We believe that sanctions regimes should clearlydefine the modalities for the lifting of sanctions. Thatonly makes them credible. As a number of speakershave said, the current deadlock in the situation mustnot be allowed to continue. Council members mustmake a serious effort to address these issues — issuesthat have been giving rise to problems in theimplementation of the Council’s resolutions.

To make the current exercise on negotiating thedraft truly comprehensive, all issues of concern,including Kuwaiti missing persons and the return ofKuwaiti property, should be addressed. In doing so, theCouncil should be mindful of the fact that Iraq has

rejected resolution 1352 (2001), which provides for thebroad principles guiding new arrangements. Makingthe adoption and implementation of these newarrangements contingent on the usual rollover of theoil-for-food programme risks jeopardizing it.

Clearly, the cooperation of the Government ofIraq, as well as the cooperation of the States sharingborders with Iraq, is a key factor in the implementationof these arrangements. Questions of their sovereignty,economic interests, additional burden and so on,enmeshed in legal issues, have critical significance. Itis, in our view, vital to closely consult with those Statesin order to arrive at suitable arrangements.

The Council cannot be oblivious to the regionalpolitical context that surrounds the issue. That calls fora vision beyond the sanctions, a vision to salvage futuregenerations in Iraq. If the Council fails to get thepolitical perspective right, no procedural simplificationis likely to bring the desired result. Iraq’s involvementin the process is crucial. The international communityhas the obligation to help Iraq as much as Iraq has theobligation to help itself by cooperating with the UnitedNations.

That is why we welcomed the dialogue betweenthe Secretary-General and the Iraqi delegation inFebruary this year. It would make sense for the Council,in its current endeavour, to encourage that process.

I now resume my functions as President of theCouncil.

The next speaker inscribed on my list is therepresentative of Kuwait. I invite him to take a seat atthe Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Abulhasan (Kuwait) (spoke in Arabic): Mydelegation is pleased to extend its congratulations toyou, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of theSecurity Council for this month. We know that yourexperience and wisdom will serve you well in steeringthe deliberations of the Council successfully. Inaddition, you represent Bangladesh, a friendly countrythat maintains close ties with Kuwait. I should like alsoto pay tribute to your predecessor, the DeputyPermanent Representative of the United States ofAmerica, Ambassador James Cunningham, for hisremarkable stewardship of the Council during the pastmonth.

I should like also to thank the Russian Federationfor its initiative to convene this meeting, and to thank

25

S/PV.4336

you, Mr. President, along with the other members of theCouncil, for agreeing to discuss the humanitariansituation in Iraq and the implementation of the relevantSecurity Council resolutions. All of these are issues ofgreat importance, and some of them have a directimpact on the security and stability of my country,Kuwait, and of the Arabian Gulf region.

If we are going to start talking about thehumanitarian situation in Iraq as being the centraltheme which has been extensively discussed by theCouncil for over a month, it is only fair to begin byacknowledging with appreciation the role of theCouncil and its continuing and tireless efforts toimprove the humanitarian situation in Iraq byintroducing many improvements to the oil-for-foodprogramme, with a view to enhancing its efficiency inmeeting the humanitarian needs of the brotherly peopleof Iraq.

We in Kuwait fully understand the depth of theIraqi suffering, simply because of our own bitterexperience of anguish during the seven months of ouroccupation. Therefore, Kuwait has all along expressedsympathy for the suffering of the brotherly people ofIraq. We have translated those feelings of sympathyinto every possible form of assistance and aid toindividuals in Iraq. Furthermore, we have always calledfor an end to the suffering of the Iraqi people, pursuantto Security Council resolutions.

The assistance given by Kuwait has not beenlimited to the aid provided by the Government ofKuwait, but has gone beyond that to include assistancerendered by civilian organizations such as the KuwaitiRed Crescent Society.

The intensive deliberations undertaken by theCouncil for over a month in order to mitigate thesuffering of the Iraq people attest to the sense ofresponsibility demonstrated by the Security Counciltowards the suffering of the Iraqi people. Kuwaittherefore welcomes and supports all efforts under wayto improve the humanitarian programme with a view toeliminating restrictions on the flow of civilian goods, inorder to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people.

What is regrettable, however, is that, despite thestrict humanitarian nature of the oil-for-foodprogramme, the Iraqi Government, for its part, has notworked to ensure the success of that programme or toensure benefits from its modalities.

The Secretary-General, in many of his periodicreports on the implementation of that humanitarianprogramme, highlighted that fact, especially in hismost recent report (S/2001/505), in which heunderscored the Government of Iraq’s laxity indischarging its responsibilities towards its people, asdemonstrated in the following areas.

First, the Government of Iraq, at the beginning ofphase IX of the oil-for-food programme, deliberatelyreduced its oil exports, on some occasions suspendingthem completely, as it tried to commit companies thatwould buy Iraqi oil to paying illegal surcharges onevery barrel of oil purchased.

The Secretary-General, in paragraph 4 of hisreport, stated that the reduced rate of export of Iraqi oilresulted in a loss by the humanitarian programme ofrevenues estimated at $2.6 billion. It is clear that thissubstantial revenue could easily have been collectedand used for the purchase of humanitarian goods for thebenefit of the Iraqi people.

Secondly, I wish to note the inordinate andunjustifiable delays in the submission of applicationsfor humanitarian supplies. The Secretary-General, inparagraph 15 of the same report, expressed his deepregret that, as at 14 May 2001 — that is to say, threeweeks before the end of phase IX — the Office of theIraq Programme had not received a single applicationin the sectors of health, education, water and sanitationand oil industry spare parts and equipment. Paragraph17 of the report adds that $2.82 billion was stillavailable for new contracts.

Clearly, such delays in the submission ofapplications for these basic humanitarian necessities —especially medicines and health-care supplies, whichare badly needed by the Iraqi people — raise the seriousquestion of the Iraqi Government’s indifference to thesuffering of its civilian population. Indeed, thesedelays, if anything, confirm some accounts that theGovernment of Iraq is exploiting the plight of civiliansin order to get the sanctions lifted without committingitself fully to the implementation of the relevantSecurity Council resolutions.

Thirdly, the Government of Iraq has deliberatelydelayed, and prevented the granting of entry visas tointernational personnel working to implement thehumanitarian programme, especially in the threenorthern governorates, with a view to impeding theefforts of United Nations agencies and to stalling the

26

S/PV.4336

vital projects undertaken by those agencies in the areasof infrastructure development and mine clearance.

In paragraph 134 of the report, the Secretary-General expresses his deep concern over the currentvisa situation and the negative impact that theinterruption in essential activities is having on thehumanitarian situation in the three northerngovernorates. The Secretary-General reiterated his callto the Government of Iraq to issue the required visasexpeditiously, in conformity with the relevantprovisions of the Memorandum of Understanding.

It is clear that the obstacles placed by theGovernment of Iraq in the way of the implementationof the humanitarian programme in the northerngovernorates are aimed only at preventing anyimprovement in the humanitarian situation in thoseareas. Indeed, an improvement there would embarrassthe Iraqi Government, if compared with thehumanitarian situation in the central and southerngovernorates, which are under its control.

Fourthly, aside from the inordinate delays insubmissions of applications by the Government of Iraq,there are unopened letters of credit in the amount of$1.151 billion, as indicated in paragraph 133 of thereport of the Secretary-General. The Secretary-Generalrecommended that the Iraqi Government take allnecessary measures to expedite the processing of theletters of credit.

Fifthly, the Government of Iraq has, for politicalreasons, refused to implement Security Councilresolution 1352 (2001), which was recently adoptedunanimously and which extends phase IX of the oil-for-food programme for a period of 30 days. Without adoubt, this refusal will result in the loss of assuredrevenues estimated at more than $1 billion at currentinternational oil market prices.

Despite all of the obstacles and difficulties thatare impeding the implementation of the humanitarianprogramme, one cannot ignore the substantialachievements registered by the United Nations since theinception of the programme in December 1996. Thevalue of the humanitarian supplies received by Iraqexceeds $11.1 billion, and there are humanitariansupplies in the pipeline estimated at $10.36 billion,which have been approved and are due to arrive in Iraq.

The Secretary-General, in paragraph 123 of thesame report, stated that the programme has contributed

not only to arresting the decline in, but also toimproving, the living conditions of the average Iraqi.This would have been difficult to achieve without thesincere and genuine efforts made by the Office of theIraq Programme and the specialized internationalagencies operating in Iraq. Indeed, the efforts of allinternational personnel who are implementing thisunprecedented programme deserve our applause andappreciation.

It is indeed regrettable that, despite the fact thatmore than 10 years have elapsed since the Iraqiaggression against the State of Kuwait, the SecurityCouncil remains seized of the consequences of thataggression because of procrastination and equivocationby the Government of Iraq, whose aim is to evadeimplementation of the basic commitments set forth inthe relevant Security Council resolutions.

The most important of these commitments, whichrepresent the primary demands by Kuwait vis-à-visIraq, are as follows: the first is the question of Kuwaitiand third country prisoners and hostages. Thishumanitarian issue, which embodies the suffering ofhundreds of families who do not know their children’sfate, has seen no progress due to lack of cooperation onIraq’s part in the implementation of Security Councilresolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991) and 1284 (1999), allof which, among other things, call upon Iraq tocooperate with the International Committee of the RedCross (ICRC) and the high-level Coordinator,Ambassador Yuli Vorontsov, who was appointed by theSecretary-General to facilitate the return of theseprisoners and hostages.

It is clear that the Government of Iraq isindifferent to the humanitarian dimension of this issue,because it refuses to resume its participation in themeetings of the tripartite committee and its technicalsubcommittee, whose meetings it boycotted in January1998 on the basis of unjustifiable political pretextsdespite the humanitarian suffering of those innocentprisoners, their families and loved ones.

Indeed, that attitude does not contribute to thecreation of an atmosphere of confidence and serenityamong the people of Kuwait. Furthermore, theGovernment of Iraq has not responded to the repeatedcalls made in the Secretary-General’s periodic reportson this issue, which also urge it to continue cooperatingwith the International Committee of the Red Cross andAmbassador Yuli Vorontsov. Kuwait believes that Iraqi

27

S/PV.4336

disregard for the statements given in this context by thePresident of the Security Council to the press,supporting the remarks of the Secretary-General andlauding the sincere efforts of Ambassador Vorontsov, isfurther evidence of the fact that it is still bent oncreating and maintaining high tensions in our region.

In this regard, we call on the Security Counciland the international community to redouble theirefforts to convince the Government of Iraq to be moreforthcoming and positive in addressing this issue and toresolve the entire matter on humanitarian, religious andmoral grounds and in conformity with relevant SecurityCouncil resolutions.

We can safely say in all objectivity that there is afirm international consensus, both among members ofthe Security Council and within the entire communityof nations, on the long-standing tragedy of thoseinnocent victims and that the Government of Iraq isresponsible for their continued suffering and forrestoring stolen Kuwaiti property. The record of theGovernment of Iraq in dealing with this issue does notessentially differ from its record in dealing with otherissues.

The statement issued to the press by the Presidentof the Security Council on Wednesday, 20 June 2001,regarding the question of the return of stolen propertyis yet another indictment of Iraq and proves that Iraq isin full compliance neither with paragraph 2 ofresolution 686 (1991) nor with resolution 1284 (1999).In that statement, the Council expressed its full supportfor the efforts of Ambassador Vorontsov and endorsedthe Secretary-General’s report contained in documentS/2001/582. It calls on the Government of Iraq tocooperate fully with the high-level Coordinator in orderto resolve the matters pending in this file and to restoreall property seized, especially the national archives andother official Kuwaiti documents, as well as Kuwaitimilitary equipment. Kuwait hopes that the SecurityCouncil will continue to pay adequate attention to thisimportant question beyond issuing repeated statements,which fall on deaf ears in Baghdad.

Thirdly, Kuwait has often drawn the attention ofthe Security Council and the Secretary-General to thenon-peaceful intentions of the Iraqi Governmenttowards the State of Kuwait and other countries of theregion. Those intentions have taken the form ofrepeated threats to the security and sovereignty of theState of Kuwait. These threats have been made by

ranking officials in the Government of Iraq, such asone by Uday Saddam Hussein, member of the IraqiNational Assembly, who called for drawing up a map ofIraq that includes Kuwait as part of that country.Moreover, Iraq has alleged that Kuwait is stealing Iraqioil in the border region.

Such charges are taken very seriously andcarefully assessed in Kuwait. We cannot in anycircumstances accept these as statements for domesticconsumption only, as some claim them to be, becausethe security and stability of States are not consumercommodities. Similar accusations were levelled by theGovernment of Iraq as pretexts for its invasion of theState of Kuwait in August 1990. That is why, in itsletter to the Secretary-General and the President of theSecurity Council, contained in document S/2001/412,Kuwait declared its readiness to cooperate with anyimpartial body the Security Council may see fit toestablish to investigate these Iraqi accusations, whichwe are fully confident have no basis in truth.

The States of the Arabian Gulf cannot forget whatreally happened because they had never imagined thatit could ever come to pass. Furthermore, the Iraqipolitical and informational language addressed to theIraqi people and to neighbouring States in no way helpsto reassure us that the catastrophe will never recur orthat the Government of Iraq has learned anything frompast experience, abandoned its dreams or changed itsapproach in dealing with its neighbours.

One reason for concern is that this Iraqi policyseeks to create tension and to destabilize the entireregion. Instead of responding to the repeated calls ofregional and international organizations that it take thenecessary steps to demonstrate its peaceful intentionstowards the State of Kuwait and other neighbouringcountries and that it change its political andinformational language with a view to establishing anatmosphere of confidence, Iraq — at the Arab summitheld in Jordan last March — rejected the inclusion of aparagraph in the final declaration renewing itscommitment to guaranteeing the security andsovereignty of the State of Kuwait. This position wasthe source of consternation among the Arab leaders anddestroyed the consensus on the declaration, althoughthe text reflected all of Iraq’s demands, including thatfor the lifting of the sanctions against it. Thus, nostatement regarding the lifting of the sanctions wasissued by the Arab Summit because of Iraq’s refusal toinclude such a paragraph. Iraq’s position prompted

28

S/PV.4336

many Arab leaders to assert that it had squandered anopportunity to achieve an unprecedented consensusamong them on the need to call for an end to thesanctions.

In closing, Iraq’s implementation of all relevantSecurity Council resolutions is the primary guarantee ofthe security and stability of our region. Without Iraq’sfull compliance with those resolutions, this vital regionof the world will remain in a state of constant tension.Had Iraq implemented its commitments underresolution 1284 (1999), adopted some 18 months ago,in all probability the sanctions would have beensuspended, if not lifted, as has happened to other Statessubject to a sanctions regime.

Therefore, we call upon this Council to continueits efforts with a collective will and to affirm its unityin its vision and approach. The Council should send aclear, unmistakable message to the Government of Iraqthat the Security Council is acting on the basis of itspolitical and legal responsibilities in order to urge thatGovernment to fulfil its obligations.

In this way, Iraq will be able to regain its naturalstatus as an active regional and international member.This would allow the fraternal people of Iraq to makefull use of the bounties and resources conferred uponthem by God and to enjoy a good life, with the samewealth and potential as the people of all other States ofthe region.

Our last prayer is to praise our Lord.

The President: I thank the representative ofKuwait for his kind words addressed to me and mycountry.

The next speaker is the representative of Jordan. Iinvite him to take a seat at the Council table and tomake his statement.

Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein (Jordan)(spoke in Arabic): Please allow me to warmlycongratulate you, Sir, and your friendly country,Bangladesh, on your assumption of the presidency ofthe Security Council for the current month. I amconfident that with your experience and skill theproceedings of the Council will be successfully guided.

I would also like to express my gratitude to yourpredecessor, Ambassador James Cunningham of theUnited States, for his impressive stewardship of theCouncil during the month of May.

It would be remiss of me not to mention Jordan’sdeep appreciation to Secretary-General Kofi Annan forhis tireless efforts, prudent leadership andextraordinary sense of purpose, and for his pursuit ofthe purposes and principles of the United Nations inorder to attain international peace and security.

Today we are discussing the agenda item entitled“The situation between Iraq and Kuwait”, and ourdeliberations take place 10 years after the eruption ofthe Gulf crisis that was triggered by Iraq invading theState of Kuwait.

Our entire region is still suffering from the severerepercussions of that crisis. Iraq continues to pay ahefty price as a consequence of the comprehensivesanctions imposed upon it that will have an impact onfuture generations of the Iraqi population in terms oftheir food, livelihood, health and prospects foreconomic growth and development. The result is anunprecedented case of civilian suffering.

Jordan has consistently called for an end to theplight and suffering of Iraq and its people. This type ofcollective punishment, the most severe in the history ofthe United Nations, did not achieve its declaredpurposes of consolidating peace and security. On thecontrary, those sanctions created conditions that in thelong run may endanger the future of the whole region.

Jordan is one of the countries that continue toendure dire economic consequences as a result of itsadherence to the relevant Security Council resolutions.Large segments of our economy, including land,maritime and air transportation, manufacturing,agriculture, and labour, continue to incur substantiallosses. This, in itself, should prompt work to eliminatethe adverse impact on Jordan of the sanctions imposedon Iraq.

My delegation is aware that the Council iscurrently engaged in consultations aimed at reviewingthe policies and modus operandi of the oil-for-foodprogramme that was initiated in 1996 on the basis ofthe Memorandum of Understanding signed with Iraq toimplement Security Council resolution 986 (1995).However, we would like to draw the attention of themembers of the Council to the fact that any revisedpolicies elaborated should be viable. They should beimplementable and should enjoy the agreement of allconcerned, including Iraq, especially given that thesepolicies are based on prior understandings among allparties.

29

S/PV.4336

In this context, we would like to emphasize thatthe parameters for improving the humanitarianconditions in Iraq must prevail over all otherconsiderations. Furthermore, a clear line must be drawnbetween the policies governing the modus operandi ofthe oil-for-food programme and the process of callingfor the implementation of all relevant Security Councilresolutions.

It must be stressed that the Council itself mustbear the consequences of any preventive collectivemeasures, as is clearly provided for in Articles 49 and50 of the Charter, as well as the legal implicationsthereof. This is all the more so in view of the extremelysensitive circumstances prevailing in the region as aresult of the stalling peace process and the spirallingcycle of violence.

Hence, we believe that the Council shouldcarefully and thoroughly examine the implications ofany actions to be taken on Jordan and the region, andshould act according to its sense of responsibility underthe Charter.

In this context my Government has submitted amemorandum to the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations illustrating the gigantic repercussions thatwould face Jordan and its economy if the existingagreements governing all aspects of economic relationsbetween it and its primary trade partner, Iraq, areinterrupted. These include Jordan’s import of all its oilneeds from Iraq. Jordan notified the Council of thismatter in 1990.

The call for the faithful implementation ofrelevant Security Council resolutions should respect thepreservation of Iraq’s unity, sovereignty and territorialintegrity and should refrain from any actions that mayinfringe on these principles. We believe that the onlyway out of the current crisis lies in the lifting ofsanctions imposed against Iraq by the Council, therebyextricating Iraq from this dilemma, and by reviving acomprehensive dialogue between Baghdad and theUnited Nations in order to settle all the outstandingissues that emanate from Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait,including those relating to Kuwaiti and third countryprisoners and missing persons, and the maintenanceand security of the sovereignty of both Kuwait and Iraq.

The President: I thank the representative ofJordan for his kind words addressed to me and mycountry.

The next speaker inscribed on my list is therepresentative of Saudi Arabia. I invite him to take aseat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Shobokshi (Saudi Arabia) (spoke in Arabic):Mr. President, allow me, as my predecessors have done,to congratulate you and your brotherly country onassuming the presidency of the Security Council for thecurrent month. I am confident that your experience andwisdom will successfully guide the deliberations of theCouncil. We would also like to thank your predecessor,Mr. Cunningham, the deputy representative of theUnited States, for his outstanding steering of thedeliberations of the Council last month.

The Security Council is meeting today to discussthe situation between Iraq and Kuwait and to look intoways of improving the humanitarian situation in Iraq,as well as of implementing all Security Councilresolutions related to Iraq and of settling of thesituation in the wake of the conflict that beset the Gulfregion, as mentioned in document S/2001/597 dated18 June 2001.

It is no secret to you, Mr. President, or to themembers of the Security Council, or to the wholemembership of the United Nations, that the Kingdom ofSaudi Arabia spares no effort in consolidating securityand stability in the Gulf region and in establishing anenvironment conducive to economic development andfruitful cooperation between neighbouring countries.This is why our relations with all countries are basedon good mutual relations, on the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of others, and on thepeaceful settlement of conflicts. The Kingdom of SaudiArabia deeply believes in the brotherly bonds bindingArab countries and in humanitarian principles, and istruly keen on achieving and guaranteeing the securityand stability of the region through good neighbourlyrelations and respect of the Security Councilresolutions.

This is precisely why we have taken the initiativein proposing a settlement for the situation in Iraq. TheSaudi initiative was that of the Committee of ArabAction emanating from the consultative ministerialmeeting of the Arab foreign ministers held in Cairo on28 January 1999 to put an end to the suffering of theIraqi people. In that meeting, we called for a re-examination of the sanctions regime. We also called foran overhaul of this regime to put an end to the sufferingof the Iraqi people by enabling Iraq to import all its

30

S/PV.4336

basic humanitarian needs, medical supplies, foodstuffsand educational material, without requiring the priorconsent of the Council. This would enable Iraq toprovide for its basic livelihood in a dignified fashionand would start the necessary economic developmentprocess.

On the other hand, Iraq is required to fulfil all itsinternational financial obligations, such as reparations,as well as payments for costs incurred due to theconstant monitoring of banned weapons in Iraq.Sanctions should be restricted to the acquisition ofarms, military equipment and dual-use materials asstipulated in relevant Security Council resolutions,especially the resolutions relating to the elimination ofweapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, chemicalor biological, and of any other military potential thatmight endanger the sovereignty, safety, security andstability of neighbouring countries. This requires aneffective long-term monitoring programme based on anumber of checks and balances defined by credible,efficient and neutral international monitoring agencies.This would guarantee the fulfilment of the task in anefficient, impartial manner. The end result of theactivity would be the alleviation of the suffering of theIraqi people and the assurance that revenues would notbe used for any other illicit purposes.

Our initiative has highlighted the necessity forIraq to fully abide by its obligations regarding Kuwaitiand non-Kuwaiti prisoners of war and missing persons,as is mentioned in relevant Security Councilresolutions, especially in paragraph 30 of resolution687 (1991).

Our initiative aims at putting an end to thesuffering of the brotherly Iraqi people and toguaranteeing the security, safety and stability ofneighbouring countries. Furthermore, our initiative wasadopted by the League of Arab States and was rejectedby Iraq. Iraq has also rejected the Arab initiative agreedto by the Arab leaders during the Amman Summit, heldon 27 and 28 March 2001. It has become abundantlyclear to the international community that thecontinuation of the international sanctions imposed onIraq is due to policies adopted by the Iraqi Government,such as the non-implementation of some of the majoraspects of relevant Security Council resolutions.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia feels empathy withthe suffering of the brotherly Iraqi people and wishes tohighlight its support for putting an end to their

suffering, for enabling Iraq to obtain the necessarymaterials to achieve this goal and for lessening theconstraints on civil trade, all in conformity with theresolutions of the Security Council and withoutaffecting the security and safety of neighbouringcountries.

We wish also to stress that Iraq must prove itsgood intentions with concrete actions, and must refrainfrom provocative or aggressive action towards Kuwaitor other neighbouring countries, by the terms ofresolution 949 (1994). Strict Iraqi compliance with andimplementation of relevant Security Council resolutionson the situation between Iraq and Kuwait and fullcooperation with the United Nations and its agenciesconstitute the best way to resolve this crisis, to buildconfidence and to restore security and stability, thuspaving the way for cooperation to the benefit of thecountries of the region.

Here again, I want to reaffirm that we wish topreserve the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrityof Iraq, and that we look forward to Iraq’s return to thefold of the international community, once it hasimplemented the Council’s resolutions, as a responsiblemember playing a constructive role in the internationalarena through the efforts of its able and dynamicpeople.

The President: I thank the representative ofSaudi Arabia for the kind words he addressed to meand to my country.

The next speaker is the representative of Sweden.I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and tomake his statement.

Mr. Schori (Sweden): I thank you, Mr. President,for the manner in which you are handling this meeting.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of theEuropean Union. The Central and Eastern Europeancountries associated with the European Union —Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia andSlovenia — and the associated countries Cyprus andMalta, as well as the European Free Trade Associationcountry member of the European Economic AreaIceland, align themselves with this statement.

The European Union remains committed to thefull implementation of all Security Council resolutionspertaining to Iraq. In particular, the European Unioncalls for the implementation of all the provisions of

31

S/PV.4336

resolutions 687 (1991) and 1284 (1999). Thoseresolutions specify the obligations of Iraq in severalareas, including weapons of mass destruction, anddefine the way to suspension and lifting of theprohibitions imposed by the Council. There can be nodoubt that the key to suspension and lifting of sanctionslies in the hands of the Government of Iraq.

The European Union looks forward to the futurereintegration of Iraq into the international communityand to a more prosperous and dignified life for the Iraqicivilian population. We reiterate that Iraq must fullycomply with its obligations as provided for in therelevant Security Council resolutions, and we call onthe Government of Iraq to cooperate to that end. TheEuropean Union also welcomes the dialogue betweenthe Secretary-General and the Government of Iraq.

The European Union regrets that, as a result ofIraq’s failure to fulfil its international obligations, theconditions do not exist which would enable the Councilto lift the prohibitions imposed under resolution 687(1991). The European Union urges Iraq to cooperatewith the United Nations in all respects, and reiteratesthe demand that Iraq allow the United NationsMonitoring, Verification and Inspection Commissionand the International Atomic Energy Agency toundertake the responsibilities mandated by the SecurityCouncil and to enable them to initiate their work inIraq as soon as possible.

Until the fulfilment by Iraq of the relevantSecurity Council resolutions, there is a clear need, as atemporary measure, to provide for the civilian needs ofthe Iraqi people. The European Union has strongsympathy for the fate of the Iraqi population, andremains the largest contributor of humanitarian aid andassistance to Iraq.

The European Union notes that, though not meantto meet all the needs of the Iraqi people, the UnitedNations humanitarian programme, as reported by theSecretary-General on 18 May (S/2001/505), hascontributed not only to arresting the decline in theliving conditions of the average Iraqi, but also toimproving them. Important measures have also beentaken lately, including in resolutions 1284 (1999), 1302(2000) and 1330 (2000), to further improve theimplementation of the oil-for-food programme.However, the humanitarian situation in Iraq remainsalarming, calling for ambitious measures aimed atalleviating the suffering among the population. In

particular, measures to stimulate normal activity in thecivilian sectors of the Iraqi economy are vital.

Lasting security and stability in the region, aswell as the living conditions of the Iraqi population, arethe prime considerations that must guide the SecurityCouncil’s actions. In that regard, the European Unionwelcomes the unanimous adoption of resolution 1352(2001) on 1 June 2001. We find particularly importantthe commitment by the whole Security Councilmembership to consider new arrangements for thesupply of commodities and products to Iraq and for thefacilitation of civilian trade and economic cooperationwith Iraq in civilian sectors. The two principlesoutlined there have full European Union support: thatsuch a system should, first, improve the flow ofcommodities and products to Iraq, with the exception ofthose covered under resolution 687 (1991) and thoseincluded in the so-called goods review list, and,secondly, improve the controls to prevent the sale orsupply of items prohibited and unauthorized by theCouncil and to prevent the flow of revenues to Iraqoutside the escrow account. The European Union hopesthat this new system will enhance transparency andallow Iraq to import the full range of civilian goodswith the minimum of restrictions necessary to ensurethat military-related items are not exported to Iraq.

The European Union welcomes the intention bythe Security Council to adopt and implement sucharrangements for a period beginning on 4 July. Westrongly support the ongoing deliberations within theCouncil with the purpose of alleviating the predicamentof the Iraqi civilian population. We encourage theSecurity Council to adopt, in accordance withresolution 1352 (2001), a decision on the newarrangements as soon as possible.

The President: The next speaker is therepresentative of Malaysia. I invite him to take a seat atthe Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Hasmy (Malaysia): Allow me, Sir, tocongratulate you formally on your assumption of thepresidency of the Council for this month, and to paytribute to Ambassador Cunningham of the UnitedStates for his able stewardship of the Council lastmonth.

My delegation expresses its appreciation to you,Mr. President, for convening this important and timelymeeting. Our appreciation goes also to the RussianFederation for initiating the request for a meeting on

32

S/PV.4336

this subject, and to the other members of the Councilfor their support. We are encouraged that the SecurityCouncil is supportive of an open debate on one of theCouncil’s most challenging issues: how to mitigate thehumanitarian crisis in Iraq and move forward on theissue of disarmament. We believe that today’s meetingwill provide the Council with important feedback onthis issue from the general membership of the UnitedNations.

In an earlier commentary on the humanitariansituation in Iraq, the Secretary-General had describedthe situation there as one that was posing “a seriousmoral dilemma” for the United Nations. He remarkedthat as a matter of principle, the Organization hadalways been on the side of the vulnerable and weak,focusing its efforts to relieve suffering, but in the caseof the Iraqi situation, the United Nations was accusedof promoting the suffering of an entire population. Hislament remains as poignant today as it was then.

The United Nations will be hard pressed to defenditself against this charge in the face of substantivecumulative evidence — much of it gathered by its ownagencies — that comprehensive sanctions against Iraqhave resulted in the severe suffering of innocentcivilians and caused profound socio-economicdislocations. The fact remains that a decade of the mostcomprehensive and punitive sanctions ever imposed ona society has decimated Iraq as a modern State,effectively forcing that country’s economy back to apre-industrial age and making it ever so dependent onthe United Nations humanitarian programme for basicsurvival. That is beyond dispute.

It is time for the Council to muster the politicalwill to move beyond its current approach in dealingwith the situation. We do not believe that the Council’sefforts for disarmament in respect of Iraq, which in facthave made significant progress, should continue to belinked to a policy of comprehensive sanctions that haveresulted in the loss of lives and untold suffering for theIraqi people. We do not believe the situation todayjustifies the continuation of these comprehensivesanctions.

After more than a decade of debilitatingsanctions, the time has come for the internationalcommunity and the Council to take a new and morebalanced approach, one that would address thelegitimate security concerns of the countries in theregion, but would also spare the people of Iraq further

collective punishment. If this Council is indeed seriousin its intention to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqipeople, this new approach should not link progress anddisarmament with efforts to alleviate the humanitariansuffering.

It has long been our view that incrementalimprovements within the framework of the sanctionsregime will not mitigate the impact of sanctions in anysignificant way. Based on our own direct observation ofthe situation on the ground, including the observationmade by the recent humanitarian delegation fromMalaysia to Iraq, the so-called humanitarianimprovements against the background of a weakenedphysical, health, medical, water and sanitationinfrastructure, due to the numerous holds, have failedmiserably. This has reinforced our conviction that theoil-for-food programme will not be able to adequatelymitigate the effects of the sanctions.

The issue of the moral dilemma alluded to by theSecretary-General is very pertinent to the question ofviolations of human rights and humanitarian law.Paragraph 109 of the Bossuyt report, entitled “Theadverse consequences of economic sanctions on theenjoyment of human rights”, issued by the Commissionon Human Rights in document E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/33,of 21 June 2000, states:

“Sanctions regimes that clearly violateinternational law, especially human rights andhumanitarian law, need not be respected. This isespecially true when the imposers are clearly onnotice of those violations and have undertaken noeffective modification. Sanctions are now imposedwith no consideration whatsoever of their legalstatus. In these situations, the humanitariantragedy must be viewed as constituting an‘override’ to an unduly harsh economic sanctionsregime — analogous to the doctrine of forcemajeur. And, as already set out, the degree ofpublic outcry is a factor in determining whether asanctions regime is too harsh.”

Perhaps the most important implication ofinternational law for the issue of sanctions from theperspective of human rights and humanitarian law isthat the right to impose sanctions is not unlimited. Therights of the civilian population must be protected tothe maximum extent possible through the provisions ofthe essentials for survival. Even with this modestobjective, the ability of the oil-for-food programme to

33

S/PV.4336

deliver is being seriously questioned. We are not eventalking about the higher-level needs of civil society,which also constitute a right of every individual.

We cannot in any serious discussion of thesituation in Iraq be oblivious to the ongoing operationsin the so-called no-fly zones. Malaysia has consistentlychallenged the purpose and the legality of suchoperations. Due to the low level and limited nature ofthe operations, the bombing of Iraqi targets remains asbackground noise in the general effort to confront orcontain Iraq. The tendency of the internationalcommunity has been to generally ignore these events asif they were routine operations, even when civiliancasualties — the so-called collateral damage — areinvolved.

Clearly the continuation of these illegaloperations is not conducive to a constructive dialoguebetween the United Nations and Iraq, which is sonecessary at this stage. Indeed, these illegal andprovocative operations will only complicate any efforttowards dialogue and engagement with Iraq, such asthe one initiated by the Secretary-General, for which wecommend him and strongly encourage him to continue.Only dialogue and engagement will move the processforward, not continued isolation and containment,which will punish the long-suffering people of Iraqeven further.

In the light of the continuing suffering of theIraqi people, there has been increasing outcry amongcivil societies in a number of countries against thecontinuing sanctions and a more discernible

manifestation of international solidarity with the peopleof Iraq. The dispatch of some 132 humanitarian flightsto Iraq since November last year is a clear andundeniable reflection of this rising concern andsolidarity with the people of Iraq. In working out itsapproach on Iraq, the Council should not turn a blindeye to this clear manifestation of international publicsentiment on the situation in Iraq.

While Malaysia is concerned about the plight ofthe Iraqi people living under sanctions, it has neverfailed to also add its voice to the call by theinternational community for an early resolution of theissue of more than 600 Kuwaiti missing persons, aswell as those from third countries. We consider it agrave humanitarian issue that needs to be addressedand more vigorously pursued. We reiterate our call onIraq to fulfil all its international obligations and resumeparticipation in the Tripartite Commission and theTechnical Subcommittee. Not less important is the needto facilitate the return of Kuwait’s national archivesand other property that was taken out of Kuwait. Theseare important issues that should not be relegated to theback burner of Council deliberations. The existence ofcomplete consensus in the Security Council on thesetwo humanitarian issues should provide a strong basisfor their early resolution.

The President: There are a number ofspeakers — as I just mentioned, about 20 — on my list.In view of the lateness of the hour and with theconcurrence of the members of the Council, I intend tosuspend the meeting until the afternoon of Thursday, 28June. The exact time will be announced in the Journal.

The meeting was suspended at 7.30 p.m.