Security Council calls for immediate cease-fire, cessation of all hostilities, withdrawal of forces to international boundaries without delay.

Security Council calls for immediate cease-fire, cessation of all hostilities, withdrawal of forces to international boundaries without delay

The Security Council on 24 February unanimously called upon Iran and Iraq to observe an "immediate cease-fire, a cessation of all hostilities on land, at sea and in the air and withdrawal of all forces to the internationally recognized boundaries without delay'. Both parties were also called on to submit immediately "all aspects of the conflict to mediation or to any other means of peaceful settlement of disputes'.

In resolution 582 (1986), the Council deplored "the initial acts which gave rise to the conflict between Iran and Iraq', and its continuation and escalation, "especially territorial incursions, the bombing of purely civilian population centres, attacks on neutral shipping or civilian aircraft, the violation of international humanitarian law and other laws of armed conflict and, in particular, the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Geneva Protocol'.

(The Protocol calls for "the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare'. Both Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol.)

The text (S/17859) was submitted by Council President Martin Adouki (Congo), following consultations among members.

The Council urged that a comprehensive exchange of prisoners of war be completed within a short period after the cessation of hostilities in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar was requested to continue his ongoing efforts to assist the two parties, to give effect to the Council resolution and to keep the Council informed. All other States were called upon to "exercise the utmost restraint' and refrain from any act which might lead to a further escalation and widening of the conflict.

The Council met four times on the matter between 18 and 24 February at the request of the Committee of Seven of the Council of the League of Arab States. The Committee cited "disturbing developments' following Iran's "new, large-scale armed aggression against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq in the sector east of Basra and the sector of the Shatt al-Arab, which began on the night of 9/10 February 1986', and asked that "serious practical and speedy measures' to end the war and solve the conflict by peaceful means be taken in accordance with the Charter and international law.

The Committee of Seven consists of the Foreign Ministers of Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Yemen; and the Minister of National Education of Morocco.

"Deep concern': On 11 February, the Secretary-General stated he was "deeply concerned' at renewed fighting between Iran and Iraq, following the Iranian military operations in the southern front. Force, he said, could not solve the "underlying issues of this long and tragic conflict'. Peace must be given a chance and "concerted and determined efforts' made, on the basis of his eight-point proposals (first presented in March 1985) to end the war and its "intense suffering'.

On 14 February, the Council met informally to review the situation at the request of the Secretary-General, who had conveyed "his grave concern at the serious developments following the Iranian offensive into Iraqi territory'.

The Secretary-General, in a 14 February statement, strongly reiterated his conviction that military force could not resolve the issues underlying that tragic and prolonged conflict. He called for a cessation of hostilities in order to facilitate efforts to promote a just and peaceful resolution of that conflict.

The Secretary-General indicated his concern was increased by allegations of renewed use of chemical weapons and counter-allegations. A cessation of hostilities would make it possible for an investigation in the war zone where such weapons were alleged to have been used, he stated. He also appealed to both sides to co-operate to "help to bring peace between Iran and Iraq'.

Eight-point proposals: The underlying premise of the eight-point proposals, presented to the two parties in March 1985, was that the overriding constitutional responsibility of the Secretary-General under the Charter was to seek to end the conflict. Until that goal had been achieved, the Secretary-General was also legally obliged under recognized international humanitarian rules to try to mitigate its effects in areas such as attacks on civilian population centres, the use of chemical weapons, the treatment of prisoners of war, and the safety of navigation and civil aviation. The proposals envisaged that both parties would enter into sustained discussion on all those aspects with the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General had indicated that both countries had agreed that the proposals could serve as a basis for further discussion.

According to the Secretary-General's spokesman on 11 February, the proposals, which were confidential to the Governments concerned, were "still on the table' and had not been rejected by either side. The Secretary-General had been in contact with the parties concerned since the proposals had been presented.

On 19 February, Council President Adouki appealed on the Council's behalf, for Iranian participation in the Council's consideration of the Iran-Iraq conflict. On 20 February, Iran informed the President it would not participate.

Letters: The Council reviewed a number of letters from Iraq and Iran to the Secretary-General related to armed attacks and alleged use of chemical weapons.

Iraq claimed it had repelled an Iranian attack on 9/10 February against its city of Basra and the Shatt al-Arab area along the Iraq-Kuwait border (S/17814) and that Iran on 12 and 13 February had used chemical weapons against it (S/17824). Iraq also reported bombings by Iran on 9, 11 and 12 February (S/17831).

Iran alleged that Iraq had used nerve, mustard and blood agents against Iranian forces on the southern fronts and asked for a United Nations investigation (S/17822) and that chemical bombs were used against the city of Abadan on 13 February (S/17833).

On 19 February, Iran stated (S/17849) that it had undertaken recent operations to: prevent Iraq from utilizing the military potential of the Faw harbour and its vicinity in attacking Iranian oil wells and facilities as well as other countries' oil tankers and commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf; and to limit Iraq's capability of using those areas to attack Iran's cities and residential areas. It also called on the Security Council to condemn Iraq to demonstrate that it was prepared "to undertake its moral and constitutional responsibilities' and was therefore "a reliable and effective organ'. Iran also said the eight-point plan still contained "a residue of an acceptable framework for further constructive co-operation'.

On 20 February, Iran reported (S/17850) that the Iraqi Air Force had shot down an Iranian passenger plane and that Iraq had conducted an air raid against the city of Rabat on 19 February (S/17853). On 21 February, Iraq said (S/17861) that the Iranian aircraft was a military plane.

Debate

Chedli Klibi, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, said the impact of the "grinding conflict' between Iran and Iraq had extended to the Middle East and affected some vital interests of concern to the international community at both the economic and the security levels. Iraq had been responsive to all mediating efforts and peace initiatives to end the conflict, and had fully accepted all Council decisions in that respect. However, Iran had constantly rejected all mediating efforts and all calls for peace, adamantly clinging to the pursuit of the devastating conflict.

The position of the League of Arab States on the conflict rested on two major principles: systematic opposition to any aggression perpetrated against any Arab State and total Arab solidarity with the aggressed State, and the consideration that peaceful negotiations based on the rules of international law and United Nations resolutions constituted the sole means to end the conflict and to secure a solution "guaranteeing the legitimate rights of both parties while meeting the requirements dictated by bonds of history, civilization, good-neighbourliness and common interests'.

Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Iraq, said the new Iranian invasion had gravely escalated the situation. Iran aimed at occupying the northern part of the Arab Gulf and creating a new political, military and economic situation in the region as a whole. Iran's objective continued to be to occupy Iraq's ports, control the Gulf from the north and threaten its western coasts.

Iran had exploited the sensitive question of abstaining from attacks on purely civilian population centres without any moral constraint in order to create circumstances favourable to continuing the war and carrying out invasion. Iraq had not rejected the Secretary-General's eight-point proposals. Iran refused to participate in the Council's deliberations on the conflict and imposed on it conditions "unprecedented in the history of the United Nations or international practice'.

On 10 February 1986, Mr. Aziz stated, Iraq had appealed to the Security Council to achieve a comprehensive peaceful settlement in accordance with international law, instead of concerning itself with only certain aspects of the conflict, thus providing Iran the opportunity of prolonging the aggressive war it had begun. Iraq would not accept, participate in or assume the responsibility of any interpretation which did not focus clearly and unambiguously upon the means for ending the war.

Council members: Mohammad Hussain Al-Shaali (United Arab Emirates) said that "some circles' continued to exploit the Iran-Iraq dispute for their own interests. The war's continuation was harmful to the region's peace and security, and was a factor that encouraged "greedy foreign Powers' to intervene in the region's internal affairs. Iraq had shown a clear desire to co-operate with mediation initiatives. Iran must co-operate with those initiatives to end the destructive war.

Birabhongse Kasemsri (Thailand) said the prospect of either side winning the war was "decidedly uncertain'. The war was entering a new phase, with serious security implications for the Gulf States. The eight points proposed by the Secretary-General continued to be a possible basis for agreement. Council resolutions and decisions also offered a reasonable basis for a peaceful settlement.

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom) said effective Council action must have as its clear objective the agreement of both sides to a series of related steps: an immediate cease-fire; withdrawal of all forces to the boundaries recognized before the outbreak of hostilities; and the opening of negotiations, directly or under United Nations auspices--if that is what the parties desired--leading to a permanent end to all hostilities and to a just, honourable and comprehensive settlement of all aspects of the conflict, including as appropriate the question of boundaries. The United Nations had to play a major role in bringing about that programme. The cease-fire and withdrawal would need to be supervised and monitored by United Nations personnel authorized by the Council and organized and controlled by the Secretary-General, who would need to exercise mediatory efforts to resolve all aspects of the conflict leading to a just, honourable and comprehensive settlement.

Vasiliy S. Safronchuk (USSR) said the disputes between the two countries should be resolved around the negotiating table, not on the battlefield. The Soviet Union supported the Secretary-General's mediation mission and the other constructive international efforts aimed at resolving the conflict by political means. In the face of another dangerous escalation of hostilities, political efforts to bring about a speedy cessation of the war must be stepped up. The Soviet Union strongly opposed any attempts to use the conflict as a pretext for any outside interference in the internal affairs of the region's States.

Herbert S. Okun (United States) said his country continued to seek the earliest possible end of the conflict with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both sides intact. The primary responsibility for the "senseless' struggle's continuation lay with Iran, which had rebuffed many efforts to end the war. The current conflict might expand to the neutral neighbouring States of the Gulf region. The United States would regard that as a major threat to its interests. It also attached importance to the Council's offer to explore with each belligerent its position with a view to initiating a process that could lead to the resolution of grievances and an end to the fighting.

Liang Yufan (China) said because of the war, the peace and stability of the Gulf region had been under a serious threat. The war should be ended as early as possible under terms acceptable to both sides, and their differences should be settled through peaceful negotiations. China supported all proposals that were conducive to the achievement of a fair, reasonable and peaceful settlement of Iran-Iraq disputes based on the principles of international law.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) said his country wished the conflict to be ended as speedily as possible. Resolution 582 reflected a serious and unprecedented effort to reflect as balanced and comprehensive a view as possible of the conflict, of its origin and of its tragic course, as well as of the steps necessary to terminate it. The Council should launch an urgent appeal to both parties to co-operate to the full with the Council and with the Secretary-General in implementing the resolution, so that the conflict could be brought to end.

Richard Woolcott (Australia) said the escalating, tragic conflict had resulted in a number of violations of international law. Australia had been particularly concerned at the use of chemical weapons. The conflict had serious implications for regional and international security. What was required was an immediate cease-fire, leading to negotiations on a comprehensive settlement. That should include respect for international boundaries and an end to further attacks by either side.

Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) said the restoration of normal relations between Iran and Iraq and in the region must conform to the following principles: the inadmissibility of the occupation and acquisition of territory by force; the obligation to return such territory; non-recourse to aggression in any form whatever; respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States; non-interference and non-intervention in the internal affairs of States; peaceful settlement of disputes; and peaceful relations among States.

Claude de Kemoularia (France) said his country was alarmed at the launching of new military operations that endangered the region's security and the territorial integrity of neighbouring States, and entailed the risk that the disastrous conflict would spread. France called for the cessation of hostilities, for respect for international law and for the urgent quest for a settlement acceptable to the two parties. France hoped that the Secretary-General would be able to give new impetus to the action that he had undertaken towards inducing the parties to display moderation and a spirit of co-operation.

Reactions

In a 25 February letter to the Secretary-General (S/17864), Iran said that that part of resolution 582 which pertained to "the whole issue of the war and the termination of hostilities' was "unbalanced and inadequate and hence unworkable'. Yet, it added, "it is a positive step towards the condemnation of Iraq as the aggressor and a just conclusion to the war'. As long as the Council did not, in spite of the influence of certain permanent members, adopt a "fair, objective and constructive position for discharging its constitutional duties', the responsibility for the war's continuation would remain with it.

The resolution did not mention Iraq's "blatant and all-out violation' of the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes and its resort to force through launching a war of aggression against Iran. That "discrepancy' constituted "a major defect' of the resolution. Considering that the Council in its statement of 25 April 1985 had condemned the use of chemical weapons against Iran, the Council should this time have strongly condemned Iraq by name for "its repeated and large-scale use of chemical weapons'.

The Council was also obliged to condemn Iraq's "savage attack' against the Iranian passenger plane and to take "decisive positions' against Iraq for its "continued attacks against civilian centres, the use of chemical weapons, the threat against the safety of aviation, the violation of all conventions related to hijacking and also attacks against neutral vessels'.

Iran was ready to continue cooperation with the Secretary-General in matters related to the observance of the rules of international law and to the eight-point plan.

On 5 March, Iraq, in a letter to the Secretary-General (S/17897), said that if Iran undertook to accept resolution 582 formally and made an effort to implement it unconditionally and in good faith, Iraq was ready to also implement it in good faith, once agreement had been reached on the following points:

The resolution represented a comprehensive and indivisible approach to settling the conflict. Therefore, it must constitute a globally and comprehensively applicable practical framework within which the elements of the settlement interconnected, at all stages, according to an established timetable, the implementation of each stage being a guarantee that the next stage would also be inplemented.

The time-limit between the cease-fire and the completion of withdrawal must be established clearly and must by no means exceed a few weeks.

Iraq reaffirmed its confidence in the Secretary-General and in the mediation efforts he had already made with a view to achieving peace.

It was essential that the procedures for the comprehensive exchange of prisoners of war be defined to avoid any pretence or delaying tactic.

Iraq could not undertake to comply with the resolution or any element thereof unless those points--which conformed to its objectives regarding a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the conflict--were dealt with.

On 23 March, Iraq, in a letter to the Council President (S/17934), said the Council's failure in its statement to refer to the Charter had considerably weakened the effect of all its clauses. The Council had also not named the party which insisted on continuing the war. The Council's call to the two sides to respect the territorial integrity of all States should have been directed to Iran--the party which threatened regional States. The statement had also ignored Iran's repeated attacks against Iraq and the "barbarous means' used by that country in its "destructive and expansionist' war.

On 27 March, Iran, in a letter to the Secretary-General (S/17949), said that had the Council condemned Iraq three years ago for introducing the prohibited chemical weapons into the conflict, the continued and extended use of chemical warfare by Iraq would have been prevented. The Council must uphold its constitutional obligation to "identify and condemn the aggressor, which initially started the war', and must not associate itself with "those countries that have encouraged the initial aggression and in fact were coconspirators' in Iraq's "initial action of aggression'. Iran was "strongly and powerfully' committed to support and guarantee the region's security, and had no desire to see the war extended.

Photo: Mr. Klibi

Photo: Mr. Aziz

Photo: Said Rajaie-Khorassani Permanent Representative of Iran